The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About100-217Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Foerster, Catherine P (DOA) Sent: Thursday, March 20, 201412:43 PM To: Brumbaugh, Robert Cc: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Wallace, Chris D (DOA); Ferguson, Victoria L (DOA) Subject: Re: Umiat #9 Wellhead Removal Thanks for the update, Rob. T -C, % Z4-7 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 20, 2014, at 3:01 PM, "Brumbaugh, Robert" <rbrumbau a,blm. 7ov> wrote: I just wanted to keep the Commission in the loop on how things are going. Some of this you may already know. Marsh Creek (contracted by USACE to conduct PCB cleanup at Umiat) has removed the wellhead from Umiat #9, Guy indicated no additional paperwork was needed as it was already plugged to the surface (actually 3 feet below the surface) with cement and had a cover plate welded over the casing. It was P&A'd in 2011. I can get some photos to you once USACE provides me with them. We will not be removing the wellheads at Umiat 4, 8, and 10 this winter. Marsh Creek is done for the year at Umiat and is demobing. Plus our existing interagency agreement (IAA) with the Corps did not cover those sites, it was written too specific and only covered a few Umiat wells. I have rewritten a more general IAA that will cover all legacy well work we may need future assistance from USACE. This new IAA is currently in the review stage with the BLM and Corps. Umiat #3 was covered in the existing IAA, but was not P&A'd this winter as Marsh Creek could not secure the necessary equipment (Solsten was working elsewhere and the BOP was in Louisiana). USACE tried to get a contract out on the street for another vendor, but that did not pan out either. Competing with industry and existing contracts this late is the season does not seem to have a high success rate. The summer cleanup work for Simpson Core Tests #26, 30 and 30A is still on schedule. We are focusing our efforts on next winter for Umiat to P&A #3, remove the wellheads for #4, #8, and #10 and possibly P&A the Grandstand, Gubik #1, and #2 wells. Gubik #2 will present the biggest challenge and require the use of a drill rig. It is the other well that has a slight gas leak on the wellhead. If you want to talk about this more, feel free to give me a call or we can arrange a meeting if you prefer. Rob Brumbaugh Minerals Specialist Division of Resources SWNFD AUC 14 2D14 Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager United States Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management 1150 University Avenue Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 Dear Mr. Kelly: March 6, 2014 \U V Anchoi c1pe, Aiasko 99,50 3572 90-i ''79 33 SCANNED MAR �, 2 2014 The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) agrees with Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on taking the opportunity to remediate a portion of the wells in the Umiat Field during this winter exploration season. The four wells (Umiat 44, #8,#9 and #10) are ready for final wellhead cutoff as they have been P & A'd to surface with cement and only need wellheads removed, topped off with cement (as needed) and capped. This will bring the wells into full compliance with AOGCC regulations. AOGCC and BLM engineering staff have discussed the wells and AOGCC staff have requested sundries from the BLM staff for the four affected wells. Umiat #1 and #3 and #11 require rig work to get them to a final P & A status and will not be worked on this winter. Sincerely, Cathy P. oerster Chair {fit, To T\ 1 iQ�P.. F�z� United States Department of the Intertor i4 ! P URF.%_ U OF LAND MANAcrEMENT 1 A; tri diel; Offic l A.4., http://www.blm. jov_ H, Fz C_; F ! V F- ] [.) Cathy Foerster MAR 0 3 2014 Chair, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Cot-mnission 333 W. 7'h Avenue. Shiite 100� C- iyncno,a)('. Alaska 99501-3)39 SCANNED MAR 12 2014 Umiat Wellhead Removal Dear Ms. Foerster. The Bw-eau of Land Management has a window of opportunity to remove the wellheads at Umiat #4, 48, #9, and #10 before the end of the 2013-2014 winter season. The BLM and AOGCC discussed these wells on November 13, 2013 at the AOGCC's office, but not in a public forum. At the meeting, it was concluded the only wells requiring additional work at Umiat was Umiat #1, #3, and #11. The BLM is seeking verification of this conclusion from the AOGCC, prior to removing the aforementioned wellheads. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me at (907) 474- 2368. Sincerely, Lon Kelly Arctic Field Office Manager o>r r • THE STATE Department of Environmental 011-1LASKL'1 GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2014 February 4, 2014 A0GCC Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Article No.: 7012 2210 0002 1216 2391 Wayne Svejnoha BLM — Division of Resources 222 W 7th Ave, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program File: 320.38.010 SCANNED 0 2 2014 Re: Potentiall Responsible Party Notice Letter and Information Request NPRA Legacy Wells - General Hazard ID: 26125 Ledger Code: 14339387 Dear Mr. Svejnoha: 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.5105 This letter is to advise you that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) has identified the 136 legacy wells within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) as potential contaminated sites. Some of these wells require extensive cleanup of oil and other hazardous substances released to the environment. Since you are identified as a current or past owner and/or operator of these sites, please be advised you may be financially responsible or liable for the investigation and /or cleanup of any hazardous substance contamination that might be present. Alaska Statute 46.03.822 establishes who is liable for contamination. Records available to the ADEC indicate that you meet one or more of the following criteria: » owned or controlled the hazardous substance at the time of its release; » own(ed) or operate(d) the property or facility from which the release occurred; » owned or operated property at which the hazardous substance came to be located; and » arranged for transport, disposal or treatment of hazardous substances that were released. Site History From 1944 through 1982 the US Government drilled 136 wells to explore for oil and gas resources in the NPRA. It is our understanding that other federal agencies and some private companies may have operated or managed these sites in the past. We have also been informed that 23 of these well have been conveyed to public and private entities. The ADEC currently lists 14 of the 136 legacy wells on our database of contaminated sites. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is identified as the responsible party for the following sites. Wayne Svejnoha 0 2 February 4, 2014 • BLM Cape Halkett Drill Site (File # 300.38.108) • BLM East Simpson #2 (File # 300.38.109) • BLM East Teshekpuk Drill Site (File # 300.38.110) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program, is working with ADEC under the Defense States Memorandum of Agreement on cleanup actions at the 11 Umiat test well sites. BLM is identified as the landowner in our records, and as such is identified as a potentially responsible party in addition to the Department of Defense: C Umiat Test Wells 1-11 (File # 335.38.001) The information contained in these files is part of the public record. Our databases are accessible on the Internet at: http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/db_search.httn Additional Actions Needed ADEC sent a letter on July 11, 2013, identifying an additional 15 legacy well sites with confirmed releases (enclosed). As stated in the letter, ADEC recommends that BLM develop a plan to address known, suspected, and unknown releases at the legacy well sites, in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies. We expected a response to this letter before now. Please respond to this letter within 30 days. After we receive and review your response we will determine what additional actions will be taken regarding each site with known or suspected contamination. In addition, with your response, please complete and return the enclosed questionnaire requesting more information about past operators. In accordance with Alaska Statute Title 46, ADEC is authorized to provide regulatory oversight for any contamination response efforts initiated by the responsible party. However, if response actions by the responsible party are not satisfactory to ADEC, we may then assume the lead role in the investigation and cleanup efforts. In the event that State response actions are necessary, the responsible parties may be held financially liable for any response actions taken by the State. Alaska Statutes 46.04.010 and 46.08.070 establish cost recovery procedures for certain costs, including oversight activities, incurred by the State in responding to pollution incidents. If you are determined to be a responsible or liable party, ADEC may bill you at a later date for our expenditures associated with this pollution incident. Expenses for which we may seek reimbursement include: Staff time associated with general or technical assistance; work plan review; project oversight; general project management; legal services; interest; travel; equipment and supplies; and any contracting costs. Pursuant to Alaska Statute 46.08.075, the State may also file liens against all property owned by a person who is responsible or liable for State expenditures. Please respond in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter addressing your intended actions with respect to this pollution incident. If you believe someone else is responsible for this pollution incident (e.g., a past owner or operation of the site) or if you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Fred Vreeman at (907) 451-2181. The attached "ADEC Information Request" describes the minimum information expected in your response. Additional information may needed to evaluate the risks and responses required at each legacy well site. Sincerely, Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager G:\SPAR\CS\Contaminated Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.docx Wayne Sveinoha Enclosure: 0 3 • ADEC Information Request Concerning Contaminated Sites BLM Legacy Wells Dispute letter date July 11, 2013 February 4, 2014 cc: Bud Cribley, Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lynn Kent, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Lori Aldrich, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation ADEC Response Fund Administration GASPAR\CS\Contarr nmted Site Files (38)\320 National Petro Reserve Area\320.38.010 NPRA Legacy Wells General\2-2-2014 Letter\PRP Letter All Wells.doe% 0 0 ADEC INFORMATION REQUEST Concerning a contaminated site(s) Re: Legacy Well Sites in and near the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska (NPRA) Please precede each answer with the number of the question to which it corresponds. Please direct any questions concerning this information request to Fred Vreeman, Contaminated Sites Program, 610 University Avenue, Fairbanks, AK 99709; Phone: 907-451-2181. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. Provide name and company affiliation of the person answering the questionnaire. 2. Provide copies of all studies, reports, and supporting information (including preaquisition assessments and work done on behalf of other parties) which you have knowledge of which address past and/or present environmental conditions at the site. Identify the name, title, address, and phone number of the party(s) who are responsible for preparing the studies or information. Information which has been previously submitted to ADEC need not be submitted again (unless specifically requested in a subsequent communication) if you can provide the name of the office (and name and title of the DEC officer if known) to whom the report was previously provided. 3. Provide a description of any ongoing or planned investigations or cleanup work at the site. Identify the names, titles and phone numbers of the individuals responsible for preparing the studies or information. 4. Provide a description of known releases at the site (date of occurrence, quantity released, type of substance released, etc.) and a description of corrective measures that were taken. Provide information on any suspected releases which may have or are occurring. 5. Describe the nature of past and present operations at the site. In particular, any actions that may have caused the release or threat of release at the site. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including major structures, water wells, fuel or waste storage systems, drainage or septic systems, etc. 6. Provide a list of any permits issued by the Department which relate to activities at the site and a list of RCRA identification numbers (U.S. EPA identification numbers) which may be held. 7. Identify persons to whom you leased all or a portion of the property and describe the nature of their operations. 8. Identify the person(s) who used the site for disposal of substances deposited there, if any. 9. Provide copies of manifests for any hazardous waste and/or petroleum contaminated materials taken to or from the site. 10. Provide a list of persons and their phone numbers and addresses of persons who have knowledge about the use of hazardous substances at the site. 11. Provide information regarding the existence of insurance coverage for damages resulting from releases of hazardous substances and copies of all such insurance policies, both currently in effect and in effect during the periods of activity in question. 12. Describe the acts or omissions of any person, other than your employees, agents, or those persons with whom you had a contractual relationship, that may have caused the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the site. a. In addition, describe all precautions that you took against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third parties. 13. Describe the care you exercised with respect to the hazardous substances found at the site. 14. Describe the physical characteristics of the site including structures, wells, drainage systems, etc. THE STATE July 11, 2013 'ALASKA GOVERNOR SEAN PARNELL Wayne Svejnoha Supervisory Minerals & Energy Specialist 222 W 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513 Re: BLM Legacy Wells Dispute Dear Mr. Svejnoha: Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program 610 University Ave. Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-3643 Main: 907.451.2181 Fax: 907.451.2155 The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) — Contaminated Sites has reviewed the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska: 2013 Legacy Wells Summary Report dated February 2013, containing updated information on the status of the 136 Legacy Wells located in the National Petroleum Reserve — Alaska (NPR -A), and the draft National Petroleum Reserve in Alaslm. 2013 Legacy Weiss Strategic Plan dated May 2013. ADEC has also reviewed the response by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGC). We concur with the response by ACIGC and have no further comment regarding the priorities. We do have comments about the investigation and cleanup plans presented in the report. With this letter we arc outlining regulatory requirements related to the environmental work that is proposed and required as part of these cleanups. ADEC is concerned that the 2013 Legacy Wells Strategic Plan prepared by the BLM does not include either assessment of the contingency for assessment of known, likely, or unknown but possible contaminant releases. In addition, BLM plans for surface cleanup of these wells should be made clear in the plan. At least one of these legacy wells has extensive PCB contamination and has resulted in a multi-year cleanup totaling tens of millions of dollars. At others, solid waste disposal practices have resulted in releases to the environment with estimated cleanup costs in the hundreds of millions. Known releases documented in the records we reviewed include crude oil, gasses, refined oil and fuel, drilling fluids that include various organics, metals, and other chemicals, and unknown contaminants from drums and other containers observed to be damaged and abandoned at the various well sites. There are 13 legacy well sites with known releases currently on the DEC contaminated sites list. Many of these are in the process of being addressed, cleaned up, and closed. From our Waited records review there are 15 additional legacy well sites with confirmed releases. These should be prioritized for initial records reviews and then added to the BLM contaminated sites list under our cooperative agreement. Suspected releases include fuel releases from operations, storage, and fuel spills at the sites, impacts to various surface water bodies from spilled fluids during drilling and breaches of containment at reserve and flare pits, continued surface runoff from drilling fluids uncontained at several sites, and down -hole substances that were ejected from the holes over time or during blowouts or drilling operations. 1 Wayne Sve noha ? July 11, 2013 Y The.BLN-1 plan to address these known, suspected, and unknown releases at legacy well sites is notably absent from the documents presented to date. The three primary regulatory agencies that need to be involved in the plan are ADEC — Contaminated Sites, Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, and ADEC — EH/Solid Waste. Other agencies will need to be consulted. as well. Below we provide recommendations for a coordinated plan using the Uniform Federal Policy for Quality Assurance Project Plans (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sites in a consistent and coordinated project which fulfills all of the regulatory requirements so that the sites do not need to be re -visited in the fu=e xvhen they are closed after this project. Attached are our comments on each specific well. The acronyms used on the list include terms that are typically used in a CERCLA type investigation however they are also suitable for investigations conducted under the State of Alaska cleanup rules. These include the following; Historical Records Review (HRR) 'chis is recommended for almost all of the well sites. Much of the information required for these reviews is already contained in various reports and appendices or in BLM files. The Historical Records Review should document the type of releases that might have occurred from drilling operations as well as historical use of the site, and should capture all available information on the drilling fluids used and any product produced or released. Preliminary Assessment (PA) This is recommended for almost all of the well sites. A Preliminary Assessment is a limited scope investigation that provides an assessment of information about a site and its surrounding area to distinguish between sites that pose little or no threat to human health or the environment and sites that require further investigation. The PA is a CERCLA defined document and typically does not require sampling. Site Inspection (SI) If the PA recommends further investigation, then an SI is necessary. The SI is a CERCLA defined document, and it is analogous to an initial report of contamination under state cleanup rules. On some legacy well drillings sites it is evident now that an Sl is required just from a review of the reports. An SI investigation typically includes the collection of samples to determine what contaminants are present at the site and whether they are being released into the environment. An approved site specific workplan is required under both CERCL-A and 18 AAC 75 prior to SI sampling. The SI typically is not intended to develop a full site characterization, but is limited to determining the presence or absence of a release. If contamination is found after completion of the HRR, PA, and SI then a RI/FS under CERCLA, or a Site Characte-rizatiowlteportandcleanup-Alas,under-l-fi-AAC7iis`required. -- ----- - -- — --------- - DEC recommends that BLM incorporate into the strategic pian the processes outlined in this letter. A team of agencies composed of AOGC, DEC -CS, EPA as required, and DEC -EH should address regulatory and technical requirements for these well closures. By cooperating and working together with the regulatory agencies BLM will save time and expense, and regulatory uncertainties will be avoided. The strategic plan should reference a project to prepare a generic workplan. DEC suggests that BLM utilize the generic UFP-QAPP workplan format for the required environmental work. If properly prepared, the workplan could encompass most of the investigations and cleanups required at these sites over multiple years. At other multi -site projects we have found this to be an effective way to reduce uncertainties and risk in these types of investigations. A very small site specific FSP could then be developed as BLM approaches each drilling site. Regulatory decisions made during workplan development would provide more certainty in the planning process for cleanups. G:\SPAR\CS\federal F2cilitie3\Ci%ih2n 1-cdcrrt Agr=ics\DOl\B[.Ni\1'roiens\lxgAey Wells\7 11 13 Luter to KIN on lxbxy wells.doex Wayne Svejnoha 3 0 July 11, 2013 Please review the attached list of specific sites. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 907-451-2181 or by email at fred.vreeman@alaska.gov. I look forward to working with you as the Federal Government fulfills its requirement to clean up these well drilling sites in Alaska. Sincerely, y' Fred Vreeman Environmental Program Manager Enclosure: SPAR Response with Legacy Wells cc: Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management Steven Cohn, Deputy State Director for Resources, Bureau of Land Management Jolie Pollet, Branch Chief, Bureau of Land Management Robert Brumbaugh, Geologist, Bureau of Land Management Michael McCrum, Environmental Engineer, Bureau of Land Management Cathy Foerster, Commissioner, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Larry Hartig, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Kristen Ryan, Director, ADEC Division of Spill Prevention and Response Steve Bainbridge, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program Jennifer Roberts, Program Manager, ADEC Contaminated Sites Program GASI'AR\CS\Fedcrrl Fo61ibLy\Gvi6n Falctul AgcnnCs\DOI\BI.N1\Proitcts\lA'6.1' q W03\7 11 1314tur to Aim\I on Ug2cy Wclls.doex Well Name operator I RP I Land Simpson Core Test #5 1! Na 1 BLM Simpson Core Test #6 US Na I BLM Simpson Core Test #7 us Na 1 Bl. M Sin son Core Test 98 US Navy 113LM Si son Core Test #9 U5 Na I BLM Sinwson Core Test #1f) U.S Navy! BLM Core Test #11 AOGCC Subsurlaca I BLM Core Test #12 FUSNa a I BLM Core Test #16 a I BLM Core Test #17 US Na 1 BLM Core Test 018 US Na I BLM Core Test #19 US Na 1 BLM t Core Test #20 US Navy 1 BLM i Gore Test #21 2S Na 1 BLM I Core Test #22 US Na 111•LM I Core Test dnlf fluids left in hole i BLM Core Test �#2vy I BLhA n CareTest #25 US Na Y I BLM K Core #1 US Navy i BLM 1 -t- *1 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 2013 Risk Ity CSP Status I Fito tllHazid Rolea5e7 Nnne f+lone IYOMWil Low RNooe ane None Unused, Unused, I None Unused, i None Uncased, None None None None (None Unknown Unknown Page 1 of 14 •I AOGCC Subsurlaca AOGCC Surface SPAR W arkgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, S1 no data no data Need HRR. PA. SI no data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessnsenl & workplan drillin 11uids left in hole no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work an drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill Ifusd assessment & work Ian dnlf fluids left in hole no data Need PA ncf drill fluid assessmcnf &work Ian dnllxs fluids tett rn hale no data well skelch provided by Need PA ind drill fluid BLM not consistent with assessment & work Ian AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA ind drill fluid assessment & work Ian dnflin fluids left in hole no data Need PA and 51 ind 13611 fluid assessment. workplan rid sampling stressed debfis, partially as blowout and fire rove elated site areas Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & workplan dn lling fluids left in hole no data geed PA ind drill fluid assessment & wOTk Ian drij I ing fluids teff in hole no data Need PA incl dfifl nutd assessment & work Ian drillin fluids left m hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin ituids left in hole no data Need HRR. PA, SI no data no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids felt in hole ria data Need PA incl dnll fluid assessment & work larx drillin fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid assessment & work Ian drillin fluids Teff in hole no data Need PA ind dnll fluid drflfing fluids and ball assessment & Workplan peen hammer left in hole no data overshot, drill collar, rock revegelated —131 Need HRR, PA bit, and N -reds left in hole can't find it Review Report as PA. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling Not abandoned, waste on surface. Veg ----_— , ,raw,, plunaed to surface site not cleared •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LisLxlsx Page 2 of 14 is • vi nce o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status file #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead tell as Umiat 43 US Navy I BLM I FUDS None pending dos 335.38.00113092 Yes. see file 'Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #4 US Navy I BLM / FUDS None pending dos 335.38.001!3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umial 98 US NaMy I BLM I FUDS None pendinq dos 335.38.001/3D81 'Yes, see_ _file Plugged BLM in 2004 incomplete historic sile? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #1'0 US Navyj BLM_I FUDS None pendingdos 335.38.00113082 Yes, see fila Plu ed by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 7868'. Drilling Cleanup. Photos - evidence mud and diesel to Awuna #1 USGS I BLM Medium None None Yes of erosion into lake surface. > 100 _Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud Wood , metal, assessment. Surface Plugged to 2039'. Diesel plastic debris. Fast Simpson #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Cleanup. to surface. >10D Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with Wood and metal Drilling mud assessment debris. Pylons - Photos straw areas of no Plugged to 2047'. Diesel Tankage for lk ' #1 USGS / 8LM Low None None Yes ve elation. to surface. flammable fluids Need HRR. PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1400'. Drilling Wood and metal Koluktak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None LYes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 1894'. Diesel Wood and metal Ku am 91 USGS I BLM Low None None Unknown Cleanup. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, Sl with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment_ Surface Plugged to 4464'. Drilling Wood & metal Kuyanak #1 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes Clean mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show Plugged to 1840'. Diesel Plastic and metal Lisburne 41 USGS I BLM Low None None Yes stained soil to surface debris. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Plugged to 8192'. Drilling Wood and metal North Iii ok $1 USGS I BLM Low None INone Yes Cleanup. mud & diesel to surface debris - Page 2 of 14 is • Well Name Peard South Meade #1 1 RP 1 Land 1BLM BLM #1 4USGS ! BLM SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Usl.xlsx ;013 Risk &W CSP Status File XlHazkl T Page 3 of 14 AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface WAR Workgroup Notes Status r Status � deed HERR, PA SI with iampling. Dining mud rssessment- Surface ;leanup. Site photos show areas of stressed iegetalion. No issues Plugged to 2232'. Diesel Wood and metal soled in USGS re ort. to surface debris. Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling_ Drilling mud assessment Surface Plugged to 2026'. Diesel Wood and metal Cleanup. to surface debris. P Ions Add to She list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Od reported bubbling to the surface within reserve pit in 1982. Oily residue and sheen observed adjacent to east side of reserve pil, down hole material at the Plugged to 1875. Diesel Wood and metal surface to surface debris. P ons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, S) with sampl'uig. Drilling mud assessment - Surface Cleanup. Reserve pit berm had breaches anowirrg water to exit. Oil - stained sediment was observed above the Plugged to 1478'. Diesel Wood and metal waterline of the I. to surface debris. Site photos may show hydrocarbon sheen on Plugged to 2600'. Drilling Wood and metal water in well cellar mud & diesel to surface debris. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Berms have been breached an allow water to flow out of reserve piUllare pit. Rising bubbles of ail observed in Hare pit 1484. Photos Show Plugged to 1825'. Diesel Metal debris. ra.. v-1 v.nnnralinn to Surface ... 0 •I SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Page 4 of 114 0 0 vi encs o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator 1 RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fHazld Release? SPAR Workgroup Motes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Sl wrlh sampling. Drilling mud assessment Surface Cleanup. Breaches in berm allow water to flow into and out of reserve pit, sheen on Plugged to 2700' Diesel Wood and metal West Dease #1 USGS l BLM Low None None Yes surface water in well cellar to surface debns. Pylons Add to Site list. Need HRR,. PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Water flows into the pits through breaches on the eastern berm and out of the pits through breaches on the northern and western berms. Downhole material Plugged to 228'9'. Drilling Wood and metal South Harrison Bay #1 USGS f BLAB Low None None es Present at surface mud & diesel to surface debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampliing. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation noted and apparent in site pholos. Plugged to 2443'. Drilling West Fish Creek #1 USGS 1 BLM Low None None Yes Drilling mud around well mud & diesel to surface Pylons Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment, Surface Cleanup. High TPH Plugged to 1977'_ Drilling wellhead sticking concentrations underneath mud under plugs. Diesel up. Wood debris. Fast Simpson #2 USGS 1 BLM I Low _ Active 300.38.10912691 Yes, see file the rig inundation to surface Pylons South Barrow 94 US NavyiNorth Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well - no data South Barrow #5 USAF - BLM Unknown None None None. Unknown Need Surface Status completed gas well no data South Barrow #& US Na /Norlh Sto Burg None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data South Barrow #9 US NavyfNarih Slop2 Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, Sl no data no data _ South Barrow #10 US Navyfflorlh Sto Bora None None None Unknown Need Surface Status com ted gas well no data South Barrow It12 US Na /North Slope Baro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA. Sl no data no data BLM well skMh not consistent with AOGCC South Barrow #14 US NavyMorth Sloe Boro None None one Unknown Nsed HRR. PA, St data no data Need PA ind drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US NavyiNotih Slope Bora None None None Unknown assessment & workplan mud and diesel no data Need PA incl drill !turd tubing in well. no perfs, Soulh Barrow 017 US Na /North Sloe 13ora None None None jUnknown assessment & work fan I unknown fluid, I no data Page 4 of 114 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xisx Page 5 of 14 •I E CYfuu .v v AOGCC Subsurface A Surlaco TEHILM T013 Risk CSP Stilus File #IHaaid Historic Rekeasa7 SFAR YUnrkgroup Nates 5latus at US $1<ntus Well Name flperatar f RP f Land Mgriority Unknown Need Surface Status corn feted as well no data 5aulh Barrow #18 US Na INorlh Slo a Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, St no data no data Walak a #1 USGS! Unknown None None None rsg 890`. Multiple cement plugs of unknown volume. Shallowest None None Unknown _ Need HRR, PA, SI SOD' no dada Gubik #1 US Na d Ur#cnown Low Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA. SI with sampling. csg Q SOD' Well blowout Drilling mud assessment. from zone al 1SOT during Surface Cleanup. Photos plugging operations show disturbed/ slashed Plugging never completed after blowout. no data Gub* #2 US Na ! Unknown Low None Nora es areas two downhole Dement plugs of unknown depth Mone None Unknown Need MR. PA. Sl and volume no data Grandstand #1 US Navy 1 Unknown None Add to Site list. Need HRR. PA, SI with sampling. Dnliing mud assessment. Surface Cleanup Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location, Upon completion of the 2nd well. the sediment was pushed back into ft reserve pit.. Area does not appear to be revegetaling. perhaps from the presence property plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment None None Yes surface status no data W 7 Foran #1 " USGS I Unknown Low on Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Slressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Active 306.3$.108f2689 Yes. see file site underwater abandoned at surface corwsele debris under 5' of water, Cape Halken #1 " US Na (Unknown Low None Unknown !Need HRR, PA. SI es to 27' open C_s Min a Veloei #1 U5 Na f t3LM one None csg @ 31" 280' of drill pipe, drill collar, and Core Unknown Need HRR. PA, SL barrel left rn hole. neve etaled Ournalik Core #i US Na / BLM None -No obsery None !None Page 5 of 14 •I E SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisi.xlsx Page 6 of 14 • • WI F3nCe Q BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface ADGCC Surface Well Name Operator t RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan for St with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drift pipe Oumalik Care #2 US Navy 1 ULM Low None None yes ve elation and rock hit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Si with Sampling open csg & other Drillip) Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup_ Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on melat, conciele Oumalik Core 011 US Navy t BLM Low None None Yes surface (__q to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal 0umalik Core #12 US Navy I BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI no data —__—debris _„ debris buried by landslide. Need HRR, PA, St, Well not no dala on Sentinel Hill #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None Unknown ap panent in site Rholos Csq to 3t1'. underwater status Need IQR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, open crag slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and S imp son Core Test #1 US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No appears healthy lett in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface_ Veg 76'01 Csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hate no data Need HRR. PA, Sl. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste an surface. Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Sim sun Core Test #3 US Navy I BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, ordrilling waste on surface. Veg --60' of crag, drilling fluids Sim eson Core Test #4 US Nayy t BLM Low Norse None No apecars healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, St. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25% open csg sticking Songsoncore Test #13 US Na 1 BLM Low None None No appears health dritin fluids IeR in hole_ out of round Need HRR, PA, SI. Vegetated, no evidence of crag cemented @2D'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #14 US Navy ! BLM Low None None No release. drillin fluids left in hole out of ground Page 6 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx ism son Core Fest #26 t=vrdence or Medium AOGCC Subsur(aen ADGGC Surface 13LM 2013 Risk CSP Status File WHazid Historic Retease7 SPAR Wwkgroup Notes Status Status Well Name operator r RP 1 Land Mgr Priority Unko Need HRR, PA. SL US Na ! $LM open casing None Nave Vegetated. no eV4dence of cog set shallow; drilling slicking nut of Low No release- fluids left in hole round Simpson Core Teri #14a US Na !BLM Low None None & weilhead slick Need HRR. PA, SI crude nil left in hole open casing Need HIR, PA, Workplan Vegetated, no e+wdence of csg cemented 12181; slicking out of openrigd ng No release. drillingfluid left in hole round Simoson Care Tesl #15 US Na !BLM Low None None d wooden cellar, Need HRR, PP, SL Sate a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal ism son Core Fest #26 US Na ! BLM Medium None None res Sim san Core Test 027 US Na J 13LM IJone None None Unko Sim son Gore Test #28 US Na ! $LM Low None Nave Yes clmnnnn Core Tesl #29 US Navy! BLM Low Norte No No Simpson Core Test 030 US Na 1 !BLM Core Test #30a JUS,Navy 1 BLM Low `None f'tone n Gore Test #31 JUS Navy/ BLM None Page 7o(14 photos appear to show oil at surface, from a natural csg Q 350'. Completed in oil seep, seep, also drilling mud in oil well Open perfs. At 1welhead sticking sacks on the tundra one lime capable of up_ metal debris PI u ed b BLM in 2004. unassisled flow. and rustingbarrels 'Need HRR, PA, St. Site photos appear to show Oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @i02;dnllutg fluids nn oily ground; csg seep- Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & weilhead slick vin 2004 crude nil left in hole out of ground Need HIR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling- openrigd ng ❑rilling Mud Assessment . out grouunnd in Surface Cleanup. Site d wooden cellar, photos appear to show a p le of drilling mud about a9 r�110'. dolling fluids wood 8 metal 160 feel tram the welt tell in hole debris. Solid waste Need HRR, PA, Sl_ No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or dri" waste on surface. Veg csg cemented at 1S2'; open csg. Wood a ears healthy dnknq fluids lett in hole and metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. frilling mud at surface. but well is also in the middle of a large in oil seep; Open oil seep and surrounded by cog sticking up; pooled oil. Plugged by BLNI csg cemented A150'; wood & metal see Holes in 20514- drillin fluids left in hole detail on oily ground; tog Need HRR. PA, Sl. Well is wellhead slick in the middle of a large oil seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100% out of ground. pooled oil. Plugged by 131. dulling mud left in hole. wellhead leaking see noses in 2004 gas blowout at 423' gas Need HRR, PA, St. Leaky valve replaced in 2001, little evidence of contamination following valve on city ground; rig replacement- Plugged by csg cemented at 100'; & wellhead stick see notes BLM in 20174 iddifing fluids, left in hole out o1 round SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 • • yr enco o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator f RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File glHasid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR PA, Workplan csg Cemented at for Sl with Sampling. 1028', cement plugs a1 Drilling Mud Assessment. 6387' and 5520'. Fish in Surface Cleanup. Drilling hole, drilling fluids Iefs in No data. Open Simpson Test Welt #1 ak US Navy1 BLM Low None INone yes muds near wellhead hale casing Need HRR, PA, Workplan for Sl with Sampling. Dolling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, melel, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy I BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TO. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. rasing cemented at 48; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas 0mv and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will Filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek 91 US Navy f BLM Low None Nano No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented a[ 53';hole left tilted with fresh water, Wolf Creek 02 US Navy 1 BLM Low Noire None No Need HRR. PA. Sl. fish in hole csg cemented at 107'; No data bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735 and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Nayy I BLM Low None None No Meed HRR, PA, SI. 661, No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg slicking out of Drilling mud assessment ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core test #1 US NaMy I BLM High None None Yes polential for cornlamrna[ion diesel left in hole nisling barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Two open csg, wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000', wood & metal Kaolak 01 US Navy I BLM t ow None jNone lNo Potential for hurried landfill. fdriltingluidsieftin hole debris Page 8 of 14 • • SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx 181-11119013 Risk Well Name Operator f RP ! land Mgr Priorlty CSP Status File 1NHazid #1 1 U Navy 19LM #1 JUS Navy/ umatik Ill US Na I BLM Low None None as[ Oumalik #i US Na !BLM Low None None #1 N East Topagoruk #1 USN l BLM Knifeblade #1 US Navy! BLM Page 9 of 14 Subsurface `AOGCC Surface SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. open flange Q Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Gas well. Open ports. ground level. Mud pile overgrown with Drilling fluids and Metal & wood v , etallon and lichen tubulars lett in hole debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling csg cemented at 502'; open casing slicking out of waste on surface. Veg plug at 3470 to 3511'; ground. Wood appears heall drilling nuids left in hole debris. Open casing below Add to Site list. Need HRR, ground level. PA, SI with sampling- Revegetated. Drilling mud assessment. Numerous metal Surface Cleanup. Debris csg partially cemented at I support structures and drilling muds. Stressed 2762'. Plug at 2543% sticking up. vegetation Dridin mud left in hole Concrete debris, plate welded to pipe: l' of pipe rsg cemented at 1100'. sticking up - Need HRR. PA. SI. Drig fluids left in hole Wooden debris. Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Driving mud assessment. open csg broken Surface Cleanup. Downhole material present csg cemented at 6073'. off and sticking up: at surface, area mostly original hole drilled to wood, metal, revegetated. Diesel still 7154'& junk len; concrete and other occupies the ground sidetrack hole left wilh debris. rusting dreulatioir lines. drillina fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Dolling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of tsg 10 1100'; pkig al open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049% drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, teller. No offical reserve pit plug: unknown fluids in metal, and glass noted o en hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, stales that there was no metal, and glass debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420% debris - •I 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Welts Lisl.xlsx Paye 10 of 14 0 0 w once a BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP f Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #IHazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status v F Status open casing sticking up. Wood, metal, & concrete debris rusting Need NRR, PA, SI. Reports barrels. One indicate solid waste csg cemented to 45';fish marked flammable Knileblade #2 US Navy I BLM Low None None No drums in hole hazard. open casing slicking up; metal & Krideblade #2a US Navy 1 BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. csq cemented at 38% concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI including learning assessment. Site partially No wellhead. submerged intermittently csg cemented at 80; Metal. Solid waste North Simpson Test Wel 4 US N2n I BLM Low None None No during the summer dri0ing fluids left in hole ? No dala crude wellhead. Need HRR, PA, St. Surface csg cemented at 685'; Wood and metal Umiat 01 US Navy J BLM I FUDS Medium Cleanup co 335.38.00113090 Yes, see file Cleanup drillinq fluids left in bole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented a1486; revegelaled wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #i t US Na I BLM I FURS Low pending dos 335.38.00113083 Yes, see file Clea 490'; sticking u csg cemented at 7206'; vVefNwad- Gravel various plugs from 8250' pad revegetaled 7 South Sirnpson 01 US Navy I BLM Low None None Yes Need HRR, PA, SI. to surface No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Large quantifies of ferrous oxide, zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, and barium sulfate were added to drilling muds. Stains apparent in photos. BLM field camp an site. Walls between the reserve and Pare pits have eroded. Wellhead and Water flows into surface gravel pad. ? No Wook #1 USGS I BLM Low lNone Name Yes water during break22L no data data Paye 10 of 14 0 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lrsl.xlsx BLM 2x13 Risk Well Name 10porator I RP I Land Mgr Priority CSP Status I File #IHazid Arca- Barrow Cure #1 US Na l til.M Avak 01 US Navy I BLM Barrow Bi R' #1 US Na I BLM Barrow Cafe Rig Test 91 US Na I BLM #2 I US Navy I BLM #1JUS N,a I BLM H' h NOr1e None Test Well #1 US Test Well #2 US Barrow Test Wetl #31115 Na IN©r1h Slo c Bora IAedium None None Unknown Page 11 of 14 Subsurface -FAOGCC Surface SPAR IWorkgfoup Notes Status _ ___ araiu5 Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface Cleanup, Photo CIMG0218 csg cemented at 53` shows area of disturbed tubing hung to 708': hole open casing vegetation that should be heft filled with drilling mud slicking up; wood & investi algid durin Sf and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR. PA, St. Surface csg cemeoled at BIF. sticking up; wood & Cleanu-. lu set at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing 7? No Cleanup no data data Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR. PA, SI. 'Surface open casing 77 No Cteanu no data data Need HRR, PA, St with sampling. trilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on Not abandoned, site -slowly revegelatmg site not igred, More information on drilling open casing 7? No mud specifics rs being researched no data data Need 1lRR, PA, SI wdh sampling. Drilling mud wellhead leaking assessment. Surface cemented Csg to gas!? Wood & Cleanup- Cellar does not 1270;slotted liner to metal debris. Area retain water 1956': tbg to 1939 affected 50'x50' Need HRR, PA. SI. Drilling Csg cemented at mud assessment. Surface 441'.hole Iell willed with open pipe; metal & Cleanup- On mads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling Csg cemented al 2260'; mud assessment- Surface periorated liner to TD. wood, metal & Cleariu . fln road s stem lin Completed well. Conerete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling +csg cemented at 10461: open c5g slinking mud at surface. Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal surface wafer in well cell larQuids and wafer. de" 0 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells Lisl.xlsx Well Flame Operator I RP I Land Mgr BLM 201$ Risk Priority CSP Status File #ltiazid yr once oF— Historic Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes AOGCC Subsurface Salus g AOGCC Surface Status no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None None lUnknown Need HRR, PA. not in AOGCC database Monlht Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our fist of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Cumalik Foundalion Test b US Navy I BLM None-uncased hC None jNane Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed From our irsl of wells of Concern In < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased hc None lNone Unknown Need HRR. PA, not m AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no c5g. no APF#. Odubut. 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy I BLM None-uncased ht Nune lNone Unknown Need HRR, PA, nal in AOGCC database Monthiv Meetin no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our Ilst of wells of con cam in < 501, no csg, no APi#. October, 2012 Oumatik Foundation Test 0 US NavyI BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Moral Meeting no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg. no API#, October, 2012 Ournalik Foundation Test 4US Navy I BLM None4xwased h_j None None Unknown I Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Month Meetin Page 12 of 14 0 Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxisx Well Name BLM 2013 Risk Operator f RP I Land Mgr Priority Historic CSP Status Fife #IHazld Rslease7 AOGCC subsurface Status �__ - -_-�� . A013CC Surface Status no dala. Likely SPAR 1Norkgroup Nates revegelaled. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50'. no csg, no AP IN, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test US Na!q BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA. not w AOGCC database MonthlyMeeiin no data. Likely revegelated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 501. no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundalion rest U5 Na I BLM None -encased h None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, not in AOGCC database Monihl lAeeli no data. Likely revegetaled. Removed from aur fist of wells of concern in 0urn alik Foundation Test US Na 18 LM None -encased fi None None ilnknown Need HRR. PA, < 50', no csg. no API#, not in AOGCC database October, 2012 Month! Meetin no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern In < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundat'Gon Test US Na I BLM None encased h Nome None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not m AOGCC database Month! Meeting property abandoned per then -applicable South Banow #7 US NEILM 2LI None None Unknown Need HRR. PA, ro erl lu ed re s no data to support proper Um -Qt 02 US N Noire Pendin Clo 335.30.001/3078 Yes, see file Plu d to surface abandonment no data to support proper Uncal #5 Ummt #9 Urrval A66 Umial #T Atiaaru Point#1 U5 US US Na I BL M US Na I BLM USGS/BLM None Pendin Hi h -PCB cleanu Active None Pendia None tPendi Mane Clo 3L5 313.00113079 335.38.00113093 Cao 335.3$.00113080 Clo 335 38 001I3091 None Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes, see file Yes. see lite No Plu ed E4 surface property plugged and abandoned pfupedy plugged and abandoned property plugged and abandoned Need HRR. PA,Plugged by properly plugged and BLM in 2009. abandoned abandonment suriaoe site remediated surface site remediated suriacx V le remediated surface site remediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells LrsLxlsx Page 14 of 14 0 vrcTon`ce o BLM 2813 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator i RP 1 Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #fFlaxid Releases SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA. SI with workplan and sampling. Chilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Two large breaches on the south side of the berm allow water out of the reserve pit. Plugged properly plugged and surface site Drew Point #1 USGS 1 BLM None None None Yes by BLM in 2410. abandoned remedialed On Site list Need HRR, PA, 51 with workplan and sampling. [frilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and dolling muds/cutlings were released onlo the Poe of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp aril drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy 1 BLM None Active - waits 3Q0.38.11012652 Yes, see file waste. abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton $P USGS f BLM None None None No Plu ed b BLM in 20fl5. abandoned rernediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF 1 BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface sile South Bartow 911 US Na INorih Slope Bono None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 013 US Na lNerlh Slope Boro None None None Unknown Need HHR, PA, abandoned remedialed properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #15 US Na !North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #19 US Na 1Nrarlh Sloe Baro None Nana None Unknown Need HRR. PA, abandoned remediated Properly plugged and surface site South Barrow 1x20 US Na Worth Slope Bora None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remedialed Need HRR, PA, dolling mud assessment, containment assessment, possible releases. Breaches allow wafer to flow into and aul of property plugged and surface site Watakpa #2 USGSI BLM None None lNone lyes I reserve and flare pits. labandoned irernediated Page 14 of 14 0 ��\I1//��& T H, E S'K'ATE July 11, 2013 s 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: Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Contaminated Sites Program SCANNED APR U 12014 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 (UFP-QAPP) that will involve all of the regulatory agencies in one coordinated manner. This will allow BLM to address these sitesin 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. Wayne Sveinoha 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 ou 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 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 1 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 NI/orkgroup 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 Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #8 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #9 US Navy / 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 drilling fluids left in hole no data well sketch provided by Need PA incl drill fluid BLM not consistent with Simpson Core Test #11 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan AOGCC or BLM data no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #12 US Na / BLM Low None None Unknown assessment & workplan drillin fluids left in hole no data Need PA and SI incl drill fluid assessment, workplan incl sampling stressed debris, partially Simpson Core Test #16 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, i None None Unknown areas gas blowout and fire reve etated site Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #17 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #18 US Na / BLM None- Uncased, r None None Unknown assessment & workplan drilling fluids left in hole no data Need PA incl drill fluid Simpson Core Test #19 US Navy / BLM None- Uncased, f 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, r 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, i 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, F 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 None No appears healthy Pluoaed to surface site not cleared Page 1 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 2 of 14 EW 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 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 pendinq clos 335.38.001/3079 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #8 US Na / BLM / FUDS None pending clos 335.38.001/3081 Yes, see file Plugged by BLM in 2004 incomplete historic site? plugging operations inadequate and Wellhead left as Umiat #10 US Na / 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 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 Low None lNone IYes lCleanup. lmud & 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 INone lNone IYes stressed vegetation lto surface I Pylons Page 3 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx 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 motes 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 Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI data no data Need PA incl drill fluid well left filled with drilling South Barrow #16 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None UnknownfNs sessment & workplan mud and diesel no data ed PA incl drill fluid tubing in well,no perfs, South Barrow #17 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown sessment & workplan unknown fluids no data Page 4 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 5 of 14 B1 -M 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR lMorkgroup Notes Status Status South Barrow #18 US Na /North Sloe 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 completed after blowout. no data two downhole cement plugs of unknown depth Grandstand #1 US Navy / Unknown None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI and volume. no data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Sediment from the reserve pit was excavated and spread over the pad to drill a 2nd well at this location. Upon completion of the 2nd well, the sediment was pushed back into the reserve pit,. Area does not appear to be revegetating, perhaps from the presence properly plugged but no of drilling mud at the data on abandonment W T Foran #1 " USGS / Unknown Low None None Yes surface status no data On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Stressed vegetation, photos show plugged, but not open csg; metal & Cape Halkett #1 — US Na / Unknown Low Active 300.38.108/2689 Yes, see file site underwater abandoned at surface concrete debris under 5' of water, Min a Velocity #1 US Na / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, SI csg to 27' open csg 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. 1 reve etated Page 5 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 6 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk vi ence of Historic r==-_==�ffi4AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface T J Well Name Operator I RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status Status Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Photos show debris, stressed No csg. 15' of drill pipe Oumalik Core #2 US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes vegetation and rock bit left in hole. no data Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. open csg & other Drilling Mud Assessment. piping sticking out Surface Cleanup. Reports of ground; wood, of debris, drilling muds on metal, concrete Oumalik Core #11 US Navy / BLM Low None None Yes surface csg to 9'. debris open csg sticking out of ground; wood & metal Oumalik Core #12 US 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, SI. No evidence of sheen, open csg slightly stressed veg, or drilling above ground waste on surface. Veg 37' of csg, drilling fluids level; wood and Simpson Core Test #1 US Navy / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole metal debris Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg 76' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #2 US Na / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface- Veg 61' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #3 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg -60' of csg, drilling fluids Simpson Core Test #4 US Navy / BLM Low None None No appears healthy left in hole no data Need HRR, PA, SI. No evidence of sheen, stressed veg, or drilling waste on surface. Veg csg cemented @25'; open csg sticking Simpson Core Test #13 US Navy/ BLM Low None None No appears healthy 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 US Navy/ LM Low None None 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 Ororkgroup dotes Status Status Need HRR, PA, SI. 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 INone Yes Plugged by BLM in 2004. unassisted flow. and rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, SI. Site photos appear to show oil csg cemented at surface, from a natural @102';drilling fluids on oily ground, csg seep. Plugged by BLM in including diesel and & wellhead stick Simpson Core Test #27 US 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, Sl. 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, pooled oil. 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, Sl. Well is on oily ground; csg in the middle of a large oil & wellhead stick seep and surrounded by csg cemented at 100'; out of ground, pooled oil. Plugged by BLM drilling mud left in hole; wellhead leaking Simpson Core Test #30a US Navy/ BLM Low None None Yes, see notes in 2004. gas blowout at 423' 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 1 US Navy/ BLM INone INone I None IYes,seenotes IBLMin2OO4. ldrilling fluids left in hole lout of ground Page 7 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 8 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator I RP I 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 ka US Navy/ BLM Low None None yes muds near wellhead hole casing. Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. Drilling Mud Assessment. Surface Cleanup. Also Wellhead sticking evidence of a natural seep- above ground, Tar sheens in the summer ST from 2552 to 3018. wood, metal, and months. BLM is concerned csg @2915. Slotted liner concrete debris. Fish Creek #1 US Navy/ BLM Medium None None Yes about exposure to wildlife to TD. Completed oil well Rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Workplan for SI with Sampling. casing cemented at 48'; Drilling Mud Assessment. gas flow and explosion Surface Cleanup. Small gas while drilling at 863'; hole leak in wellhead flange, will filled with fresh water to Wolf Creek #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No flow if the valve iso en 330' No data. csg cemented at 53';hole left filled with fresh water; Wolf Creek #2 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. fish in hole No data csg cemented at 107'; bridge plugs from 1447 to 1735' and from 554 to Wolf Creek #3 US Na / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, SI. 661' No data Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. csg sticking out of Drilling mud assessment. ground with wood Surface Cleanup. Sheen on plug on top; solid surface water in well cellar, csg cemented at 30'; drill waste; wood hundreds of drums indicate pipe, drilling mud and debris; about 200 Skull Cliff Core Test #1 US Navy / BLM High None None Yes potential for contamination diesel left in hole rusting barrels Need HRR, PA, Sl. Two open csg; wood drums are floating on a building; pylons; pond near the well. csg cemented at 1000'; wood & metal Kaolak #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Potential for burned landfill. drilling fluids left in hole debris Page 8 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 9 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator/ RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR NNorkgroup Notes Status z r Status TTI 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 NavV/ 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, 1' of pipe csg cemented at 1100'. sticking up. East Oumalik #1 US Navy / BLM Low None None No Need HRR, PA, Sl. 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 I None Yes circulation lines. drilling fluids barrel Add to Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Pile of csg to 1100'; plug at open casing drilling muds is next to the 1049'; drilling mud below sticking up. Wood, celler. No offical reserve pit plug; unknown fluids in metal, and glass East To a oruk #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No noted open hole debris. open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. BLM sticking up. Wood, states that there was no metal, and glass Knifeblade #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No debris at this site in 2012. csg cemented at 420% debris. Page 9 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 10 of 14 BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RPI Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup 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 Navy/ BLM Low None None No (drums) in hole hazard - open casing sticking up; metal & Knifeblade #2a US Navy / 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 # 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 corT 335.38.001/3090 Yes, see file Cleanup drilling fluids left in hole debris No wellhead. Gravel pad partially csg cemented at 486'; revegetated wood Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface cement plug from 440 to debris and pipe Umiat #11 US Na / BLM / 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 lNone lYes lwater durinQ breakup. no data Idata Page 10 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 11 of 14 vi ence of BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR tf/orkgroup 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 investiqlated during SI and diesel metal debris open casing Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface csg cemented at 816'; sticking up; wood & Avak #1 US Na / BLM Low None None No Cleanup. Plugset at 1348' metal debris Not abandoned, site not cleared, Need HRR, PA, SI. Surface open casing ?? No Barrow Bi Rig #1 US Navy / BLM None -debris la 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 Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Cleanup. no data data Need HRR, PA, SI with _ sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling Muds on site -slowly revegetating. Not abandoned, More information on drilling site not 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 Navy / 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 None unknown Cleanup, On roads stem water concrete debris Need HRR, PA, Sl. Drilling csg cemented at 2260'; mud assessment. Surface perforated liner to TD; wood, metal & South Barrow Test Well #2 US Na /North Slope Boro Low None None unknown Cleanup. On roads stem tubing. Completed well. concrete debris Need HRR, PA, SI with sampling and workplan. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. Drilling csg cemented at 1046'; open csg sticking mud at surface, Sheen on hole left filled with drilling up; wood & metal South Barrow Test Well #3 US Na /North Sloe Boro Medium INone None Yes surface water in well cellar fluids and water debris Page 11 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 12 of 14 vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurfaces_ AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator / RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR NNorkgroup 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 11 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 he None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test 4 US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hq None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, Inot in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting Page 12 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx Page 13 of 14 vi ence o ---- --_ --.-, BLM 2013 Risk Historic— AOGCC Subsurface` AOGCC Surface Well Name Operator! RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup 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 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 t US Navy/ BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting no data. Likely revegetated. Removed from our list of wells of concern in < 50', no csg, no API#, October, 2012 Oumalik Foundation Test A US Navy / BLM None-uncased hc None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, not in AOGCC database Monthly Meeting properly abandoned per then -applicable South Barrow #7 US Na / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, properly plugged re s no data to support proper Umiat #2 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Plugged to surface abandonment no data to support proper Umiat #5 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3078 Yes, see file Pluaaed to surface abandonment properly plugged and surface site Umiat #9 US Navy / BLM Hi h -PCB cleanui Active 335.38.00113093 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #6 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3080 Yes, see file abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site Umiat #7 US Na / BLM None Pending Clo 335.38.001/3091 Yes, see file abandoned remediated Need HRR, PA, Plugged by properly plugged and surface site Ati aru Point #1 USGS / BLM None None None No BLM in 2009. abandoned Iremediated Page 13 of 14 SPAR Response with Legacy Wells List.xlsx vi ence o BLM 2013 Risk Historic AOGCC Subsurface FAOCGCC Surface Well Name Operator'/ RP / Land Mgr Priority CSP Status File #/Hazid Release? SPAR Workgroup Notes Status us J Add to Site list. Need HRR, 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 None Yes by BLM in 2010. abandoned remediated On Site list. Need HRR, PA, SI with workplan and sampling. Drilling mud assessment. Surface Cleanup. In 1976 the reserve pit berm failed and drilling muds/cuttings were released onto the ice of Teshekpuk Lake. Plugged by BLM in 2008. Solid waste from camp and drilling operations buried on northern portion of pad. Erosion has exposed solid properly plugged and surface site East Teshek uk #1 US Navy / BLM None Active - waiti 300.38.110/2652 Yes, see file waste- abandoned remediated Threatened by erosion. properly plugged and surface site J. W. Dalton #1 USGS / BLM None None None No Plugged by BLM in 2005. abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #8 USAF / BLM None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #11 US Na /North Sloe Boro None None None Unknown Need HRR, PA, abandoned remediated properly plugged and surface site South Barrow #13 US Na /North Sloe 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 INone None None Yes ireserve and flare pits. abandoned remediated Page 14 of 14 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA @AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSI WELL COMPLETION OR RECOMPLETION REPORT AND LOG 1a. Well Status: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ SPLUGC Other ❑ Abandoned Q Suspended❑ 20AAC 25.105 20AAC 25.110 GINJ❑ WINJ ❑ WAG❑ WDSPLO No. of Completions: 1b. Well Class: Development ❑ Exploratory 0 Service ❑ Stratigraphic Test ❑ 2. Operator Name: Bureau of Land Management 5. Date Comp., Susp., or Aband.: 4/5/2011 12. Permit to Drill Number: 1002170 3. Address: 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 6. Date Spudded: 6/25/1951 13, API Number: 50-287-10009-00-00 4a. Location of Well (Governmental Section): Surface: Sec 5, T1S, R1 W, UM Top of Productive Horizon: Sec 5, T1S, R1 W, UM Total Depth: Sec, T1S, R1W, UM 7. Date TD Reached: 1/15/1952 14. Well Name and Number: Umiat No. 9 8. KB (ft above MSL): 6 GL (ft above MSL): 424 15. Field/Pool(s): Umiat Unidentified Oil Pool 9. Plug Back Depth(MD+TVD): Surface 4b. Location of Well (State Base Plane Coordinates, NAD 27): Surface: x- 220616.2 y- 5629864.9 Zone -4 TPI: x- 220617.2 y- 5629865.9 Zone -4 Total Depth: x- 220618.2 y- 5629866.9 Zone -4 10. Total Depth (MD + TVD): 1257' MD/TVD 16. Property Designation: AA -081726 11. SSSV Depth (MD + TVD): None 17. Land Use Permit: N/A 18. Directional Survey: Yes LJNo E (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: 1055' MD/TVD 21. Logs Obtained (List all logs here and submit electronic and printed information per 20AAC25.071): None 22.Re-drill/Lateral Top Window MD/TVD: I 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 Cond 8-5/8", 24# 0 61' 0 61' 12-1/4" 40 sx, to surface None Prod 5-1/2", 22.5" 0 1257' 0 1257' 7-7/8" 140 sx of cement, TOC 416' None 24. Open to production or injection? Yes ❑ No❑ If Yes, list each interval open (MD+TVD of Top & Bottom; Perforation Size and Number): 411DEPTH 25. TUBING RECORD SIZE DEPTH SET (MD) PACKER SET (MD/TVD) 26. ACID, FRACTURE, CEMENT SQUEEZE, ETC. INTERVAL (MD) AMOUNT AND KIND OF MATERIAL USED 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 Rat Oil -Bbl: Gas -MCF: Water -Bbl: Oil Gravity - API (corr): 28. CORE DATA Conventional Core(s) Acquired? Yes ❑ No ❑ Sidewall Cores Acquired? Yes ❑ No ❑ If Yes to either question, list formations and intervals cored (MD+TVD of top and bottom of each), and summarize lithology and presence of oil, gas or water (submit separate sheets with this form, if needed). Submit detailed descriptions, core chips, photographs anddwlaboratory analytical results per 20 AAC 25.071. RBDMS MAY 2 3 2011 ' � � A11114a rieg c. commission Form 10-407 Revised 12/2009 CONTINUED ON REVERSE • L4 •C/ Submit original only 6 • 0 29. GEOLOGIC MARKERS (List all formations and markers encountered): 30. FORMATION TESTS NAME MD TVD Well tested? LJ Yes H No If yes, list intervals and formations tested, briefly summarizing test results. Attach separate sheets to this form, Permafrost - Top 1055' 1055' if needed, and submit detailed test information per 20 AAC 25.071. Permafrost - Base Formation at total depth: 31. List of Attachments: Well schematic, P&A operations report, photographic documention of wellhead cutoff and marker plate installation 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 Signatur Phone: 907-271-4407 Date: a (Jr INSTRUCTIONS General: This form is designed for submitting a complete and correct well completion report and log on all types of lands and leases in Alaska. Submit a well schematic diagram with each 10-407 well completion report and 10-404 well sundry report when the downhole well design is changed. Item 1b: Classification of Service wells: Gas Injection, Water Injection, Water -Alternating -Gas Injection, Salt Water Disposal, Water Supply for Injection, Observation, or Other. Multiple completion is defined as a well producing from more than one pool with production from each pool completely segregated. Each segregated pool is a completion. Item 4b: TPI (Top of Producing Interval). Item 8: The Kelly Bushing and Ground Level elevations in feet above mean sea level. Use same as reference for depth measurements given in other spaces on this form and in any attachments. Item 13: The API number reported to AOGCC must be 14 digits (ex: 50-029-20123-00-00). Item 20: Report true vertical thickness of permafrost in Box 20. Provide MD and TVD for the top and base of permafrost in Box 28. Item 23: Attached supplemental records for this well should show the details of any multiple stage cementing and the location of the cementing tool. Item 24: If this well is completed for separate production from more than one interval (multiple completion), so state in item 1, and in item 23 show the producing intervals for only the interval reported in item 26. (Submit a separate form for each additional interval to be separately produced, showing the data pertinent to such interval). Item 27: Method of Operation: Flowing, Gas Lift, Rod Pump, Hydraulic Pump, Submersible, Water Injection, Gas Injection, Shut-in, or Other (explain). Item 28: Provide a listing of intervals cored and the corresponding formations, and a brief description in this box. Submit detailed description and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Item 30: Provide a listing of intervals tested and the corresponding formation, and a brief summary in this box. Submit detailed test and analytical laboratory information required by 20 AAC 25.071. Form 10-407 Revised 12/2009 U 0 Q�MENT OF �yF QwP y� United States Department of the Interior A O BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT �gACH 3 ,say Alaska State Office 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.gov/ak In Reply Refer To: Umiat No. 9 Well (AK932) May 19, 2011 Mr. Dan Seamount, Chair Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7`h Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Dear Mr. Seamount: Subject: Well completion Report 10-407 Bureau of Land Management, Umiat No. 9 PTD # 1002170 Sundry # 3 11 -001 EIEM Aiaaka Oil & 6389 Cm*- 601"IYlissiOn f�:�aCt�er�gB Bureau of Land Management hereby submits the well completion report for its Umiat No. 9 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: • Run 1" tubing to 940' and circulated cement in the inner 1" x 5-'/z" annulus and the 1" tubing and squeezed open gas perforations ,/ • Run l" tubing in the outer 5-'/2" x 8-5/8" annulus to 42' and cement to surface. • Excavate around wellhead to 5' below tundra level • Cut off casings • Welded marker plate on casing stubs • Welded original wellhead on the welded marker • Backfilled and leveled excavation, mounded gravel over the excavated area The following attachments are included in this final report: 1. Well Completion Report Form 10-407 2. Summary report of operations 3. Final wellbore diagram after P&A 4. Photographic documentation of P&A If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Tom Zelenka at 907- 271-4224. Sincerely, War'noha Y J Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals BLM, Alaska State Office Enclosure(s): Well Completion Report Form 10-407 Summary report of operations Final wellbore diagram after P&A Photographic documentation of P&A 2 25/2011 PJSM:Went Over camp orientatioMpent over scope of work. Dig down around well. Start up generator. Start up welder. Cut wellhead off 1' below ground level. Weld flange on 5 1/2"cassing for bops. '26/2011 PJSM: Proper hand signals, Proper rigging, Stay clear of all loads while moving. Nipple up BOPs . Nipple up circulating Riser and return tank. Set up scafolding around well. Set Mud pump, Batch mixer, Boiler Unit, Generator, Heaters, Choke Manifold ,Tool shed around Well Heat up Accumulator run hoses start up. Heat up batch mixer motor, Start up and run. 27/2011 PJSM: Went over well control. How to use safety value, How to close BOPs Tarp in work area. Clean out batch mixer fill with 20 barrels water, Heat up.Fill boier. Function test BOPs Rig up to run tubing. Run in hole tag up at 15' Rig up Circulation Equipment Rig up to test Bops '28/2011 PJSM: Went over hazards of running pipe in the hole. Test Blind rams, choke manifold, mud cross to 2,000 psi. Test pipe rams and safety valve to 1,500 psi. Circulate pipe down to 130'. '29/2011 PJSM: Went over hazards of fluids coming out of the well. Circulate down to175' Displace out annulus fluid to holding tank Circulate pipe down to 230' 30/2011 PJSM: Had well control drill Circulate down to 400'. Break through ice. Small flow ,shut well in, no pressure, open well up. Displace out annulus fluid to holding tank Run in hole to 700' Displace out annulus fluid to holding tank '31/2011 PJSM , Went over electrical hazards, keep power cords in good shape and out of work area. Circulate down to 940', Unable to go past. Over pull also coming up. Displace out annulus fluid to holding tank Notified Tom Zelenka at BLM and Guy Schwartz at AOGCC of depth of 940' Circulate 9.3 ppg NaCl brine 1/1/2011 PJSM, Went over hazards of mixing cement and pumping. Put 16 bbls water in mix tank and heat up to 70 degree Rig up lines for cement job. Mix permafrost cement 25 bbls total Displace cement with brine. Pump pressure 500psi at start. 800 psi with cement at surface Close pipe rams. Bullhead 3 bbls at 1500psi. Hold pressure for 3hrs Open BOPs, pick up flush with water, Clean up cement pump and mix unit 1/2/2011 PJSM: Went over moving heavy loads and rigging down equipment. Remove BOP's and flow riser. Cut BOP flange off 5-1/2" casing. Run 1" pipe to 42' in 5-1/2" x 8-5/8" annulus, tag up solid. Cmt dropped do to 34' in 5-1/2" x 1" annulus. Mix 10 bbls permafrost cement. Fill 5-1/2" x 8-5/8" and 5-1/2" x 1" annulus with cement. Clean up batch mixer. Rig down equipment. 1/3/2011 PJSM , Went over proper ppe for clean up operationse Weld marker plate on outer casing stump �a"'a n c� int N . Clean up cut on wellhead, weld wellhead back on top of marker plate. Per Tom Zelenka's spec sheet. Move equipment to gravel pad. 1/4/2011 PJSM , Blowing snow conditions, use buddy system. Backfill well area and mound up. Take final picture. Aproved by Tom Zelenka BLM irlrnnni�eh nnr) 4io cne 6r%monf r4num fnr rn^wn • 0 Umiat Test #9 Post P&A Wellbore Diagram Spud:06/25/1951 Completed: 01/15/1952 RKB - 6' Casing cutoff 5' below ground, marker plate installed, wellhead re -installed on its original lace Ground level 12 % "Open Hole 1" tubing cemented in place 9 k i 42' of cement in the 5.5" x 8 5/8" annulus (10 bbl of cement pumped through 1" tubing ) 8 5/8"1 24# conductor, 61' MD , Mud and formation water, wt unknown Permafrost cement from 940' surface (25 bbl pumped) Solid fill plug from 940' to TD (Fill or cement) " Top of cement estimated at 500' 1" tubing cemented in place 7 7/8" Open Hole Perforations 866' to 1,255' 1,257' MD, 5 %:", 22.54#, Cemented w/140 sx Construction Cement treated w/600# CaC12 SolstenXP ns 04/25/11 Photographic Documentation of P&A Umiat # 9 �. �N r µ Photographic Documentation of P&A Umiat # 9 �. r µ Umiat # 9: Wellhead cutoff U 0 Umiat # 9: Well marker installed 41 • Umiat # 9: Final location appearance 0 0 Page 1 of 2 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 8:43 AM To: 'Natasha Sachivichik; Nadja Coleman Cc: Bili Penrose; Shane Mcgeehan; tjzelenka@usa.net Subject: RE: Umiat #9 operations status (PTD 100-217) Natasha, Cementing the well from a depth of 940' to surface is acceptable. The Commission has granted waivers for this type of cement plug placement in the past where fill is present over the perforations per 20 AAC 25.112 (i). A solid cement plug from tagged depth to surface will provide adequate isolation for the long term abandonment of the well. As we discussed the annulus between the 5 %" and 8" has been tagged down to at least 50' so this should also be filled with cement as deeply as possible as per the procedure. In summary, the operation seems to be going well so far if we can place these plugs as planned. Regards, Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer APR 0, 6 ` AOGCC 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) From: Natasha Sachivichik[mailto:natasha.sachivichik@solstenxp.com] Sent: Thursday, March 31, 20116:03 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Nadja Coleman Cc: Bill Penrose; Shane Mcgeehan; tjzelenka@usa.net Subject: Umiat #9 operations status Guy, As we discussed this afternoon, we are currently working on a P&A project on the Umiat#9 well. Our original plan was to run 1" tubing inside 5.5" casing to TD (TD is 1257') and to pump cement down the tubing until the 5.5" casing is full of cement. The P&A crew ran 1" tubing in the well for the last couple of days and saw some ice plugs and some oil-based mud. Today we tagged up at 940' at solid plug (possibly barite plug or cement) and could not make any further progress. The perforations in this well are located at 866'-1257'. We have not seen any hydrocarbon shows while running in the casing, except for a minor gas show, which appeared as a single little bubble in the annulus. The bottom of our tubing is at 74' below the top perf. We would like to pump cement at this point to fill the whole 5.5" casing and the tubing with cement to surface, we will cut the tubing at surface and leave it cemented. Please let us know if this plan is acceptable. I attached the current wellbore diagram for your reference and the pictures of 4" BOP setup. 4/1/2011 Page 2 of 2 0 We will appreciate your quick response. Natasha Sachivichik Senior Drilling Engineer 310 K Street, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501 MAIN (907)264-6100 DIRECT (907) 264-6116 CELL (907)575-7156 natasha.sachivichik@solstenxp.com 4/1/2011 Umiat Test # 9 3131111 Current Wellbore Diagram Spud: 06/25/1951 RKB = 6' Completed: 01/15/1952 Both Annuli cemented w/ 3 sx of Cal -Seal and 1 sx of cement Ground level 8", 24# conductor, 61' MD '=`__�j12 % " Open Hole Mud and formation water, wt unknown Crude oil and formation water Gas possible above fluid level Top of cement estimated at 500' 17 7/8" Open Hole Perforations 866' to 1,255' (all presumably open) 1,257' MD, 5 %", 22.54#, Cemented w/140 sx Construction Cement treated w/600# CaC12 SolstenXP ns 01/09/11 i_: C� 6 •� �"V� Wert Tia ��'.�' a� C Y o- 6 • h , f71 SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR k p rxa d p =� MASSA OIL AND GALS 333 W. 7th AVENUE, SUITE 100 CONSERQA IO COMUSSION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 Wayne Svejnoha Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals Bureau of Land Management 222 W 7th Ave., #13 2fl1� 0 Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 NED �� Re: Umiat Field, Undefined Oil Pool, Umiat No.9 Sundry Number: 311-001 Dear Mr. Svejnoha: 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, 4 Daniel T. Seamount, Jr. Chair DATED this % Dday of February, 2011. Encl. STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSIO APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVALS gn nnr 9A 9An 1. Type of Request: Abandon # Suspend ❑ Operational shutdown ❑ Perforate ❑ Waiver ❑ Othei❑ Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Change approved program[] Pull Tubing F] Perforate New Pool ❑ Re-enter Suspended Well ❑ 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: j �> Bureau of Land Management Development ❑ Exploratory 0 Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002-1 /11 +4( 6. API Number: 3. Address: 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504 50-287-10009-00-00 • 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: 1:1 21Umiat No. 9 Spacing Exception Required? Yes No 9. Property De i 69° 23.149' Lat , 152° 10.280' Long a5`ti,o�:1f 10. KB Elevation (ft): 11. Field/Pool(s): ` &toz =c -)7,77/)(r . 2��►'►zecs"nnR1W, U. M., North Slope 6 NAi 12. PRESENT WELL CONDITION SUMMARY y Total Depth MD (ft): Total Depth TVD (ft): Effective Depth MD (ft): Effective Depth TVD (ft): Plugs (measured 51, Junk (measured): 1,257' 12— 7 f 4 - 1 N/A R, + ff N/A Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 61' 8-5/8", 24# 61' 61' 2,950 psi 1,370 psi Surface 1,257' 5-1/2", 22.5# 1,257' 1,257' 10,560 psi est. 11,160 psi est. 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 Q BOP Sketch ❑ Exploratory 0 Development ❑ Service ❑ 15. Estimated Date for 16. Well Status after proposed work: March 15, 2011 Commencing Operations: Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged Abandoned 0 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 907-271-4407 Title Branch Chief, Branch of Energy and Minerals Signature Pybne Date 2 COMMISSION USE ONLY Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: O© r. V Plug Integrity BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance Other: �Rv Fz+ �oGu •.. Ga.Jt l ( �i c t F �tir «r c,.� JAN 0 3 201 l`lG <<�+ n 14 L�+„e�` 4ry ins) P�9)1�ri1If R,:aCons. tdj3': P % / 44c- 2Sl2C<) Subsequent Form Required: /� _ ��O 7 APPROVED BY Approved by: COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSIO Date: Z//Z, f RBDMS FEB 1- -1 <2011 Form 10-403 Revised 06/2006 ORIGINAL _0, 1y•il � °y"" .tee Submit in Duplicate tNM • • United States Department of the Interior In Reply Refer To: Umiat No. 9 Well (AK932) BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Alaska State Office Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13 Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504 http://www.blm.gov/ak December 29, 2010 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W. 7fi' 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. 9 Permit to Drill Number: /oa -L/7 API Number: 50-287-10009-00-00 Dear Sir: JAN 0 3 2011 4 Cam AnowbUe Enclosed please find our Application for Sundry pprovals (Form 10-403) for the Umiat No. 9 well (2copies) with P+A Procedure, Pre-P+A wellbore diagram, and Post-P+A wellbore diagram. We propose to complete the final plugging and abandonment to surface of the Umiat No. 9 well. J The well was spudded by the U. S. Navy on June 25, 1951, drilled to a depth of 1,257' RKB, and completed on January 15, 1952 with PBTD at 1,255' RKB. The well was perforated from 1,255' PBTD to 866' RKB and tested. Operations were suspended on this well without isolating the test perforations. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. The wellhead is equipped with two bull plugs, a flange and a 2 -3/4 -inch nipple. There are no fresh water aquifers in the area. Due to potential contaminants downhole, existing contaminants on the surface, the possibility of development in the area and proposed water wells for Umiat camp, the well poses a risk to human health and the environment in its current condition. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact Thomas Zelenka at (907) 271-4224. Sincerely, t Wa Svejnoha 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 US Bureau of Land Management Umiat No. 9 North Slope, Alaska Procedure for Plug and Abandonment Background Well Information The Umiat No. 9 well was drilled in 1951/52 on Federal NPRA lands by the U. S. Navy. Umiat is located on the north bank of the Colville River 60 miles upstream from the village of Nuiqsut. The well was left in suspended status with an exposed surface wellhead equipped with two bull plugs, a flange and a 2 -3/ -inch nipple. The well requires existing wellbore fluid to be removed and replaced with NaCl water from the 5-1/2" casing. There are existing perforations in the 5-1/2" casing (1,255' to 866' RKB) that require isolation with cement from 1,255' PBTD to approximately 750' RKB (100 feet of cement above top of perforated interval). The surface cement plug will be set at approximately 200' RKB on a bridge plug and continue to the surface. These plug and abandonment procedures are to meet 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 PxA operations and simultaneous to reserve pit remediation. 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. 2. Mobilize all necessary equipment and personnel to the Umiat No. 9 well 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) 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 1 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 and cellar. Apply heat to warm the well. 6. Verify that there is no pressure on the 5-1/2" casing. Check 8-5/8" casing side outlets for evidence of cement to surface. Remove 2-3/4" nipple" pipe from top of wellhead to access 5-1/2" casing. Verify fluid depth below surface. 7. Install BOPE equipment on 5-1/2" casing flange and function test BOPE. 8. Install a circulating spool/riser on the wellhead. 9. Batch mix 9.3 ppg NaCl brine in required batches necessary for wellbore displacement from 1,255' RKB PBTD to the surface. Be prepared to catch, store, and test all recovered fluid from wellbore displacement operations. The fluid waste material will be disposed of according to content. 10. Isolation of existing perforations from 866' — 1,255' RKB and the surface cement plug will be accomplished in the following ways: a) Run I" jointed pipe down to the top of ice plug. Start circulating warm brine to melt ice while going down to the bottom of the well. Monitor returns at all times. There is a risk of a gas bubble trapped in the ice. b) Once at 1,255 (PBTD), mix 30 bbl of pennafi•ost cement and pump it down the 1" tubing and up the annulus until cement returns appear at surface. (Calculated volume to fill 1,257' of 5-1/2", 22.54# casing is 26 bbl). c) Close BOPs and squeeze 3-4 extra bbl into perforations. Limit surface pressure to 2,000 psi (due to the 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. f) Cut 1" pipe at BOP level. g) Disconnect the BOPS. 11. Collect cement rinsate in a separate tank from the well returns tank to segregate Class I waste from Class 11 waste. Send waste fluids for injection disposal at approved North Slope facilities. 12. Excavate around well casing to at least 5-6' below ground level. 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 a minimum of 3-4' below ground level and as deep as possible in the excavation. 13. Heat annulus area to try and determine if any voids exist in existing cemented annulus and grout annulus with cement to as deep as possible then top off all annulus areas with cement, as necessary. Run 1" tubing down the 5-1/2" x 8-5/8" annulus to 150', if possible, and pump cement until it shows returns at surface. 2 14. Weld a minimum 1/4" thick, 8-5/8" round steel plate on top of the 8-5/8" casing with the following information bead welded on the plate: Operator: US NAVY Well Name: UMIAT # 9 Location: Sec 5, T 1 S, R1 W, U. M. API: 50-287-10009-00 Leave a weep hole in the well identification plate. 15. Backfill the excavation and mound the soil by 10% extra to account for summer thaw subsidence. 16. Demobilize all well P&A equipment and personnel to Deadhorse and beyond. 17. 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 a Conductor (12-1/4" Hole) 40 sx of Cal -Seal, annulus cemented at surf w/ 3 sx Ca -Seal and 1 sk cement • Attachment No. 1 CURRENT WELL STATUS *** Current Wellbore Status Diagram *** ESTIMATED CEMENT TOPS I UMIAT # 9 #1. _ 0 RKB = 6' Surface 22.5 #/ft (7-7/8" Hole) Cemented w/ 140 sx construction cement treated w/ 600# CaC12 Ground Level 5' RKB 'ace (fluid level unknown), ,elow gas interface L i ! Umiat Test # 9, Post P&A Wellbore Diagram- 4�, kwa Spud: 06/25/1951 RKB 6' ?j Completed: 01/15/1952 Wellhead cutoff 5' below round level Ground level 8 5/8", 24# conductor, 61' 12 % "Open Hole MD 1" tubing cemented in place Mud and formation water, wt unknown Top of cement estimated at 500' Permafrost cement from TD to — surface 7 7/8" Open Hole Perforations 866' to 1,255' (all presumably open) 1,257' MD, 5 %", 22.54#, Cemented w/140 sx Construction Cement treated w/600# CaC12 SolstenXP ns 01/09/11 • Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) 9 From: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 20112:53 PM To: 'TZelenka@blm.gov' Cc: 'Natasha Sachivichik' Subject: RE: Revision to Umiat 9 Well P+A Procedure and Final Wellbore Diagram Tom, This is acceptable. There are contingencies in case of ice in the wellbore and the steps are clearly spelled out. It certainly meets our criteria for P & A and then some. Thanks, Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer AOGCC 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) -----Original Message ----- From: TZelenka@blm.gov [mailto:TZelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 12:45 PM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: natasah.sachivichik@solstenxp.com; jason.ditsworth@MarshCreekLLC.com; craig.scola@usace.army.mil; wsvejnoh@blm.gov; cltaylor@blm.gov Subject: Revision to Umiat 9 Well P+A Procedure and Final Wellbore Diagram I have been into discussion with the P+A contracting company (Solsten XP) representative, Natasha Sachivichik, whose company will be doing the plug and abandonment work on the Umiat 9 well. After review, the BLM is proposing a change to our original plug and abandonment procedure for the Umiat 9 well. The new procedure we are proposing will fill the wellbore completely with cement from TD to the surface and allow for cement to be squeezed into the existing open perforations. This revised procedure is operationally more manageable with the equipment we will be using. We have also addressed more attention to obtaining a better 5-1/2" x 8-5/8" annulus remedial cement repair procedure. I have attached the revised procedure and final P+A wellbore diagram for your review. Let me know if there is anything else that you may require to approve our pending P+A Sundry Notice for the Umiat 9 well. Thank you. (See attached file: Umiat No 9 P+A Procedure—Rev 1 8Febll TJZ.docx)(See attached file: Umiat #9 Post P&A wellbore diagram.pptx) Thomas Zelenka, P. E. Petroleum Engineer BLM Alaska State Office Division of Resources Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Office: 907-271-4224 Cell 907-301-8972 Fax: 907-271-3933 Home: 303-807-3161 tzelenka@blm.gov 1 9 Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) L, From: TZelenka@blm.gov Sent: Monday, February 07, 20116:45 AM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: jason.ditsworth@marshcreekllc.com; Craig.Scola@usace.army.mil; TZelenka@blm.gov Subject: RE: Umiat 9 Well PxA Procedure Revision If we can get down on the annulus with small tubing and cement we will attempt to add cement to the annular voids if accessible. Thank you for your comments. Thomas Zelenka, P. E. Petroleum Engineer BLM Alaska State Office Division of Resources Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Office: 907-271-4224 Cell 907-301-8972 Fax: 907-271-3933 Home: 303-807-3161 tzelenka@blm.gov "Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) " <guy.schwartz@ala ska.gov> 02/04/2011 02:38 PM TZelenka@blm.gov To cc Subject RE: Umiat 9 Well PxA Procedure Revision Tom, The changes look agreeable and meet AOGCC regulations. One unclear point however, is the OA cementing. If you have voids ( or none at all) and can add more cement we are specifying a depth of 50' for cement coverage. You will likely need jointed pipe to accomplish that part of the cementing. Not much room between the 8 5/8" and 5.5" casing though... something like 2.5" ( so a 1.25" gap) . Guy Guy Schwartz Senior Petroleum Engineer AOGCC 1 793-1226 (office) 444-3433 (cell) -----Original Message ----- From: TZelenka@blm.gov [mailto:TZelenka@blm.gov] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:53 AM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) Cc: Craig.Scola@usace.army.mil; jason.ditsworth@marshcreekllc.com; wsvejnoh@blm.gov Subject: Umiat 9 Well PxA Procedure Revision Guy, I have attached a revised P and A procedure for the Umiat No. 9 well which I previously sent you with the PxA sundry notice for your approval . I have addressed your comments from our previous phone conversation regarding testing the integrity of the cement plug isolating the perforation interval, checking the surface annulus areas for additional cementing, and placing a round well ID plate on the well after plug back to the surface. This revised procedure is more generic with my changes shown in "blue" font and I have also addressed the alternatives for meeting the AOGCC well plugging requirements per 20 AAC 25.170, which may be more operationally achievable by the PxA contractor. The BLM does not necessarily want to be specifically prescriptive in its plug and abandonment procedure at this point but we would like to see the contractor's proposed plug and abandonment well procedure be performance based in that their PxA procedure completely meets or exceeds the AOGCC well plug and abandonment requirements as specified in the AOGCC regulations 20 AAC 25.170. Well plugging requirement and 20 AAC 25.120. Well abandonment marker. The BLM is working in association with the Corps of Engineers (COE) through our MOU and the COE's current surface remediation project on the Umiat No. 9 well. COE is bringing in a PxA contractor through our MOU process to do this PxA work with oversight by the BLM and approval by AOGCC. The BLM is asking the contractor, Solsten XP Inc, to plug and abandon the Umiat No. 9 well in accordance with the AOGCC previously stated regulations. Please let me know at the soonest if there is any additional information you require in order to approve our previously y submitted sundry notice to plug and abandon the Umiat No. 9 well. I will be going up on the NPRA to witness the plug and abandonment of some wells as early as Feb 15 and I could be out in the field for a couple of weeks. Thank you. (See attached file: Umiat No. 9 P+A Procedure 29Dec10 TJZc.docx) Thomas Zelenka, P. E. Petroleum Engineer BLM Alaska State Office Division of Resources Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Office: 907-271-4224 Cell 907-301-8972 Fax: 907-271-3933 Home: 303-807-3161 tzelenka@blm.gov 2 Well Specifics: Well Head Description (from base to too): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top of blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? TOTAL STICK UP: 5 1/2' Casing extends about 3 feet from the ground surface with two plugged side outlets. No valves or gauges are present. There is no oil or gas seeping on site. Umial Test Well rGL: Cirrent Wellbore Schematic vrtyulal nno = a.v f+uvve uL. Top Job: 121/4 '- . 3 sx of Cal -Seat Hoic 1 sx of Construction 1w M. . 152 Um Formation SOC: 0' Depths Shows Ninuluk Uppe, Cretaceous 6.155 40 sx of Cal -Seal Upaet Lower Cretaceous 155.475 DrilNng Fluids A Top Job: Base Depths Weight Addl#vea Base of Permafrost 3 sx of Cal -Seal Water 0-209 „- jeftim Construction wl 1 sx of Construction On 209-475 87-116 Omel, Flah Creek 03, Ken -fit, Unsfaked Lim CaCI; 04 375 $00 ft of ATODW Otl 375-M 10.11-11.2 AquapL Mimlex OU 868 500 !ba of Amdor Depth: ON 868-1257 10$11.4 AQmgK Walla Formation Geology Age Depths Shows Ninuluk Uppe, Cretaceous 6.155 Chandler (Killik Tongue) Upaet Lower Cretaceous 155.475 Grandstand i TOC: 416' Topagorux Lower Cre:areous 1090.1275 Oil Base of Permafrost _ 140 sx of Construction wl 7 718" Hole CaCI; Depth: INK 533'•561' Depth: ba9'-707' 1 Depth: f � 866'-939' JJ Depth: r:uwr s' 969'-1010' Haat W Plarnwillo" 1055 d Depth.- epth:1127'-1146' 1127'-1146' Depth: unknown Formation Geology Age Depths Shows Ninuluk Uppe, Cretaceous 6.155 Chandler (Killik Tongue) Upaet Lower Cretaceous 155.475 Grandstand UpperrLower Cretaceous 425-1(100 OA Topagorux Lower Cre:areous 1090.1275 Oil Base of Permafrost _ 1055 Item Date Fish/Rif Infatynallon Dem Comment A 111115-1 270 Crum Oil in hole (reported August 104e 6 11.2352 g Thermistor Cable C "5 Thermistor Cable D 10-1253 1:70 Thezmistot Qlble E f t5'SY 12555 Cernar+tplug Crude Oil Oil show yr 0114 it Crude Oil Oil show Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) From: TZelenka@blm.gov Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:49 AM To: Schwartz, Guy L (DOA) TD 160 - Z/ 7 Subject: Fw: Umiat 9 Wellhead to be Left on Well after P+A This is the email I sent to the P+A contractor regarding the SHPO requirement to leave the wellhead on the well after final P+A to surface and plate installation. - -4 I will place you on the email distribution for any further discussions on the Umiat 9 well P+A. Thomas Zelenka, P. E. Petroleum Engineer BLM Alaska State Office Division of Resources Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Office: 907-271-4224 Cell : 907-301-8.972 Fax: 907-271-3933 Home: 303-807-3161 tzelenka@blm.gov ----- Forwarded by Thomas J Zelenka/CTF/AK/BLM/DOI on 02/10/2011 09:47 AM Thomas J Zelenka/CTF/AK/BL M/DOI To Natasha Sachivichik 02/10/2011 05:45 cc AM Wayne Svejnoha/AKSO/AK/BLM/DOI@BLM, craig.scola@usace.army.mil, David.A.Jadhon@usace.army.mil, Jason.ditsworth@MarshCreekLLC.com, Shane Walker/NFO/AK/BLM/DOI@BLM, Donna Wixon/NFO/AK/BLM/DOI@BLM Subject Umiat 9 Wellhead to be Left on Well after P+A I finally received an answer from our Arctic Field Office regarding the wellhead issue on the Umiat 9 well. Actually, it applies to all Umiat wells that are plug and abandoned. Shane Walker, a surface specialist in the Arctic Field Office in Fairbanks told me that in accordance with an agreement that the BLM made with SHPO that we would leave the wellhead in place after the P+A of the well. Therefore, please be prepared to meet that requirement following the plug and abandonment of the Umiat 9 well. 1 e We can discuss how that might be done before we begin the work. Thank you. Thomas Zelenka, P. E. Petroleum Engineer BLM Alaska State Office Division of Resources Branch of Energy and Minerals 222 W. 7th Avenue, #13 Anchorage, AK 99513 Office: 907-271-4224 Cell 907-301-8972 Fax: 907-271-3933 Home: 303-807-3161 tzelenka@blm.gov 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 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 historic value. The Alaska Heritage remediation. Photo taken August 2001. Resources Survey (AHRS) included the Umiat wells in an inventory of all reported historic and prehistoric sites within the State of Alaska. This inventory of cultural resources includes objects, structures, buildings, sites, districts, and travel routes generally more than 50 years old. Therefore, the wellheads for the other Umiat wells will be left in place after plugging is completed. 23 0 Umiat #9 • Umiat #9 was spudded in June 1951 and completed seven months later in January 1952. The well is cased to a depth of 1,257 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the western extent of the producing field. It was also the first hole in which oil-based muds were used in the Umiat area. Umiat #9 is located about half mile to the north-northwest of the Seabee pad. 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 '/-inch nipple. There are no fresh water aquifers in the area, but due to potential contaminants downhole and existing contaminants on the surface, the well does pose a risk to human health and the environment in its current condition. Umiat #6 Umiat #6 was spudded August 1950 to test the southern limits of the Umiat anticline. The hole was drilled to a depth of 825 feet. The well was cased to 35 feet and a 42 -foot cement plug was placed on the bottom of the well in order to stop water influx from sands at the base of the permafrost. The well encountered very poor shows in the Killik Tongue (Chandler Formation) and a productive sand in the upper Grandstand Formation. Oil recovered in open -hole pumping tests was produced at rates averaging 53 barrels of oil per day. Insufficient energy exists in the reservoir for the well to flow to surface and there are no fresh water aquifers present. Major caving of the hole occurred and the well was backfilled with mud (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the next 20 years and the well has the potential to leak to surface if development occurs and may adversely affect future development. The well lies about 500 feet to the northwest of a gravel spur road which connects the Colville River to the eastern edge of the Umiat airstrip. The well is located in wet tundra adjacent to an empty 55 -gallon drum. The well is left open with 8 5/8 -inch casing to the surface. It has no gauges, valves or a cover plate. Two thermistor protrude to the surface and rests on the lip of the casing. This well poses no threat to human health or the environment unless development occurs. Umiat #7 Umiat #7 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 1,384 feet, cased to 1,196 feet and completed as a dry hole. It was the southern most well drilled on the Umiat anticline. The objective was to further delineate the southern extent of the producing Figure 13: Umiat #7 summer and winter photos. field. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Chandler and Grandstand formations. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in gallons. The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. The sands encountered in Grandstand are downdip of the productive reservoir and are water bearing. Minor gas shows were encountered at 260 feet (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2) on lease AA - 081726. There is some potential for future development to occur in the area within the 25 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 Uniat 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 to 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 Figure 16: J.W. Dalton with exposed conductor (left), and rat hole (right). The mouse hole (not pictured) is completely exposed. sediments (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological Survey, 1992). 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 a> 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 we�°o.asg+ c tj Sititpedi X28 MinpN . t �( ffpsart 813 East Simpt�on Z i 81 4A b Simpson J N, md& t _.. ' 1t ".� im p- .831 •, '}3 �' {s, $i 00 o f MAM 14 - _,,SimpWn 830 && MA °_Psi 5cmpson #t Map Wctlio Simpsm ell, 41, 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 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 :o 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- Hgure 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 0 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 detennine 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 E Figure 23: There is no surface debris present at Simpson Core #27. 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 #29 Simpson Core Test #29 is a dry hole drilled in 1950 to a depth of 700 feet and cased to 152 feet. The purpose of the well was to determine the limits of the producing field encountered at Core #26. A very poor oil show was identified in the Seabee Formation. The productive sand present in the other Simpson Cores does not exist in this well. The test hole also penetrated the Gubik and Grandstand Formations. No oil was recovered from this well (Robinson and Brewer, 1964). The well is grouped higher on the priority list due to its close approximation to Simpson Cores #26, #27, #30 and #30A (Figure 18). The well is located within the Northwest planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract was recently leased and received a high bid of $7.51 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development if left unplugged since any development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. The well was left with 8 '/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 0 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 P Figure 24: Simpson Core #29 Umiat #1 was spud in 1945, and completed in 1946. Total depth reached was 6,005 feet and the well was cased to 685 feet. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons and a few poor gas shows in the Seabee, Ninuluk, Chandler, Grandstand, and Topagoruk Formations. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are located five miles to the east. Oil recovered in bailing tests was so minute that it was measured in pints and officially recorded as a trace. Lab tests determined the oil to be of a different type of crude oil than that found in the productive Umiat wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The small amount of crude recovered in each test is indicative of residual oil staining. No fresh water aquifers exist in the Umiat area, so this well poses no threat to sub -surface water resources. There is no pressure on the wellhead and it is fitted with a blind plate, a 2 -inch nipple and a brass gate valve (Figure 25). The well is located on an unleased tract at the crest of a hill that divides the north and south forks of Seabee Creek. Future development is unlikely because of its location outside the Umiat structure. Left unplugged, the well poses no threat to the environment and has no potential to adversely affect future development. The surficial landscape is dominated by willows with the exception of three piles of drilling muds that are located to the east and north of the wellhead. Vegetation is absent on the slick, clay - type material. The COE tested the piles and found them to be contaminated with barium, Figure 25: Umiat #1 is located about 5 which is not surprising given that barite is a miles from the Umiat airstrip. common drilling fluid component. Through sampling, the COE determined the barium has not migrated down the hill and poses no danger to the Seabee Creek drainage (Ecology and Environment, 1999). There is no 33 indication of stressed vegetation down -gradient from the drill muds. Additionally, solid waste in the form of steel framing and scrap metal are near the wellhead. The solid wastes pose no threat but are unsightly. Umiat #11 Umiat #11 was spud June 1952 and completed two months later. The well reached a total depth of 3,303 feet with 486 feet cased. One cement plug was placed at 440 feet. The objective was to test production possibilities of the Grandstand Formation on a fault that parallels the Umiat anticline. The well encountered residual hydrocarbons in the Seabee, Ninuluk, and Grandstand Formations but no oil or gas was recovered during production tests. The sands of the Grandstand were outside the productive area encountered by other Umiat wells, which are over one mile to the south. The well is located within the Northeast planning boundary (see Map 2). The tract is located on lease AA -084141 but there is little possibility of the well interfering with future development due to its location outside the Umiat structure. The well was drilled in the alluvial plain of Bearpaw Creek, 0.6 miles from Umiat #8. A drilling pad was never created as operations consisted of mounting the drill rig on a sled and then placing it on top of large timbers that were secured to pilings (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). A pile of unvegetated drilling muds is present 30 feet west of the wellhead in between the wellhead and the creek. The wellhead consists of a 10 3/ -inch open-ended casing with a collar sticking up inside a 30 -inch conductor that is filled with water. Minor wood debris can be found around the wellhead. The well poses no risk if left unplugged. Wolf Creek Area Three test wells were drilled in the Wolf Creek area. The wells were drilled in the early 1950s with the intent of testing the northwest -trending Wolf Creek anticline structure. Wolf Creek #1 and #3 (Figure 26) are located at the crest of a hill with about 250 feet of relief from the valley. Wolf Creek #2 is located about one and one- third miles north within the Wolf Creek valley. Wolf Creek #2 and #3 are open holes but Wolf Creek #1 is equipped with a wellhead. 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 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. rigure 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 M 0 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 muds 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. Current condition of the wellhead is that it has no pressure at surface and consists of two wing valves and a master valve. The well is located within the Northeast planning area (see Map 2) on lease AA -081857 where, in 2004, ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. drilled an exploratory well within seven miles. The target of the exploration is in the Upper Jurassic at depth of approximately 8,000 feet and it is not likely that this unplugged well will adversely affect development in the area. The recent Alpine Figure 28: Fish Creek #1 with concrete cellar. Satellites EIS approves oil and gas development in this area. ConocoPhillips has proposed roads and a drilling pad less than eight miles from this well and will likely be 36 0 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 pennafrost (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 0 • 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 1/8 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 #I 4A well. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the area is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years. This shallow well did not penetrate any hydrocarbon bearing zones and poses no risk to surface or sub- surface resources, nor- does it have the potential to adversely impact future development. 38 • 0 Simpson Core Test #14A Simpson Core #14A was drilled in 1949 to a depth of 1,270 feet and casing was set to a depth of 32 feet. The well encountered only residual hydrocarbons in the Ninuluk/Seabee and Grandstand Formations. No oil or gas was recovered during tests (Robinson and Brewer, 1964) and fresh water aquifers are not present. Present day location of the well is approximately 1000 feet to the west of an active oil seep. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper, more productive formations. East Simpson #2 East Simpson #2 was drilled in 1977 to 7,505 feet and cased to 6,427 feet. Five cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug set at 1,997 feet. The primary objective of the well was to test the Ivishak Sandstone where it onlaps the Pre -Devonian age basement rock (Husky Oil NPR Operations for U.S. Geological Survey, 1982). Small scale faulting was found between the wells in the area, possibly accounting for the thin section representing the Sadlerochit Formation. The well encountered very poor oil shows at 6,000 feet in the Torok Formation and Endicott age sandstones were cored with poor porosity and dead oil shows. The well is officially listed as a dry hole. Upon completion of the production tests, the well was plugged back to 1,997 feet and filled with approximately 280 barrels of diesel to facilitate permafrost temperature measurements. However with East Simpson #1 less than five miles away, the USGS has no plans to use this well for temperature monitoring. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $21.51 per acre during the lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this 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 HE 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 #1 is a gas well drilled to a depth of 5,305 feet in 1950. The well was cased to 2,785 feet and two cement plugs were set, with the top of the shallowest plug tagged at 2,783 feet inside the casing. The well encountered some gas shows in one productive sand within the Grandstand Formation. The gas tested at rates up to 1.1 MMCFPD during openhole flow tests of the sand at 2,949 - 2,969 feet. The well is estimated to have gas reserves of 10 BCF. Gas pockets are relatively common in this portion of NPR -A due in large part to the underlying coal. At one point while conducting tests, some problems were encountered while attempting to pull a testing tool out of the hole; a ball -peen hammer was inadvertently dropped downhole, causing the tubing to stick. The tubing could not be freed and as a result, it twisted off leaving tubing in the hole. When the lost tubing could not be pulled out, heavy muds were pumped downhole and the well was abandoned (Collins and Bergquist, 1958). The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2). The well is adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $10.26 per acre during the 2004 lease sale. Exploration and development is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years and has the potential to target the Grandstand Formation. If left unplugged the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. There is no pad present at Meade #1 Figure 33: Meade #1 wellhead. Several pilings and light trash are present, but s at ground level and consists of an open flange bolted to the top of the casing (Figure 33). This differs from the Navy reports that indicate the wellhead was abandoned in place. There is no record as to why it was removed. A BLM field crew bailed the hole and discovered a swedge and 2 -inch needle valve junked downhole. This site is very remote (30 miles south of Atqasuk) and since the gas zones are currently isolated below the cement plugs there is a limited risk of adverse impacts to surface or sub -surface resources. 41 0 Titaluk #1 4) 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 '/ - 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 fonnations. An oil seep located at the base of Skull Cliff (land/ocean contact) was observed and documented in the 1940s, which influenced the Navy's decision to drill. BLM and USGS crews searched for the seep when they were in the area but nothing was found at the cliff/beach contact. However, another seep was reported in 1996 by a group from the Academy of Natural Sciences in a small gully about a mile to the east near the old radio tower site. This seep was never confirmed by BLM. Surficially, a drill pad was never established, but a large area of activity is defined by roughly 200 drums, metal tracks, wood debris and various other scraps that litter the site (Figure 35). Presently, the well consists of open casing with a wooden plug shoved into it. There does not appear to be any stressed vegetation that might indicate a hazardous situation. Since the well did not encounter on 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 Oumalik 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 'h -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 unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The existing pad contains piping from a ground refrigeration system similar to Topagoruk #1. The ground in this area is somewhat swampy with high susceptibility to permafrost melt. Circulating cooled diesel fuel in the pipes enabled drilling to occur without thawing the ground. The steel pilings were pulled from the ground to be reused at another site (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). However, steel pipe filled with diesel fuel remains. A 6 - inch circumference of stressed vegetation was noted around several of the low-cut pipes. Despite the diesel, the well does not pose a risk to any existing communities or habitation. It is in a remote location approximately 55 miles southeast of Atqasuk. Overall, the well poses no risk to people or the environment. East Oumalik #1 East Oumalik #1 was drilled on a ridge that overlooks an unnamed tributary of the Oumalik River. Topographic relief is approximately 100 feet. The drill site is highly remote as the nearest village (Atgasuk) is 65 miles away. The well was drilled in 1951 and reached a total depth of 6,035 feet and is cased to 1,100 feet. It is a dry hole. Very poor oil and gas shows were reported in the Grandstand Formation and very poor gas shows were reported in Topagoruk Formation. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) on an unleased tract that received no bids during the lease sale of 2004. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. The well was left with open casing below ground level and has thermistor cables protruding from inside the casing. The casing is marked by a 7 -foot, 3/ -inch pipe. The open pipe lies within a water -filled cellar. The standing water has produced numerous algae and other aquatic vegetation obscuring the wellbore. Surficial hazards consist of several 10 -foot timbers and a few 4 -foot pipes (probably rig anchors) sticking up out of the ground. The site is mostly overgrown with shrubs and appears to be relatively clean. The airstrip, incoming, and outgoing trail scars are obvious and can be used to navigate to the wellsite. There are no risks associated with the well in its current condition and was given this ranking due to its close proximity to Oumalik #1. Topagoruk #1 Topagoruk #1 was drilled in 1951 to a depth of 7,154 feet and is a dry hole. The intent was to test a small, buried anticline and the various formations associated with it. The well was cased to 6,073 feet, plugged back to 6,175 feet and then drilled to a new total depth of 10,503 feet. Prior to re -drilling to total depth, approximately 250 barrels of crude oil from Cape Simpson were added downhole to help offset lost circulation and caving. Additionally, 20 barrels of diesel were added downhole during the drilling phase. No plugs exist in this well. The well is left with open casing to the surface and thermistor cables protruding from the casing (Figure 36). The well encountered the following stratigraphic units while drilling; Gubik, Grandstand, Topagoruk, and Oumalik Formations, Middle and Upper Jurassic rocks, Shublik Formation (Triassic age), Permian rocks, and Lower -Middle Devonian rocks. Hydrocarbon shows were limited to a few very poor gas shows in the Oumalik Formation. No oil or gas was recovered during 44 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 '/4 mile in an Figure 36: Topagoruk #1 casing on its east -west direction and /8 of a mile in a north- side. When the casing was pulled out of south direction. Solid wastes exist in the form of the ground, thermistor cables were piping remaining from a refrigeration system that discovered. circulated diesel to keep the permafrost frozen. A potential hazard exists because diesel still occupies the ground circulation lines. These lines stretch approximately 750 feet to the east, 250 feet to the north, and 100 feet to the south from the wellhead. Other debris on site include some large, partially -burned timbers, a water -filled wooden box (Figure 37) that resembles a cellar ('/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'/ 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 Formations (Robinson and Bergquist, 1959). The well encountered very poor gas shows in the Killik Tongue of the Chandler Formation and very poor oil and gas shows in the Grandstand Formation. The well is located on an unleased tract, in Southern NPR -A (see Map 2) where a lease sale is scheduled for 2008. It is unlikely that exploration and development will occur in the vicinity of this well in the near future. If left unplugged, the well has no potential to adversely affect future development. Surficially, there are no concerns associated with this well. A drill pad does not exist and the wellhead consists of open-ended casing (Figure 38). The wellhead is 8 '/8 - inch pinup inside 11 by 12 1/a -inch Figure 38: Knifeblade #1 is located in a marshy area at collar. The plumb -bob hit solid at 12 the headwaters of a small creek. feet. Total height for the well is about three feet. If this well is left in its current condition, it poses no risk to adversely impacting the surface or sub -surface resources. 46 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 The pad is highly visible and was constructed in the same fashion as Fish Creek #1 in which concrete was used as a working pad. Concrete was poured over a landing mat which was placed on pilings. As a result of ground movement from permafrost freeze/thaw cycles, the concrete has buckled in numerous places creating a partially - collapsed surface. This feature provides excellent shelter to small animals and rodents. Additionally, there is a small pile of drilling muds near the wellhead. The well was left equipped with a casing flange, spool w/ side bull plug, and another flange and nipple and is shut-in with no pressure at surface. The components past the flange have since been removed. Overall, the current condition of the site is non -threatening to the sparse human population and the surrounding environment. North Simpson #1 North Simpson #1 was drilled in 1950 to a depth of 3,774 feet and cased to 109 feet. No hydrocarbon shows were reported during the drilling of this well as no sandstone was encountered (Robinson and Yuster, 1959). Upon completion, no plugs were set and the hole was filled back with muds. The well is located within the Northwest planning area (see Map 2) adjacent to a recently leased tract that received a high bid of $12.76 per acre during the NW NPR -A lease sale of 2004. Exploration and development in the vicinity of this well is a distinct possibility within the next 20 years but it is unlikely this well will have an adverse impact on development since the well did not penetrate productive zones and future development will likely target deeper formations. Surficially, the area is wet with the wellhead partially submerged intermittently throughout the summer (Figure 39). The drill site lies only a few miles from the Arctic Ocean. The work area is visible with metal pilings around the wellhead. It is unknown if additional solid wastes exist under water. The well was left - - with a bull plug installed on summer. top of a swedge. The well is not near human activity, and does not pose a threat to surface or sub -surface resources. South Simpson #1 South Simpson #1 was drilled in 1977. The purpose of the hole was to test the Sadlerochit Formation where it laps onto the south flank of the Barrow Arch. The well was drilled to 8,795 feet and cased to 7,206 feet. Reports show that poor gas shows were identified in the Nanushuk Group, Kingak Shale and Shublik Formation. Gas flowed at a rate of 75 MCFPD between 6,522 - 6,568 feet within the Kingak Shale (Gyrc, 1988). The gas contained more than 70% nitrogen. The origin of the high nitrogen content is unknown, but appears to be a localized phenomenon (Burruss, 2003). Sandstone tongues (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. 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 c , are in good shape. The -V+ cellar has been backfilled Figure 40: South Simpson #1 had its cellar backfilled with silt, with silt which resulted in consequently burying the casing head. 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. E • USGS Monitored Wells The USGS has used wells drilled in the NPR -A for collecting temperature data to better understand both the global temperature pattern and its effects on the permafrost. The wells that are currently used are properly plugged above the hydrocarbon bearing zones and into the well casing. The wells are filled with diesel fuel down to the shallowest plug at depths ranging from 1,500 - 3,000 feet. For a list of wells see Appendix B. The program began in 1958 and will continue for the foreseeable future. After this project ends, the wells will have the diesel extracted and the well will be properly plugged to surface. Diesel is a non -corrosive agent, and even if the casing should corrode there would be no impact to the surface resources and minimal impact on the sub -surface resources as there are no known fresh water aquifers in NPR -A. The following wells are monitor wells with surficial issues. It is difficult to establish a rank since the wells are sufficiently plugged. The cleanup priority is difficult to determine as the primary threat lies with wells having downhole issues. However, political concerns could influence the timing in which the surface issues are dealt. East Teshekpuk #1 East Teshekpuk #1 was spudded in March 1976. The well was drilled to a depth of 10,664 feet. It is an active USGS monitor well that was properly plugged. The top of the shallowest plug is located at 2,400 feet. From that point to the surface, the hole is filled with diesel fuel. With the well properly plugged and diesel fuel being a non -corrosive agent, there is no downhole issue with the well at this time but there are solid wastes buried on site that may warrant removal. 50 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 sununer 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. Figure 42: Awuna wellhead with exposed wooden pilings and Styrofoam. annual basis Tunalik # 1 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 51 undermine Styrofoam from the drilling pad. Tunalik #1 differs from Awuna #1 in that prevailing wind direction does not force erosion in the direction of the wellhead. Uncased Core Tests There are thirty-nine uncased core test holes. These holes were typically left filled with drilling mud and abandoned without being plugged. Drilling depths ranged between 500 and 1,500 feet depending on the purpose of the test. By nature, core tests were drilled to test soils, permafrost, or lithologic units. They were not drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes and did not encounter hydrocarbons. Many of the cores are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center (Figure 43). The BLM has examined the cores and they are extremely friable. It is likely that these 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. test, are stored in the Alaska Geologic Materials Center. Barrow Gas Wells 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 L� 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 15 were removed. Costs were approximately $25 million dollars due in part, to soil Approximately 30,000 tons of petroleum -contaminated soil was excavated 53 remediation. The soil was transported on an ice road to the Umiat camp where it was thermally treated in a rotary kiln to remove petroleum residues. Small quantities of PCB contaminants were unexpectedly encountered after the excavation was completed. The source of the PCBs has been linked back to the #5 well and the fluids used downhole. The ever -shifting Colville River continues to erode the north bank and is approximately 50 feet from the old wellbores. With the removal of hazardous soils, this site should not be considered a threat to humans or the environment. Umiat #3 Umiat #3, also known as Umiat Core Test #1, was spudded in December 1946 and drilled to test some of the oil bearing zones encountered while drilling Umiat #1. The well was drilled on the northeast corner of Umiat Lake just below the hill from Umiat #4 (Figure 45). Umiat #3 penetrated the Gubik Formation and the Nanushuk Group. The Grandstand Formation within the Nanushuk Group is considered to be the primary source of oil between the depths of 258 and 514 feet. The hole produced 50 barrels per day prior to shutdown. The well was re- tested nine months later with production dropping to 24 barrels per day (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of homemade components with a single water service type valve and is capped with a needle valve. There is no seeping present at this Figure 45: The view from Umiat #4 looking southwest site, however seeps are common in toward Umiat Lake and Umiat. Umiat #3 is located on the area, including an active seep in the near shore of Umiat Lake. Umiat Lake. An extensive piping system is still visible. The pipes probably supplied water during the drilling phase. They connect Umiat #3 to #4 which then follow the hill from Umiat #4 to a side channel of the Colville River. Their function was to either carry water to the drilling sites or assist during the well's production phase. The overall surficial conditions including the wellhead and piping, do not pose a threat to human health nor the environment. BLM plugged the well in May 2004. Umiat #4 After encountering relatively poor oil shows on the first three wells, operations were suspended until 1950. Cable tool drilling rigs were introduced to determine if the fresh water muds had hindered the oil production in the previous wells (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). Cable tool wells did not require the excavation of a cellar; therefore Umiat wells #447 did not have cellars. Umiat #4 is located on top of the hill to the northeast of Umiat #3 (Figures 45, 46). The well was drilled May 1950 to a maximum depth of 840 feet. The hole bored through the Ninuluk, Chandler and Grandstand Formations. Oil was found in the upper and lower 54 sandstone of the Grandstand Formation. Drilling encountered good oil shows around 300 feet with a total 500 barrels produced (Robinson and Bergquist, 1956). The wellhead consists of 11 3/ -inch casing protruding 36 inches above the ground surface. The casing is capped with a steel plate. Upon removal of the cover, the hole was open to the environment. No valves or gauges are present. The well was plugged by the BLM on May 9, 2004. The well poses no risk to humans or the environment. Umiat #8 0 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 9 • 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 650-foot�y"' v 4 above the 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 r 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 APPENDIX B 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 APPENDIX C This is an example from the database maintained by BLM-Alaska. Umiat #9 was chosen due to it's high ranking and completeness of data. The following pages are ordered by surface report, surface diagram, subsurface report, and wellbore schematic. This format was followed on all cased wells and that data is being compiled. Umiat #9 Example SurfaceReport .............................................................................................................. 59 SurfaceDiagram........................................................................................................... 62 SubsurfaceReport......................................................................................................... 63 WellboreSchematic...................................................................................................... 64 58 Well Specifics: Well Head Description (from base to top):: 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top of blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? TOTAL STICK UP: 5 1/2' Casing extends about 3 feet from the ground surface with two plugged side outlets. No valves or gauges are present. There is no oil or gas seeping on site. Summer photo - June 18, 2003 P ? Winephoto sowin mow depth - April 26, 2004 \ \ P ? Winephoto sowin mow depth - April 26, 2004 t Well Head Description (stick up 51/2'): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 2 1/2' of 51/2" casing with collar sticking out of 8 1/2" casing 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple with cement U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Plugging and Abandonment Summary For Umiat Test Well 49 Operator: US Navy Well Name and Well#: Umiat Test Well #9 Spud Date: 6/25/1951 Completion Date: 1/15/1952 Total Depth: 1257' Hole Size: 7 7/8 T.D.M.W.: 11.4 ppg Effective Depth: 1255' Special Mud Additives/Concerns: Oil base mud w/ Aroclor (PCB) added as a chemical tracer for core analysis Status: Shut-in - Last Reported fluid level was crude oil @ 270' in August 1954. Plug and Abandonment Date: Scheduled for March 2005. Surface Equipment/Status: 5 1/2" Wellhead w/ No valves and 2 side bull plugs Casing Hole Size Casing Size Weight Grade Depth Cement Conductor 12 1/4" 8 5/8" 24 #/ft N/A 61' 40 Sacks of Cal -Seal Surface 7 7/8" 5 1/2" 22.5 #/ft N/A 1257' 140 Sacks of Construction Intermediate Intermediate Production Tubing Well Remarks: Produced through openhole pumping tests averaging 217 BOPD 51/2" Casing Perforated at various intervals from 866' to 1255' Plug Remarks: Bottom hole cement is remnants of clean-out following surface casing cement job. Well will be plugged in March 2005. BL` M, ,S Umiat #9 Rig: Failing 1500 Rotary Rip ud: June 25. 1951 Umiat Test Well Meridian Township Range Section Umiat Umiat is 1W 5 1.5 mi Current Wellbore Schemal c GL: 418.0' AMSL KB: 424.0' AMSL Inigok 69` 23.149' N - 152" 10.280'W 49 mi 121 He 77 TD = 1257' PBTD = 1255' Average production = 217 bblld Test time = 6 112 weeks Test method = Open hole Pump Test op Job: of Cal -Seal Construction OC: 0' Age Depths Shot Ninuluk )f Cal -seal 6-155 Chandler (Killik Tongue) Drilling Fluids .p Job: Base D8i►tltS Weight Adttitives >1 Cal -Seat Water 0-289 -- joke ;onsiruetion On 209-375 8 7-11'6 Diael, Fish Cree& Oil. L Unslakilid Lnm E oil $75 SM lbs of Amor Off 37544 18;8.11 1, Micalex Oil 868 - 600 les of Arodot Off 888-1267 18.841A Aquagal, MiMa C: 416' 0sxof tuction w/ )acl, )epth: 33'-861' )epth: 19'-707' Depth: 66'-930' Depth: MI -11010, 11).55' Depth: 27'-1146' Depth: nknown Geology Formation Age Depths Shot Ninuluk Uppe' Cretaceous 6-155 Chandler (Killik Tongue) Lipper Lover Cretaceous 155-425 Grandsland Upper+uowerCretaceous 425-tt190 Oil Topagoruk Lower Cre:areous 1090.1275 Oil Base of Permalros! - 1055 - Item Date Depth Comment A 5'11.1 270 Cnioe Oil in hole (reportel August 1554) B 11'23 52 7 Thermis►or Cable C Ca1C ur^ Ct-,orde 665 Thermostor Cable D 10112`53 870 Thermistot Caisse E i II & 52 1255 Cemenl pkrg i Oil show T, Gasshow 6) Fiuoresence-Cut Crude Oil x X X Cement Plug Oil produced - Gas produced NaCl Swum C't,ir se CaCL Ca1C ur^ Ct-,orde CHI -Seal Gypsum cer-en! Construction Unknown ceme^: ,yp Fish Creek Oil Fish Creek C'r�de 0'1 Oil show T, Gasshow 6) Fiuoresence-Cut • NOTE TO FILE Umiat #9 100-217 �_l Recommendation for Well Status Change It is recommended that the status of this well be changed from plugged and abandoned ("P&,A") to a shut-in completed oil well (1 -oil). Umiat #9 is one of a number of legacy wells drilled in Alaska prior to statehood. This well was drilled in 1951 - 1952 and while the current status is shown to be P&A, no cement has ever been placed in the wellbore to plug the well according to either State of Alaska or Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") regulations. Accordingly the presently carried P&A status is not correct and should be changed to 1 -oil. Thomas E. Maunder, PE Sr. Petroleum Engineer Stephan F. Davies Petroleum Geologist l , ze.0(' SC44OWD JAN 19 2007 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 Umiat: a Worth Slo B giant [KhOd for oil dBvo opi"llont James S. Watt Allen Huckabay Mark R. Landt Renaissance Alaska LLC Houston z Well Name I PTO # UMIAT TEST 01 10020901 _ _ UMIAT TEST 03 n 1002110 _ UMIAT TEST 04 1002120 UMIAT TEST O6� 1002140 (_._� _ UMIAT TEST 07 1002150 UMIAT TEST 09 UMIAT TEST 10 UMIAT TEST 11 1002170 1002180 --��_1002190 _ UMIAT 14 2071780 30 "S�Q11®r�?"I'_ P*A)("�,PA9*11VJ0-r)1 KA NORTH SLOPE area that would substantially reduce the threshold for commerciality. Geologic mapping by the US Navy in 1944 first defined the Umiat anticline with its associated oil seeps. The Navy and the US Geological Survey conducted an extensive mapping and drilling program in this remote part of northern Alaska from 1944 to 1953. In particular, between 1946 and 1952, a total of 11 wells were drilled on the Umiat anticline. Eight wells have an oil column and two wells had long- term tests. Much of this early drilling was ex- perimental utilizing a variety of types of drilling rigs as well as different types of drilling fluids. A deeper test, the Seabee -1, was drilled in 1978 and tested gas from a deeper horizon. The Navy established an air base at Umiat and used the light oil for fuel. So unlike other Arctic pending de- velopments, Umiat has an established footprint including an airstrip, lodging, warehouse storage, etc. Renaissance Alaska LLC, through Renaissance Umiat LLC, controls 19,358 acres over the undeveloped Umiat oil field and a portion of the undeveloped Gubik gas field 12 miles east-northeast. Arctic Falcon 160° 150° 140° Beaufort Sea Prudhoe_" --r� — _ Kuparuk �� .....700m uctures _ _ _ •. National Petroleum i� 002 Area:' Reserve -Alaska Umlat :oral n AArJ be cs�C Arctic National , CANADA Wildlife Refuge 1. Re^ee 1`` 1 Front 1 h d v Alaska y .Q i Bird and Molenaar, 1992 Exploration LLC is a mi- 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 - Subject: Re: Umiat From: Stan_Porhola@ak.blm.gov Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:46:12 -0800 To: Thomas Maunder <tom maunder@admin. state.ak.us> Umiat #8 was plugged with a downhole plug through the tubing across the active reservoir. A surface plug was set in both the annulus and tubing, with the top of the plug at 73' and 0' respectively. Umiat #10 was plugged with a bridge plug and 100' of cement above. Umiat #4 was plugged with a fluid level at 2011, followed by water to 1011, a gel pill to 70' and a surface plug to 111. Tubing and rods were cut and left in the well. Umiat #3 was plugged with a fluid level at 1181, followed by a gel pill to 93' and a surface plug to 66' (after falling 601). Tubing was cut and left in the well. Work scheduled for winter 2005 includes topping off the surface plug for Umiat 43 and setting surface plugs for Umiat #6, 47 and 49. Previous plans to plug Umiat 41 and #11 have been put on hold. �` li .` Work scheduled for summer 2004 includes PCB testing of well fluids for Wolf Creek #3 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 of 1 7/21/2004 3:50 PM A11,A KA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COl► USSION 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 Umiat #6 PTD: 100-214 Umiat #8 PTD: 100-216 Umiat #9 PTD: 100-217 Umiat # 10 PTD: 100-218 Gentlemen: FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, GOVERNOR Sundry: 304-115 Sundry: 304-117 Sundry: 304-116 Sundry: 304-114 333 W. 7 -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§� ,include isolation of fluids to their native formations for en �0' liiA .wick-% &�' W ei`vation 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 any wn Please feel free to contact the Commission staff at any time to discuss o inate this or any future well work. man, STATE OF ALASKA ALA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMM 'SION APPLICATION FOR SUNDRY APPROVAL 20 AAC 25.280 1. Type of Request: Abandon M Suspend U Operational shutdown Lj Perforate Waiver Lj Annular Dispos. Alter casing ❑ Repair well ❑ Plug Perforations ❑ Stimulate ❑ Time Extension ❑ Other ❑ Change approved program ❑ Pull Tubing ❑ Perforate New Pool ❑ Re-enter Suspended Well ❑ 2. Operator Name: 4. Current Well Class: 5. Permit to Drill Number: Bureau of Land Management Development ❑ Exploratory Q Stratigraphic ❑ Service ❑ 1002170 1 3. Address: 6. API Number: 6881 Abbott Loop Road Anchorage, AK 99507 502871000900 7. KB Elevation (ft): 9. Well Name and Number: 424' RKB 418' GL Umiat Test Well #9 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): 1257' 1257' 1255' 1255' N/A N/A Casing Length Size MD TVD Burst Collapse Structural Conductor 58' 8 5/8" 50' 50' 2950 1370 Surface 1256.5' 51/2" 1257' 1257' Intermediate Production Liner Perforation Depth MD (ft):T866'- rforation Depth TVD (ft): Tubing Size: Tubing Grade: Tubing MD (ft): 866'- 1255' 1255' 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 11/1 13. Well Class after proposed work: Detailed Operations Program Q BOP Sketch 0 Exploratory El Development ❑ Service ❑ 14. Estimated Date for 15. Well Status after proposed work: Commencing Operations: 4/10/2004 Oil ❑ Gas ❑ Plugged Qndt�n WAG ❑ GINJ ❑ WINJ ❑ WDSPL ❑ 16. Verbal Approval: Date: Commission Representative: 17. 1 hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Contact Stan Porhola Printed Name Stan Porhola Title Petroleum Engineer Signature _ Phone 907 267 1469 Date ( �) Zoo COMMISSION USE ONLY JAM Conditions of approval: Notify Commission so that a representative may witness Sundry Number: Plug Integrity ❑ BOP Test ❑ Mechanical Integrity Test ❑ Location Clearance ❑ Other: RECEIVED APR — 8 2004 Subsequent F qui Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage BY ORDER OF Approved COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSION Date: 6 Abram Form 10-403 Revised 12/200 v INSTRUCTIt SLin /uplic to U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Well Site Condition Report Date: 10/16/02 10:31 AM10/16/02 Site and Well Name. Location. Condition: Pad Condition: Pit Condition: Site: Umiat Well Name: Umiat Test Well #9 Township and Range, Section and Meridian: T1S, R1W, Sec 5, UM Coordinate System: Geographic Units: Decimal Minutes Latitude: 690 23.149'N Longitude: 152° 10.280'W DATUM: WGS 84 (NAD 83) Quadrangle: Umait B-4 Umiat well #9 is located along the base of a hill which leads up to the ridge that overlooks Umiat. According to the USGS 305-B Study, Umiat #9 was drilled to test the western boundary of the producing area of the Umiat field (pg 156). No existing pad. There is some minor debris (mostly scrap wood around the well head). No existing pit. Cellar Condition: No existing cellar. Well Head Assembly: Casing extends about 3 feet from the ground surface with a single 3" gate valve attached on top of the casing head. No gauges present. Likewise, there was no indication of oil or gas seeping on site. 0 • Well Head Description (stick up 5'): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? Photos taken August 2002. sCANNEUI APR 3 0 2004 Draft: Internal Document ,SCANNF-E) APH 3 0 "" BLM Umiat #9 BOP Diagram Flow nipple with rubber packing. BOP Description 1.) Remove 2 3/4" nipple and plug 2.) Nipple up Diverter spool, divert line, ball valve and rubber packing element Well Head Description (stick up 5'): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? SCS NNEG APR 3 0 2604 Lat: 6T23' 14"N Long: 152' 10'11 "W 8 !Ve, 24# Conductor LEGEND Urniat Test Well 9 Well Schematic Spud: June 25, 1951 Comp: Jan. 15, 1952 RKE3 = 6' All depths RK8 Both Annuli Cemented at Surface with 3 ax Cal—Seal and I ax Cement Ground Level 12 1/4" Hole 1. 3, SR (all presumably open) 7- 7. PBTD = 1.255' L:7 5 112". 22-541. Cemented w/140 sx Construction Cement Treated w/600f CaC12 -35- NO SCALE C CEMENT Mud and/or ❑ Formation Fluids wt. Unkrm" CrAml* Oil and/or Formation Water Lj G03 1. 3, SR (all presumably open) 7- 7. PBTD = 1.255' L:7 5 112". 22-541. Cemented w/140 sx Construction Cement Treated w/600f CaC12 -35- NO SCALE C aLr -4i . _7 _ ;;: � n ,,:, ;_ ,. ter• - - _.,_.=�,i��•s...s�.:�� ,av r PROPOSED ABANDONMENT UMIAT #9 PTD 100-217 Sundry Application 304-116 Umiat #9 was spudded June 25, 1951 and completed January 15, 1952. It is reported to have produced oil from the open hole at an average rate of 217 bpd. Well #9 was drilled to a total depth of 1257'. It was plugged back in stages with the remaining open hole swab tested at successively shallower depths. 8-5/8", 24# conductor casing was set @ 61' and cemented with 40 sx of cement. 4 sax of cement was placed in the conductor annulus. It appears that more than sufficient cement was pumped based on the hole size given on the drawing. There is no information in the AOGCC file as to the conductor hole size. With a plug depth of 555', a small volume of oil was swabbed, however the well could be swabbed dry. The plugs were cleaned out and 5-1/2" 22.5# casing set @ TD. Based on the lift pressure of 600 psi given in the AOGCC well file and the hole size, the estimated TOC of about 500' is reasonable. A top job similar to the conductor job was performed with 4 sx of cement in the 8-5/8" x 5-1/2" annulus. After setting the casing, the well was perforated in multiple intervals as shallow as 866'. Essentially no oil was recovered during any cased hole testing. It is uncertain that any tubing was left in the well. The reports are not clear in this regard. Since there really isn't a wellhead per se installed, it is likely there is no tubing in the well. Oil based mud was used to drill and core the well. The USGS documents in the AOGCC file indicate that Aroclor was used as a tracer. BLM proposes to abandon this well by setting a 100' cement plug at the surface. It is proposed to remove the blind flange and NU a flowline connection, ball valve and flow nipple with a packoff. At the completion of work, the work assembly will be ND and the original blind flange re -installed. There is no plan to cut off the pipe and install an abandonment marker. According to the documentation BLM has provided, there are no plans to do any excavation around most wells and in particular #9 due to confirmed presence of PCBs in the soil around the well. This is not surprising since the well file does indicate that Aroclor was used as a tracer in the oil base mud. If fluid in the well is encountered within 100' of surface, sampling is planned and if PCBs are confirmed then no further activity will occur on well #9. BLM's contractor will have very limited capability to handle any significant waste volume and PCB tainted wastes would be an added complication. Assessment: With the fluid level sufficiently deep, it is probable that BLM will be able to place the surface plug as desired in this well. This plug would be entirely in casing. The surface plug will satisfy AOGCC regulations for that plug. There are open perforations in the well that have not been plugged and will not be plugged employing the procedure that BLM proposes. It is possible that the perforations are "plugged" if ice plugs have formed in the well. The last reported fluids in the well in 1954 were 270' of air and the remainder crude oil. The context of how that information was determined may indicate that a casing failure occurred. The 5-1/2" casing was not cemented to surface. Due to the concern to minimize waste, no attempt will be made to set any deep plugs. The proposed plugging does not satisfy AOGCC regulations with regard to plugging the perforations in a well. Following the work, the "wellhead" will be reinstalled. The "wellhead" will not be removed at this time, due to the desire to minimize waste volumes and the confirmed presence of PCBs in the soil. It is probable that surface remediation work will be done in the future, although an actual time is not certain. If the wellhead is cutoff as required by the regulations, such work should not affect the surface plug. In the BLM documents, a statement is made that since the work is being conducted in the permafrost that protection of fresh water is not necessary. BLM has not provided any documentation to support this assertion. In the plugging effort of 2 years ago, Bob Crandall and Steve Davies examined logs from the Seebee #1. They concluded that sands with salinities > 3000 ppm existed as shallow as 780 in Umiat #2. With permafrost being present, it is unlikely that any USDWs are present. BLM's assertion may valid, however they have not submitted any documentation to substantiate the assertion. Recommendation: At this time there is insufficient information provided to allow approval of BLM's application. Waiver documentation for setting the deep plug to isolate the perforations may exist, however BLM has not provided any such documentation. 1. BLM should be notified that AOGCC cannot approve the planned work for Umiat #9 (100-217). Tom Maunder, PE April 14, 2004 Sr. Petroleum Engineer Sc� �c we v-_ 0� tA ID \ • C 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, 8#11, #4, #3, #6, #7, #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 HzS), 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 b� 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 o Qasst�p\ 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 t e_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 lace a 100' column of cement on op o t e p ug. 8. If the u— evel 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. Tea report is expected to take three days. If PCB content is detected, the well will be left shut-in and not P&A'd becauseit would quire displacing cont—aminated 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 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 flame, diverter and ball valve. —17 Reatt reexisting wellhead components. . 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 C) -W I N 0 of\M I 20 AAC 25.112 WELL PLUGGING REQUIREMENTS. (a) Plugging of the uncased portion of a wellbore must be performed in a manner that ensures that all hydrocarbons and freshwater are confined to their respective indigenous strata and are prevented from migrating into other strata or to the surface. The minimum requirements for plugging the uncased portion of a wellbore are as follows: (1) by the displacement method, a cement plug must be placed (A) from 100 feet below the base to 100 feet above the top of all hydrocarbon -bearing strata; (B) from the well's total depth to 100 feet above the top of all hydrocarbon -bearing strata; (C) from the well's plugged back total depth to 100 feet above the top of all hydrocarbon -bearing strata, if all hydrocarbon -bearing, abnormally geo-pressured, and freshwater strata below are isolated; however, the commission will approve plugging from the top of fill or the top of junk instead of from the plugged back total depth, if the commission determines that the objectives of this subsection will be met; or (D) from 100 feet below the base to 50 feet above the base of each significant hydrocarbon -bearing stratum and from 50 feet below the top to 100 feet above the top of each significant hydrocarbon -bearing stratum; (2) by the displacement method, a cement plug must be placed from 100 feet below the base to 50 feet above the base of each abnormally geo-pressured stratum and from 50 feet below the top to 100 feet above the top of each abnormally geo-pressured stratum; (3) by the displacement method, a cement plug must be placed from 150 feet below the base to 50 feet above the base of the deepest freshwater stratum. (b) Plugging of a well must include effectively segregating uncased and cased t vertical movement of fluid within the wellbore. The portions of the wellbore to preven Pminimum requirement for plugging to segregate uncased and cased portions of a wellbore is one of the following: (1) by the displacement method, a continuous cement plug must be placed C`" from 100 feet below to 100 feet above the casing shoe; (2) by the downsqueeze method using a retainer set no less than 50 feet but no more than 100 feet above the casing shoe, a volume of cement sufficient to fill the wellbore from the retainer to 100 feet below the casing shoe must be pumped through the retainer, and cement must be pumped above the retainer to cap it with a 50 foot cement plug; (3) by the downsqueeze method using a production packer set no less than 50 feet but no more than 500 feet above the casing shoe, a volume of cement sufficient to fill the wellbore from 100 feet below the casing shoe to the packer must be pumped through the packer, and cement must be pumped above the packer to cap it with a 50 foot cement plug. 41�� (c) Plugging of cased portions of a wellbore must be performed in a manner that ensures that all hydrocarbons and freshwater are confined to their respective indigenous strata and are prevented from migrating into other strata or to the surface. The minimum requirements for plugging cased portions of a wellbore are as follows: (1) perforated intervals must be plugged by one of the following methods: (A) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from 100 feet below the base to 50 feet above the base of the perforated interval and from NV 50 feet below the top to 100 feet above the top of the perforated interval; (B) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from the well's total depth to 100 feet above the top of the perforated interval; (C) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from the well's plugged -back total depth to 100 feet above the top of the perforated interval, if all hydrocarbon -bearing, abnormally geo-pressured, and freshwater strata below are isolated; however, the commission will approve plugging from the top of fill or the top of junk instead of from the plugged - back total depth, if the commission determines that the objectives of this subsection will be met; (D) by the downsqueeze method using a cement retainer or production packer set no less than 50 feet but no more than 500 feet above the perforated interval, a volume of cement pumped through the retainer or packer sufficient to fill the wellbore from 100 feet below the base of the perforated interval to the retainer or packer; (E) if the perforations are isolated from open hole below, a mechanical bridge plug set no more than 50 feet above the top of the perforated interval, and either a minimum of 75 feet of cement placed on top of the plug by the displacement method or a minimum of 25 feet of cement placed on top of the plug with a dump bailer; (2) casing stubs within outer casing must be plugged by one of the following methods: (A) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from 100 feet below the stub to 100 feet above the stub; (B) by the downsqueeze method using a retainer set 50 feet above the stub, a volume of cement pumped below the retainer sufficient to fill the casing stub with 150 feet of cement, and cement pumped above the retainer to cap it with a 50 foot cement plug; (C) if the casing stub annulus is cemented, a mechanical bridge plug set no more than 25 feet above the casing stub, and either a minimum of 75 feet of cement placed on top of the plug by the displacement method or a minimum of 25 feet of cement placed on top of the plug with a dump bailer; (3) if freshwater is present, the smallest diameter casing string extending to the surface must be plugged by one of the following methods: • 42 (A) by the displacement method, a cement plug placed from 100 feet below the depth of the surface casing shoe to 100 feet above the depth of the shoe; (B) a mechanical bridge plug set 100 feet below the depth of the surface casing shoe and at least 200 feet of cement placed on top of the plug. (d) Plugging of the surface of a well must meet the following requirements: (1) by the displacement method, a cement plug at least 150 feet in length, E with the top of the cement no more than five feet below original ground level onshore, or between 10 and 30 feet below the mudline datum offshore, must be placed within the smallest diameter casing string; (2) either (A) all annular space open at the surface onshore, or in communication with open hole and extending to the mudline datum offshore, must be plugged with cement to seal the annular space in a manner satisfactory to the commission; or (B) all casing interior to the surface casing must be recovered to a depth of 100 feet or more below the original ground level onshore or the mudline datum offshore and the casing stubs plugged with cement as provided in (c)(2)(A) of this section; if the cement plug is extended to within the distance from the surface specified in (1) of this subsection, the requirement of (1) of this subsection need not be met. (e) Cement used for plugging within zones of permafrost must be designed to set before freezing and have a low heat of hydration. (f) Each of the respective intervals of a wellbore between the various plugs must be filled with fluid of sufficient density to exert a hydrostatic pressure exceeding the greatest formation pressure of permeable formations in the intervals between the plugs at the time of abandonment. (g) Except for surface plugs, the operator shall record the actual location and integrity of cement plugs, cement retainers, or bridge plugs required by this section, using one of the following methods, which in the case of a cement retainer or bridge plug may be performed before cement is placed on top of the plug: (1) placing sufficient weight on the plug to confirm its location and to confirm that the plug has set and a competent plug is in place; (2) testing the plug to hold a surface pressure of 1,500 psig or 0.25 psi/ft multiplied by the true vertical depth of the casing shoe, whichever is greater, and tagging the plug to confirm location; however, surface pressure may not subject the casing to a hoop stress that will exceed 70 percent of the minimum yield strength of the casing. (h) At least 24 hours notice of plugging operations must be given to the commission so that a representative of the commission can witness the operations. • (i) The commission will, in its discretion, approve a variance from the requirements of this section if the variance provides for at least equally effective plugging of the well and prevention of fluid movement into sources of hydrocarbons or freshwater. History: Eff. 11/7/99, Register 152 Authority: AS 31.05.030 20 AAC 25.115 SHUT-IN WELLS. (a) No later than March 31 of each year, an operator shall file with the commission a report on completed development or service wells that have been shut in for 365 days or longer as of January 1 of that year. The report must provide (1) the current known mechanical condition of the well, including the condition of installed tubing and casing strings; (2) the date the well was shut in and the circumstances surrounding the decision to shut in the well; and (3) an analysis of the future utility of the well. (b) The commission will require an operator of a shut-in well to file additional information as the commission considers necessary to ensure that freshwater and hydrocarbon sources are protected. History: Eff. 11/7/99, Register 152 Authority: AS 31.05.030 20 AAC 25.120 WELL ABANDONMENT MARKER. (a) The exact surface location of an abandoned well must be shown by a steel well abandonment marker. The marker must be a marker plate meeting the requirements of (b) of this section. However, upon the request of the surface owner, and if the commission determines that a marker post does not create a hazard or obstacle, the commission will approve a marker post meeting the requirements of (c) of this section. (b) A marker plate must be (1) at least 1/4 inch thick; (2) at least 18 inches square or in diameter; and (3) welded to and must cover the outermost casing string. (c) A marker post must (1) be at least four inches in diameter and at least 10 feet long; (2) be set in cement inside well casing or firmly welded with supporting fillets to the top of a steel plate secured to the casinghead or casing stub; (3) extend from four to six feet above final ground level; and (4) be closed at the top with a screw cap, welded plate, or cement plug. 44 c 1 • • • (d) The following information must be bead -welded directly to the marker: (1) the name of the operator; (2) the number that the commission has, under 20 AAC 25.040 (b), assigned to the Permit to Drill for the well; (3) the name designated for the well by the operator under 20 AAC 25.005(f); (4) the API number for the well, with any suffix appended to the number under 20 AAC 25.005 (f). (e) The commission will, in its discretion, inspect the marker to verify proper installation and well information at the time of the location clearance required under 20 AAC 25.170. (f) This section does not apply to abandoned wells drilled offshore. History: Eff. 4/13/80, Register 74; am 4/2/86, Register 97; am 11/7/99, Register 152 Authority: AS 31.05.030 20 AAC 25.140 WATER WELLS. If a well drilled onshore for oil or gas is to be abandoned, but is safe for use as a freshwater well, a person who wishes to use the well as a freshwater well must obtain written authorization to do so from the landowner and the owner of the surface rights. The authorization must provide for the authorized person's assumption of full responsibility for the final plugging of the water well. This authorization must be filed with the commission and is subject to commission approval, based upon the commission's determination that the proposed use as a freshwater well is bona fide. After the commission's approval of the plugging of the well to protect the freshwater bearing strata to a depth approved by the commission for conversion to a water well, and after the commission's approval of the location clearance for compliance with 20 AAC 25.170 (a)(2) or (b) or 20 AAC 25.172 (c)(2) or (d), the operator is relieved of further obligation under the operator's bond. History: Eff. 4/13/80, Register 74; am 4/2/86, Register 97; am 11/7/99, Register 152 Authority: AS 31.05.030 20 AAC 25.170 ONSHORE LOCATION CLEARANCE. (a) At or after the time that a well drilled onshore is abandoned and before the earlier of one year after well abandonment or the expiration of the owner's rights in the property, 45 P (1) the operator shall remove the wellhead equipment and casing to a depth at least three feet below original ground level and install a well abandonment marker in accordance with 20 AAC 25.120; and (2) unless the operator demonstrates to the commission that the surface owner has authorized a different disposition to facilitate a genuine beneficial use, the operator shall (A) remove all materials, supplies, structures, and installations from the location; (B) remove all loose debris from the location; (C) fill and grade all pits or close them in another manner approved by the commission as adequate to protect public health and safety; and (D) leave the location in a clean and graded condition. (b) If a well described in (a) of this section is located on state or federal land, and if the agency acting on behalf of the state or fex�l .government as lessor approves a disposition different from that require un�r (a)(2) of this section, the commission will accept that disposition instead of requiring the operator to comply with (a)(2) of this section. i .�, c�i , h 6, i (c) The commission will modify the time period set out in (a) of this section as follows: (1) if the Department of Natural Resources, as to a state lease, or the United States Department of the Interior, as to a federal lease approves a time period beyond one year after well abandonment for location clearance, the commission will set an identical time period for compliance with (a) of this section; (2) the commission will grant an extension of time beyond one year after well abandonment, if the commission determines that the extension does not threaten public health or safety or the surface owner's interests, and that the operator does not seek an extension for purposes of delay; to seek an extension under this paragraph, the operator must submit an Application for Sundry Approvals (Form 10-403) stating (A) a request for a specific extension not to exceed one year; (B) the reason an extension is necessary; (C) a description of location clearance progress; and (D) the expiration date of the owner's rights to enter the location. (d) After the work required under (a) of this section has been completed at a location, the commission will, in its discretion, conduct an on-site inspection to verify the location condition at the time of inspection, including the presence of a proper well marker if above ground, as required under 20 AAC 25.120, and will provide the operator a report of the inspection. History: Eff. 4/13/80, Register 74; am 4/2/86, Register 97; am 11/7/99, Register 152 Authority: AS 31.05.030 46 = OF py 0 0 j 'gyp United States Department of the Interior 4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT eq -�pp9 Campbell Tract Facility TAKE PRIDE' " 3 6881 Abbott Loop Road I NAM E R I CA Anchorage, Alaska 99507-2599 http://www.ak.bim.gov Umiat Plug & Abandonment (941) stp April 7, 2004 Tom Maunder Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W. 7`h 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. cc Sincerely C-0 v -.r\ '0A Q�l �k U�t Stan Porhola �..� •- r � , BLM — AK941 Petroleum Engineer 907-267-1469 a 1 QY3 --a- k C �00�`� _a t5 APR - g 20D4 V Alaska 0" & Gas Cons. Commi Anchors ge ssion �13 1� BLM Lat: 6.9'23114"N Umiat Test Well 9 Spud: June 25, 1951 Long: 152'10'11 "W 'Neil Schematic Comp: Jan. 15, 1952 RKB = 6' All depths RKB 8 V8", 24# Conductor Both Annuli Cemented at Surface with 3 sx Cal—Seal and 1 sx Cement �.: Y Ground Leval 12 1,14' Hole -35- Well 3 Well Description (from base to top): 7" casing (with 1' stick up) leading to flanged casing head with side plugged outlets 1 side has 2" bull plug other side has nipple, 90, and plug flange, 8 x 1 " studs top flange 4 1/2" welded connection with threads 3" from welded connection to 2 3/4 flaired, welded pipe 3" collar, nippled to 2 3/4, collar swedge 2 3/4 to 2" w/t w/2" plug reduced to 3/4" water valve TOTAL STICK UP: 6' Well 5 Well P&A in winter 2002. [We'll Open hole. There is no oil or gas seeping around this wellhead. Plumb bob solid at 8 feet. Well Head Description (3' stick up) 7" casing w/collar clamped in 11 3/4" casing, inside 12 1/4"? filled with water Well 9 Casing extends 3' from ground. A 3" gate valve attached on top of the casing head. No gauges. Likewise, there was no indication of oil or gas seeping on site. Well Head Description (stick up 5'): 3' of 8 1/2" casing 5 1/2" casing with collar sticking 2 1/2' out of 8 1/2' 2 side outlets (both plugged) top blind flange (8 x 5/8" studs) 2 3/4" welded collar and nipple, cemented? Well 11 Open hole. No evidence of oil or gas was noted seeping at this location. Well Head Description (5 1/2' stick up) 10 1/2" casing with collar sticking up inside 30" conductor filled with water (Well Umiat #9 PCB's n z z M v IF 114 Both annuli cmt'd at surface with 3 sx Cal -Seal and 1 sx cement. 61' 8 5/8" Casing 24# Top Sand from surface to 100'. Top of Cement estimated at 500' Upper sands bailed dry (no inflow). (140 sx Construction Cmt w/ 600 lbs. CaCI) Grandstand Sands 425' - 1100'. 7 Week Pumping Test: Averaged 200 BOPD. Perforations 866' - 1255' After casing well and perf'g, the well test had no inflow. 1257' 5 1/2" Casing 22.5# (PBTD 1255') • r� Cement Yield 1.56 cf/sx for the smaller 65 lbsJsx 6.375 8.625 5.5 8.625 2 IN 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 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 31 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 375 1797 297 1283 Open pipe Wet well North of fault Cmt Plug 440' Tagged 337' in 195 Totals 10.75 486 9.625 3303 0.5195- 0.5053 52 34 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 195 Weatherford Inflatible Packers Wet well below OWC Perfs 2 Production Casing ID 11 P&A Csg Depth, Ft 685 Set a 100' Open -hole ID 10.625 cmt plug Hole Depth, Ft 6,005 on 17' gel Casing Capicity, cf/ft 0.6599 pill Open -hole Capacity, cf/ft 0.6157 Also, 24 1257 1339 sx in 100' Surface Plug, cu. ft. 66 annulus gallons 494 Csg to TD Weight of 100' cement, lbs. 5,282 572 PSI on packer 56 1384 Inflatible Packer Size, inches 7.25 1573 Inflatable working psi from chart 230 0.6599 Wet well below OWC Rods in Well 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 6.3 11 P&A 7.921 5.921 8.625 4.67 7.921 9.76 72 33 35 1196 1231 1257 1339 486 6 10.75 8.625 6 10.75 Csg to TD 7.75 9.625 572 840 758 1384 1327 1573 3303 0.221 0.6599 0.3192 0.1912 0.3422 0.12 0.3422 0.5195 0.1963 0.6303 0.4057 0.1963 0.6303 0.3276 0.5053 21 64 38 19 34 12 34 52 156 478 284 143 256 90 256 389 1,670 5,116 3,039 1,530 2,739 960 2,739 4,158 59 56 52 56 56 56 56 5.63 7.25 5.63 3.50 NA 3.50 5.63 7.25 500 250 200 210 400 280 320 Rods in Well 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 Open pipe Wet well North of fault Cmt Plug 440' Tagged 337' in 1954 Artic Set 3 Lite Recipe Artic Set 3 Lite cement +9% D44 (NaCl) + 30%D53 (gypsum) + 50% D124 (spheres) + 1.5% S1 (CaC12) + 1.5% D79 (ext.) + 0.4% D46 (defoam) Slurry Weight 10.7 ppg Slurry Yield 4.44 cf/sx Stan confirmed this with Telecon to Schlumberger Thickening Time 6+ hours 1/9/2004 (Mike Martin) ph 273-1700 2656205 229-6266 The lower density of this cement is favorable to place the cmt plug on top of a gel pill. Cost is approximately $280 per 188 lb sack Based on telecon with M. Martin 3-11• From cement calculations spreadsheet 500 cf Conventional 112.6 sx 188 lbs/sx 21,171 lbs Special packaging 325.7 sx 65 lbs/sx Slurry volume 4.44 cf/sx Smaller sacks will yield 1.56 cf/sx Cost if require 500! rt �'4$,4Q4 -04 Water 20.7 gals/sx 7.25 gals/sx • • Re: [Fwd: Umiat update] Thanks for the update Tom. As a general matter, do we print copies of emails like this for each well file? I think we should so that in the future, when someone looks in the file on one of these wells they will have the benefit of this info in the file. John Thomas Maunder wrote: For everyone's information. ------- Original Message-------- Subject:Umiat update Date:Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:24:33 -0800 From:Stan Porhola(cpak.blm.gov To:tom maunder(aadmin.state. ak.us, Lydia Miner(a,dec.state. ak.us, william morris(a dnr.state.ak.us, jean harrisonpdot. state. ak.us, Craig Perharn@,fws.gov, klaughli(aJpo.doi.gov, cutler.thorpepa.gov I've returned from Umiat where the weather has been warm and sunny most of the time. As of Thursday, April 29 we should have started the placement of our downhole plug on Umiat #8. We have Mike Kunz from our Fairbanks office onsite keeping an eye out on our trails, worksite and snow conditions. Tim Lawlor is our petroleum inspector making sure that operations at the wellsite are being performed properly and safely. Steve Martinez, project engineer, is also in Umiat over -seeing the operations. Our contractor for this project is Olgoonik Environmental Services (OES) and their project manager has also been present making sure that operations run smoothly. After completing the downhole and surface plugs on Umiat #8, we will move to Umiat #10. The next well would then be Umiat #9. After #9, weather conditions will be the deciding factor as to whether or not we will move onto other wells. Additional permits for the remaining Umiat wells are still needed by AOGCC and will be submitted shortly. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 907-267-1469 office or 907-244-5432 cell. Stan Porhola BLM - Alaska Petroleum Engineer 267-1469 1 of 2 5/6/2004 2:09 PM 156 EXPLORATION Or NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NO. 4, ALASKA, 1944-53 UMIAT TEST WELL 9 D(::�- 9"7 Location: Lat 69°23'14" W., long 152°10'11" W. Elevation: Ground level 418 feet; kelly bushing, 424 feet. Spudded: June 25, 1951. Completed: January 15, 1952; pumped an average 217 barrels oil per day before plugging back. Abandoned. Total depth: 1,257 feet. The purpose of drilling Umiat test well 9 was to determine the western extent of the producing area of Umiat field, to determine the feasibility of using oil -base drilling mud with rotary drilling in the Umiat area, to test the productive capacity of individual sandstone beds found, and to obtain complete, un- contaminated cores from them to determine charac- teristics affecting the oil reserves of the field. The well averaged 217 barrels of oil per day on a lengthy pump- ing test, extending the field and proving the advantage of using oil -base mud in drilling. It was impossible, however; to test each sandstone separately, as the mud evidently prevented oil from flowing immediately after the rocks were drilled; so swabbing tests were unsuccessful. When the total depth of the well was reached, oil began entering the hole, and plugging back by stages with cement did not serve to define the producing horizons closely, although some oil was shown to be coming from fractured shale between the sandstone beds. When the cement was drilled out and casing set and perforated opposite permeable sandstones, no oil entered the hole; either permeability was ad- versely affected by the casing cement or the perforations were not adequate. Except for Umiat test well 1, this hole, about 2 miles west of Umiat test well 2, is the westermost one on the anticline. It is just north of the Colville River flats on a small stream that has cut a notch in the southern slope of the long east -west ridge bordering the wide river valley. DESCRIPTION OR CORES AND CUTTINGS The drilling first penetrated 150 (?) feet of sandstone of the Ninuluk formation. If the upper 50 feet, repre- sented by a single sample, is properly described, then the sandstone unit is 50 feet thicker than it is elsewhere in the field and may be duplicated by a reverse fault at 50 feet. On the other hand, if the upper 50 feet is incorrectly represented as a result of poor sampling and was partly clay shale or other rock, then the upper part of the well was drilled through a normal sequence and penetrated about 50 feet of the Seabee formation. Below 155 feet the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation is present as clay shale with some interbedded sandstone to a depth of 425 feet; clay ironstone and coal, present in other wells, were rare in samples from this well. Most of the Grandstand formation (425-1,090 feet), and the upper part of the Topagoruk formation (1,090 feet to the total depth) were cored; they consist of medium -light -gray sandstone and medium -dark - gray clay shale typical of these two formations. The upper sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation is 60 feet thick; the lower sandstone beds total 180 feet and are divided into 3 units by 35 feet of clay shale and 25 feet of siltstone and clay shale. Litho*ic description [Where no cores are listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core Depth (feet) Remarks ----- 0-6 Kelly bushing to ground level. ----- 6-60 One sample, containing sandstone as below. Top of the Ninuluk formation is at 6 feet (?). ----- 60-80 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine- grained, very silty and argillaceous, micaeous, noncalcareous; composed of subangular grains of clear and white quartz with some brownish quartz and dark rock fragments. ----- 80-90 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 90-100 Sandstone with some siltstone and clay shale. ----- 100-140 Sandstone, medium - light - gray, fine - grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcar- eous, with rare bentonite in upper 5 ft. ----- 140-170 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. Top of the Killik tongue of the Chandler formation is at 155 ft. 170-190 Clay shale, with a small amount of sandstone. ----- 190-200 Clay shale with some very argillaceous siltstone, and very small amount of sandstone. ----- 200-210 Clay shale, slightly to very silty. ----- 210-230 No sample. ----- 230-270 Clay shale, slightly silty, with very small amount of bentonite at 260 ft. ----- 270-280 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine- grained, very silty and argillaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 280-290 Siltstone, medium -gray, very sandy, ar- gillaceous, micaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 290-300 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, with some siltstone. ----- 300-310 Clay shale as above, with rare bentonite. ----- 310-320 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine- grained, very silty and argillaceous; slightly calcareous in part. ----- 320-330 Clay shale, with some siltstone and very small amount sandstone. 330-340 No sample. ----- __-__ 340-350 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, very fine- grained, very silty and argillaceous, noncalcareous. ----- 350-360 Clay shale. ----- 360-370 Clay shale and siltstone. ----- 370-380 Clay shale. __ ----- 380-385 No sample. 1 385-394 Recovered 9 ft 1 in.: Microfossils absent. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, noncal- careous, uniform, with subconchoidal fracture. A 14n. bed of brownish - gray noncalcareous clay ironstone 4 ft below top of core; 6% ft below top is 4 -in. bed of grayish -white bentonite with abundant euhedral biotite crystals, increasing from very fine -sand size in upper part to fine - sand size at base. Beds dip V-30. OT WELLS, UMIAT AREA, -ALASKA. l ithologic description—Continued Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks 2 394-403 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. Claystone as above. - 3 403-413 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. 4 ft, Claystone as above. 2 ft 9 in., sandstone, light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, seri- citic; slightly calcareous in part; ir- regular fracture; scattered patches and faint partings of medium -dark - gray micaceous clay; intergrades with sandy siltstone in lower part 10 474-484 and to underlying Claystone at base. 3 it 3 in., Claystone, medium -dark - gray, very silty, noncalcareous, ir- regular fracture, with patches and thin irregular lenses of sandy silt - stone which are abundant in upper part but rare in lower part. Patches Note of carbonaceous material common in upper part. Beds dip 1'-3°. 4 413-423 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils, absent. 7 ft 6 in., Claystone, medium -dark - gray, very slightly silty and mica- 11" 484-494 ceous, noncalcareous: fracture ir- regular to- conchoidal; contains small 12 494-499 fragments and flakes of carbonized plants in upper 1 ft. 13 499-500 2 ft 6 in., sandstone, medium -light - gray, very fine-grained, very silty 14' 500-502 and argillaceous, sericitic, noncal- careous, massive, with scattered 15 502-512 small patches of carbonaceous ma- terial in upper inch. Grades to 16 512-514 fine-grained, very sericitic, and mi- caceous rock at base. Beds dip 1° 3'. 5 423-433 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils rare. 2 ft, sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and ar- gillaceous, very sericitic; very slightly calcareous in part; abundant irregu- lar patches of medium -gray siltstone and medium -dark -gray clay shale dipping 2°-8°. Grades to unit be- low. 8 ft, Claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty and . sericitic at top, noncal- careous; grades to slightly micaceous and silty at base; irregular to con- choidal fracture. Top of Grandstand formation at 425 ft. 6 433-443 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils very abun- dant. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, noncal- careous; conchoidal fracture; a few imperfect specimens of Corbula sp. at 435 ft. 7 443-454 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils abundant. 18 525-533 Claystone as above; silty in part; plant fragments at 445 ft. Very small slickensides at 451 ft, and 7 -in. unit of light -brownish -gray slightly cal- careous clay ironstone at 452 ft; bottom 2 in. of core silty, micaceous, and carbonaceous. 8 454-464 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils very rare. Claystone as above, with small slicken- sides. 9 464-474 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. 2 ft 4 in., interbedded medium -dark - gray clay shale and medium -light - gray very fine-grained sandstone; beds are Y-1 in. thick with irregular, sharp contacts and are approximately half shale and half sandstone. Lithologic description—Continued 157 Core Depth (feet) Remarks 7 ft 8 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, also fine- to medium - grained, slightly to very silty and argillaceous, noncalcareous, massive; irregular fracture; contains rare seat- tered streaks of coaly material. Sand composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some coaly par- ticles and dark rock fragments. Dip approximately 3°. 10 474-484 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above, but very fine- to fine-grained; grades to very fine grained; micaceous; carbonaceous streaks lacking. A 1 -in. unit 7 ft below top of core has abundant car- bonaceous partings. Note Amount of rock recovered for cores 11 through 16 does not agree with footage cored, because the lower part of the core, remained as a stub in the hole, and was covered with the next core. 11" 484-494 Recovered 3 ft: Microfossils absent. Sandstone.as above. 12 494-499 Recovered 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 13 499-500 Recovered 8.in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 14' 500-502 Recovered 10 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 15 502-512 Recovered 1 ft 7 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 16 512-514 Recovered 10 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone.as above, slightly calcareous in lower half. 17•.- 514-525 Recovered 9 M6 in.: Microfossils rare. Sandstone as above, but noncalcareous. A , 6-1n. , unit of light -brownish -gray calcareous clay ironstone with con- choidal fracture 1'/2 ft below top of core; it is interbedded with very silty light -olive -gray to medium -gray elaystone; beds '/4-% in. thick and lenticular, with sharp or gradational contacts. Near top of uppermost clay ironstone bed is horizon of abundant stellate, yellowish -white multirayed calcareous finely granular (finely crystalline?) masses Ye -Ys in. diameter. Slickensides present at base of clay ironstone. Basal 2 ft of sandstone contains a few %- to. 14n. beds of medium -dark -gray slightly to very silty noncalcareous clay shale, with common silt laminae dipping about 30. Slickensides present in some clay shale beds. 18 525-533 Recovered 8 ft 7 in.: Microfossils abun- dant. 1 ft 7 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, sericitic, nonealcareous, with &bun - dant faint carbonaceous partings commonly marked by carbonized plant fragments. Rock breaks along partings, which dip 4°. Thin irreg- ular beds and laminae of medium - dark -gray clay shale in lower part, increasing from rare to abundant with depth. Grades into unit below. 7 ft, Claystone, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous, with irregular fracture. Lower part of core contains irregular beds and minute lenses of very fine-grained 158 Core 19 20 21 EXPLORA# OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NOWASBA, 1944-53 I ithologic description—Continued 533-543 543-553 553-563 22 563-573 23 573-583 24 583-593 Remarks medium -light -gray sandstone and medium -gray siltstone %a-1 in. thick that dip about 51. Recovered 9 ft: Microfossils absent. 4ft`2 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty, noncalcareous, micaceous, pyritic, with scattered carbonized plant fragments throughout; irregu- lar fracture. 4 ft 10 in., sandstone, medium -light - gray, very fine-grained, very silty and argillaceous, micaceous, noncal- careous, with slickensides in upper 6 in: Patches and partings of carbo- naceous material and medium -dark - gray clay common in upper part, rare in lower part. Laminae and thin beds of claystone common in basal 1 ft; dip 1°-4° Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, slightly f to very silty, noncalcareous; subcon- ehoidal fracture with faint partings; irregular lenticular beds (less than half an inch thick) of medium -gray siltstone and very fine-grained sand- stone, totaling 10-50 percent of the rock, and dipping 2°-5°. Carbona- ceous partings also present. Sand- stone absent in lower part of core, and siltstone present in faint even very argillaceous laminae and part- ings that dip 3°. Recovered 9 ft 7 in.: Microfossils abun- dant. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; slightly silty in part, noncalcareous; scattered carbonized plant fragments. Faint silty laminae rare; poor shaly cleav- age suggests 2°-3° dip. Bottom 2 in. of carbonaceous very micaceous silty clay shale. A 144n. bed of medium -light -gray fine- to very fine- grained sandstone 3 ft below top of core. Pelecypod shell fragments present at top of core, and specimen of Arctical sp. at 562 ft. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. Clay shale as in core 21, with pelecypod shell (Modiolus sp.) at 566 ft. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils very rare. 5 ft -6 in., clay shale as in core 21. 4 ft 6 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcareous, massive. Carbona- ceous patches rare throughout. Two 34n. units 1 and 1% ft below top con- tain abundant irregular streaks and patches of clay shale and rare slick- ensides. Beds approximately flat lying, Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils very rare. 8 ft, sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and ar- gillaceous, micaceous, slightly to moderately calcareous, with faint laminae and thin beds of sandy silt - stone and micaceous carbonaceous partings that dip 3°-50. With depth sandstone becomes very silty, me- dium gray, and very calcareous. Grades into unit below. 2 ft, claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty, micaceous, calcareous, uniform, with conchoidal fracture. Lithologic description—Continued Core Depth (feet) Remarks 25 593-603 Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils absent. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, slightly cal- careous, uniform, with conchoidal fracture. 26 603-611 Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils rare. Clay shale, similar to claystone in core 25, but with silty micaceous partings that give the rock poor shaly cleav- age dipping 2°-3°. ----- 611-640 Clav shale, medium -dark -gray; very slightly silty in part; very slightly calcareous. ----- 640-649 Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, sandy, calcareous. 27 649-659 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils abundant. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray; very slightly silty in part; noncalcareous; rare silty laminae are slightly cal- careous; dip 2°-3°. 28 659-669 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. 29 669-678 Clay shale as above- dip 1°-3°. Recovered 7 ft 6 in.: 4icrofossils abundant. 5 ft, claystone, medium -dark -gray, non - calcareous, grades from very slightly silty at top to very silty at base; conchoidal fracture. 2 ft 6 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, very silty and ar- Xfine-grained, gillaceous, alightly calcareous, with laminae and thin beds medium -gray slightly calcareous siltstone and me- dium -dark -gray clay shale that are commonly crossbedded or wavy; dip 3°-12°. Recovered 4 ft 2 in.: not sampled for mi - 30 678-687 crofossils. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, micaceous, noncalcare- ous; irregular fracture, with streaks and irregular lenses of medium -gray very argillaceous siltstone. 31 687-697 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils rare. 5 ft, claystone as above but very silty; grades into unit below. 5 ft, sandstone, medium- to medium - light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and argillaceous, micaceous, non - calcareous, with rare to common thin beds, streaks, and irregular patches of medium -gray siltstone and patches of claystone in upper 4 ft. Basal foot uniform, massive. Sandstone composed of subangular grains of clear and white quartz, with some dark rock fragments, carbonaceous particles, and abundant sericite. Pelecypod, Protocardia sp., was iden- tified from 696 ft. 32 697-707 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils very rare. 10 in., sandstone, as at base of core 31. - 1 ft 3 in., sandstone as above but with small irregular patches and streaks of siltstone and clsyy shale Y4-1 in. long less in. and than ?/s wide, dipping 2°-12. 1 ft 4 in., sandstone as at top of core but slightly calcareous. 2 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, very slightly silty, with conchoidal fracture. 3 ft, siltstone, medium -gray, very argil- laceous; very sandy in part; streaks of yellowish -gray slightly calcareous silty clay ironstone; grades to silty claystone at base. Core 33 34 *EST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA Lithologic description—Continued 707-71( 710-72( 720-809 809-819 819-829: 37 848-858 38 858-868 Remarks 3 ft 5 in., sandstone as at top of core but slightly silty. A few faint argilla- ceous laminae rare to common; they are crossbedded in part and dip 10-56. No sample. Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, sandy. Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, noncalcareous. Recovered 10 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. 2 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty, irregular fracture. 9 ft. • 10 in., sandstone, medium -light - gray, very fine-grained, silty, argil- laceous, noncalcareous, massive. Laminae, -streaks and patches of medium -gray Siltstone and medium - dark -gray claystone scattered throughout. Abundant minute (about one -sixteenth of an inch thick, and less than one-fourth of an inch long) lenses of yellowish -gray clay ironstone color the sandstone yellow- ish between 815 and 818 ft. Beds dip about 11 Recovered: 8 ft 10 in.: Microfossils common.. Sandstone,. as above, with abundant small irregular patches and faint, even laminae of siltstone and clay shale; laminae dip 60. Streaks of brownish -gray clay ironstone rare to common in bottom 4 ft. Recovered 6 ft 8 in.: Microfossils abun- dant. 3 - ft 8 • in., sandstone as above, with patches of claystone becoming abun- dant with depth and grading into - 3 a ft, claystone, medium -dark -gray, lightly silty, noncalcareous; poor conchoidal fracture; 4 -in. bed of Silt - stone at base. Recovered 8 ft 10 in.: Microfossils abun- dant. 5 ft 10 in., clay shale, like claystone above but with poor shaly cleavage dipping less than 31. Several speci- mens of CorWa sp. at 843 ft. 1 ft 2 in., siltstone, medium -gray, argil laceous, noncalcareous, massive. 1 ft 10_ in., claystone, medium -dark - gray, slightly to very silty, noncal- careous, irregular to conchoidal frac- ture, with rare thin beds of siltstone in central part; specimens of Corbula sp. at base. Recovered- 10 ft: Microfossils abundant. 9 ft 3 in., clay shale as at top of core 36; dip about 31; very silty at base; grades into unit below. 9 in., siltstone, medium -gray, argilla- ceous, noncalcareous, with abundant irregular .patches and streaks of medium -dark -gray claystone. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. 1 ft 6 in., siltstone, medium -gray, very argillaceous, noncalcareous; massive, with abundant irregular patches of clay shale; grades into unit below. 3 ft 6 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray very silty, slightly carbonaceous and' carbonaceous and pyritic, massive; irregular fracture. Claystone con - coaly plant fragments in lower 1 ft. Core 39 40• 41 42 43 44 45, 46 47 48 0 159 Litholegic description Continued . Remarks 4 ft, intermingled irregular laminae, lenses; streaks, and patches of me- dium -light -gray, very fine-grained sandstone, medium -gray siltstone, and medium -dark -gray clay shale, in about equal quantities. 1 ft, sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine-grained, silty, noncalcareous, massive, with rare carbonized plant fragments. 868-878 Recovered 9 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine- to medium -grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcareous, massive, uniform; composed of subangular to sub - rounded clear and white quartz with some gray and dark rock fragments. Olive -gray color caused by faint oil stain 878-888, Recovered 6 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone as above but medium light 888-898 gray. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent..:.. Sandstone as in core 40; grades to fine- grained, with faint silt laminae and 898-901 partings that dip 40-90. Recovered 2 ft 6 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone, medium-light-grayfine-,:to very. fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, noncalcareous, massive, with very rase 34 -in. beds of medium -dark -gray claystone. Composition similar to that of core 39. 'for 901-911 Recovered 8 ft 6 in.: Not sampled microfessils. Sandstone as above, very uniform, lacks clay shale. beds. 911-919 Recovered 8 ft.: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous, massive, with faint lami- nae containing abundant carbona- 919-929 ceous particles in lower half. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent... 5 ft, sandstone as in core 43; slightly calcareous in lower part. 5 ft, ailtstone, medium -gray, slightly to - very sandy, with rare faint slightly carbonaceous, argillaceous, and mica- 929-939 ceous laminae; dips 4°. Recovered 8 ft 7 in.: Microfossils common. Siltstone as at base of core 45. Beds of medium -dark -gray claystone 2 An. thick rare in lower part; slickensides 939-949 near base of core. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty, with patches and streaks of ar- gillaceous medium -gray siltstone and an. 8 -in. bed of argillaceous sandy medium -gray siltstone with faint car- bonaceous. partings in basal foot of core. Partings dip 10°-12°. Slicken- sides rare in claystone. 949-959 Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils very abun- dant. 2 ft 5 in., sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to very fine-grained, silty, argil- laeeous, slightly micaceous, noncal- careous, massive; composed of sub- angular clear and white quartz with rare dark rock fragments. 160 E%PLORATIO OF NAVAL PETROLEUM' RESERVE NO. Ou"SA, 1944-53 Lithoiogie description—Continued Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks 49 50 51. 52 53 54 55" 56 57 58 59 60, 61 Lithologic description—Continued Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks 62 1, 086-1, 096 63 1, 096-1,106 64 1, 106-1, 117 65 1, 117-1,1.27 66; 11, 127.-1, 137 67 5 ft 7 in., claystone, medium -dark to 68 dark -gray, slightly to very silty, 69 partly carbonaceous, noncalcareous, 70- with streaks of siltstone; irregular - .71 fracture. ♦Recovered 959-969 10 ft: Microfossils very abun- 73 dant. 74- Sandstone as at top of core 48 but fine grained, grading to fine to medium grained at base of core. A 1 -ft bed of silty claystone at 962-963 ft and l ft of dark -gray carbonaceous clay shale with very poor shaly cleavage at 964-965 ft, with coaly layer at base. 969-979 Recovered X10 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- to very fine-grained, noncalcareous, massive, uniform. 979-989 Recovered 10 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils., - . Sandstone as in core 50, with rare irreg- ular carbonaceous streaks. 989-1; 000 Recovers 8 ft 64n.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above. 1,000-1,010, Mbbovered^8:ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. + Sandstone as above. 1,010-1,017 Recovered &M-Microfossils absent. :.Sandstone as above, grades to ver yy fine grained at base; common carbona- _. A ceous and: argillaceous laminae, some oC which are crossbedded dip 1°-22°. 1,017-1,027 .Recovered :9 ft 7 in.: Microfossils com- mon;:; _ Sandstone as at base of core 54; 2 -ft bed of fine-grained sandstone 4 ft above base of core, with 1 -ft bed of claystone below the bed.' 1, 027-1, 037 Recovered. 6 ft 7 in.: Microfossils com- mon. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, non - calcareous, carbonaceous, massive; micaceous laminae rare. 1, 037-1, 047 :Recovered 10 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Sandstone, medium -light -gray, very fine-grained, very silty and argil- - laeeous, slightly micaceous, noncal- careous, massive, uniform; composed of subangular grains of clear and white quartz, with rare dark rock - : fragments. 1, 047-12 057 Recovered,' 10 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils: Sandstone as above. 1,057-1,067 Recovered 3 ft 11 in.: Microfossils absent. Sandstone as above, with rare faint argillaceous or slightly carbonaceous laminae dipping about V. 1, 067-1, 076 Recovered 7 ft 11 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone as in core 59 above; laminae dip: 1°-11°. Basal 1 ft of core has rare thin. (�-1 in.) beds of medium- dark gray silty clay shale. 1, 076-1,086 Recovered 9 ft 11 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Sandstone as in core 57, very micaceous, with common carbonaceous particles throughout. Lithologic description—Continued Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks 62 1, 086-1, 096 63 1, 096-1,106 64 1, 106-1, 117 65 1, 117-1,1.27 66; 11, 127.-1, 137 67 1, 137-1,147 68 1,147-1,157 69 1, 157-1,167 70- lr 167-1,177 - .71 1, 177-1,187 72 1, 387-1, 197 73 1,197-1, 206 74- 1, 206-1, 208 75 1 1,208-1,218 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils absent. 4 ft 6 in., sandstone as above, with thin beds siltstone and clay shale at base. 5 ft 6 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty and micaceous, noncal- careous; irregular fracture; carbon- ized plant fragments. Top of Topa- goruk formation at 1,090 ft. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils abundant. Claystone as above. Recovered 2 ft 6 in.: Microfossils very rare. Claystone as above. Recovered 3 ft 7 in.: Microfossils very rare. Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, sandy, noncalcareous, with common thin beds of medium -dark -gray clay shale and carbonaceous laminae dipping 4°. Recovered 3 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Siltstone, medium -gray, argillaceous, sandy, noncaleareous, very mica- ceous, with rare thin beds of claystone and very fine-grained very silty argillaoeous micaceous'nonealcareous sandstone totaling 10 percent of core. Rare carbonaceous partings dip 4°. Light -yellowish -gray clay ironstone nodules as much as 1 in. across are rare. Recovered 9 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Siltstone as above, with a -dip of 4°. Recovered 10'ft: Microfossils common. 2 ft 6 in., siltstone as above, grades into unit below. 7 ft 6 in., claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty, noncalcareous, irregular fracture, with carbonaceous patches and carbonized plant fragments. Recovered 5 ft: Not sampled for micro - fossils. Claystone as above; pelecypod shell fragments rare 2 ft below top of core. A 10 -in. bed of medium -gray argilla- ceous noncalcareous siltstone 1 f t above base of core. Recovered 9 ft 6 in.: Microfossils abun- dant. Claystone as above; uniform. Recovered 8 ft: Microfossils common. Claystone as above; slightly to very silty. Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils abundant. Claystone as above, very silty and micaceous. A 2-im bed of light -gray very fine-grained very silty and argil- laceous calcareous sandstone at 1,194 ft. Pelecypod shell fragment at 1,196 ft. Recovered 8 ft 6 in.: Microfossils com- mon. Claystone, medium -dark -gray, very silty and micaceous, noncalcareous; irregular fracture. Recovered I ft 6 in.: Microfossils com- Mon. Claystone as above. Recovered 5 ft 6 in.: Microfossils com- mon. Claystone as above. OT WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA • ,1lmiat test well 9 was cored. using the rotary method 'th oil -base drilling mud containing a dissolved chemi- ;tracer which provided a means. of determining the Ment of invasion of oil filtrate from the drilling, fluid j#0 the core during the coring operation. Thus, the volume of oil and water in the reservoir sandstones was determined as accurately as possible. Because the filtrate from an oil -base mud is oil, not water, the water �- content of the cores cannot be contaminated by the filtrate from the drilling mud. When each core was removed from the core barrel, samples were selected from the recovered sandstone. The samples of core were wiped free of drilling mud, wrapped in aluminum foil, placed in a tin can, and the annular space was filled with paraffin. The can was then sealed for sub - Sequent analysis of the cores in the Bureau of Mines laboratory in San Francisco. The oil -base drilling mud was sampled during. the cutting of each core so that the quantity of chemical tracer present in a unit volume of drilling mud filtrate could be measured. (See table p. 162.) CORE -ANALYSIS METHOD In general the method of analyzing these cores has been described in detail by Gates, Morris, and Carra- way (1950). Briefly, the method consists of selecting a center section of the core sample and determining the following properties of the sample: Total porosity, oil content, water content, drilling -mud filtrate con- tent, chloride concentration in the -interstitial water, air permeability, and density of the sand grains. 161 The permeability to water of a few samples of reser- voir rocks was measured; this step was followed by de- termination of the permeability to oil of the water - contaminated samples. The permeability of horizontally adjacent core samples also was measured, using kerosene as the flowing liquid. RESULTS Data obtained in the analysis of these cores are tabulated in tables on p. 161-164. The sandstone sections having the most favorable porosity and per- meability are found between 466 and 478 feet, 866 and 908 feet, and 964 and 972 feet. (See following table.) Average properties of sandstone cores Lithologic description --Continued Depth (feet) Remarks Depth (feet) r content Oil (bbl per 1, 218-1, 228 Recovered 8 ft: Not sampled for micro - 76 (percent of acre ft) fossils. Small amount of core 76 — volume) recovered with core 77. Siltstone, medium -light -gray, very i. 40.8 sandy and argillaceous, noncalcareous 64 866-908-- ------------- to slightly calcareous, with faint car- bonaceous .... 582 or argillaceous laminae 964-972-- ---------------- 14.7 dipping 1°-140. 7 1, 228-1, 236 Recovered 9 ft 6 in.: Not sampled for microfossils. Includes small amount of core 76. Siltstone as above; slickensides 6 in. above base of core. 8178 1, 236-1, 247 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. Interbedded siltstone and claystone as 11 above; beds are %-8 in. thick, with ►7t, , sharp or gradational contacts; rock >al t about half siltstone. Carbonaceous laminae dip 1'-51. 1,247-1,257 Recovered 10 ft: Microfossils common. Claystone, inedium-dark-gray, slightly 3 to very silty, noncalcareous, with )ti irregular fracture. FSS CORE ANALYSES )"'By GEORGE L. GATES, U. S. Bureau of Mines rI[ .sa CORING PROCEDURE ,1lmiat test well 9 was cored. using the rotary method 'th oil -base drilling mud containing a dissolved chemi- ;tracer which provided a means. of determining the Ment of invasion of oil filtrate from the drilling, fluid j#0 the core during the coring operation. Thus, the volume of oil and water in the reservoir sandstones was determined as accurately as possible. Because the filtrate from an oil -base mud is oil, not water, the water �- content of the cores cannot be contaminated by the filtrate from the drilling mud. When each core was removed from the core barrel, samples were selected from the recovered sandstone. The samples of core were wiped free of drilling mud, wrapped in aluminum foil, placed in a tin can, and the annular space was filled with paraffin. The can was then sealed for sub - Sequent analysis of the cores in the Bureau of Mines laboratory in San Francisco. The oil -base drilling mud was sampled during. the cutting of each core so that the quantity of chemical tracer present in a unit volume of drilling mud filtrate could be measured. (See table p. 162.) CORE -ANALYSIS METHOD In general the method of analyzing these cores has been described in detail by Gates, Morris, and Carra- way (1950). Briefly, the method consists of selecting a center section of the core sample and determining the following properties of the sample: Total porosity, oil content, water content, drilling -mud filtrate con- tent, chloride concentration in the -interstitial water, air permeability, and density of the sand grains. 161 The permeability to water of a few samples of reser- voir rocks was measured; this step was followed by de- termination of the permeability to oil of the water - contaminated samples. The permeability of horizontally adjacent core samples also was measured, using kerosene as the flowing liquid. RESULTS Data obtained in the analysis of these cores are tabulated in tables on p. 161-164. The sandstone sections having the most favorable porosity and per- meability are found between 466 and 478 feet, 866 and 908 feet, and 964 and 972 feet. (See following table.) Average properties of sandstone cores The oil content expressed in barrels per acre-foot was calculated from the -core -analysis data by assuming that all the core volume not occupied by water is filled with oil: Although the foregoing sandstone cores' were found to be the most permeable to oil and air, it significant that a total of 173 feet of sandstone cores bled Umiat crude oil after they were removed from the core barrel. Therefore, it may be concluded that the sandstone is capable of yielding crude oil, even though the flow of oil entering the well may be at a low rate. The water content of the sandstone at 866-877 feet is unusually high. This is particularly surprising because this oil-bearing sandstone has the highest air permeability found in the cores from this well. However, it is believed - that the reported water con- tents of these cores are accurate. The well produced dry oil, indicating that the water in the sandstone is immobile when oil flows through the sandstone. Accordingly, it is reasoned that the water in the sand- stone also was immobile when the filtrate from the oil - base drilling fluid entered the sandstone and that the water found in the core is interstitial water present in the formation when the cores were cut. The produc- tion of dry oil from the sandstone having an unusually high water content may be the result of immobile water in the permafrost. To determine whether or not filtrate from the oil - base drilling fluid entered . the cores, the oil in each core sample was analyzed for its chemical tracer content. By this means the volume of drilling fluid filtrate in the core samples was measured. The results of the core analysis indicate that very little oil filtered into the cores. Porosity water Air Depth (feet) (percent of content Oil (bbl per permeability bulk (percent of acre ft) (mlllfdariys) — volume) pore space) 466-479-- ---------------- 26.4 40.8 747 64 866-908-- ------------- 1& 7 52.9 582 124 964-972-- ---------------- 14.7 44.9 640 61 The oil content expressed in barrels per acre-foot was calculated from the -core -analysis data by assuming that all the core volume not occupied by water is filled with oil: Although the foregoing sandstone cores' were found to be the most permeable to oil and air, it significant that a total of 173 feet of sandstone cores bled Umiat crude oil after they were removed from the core barrel. Therefore, it may be concluded that the sandstone is capable of yielding crude oil, even though the flow of oil entering the well may be at a low rate. The water content of the sandstone at 866-877 feet is unusually high. This is particularly surprising because this oil-bearing sandstone has the highest air permeability found in the cores from this well. However, it is believed - that the reported water con- tents of these cores are accurate. The well produced dry oil, indicating that the water in the sandstone is immobile when oil flows through the sandstone. Accordingly, it is reasoned that the water in the sand- stone also was immobile when the filtrate from the oil - base drilling fluid entered the sandstone and that the water found in the core is interstitial water present in the formation when the cores were cut. The produc- tion of dry oil from the sandstone having an unusually high water content may be the result of immobile water in the permafrost. To determine whether or not filtrate from the oil - base drilling fluid entered . the cores, the oil in each core sample was analyzed for its chemical tracer content. By this means the volume of drilling fluid filtrate in the core samples was measured. The results of the core analysis indicate that very little oil filtered into the cores. 162 EXPLORA* OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE NO.LASKA, 1944-53 To determine whether drilling -mud filtrate entered the cores from the sides of the cylindrical core towards the center, 6 core samples were cut along a diameter. The part of core cut along a diameter was divided into 3 parts -2 from outside sections and 1 from the center section of the core. Data from all 3 sections are given in the table on p. 162. The subscripts a and a indicate opposite outside sections of the core and subscript b indicates the center section. As shown in the table, the large volume of filtrate in the outside sections of the core when compared with smaller volume in the center sections indicates that radial filtration into the cores took place. However, it is believed that the entry of oil -filtrate from the mud did not move water from the cores, because dry crude oil moved through the pores in the .production of oil from this well. There- fore, if crude oil can move through the sandstone with- out moving the interstitial water, it is reasonable to believe that oil -filtrate from the oil -base drilling mud may enter the pore space without moving interstitial water. In an effort to learn the effect of water on the permeability of this sandstone to oil, a series of tests were made in which the following procedure was fol- lowed. A fresh core sample from the can sealed at the well was mounted in a low -temperature -setting plastic that is claimed to be inert to water and kerosene. The permeability to the flow of kerosene was measured with, the interstitial. oil and water present in the core. Next, the permeability of the core sample to water was measured and in making this test water was added to the sandstone to simulate the invasion of water into a sandstone where a well is drilled with water in the hole. The permeability of the sample containing the in- creased volume of water was measured by flowing kerosene through the core. The results of these tests on four core samples having a wide range of permeabilities are shown in the table on p. 164. In all four tests the permeability to oil was greatly reduced by the addition of water to the sandstone. It has been observed in the study of cores from many fields that generally the permeability of sandstones to the flow of air is greater than their permeability to oil, particularly if the tests using oil are made on core samples which contain interstitial water. Because the flow of crude oil into the well must be through the reservoir sandstone containing interstitial water, a series of tests was made measuring the flow of kerosene through fresh core samples mounted in plastic. The properties reported in the table on p. 164 under the boxhead Adjacent permeability sample were measured on a core sample that was horizontally adjacent to the sample selected for core analysis. This adjacent sample was submerged in oil immediately after it was cut from the core and before it was cast in a low -temperature -setting plastic. As a result neither the interstitial water nor the swelling of the clay was altered as it inevitably would be if the sample was dried. Core analyses, Umiat test well 9 [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] See footnotes at end of table. Liquid content Depth of. samples I in Porosity (percent of Horizontal per- meability (milli- d s) sodium chloride concentration in interstitial Core description pt pore space feet On (bbl per acre. bulk vol- ume) + Dry water, (pas per million Total oil Water Drilling fluid it !) futrate 422.5 41.2 8.79 0.99 1,010 14.3 0.70 19,100 Fine-grained hard sandstone. 466.5 10.1 47.9 2.12 770 19.1 150 2,770 Fine-grained hard sandstone, wet. 467.5 12.1 54.3 .45 680 19.3 120 3,410 Do. 46& 6 12.5 50.4 .92 790 20.4 81 3,180 Do. 469.5 23.8 36.8 .46 930 18.9 41 5,430 Do. 470.5, 29.4 29.1 9.36 1,000 18.2 43 3,920 Do. 470.5b 26.0 38.5 .44 870 18.2 50 3,710 Do. 470. 5a 27.9 31.5 4.32 990 18.6 89 5,290 Do. 471.5 34. 1 39.4 3.79 780 16.6 120 3,680 Fine-grained hard sandstone, bleeds oil. 472.5 15.1 35.0 2.60 680 13.4 27 6,200 Do. 473.5 27.1 34.7 2.69 920 18.1 56 4, 640 Do. 474.5 28. 3 25.5 .62 850 14.7 20 9,660 Do. 475.5, 35.6 38.2 12.0 640 13.3 40 4,080 Do. 475. 5b 33.1 39.7 1.55 640 13.5 45 4'620 Do. .475.5, 36. 9 $0: 4 13.9 750 13.9 29 5,260 Do. 476.5 15.8 45.8 .54 660 15.6 _ 21 3,000 Do. 477.5 31.3 37.1 .33 610 12.4 5.1 4,690 Do. 47& 5 22.4 ; ; 45: 2 .70 530 12.5 3.7 4,000 Do. 479.5 10.8 43.5 .53 610 13.8 5.0 10,100 Do. See footnotes at end of table. WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA • 163 Core analyses, Umiat test well 9 -Continued . and . indicate opposite outside sections of core, and b indicates a center section. JThe barrel per acre -it of oil was obtained by assuming that all of the pore volume not occupied by water is filled with oil. r The average permeability of 52 samples with permeabflities equal to or greater than 1 millidarcy is 89.1 miilidaroys. i The average permeability of 39 samples with permeabtiities equal to or greater than 10 millidaroys is 98.2 millidareys. 428224--58-7 Liquid content Horizontal per - Sodium chloride Percent pore space Depth of samples in Porosity (peroent of meabllity (miIU. days) concentration in interstitial Core description feet Oil (bbl per acre- bulk vol• ume) Dry waterer, a)rtrs per Total oil water Drilling fluid it r) filtrate 480.5 30.2 32.0 0.30 630 11.9 0.25 9,020 Fine-grained hard sandstone, bleeds oil. 481.5 32.6 40.2 .31 480 10.4 .41 7,370 Do. 482.5 22.2 33.7 .37 720 13.9 1.0 6,720 Do. 483.5 29.7 37.8 .30 560 11.5 .93 6,240 Do. 484.5 51.5 38.2 .70 360 7.54 .08 11,600 Do. 485.5 41.6 48. 2 .68 310 7.76 .20 10,500 Do. 486.5 34.2 47.7 .70 380 9.24 1.4 8,950 Do. 492.5 38.2 60.3 .69 230 7.57 .20 7,550 Do. 493.5 20. 1 61.0 .62 280 9.12 .37 5,360 Do. 494.5 18.3 64.0 .52 250 9.06 .44 5,840 Do. 495.5. 21.5 59.6 6.84 300 9.47 .28 5, 030 Do. 495.5b 15.7 65.7 .40 230 8.68 .25 4,970 Do. 495.50 26.1 63.0 S.92 240 8.41 .26 6,220 Do. 496.5 14.0 64.8 . 31 250 9. 19 . 16 4,270 Do. 497.5 11.3 58.5 .34 330 10.1 .50 5,240 Do. 498.5 14.7 61.3 .62 280 9.30 .12 7,520 Do. 499.5 17.3 65.0 .47 230 8. 64 .12 6,240 Do. 500.5 18.0 51.9 .24 380 10.1 .13 3,570 Do. 501.5 18.5 61.4 .18 250 8.29 .13 3,340 Do. 504.5 21.6 84.2 .66 90 6.91 .13 3,650 Do. 507.5 24.1 100 .31 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5.04 .06 3,650 Do. 510.5 Trace 100 .74 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2.61 .0 5,820 Do. 582.5 20.1 63.1 .22 260 9.23 .23 3,850 Very fine-grained hard sand stone, bleeds oil. 866.5 17.1 59.7 3.66 420 13.3 25 2,370 Fine-grained hard sandstone; bleeds water. 867.5 8.26 72.1 1.21 330 15.4 56 1, 840 Do. 871.5. 17.9 42.5 11.48 790 17.8 220 1, 500 Fine-grained sandstone, bleeds water. 871.5b 10.1 62.3 1.44 510 17.6 280 1, 780 Do. 871.5. 14.6 43.4 8.59 760 17.2 260 1, 890 Do. 873.5 Trace 83.1 1.29 230 17.3 320 1,200 Do. 875.5 16.4 53.6 2.86 670 18.5 170 1,530 Do. 876.5 15.7 61.8 2.43 510 17.3 150 1,740 Do. 880.5 29.6 33.6 8.49 930 18.1 190 1, 150 Do. 894.5 28.6 42.0 5.89 650 14.5 61 11190 Fine-grained sandstone, bleed water, oil and gas. 896.5 21.9 45.1 5.54 630 14.8 90 1,880 Do. 897.5 18.4 43.3 6.43 730 16.5 90 958 Do. 900.5. 19.5 35.7 8.36 810 16.2 140 1,720 Do. 900.56 17.9 45.4 .49 660 15.5 62 1,270 Do. 900.5. 20.1 32.0 10.68 830 15.8 53 6,410 Do. 906 24.1 33.2 .32 750 14.4 SO 3,480 Fine-grained sandstone, bleed oil and gas. 907.5 16.0 53.0 .47 550 15.1 42 2,350 Do. 909 13.6 52.9 .74 510 13.9 8.1 -1,350 Do. 950.5 12.2 39.1 1.45 890 18.8 29 7,310 Fine-grained silty sandstone bleeds water. 964.5 24.8 40.8 1.03 650 14.1 90 7,270 Fine-grained hard sandstone bleeds oil and gas. 965.5 17.6 57.9 2.08 510 15.5 97 3,660 Do. 968.5 27.2 36.0 1.33 760 15.3 65 4,950 Do. 975 10.4 62.7 .62 340 11.9 5.5 5,540 Do. 977 9.10 67.3 .23 320 12.6 12 5,570 Do. 978. 9.38 55.3 2.30 430 12.5 9.1 5,810 Do. 9786 6.99 56.5 .20 420 12.3 5.2 5,920 Do. 978. 15.6 51.5 7.27 440 11.8 6.4 6,540 Do. 995 9.09 59.0 .32 290 9.21 1.4 7,180 Do. 1,003 7.27 57.7 .41 391 11.9 1.4 7,960 Very fine-grained hard sane stone, bleeds oil and gas. 1,013 429 81.9 .39 107 7.59 .13 7, 200 Very fine-grained hard silt sandstone, bleeds oil and go., 1,040.5 16.7 61.0 .21 300 9.85 .39 7,400 Very fine-grained hard sane stone, bleeds oil and gas. 1, 043.5 7.37 64.4 .27 290 10.5 .22 6,610 Do. 1, 045.5 1 8.53 1 66.7 1 .26 1 270 1 10.3 1 .60 3, 800 Do. . and . indicate opposite outside sections of core, and b indicates a center section. JThe barrel per acre -it of oil was obtained by assuming that all of the pore volume not occupied by water is filled with oil. r The average permeability of 52 samples with permeabflities equal to or greater than 1 millidarcy is 89.1 miilidaroys. i The average permeability of 39 samples with permeabtiities equal to or greater than 10 millidaroys is 98.2 millidareys. 428224--58-7 164 EXPLORIW OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE N* ALASKA, 1944-53 Study of the data in the table indicates that the effective permeability to oil was approximately the same as the air permeability and that the water content of the adjacent core sample had decreased during the test procedure, probably going into the low-tempera- Permeabilities of cores from Umiat test well 9 [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] Depth of Liquid content sample Adjacent permeability sample sample in __________ 30 minutes after beginning test___________ 37.9 __________ 10.8 feet Dry Air Water Effective ---------- ---------- 2 hr after beginning test ----------------- permea- content permea- Dry air permea- Dry oil permea- ---- ---i bility (percent bility to bility (milli- bility (milli- ---------- (milli- of pore oil (milli- darcys) darcys) ---------- darcys) volume) darcys) ---------- ---------- 422.5 -------- 0.70 26 Noflow___ 1.5 -------------- Noflow 466.5-------- 150 30 68--------- 86--------------- 84 467.5_-______ 120 16 110________ 110______________ 120 468.5-------- 81 11 82 -------- _ 74--------------- 47 469.5-_____-- 41 1653--______ 68 - 58 470.5 •------- 43 ---------- ---------- ------------------ 470.5 b_______ 50 16 110 470.5 .------- 89 --------- ------------ ----------------- 471.5________ 120 14. 110 150 90 472 5-------- 27 27 25-------- 23--------------- 23 473-5-------- 56 12 40-- ----- 43--------------- 39 474-5-------- 20 28 2.6-------- 15--------------- 12 4W5,------- 40---------- ---------- ------------------ 475.5 b-_---- 45 24 ----------- 33_______________ 39 475.5 ._______ 29 ---- ---- -- ------------ ------------------ 47&5-------- . 21 : . 23 40--------- 34--------------- 33 477.5-------- 5. I_ 21 55--------- 28--------------- 10 478.5-------- 3.7 43 ----------- 3.2--- ---------- 3.0 479.S -------- 5.0 6.5 Noflow___ 2.9 -------------- Noflow 480.5-------- .25 24 Noflow--- .23-------------- Noflow 481.5 -------- 41 __________ Noflow___ .22 -------------- Noflow 482.5 -------- 1.0 25 Noflow _49-------------- Noflow 41!3.5_:------ .93 10 Noflow___ 1.5______________ Noflow 484.5 -------- ,08 23 Noflow___ .04 -------------- Noflow 495.5 -------- .20 27 Noflow_-_ .13 -------------- Noflow 486.5 -------- 1.4 13 Noflow___ .39 -------------- Noflow 492.5 -------- .20 8.3 Noflow___ .10 -------------- Noflow 493.5 -------- .37 48 No .65 -------------- Noflow 494.5-------- 44 39__ No flow--- No flow 495.5 .____--- 28 .40 ------------ 495.5b- .25 3.6 Noflow___ .07_ Noflow 495.5._26 --- - - - 49&b -------- 18 12 NoSOw__. .38_________ Noflow 497.5________ 50 9.8 Noflow___ .38______________ Noflow 498.5______-_ .12 89 Noflow .11 Noflow 499.5________ .12 11 Noflow___ .21 -------------- Noflow 500.5________ .13 1.5 Noflow___ .19 -------------- Noflow 501.5________ .13 7.2 Noflow___ 09 -------------- NO flow 504.5 ------ ,13 15 Noflow-__ .24______________ NO flow W7.5 -- .06 49.0 No flow__.11 Noflow 510.5 ------ 0 17 Noflow___ .07 -------------- Noflow 592.5 -- .23 39 Noflow___ .93 -------------- Noflow 866.5-------- 25 54 ------------ 22-------------- 18 867.5------- 56 ---------- ----------- 31-------------- 34 871.5 -------- 220 ---------- -----------' ----------------- 871.5b______ 280 __________ 210________ Broken sample_- Broken sample 871.5 .------- 260 --------- ------------ ---- ------------- 873.5-------- 320 ---------- ------------ 270-------------- 260 875.5------- 170 50 130 -------- 150-------------- 160 876.5-------- 150 ---------- 56--------- 120-------------- 120 880.5----____ 190 9.7 140-------- 140-------------- 150 894.5________ 61 ---------- 41 ----- .--- Broken sample_- Broken sample 896.5-------- 90 1.1 74--------- 31--------------- 41 897.5-------- 90 5.6 57--------- 66--------------- 68 900.5.__---_ 140 __ 900.5 b------- 62 90 37___------ 1lA-------------- 110 900.5 -------- 53 -------------- ------------------ 906---------- 80 2.9 31 -------- �--------------- 29 907.5 -------- 42 26 50____--- 54_____________- 54 909---------- 8.1 18 31--------- 4.8- - - 4.2 950.5--___-__ 29 9.2 30 --------- 15--------------- 14 964.5-------- 20 3.4 30 -------- 25--------------- 14 965.5-_------ 97 13 49--------- 78--------------- 53 968.5-------- 66 9.6 81--------- 43--------------- 48 975---------- 5..5 24 7.4-------- 5.5-------------- 3.9 9n----- 12 ---------- 24--------- 13--------------- 12 978 a - 9.1 ---------- ------------ ------------------ 978 2: 26 No flow___ 6.1 -------------- 4.4 978.--------- 6.4 --------- _ 995 ---------- 995---------- 1.4 ....... -- 2.1-------- ------------------ 5.8-------------- 1.9 1,003 -------- 1.4 2 8.3-------- 1.6-`------------ 1.3 1,013 -------- .13 13 Noflow___ .13______________ Noflow 1,040.5 ------- .39 14 Noflow-__ -------------- Noflow 1,043.5 ------- .22 15 NO flow___ :36 .17______________ Noflow 1,045.5 ------- .60 24 Noflow___ .87 -------------- NO flow I . and . indicate opposite outside sections of core, and b fndfcatea a center section. ture-setting plastic used in these tests. Owing to these difficulties, the test results are of little value except to show that no oil flow was obtained from sandstone beds (462-582 ft and 1,013-1,046 ft), under the above conditions. With this information in mind and judging from the core description, the sandstone beds from 1,046 to 1,257 would also be virtually impermeable to the flow of oil. To determine the relative effect of air, oil, salt water, and fresh water on the permeability of some of the samples of this sandstone, six samples were selected for a series of tests. The samples were cleaned of water and oil, and then the permeability to dry air was measured. They were filled with kerosene, and the permeability to 1/ -normal sodium chloride solution was found to be somewhat less than before. Finally, the permeability to distilled water was measured and was found to be considerably less than the previous permea- bilities. The results of this series of tests (table below) in- dicate that water, particularly fresh water, lowers the permeability of these samples to values less than those Air, oil, salt water, and fresh -water permeabilities of selected cores, Umiat test well 9 [Analysis by U. 3. -Bur. Mines] Permeability in millidarcys to - Depth (feet)I 10.5 normal Dry air Oil 1 sodium Distilled chloride water solution I 866-867--------------------------- 22 18 15 13 867-868--------------------------- 31 34 32 30 873-874 ----------------------- ____ 270 260 250 200 875-976 --------------------------- 150 160 140 120 880-881 --------------------------- 140 150 130 100 907-908--------------------------- 54 54 35 26 I Samples were extracted and dried before determining permeability to salt water. Liquid permeability (in millidarcys) of selected cores from Umiat test well 9 before and after soaking in water overnight. A 1 - pound pressure drop was maintained across the sample [Analysis by U. S. Bur. Mines] Sample from - 871.5 ft. 1 876.5 ft. I 977 ft. I 995 it. Permeability jjj`before soaking 011 (water phase remained immobile)____ 206.0 56'5 I 24.0 1 2.1 Water (oil phase remained immobile)____ 78.1 0 I( 0 Il .0 Oil permeability after soaking, Immediately after removal_______________ 31.4 __ -------- ---------- __________ 30 minutes after beginning test___________ 37.9 __________ 10.8 _ __ _____ 1 hr after beginning test ------------------ - 8.9 ---------- ---------- 2 hr after beginning test ----------------- __-----___ ---------- __________ 0.3 2% hr after beginning test ---------------- ---- ---i 13, 4 --- 3 hr after beginning test------------------ -------- - ---------- 13.4 ---__---_ 4�4 hr after beginning test________________ 56.6 - ------- ---------- ---------- 6 hr after beginning test------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- 0.6 OFST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASSA 0 obtained when dry air or oil is flowing through the sand. The results of the analysis of these cores indicate that the most permeable sandstone units lie at depths from 466 to 478 feet, from 866 to 908 feet, and from 964 oto 972 feet. They indicate that these beds average approximately 16 percent porosity, 88 millidarcys.dry- air permeability, 47 percent of the pore space filled with water, and 660 barrels of oil per acre-foot. The 165 660 barrels of oil per acre-foot is total oil in place, only part of which is recoverable oil. The results indicate that addition of water to these sandstones greatly reduces the permeability to oil. Therefore, water should be kept away from these sandstones to keep the permeability to oil at its maxi- mum value and assure the maximum flow of oil into the well. Properties of oil -base drilling fluid used in core -contamination test at Umiat test well 9 [Analysis by U. S. Eur. Mines] 1 The drilling -fluid filtrates from drilling fluid samples 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, and 49 were combined, and the water content of the combined samples was negligible. I Cuttings dropping from suspension. PZTROGPAPffiC ANALYSES In 1952 Paul D. Krvnine, of the U. S. Geological Survey, and John C. Ferm, of Pennsylvania State College, made a detailed study of 13 sandstone samples from Umiat test well 9. The material presented here is taken from their work. The rocks are low -rank graywackes, composed pri- marily of quartz and chert grains, with a large amount of micaceous material (including. micaceous rock frag- ments as well as a micaceous matrix), and a small .amount of feldspar and kaolin. Two samples contain less than 20 percent of micaceous grains or clay -size particles, 5 have 20-30 percent of micaceous material, and 6 contain more than 30 percent of it. The quartz grains range from silt to fine sand in size and are poorly sorted. They were originally derived from intrusive igneous rocks but have been reworked several times. Inclusions such as bubbles, and bubble trains and microlites of apatite, biotite, tourmaline, and zircon are rare. Two types of chert are.present-a colorless kind of relatively coarse microcrystalline quartz and a lesser quantity of yellow chert, fine textured enough to be almost isotropic, except for a small amount that is somewhat fibrous like chalcedony. Inclusions are very rare in both kinds. The origin of the chert is doubtful as only rare grains contain carbonate material sugges- tive of replacement, and nothing in the rest suggests its source. Feldspar makes up about 4 percent of the rock. Orthoclase, microcline, perthite, albite, and oligoclase are represented, the first two in some specimens fl.s graphic intergrowths with quartz. Some of the feldspar Drilling fluid i Drilling fluid filtrate Filtrate volumeAPI (ml in 30 min) at- weight in- water content funnel viscosity (1 qt out) , water Tracer Core Depth (feet) content coneen- (percent by tration 45°F 75°F lb/gal lb/cu ft Percent by weight Percent I by volume Time (see) Tempera- ture (°F) weight) (mg/ml) _ ---------------- 374-384 0. 0 -------- 8. 6 64. 5 10.95 1 11. 34 95 61 ________ ________ 4_______________ 413-423 .0 9 8.8 66.0 8.85 9.38 79 50 -------- 14 2 9_______________! 464-474 1.3 12 9.0 67.0 9.08 9.77 83 48 1.05 14.7 10______________i 474-484 1.1 10 9.1 68.0 9.07 9.90 85 45 1.07 14.3 11______________ 484-494 1.1 10 9.2 69.0 8.76 9.70 95 46 .33 14.3 15______________i 502-512 1.1 12 9.4 70.0 8.59 9.65 90 44 .82 14.1 23______________ 573-583 .5.2 16 9.8 73.0 6.92 8.11 72 45 16 10.4 38 -------------- 858-868 20.0 29 10.2 76.0 3.65 4.45 76 48 .0 4.5 39 -------------- I 868-878 20.0 30 10.3 77.0 3.57 4.41 69 47 (1) 18. 5 40 ---------------- 878-888 20.0 27 10.3 77.0 3.64 4.50 69 47 (1) 17.7 41______________; 888-898 20.0 34 10.4 78.0 3.71 4.64 69 46 _ _______ 21.7 42-------------- 898-901 20.0 33 10.4 78.0 3.72 4.65 69 46 (1) 17:. 5 43 --------------- 901-911 21.0 36 10.3 77.0 4.03 4.98 59 45 (1) 15.6 48 -------------- 949-959 21.0 38 10.4 77.5 4.02 5.00 60 46 (1) 15.3 49 -------------- 959-969 21.0 42 10.4 77.5 4.29 5.37 60 46 (1) 14.6 50______________ 969-979 6.4 12 10.4 78.0 4.33 5.42 59.5 46 -------- 13.8 52______________ 1, 895-1, 000 7.9 14 10.578.5 4.54 5.72 57.0 46 ________ 13.4 53______________ 1,000-1,010 7.9 10 10.5 78.5 4.67 f 5.88 57.0 46 ________ 12.8 54______________ 1,010-1,017 -------- 13 10.4 78.0 4.41 I 5.52 57.0 46 0.0 13.2 57______________ , 1,037-1,047 3.4 7 10.2 76.5 5.01 6.15 53.0 41 -------- 10.6 58-------------- 1,047-1,057 2.2 -------- -------- 72.0 -------- -------- 52.0 42 -------- --------- 592 ------------- 1,057-1,067 3.0 - ------- 72. 0 -------- -------- 46.0 42 -----.--- ---- --- 61-------------- 1,077-1,086 1.9 -------- -------- 59.5 -------- -------- 42.0 45 -------- -------- 62 -------------- 1, 086-1, 096 4.1 -------- -------- 59.5 -------- -------- 44.0 42 ---------------- ------------ -- 67 -------------- 67-------------- 1,137-1,147 2.0 -------- --------I 60.5 --------I-------- 48.0 40 -------- -------- 1 The drilling -fluid filtrates from drilling fluid samples 39, 40, 42, 43, 48, and 49 were combined, and the water content of the combined samples was negligible. I Cuttings dropping from suspension. PZTROGPAPffiC ANALYSES In 1952 Paul D. Krvnine, of the U. S. Geological Survey, and John C. Ferm, of Pennsylvania State College, made a detailed study of 13 sandstone samples from Umiat test well 9. The material presented here is taken from their work. The rocks are low -rank graywackes, composed pri- marily of quartz and chert grains, with a large amount of micaceous material (including. micaceous rock frag- ments as well as a micaceous matrix), and a small .amount of feldspar and kaolin. Two samples contain less than 20 percent of micaceous grains or clay -size particles, 5 have 20-30 percent of micaceous material, and 6 contain more than 30 percent of it. The quartz grains range from silt to fine sand in size and are poorly sorted. They were originally derived from intrusive igneous rocks but have been reworked several times. Inclusions such as bubbles, and bubble trains and microlites of apatite, biotite, tourmaline, and zircon are rare. Two types of chert are.present-a colorless kind of relatively coarse microcrystalline quartz and a lesser quantity of yellow chert, fine textured enough to be almost isotropic, except for a small amount that is somewhat fibrous like chalcedony. Inclusions are very rare in both kinds. The origin of the chert is doubtful as only rare grains contain carbonate material sugges- tive of replacement, and nothing in the rest suggests its source. Feldspar makes up about 4 percent of the rock. Orthoclase, microcline, perthite, albite, and oligoclase are represented, the first two in some specimens fl.s graphic intergrowths with quartz. Some of the feldspar 1616 ESPLORIN OF NAVAL.PETROLE is .unaltered, but part is sericitized or altered to mus- covite, and about a third (including some sericitized grains) is kaolinized. This alteration suggests a peg- matitic origin followed by a long period of subaerial weathering before deposition in its present environment. Less durable grains of similar size are composed of micaceous rock fragments, most of which are dark slate and nongrapbitic phyllites, with some carbonized, pyri- tized, or limonitic plant remains. Fragments of silt - stone, badly weathered volcanic rock, and mica are very rare. Many of these rock or mineral fragments are in somewhat flexible tabular particles which may block some of the pore spaces between the more rigid quartz and chert grains. About two-thirds of the matrix, consisting of detrital constituents less than 0.032 millimeter in diameter, is made up of slate or phyllite particles. Clay particles are subordinate; montmorillonite, formed from volcanic ash, makes up less than 10 percent of the matrix, and UM RESERVE NIP, ALASKA, 1944-53 other clay minerals are very rare. Minute illite crystals coat the surface of some quartz grains. Chemically deposited cement is a very minor con- stituent of the rock. It includes secondary, quartz overgrowths, some collophane, and dolomite, part of which is iron bearing. The mineral composition of th e samples is shown in the table following. A study of the relation between composition and reservoir properties of the rocks reveals that the greater the proportion of rock fragments and matrix to quartz and chert, the greater the porosity. Comparisons of grain size and sorting show them to have compara- tively little effect on porosity; the shape of the rock fragments and consequently their packing is the con- trolling factor in these rocks. The sandstone samples from this well are better reservoir rock than those in many of the others from the Reserve because they have less montmorillonite and a lower percentage of micaceous rock fragments and micaceous matrix. Porosity, permeability, and mineral composition of 13 sandstone samples from Umiat test well 9 (Analysis by P. D. Srynlne and John C. Ferml Depth (feet) Pomsity (percent) Permeability (miUlidaecys) Quartz (Peroant) Chert (Percent) Feldspar (Percnat) Rock fragments (Percent) Matrix (percent) Carbonates (8eroent) 422.5 -------- _____________ 14.3 07 42.0 12.0 1.0. 30.5 9.0 5.5 466.5 --------------------- 19.1 150.0 61.5 17,0 1.5' . 17.0 3.0 .0 498`5_____________________ 9.3 12 35.5 2.5 1.15 47.0 13.5 .0 975.5 --------------------- 18. 5 170.0 5& 0 14.5 6.0 17.0 4.5 ..0 900.5--------------------- 1& 8 M.0 57.0 14.0 3.5 22.0 3.5 .0 906.0 --------------------- 14.4 80.0 59.5 12.5 5:0 18.0 6.0 1.0 9".5 -------------- 14. 1 20.0 49.0 19.5 4♦ 5 21.0 5.5 965.5--------------------- ' 1& 5 97.0 40.0 30.5 6: 5 21.0 1.5 .5 . 5 96&5_____________________ 15.3 65.0 44.0 21.5 6.:0 20.,0 7.0 1.;5 995.0 --------------------- 9.21 1.4 44.0 15.0 40 17.5 7.0 12.5 1,003.0 --------------- 11.9 1.4 41.5 13.5 1.5 29.5 10.0 4.0 1,040.5 -------------------- 9.85 .39 48. 5 9.5 4.5 27.5 8.0 2.0 1,043.5 -------------------- 10.5 .22 47.5 11.0 5.5 2& 0 7.5 .5 OIL AND GAS OIL AND (JAB SHOWS Several oil 'and gas shows, given below, were noted in this well. The well produced some oil (see p. 167), but the depth from which it came is uncertain. Deja flat) Ite+narts Oil odor in sandstone. 533-561 ------ _ Faint show of oil in siltstone and thin sand- stone beds. 649-707--------- , Do. 829 -838 ---------.;Show of oil. 866--888---------- Water in sandstone. 888-901 --------- Odor of oil in sandstone. 901-929 --------- Odor of oil in sandstone; upper 10 ft bled oil. 929-939-------- 8fltstone with show of oil. 969-1,010__:__-__ Sandstone bled oil. 1,027-1,037___ __ Sandstone with faint odor of oil. 1,037-1,071------ Sandstone bled oil and gas. 1,127-1,146______, Slight oil stain in siltstone. FORMATION AND PRODUCTION TESTS Several swabbing tests and a 6% -week pumping test produced an average of 217. barrels of oilL per day with no water, but the source of the oil was not determined, in spite of plugging back by stages and later perforating casing opposite possible producing sands'. These oper- ations, most of which were recorded by George L. Gates, of the U: S. Bureau of Mines, and production during the test are given in the following two tables. DVS (tom Ite+narb 533 ------------- Tubing run into hole withZone packer at 47 ft. Hole swabbed' dry in 10 ming with recovery of 2 bbl of oil -base mud. An hour later it was swabbed again; no fluid recovered, although swab had faint odor of Umiat crude oil.- 866-901 il. 866-901 --------- Packer set at 866 ft, and 3 hr of swabbing recovered 3 bbl of mud :with no oil or water. 0i3T W J", UMUT Ai3EA, AhABSA 49 Depth (feet) Remarks 1,017__--____- Packer set at 959 ft with 43 ft of open-end tubing below it; 4 hr of swabbing recovered 5 bbl of mud with no oil,. gas, or water. _ _ _ _ - _ _ Two-inch, open-end tubing with perforated bottom joint run in hole to 1,224 ft, and 75 ; bbl of oil -base mud was swabbed. Then 25 bbl of crude oil was swabbed, with fluid level at 1,000 ft. In next 7 br, 90 bbl of crude swabbed and fluid rose to 800 ft. In 8 hr' 110 bbl of oil swabbed. Fluid level remained at 800 ft but rose to 50 ft when n rswabbing 'stopped for lack of storage space. Tubing pulled out and rerun to 3;208 'ft,: with 'insulated wire welded to } bottom joint and coming to surface, completing electrical circuit for heating. J` Pump shoe at 1,197 ft. After installing 1 39 joints of 30 -ft sucker rod and pump, ' rig was moved away and pumping test begun. A , 24 -in. stroke used, except for last 3; days, when 36 -in. stroke was used. w Strokes per minute ranged from 20 to 25, although 22 was most common rate. Generator supplying power for beating tubing was, set.. at 175 amperes, which nudntained the:.- flow -line temperature at 30°-32°F for the first 3 days. Then it was turned off to test icing con- ditions, and temperature dropped to 26'F, where it remained until last week of test, when W dropped to 24'F, oil is gas -cut, and flows by heads, in small amounts. produdion during a 83¢ -week `pump ng'Ust, Umiat test well:9 Date Hours . pumped on (bbl): Date .. Hours pumps on (bbl) Apg- -15 ------------ 220 249.5 Sept. 7-. ------_ 21_5 180.0 <)1 :16_-__-------- 23.5 222.8 8 ------------ 22.75 228.0 17 ------------ 23.5 225.0 9 ------------ 225 219.0 �+ , 18_._______-- 2&5 2428 ---------- 23.5 2120 19____________ 235 229.0 11 ----------- 2275 21&0 P,;, 2D ------------ 235 22L0 12----------- A6 20L0 21._.___-----_ 235 716.0 13 ----------- 2275 213.0 22:- --- ----- 28.5 24a0 14----------- 22.75 20L0 23_-___-____ 19.76 25L0 15 ------------ 227 222.0 IT,, -_24 - ---- (1) 18. -- 22.75 290'0 26. ------ .--- _ 222. 2420 17_______-- 22.75 24L0 26-._ -------- '' 7275 24&0 1s_- -------- 71.75 237.0 27_____------- 20.75 177.0 19----------- 2L 00 234.0 fSJ'. 28._.___-_---- 2225 20&0 2D ----------- 18.00 1820 29..----__---- 72.75 23L0 21 ----------- 24.00 237.0 W -30 --- ---._--- - 1328 2430 22----------- 2.00 258.0 31 -- 1325 135.0 23----------- 24.00 220.0 Sept.1____--------- 2&75 265.0 24 -------- 6.00 52.0 2__._____---- 71.6 245.0 25 ----------- &00 89.0 3 ---- ---- 7.0 830 26s ----------- 24.00 317.0 4------------_ 6.0 720 27----------- 24.09 309.0 �.t b -_ 22.5 23(-o 28_---------- 18 00 7130 8 -------- 2226 224.0 Total------- 91275 9,469.6 to Mmt down repairft motor. 1 After the test the well was cleaned out to the total depth, using oil from the well as a drilling fluid, and the bottom of the hole was cemented with 45 sacks of 'Cal -Seal. The top of the plug, which was at 1,017 feet, was drilled out to 1,100 feet before running in 36 joints 'of 2,% -inch tubing at 1,000 feet. Swabbing showed the tubing to be plugged at 408 feet, and the bottom 24 joints were found filled with ice and Cal -Seal. The ice a 167 was thawed, and tubing was lowered to 1,087 feet, and. after circulating for 8% hours, 5 hours of swabbing lowered the fluid level from the surface to 890 feet, recovering 35, 21, 15, 2, and 8 barrels of oil in hourly intervals. The fluid rose to 550 feet during a 2 -hour shutdown to work on the rig. It was lowered to :890 feet again with 17, 11, and 11 barrels of oil pumped in 3 consecutive hours. The next 634 hours produced 62 barrels of oil. A .plug of 45 sacks of Cal -Seal filled the hole up to 946 feet, was drilled out to 948 feet, and drilling fluid circulated for 2 hours. Tubing was run to 937 feet and swabbing produced 22.8, 11.4, and 4.7 barrels of oil. in 3 hours, lowering the fluid level to 790 feet. The fluid rose to 560 feet when the hole was shut down 2%'hours, and further swabbing --recovered 25.7, 19, 10, and: 11.4 barrels. of oil in 4 hours and 6 barrels in the next 34' hour. Twelve hours of intermittent swabbing was:"followed by continuous swabbing; 22 barrels was recovered in the -first, hour and 12 barrels in the second, dowering the fluid level from 342 to 515 feet. The hole was plugged with cement up to 819 feet, and the plug cleaned out to 850 feet. Tubing was -rum to 846 feet, and fluid was circulated through it for 3 hours. Swabbing, recovered 57 barrels of oil in the first 7 hours, and 54 in the next 10 at a steady rate of about 534 barrels per hour. The hole was then plugged to 742 feet with cement, cleaned out to 748 feet, .and with tubing set, at, 723.5 feet, drilling fluid was circulated through the tui mg for 3 hours. Swabbing recovered 20.0, 14.0, 11.4, , 8.5, and 5.7 barrels of oil in 5 hours. The well was shut down for an hour; and 2 hours of swabbing thereafter recovered oil at 11 barrels per hour, lowering the fluid level from the surface to 600 feet. More swabbing recovered 17 barrels in 1 hour and 5 barrels of ,oil.in an additional hour, lowering the fluid to 650 feet. After cementing and standing for 21 hours, ice was drilled from 454 feet to the top of the plug, at 531 feet. Cement was drilled to 555 feet, and drilling fluid circulated 3% ,hours before tubing was .ran in to 547 feet. After 2 hours of circulating through the tubing, the tubing was pulled up to 540 feet and swab- bing began. The hole was swabbed dry in 2 hours; then warm oil was circulated through the tubing for 5 hours before swabbing again. After recovering 30 barrels of oil in 334 hours, the hole was dry. Only 5 barrels of oil was recovered in the next 10 hours of swabbing. Eleven days after drilling out the hole and setting 5'% -inch casing at 1,257 feet (see p. 168), four attempts were made to perforate between 1,247 and 1,257 feet, but the gun did not fire on the first three attempts, and on the fourth, only 4 of the 24 shots were discharged. 168 EXPLORON OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE A ALASKA, 1944-53 Three weeks later, the hole was filled with Umiat oil from the storage tank, and 41 shots- perforated the casing from 1,245 to 1,255feet. Tubing was run to 1,253 feet, and about 28 -barrels -of oil was swabbed from the casing: Swabbing recovered no fluid for 8 hours thereafter, and then recovered 1% barrels of oil after which the hale was again dry for 19 hours. The hole; filled again with Umiat crude oil from storage, was then perforated from 1,234 to 1,218 feet with 60 shots. After swabbing the. hole out it remained dry,` and the casing was again perforated, from 1,135 to 1,145- feet with 41 shaped charges. ` Swabbing showed no fluid entering the. hole. The casing from 1,017 to 1,073 "feet was perforated- with 210 shots, and swabbing still produced no fluid. The same result was obtained after perforating froffi :960 to 1017 feet with 210 shots, 900 to 938 feet with=150 shots, and 866 to, 900 feet vaith' 187 shots, although the, hole was alternately swabbed : and allowed' to stand' -idle for several hours after each set of shots. Operations were shut down 2 days because of a storm, but "8 days more of swabbing once an hour for 12 hours a day failed to recover any oil. LOGISTICS Personnel and housing.- Supervisory personnel com- prised drilling foreman and George L. Gates, U. S. Bureau of Mines petroleum engineer, who was making a study of the. reservoir properties of the rock pene- trated by the drill.` ' Drilling crews consisted of 2 drillers,, .2 derrickmen, and 2 floormen. Temporary workers such as a. geologist,_ welder,. cementer, .electri- . cian, carpenter; or plumber came from Umiat camp as their services were required. The crew was housed at'Umiat camp; so the only buildings at the well site were the pump, cementing, and. boiler and generator wanigans. Vehicles and heavy equipment.—Vehicles such as vessels, Caterpillar tractors, and LVT's_ were brought from Umiat camp when necessary. One each of the following major items of drilling equipment was listed by the Arctic Contractors as having been used. Failing 1500 rotary rig. Buda 6 -cylinder gasoline engine, model HP -326, mounted on a pipe sled; power supply for rig. Gardner -Denver 4% by 6-in.'pump, model FG-FXG. Gardner -Denver 4'%- by 10 -in. mud pump. Caterpillar D8800 diesel engine, power supply for mud pump. Heat -Pak boiler, model 624-8. Westco boiler feed pmp. Kohler 4 kw generator. Waukesha 4 -cylinder gas engine, model FCL -70; Heat - Pak, boiler feed pump, generator, and engine are all mounted in a wanigan .on a pipe sled. Oilmaster 2%- by 2 -in. by 8 -ft stationary -barrel top -an- chor pump. Lufkin T7 -3A pumping unit, with crank strokes of 12, 16, and 24 in. Gardner -Denver 5j.- by 10 -in. cementing pump, Caterpillar D8800 diesel engine, power supply for cementing pump. Fuel, lubricant, and water consumption.—fn drilling and testing Umiat test well 9, a total of 7,176 gallons of diesel fuel and 3,591 gallons of 72 -octane gasoline were burned, and 130% gallons of no. 9170 lubricating oil, 111 pounds of thread -lubricating grease, and 54M pounds of no. 00 grease were used for lubrication. Water requirements totaled 11,739 gallons. DRILLING OPERATIONS The Failing rotary rig was mounted on a welded steel sled and towed to the well site with a D8 Cater- pillar tractor. It was set up on 12- by 12 -inch timbers lying on: the ground. After an extended production test the well was gradually plugged back and then drilled out, eased, and perforated in stages in an attempt to locate the source of the oil. When the hole was 63 feet deep, surface casing of 8% -inch 24 -pound, seamless line pipe was set at 61 feet with 40 sacks of Cal -Seal The top of the annulus was cemented, with 3 sacks of Cal -Seal and 1 sack of con- struction cement. At the total depth of 1,257 feet, the drilling rig was removed for a 6% -week pumping test and then replaced over the hole. Plugging the hole back in stages to locate the source of the oil produced (see p. 167) was unsuccessful; so they hole was cleaned out to 876 feet. The oil used as a drilling fluid could not lift the cement out of the hole until reverse circulation was used, with the tubing at 700 feet. Thetubingwas lowered to 854 feet and more cement circulated out. Ice and frozen cement were cleaned out from 60 to 875 feet before drilling out the plug to 1,077 feet. The cement again failed to come out of the hole, and the rock began to take oil from the drilling fluid. Three sacks of Jelflake and two of Fibertex were circulated for an hour, but reversing circulation again forced oil into the rock when the tubing became plugged with cement. The hole was cleaned out to 1,077 feet, and with brine made of 40 pounds of salt per barrel of water replacing oil as the drilling fluid, the cement plug was drilled out to the total depth. The cement did not settle out of the drilling fluid at first, but when it was displaced with 92 barrels of Umiat crude oil, the hole was finally cleaned out. Casing (57 joints of 5% -in. 22.54-1b. pipe) was run to the total depth at 1,257 feet where it was cemented with 140 sacks of construction cement treated with 600 pounds of calcium chloride. The plug was emplaced with a pressure of 600 pounds per square inch. TV WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 169 found at 1 255 The top of the hardened cement was f , casing had been set. One bit, a 4% -inch Reed, was OG, The hole was filled with oil, and the top of the used to clean ice out of the hole. gnnulus between the 5% -inch and the 8% -inch casings Du7i,TMITG1 MUD cemented with 3 sacks of Cal -Seal and 1 sack of The mud used when the hole was drilled to 209 feet was t n$truction cement. was water -base mud to which 11 sacks of Jelflake were -1n cleaning out the hole after perforating the casing, added; below that depth oil -base mud was used to -r '61U ice bridge was drilled from 430 to 520 feet; thin ice avoid contaminating cores with fresh water, which wingers were present to the total depth. About 26 would have made accurate fluid -content studies im- barrels of dead oil was swabbed through 2Y2 -inch tubing, possible. iend the hole was left empty to 1,200 feet. Below that The mud was composed of oil from Fish Creek test depth, it was filled with oil. A 3 -inch gate valve was well 1, Ken -Oil concentrate, and diesel fuel; A.roclor 'fstalled on the casing head, its top about 3 feet above was added as a tracer to provide a means of determining the ground. the extent of drilling -fluid penetration into the cores. DRILL AND CORE srrs Addition of Ken -Oil and Fish Creek crude oil increased The hole was cored for most of its depth using 24 the viscosity of the mud, and diesel oil was used to increased by adding Reed hard -formation core bits, all 5% -inch in diamter decrease it. Gel properties were Ken unslaked lime, which also decreased the except the last 2, which . were 6 inches in diameter. Most the drill bits used were Reed 2H, 7% -inch rock -Oil and filter loss. The mud weight was kept as low as possible of bits, and they did more reaming than drilling of new depth; to avoid losing drilling fluid in the rock. The follow - ing table shows the quantity of oil -base mud compo - hole. Fifteen bits were used to reach the total the mud characteristics during drilling. of the 15 were reused to clean out the hole after nents used and several - Constituents and characteristics of oil -base mud in Umiat test well 9 i A LI�(see) j (ee/30 Filtratiomfu) n loss I Tempertare Depth (ft) Diesel fuel Fish Creek oil Ken -Oil I Unslaked weight (bbl) (bbl) (bbl) lime (lb) - (lb/cu It) _ 40 65------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------, 40 100----------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- 8 38 165----------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- --- ----- - 205 ----------------------------- 209-------------------- --------- 209 ----- ----------------- 16.0 6 - 3.0 15-0-- 50 60 ------------------------- 59 75 0 48 2.0 7 1.0 265----------------------------- 312----------------------- 312 1.0 1.0 2.0 1 3 ------------------------ 5 30 ---------------- 64 ------- --------- 95 - ---------- 0 ------50 320----------------------------- 3.0 ------------------------------ -------------------- 3751---------------------------- 385--------------------------- ---------- --------- -------------------- ----------- 66 92 - -- ------50-- 0 395---------------------------------------------------------- 412----------------------------- 1.5 -------------------------------------67------- ----------- ---------- --------- 82 -----------48--_ 0 440-------------------------------- ----------------- 0.5 ---------- --------------------------------------- -------------------- 462----------------------------- 482----------------------------- ----------- 1. 0 __ -------- 5 30 _ ------69 --------------------42_- ------ 95 1.2 495---------------------------------- -------------------------------- 0.5 -----------------2 500----------------------------- 520--------------- —------------ -------------------------------------------------- 5 --------------------------------------------------------- 95 ----------4--- 1. 2 42 522-----------------------------------5.0 ------------------------------ 71 90 2.0 40 522----------------------------- ---------- -------------------_ 543------------------- ---------- 1.0 ----------------------------- 2.0 1 .5 30 --------------------------------------- -------------------- --------------------583-------------------------------------- --- -------- 603----------------------------------------------- 1. 0 -------------------------------------------------- 71 - 72 ------ 6.5 46. 5 610----------------------- - ----------- 2.0 ---------------------------------------------- ---------- 613------------------------------.- 630------------- ------------- ----------------------------- -- 74 69 --------46-- 655--------------------------------------------30 2.0 ------------------------------ ---------- - 659----------------------------- 679----------------------------- 679 1.0 -----------------------------------------------71-- ---------- ---------------47 8 695------------------------------------------------- 707----------------------------- 2.0 -------------------------------------74- -------------------- -------------------------- — 75 8 _ 47 ---------- 52 ---------------------1.0 1.0 ---------- ----------- --------------- 75 ------------- -80 ---------- 50 765 ----------------------------- 5.0 ------------------------------ --------------------------------- --------------------- --8---------50-- 808------------------------------------------------------------ 822------------------------- ---- 3.0 ---------- ---------- --------- ----- - ------- 77 - ------ 100 -----20----- 48 838--------------------------------------- ---------- -------------------- ---------------_ 839------------ ------------------------------------------------------ See footnote at end of table 170 EXPLO&W OF NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVE N(O ALASKA, 1944-53 Constituents and characteristics of oil -base mud in Umiat test well 9 --Continued Depth (ft) Diesel fuel (bbl) Fish Creek oil (bbi) Ken -Off (bbl) Unslaked limo (1b) weight (iblen ft) Viscosity API (sec) FlltmHon loss (00 0 min) Temperature (°F) 848----------------------------- 2.0 868'---------------------------- 4.0 ---------- ---------- ----------- ---------- -------------------- 77 75 ------- 20 --------52-- 888 ----------------------------- 2.0 ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------- 895----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- 3.0 ---------- ---------- ------------------------------ ---------- 76 73 -------------------- 16 52 922900 ----------------------------- 1.0 -------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 9 0----------------------------------------------------------------- 950----------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- _--_ 76 63 2------_--42- 965--------------------------------------------------------------------- 975----------------------------- 2.0 1 ---------------------------------- 78 63 6.5 45 988 ----------------------------- 1,015----------------------------------- 1.0 1 ---------- -------------------- ---------- ---------------------------------------- 78 58 1,018--------------------------- --------------------- 5.0 2 ---------- 76 60. 7 48 1,040------------------------------------- 3 ---------- -------------------------------------------------- 1,050 --------------------------- 4.0 ------------------------------------------------------------ 1,056 1,068--------------------------- -------------------------------- 2.0 -------------------- 2 ------ -----------76--------52-------4---------42- 1,075--------------------------- 1,085--------------------------- 8.0 3 ---------- .1 ---------------------------------------- 30 72 42 ---------- ---------- 42 1,105------------------------------------- 10.0 4 2 60 60 42 2 46 1,117--------------------------- 1.0 1 4 ---------- 30 ---------------------- ------------------ 5--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,136---------------------------------------------- .5 ------------------------------ ---------- 2 ---------_ 42 1,136 ------------------------------------- --------------------- 1 30 60 45 -------------------- ---------- ---------- ------------------------------ 5------------------------------------------------------------------- 1,190-------------------------------------- 61 ---------------------------- 52 ------------------- 1,215------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -------------------------------------- 61 50 50 -------------------- 1,245--------------------------- 1.0 -------------------- ------------------------ -------------- 1, 57-------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ 62 50 5 41 Five hundred pounds of Aroclor added. Viscosity and gel strength were kept as low as possible, because cuttings did not drop from suspension when viscosity was above 50 Marsh funnel seconds at about 45°F. To remove cuttings from the cement plug, before settingcasing, the oil -base mud was replaced with brine made of 2,500 pounds of salt, mixed with water at the ratio of 40 pounds per barrel. The cement did not circulate out with the oil -base mud, but cleaning out with brine was successful. After the casing bad been set, the hole was then filled with 92 barrels of oil. Before abandoning the hole, diesel fuel was added to the oil in the hole to clean out ice bridges. TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT STUDIES By MAX C. BREWER Umiat test well 9 was drilled with rotary drilling equip- ment; consequently, the thermal regime of the hole was considerably disturbed. _ Passage of fluid when the well was producing also affected the temperature. Two thermistor cables, the longest reaching to a depth of 665 feet, were installed on November 23, 1952, approximately 10 months after the completion and abandonment of the hole. A third thermistor cable, reaching to a depth of 870 feet, was installed on October 12, 1953. These cables were operated until August 1954 when the hole filled with air down to 270 feet. Crude oil filled the hole below this depth. The thermal profile for Umiat test well 9 is charac- terized by a gradient of about 135 feet per degree centigrade from approximately 100-870 feet. This is the largest inverse geothermal gradient found in the Umiat area. The inverse geothermal gradient at Umiat test wells 4 and 6 is approximately 115 feet per degree centigrade for similar depths. A short extrapolation of the thermal profile in Umiat test well 9 on October 13, 1953, indicates a depth of permafrost of 1,055 feet. This thickness of permafrost is approximately 150 feet greater than that found at any of the other Umiat wells where temperature meas- urements have been made. Except for a well 8 miles south of Barrow, this is also the greatest indicated thickness of permafrost found in Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 to date. Although temperatures had not yet reached equilibrium at Umiat test well 9 on this date, they were close enough so that the shape of the thermal profile and the indicated thickness of permafrost will not be significantly different. The minimum permafrost temperature in this well, below the depth of seasonal change, is approximately —7.2°C near the 70 -foot depth. This temperature is approximately i°C colder than those found at a similar E� OST WELLS, UMIAT AREA, ALASKA 0 depth in Umiat test wells 4 and 6. The colder mini- mum temperature and the greater thickness of perma- frost are, at least in part, the result of topography and the increased distance of the well from the Colville River. Sufficient data are not yet available to allow a -study of the relative importance of these factors. UMIAT TEST WELL 10 Location: I,at 69024'04" N., long 152007157" W. Elevation: Ground level 741 feet; derrick floor, 746 feet. Spudded: September 9, 1951. Completed: January 10, 1952; bailed 222 barrels of oil in 24 hours; plugged and abandoned. .Total depth: 1,573 feet. This well was drilled to test the Umiat anticline northwest of Umiat test well 8, which was located less than half a mile away and on the same ridge. DESCRIPTION OF CORES AND CUTTINGS The first samples recovered from the hole were from the Ninuluk formation, and contain specimens of Trochammina rutherfords Stelck and Wall (see p. 203). The presence of this foraminifer above the younger Seabee formation demonstrates the presence of a reverse fault at 210 feet. Below the fault a normal sequence of Seabee formation (210-645 ft), Ninuluk formation (645-765 ft), and Killik tongue (765-1,025 ft) of the Chandler formation was drilled. Below 1,025 feet the well was drilled through the Grandstand formation, and the upper sandstone bed of the formation was tested. The lower sandstone bed would normally be expected at 1,430 feet on the basis of correlation with Umiat test well 8 and other holes. Instead, the well continued in clay shale to 1,530 feet. From 1,530 feet to total depth, the formation consisted of a little sandstone and silt - stone interbedded with clay shale. Although the amount of sandstone in the samples is small, these and oil recovered after the casing was set at 1,339 feet suggest that the lower sandstone bed was penetrated below 1,530 feet. The absence of sandstone in samples from 1,430 to 1,530 feet, however, implies the presence of a reverse fault near 1,430 feet which increases the thickness of the shale section by repetition. Because no electric log was run in this hole and the sides caved considerably during drilling, the above described lithology may be misleading. The rocks penetrated contained oil at three different horizons: sandstone of the Ninuluk formation had an initial production of 96 barrels per day; an estimated maximum of 153 barrels per day was recovered by bailing from the upper sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation, and the lower (?) sandstone bed of the Grandstand formation produced a good show of oil but was not tested because caving forced abandonment of the hole. Lithologie description [Where no core is listed, description is based on cutting samples] Core I Depth (feet) I Remarks 171 GA 5 Belly bushing to ground level. ----- 4. 5-70 No sample. ----- 7 0-160 Sandstone, medium -light -gray, fine- grained, slightly silty and argillaceous. slightly micaceous, noncalcareous, fri- able. composed of subangular clear and white quartz with some dark rock frag- ments. At 75-80 ft abundant yellow (quartz?) grains impart. a light -olive - gray color to the rock. Between 80 and 90 ft sandstone is brownish gray, hard, and very calcareous, becoming slightly calcareous at 95 ft. Below 120 ft sandstone is very fine to fine grained, siltier, and more argillaceous. Very small amount of clay shale at base of sandstone. ----- 160-180 Clay shale, medium -dark- to dark -gray, nonealeareous, slightly to very silty and micaceous. ----- 180-200 Clay shale as above, and medium -gray argillaceous noncalcareous siltstone; sandy,pyritic, and carbonaceous in part.. Very small amount of clay shale is bentonitic. ----- 200-220 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty. Top of Seabee formation at 210 ft.- t._____ ----- 220-230 Siltstone, medium -gray, sandy, argilla- ceous, noncalcareous. ----- 230-250 Siltstone and clay shale as above, with rare clay ironstone in lower part. Mi- nute- fight -brown. shiny clay balls at 240-250 ft. ----- 250-280 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, mieaceouso nonealcareous. Some siltstone in bottom 5 ft. Minute light -brown shiny clay balls at 260-270 ft. 280-290 Siltatone, medium -gray, argillaceous; very slightly calcareous in part; small amount of very silty medium -dark -gray clay shale. Minute light -brown shiny clay balls at 280-285 ft. ----- 290-300 Clay. shale and siltstone. ----- 300-330 Siltstone, rarely slightly calcareous, with - small amount of clay shale. Minute light -brown shiny clay balls at 300- 305 ft. - ----- 330-370 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty, with very small amount of siltstone in upper part. ----- 370-380 Siltstone, medium -gray, slightly to very sandy and argillaceous, very micaceous, noncaleareous, with small amount of clay shale. ----- 380-385 Siltstone and clay shale. ----- 385-395 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty and micaceous, with dark - gray slightly carbonaceous silty mi- caceous clay shale in lower half. ----- 395-400 Siltstone, with small amount of clay shale and very small amount of medium -light gray very fine-grained silty argilla- ceous partly calcareous sandstone. 400-410 Clay shale, medium -dark -gray, slightly to very silty in part. _____ 410-420 Sandstone, light -olive -gray, fine-grained, silty, argillaceous, noncaleareous, slight- ly carbonaceous, friable, with rare yel- low grains and mica. Very small amount of medium -dark- and dark - gray carbonaceous clay shale, rare pyritic carbonaceous siltstone. s US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT lnt�rociuct�ion k, The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) requests your comments on this Proposed Plan. The Proposed Plan covers 12 areas; C 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 r • Umiat Test Well 6 • Umiat Test Well 7 • Umiat Test Well 8 • Umiat Test Well 9 • Umiat Test Well 10 • Umiat Test Well 11 100-0-4 -. _ 1 --- _ Airstrip complex`` (Unit A) I♦Aain Gravel Pad (Unit B) ; U; lat AS . ` 1 e` /Seep= 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 preferred 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. • Pr;,v!P information on how the public can be A-- involvedinvolved in finai Gt�ai lup C--;Slof is. Final decisions on the proposed alternatives will not be made until all comments submitted by the end of the public comment period have been reviewed and considered. Changes to the preferred alternatives may be made if public comments or additional data indicate that such changes would result in more appropriate solutions. Preparation of this Proposed Plan and the associated public comment period is required under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund". Although the sites described in this Proposed Plan are not CERCLA sites, this project follows CERCLA guidance. Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program 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. Altematives: appropriate waste management options that ensure the protection of human health and the environment. CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, -and Liability Act (also known as Superfund)... The federal law that guides cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Site Location 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 mostlysummer and and overvel t-1occasional river and snow machine traffic ffic in the su 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 il shale along the Etivluk 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 = _ In 1944, Lt. W.T. Foran reported ,,fid 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 moil finds n Umiat, Capen 1945 and S2. The Simpson, and resulted Fish Creek. lea m� ht Pewd M.111su! Turtalik Meade L Square Lake., umial ulit MIolfCreek ,;,FaistUmwt ~? rrua 45P oil rk-M Ca,lrillc !'i .� Oilwell a - ® Oil Satq, u t+t >rl nalaiuvu6 Psss Gas a II I)ry Hole In 1944, Lt. W.T. Foran reported ,,fid 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 moil finds n Umiat, Capen 1945 and S2. The Simpson, and resulted Fish Creek. In Umiat the first well was drilled 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. RI Work Plan (Areas 1 through '11) 1994 RI Reoort (Areas 1 throuoh 1111995 Phase 11 R1 Work Plan (Areas A, B and C)1995 Phase II RI Report (Areas A. B and C) 1997 Phase III R) Work Plan (11 NPR -4 Wells) 1997 Phase III RI Reoort M 1 NPR -4 Wellsl 1998 Phase N RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Work Plan 1998 Phase IV RI (6 NPR -4 Wells) Report 1999 Focused Feasibility Study Wells (4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) 2003 Environmental 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 ElmendorfAFB or at the Informational Repository located at the City Office in Nuigsut. The first major environmental study, the Remedial Investigation, was performed at Umiat in 1994. The Remedial Investigation looked at the Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the landfill. The study separated these areas into 11 smaller areas. Area 1 was the Air Strip Complex. Areas 2 through 10 were on the Main Gravel Pad. Area 11 was the landfill. The results of the Remedial Investigation showed that contaminants were present throughout the areas. Risk Assessment Work Plan (Areas A. S and C)1995 Assessment Report (Areas A, B and C) 1997 ability Study (Areas A, B and C) 1997 A PCB Soil Removal (Area 7)1997 Soil Removal Action (Area 7) 1998 Study (Area C and Well 9) 1999VV EE/CA Mail and 5) 2000 Phase I Stockpile Construction 2000 Phase II (Well 2 and 5) Plug and Soil Removal Phase III Soil Treatment 2002 Ilion of Lead at Well 7, 2003 DDT Soil Study 2002 PCB Oil Study 2002 In 1995, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this study the eleven areas were combined into three areas; (Area A was the Air Strip Complex. Area B was the Main Gravel Pad. Area C was the landfill). This phase of the study concentrated on areas identified in the first phase as having elevated contamination levels. After the Phase 11 investigation, several follow-on studies were completed. A Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study were completed for Air Strip Complex, the Main Gravel Pad and the Landfill. A dioxin study was performed at Area 7 (part of Main Gravel Pad). An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was completed for a small PCB soil removal action, also on the Main Gravel Pad. In 1997, Phase III of the Remedial Investigation was performed. In this phase the areas around 11 Umiat Test Wells were investigated through the collection and analysis of soil, water and sediment samples. In 1998, the Remedial Investigation (Phase IV) continued. In this phase of the study, areas surrounding six Umiat Test Wells (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9) were investigated further. Based on the results of that study, a risk assessment was performed for Wells 1, 7, and 9 and a follow-on dioxin study was performed for Well 9 and the landfill. Also based on the results of the Phase IV study, an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis was prepared for Wells 2 and 5. The well closure and soil removal project proposed in the Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis began in 2001 and is scheduled for completion by the fall of 2003. Clc�n�i�� Lcveh 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 -speck risk assessments. The goal at these well sites is to ensure that there is no significant risk to human health or the environment, and not to determine a specific cleanup number. Water Subsurface drinking water aquifers are not present at Umiat due to the presence of shallow permafrost. However, water exists seasonally in the layer above the permafrost. The risk assessments showed that contaminants in this shallow water does not pose a risk to human health or the environment. There are no sites in this Proposed Plan that have contaminated groundwater or surface water that require cleanup actions. Although no cleanup of water is proposed, the soil cleanup actions are proposed to protect nearby surface water bodies and wetlands from potential migration of contamination. As part of the proposed cleanup actions shallow water will be monitored. The water will be compared to cleanup levels from 18 AAC70—,Water Quality Standards, which establish water quality criteria for surface water, and from 18 AAC 75.345 which provides cleanup levels for groundwater that are equivalent to the EPA drinking water standards. The Site Summaries sections discusses the proposed sampling. MOW- Up Aftmagm The 12 sites,in this Proposed Plan were very similar in the\potential cleanup actions that would be appropriate. The alternatives were presented in several reports. A Feasibility Study evaluated cleanup alternatives for the Air Strip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. An Engineering Evaluation / Cost Assessment evaluated alternatives for a removal action at Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5. A Focused Feasibility Study evaluated alternatives for Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11. The Feasibility Study for the Air Strip Complex and Main Gravel Pad provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming and • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption. The EE/CA for Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 provided detailed analysis on four alternatives; • No Action • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, • Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, and • Excavation with On -Site Landfarming. (The three alternatives involving excavation also included the decommissioning of the wells to prevent future hazards if the Colville River was to erode back to the wellheads. Excavation with On -Site Hot Air Vapor Extraction, is not summarized below. This alternative was not proposed for any of the other sites, and was not selected for well sites 2 and 5). The Focused Feasibility Study for the Umiat Test Wells (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11) sites provided analysis on five alternatives; • No Action, • Natural Attenuation, • Excavation with On-site Landfarming, • Excavation with On -Site Low Temperature Thermal Desorption, and • Excavation with Off -Site Disposal. A technical description of the alternatives is provided below. No Further Action (NFA) CERCLA required evaluation of a No Action alternative as a baseline reflecting current site conditions without any cleanup effort. This option is also used as a baseline to compare to the other options. • Natural Attenuation is defined by the US EPA as the biodegradation, diffusion, dilution, sorption, volatilization, and/or chemical and biochemical stabilization of contaminants to effectively reduce contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume to levels that are protective of human health and the environment." Simply stated, natural attenuation occurs when physical, chemical and biological processes act to reduce the mass, toxicity, and mobility of subsurface contamination in a way that risks to human health and the environment are decreased to acceptable levels. The term"monitored natural attenuation" (MNA) refers to the reliance on natural attenuation processes, within the context of a monitored site cleanup, to achieve site- specific remedial objectives. Institutional Controls may be a part of any alternative. Institutional Controls are non - engineered instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the potential for exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. They can generally be used in conjunction with, engineering measures such as waste removal and treatment or containment. Some examples of Institutional Controls include easements, covenants, well drilling prohibitions, zoning restrictions, and special building permit requirements. Temporary physical barriers such as fences are also considered an Institutional Control. Excavation with Treatment or Off-site Disposal are active cleanup processes involving the removal of contaminated material followed by treatment and or reuse or reburial according to current regulations. The treatment and disposal or reuse of the cleaned material may be performed on-site or off-site depending on the type and amount of contamination remaining. Post excavation options that were considered include; Landfarming involves spreading excavated contaminated soil in a thin layer over a liner and stimulating soil bacteria to break down petroleum compounds into simpler harmless compounds. This is done by tilling to aerate the soil, adding nutrients (fertilizer), and adding water as needed, to create the best possible conditions for the soil bacteria. Landfarming requires periodic monitoring to determine if cleanup levels are met and can work well for gasoline and diesel but slower for heavier hydrocarbons. Landfarming operations would be performed on the Main Gravel Pad. Low Temperature Thermal DesorptionDesorption (LTTD) uses a rotary kiln heated to approximately 700 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate petroleum compounds from contaminated soil. The petroleum vapors are destroyed in an afterburner to prevent discharge of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. LTTD operations would be performed with a portable unit located on the Main Gravel Pad. Off-site Disposal simply is the reburial of waste or contaminated material in a permitted disposal facility. The alternatives were evaluated based on the best ways to accommodate the severe climatic, logistical, ant s;;vironmental conditions at Umiat. Each cleanup alternative was also evaluated with respect to seven of the nine criteria established ed under CERCLA (Table 1 - next page). two modifying criteria are evaivated during this Proposed Plan process. Iif�.0 S l l i�l�l I�l�l�1 Y�j The following sections provide specific descriptions, investigative histories and proposed alternatives for each site. NINE CLEANUP ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA UNDER CERCLA Evaluation Criteria What is evaluated? Threshold Criteria (must be met by all alternatives) Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment How well does the alternative protect human health and the environment through elimination, reduction, or control of contaminated areas? Compliance with Applicable or Does the alternative meet cleanup standards and comply with Relevant and Appropriate applicable government laws and regulations? Requirements Balancing Criteria (used to compare Long-term Effectiveness and How well does the alternative protect human health and the alternatives) Permanence environment after cleanup, and are there any risks remaining at the site? Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility Does the alternative effectively treat the contamination to and Volume through Treatment significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of the hazardous substances? Short-term Effectiveness Are there potential adverse effects to either human health or the environment during construction or implementation of the alternative? Implementability Is the alternative both technically and administratively feasible? Cost What are the capital and operating and maintenance costs of the alternative? Modifying Criteria State Acceptance Is the alternative acceptable to the state (AD EC) ? (evaluated as a results of State's comments) Modifying Criteria Community Acceptance Is the alternative acceptable to community members? (evaluated as a results of public comments) 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. �REA OF SOIL COMAMMTION - Is SO -12 • 1996 16 SAMPLE LOCATION 1 250 R : DEPiN OF OONTAMINAnON I"" ESTMATID TO BE 2b': E5T9tATE0 500. 8141-1 f 7994 RI SAMPLE LOCATION NDBU IXCEEdNG CLEANUP CR11E1tU.. MW -1 1996 RI MONITORING WELL LOCATION liCy. TUNDRA RWL-1 • 1996 16 SURFACE NATER AND SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION --.- EDGE OF GRAVEL 017 -SL • 1996 Po SAMPLE LOCATION -- ---�• EDGE OF NATER E7(1ENT UNKNOWN - �- VNatIWIF 81188 a C•8••Mt fl1ffD 9A sal S t "` j� �-_ 0.1W.-3 ' • • OecFmr6 rxE AaWsau, AfOYUIan alOrrE It ns R•l-2 ♦ SB -D r ARO 22= RUNWAT LWE •58-7 I( S8-16 I� ^ •j /59-17 .\56_1s / MW -2 L SCALE M FEET 0 ,� iMl 300 l� • SB -32 �l • 58-31 • SB -30 •TSO --29 ' �~•56-26 SB -27 P!!Ndor'r APRON S9_34 e59-33 ese.-18 *SB -26 'PSB -19 •58-21 •50-20 eSS-5 e •SS -5 017 -SL Ss -2• roRMEF ADOT J • • N2 fANRS SO -30 M14 � J• In 1996, Phase II of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 44 soil borings and two groundwater monitoring wells were completed. Also during this phase, three samples of sediment and surface water were collected from Runway Lake. Runway Lake is adjacent and west of the airstrip. The sample locations are shown on Figure 3 above. Petroleum Hydrocarbons: a group of chemicals commonly found in fuel products. Petroleum hydrocarbons include total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) an older method used to detect full range hydrocarbons, diesel range organics (DRO) which are chemicals found in diesel, (residual range organics (RRO), and gasoline range organics (GRO) and•benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) which are chemicals found in gasoline. • • OSB -24 SB -153• ~,LEL 59-25 I SB- 13 OSS -41 1'—EDGE OF GR. •38-23 i . x_22 •BNA -3 � > j�j��Y •SB -1 OSB -12 6/'. .1-2 - 59-42• eml -1 sBa e J__--E'OGE .7F GRNFa 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 Chemicals Detected Above Cleanup Criteria at the Air S rip Com lex Chemical Number of Samples Highest Above Cleanup Reported Cleanup Criteria Concentration Criteria Soil (mg/kg) GRO 14008 4375 1 DRO 125008 1 22000 4 RRO 13700 1 24000 1 Benzene 138 31 1 Ground Water m /L GRO 1.3b 14.5 3 DRO 1.5b 42.5 3 Benzene 0.005b 0.486 3 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.001b 0.0046 1 Dibenzo a, h anthracene 0.0001b 0.0026 1 Chromium 0.11 0.168 1 Lead 0.015b 0.202 2 Thallium 0.002b 0.0069 2 Notes: a This vakie is the lower of ingestioN'mhalation level in 18 AAC75.341, Table 61 and BZ Arctic Zone b This vakae is the groundw ater cleanup level in 18 AAC 75.345, Table C rarrr, per ld raffj L ffftrarns fifer The evaluation and comparison of these alternatives are summarized below; Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment The No Action alternative provides no direct protection to human health or the environment. However, the results of the risk assessment indicated that there are no significant risks associated with this site. The second alternative, Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls, will provide some minimal protection to people from exposure to contamination through fencing and signs, but will not protect animals that may burrow under the fence or birds that may fly over a fence. This alternative will monitor the rate at which contaminants degrade, but will take many years to reach cleanup levels. The other two alternatives, excavation with Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to reduce the petroleum contamination in the soil to below the cleanup levels within a short period of time. There would be no further exposure potential. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements All alternatives considered for this area have the potential to comply with regulations as presented in the Feasibility Study, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. The difference is the time frame in which the cleanup levels would be met. The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternative would take the longest to achieve the goals. The No Action alternative would not provide any monitoring data to detect whether contamination is migrating off site through the active zone water and entering adjacent water bodies or wetlands. The excavation with LTTD would take the shortest amount of time. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence The No Action alternative provides no long-term effectiveness or permanence. Natural Attenuation relies on natural processes and a significant time period (greater than 30 years). Landfarming and LTTD are more active cleanup processes. Both are expected to be able to provide long-term effectiveness and permanence. The LTTD alternative is significantly faster in reaching the end point. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The No Action and Natural Attenuation alternatives provide no direct reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume through treatment, because no active treatment is involved with these alternatives. It is expected that the petroleum contamination would degrade with time. Landfarming, or LTTD, have the potential to permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume of the contaminants. The difference again is the time frame that would be required. LTTD requires hours to treat a batch of soil and landfarming would require months or perhaps years to complete treatment. Short-term Effectiveness The No Action alternative would have no short- term impact because no field work is involved, thus no exposure to the soil would occur. The Natural Attenuation with Institutional controls could have a minor impact during the construction of fences around the areas. The other alternatives include the digging and transportation of the soil to a central treatment area. The handling of the soil throughout the treatment process has the potential to expose the workers to the contaminants. Additionally, the excavation work can potentially create dust and runoff. The LTTD have the potential to release petroleum vapors or dust as the soil is being treated. It is expected that any short-term impact to workers or the environment can be reduced through proper protective clothes, engineering controls on the treatment equipment, and carefully planned work practices to prevent dust generation during soil handling activities. Implementability Each alternative considered is implementable. The No Action and Natural Attenuation with Institutional Controls are the simplest to implement because little or no field work is required. The excavation and treatment alternatives require significantly more equipment, materials and land to implement. In the original Feasibility Study the LTTD alternative was described as the most difficult to implement. It involves mobilizing large pieces of equipment to Umiat, and also requires highly trained technical workers to operate and maintain the equipment. The Feasibility Study was based on the volume of soil that required treatment from the Airstrip and Main Gravel Pad. However, when the volume of soil to be treated expanded due to the Well 2 and 5 work, LTTD became the preferred alternative. There is not sufficient area available at Umiat to treat all of the soil by landfarming unless it was done in stages over many years. This would require long-term stockpiling of soil that was waiting for treatment Cost The costs presented here are for cleanup of the petroleum contamination at the Airstrip Complex and the Main Gravel Pad. The costs associated with 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 i target soil with contamination levels above the Method 2 cleanup levels. The soil shall be treated in the thermal unit that is currently at Umiat. If the excavation is delayed, another on- site treatment option will be proposed. Although the shallow groundwater has been affected by petroleum contamination, the groundwater will not be directly treated. The removal of the contaminated soil will reduce the source of contamination in the water. ADEC has developed guidance that shallow groundwater above a permafrost area does not need to be considered as a possible drinking water source. The risk assessment also evaluated the potential exposure pathways and risk associated with contamination in the shallow groundwater, and did not identify any significant risks. However, the contamination of shallow groundwater must be evaluated with respect to the potential that the groundwater has to impact adjacent surface water. Because the contaminated area is near Runway Lake, the shallow groundwater will be monitored at wells that will be placed near the lake's edge. A network of five shallow monitoring points will be installed between the excavated area (near MW -2) and Runway Lake. The purpose of the monitoring is to detect any contamination before it enters Runway Lake. This monitoring network will be sampled annually for five years. The samples will be tested for petroleum products (DRO, RRO, GRO, BTEX and PAHs). After the first five years, the data will be evaluated and a determination made on whether additional information is needed to document that cleanup of the area has been successful. If the five-year review demonstrates that cleanup was successful, data collection may then be terminated or the frequency of monitoring decreased. Main. Gravel Pard 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 If of the Remedial Investigation was completed. During this phase, 119 soil borings and nine temporary groundwater - monitoring wells were completed. Sediment and surface water samples were also collected from the nearby Floatplane Lake. Samples were analyzed for DRO, RRO, GRO, volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs/dioxins and metals. A follow-on dioxin study was performed in December of 1996 to further evaluate the presence of dioxins. The sample locations are shown on Figure 4 below. SF59• 1996 N SNAKE LOCATION '�7 !-` zy 31KJL' 1996 m FIELD LAB SAMPLE LOCATION A6 .1A 6 pMBNILT K Dg 9Y A NOK-OFPMdEIIT Of M//// • sB-99 9-125 =WW_t 1996 M NDNVO9 WELL LOCAl1ON OEfENSE PAR1T' AIfD 5 KR 91R1.OE0 N 11E VOLUAE ESBKATE BN10-1• 1991 RI SUNPLE LOCATION OPROC AREA OF SOA CMTNWM11M 70 6E 2 FEEL •� •BW -3 NOh: pN IMATE EKW Or CONTAMINATION EDGE OF GRAVEL •6N2-4 _•. EDGE OF WATER _1 t9-Io1 P3J CO2CWM PAD NRR01L MEA OE SOLI COXTAYWATpN =625 PROPOSED I4AACTS: POSE 181 CRO ,129 ppm STORAGE TAW Z5 f1EPT11 0i ILIITNQLA110N M E91KA1E5 TO 9 25 FEET. '. E511KA1819011 'ALWE.9 CY.RRO ORO 22.560 PPIIA4FA 22222 PPII \ \ (6O MR�p Q ABO�A STORAGE TANK APPROX. MEA OiL DOILTAlWU1WN = 625 FT' GRO 100 PPM-\ �\ OFP1N OF CSMTAMNAl19 6 E59A1FD 10 BE 2 iFET. + TUNDRA 3131 fL- RRO2.000 ppm 996 EPA REGION 3 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS: CLEANUP LEVELS AT SUMWUND SITES: APPRpX NWA OF SOL CON TAIANARCN - FEET OF R1E RETARDS S13PR 5111 �R Sl: sfu-a' S1K-R • 'S1K-R �Y m'71. 51M -R APN 1 .Slll-R s �•9-1ap AN— •9-TL � aRE1 2 g -y , V 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 If 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. se-fa�5e-,aj 139 gy:1N• 9 -ea 6x15-1 9-15/A�AR // lRf-1Cy�2xW-2 j l:/.9-fie—Lys exlo-, '9-107• � 1 / Nxr 9-11. /�2 71 ,I AREA 7 e9 -IK / 22-11zi Flu Sx7�w-u 'I 2 9- 0 9-12E 1� �,:SB-113 •9-119 �-1� �// -� •9-151 / •9-S>-:��Ja 9-9, •36-110 •9 -ss •9-25 afD-s l '9-„1 >ai-i Y' � •BN2-T•36-26 19-82 ,9-106 7. .SB -f 15 / I+ ✓/ ^�. '�7 !-` zy . • •9 -IK A6 .1A 6 pMBNILT K Dg 9Y A NOK-OFPMdEIIT Of M//// • sB-99 9-125 =WW_t OEfENSE PAR1T' AIfD 5 KR 91R1.OE0 N 11E VOLUAE ESBKATE _'35 _ 59-e2. `\` .q6 -1M OPROC AREA OF SOA CMTNWM11M 70 6E 2 FEEL •� •BW -3 NOh: pN IMATE EKW Or CONTAMINATION AREA 5 Wg-I •6N2-4 EXCEEDAPPRODIING REGULATORY GUIDANCE LEVELS&(PRO 5EO 18210 @ 4-I ` 1M-9S,i f p13-2 � ;� � _1 t9-Io1 •9-IARN� 5 •98-,52 I •�-� AIN-10� ` •9-150 i t �~ I • 9J -IW •Sh119 �� •9-1]0 - ZNKRNI. AREA OF SOK OONTAIM T1 - 90 . I •9-,z2 NW CSNTNINMION m E51PIA1FD ro a FEET. WINR1 ppm IRON 23.000 ppm RACKGROIRID CONCENTRAMONS: '°• oDK .� ES191AlED SOl AMKULE ^133 CY. 9-10: . se -,]e •SB -1s7 • •9 -IK A6 .1A 6 pMBNILT K Dg 9Y A NOK-OFPMdEIIT Of M//// • sB-99 9-125 =WW_t OEfENSE PAR1T' AIfD 5 KR 91R1.OE0 N 11E VOLUAE ESBKATE _'35 _ 59-e2. `\` .q6 -1M OPROC AREA OF SOA CMTNWM11M 70 6E 2 FEEL •� •BW -3 NOh: pN IMATE EKW Or CONTAMINATION W9 -J OEPK OF OONTN9AGON K E57WAlm ESIKATETI SPL VOLUME . 30 CL EXCEEDAPPRODIING REGULATORY GUIDANCE LEVELS&(PRO 5EO 18210 @ 4-I ` OR CONCENWLAl10S, yyy. tq�-15 NRR01L MEA OE SOLI COXTAYWATpN =625 PROPOSED I4AACTS: POSE 181 CRO ,129 ppm SB -1]e• • 1J7 �, Z5 f1EPT11 0i ILIITNQLA110N M E91KA1E5 TO 9 25 FEET. '. E511KA1819011 'ALWE.9 CY.RRO ORO 22.560 PPIIA4FA 22222 PPII \ \ 3 AOEC X MP! SLAPS PADS (WISO' OF EDGE OF PADS) APPROX. MEA OiL DOILTAlWU1WN = 625 FT' GRO 100 PPM-\ �\ OFP1N OF CSMTAMNAl19 6 E59A1FD 10 BE 2 iFET. ORO 200 Np ESRMATm YOR \ODAE . K CY. RRO2.000 ppm 996 EPA REGION 3 RISK-BASED CONCENTRATIONS: CLEANUP LEVELS AT SUMWUND SITES: APPRpX NWA OF SOL CON TAIANARCN - FEET OF R1E RETARDS AN1111ONY 31 PPM LEAD 100 PP, COPPER 3 IDO r5 .w0%x, / SCALE K FEET / 0 150 300 S50 LOCA 50 _ ExCEEONG >NE WIN SLDPE CUA " IET2L5 = >.STO R' COIRA,NASON IS FSINAWA YD BE 3 RFT TMG(. IRON 23.000 ppm RACKGROIRID CONCENTRAMONS: '°• ESTWAIED 9L VOLIRIE - "I CY. ARSENIC 6./ "1 991 EPA WITS. GUIDAIKE FORESTABUSMNG SOIL LEAD RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase !1 and dioxin study were completed, a human health and ecological risk assessment was perf ormed. 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 transport ation 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 bott om 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 permitt ed 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. Chemicals Detected Above Cleanup Criteria at the .Main Gravel Pad Chemical Cleanup Criteria Highest Reputed Concentration Number tyf Samples Above Cleanup .Criteria r Soil (mg/kg) GR0 1400° 2200 2 1 DRO 12500° 140000. 10 � RRO 13700°i 75000 4 i, PCB 18 912 5 Antimony 55a 495 1 Arsenic 88 53.2 2 ti Lead 400a 26400 4 DDT 338 140 3 Ground Water m /L GRO 1.3° 20 5 - DRO 1.5° 46.4 8 Benzene 0.005° 0.0864 6 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.001° 0.03 2 rams r titer Benzo a rene 0.0002° 0.00106 1 Benzo b uoraMhene 0.001° 0.0014 1 i~ ii Benzo k uoraMhene 0.01° 0.011. 1 Dibenzo a h anthracene 0.0001° 0.0043 1 AroClor 1254\PCB 0.0005° 0.24 1 Thallium 0.002° 0.0398 2 Notes: ti ' This value is the low or of the ingestionrinhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 81 and 62, Arctic Zone p ° This value is the oundw afar cleanunylL E a g WE rte. RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase !1 and dioxin study were completed, a human health and ecological risk assessment was perf ormed. 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 transport ation 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 bott om 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 permitt ed 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. level in 18 AAC 75.345, Table C rrg/ISg milligrams per b ra rams r titer RISK ASSESSMENT After the Phase !1 and dioxin study were completed, a human health and ecological risk assessment was perf ormed. 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 transport ation 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 bott om 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 permitt ed 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. Uniiat Test Wells 2 and 5 INVESTIGATIONS Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5 are located two miles northeast of Umiat and approximately 150 feet from the Colville River. The area is upland tundra dominated by tall willows. A concrete lined pit surrounded Well 2. Well 5 is located 150 feet east of Well 2. Well 5 was surrounded by a wood foundation. Both wells shared a four -acre gravel pad. A 1,500 square foot mud pit was located west of the gravel pad. Although each well was initially studied separately, Well 2 and Well 5 were close enough to one another to be addressed as one site. The wells were first studied during the August 1997 Phase III Investigation. Four surface soil samples were collected for the investigation near Well 2. Three samples were collected from the concrete pit area and the other was collected from the mud pit. Five surface soil samples, and five co -located sediment / surface water samples were collected for the investigation at Well 5. One sample was collected near the wellhead, three were collected from a stained area near a debris pile, one was collected at the end of a discharge pipe and one was collected on the cut bank of the Colville River. The sediment/surface water samples were collected both upstream and downstream of stained soil and the discharge pipe. All samples were analyzed for residual petroleum products (DRO, RRO, and GRO), volatile organic compounds, semi -volatile organic compounds, pesticides and PCBs and twenty-three metals. The surface water analysis excluded RRO but included Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (T"PH)_ 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 � 5, amet er capped 9Di,t " Reber primary well head photopoint% W,AI cap , , 9" Diameter vertical / Well No.2 steel pipe _ . -0 � 200SS - 201SS 202SSCI d o i Concrete j . 3.5' Deep pit' pad 204SS---__ _ -.-Well No.5 Drilling mud pit 203SS s. Approximate gravel pad boundary KEY SD,SW colocated sediment and surface water sample SS surface Sample Wood framing Erosion on Colville River near Well No.S 90% 205SS) 9 2 Distribution valve assembly Rebar Stained photopoint soil W/AI crap Discharge \_ pipe ®®® 209SD,SW 210SD,SW 205SS 211SD,SW / Vertical pipe Bottom of slope P i (gravel pad) IX 517 SB C o 1*4 213SD.SW 230SS 231 SS 232SS i 0 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, 7, 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 August 1998 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. OWN �'r 1 EQW , 11 w The results from the first study showed no contamination exceeding Method 2 cleanup levels in the soil. However, the sediments from Umiat Lake did show some elevated residual petroleum levels. In the second study, again none of the soil results had DRO or RRO levels that exceed the Method 2 cleanup levels. The highest DRO concentration was 7,300 mg/kg and the RRO concentration was 6,000 mg/kg. One of the 31 samples (sample 318 -SL) contained xylene. The Method 2 cleanup level for xylenes is 81 mg/kg for the inhalation pathway and 274,000 mg/kg for the ingestion pathway. Because this sample was taken below the ground surface (6 inches to 1 foot), near the water interface, and in a remote undeveloped area, the inhalation cleanup level is not appropriate. Therefore, xylenes do not require cleanup at this site. The geophysical study revealed possible drum/ debris locations along the east shore of the lake. The study could not determine the nature of the metal debris or total amount. The survey identified 43 possible metal debris areas. It is estimated that the total weight of the metal could range from 2,000 pounds to 20,000 pounds. Well 4 is located approximately three miles northeast of Umiat on top of a ridge near Umiat Lake. A four -inch diameter pipe extends south from the Well 4 area towards Well 5 and the Colville River. The length and final termination point of the pipe are not known. In the1997 Phase III study, four surface soil samples were collected from the well area. The sampling targeted petroleum stained soil and the around the well. One sample contained RRO above the Method 2 cleanup level of 13,700 mg/kg. The highest reported RRO level was 15,000 mg/kg. The analytical results are summarized in Table 4 on the next page. The sample locations are shown in Figure 8 on the next page. Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 4 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 Soil m lk RRO 137008 15000 1 Notes: 8 This value is the lower of the ingestionrnhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and B2, Arctic Zone mill' rarrs per Mograrn 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, seri+i- rolatilc 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 717 SL 716 SL 718 SL 719 SL 724 SL 715 SL 723 SL 0 O Ponded Water 713 SL 714 SL 720 SL 72'I SL/722 SL 7300 SL O 0 0 0 705 SL 704 SL 0 711 SL/712 SL 709 SL 728 SL 729 SL 255 SS O O Well No. 7 700 SL 703 SL 710 SL 706 SL 732 SU733 SL 725 SL 731 SL O 0 Q p Q 707 SL 726 SL 0 O 708 SL 734 SL 735 SL/736 SL 737 SL 727 SL o Q Q O O KEY - 1 Q Surface soil sample location Well location 9 APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet In the second study all of the DRO 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. 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 i Summary of Chemicals Detected at ' Well j 1 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criteria Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 { Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criterrrgft ia Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 3 Soil (mg/kg) DRO 125008 25000 1 Lead 4008 2600 2 Notes: r� This value is the low er of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 81 and B2, Arctic Zone rrgft i! mit' rams per Id ram! 125008 18000 1 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 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; Summary of Chemicals Detected at Well 8 Chemical ADEC Method 2 Criterrrgft ia Highest Reported Concentration Number of Samples Above Method 2 E Soil (mg/kg) ram DRO 125008 18000 1 RRO 137008 29000 1 i' Notes: e i 'This value is the low er of the ingestionfinhalatbn level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table B1 and 62, Arctic Zone mill' rams per is I: 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; ram 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 81 and 62, Arctic Zone i 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, xyiene5 or puyl luumcil al ul1 fou„ 1 ly--v v....... (PAHs)). Lead was the only significant non - petroleum contaminant and was only detected at Well 7. i KEIT: C@ 1997 Surface sail sample APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 20 40 Feet A site-specific risk assessment was completed at Wells 1, 7 and 9, and also for former Umiat Air Station. The risks associated with petroleum products (DRO, RRO and GRO) at Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 are expected to be comparable to potential Bear paw Creek risks identified at Wells 9 and the Air Strip Complex because of similar site conditions, and type and concentration of contaminants. Human Heath Risks Umiat Test Wells 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11 The main human health risk comparison was based on the risk assessment from 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 ug1dL, 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 ecological 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 Artion 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 eRcO,weness also considers the time period required compiete !he remedial actions. The LTTD or Off-site Disposai w661 likely be completed in one field season, whereas the Landfarming alternative would likely require 5 to 10 years to compete. The Natural Attenuation alternative would likely require more than 20 years to show any significant reduction in contamination levels. The options involving excavations (LTTD, Off-site Disposal and Landfarming) would have an impact on the environment. These options would disturb the revegetated areas, which over the past 50 years, have recovered from the original drilling operations. Due to equipment staging, the areas disturbed would likely be larger than the areas being remediated. Although aspects of the short-term effectiveness (the actual excavating or operating the treatment system) would be limited to a few months to a few years, the effects of the excavation removal would remain for many years. Implementability All alternatives are implementable to a degree. The degree to which they are implementable is quite variable. Obviously, the No Action alternative would be the simplest to implement because it requires no additional fieldwork. The difficultly of the implementability increases slightly with the Natural Attenuation option and increases significantly more with the LTTD, Landfarming and Off-site Disposal alternatives. For the Natural Attenuation alternative the implementability difficulties are associated the general logistic challenges at Umiat. Small helicopter services would be required for each mobilization. For the options requiring excavation, significant logistical and engineering support would be required for either a summer (requiring large helicopter support) or a winter (requiring ice roads) project schedule. The Landfarming option also has an implementability challenge associated with available land for a treatment facility. it would not be feasible to construct individual Landfarms at each well site, because the area for the Landfarm would be many times larger than the area to be remediated, and the wells sites do not have open areas (e.g. gravel pads) associated with them that could be used for a landfarming operation. Conversely, if the soil were to be consolidated at Umiat, the Landfarm would likely use a large area of the Main Gravel Pad for many years. This would likely not be acceptable to the current landowners and could potentially have an impact on area development. Cost Because of the small volume of potentially contaminated soil at each of the well sites, most of the costs associated with any response would be from mobilizing equipment and materials to Umiat. For this reason the costs presented are for all of the well sites. The elimination of one or more well site would not significantly affect the total cost. The costs of the alternatives vary widely from $0 for the No Action Alternative to over $3.9 million for the Ex -situ Landfarming alternative. Excluding the No Action alternative, the costs range from $1.5 million for Natural Attenuation to $3.9 million for the Landfarming alternative. • No Action - $0. • Natural Attenuation - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $256,000, $155,000 and $1,590,000, respectively. • Excavation with On -Site LTTD -Total costs for this option is $1,970,000. No O&M cost were considered and no present worth cost was calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. The cost for this option assumes that the LTTD currently on-site would be used for the treatment. Additional $750,000 would be incurred with mobilizing a new unit or extending the duration of the existing unit. • Excavation with On-site Landfarming - Capital costs, annual O&M cost and 30 year present worth costs for this option are $1,785,000, $257,000 and $3,988,000, respectively. • Excavation with Off-site Disposal - Total cost for this option is $2,285,000. No O&M costs are considered and no present worth cost is calculated because the option would be completed in one field season. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the production of this Proposed Plan and has agreed that the proposed alternative meets State regulations and protects human health and the environment. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTIONS Based on the contamination observed, the limited exposure potential, and the fact that the areas are nearly completely revegetated, it is proposed that No Action be taken at Umiat Test Well sites (3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11). Even though a No Action alternative is proposed, this option is considered to satisfactorily address the CERLCA criteria. Additional consideration for the proposed No Action is provided below. The Focus Feasibility Study prepared for the well sites evaluated several likely cleanup alternatives. The study evaluated the nature and extent of contamination, and the potential scope of cleanup efforts, including costs, benefits and damage resulting from the excavation actions. At each site, sampling activities targeted features such as petroleum -stained soil and an AST drain area. The targeted features were expected to have elevated levels of residual petroleum products. Therefore, the sampling results likely represent the highest levels of contamination present. Residual petroleum products were detected at six of the seven well sites. However, no petroleum related contaminants that cause human health risks from direct contact (for example BTEX or PAHs) were detected. Because of the variable levels of residual petroleum, it is apparent that natural processes are reducing the contamination. Therefore, an attempt to provide a more immediate cleanup at the site would involve the excavation of soil. Damage resulting from excavating the tundra and wetlands, which has nearly completely regrown, would be greater than the potential risk to humans or the environment. It should be noted that although No Action is proposed for Well site 3, because the lake water had low petroleum levels and the potential impact from the metal debris, Well 3 and Umiat Lake will be separated into two sites. Additional studies will be proposed for Umiat Lake. Urniat. Test Well g 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 tILID I 1_ 1 -1-1UU to Notes: a This value is the low or of the ingestion/inhalation level in 18 AAC 75.341, Table 131 and B2, Arctic Zone nig/kg milli rams per kilogram for RRO. PCBs were found in three samples above the cleanup levels of 1 mg/kg. The highest value was 15 mg/kg. The samples analyzed from the third study showed that dioxins were present in the soil. The analytical results are summarized in Table 10. RISK ASSESSMENT A site-specific risk assessment was performed for Well 9. The risk assessment identified potential risks to human health and to wildlife, with the majority of the risk caused by contact with PCBs in soil. The risk assessment found potential cancer risks to future residents from contact with PCBs, APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 50 100 Feet 973 SS Outline of Depression in Slope W2 SSS 9g1 SS Sao ss C 0 77 SS 930 SS 976 SS O O 974 SS 975 SS 0 97s ss Bumed Area 0 979 SS Drainage 97o SS 969 SS O 964 SS 965 SB 963 SS O O 972 SS 988 SS 971 SS O O rs� 967 SS 966 SS O O 961 SS 962 SB 0 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. 960 SS 959 SS O O 957 SS 955 SS 956 SB 958 SB 954 SS 953 SS 952 SS O O O O O KEY: o Sample locations L, NPRA well location 947 SS 951 SS 948 SB 946 SS 945 SS O O O O 931 SS 950 SS 949 SS 935 SS 934 SS 9330 SS 932 SB 938 SS 939 SS 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 905 SS 904 SS 937 SS 936 SS MSB 919 SB 0 0 0 O 909 SS 909 SS 923 SB 922 SB 0 O 914 SS 913 SS 929 SB 928 SB O O 903 SS 902 SS 900 SS/801 SS 91a SB 917 SB 915 S5/916 SB O O O 907 SS NPR 906 SS 924 SB well N0.9 921 SB O A O 912 SS 911 SS 910 SS 927 SB 926 SS 925 SB 940 SS O O 0 0 effects for some forms of wildlife. The Arctic shrew, Arctic warbler, collared lemming, and willow ptarmigan have potential adverse effects from contact with PCBs, petroleum compounds, and dioxins. No adverse effects were found for moose, caribou, Arctic fox, and snowy owls. PROPOSED CLEANUP ACTION For the Well 9 site an extensive evaluation of possible cleanup actions was not performed. Instead, what USEPA refers to as "Presumptive Remedy" was selected. A presumptive remedy is appropriate when the contamination allows for an obvious and commonly accepted cleanup action. This is the case for PCBs in shallow soil where there is no control in the exposure potential and capping or covering presents significant long- term maintenance problems. Based on the studies at Well 9 it is proposed that a soil removal action be performed. It is expected that approximately 300 cubic yards of PCB and petroleum contaminated soil will be removed from the wellhead area and 75 cubic yards from the burn area. Although the dioxin contaminated soil does not require removal, the dioxins are found in the same soil as the PCBs and will be removed as well. The actual excavated amounts will be determined by infield sampling and post excavation confirmatory sampling. The soil shall be tested for PCBs and petroleum compounds. The goal for the cleanup action will be to remove all contaminated soil with PCBs greater than 1 mglkg and petroleum contamination which would cause a significant risk to human health or the environment. The excavated soils shall be transported off-site to a proper waste disposal facility. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATIONS Although the proposed cleanup at Well 9 is not compared to other alternatives, it is evaluated against the CERCLA criteria. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment PCB contamination would be removed and petroleum contamination reduced to levels that resulted in no significant increase in health or cancer risks to either human health or to the environment. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements The removal of the PCBs would meet the State regulations, primarily meeting Method 2 cleanup levels. Short-term Effectiveness Potential exposure during remedial action During the removal and transportation activities there would be an increased potential for exposure to contaminants. Potential health effects would be limited with the use of proper protective equipment. Controls would be used to prevent runoff or contaminated dust from spreading to other ecological or human receptors. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence The contamination would remain in the soil, but will be disposed of in a landfill permitted to accept PCB waste. Residual petroleum contamination may remain onsite would be below levels that resulted in significant risk to human health or the environment. The alternative would provide a permanent remedy for this site. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility and Volume through Treatment The disposal of the PCB and petroleum contaminated soil would only reduce the mobility of the contaminants. Implementability The excavation and disposal is feasible to implement. This alternative would likely involve construction of an ice road and winter excavation of the soil. The removal project at Wells 2 and 5 has demonstrated that this is feasible to implement at Umiat. Cost The cost associated with the excavation and off- site disposal alternative is approximately $1,000,000 for capital costs. No O&M cost are needed and no 30 year present worth cost is calculated because it is assumed that all work would be completed in one year. State Acceptance The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation has been involved in the planning and implementation of the investigations through their review and approval of project documents. The ADEC has also been involved in the development of this Proposed Plan and agrees that the alternative meets State regulations and will protect human health and the environment. S�amr7� ty of Prop�osccl Cle= n�aF•� Ac�t�i 0 - 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). ,S.c_c�t,i MG G 151 e Introduction«-«---------.«--._---~------.—_--«___�w______�_—«__«-__-------------------------------- 1 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program —«----««-------~------------- "-"` ¢-""`"""'" 2 Site Location and History ----------------------------«—_______—«._— ._---_«---w—.--.---- 2 Environmental Investigation and Cleanup History --«-------------------~-----------------"---"--"«"'--""""""- Cleanup Levels Cleanup Alternatives Site Summaries 3 4 5 6 Air Strip Complex Main Gravel Pad Umiat Test Wells 2 and 5--------------------------«-«------------------«-----«----------«-----«-« 14 Umiat Test Wells 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11----------------------------------- Umiat Test Well 9 ---------------«-----------------------------« ------------ 30 Summary of Proposed Cleanup Actions-----------«--«_—«_ US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT SIBLIC REVIEW COMMEP# 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: • Please Fold at Dotted Line ------ Affix Stamp Here U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska CEPOA-PM-C Attn: Curtis King, PE PO Box 6898 Elmendorf AFB, AK 99506-6898 Please Staple Here Before Mailing Community Comn�er�t�s unci F'rtMAP �ton You are encouraged to provide comments on the preferred alternatives for addressing chemical concerns and cleanup activities at Umiat during the public comment period. Your comments can make a difference in deciding which cleanup alternative will be chosen. USACE will not select a final course of action until the public comment period ends and all comments have been reviewed and considered. Your comments may be presented in writing or at the Public Meeting. A pre -addressed comment form is included in this Proposed Plan. The public comment/review period is from June 16 to July 25, 2003. The Public Meeting to discuss the Proposed Plan for Umiat, answer questions and address concerns, and receive public comments will be held on July 16, 2003 at the Kisik Community Center in Nuiqsut from 7:00 P.M. until all comments are heard. The USACE will prepare a written response to all significant comments and new data submitted in reference to this Proposed Plan. A summary of these responses will accompany the Decision Document and will be made available in the Administrative Record and the Information Repository noted below. Information on the Umiat site can be obtained from the Information Repository. The repository contains site information, including detailed investigation reports, test results from field 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 US Army Corps of Engineers ALASKA DISTRICT luilding.. 9 Safety is the Core of the � Corps 000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 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 ecolGgN, and enNironment.. inc. International Specialists in the Environment 840 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Tel: (907) 257-5000, Fax: (907) 257-5007 recycled paper Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary....................................................................1 1 Introduction 1-1 1.1 Scope and Objectives........................................................................................1-1 1.2 Report Organization.......................................................................................... 1-1 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!03199-HP4 Tables of Contents (Cat.) Section a 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 ADerived Cost Sheets................................................................ A-1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 IV R UMIAT.DOC-I 1/03/99-FIP4 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 8 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 Extent of Contamination; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5............. 2-10 .......................... 2-4 Cross Section A -A'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 ...............2-11 2-5 Cross Section B -B'; Subsurface Stratigraphy at NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 ................2-12 4-1 Proposed Haul Route................................................................................................4-10 4-2 Potential Landfarming Cell Locations .......................................... 4-14 ............. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 vii R_UMIAT. DOC -11 /03/99-HP4 •- • 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 D TTAATA T T%ni, 11 im mo LTDA Executive Summary Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska, Contract AFS No. DACA85-9-8-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., pre - Airforce Station pared this engineering evaluation/cost analysis for a removal action NPR -4 to address contaminated soils at two petroleum exploration wells Naval -PetroleumReserve located near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, No. 4 Alaska. mg/kg milligrams per kilogram What is now the former Umiat AFS was withdrawn from public domain as part of the 23 -million -acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4). In 1944 and 1945, the United States Navy con- structed the airstrip and Main Gravel Pad at Umiat to support re- source exploration within NPR -4. Eleven oil exploration wells subsequently were drilled from 1945 to 1952 as part of the oil ex- ploration activities. This document addresses the removal actions for NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 only. Environmental issues pertaining to other NPR -4 test well sites will be addressed as needed under separate contract actions. NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Umiat Airstrip Complex. The wells are situated on a common gravel pad immediately adjacent to the west bank of the Colville River. Based on field investigations conducted in 1997 and 1998, the river is eroding toward the well structures and threat- ens to breach the well casings. Petroleum -contaminated soil and buried debris (i.e., drums) were found during the field investigation and are eroding into the river. Because of the size of the Colville River and the remote nature of the site, measures to protect the riv- erbank from futher erosion are not feasible. Therefore, a removal of the contaminated materials is necessary to protect the environ- ment. In order to safely remove the contaminated material, the two wells should be plugged and abandoned properly. Cleanup values for the removal were based on Alaska regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code 75.340) and are proposed to be 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and 2,000 mg/kg for diesel 1 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 D TTAATA T T%ni, 11 im mo LTDA ws ecoloo and environment, im Executive Summary range organics and residual range organics, respectively. The vol- cy ume of soil that is contaminated above these limits was estimated cubic yards to be 14,000 cubic yards (cy; in place). Upon removal, approxi- LTTD mately 16,800 cy of soil will require treatment. low-temperature thermal desorption Several removal technologies were subjected to an initial screen- ing. The four alternatives listed below were brought forward for a detailed analysis. The associated cost of each is provided in pa- rentheses. ■ Alternative No. 1: No Action (no cost); ■ Alternative No. 2: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Low -Temperature Thermal Desorption (LTTD; $10.2 million); ■ Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On-site Treatment via the Hot Air Vapor Extraction Sys- tem ($9.1 million); and ■ Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning System, Soil Exca- vation, and Ex Situ Landfarming ($8.6 million). After a comparison of the alternatives, Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Landfarming, was selected as the preferred removal alternative because of lower costs and ease of implementation. Landfarming would require signifi- cantly less equipment, power, fuel, and water to complete the soil treatment process. The thermal treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3 would require sophisticated equipment and large quantities of fuel. LTTD treatment also would require a steady supply of quench water. These factors weighed heavily against use of thermal treatment at the former Umiat AFS. n.nnn � vn< AA M 00 A Qm " " i 0 1 NPR -4 Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 Introduction 1.1 Scope and Objectives Pursuant to United States Army Engineer District, Alaska (USAED Alaska) Contract No. DACA85-98-R-0013, Ecology and Environment, Inc., (E & E) prepared this engineering evalua- tion/cost analysis (EE/CA) for a removal action to address petro- leum -contaminated soils at two Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR -4) exploratory test wells near the former Umiat Air Force Station (AFS) at Umiat, Alaska. The purpose of this document is to summarize the contaminant conditions existing at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, to document the need for a removal action at the site, to review regulatory requirements and define removal ac- tion objectives, to identify and evaluate potential removal alterna- tives for the removal action, and to recommend a preferred alter- native for the site. The scope of this document is limited to petroleum -contaminated soils adjacent to NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 that have been im- pacted by historical releases of hazardous substances resulting from well drilling activities. This evaluation does not address po- tential threats posed by site conditions at the remaining NPR -4 test wells located near Umiat. Surface contamination above regulatory guidance levels at the remaining wells will be addressed under separate contract actions. 1.2 Report Organization This EE/CA is organized as follows: ■ Section 2 presents the site description, site history, nature and extent of contamination, and rationale for a removal action at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; ■ Section 3 presents the removal action objectives (RAOs) for the removal action, the rationale for selecting cleanup levels, and an estimate of the volume of contaminated materials at the well site; 1-1 ecoIoLv and envirmment, i M 0 1. Introduction ■ Section 4 identifies and screens potential removal technologies to address soil contamination at the well site, and describes re- moval action alternatives to be carried forward for analysis; ■ Section 5 provides detailed analyses of the removal action al- ternatives identified in Section 4; ■ Section 6 describes the recommended removal action alterna- tive for contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; and ■ Section 7 provides references used to prepare this EE/CA. 1 ') 0 FIRs field investigation reports ADOT&PF Alaska Department'of 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 0 Site Characterization This section presents a brief summary of the location, site condi- tions, and history of the former Umiat AFS, and the nature and ex- tent of contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. A discus- sion of the potential public health and environmental threats posed by the contamination and the need for a removal action at the well site also is presented. Additional detailed information concerning the site history and characterization is available in the previously published field investigation reports (FIRs; E & E 1998a, 1999). 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). 2-1 J I J ecology and environment, I— U.S. ARMY Intematlonel Specialiste in she Environment ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA SOURCE: Ecology end Environment, Inc. d FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION Umlat, Alaska IF -9 i1 k 1 K �� twy and enWmnmen4lne. U.S. __R DISTRICT,AlASNA MIQIOPAOE. AIAS(A Figure 2-1 SITE LOCATION MAP Umiat Former ttmiat Air Force Slatism Alaska 512E JOa NO. FILE NO. DATE A 00m, Aka ao oz se Fig 2-1.CDR I 99OCT25 • �� twy and enWmnmen4lne. U.S. __R DISTRICT,AlASNA MIQIOPAOE. AIAS(A Figure 2-1 SITE LOCATION MAP Umiat Former ttmiat Air Force Slatism Alaska 512E JOa NO. FILE NO. DATE A 00m, Aka ao oz se Fig 2-1.CDR I 99OCT25 • N I W US ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT ALASKA lr ✓ ,.+�/ ; { <;....�., ft r t 4.i. ✓ L, ,mr {.t y, •"'4',, r '*\ ..„t- `+ ,.,': ��F `ptit/ j j. It }'- ..`t i `r E.ir !i`✓i+ ,, u � --, � {fj♦ 5� . t ",,y�",.ar' �-'�F...✓. i.. i� ', a' 4 ({ .....1:7: . � y..._. � �. `.,{,{ 71X _=\„r a 4 � (+i '� 'J ,- ` ,tP.>en x -. ., r :, h A � . • 117' � �' :.. , ,lam .... / 9 ... .___ .• - 2701{ � .. C:. •• Jy. he � 71 `:' P � .. ,:,_. ,,.. ... it ,, ., �'� I 5- \ 'a' / .rad ... r .. ,:, , : � y ; ..,;t. i f�`)� �„ tet' 1JNh F t ": r t NPR -4 TEST WELLS r„ Y it r�� w (11 TOTAL) ' 1r:?��•1 _..,..,. .iZ\::♦ �y\'' 1...,, �>,Is "? .��. - _i,�-'h `}.S-"r�,.`'"� ~ ��. i t ' . 1 \ �„ ! �� •, � "` ' ,,.r . I ` � � 16 � '� far 1� " ' �j.,,r 14r° �, ,. •,. f'j A f '.Y` ,. I f \t* i _,:)✓ ✓n .,: F"Y".e 1 (µ��d'i ! ',+, I- f< /,�•\\ , ,.. "=` {, ,FfSA, t YY ` aArE:Ctzik SEABEE CREEK �/ � +r ) i , ZO AIRSTRIP C MPLEXaAr �1 } �... c'. ESTIMATED AREA _ -04da EROSION' r r f 9r�lms}h"Aufikid/ � X),.y�•Yi � F w Ilmlil� ,..• + � � .� � �; i., ... .... " 4 `\: -.n. '4d'7MYG �. lhall .r;� Se r, .,,_ >,: � ,. .. 41'j. .. .>.:<. :k..-,4_...�._, r":•,' r�; ". _ ,.., Y.'' 1 a, �';:'i'� .-,ts:= i'!.. 't ':: .��r-{' .. I ';i F , .�.`,s} ./i� f� ,.:d� f r ii , aR is is '+ I, :"r��r ptvr b'• f ft' r '. 'gyp > < '.•r ,*-''� p i. �� t i taptiy�Jf) > z A+iil r c c lR MAIN GRAVEL PAD JJ v L 11 r `A S ��„iSt♦.-A ,fi ) .: r, t _'' � A ♦ �t"y ��, i f” 3S3 .. f y.. f'I('.. i / �c , \,� 1 .,% ,rx, 1' :..5 r i�' _ 3 �.' Y `••r _ ..;,;. !% .�' :' .,....,. '�e: rf ., ♦''Y r., 'i"�/� f:' r' 4 r9 a •S'.... \.�:. _,A'` : .. ,,, ... d' H: ".yy, F:: fi 1 w w .Y '• � t �v : Pi f � ,:if - -::, ,.... � ,f� J i �«.� y,.. ,_d "';•\ r' i rr:�r a ;1✓ �• f�.•. .. r ' 'F �.. y _ !• _ :yl .Y / i i ! �f �::.) r f:a J r� +J :. � ��..c• •'). � �ii �r J' 1i! _),'°�� ♦ �1 ', �r� ... � r,,'1i,� c •i..,,Z:.a�'}'ia �� .. 117. _ ✓r ',/�. 1 •^.. ' S `f..• r. ' .r./•. F "' .,. •. f �".c;:A =,- q ::�.. 1 ! 4%i 1 rf si t \i .r �w..:.1 x < 4'°sy>.: '`/+`.. .P��- ..•d �r``a- s rs�ir ,! x ..;,;: �w *b t f•� -� ..x ?, "" �j �ti ! , y =: -• � ' ': • + c , � f �.:{^ �fS .:� r,., • :. ! . r , r , ,��i} .1.., ', (i .oaf Ar6�f�,� '�.,�r � y. ! � � ., ��l"- i .••' .. 3 KEY: s..t T.se.swmerarer,.�a.., , a M•• u.s.A1IMY ENG NEER maTaCT, AL. . ANp{ORAGE, AUSKA ecology and environment, Inc. International Specialists in the Environment U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION 8 Shut-in NPR -4 oil well ��''"`'1� Extent of ADOT and L_I PF Property1h 4 ' Dry NPR -4 test hole SCALE a 1 z Miles Figure 2.2 SITE VICINITY AND TOPOGRAPHY MAP Anchorage, Alaska ANCHORAGE, ALASKA Unnist, Alaska This area (estimated) has 4 Abandoned NPR oil Into o .5 1 2 Kilometers FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION -4 well eroded Colville River Untlal Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SIZE A JOB NO, 000sn_Aruls o0 02 98 FR.E NO. Fig2-2.CDR DATE 99OCT25 SOURCE: uSGS (Tapogrephk:) Oueckangle'. umfal, IB -4) Alaska 11155 p ccoloa and emirminent. 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&Aed Commission (AOGCC) records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. plugged and abandoned 2 was decommissioned (i.e., plugged and abandoned [P&Aed]) in 1947 and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was suspended (i.e., shut in) in 1971, (E & E 1998a). However, the P&A procedures did not meet current AOGCC standards. Left unchecked, ongoing erosion of the Colville River bank near these wells could compromise the well casings and cause a release of petroleum and drilling muds to the surface. 2.2 Source, Nature, and Extent of Contamination This section briefly reviews the scope and results of the investiga- tions conducted at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. More detailed information about the investigations can be found in the Phase M remedial investigation report (E & E 1998a) and the 1998 FIR (E & E 1999). 2.2.1 Field Investigations Field investigations at the 11 NPR -4 test wells were conducted in two phases during summer 1997 and summer 1998. The primary objective of the 1997 investigation was to screen surface soils at each NPR -4 test well to determine whether well drilling or devel- opment activities had impacted soils in the vicinity of the well- heads. At NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, analytical results indi- cated that petroleum contaminants were above Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation screening levels in surface soils. The surface water and sediment data indicated that contaminants were migrating to the river. Table 2-1 provides detailed analytical results of the 1997 investigation. The objective of sampling in 1998 was to define the extent of con- tamination. Subsurface and surface soil samples were collected and analyzed during that field investigation. Analytical data are summarized in Table 2-2. Although there is no clear subsurface pattern, the petroleum contamination appears to be migrating from the wells toward the Colville River, following the contour of the underlying permafrost, which dips toward the river. Permafrost generally was encountered at about 8 feet to 9 feet below ground surface at the well site. Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5 graphically repre- sent the results of these efforts. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_A803 2-4 • 0 Sample Location: Table 2-1 1997 HVVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS NPR4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA NPR4-2-1 NPR4-2-1 NPR4-2-2 NPR4-2-3 NPR4-5-1 NPR4-5-2 NPR4-5-3 NPR4-5-3 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 200 -SS 201 -SS 203 -SS 233 -SS 204 -SS 205 -SS 230 -SS 231 -SS Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 201 -SS .200 -SS 231 -SS 230 -SS Sample Date: GRO 8113/97 4.8 8/13/97 5.2 8/13/97 6.5 8/16/97 UJ (10) 8/13/97 U (2.7) 8/14/97 U (4.5) 8/16/97 U (3.2) 8/16/97 4.1 DRO 9,400 J 9,400 67 1,500 240J 160 13,000 21,000 RRO 10.000 9,800 240 3,700 410 J 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 Copper56 62 29 33 29 NA 21 21 Iron 36.000 36,000 34,000 27,000 12,000 NA 24,000 23,000 Lead 120 J 180 J 45 14 37 NA 510J 511 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 2401 Mercury 0.042 U (0.028) 0.065 U (0.067) U (0.02) NA 0.051 J 0.026 J Nickel 49 4843 27 18 NA 29 32 Potassium 1,900 J 1.70,700 0 1 520 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 Thalburn U (0.14) 0.14 0.12 U (0.34) U (0.1) NA U (0.13) 0.14 Vanadium 32 31 29 27 1 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 0.003411 1 U (0.0056) 1 0.04 J 0.36 J 4' -DDE 0.0045 R 0.0065 R 0.015 0.04 U (0.0034) U (0.0056) 1 U (0.0042) U (0.085) 4' -DDT 0.041 J 0.062 R 0.045 0.012 J 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 J 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- & -X lene U (0.0014) U 0.0014) 0.0025 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) U (0.0067) Methylene chloride 0.0071 J UJ (0.014) 0.0068 J 0.03 B 0.0076 J 0.011 0.063 0.0711 Toluene U (0.0014) U 0.0014) 0.002 U (0.021) U (0.001) U (0.001) U (0.0063) 1 U (0.0067) SVOCs 2 -Meth lna hthalene U (0.45) 6.7 J 1.6 2 0.191 U (0.56) 0.17 J 1.21 Meth 1 henol U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 0.23 U (0.34) U (0.56) 0.066 U (1.7) Bis(2-eth lhexvl) hthalate U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) U (1.1) 0.044 U (0.56) U (0.42) U (1.7) Di -n -butyl pbthalate 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 0.11 U (0.56) 0.075 J 0.57 J Phenanthrene U (0.45) U (4.6) U (3.9) 1.5 0.037 1 0.081 1 0.088 U (1.7) Notes: All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Kev to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichlomethane. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene. DDT - Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. DRO - Diesel range organics. GRO - Gasoline range organics. J - 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. 1s:omsT7.AK06.0002A8 AGW C X01 PRASS• 1 MJWHPI f_r.� 2-5 f.t••� .1 t.,i!i <L[: i./'['I 0 • Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SEDIMENT SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Colville River (Near Well No. 5) Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-54 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SD 211 -SD 212 -SD 213 -SD Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SD 210 -SD Sample Date: GRO 8/14/97 U (3.1) 8/14/97 U (3.4) 8/14/97 4.8 8/14/97 U (3.6) DRO 240 J 310 650 I 46 O 220J 280 430 200 Metal Aluminum 5,000 2,400 6,6(() Arsenic 4.5 2.1 5.1 Barium Beryllium 26g.2OO 330 0.36 130 0.13 310 0.38tium. 2.000 940 2.100 Chromium 13 11 1 - 14 obalt 8.2 a.9. 4 8.9 18 21 12 17 ron 17,000 15,000 6.200 18,000 5.1 5.11 3.4J 6.21 Ma nvium 3,100 2.400 1,400 3,100 Man anese 330 470 240 250 Nickel 29 26 18 28 Potassium 420 J 360 J 140 J 430 J . Selenium 0.39 0.39 1 0.3 0.32 Vanadium 23 20 925 Zinc 52 43 25 54 Pesticides/PCBs 4,W -DDD 4' -DDE Aroclor 1254 NA NA I U (0.026) 1 NA NA U (0.022) NA NA U (0.02) NA NA U (0.022) VOCs Acetone 0.062 J 0.13 J 0.181 0.18 J Bane 0.000991 U (0.0013) U (0.0013) U (0.0015) Methylene chloride 0.044 J U1(0.013) 0.006 JB 0.0061 J Toluene 0.0026 J 0.0023 J 0.021 J U (0.0015) SVOCs-- 2-MethyinaphdWene 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) E0.099 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 N2= All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram or parts per million. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. Key to abbreviations: B - Attributed to blank contamination. PCBs - Polychlorinated biphenyls. DDD - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane. R -Rejected. DDE - Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene. RRO - Residual range organics. DRO - Diesel range organics. SD - Sediment GRO - Gasoline range organics. SVOCs - Semivolatile organic compounds. J - Estimated. U -Undetected at the reported limit. NA - Not analyzed. VOCs- Volatile organic compounds. tg. 0"77AXWOD..02.98-AW2 2-6 File; INPRASD - I IrJ19"P4 • 0 120(X)977.AK06.(X).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECA TABLE2AALS.NPRASW - 11/3/99 Table 2-1 1997 INVESTIGATION SURFACE WATER SAMPLE RESULTS COLVILLE RIVER NEAR TEST WELL NO.5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA Sample Location: NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-4 NPR4-5-5 NPR4-5-6 Sample Number (97-UMT-): 210 -SW 211 -SW 212 -SW 213 -SW Duplicate Sample (97-UMT-): 211 -SW 210 -SW Sample Date: 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 8/14/97 Diesel range organics U (270) 300 U (260) U (250) otal petroleum hydrocarbons U (400) 400 U (100) U (100) OCs ethylene chloride 1.9 J U (5.7) 1.8 U (10) Metals luminum 220 240 390 250 Barium 86 88 92 86 Iron 550 590 980 610 Manganese 17 18 44 20 All analytes ND ND ND ND 1PAHs Notes All sample concentrations reported in micrograms per liter or parts per billion. Number in parentheses represents the detection limit for the sample. to abbreviations: - Estimated. U - Undetected at the reported limit D - Nondetect. INSWKev VOCs - Volatile organic compounds. AHs - Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons. - Surface water. 120(X)977.AK06.(X).02.98_A803 2-7 UMIAT EECA TABLE2AALS.NPRASW - 11/3/99 19:00)977.AK06.' '8A803 ^LE7 If- 1 i 0 CJ Table 2-2 1998 INVESTIGATION SURFACE SOIL RESULTS NPR -4 TEST WELL. NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION TJMIAT, ALASKA Sample Number (98-UMT-): 500 -SS 501 -SS 502-88 503-88 504 -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 Sant pie 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 [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.004] ND [0.0039] ND [0.0045] 0.038 Acetone 0.075.1 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] Na ltthalene ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] ND [0.0053] J ND [0.0052] J ND [0.00611 .1 ND [0.0053] J Phenanthrene ND [0.1] ND [0.098] ND (0.099] 1 ND [0.1] ND [0.11] ND [0.099] his-(2-eth lhex 1)Phthalate I ND [0.31] ND. (0.3] ND [0.3] ND [0.31] 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 58J 140 J 200 J 190 J Residual range organics 1,6001 520J 330 J 1,100J 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 [0.0003211 _ Naphthalene ND [0.005313 ND [0.0054] J ND [0.0053] J 0.0068 ND [0.0053] Phenanthrene ND [0.099] ND [0.11 ND [0.1] 0.057 ND [0.1] bis-(2-eth lhex 1)Phthalate ND [0.31] ND [0.32] ND [0.31] ND [0.34] ND [0.31] rtes• 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. 19:00)977.AK06.' '8A803 ^LE7 If- 1 i 0 CJ 19:000977. A K06.00.02.9 B_ A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XIS - 11/3/99 0 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 1,100J 5,3001 1,200 J 890 111 28 J 34 J 69 J 310J Sample Number (98-UMT-): 523 -SB 524 -SB 525 -SB 526 -SB 527 -SB 528 -SB 529 -SB 530 -SB 531 -SB 532 -SB 533 -SB Duplicate Sample (98-UMT-): Sample Date: 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/13/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 8/14/98 Sample Depth (feet BGS): 5.0-6.5 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.4 8.0-8.4 5.0-5.4 6.0-6:4 2.0-2.4 5.0-5.4 2.0-2.5 5.0-5.5 5.0 Diesel range organics 360 J 760 1,200 J 1,700 J 18J 15 47 J 2,800 J 23 4,4001 7,000 J otes• 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 K06.00.02.9 B_ A 803 UMIAT EECA TABLE 2-2.XIS - 11/3/99 0 �5 T� Y.3tly..-tz A Bottom of slope 518 SB (gravel pad) agar c� 519SB\ , Top of slope f I I'i 1 y I (giavel 17 SB +. } o Eroding / River B61��Cf 5151SB NPR -4 Top of bank 516 SB o Test Well'No.S " • r5� g � � 1998 High Ed a of water mark.- Wooden arlyWooden Platform (10'x 20') 533 SB / 520 SB / edge Oi COIvlIIe River 505 SS KEY: (m ecology and environment, Inc. U.S. ARMY Approximate extent of LY M„",,,-18. d,,.,,,"„,.ems EN ANCHORAEER GE, AL S ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA petroleum contamination Figure 2-3 NPR -4 Test well location APPROXIMATE SCALE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 0 25 50 Feet NPR -4 TEST WELL Nos. 2 AND 5 ° Sampling location v Umlat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska Cross section reference SIZE I JOB NO. I FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. A 000887_JR07_00_90_M-A780 I Fig2-3.CDR 990CT13 E / / O 507 SS ' f ° 521 SB ° 506 SS Edge of / 523 SB 511 SB 531 SB concrete/ 512 SB foundation .i ° SB5-7 O.I SS B SS 508 SS — 513 SB NPR -4 529 SB 514S i Test Well No.2 524 SB ° ;' 503 Sa 18" Rathole pipe p o`�_ , 1 510 SS KEY: (m ecology and environment, Inc. U.S. ARMY Approximate extent of LY M„",,,-18. d,,.,,,"„,.ems EN ANCHORAEER GE, AL S ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA petroleum contamination Figure 2-3 NPR -4 Test well location APPROXIMATE SCALE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION 0 25 50 Feet NPR -4 TEST WELL Nos. 2 AND 5 ° Sampling location v Umlat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska Cross section reference SIZE I JOB NO. I FILE NO. DATE SOURCE: Ecology and Environment, Inc. 1999. A 000887_JR07_00_90_M-A780 I Fig2-3.CDR 990CT13 E -u Q_ M A North NPR -4 Web No.5 SSS -4 (projected Into (projected Into cross section A -A) cross section A -A) I A' South r ew r 92 3 62.24- Permalrost 91 f i 91-47" Permelrost v Permalr21 osl. 500$$ 90 r y- t v.`r a -.:.` 9 •.. 150 85� ` Well 5 Casfn9Exlends •. r . l0 1,089' BGS Permalrosl (shut in with diesel in place) CoMfle Myer. Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not State plane coordinates. - KEV: 515 Be $emote number 1,200 DRO concentration in mg/kg $95.15 Soil Sorin Location 9 DRO Diesel range organics VERTICAL SCALE lW ecology and environment, Inc. fVgl,,,,, U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ALASKA ANCHORAGE, ALASKA mg/kg Milligram per kilogram Sandy gravel Fill -sandy gravel 0 2 4 Feet Figure 2-4 CROSS SECTION A -A' N Break In horizontal scale EfEl Bill and clay ®Peat HORIZONTAL SCALE 0 20 40 Fast SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.5 SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1999. based on soil Approximate extant of ECconscreening Samples exceeding ADEC Screening value of 200 mglkg Vertical Exaggeration 1:10 Umiat Former Umiat Air Force Station Alaska SIZE A JOB NO. 000977 AKOB 00_02 98 FILE NO. Fig2-4.CDR DATE g9OCT25 0 S10 S B NPR -4 SB 5.10 S85-17 East B WOO N0.2 Concrete SBS -18 190 t00.H5' S West SOB SS FConcrete 99.97' 99.89' SB5-B S05-1 140 SB S-13 - i. . 7 . i. 99.31' 99.43' 99.00' � ) O, . 100 —t iYrl'."�lT.• H ./ '�' Note: Elevations 96 T "7,..,y `�� ---� '�•��.. V 1 100 KIMHORIZONTAL SCALE ��._ an _(4) ? 55 Gallon drums OBS Sample number Fill -sandy gravel Ea 0 20 40 Feet Figure 2.5 CROSS SECTION B -B' ` �. =-_ slumfrom above sedimerN and vegetation SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY 2,800 9,100 > - v surrounding drums covered In thick petroleum product. - VERTICAL SCALE 5 Feet 92 1 i Diesel organics 0 4 Umiat Former Umist Air Force Station DRO range Approximate extent of contamination based on soil DRO SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE ? Milligram per kilogram samples exceeding ADEC screening value o1200 mg/kg VsAleal Exaggeration 1:5 400981 /Jte9 so oz se FIg2-5.CDP ggOCT25 SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1999. J ¢a 84 504 SB CdJl11e RM a112 casing t 480 extend I to w6. d2' BGS (shut n rilling" Not e: `• mud In place) :` Test Well No. 2 and .. r: '•. 1:. .. Bodngs SB 5-13, SB 5-16, .. .:: S85-10, SB 5-17 and SB SO -t .: .', '. .....:..: _ y ....:. .... -.:.:: .. .. ... .. .. .. ... 5.8 projected into cross .. :...,... ,. .. ..: , ..... .... ... section Note: Elevations are relative to local datum, not state plane coordinates. _ us. ARW lM. EyoelEtia DISTRICT. ALASKA eingy me <evkunmµum KIMHORIZONTAL SCALE yt AUCNCRAOE, ALASKA ? Extent or depth unknown OBS Sample number Fill -sandy gravel Ea 0 20 40 Feet Figure 2.5 CROSS SECTION B -B' Soil boring location 140 DRO concentration In mg/kg M Peat SUBSURFACE STRATIGRAPHY SBS -14 Sandy gravel - VERTICAL SCALE 5 Feet AT NPR -4 TEST WELL NO.2 Alaska Diesel organics 0 4 Umiat Former Umist Air Force Station DRO range Approximate extent of contamination based on soil DRO SIZE JOB NO. FILE NO. DATE mg/kg Milligram per kilogram samples exceeding ADEC screening value o1200 mg/kg VsAleal Exaggeration 1:5 400981 /Jte9 so oz se FIg2-5.CDP ggOCT25 SOURCE: Ecology and Environment. Inc. 1999. P 0 s ecoloev and enilra meat, ine. 2. Site Characterization 2.3 Potential Impacts on Public Health, Welfare, and Environment Significant petroleum contamination has been identified in surface and subsurface soils in the vicinity of NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5. The contamination poses a threat to the Colville River. Contin- ued erosion of the riverbank at this location is contributing to the migration of petroleum hydrocarbons to surface water and sedi- ments within the river. The eroding riverbank soils consist of non- cohesive sands and gravels to 20 feet below grade (measured from the top of the gravel pad). Based on historic aerial photographs and recent ground survey information, the riverbank has eroded toward the well site approximately 480 feet since 1974. The aver- age erosion rate of 20 feet per year is consistent with the 21 feet of erosion that was measured over the one-year period between sum- mer 1997 and summer 1998. As of August 1998, NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 was approximately 80 feet from the edge of the riverbank. More significant releases of contaminants to the river could occur should the bank erode to the point that the well casings are com- promised. Records indicate that NPR -4 Test Well No. 2 was aban- doned with 22,600 gallons of drilling mud that contains petroleum product, and that NPR -4 Test Well No. 5 apparently was shut in with 3,170 gallons of diesel -grade crude oil. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 2-13 2.4 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Although the former Umiat AFS is not listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) site, USAED Alaska is following CERCLA guidance CERCLA Comprehensive document protocols for remedial investigations and feasibility Environmental Response, studies. Consistent with the CERCLA process, regulatory re - Compensation, and quirements included for consideration at the former Umiat AFS are Liability Act those that are "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate" (defined ARARs applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 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 - to -be -considered s 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 0 • —d— and emironment. i ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). 1 1^ 2. Site Characterization Potential action -specific ARARs and TBCs identified for the pur- poses of this EE/CA are: ■ Alaska Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Regulations (18 Alaska Administrative Code [AAC] 75); AAC Alaska Administrative N Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (18 AAC 60); Code ACRA ■ Alaska Air Quality Regulations (18 AAC 50); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ■ Alaska Water Quality Criteria (18 AAC 70.020); CWA.. Clean Water Act. ■ Alaska Abandonment and Plugging Regulations (20 AAC 25.105 through 25.172); ■ The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and ■ The Clean Water Act (CWA). 1 1^ 0 0 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 0 ecdoty and em�iramnen4 inc. 3. Identification of Removal Action Objectives 75.340, Table A2, specifies cleanup levels for petroleum hydrocar- bons on manmade pads and roads in the Arctic Zone. Because the soil contamination at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 is co- incidental with the gravel pad at this location, the following cleanup objectives for surface and subsurface soils are proposed for the removal action: mg/kg ■ 200 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) of DRO, and milligrams per kilogram ■ 2,000 mg/kg of RRO. Cy_ cubic Yards 3.2 Estimated Soil Volume In order to properly evaluate removal technologies and develop appropriate alternatives for this EE/CA, the volume of soil ex- ceeding the soil cleanup objectives was estimated. Because the vertical extent of contamination was not delineated completely at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5, the volume estimate is based on conservative assumptions regarding site conditions (specifically permafrost depths), which are expected to limit the vertical migra- tion of contaminants. Using the proposed removal level of 200 mg/kg for DRO and the 1997 and 1998 sampling data, the soil that requires removal is shown in Figures 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5. The volume of contaminated soil depicted in these illustrations is estimated to be approximately 14,000 cubic yards (cy) on a bank volume basis. For ex situ tech- nologies, a soil bulking factor of 20% was assumed, which results in a total of 16,800 cy of contaminated soils at the well site. 11 n Removal Action Alternative Development In this section, specific actions and technologies for addressing pe - EPA troleum-contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 are United States identified and screened using the evaluation criteria developed by Environmental Protection Agency the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with consideration of the well site conditions and the RAOs identified in Section 3. The technologies and process options that are not screened out are assembled into removal action alternatives. 4.1 Identification of Removal Technologies Removal actions evaluated by this EE/CA focus on the RAOs by preventing migration of contaminated soil and debris into the Col- ville River and treating contaminated media to reduce chemical concentrations. These general response actions and technologies can be divided into the following categories: ■ Actions commonly applied to toxic -contaminated soils (e.g., institutional controls, excavation, landfill disposal, and cap- ping); ■ Established technologies commonly used to treat soils con- taminated with petroleum hydrocarbons (e.g., thermal desorp- tion and bioremediation); and ■ Emerging technologies proven effective but not commonly used for removal of petroleum hydrocarbons from soils (e.g., soil washing). In situ technologies (e.g., bioventing, soil vapor extraction, and steam stripping) were omitted from the list of potential actions and technologies because of the ongoing erosion of petroleum - contaminated soils into the Colville River. Table 4-1 lists the potential removal technologies selected for ini- tial screening. Section 4.2 discusses the screening process. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 4-1 Table. 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska dminis- ative :tions ontain- ,ent emoval reatment Institutional controls Capping Excavation Physical/ chemical ):000977. AK06.00.02.98_AB03 41.DOC-i 1/03/99-HP4 Access restrictions Impermeable composite cover Soil excavation Stabilization/ solidification Does not reduce contaminant concentrations, the volume of contaminated soil, or the future migration of contaminants into the river. Does not achieve RAOs by itself. Effective in preventing exposure to contaminated surface soils and reducing vertical migration of contaminants via infiltration and leaching. Does not reduce the concentration or volume of contamination. Ineffective for wastes below the water table or for areas prone to erosion. A reliable and commonly used method for removing contaminated soils from a site. Excavated materials would require further treatment and/or disposal. Reduces mobility of contaminants but does not concentrate or destroy them. Waste volume increases. Sensitive to media and contaminant type. Moderately effective on petroleum -contaminated soil. Would not achieve RAOs because contaminant concentrations would not be reduced. Restricts land use. Requires approval by site owner. Typically used in conjunction with other removal actions or technologies. Relatively simple to implement if materials are readily available. Restricts future land use. Long- term maintenance required. Relatively simple to implement. May require dewatering or dust control. Excavation in wetland areas may require a permit. Treatability testing needed to verify effectiveness. Requires import of large volumes of reagent. Treated material requires disposal in a secure landfill or restrictions on future land use if disposed of on site. Regulatory concerns with possible leaching of solidified mass. Low capital and O&M costs. Low to moderate cap- ital and O&M costs. Low capital costs and no O&M costs. Moderate to high capital and O&M costs. Retain; can be used in conjunction with other actions or technologies. Reject; capping material in place is infeasible because of bank erosion. Retain. Reject; costly to implement and long-term effectiveness questionable. Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. r 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 Tighter 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. A K06.00.02.98_A803 T41.DM-t U03199-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 Ex situ biological 1:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 41.DOC-11/03199-HP4 Hot air vapor extraction Landfarming Biocell Uses hot air to heat soils within a 500-cy to 600-cy treatment pile such that organic contaminants will be removed through volatilization. Effective for petroleum hydrocar- bon removal, particularly for the lighter fractions. Thermally treated soil may be used on site as backfill. Involves the biodegradation of organic contaminants in an engineered system. Commonly used for petroleum contaminants although less effective for heavier fractions. Involves the biodegradation of organic contaminants in an engineered system. Proven effective for treating petroleum - contaminated soils in Alaska, although it is less effective for heavier fractions of petroleum. Long-term operation likely is required to meet RAOs. An air permit would not be required because these units treat soils at rates of less than 5 tons per hour. Dust control measures would be necessary when handling treated soils. Process rates are generally slower than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so it may not be possible to treat soil in one field season. Large volumes of fuel would be required, which significantly increases logistical considerations at remote sites. Because soils must be spread out in relatively thin layers to facilitate treatment, landfarming has large land requirements for treatment cells and soil staging areas. Poor weather conditions can severely hinder treatment. Requires less area than land - farming because soils can be managed in greater thickness. Requires air and water distribution systems to create an environment conducive to microbial breakdown of the contaminants. Contaminant breakdown likely would be limited to the warmer summer months. Moderate to high capital costs. No O&M costs. Moderate mobilization costs for remote sites. Low to moderate capital and O&M costs Moderate capital and O&M costs. Retain; mobile systems are available in Alaska. Retain; sufficient land is available at Umiat for landfarm cells. Reject; air and' water distribution systems would require continuous power and monitoring. Table 4-1 Potential Removal Action and Technology Screening Summary for Petroleum -Contaminated Soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. '4 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station: Umiat. Alaska Removal Process LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Screening Method Technology Option Effectiveness Implementability Relative Cost Result Disposal Off site Landfill Placement of contaminated soil in a Waste must meet facility disposal High capital Reject; permitted commercial facility standards. Transportation of large costs and no transportation would be an effective and reliable soil volumes off site would be O&M costs. of large soil disposal method. Toxicity or prohibitive. volumes off volume of contaminated soils site is cost - would not be reduced. Generator prohibitive. would retain long-term liability for the waste. On site Containment Engineered containment cell could Permit required for construction High capital Reject; cell be designed and constructed to hold and operation. Requires approval and moderate approval by treated or untreated soil such that by the site owner. Regulatory O&M costs. landowner human health and the environment approval likely to be difficult. unlikely. are protected. Long-term maintenance and institutional controls would be necessary. Likely subject to negative public opinion. Restricts future land use. Key: 0 " cy = Cubic yard. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. O&M = Operation and maintenance. RAOs = Removal action objectives. 19:00097 T A K06.00. 02.9 8 _A 803 T41.DOC-I Ib3/99-HP4 r V ecology and environment, inc 0 0 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&Ring 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- sembly into removal action alternatives: institutional controls, ex- LTTD low-ternperature 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&Ring NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 in accordance with current AOGCC and BLM requirements. This technology is included in Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4 because the integrity of the well casings likely would be compromised by soil removal activities, and P&Aing is considered necessary to pre- vent future releases of hazardous substances to the environment. Detailed descriptions of the components included in each alterna- tive are contained in the following sections. ecology and 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 4-7 W ecolo�w and emvronmenl, inc. 0 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 0 ' ecolou and emirmnen4 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.AM6.00.02.98_A803 4-9 0 s r ecolea and en v aunent, ism 0 0 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 y ecoloF-v and environment. ine. 0 0 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 a ecoloiv and emironment. bre. 4. Removal Action Alternative Development the soils) into underlying layers. A 6 -inch layer of soil would be placed in the cells to serve as a protective cushion during the sub- sequent winter earthwork activities. The soil used for this layer could include the petroleum -contaminated soils resulting from separate removal actions at Units A and B of the former Umiat AFS. Contaminated soil would be placed in the cells at a maximum thickness of 28 inches. Using the estimated volume of 16,800 cy, approximately 194,400 square feet (or 4.5 acres) of lined and ber- med area would be needed to treat the soils. Potential sites for landfarming cells are shown in Figure 4-2. At the completion of excavation activities, the soil in the landfarm cells would be cov- ered with an impermeable liner to minimize infiltration of precipi- tation into the cells for the remainder of the winter. The soil piles would be uncovered during the summer following the excavation, once ambient temperatures have allowed the soil to thaw. The soil would be tilled thoroughly to break up any remain- ing frozen areas and to homogenize the soil. Baseline samples would be collected to assess initial contaminant concentrations. The soil then would be treated with enzymes and nutrients to fur- ther enhance biodegradation. The enzyme and nutrient application is a proprietary formulation from a vendor in the Northwest. The vendor has successfully used this product in landfarming opera- tions at other Arctic sites with similar contaminants. Other ven- dors may be investigated during the design phase. Once the soils are inoculated, maintenance tilling (for aeration) and watering would take place on a predetermined basis throughout the summer. Routine sampling would be conducted monthly to monitor contaminant degradation rates and to determine when cleanup levels are met. Because of the harsh winter conditions and short summer season at Umiat, and heavy fractions of petroleum contaminants present in soils from the well site, it is assumed that landfarming operations would be needed for two summer seasons in order to meet Category A cleanup levels. At the end of the first season, the soil cells would be covered to minimize intrusion of precipitation during winter. Treatment operations would resume the following summer. Once sampling shows that the soil is treated successfully, the soil would be removed from the cells and stockpiled in a designated area for future use as borrow material. The landfarm cells then would be decommissioned. Geosynthetic materials used to con- struct the cells would be transported off site for disposal in a land- 19:0"72.AK06.00.02.98_A803 4-13 9 �j tµ ecology and emiromnen[, inc. - 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 0 4. Removal Action Alternative Development 4-15 0 Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives Previous sections of this document provide the rationale, the proc- ess details, and an initial screening of various potential removal alternatives. In this section, the removal alternatives that were not screened out are discussed and compared. 5.1 Individual Analysis of Alternatives Each alternative is evaluated for its overall effectiveness in achieving RAOs, its implementability under the site-specific con- ditions at Umiat, and total costs based on detailed cost estimates. Tables 5-1 through 5-3 summarize cost estimates for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Supporting information for the al- ternative cost estimates is in Appendix A. Because of the com- plexity of site logistics, Table 5-4 provides a comparison of the implementability of all alternatives except the no -action alterna- tive. This table points to the difficult and costly nature of fuel and water requirements for the soil treatment methods included in Al- ternative Nos. 2 and 3. 5.1.1 Alternative No. 1: No Action For this alternative, the petroleum -contaminated soils at NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 would remain as they are. Effectiveness. This alternative would not meet the RAOs identi- fied in Section 3. Erosion of contaminated soil by the Colville River would continue unchecked, violating state regulatory re- quirements for protection of surface water resources. Continued erosion of the riverbank eventually could compromise the integrity of the well casings, potentially causing releases of crude oil or contaminated drilling muds into the river. This alternative would not be protective of human health or the environment. Implementability. This alternative would be implemented easily because no work would be involved. Cost. No cost would be associated with this alternative. 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 5-1 R_UMiAT.DOC-1 1103/99-HP4 Reference DC 15 DC 16 Contractor Contractor DC03 DC04 DC05 E&E DC 11 DC 12 DC05 0 0 Table 5-1 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE No. 2 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE LOW TEMPERATURE THERMAL DESORPTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR -4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT. ALASKA — Capital Costs Item Description Quantity Unit Cost/Unit Factor' Cost = Stockpile Pad Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization I lump sum $87342 1.35 $1 IT780 Stockpile Pad Construction 1 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 1 $266,552 1 $266.550 Excavation, Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil I lump sum 1 $315,969 1.35 $426.560 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis 125 sample $69 1.35 $11.640 rial Bum I lump sum $50,000 1 $50,000 LTTD Equipment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchorage to Umiat' I lump sum $120,852 1 $120.850 LTTD (Low Temperature Thermal Desorption) Treatment 18.200 cubic yard $150 1 $2.730.000 Compliance soil sample collection and analysis (I sample/200 CY) 100 sample $69 1.35 $9,320 Subtotal Direct Capital Costs $6,674.570 Overhead and Profit (25%) $1,668,640 Tata/ Direct 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 License/Permit Costs (0.59x) $41.720 Contractor Reporting Requirements (1.59x) $125.150 Construction Oversight (2%) $166.860 Total Indirect Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $558.000 Subtotal Capital Costs $8.901.000 Contingency Allowance (159x) $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. 2 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 6m� 19000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATE.XLS - 11/4/99 5-3 19:OOp977. AK06.00.02.9a_A903 Table 5-2 REMOVAL ACTION COST ANALYSIS - ALTERNATIVE NO.3 EXCAVATION AND ON-SITE HOT AIR VAPOR EXTRACTION TREATMENT ENGINEERING EVALUATION AND COST ANALYSIS NPR-4 TEST WELL NOS. 2 AND 5 FORMER UMIAT AIR FORCE STATION UMIAT, ALASKA l Costs ReferenceItem DC15 Description QuantityUnit Cost/Unit Factor'l le Pad Cost = DC16 Equip ment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lum sum $87.242 1.35 le Pad Construction $117.78( - Contractor 1 lum sum $179,160 1.35 bandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization 1 lum sum $1,360.000 $241,87( Contactor lug d Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 1 2 RExcavation $1,360,00( DC03 each $670,000 I rl ui toMobilization/Demobilization 1 lura sum $266,552 S1,340,00C DC04 1 ion• Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil $266,55C DC05 1 lura sum $315,969 1.35 ion cora liance soil sam le collection and analvsis $426.56( DC13 125 sam le S69$11,640 ui ment Mobilization & Demobilization from Anchors a to Umiat DC14 2 each $75176 I (Hot Air Vapor Extraction) Treatment a $150,350 18.200 cubicsrd 31 l2 Y' 1 Subtotal Direct Capital Cost $2.038.400 Overhead and Profit (25%) S5.953.150 Tota! Direct Capital Cocts (Rounded to Nearest $1.000) $1,488.290 Indirect Capital Costs $7.441.000 Performance Bond (2% of treatment cost) erin and Desi n (2%) $43.780 ees and License/Permit Cost (0.5%) S148.820 tor Re rtin Re uirements (L5%) 537,210 etion Oversight (2%) r $111,620 dirert Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest $1.000)S148.820 l Ca it l Costs5490.000 ency Allowance (15%) $7,931,000 Total Alternative Cost (Rounded to the nearest $100,000) S1.189.650 $9,100,000 Notes: ' The factors represent adjustment for materials and installation by specific city location, the USAED Alaska utilizes a factor of 1.35 for Alaska work. 2 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 units at the time of the project. The unit cost includes the cost of confirmation sampling and analysis. 5-3 19:OOp977. AK06.00.02.9a_A903 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 Item Description DC06 Landfarm Cell Construction Equipment Mobilization/Demo; DC07 Construction of Landfarm Cell Contractor Well Abandonment Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization Contractor Plue and Abandon Test Well Nos. 2 and 5 DC03 Earthwork Equipment Mobilization/Demobilization DC04 Excavation. Hauling and Stockpiling of Impacted Soil DC05 Excavation compliance soil sample collection and analysis Contractor Landfarm treatment3 DC09 Landfarm Cell Decommissioning Iliance soil sample collection and analysis tal Direct Capital Costs Lead and Profit (25%) Direct Capital Costs (Rounded to Nearest ect Capital Costs arm Performance Bond (2% of treatment cI eering and Design (2%) Fees and License/Permit Costs (0.5%) actor Reporting Requirements (1.5%) ruction Oversight (2%) Indirect Capital Costs (rounded to nearest tal Capital Costs teencv Allowance (15%) Capital Costs (rounded to the nearest $] luantitv 1 Unit lump sum Cost/Unit $114,242 Factor' 1.35 Cost` $154,230 1 lump sum $432,490 1.35 $583,860 1 lump sum $1,360.000 1 $1,360,000 2 each $670,000 1 $1,340,000 1 lump sum $266,552 1 $266,550 1 lump sum $315,969 1.35 $426,560 125 sample $69 1.35 $11,640 16.800 cubic vard $73 1 $1,228,250 1 lump sum $201,634 1.35 $272,210 84 sample $69 1 1.35 $7,820 $5.651,120 $1.412,780 $141 $141,280 $448.000 $7.512,000 $1.126,800 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. 3 Due to rounding, the amount in the Cost column may be slightly different than the product of the values in the Quantity, Cost/Unit, and Factor columns. 3 Cost provided for 2 years of landfarm treatment. 5-4 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98_AB03 COPY UMIAT EECA COST ESTIMATEALS - 11/4199 Table 5-4 Comparative Analysis of the Implementability of Soil Treatment Methods for Alternative Nos. 2, 3, and 4; NPR -4 Test Well Nos. 2 and 5; Former Umiat Air Force Station; Umiat, Alaska 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98 -A803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03/99-HP4 No. 4 EvaluationAlternative Criteria • On -Site Bioremediation eT 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 g. (e. waters stem Y , water • Does not require highly trained labor truck) may be sufficient because water during treatment operations; • Requires installation of a water is needed only for reconditioning distribution system to meet water treated soil piles—the quantity of • Does not require large volumes of fuel demands for quenching and/or water needed per pile is estimated to to be mobilized to the site; pollution control—daily water needs be 6,000 gallons to 10,000 gallons; • Does not require the installation of a are estimated to be between 14,400 • Uses less -sophisticated equipment water distribution system—watering gallons to 21,600 gallons depending than rotary -kiln LTTD units, so delays can be accomplished with a truck; and on the type of air pollution control; caused by equipment failure are less • Does not require an air permit. • Uses sophisticated equipment, so likely; treatment operations are more susceptible to delays caused by • Fuel consumption rate is less than that equipment failure; and for a rotary -kiln LTTD unit— estimated consumption rate is 1,600 • Requires an air permit if processing gallons to 2,400 gallons per day for rates are greater than 5 tons per hour. two treatment units; and • Does not require an air permit. 19:000977. A K06.00.02.98 -A803 T54.DOC- I 1 /03/99-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 Other I Reliability of the method in meeting considerations treatment levels is high. Key: HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. 19:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 .D T54OC-11103M-HN Reliability of the method in meeting treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions could increase treatment times significantly. Reliability of the method in meeting treatment levels is moderate. Heavier petroleum fractions more difficult to degrade, and method is susceptible to site weather conditions. is 11 ecoloa and environment, hic. 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 l a,. NIDI\OV AmI MVII'lIII/11CIIL IIIC 5. Analysis of Proposed Removal Action Alternatives 5.1.3 Alternative No. 3: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and On -Site Thermal Treatment by HAVE The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.3. Effectiveness. Removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plugging of the well casings are consistent with the RAOs for the site. Thermal treatment of contaminated soils would comply with ARARs and provide for the protection of human health and the environment. The HAVE system is a proven tech- nology for treatment of petroleum -contaminated soils. HAVE of- fers a long-term, permanent solution because the DRO and RRO contaminants would be removed from the soil, reducing the risks associated with the excavated soil. Short-term effects associated with HAVE would include off -gas emissions and dust generation. Implementability. The implementability of the excavation and well abandonment phases is the same as that for Alternative No. 2. Mobile HAVE equipment is available in Alaska and is transported easily by air cargo planes. Two units would be needed to treat the soils within. one extended field season (seven months). Significant logistical planning would be needed to keep sufficient fuel supplies on site throughout the project. Because the HAVE process would require water to recondition the soil only at the end of the treatment process, a water distribution system may not be needed. A water truck may be sufficient. Cost. The total cost associated with Alternative No. 3 is $9.1 mil- lion. No O&M costs are presented and no present worth cost was determined because it is anticipated that this alternative could be completed within one season. Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of the cost estimate for Alternative No. 3. 5.1.4 Alternative No. 4: Well Decommissioning, Soil Excavation, and Ex Situ Bioremediation by Landfarming The components for this alternative are described in detail in Sec- tion 4.3.4. Effectiveness. Consistent with Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 above, the removal of contaminated soils from the well site and proper plug- ging of the NPR -4 well casings would meet site RAOs. Biodegra- dation of the contaminants in the excavated soil by landfarming would be protective of human health and the environment provided that cleanup objectives are met. Landfarming offers a long-term, nn t ecoloe and emiromnent, htc. 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; Umlat, Alaska I.mple- mentability Is the easiest alternative to im- plement because no work is required. The most difficult alternative to implement (see additional discussion in Table 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Somewhat easier to implement than Alternative No. 2 (see Ta- ble 5-4). Less susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Slower processing rates mean treatment opera- tions would need to extend into the winter. Much easier to implement than Alternative Nos. 2 and 3 (see Table 5-4). More susceptible to delays caused by poor weather conditions. Total cost $0.0 $10.2 million $9.1 million $8.6 million Key: ARARs = Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. HAVE = Hot air vapor extraction. LTTD = Low-temperature thermal desorption. NPR -4 = Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4. RAOs = Removal action objectives. E 19:000977. AK06.00.02.98_A803 T55. DOC- I 1/03/99-14P4 • 0 Conclusions and 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 ".101-m and environment, 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. 4_7 0 N 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 0 i i. rcererenvub , 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 i 19:000977.AK06.00.02.98 A803 A-1 DERIVED COST DC03 DERIVED COST DC04 DERIVED COST DC05 Uiat NPR -4 Well Nos2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost analysis Derived Costs 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 B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 Contractor rolligon transport - demobilization 8 loads $10,000 $80,000 Crew B-2 Foreman & 4 laborers 30 days DC03 $266,552 Assumptions: Covers additional equipment not mobilized to the site by the well decommissioning contractor All costs include labor and materials EXCAVATION, TRANSPORTATION & STOCKPILING OF IMPACTED SOIL reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/cubic yard 016 408 0340 (BCCD) Excavator, crawler mounted, 3.5 CY bucket 4 weeks $7,600.00 $30,400 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Excavator operator 30 days $357.20 $10,716 Crew B-12 D (BCCD) Oiler 30 days $292.80 $8,784 E&E Hauling, 3-30 CY dump trucks 12 weeks $5,500.00 $66,000 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator 90 days $270.80 $24,372 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Dozer, 200 HP 4 weeks $3,000.00 $12,000 Crew B-108 (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 and 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 DCO7 DERIVED COST DC09 umiat NPR -4 Well Nos' 2 5 Engineering Evaluation Cost Analysis is Derived Costs LANDFARM CELL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION reference description quantity 9 unit each unit cost $8,500 cost $76,500 E &E E &E Air transport Trucking 1 each $20,000 $20,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 $8,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 $1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days 5375.00 $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 Allow 3 flights to mobilize geosynthetic materials CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFARM CELL(S) reference description quantity unit unit cost_ cost B C -tion arm ons ru 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 $2,250 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 2 weeks $1,125.00 $270.80 $3,791 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator 14 1 days weeks $1,100.00 $1,100 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 7 days $345.60 $2,419 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator tons $900 $54 000 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 gravelisand) 2 weeks $750.00 $1,500 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 10 days $345.60 $3,456 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 4 weeks $1,125.00 $4,500 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 20 days $270.80 $5,416 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 2 weeks $1,100.00 $2,200 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 10 days $345.60 $3,456 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator 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 509 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 cost/event $51,000 E & E Mobilization/demobilization 6 each $8,500 Remove and stockpile soil near cell 20430 cubic yard $1.62 $33,097 022 238 0200 (BCCD) 022 266 0310 (BCCD) Excavation, backhoe 12 CY dump truck, 1/4 mile round trip 20430 cubic yard $2.15 $43,925 022 204 1300 (BCCD) Transport & spread, bulk dozer, 300' haul 20430 cubic yard $0.96 $19,613 Liner disposal E&E Dispose of eos nthetics at offsite landfill 60 tons $900 $54 000 0009 $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 OC15 UEvaluation iat Well Nos2 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 $42,500 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days D 11 $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 $150 DC12 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 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION Reference description quantity unit unit cost cost/unit Contractor Trucking (mobilization/demobilization) 2 each $10,000 $20,000 Crew 81 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 5 days $835 $4,176 Contractor Air cargo plane 6 each $8,500 S51,000 016 408 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 $112 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 cost includes an allowance of $5,0001month 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 $59,500 Contractor Trucking 1 each $10,000 $10,000 Crew B1 (BCCD) Mobilization Crew 10 days $835 58,352 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 6 days $250.00 $1,500 016 420 2020 (BCCD) Wheel Mounted Fork (4000 # capacity) 6 days $200.00 $1,200 016 408 5250 (BCCD) 12 cy Dump Truck (2 required) 12 days $375.00 54,500 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Bulldozer 6 days $365.00 52,190 DC5 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. $345.660 0 $750 $2,419 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 7 2 days weeks $ .00 $2,250 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 14 days $270.80 $270 $3,791 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 1 weeks $ $1'100 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 7 days . $345.660 0 $345 $2,419 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer Operator Geosynthetics 33 08 0571 (ECHOS) 40 mil polymeric liner hdpe 90,000 square ft $1.28 $,061 E&E 12 -ounce nonwoven geoteAle (2 layers) 180,000 square it $0.15 $27,536 $27 33 08 0584 (ECHOS) Plastic laminate waste pile cover 100,000 square ft $0.15 515,298 Protective soil layer (64nch gravellsand) 1 weeks $750. $750 016 408 0450 (BCCD) 1 CY Wheel Backhoe/Loader 5 days $345.660 0 $1,728 Crew B-10 R (BCCD) Wheel Backhoe/Loader Operator 2 weeks $1,125.00 $2,250 016 408 5250 (BCCD) Hauling, 2-12 CY dump trucks 10 days $270.80 $2,08 Crew B -34B (BCCD) Dump Truck Operator (2) 1 weeks $ 0 $1,1100 016-408-4110 (BCCD) Transport & Spread, bulk dozer 5 days $345.6 $ $1.728 Crew B-1 OB (BCCD) Dozer aerator DC16 DC76 S179,160 Assumptions: Stockpile dimensions are 275'x 275' (interior); allow 300'x 300' for geosynthetics (for seaming and berm coverage) Geomembrane finer 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 E&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 0 f� 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, 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 i 0 -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 00,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 9 UMIAT TEST WELL NO. 9 CRETACEOUS Seabee Formation: 0'? -155' (NOTE: Possible thrust fault at 50 feet repeating part of the Seabee.] Chandler Formation, Killik.tongue: 155'-425' Grandstand Formation: 425'-1090' Topagoruk Formation (Torok): 1090'-1257' (�sa0)$ UNITED STATES * Sec. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ---- `-----; ---- GEOLOGICAL SURVEY T------------ ----- ------CONSERVATION DIVISION 1 1 ' INDIVIDUAL WELL RECORD _- Mer. Date ----Lu e 4,,_1959 Ref. No. --------_ R, P. R. Land office ------ State - Alaska -- 7• Serial No. — ---- ---- ------ __-- --- Lessee --------_____-- " "' `--------_—___. Field_____ Umiat Arm. -- Operator�_ U • S • I — --- _ District —West Coast Re o NellNo. L -------- --_-_ *Subdivision _ ---------- ------------------------ ______--_� Location Lat. - 69` 23 `l4_"_ N., Long_._ 1.52* 1O t11 `l- W -`--------- Drilling approved — —__—, 19—____ Well elevation 424 It.SB. -- --- -- feet Drilling commenced — June 25 --, 19JI- _ Total depth -- 1257 _--_� feet Drilling ceased---A� l__—--,19 ? - Initial production 7 b/d — Completed for production --- A�— _15___, 195 _ Gravity A. P. I. -- �� • — Abandon > __ Jan. —, 19 52 Initial R. P. —_ Geologic Formations, • Productive Horizons Surface Lowest tested Name Depths Contents WELL STATUS YEAR JAN. FEB. MAB. APB. MAY JUNE JULY Ava. SEPT. OCT. Nov. DEc. 1951 ]Dr$• 'Dr�� poW Pow - pow Sz s 1952 ------------- ---------------- ---------------- Abd.. ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------- ----------- ---------- --- t3eoloi_ca1__1rver_Prot'e�ss€lnal_ Pager__(}S-B-------------- Y. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING O"Ice 1$-88057-4 3, art MIT? -Nz a-a 1952 Molt 1. Z. . . . . . 11nazal TIMM PIMS Vert 23 Am 701 Leon An arc:T of wwrvVty plus 10410 . . . . . . . . . . Qf Molt 1. 11nazal Am 701 Leon An arc:T of wwrvVty Of I got Two in ZISIO Qf id, prown1lity . . . . . =11VOS Swam 3V. 27--, YZI 311TO 22 0 0 "T 47 Du r v —smo, o�o= ""0 0 0 17, -`7-,` z- Al �j A3 aj;7011�jj!71 OV Aso Valm- 0 -jon� 17CLCO inn vin] SAYSAW Qf 3 -� r; in: C. 41= �z VtA mlino:lln Anninz2ons nip 12,70m, 1:1101: 171§ 010 11101; Y1111v AM life up Qf noul A A Anez! 11717171a nn:2010 ZID TOMIX one 001010wo chorm M Z. US1=11US) out mom fln 0100- ""M" 0000 911C�j th" DAVIDW AM =LM -5 a A 5T 011pQrs in Krzth) 10 ;V11g Chin An zo nza vo 05Inalcoz 27 movil; a 10W 010;0a low!" naz >Z2 00011d 0101=1110, 7WOMY: Wam 7 omn of the 0>111112 1711nnnnt anc. W" of 440 AnnMajon Q:1. Valss:=. -vz to -77- 1 ;11:07Z son ;7,11nal 7ny; awTaPS12 L012YAM, M Illative ninnonrun: ?11000, AQW, 011pallcD fW7 V=Aj. to On ayVaulml,-�' VITS011n, Z4Z17 1z to OUT,? 00112stlarz, - ' ;z ,, I lit :,&IT 010,00 on Lona 6111-n at AnA loin Q-:-, tow; to Ion 0111.1r; nowwwww; zPaWs, nh!'7001, -IX751 nZ010 Z1111111102 in thin wistow" this 1011"ry 17111111 AnAwans 100, -rj ;1SOD1 0 OLIVWASA yowilrally, CIO Z011017 of this blaw WD one! of W, 011,123A thy No: non, -701 n Oto unallwy y1weg thqy' am nZA njum--':' I -'-: in ,,and Mmm do ZA on -in Mn khall siccing Alto,' srum nAb fit cozily to w2h M113 an� f APA zoo fl==w ond vwm-'� Jaz rook A 0111 >7wrZin aims of zoZzAt"Sal PCIAKIZ 171UM 2 — Y" it a inst zoom Mnsua "TIOCZ PSA31Z 01th 25 ;IrCIA, althw3h Emm ?Qnw- Enz! V LOS minview-'� fins SrOnmd. ON lu A m Uack WIS. Lit sho 000a int =01 U10, Vu2y Coco f Z21 11�-! fa 4Y fan thz wall abuninn! mm" ahaz ZAT sainly, I" plali" 300, son lost Zvi Choy 0 to quaxtz wT chart size2 as awaressM by thair Ac, axIsj is very wima W thzt, i�f tha qqaxtz gruins within MV J7011 thin eautlan. 19 0 nil Ast il M� 77 it v � v nr 7 in Mv low, V 1ZOVUS: v], :-: 17n f.73-31M.l hy&milw, n7vin, R 0 V-0 Y10770 ..& mljlw- - 1 OT2 to 1�021!y vKlj!Tg if of .2 L Oro, 7V An 0 1 V ��j DO 12 OW07S in &W, sumily the WYN, 7-t' ganuWally W wthigonic rather than S&Kal) .hc ';( ill:lt' �;zyztazj On it, zvyfaw of ;Uwis yrniqz. Thaza v'sun diffivult"y t.e 0 0 3 5, a o� zc to .. Z �nz ;s ...... a—,-" zpems' th 0 au WrAtz ar=-4 tham. This mz;r I 0 0 m ' t 11=3 cut - .._ _ 1 73 , , 1 - ' _ _ _, _.lklz 1701,has .mss an-?. ,,, A 00 _.Volozi __. s _ - by 17 0 Y70 in _.. _Womwal ``f . in Mom a. 7:770 ,- • ...-_ SO Lpq- 07z: n, ,.., y. ...., ..: _a _yw _ 1100 _ .,.._ ., v _ _. . ,o PAZ 3 x_- .Dr, :ltd _a.s a++ rem — ..:5. _ . _ .... "x ,.a a. t ;,, •z _i .... �� 3�n..: ..L .Z y -vt�,._m-aRYe AaAmAzz Arm t3 _� _,�..S -011h sj5 f _ tills, ti _ _ _ v ... _ s 2c 1v r.o..., tD m... zz of in to :10 vote up, V10AI 100 clm% of qlml'� . f .. 5 01 f x - zoo a m , MAIRM and 075S E170 qnaMms 'my;0017; Zvi, 115, m 0 a 0 05 17 2Aw 17 10 w.] Lis All 3),7 9.21 1 4 7 Sivaim rnz in� hay, beep SP.71tod gut aad SIZA! lanywOUlm and Pmozzov a loo yronno M213, 0 0 1040 2 ara 7,=�,,-,,-,-:�--�,, -10 lioniyt Aw ms of tho wilo at AT OMw, at flywra 1 , ZT111,31 W- 2 hiShly o"jj-jnjvj vn4 no- ij foljo7s (in ninjany, ya f1j;73 ZSA7-n TI: 13 137s SuM 125' — eJs 7� 1911 Atal 162 -,, 1z') a 5 writ — 13 i.: ■...■00■■.■.■■...■■■■00■■■l Mooloommommom ...■........rr■..■.r■tr■t.■■t!■■■■■.!■■■■■t00.1 ■■..■■.■.■.■■■■a.■■..a■t/0000.■■t.■..t■...t■ttl �......■tr....■ ..............11......00.......■ ....................................■a■...■■. uo.uououN.■r.■■Na!■uunuuuN■uuon i.0u■oNouu■.r■uuoo■ouuoul i.o..Nu..N■ NN.N■NN■■N■NN.NN■■Nl r.0 u0000u.■■■■■■r u■uou■ouuou. HHUSS:uu uuuoul.■■■■unuu000uuuoul �uu uuuouu■■uuuu■utouou■unu uu uuuuu uuuunuuuuuuuuuul ■N. ■tr..u■aa■u■■■uuN.uuu■uuuHN. ou ■uu■uuuNttuu■uouou■uuuu. ■o. uu N■■N.r■N■■■uuuuuouuouu� N...tu�u■rrtouu.+n! tllNuuuuuu■o■ i:Ei iii� r�.:ii.iiiir ■-u■u■.....................uuuuouu■■ uN ■uo.ouuuuu.■uuuuuuNuon. on ■uuuo.ouuNn.■u■ouu.uooN■ uu u.ouuuNuaNnuNuuuuloun.■ ■o. ■ouuuuuN■Nuuuuuouuu.u.■ un ■a.uuo..u■.uNuuuNuuuouuu un o■■uuuuu■uu.■uuuuu■uou.o on uuuuu uuuuutuuuuuuuN■u.+ r. a ■N■NNN ■o.■.■■Nuuuuu.■.■■..usomenwou. - ■Nl u■t.1.1.■N.■■...■t■■..■■■.■IN... a. oNtut.■uu■t55■uo■uoluouuuNuutuuu uo ■uuuuuuu■u■NuuNuuuo/uau ou noouu uuun.a.ouuoN.onl■uu .■u signs /■■■.■Nu/aN..uMmons uru■■vu■ Nu uuuuuo.uuu.utu.uuurcuu OEM's N■.■■■.■N....t■..■.■uu■uN■■■■■a■1.u■■■ r. 0055 ■u.ruuauuNuluuuuua■r■uruu■ a■..■N■.■■■N.N■NNaw...now N.N/tN 0055 N.■ ■u. ■■Nu■■■■ NN.■N.ral.■■■■u. qua■■■■■. r 0055..■NO■NN.I.NNmos .... ■■■r...mis.■■■!I■ ■a■. a■N!N■■NN■■■■■■■■N■■■■■00I■L■ta■■I,..■ ..N■N...■■■..■■■■■■■■■■■.■■■t■■'JlaNNI.■■■ 0000■....a■■./■N..■N \tell■■r■■■■I■ ��■■N!'I.N■ N.. all■■■■■■.5500■1■■■■!Tommammoss t■N00■■rl'I[,17O.r�■N.■ \•..■...■/■■■■■00■■■.■■■a.■■r■..I[■■.■II■0000.x■ 0000■..11.■.N!■N■■Ntl■rlN ■t■L.■.tt!a.N■r ■ ■■■..■.■a.ltN■■!■.■.Nall■■■N1�■■N'�l■NNi■ ■0000■■NNN■N.l....tN N■Nu. ■■•a■e■.00■■■ ■■tl■■■■N■N.N.HNN�.■■■.■,I■■■■■■.Nl■ N■uuN/.uNuusu■u■o'.■o nuuu.u.■ ■nunnuuuu■nunu■al.0►iuuuuu■ un uouluuuuu■uul.uulnuuuuu■ uo ■uuuuuuu.u.r■■r�.ul.. ■uuuuu ..'N uuuuou■uuua��■.....■.o...■ll■o viii �="""EREMSE ' touuuo■u■■■■u 5500■■ NtlNu■Nat■.■■■f.,�.I./.NNN/t0000Nt■l.4 ■■■■./■aaNlN■■..■■try_' �:..■■t.■■N.a.■000017■ ■■N .■t■■!N■l l■NNaIY■ ilaN■!■... at■■■/I :5500 ■ 0000■■ NNN l:, -w .../�■rs N■■■■.■■.00.IMi■■■..■ ■■N ..■■Nl .I ■N�a�!1■/.■NNN■..��" .■■t■■f un uuN■i/i..u-runuuuunrriiuuu■ ■u■■uuuN.._�.ruuuuuluuucd no . ■■■■■■uouu■u■n yr o NN■uoo■000l, rr..,rriiiiiiiGiGiiGiGi7iiGiiiiGii ■iii;iii�iiiii uu■■uuuu■■uu■uluu■auto.u■■iiuiiiiiiaiiiu��iiiiiiiiu�iiii�i�iiulliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii►iiii iiiiiiii001:110111 iiii�i■u mulIGAUEUguml uu■■uunlnuu.■utu.NuuutN■■ao■iut■u■or■Nu.uuuNsoon■rul■rNotauuluu■uuuouu■llul'll■■.11ll'lll■l■■■■.unuou■ ou■iiiiiiui uuumuunu■umo.nNmum.u■uuuuoo.uuunuu■uuma■■uonuNo■■..=Nl■■a■■■■■■■■■■NN 0000■o■■■■ IF _■■.■■u.N■■■.� 111110; OEM ut■■■■u■l■■.N■Nu.u'•.`ulr.. .■►•■•.Nou■■u ■u■■a■■■■V.N�.iI_-f.l.ar^.'11.1■NllllNlN.■t■■.00I-t!.\Gll,aR� r.■■■■■■■■■■■■.!■.■a■■■r■0010 rV :.■■17■iiI■■00..■■■■■.■ N■■N■NN.•,u■II I■•1■I ■ IN■■■■■■00■00.■■.t.■■■Ml5555■, n.l. T.■r la .I I■■.■.■■l■.■■■■■■■lN ■l. n. u.111Il1 uuuuu u■u■uuu■■aNur■o.■r■u■ursuuuu■/uu■..11lul�..u.uruuurauuuuu■...................._._..._____-----______-- _ uuu■uuuuuuu........................ -- — tit j 5 Own 0 05 2.05 Aw 2.13 i I v'G.u4sj rk6 .d�y 'S � 5a�� ccgo page i ) M 0 0 0 4 0 1, Aolwonv, ?"13 an! Must orn 1MVITIO T"llonw- S: 014a7l; VOOC30 grain ;:ylyAqTASw FIV-0�70� C� 7SMIsliqn in :rjjAjgjjzn jug7aln jrAn pwr& 1 , 7 Wiwi --I 1w z 0 :CAI 7 Own yrailm. QU zaw hzz �n; n a on M act ym to to a thl 15 fn, mpy it 07 gold wn- nn !no T IL5-0002 wc-, 2ormank of Ww nutz, 5D 11rIZOW n:Atv :1 07 Sol of 10"Toza- z: 11,11"S2, too OV) OVA ant 015), 74111 =1my- �LOTOITI 2ro 11A MOW t"VA nil 1110ing .l .> I- 12 To, and PS, TaSin 3 inow Paw tho Oymizen, Ton is j�vljwo into R�n ALIZVE: oz, Thv�:SAW vw7m comas! zn Una ohmed that in Saw., quarlmoss zartz :0 a., not in yrzymomm) there seaumd to he Mid ywrozQ; ant upting an& Innhapo Ustween ermea- Maltv pan! 0 0 117 0 ORE r j ( 1 i mf y A s 3 r ni S 26"a 3 _ 10-12 7 a25 i _a 1' f W Mum an Pay � „, ORE 0 0 A,7 0 0 '7 1.n . J,3 ; 92 RE 0 0 10 its 1 MOW 13305 & s., tha odda mw� wt hawn 1, 1 Wa; 0>07, YO, Al 0=01alion z0offMSS - ASA _Wscj -120 0.77D ja mainzo a mazzaasy miminsm of GAUL at tha t 1 01700 NVA DY AIMImmos and -'I"a i las trand lines zomd1pled Bri 0. Thy nImUms fz -11.naml 202;&Qvn and MnA it pax-, 7001=q.227"-,7---,"� - --'- �9 TV! Owus to iz aqw0sw 2) is sma actual -Q Q -f zmn�f%-'Oj2 tha cmputed par;&AV, ThIa 211=6 With= Q. AvgIves the disturb - in, 0?0110'n of an 000=1 unknown vaziabIj,, x , lon 1 } { 2 72 26 5 _. i .` . r j y J .� e 3 J y ' ( .q .syyn ayi dthaircarbon- sa4- 7117 - -s o _ ,, o ,. r out 10 , . 1>.,. _ry to 01 _ 9 xf . d? , s true » w NW r s 3 0 n . i ... w. w >.. ...s. fi P '."� +�.,,{s 4. ad, a=�i.'.S o, 4 i 2 Tha Wro m-UrIn jayllaz film -1 particlez whigh mam WMWSWIIYQm Thu haalm A Sjostim 2, it offe,-"t 'af rzak WCV100 zot A AIMIS..,m..- a ,_ �Ij abs w7yrn 321homm Mm .: was come InSYM and wz;zwmwSI a wmwilmrable zjwnas upon PTO- yauka Am M Ae 30'rilr razlxywir YNOTnaz9a N'tho szods froa Ujdat, Too" TSII Nw� j Q due tu W famerm wd qM004" an Vonflay. _.,A thls 07 1 no! 03: 0 IIA�I too tM&001n; 4h, To , N-Iz Worwon minsm! cam - 210 a? m! Arwral; but for -a lots! WmAin on, "21:10 1021ily :1. ... iL VAIL 1101 �Sll Y7" 1) AM 2MOTMIYA011 1TSw.0 !=;All :1 a , g"000 OwSWU grzAly of "z-, _4 00, 11OZZA to Choi, honzo on i3_x" Imly coww" Ushar rail Fanco rmlcd. AN anni'y '11wo Qn! =170 in 1>13 Cana wellence, fragont do wd natrix" not Qjy 01MAU: at ps"assia: Lys 012"Irml Wal antitins; TH wvwm :71010=11 Anyov! 0=1 njocd fit" and.hcnca tcyard 7gr eat close - Cana", Tha Wro m-UrIn jayllaz film -1 particlez whigh mam WMWSWIIYQm Thu haalm A Sjostim 2, it offe,-"t 'af rzak WCV100 zot A AIMIS..,m..- a ,_ �Ij abs w7yrn 321homm Mm .: was come InSYM and wz;zwmwSI a wmwilmrable zjwnas upon PTO- yauka Am M Ae 30'rilr razlxywir YNOTnaz9a N'tho szods froa Ujdat, Too" TSII Nw� j Q due tu W famerm wd • 0 2 • RESTRICTEDVOR OFFICIAL US -IF OWL".' Co PY Hairy Oil Unill 'a: oratory rairbaacs,Alaaka 11UPUAT MOST Wo9 Umiat Toot Wiell via9 is located at Lat.. 690 2'31 17.311 R,,, Zjong. 09" 51�,J` (-JTraiat eoordinatev X 27,4= W, Y 11,11,a) 1), aiad is the weitaxamost -:)f mxodi;Lf.-i_ung wall,G of the Umiat Field. The objectives and resalts of the test are d_J.ts,,Tazsad 'qy, C,, L, 1`40bx is the Introduction (1u4omn'; 9-ra or3� '- tion I-Rer4o-rt' page 1) of the Arctic Con ol __ (May 26, 1952). The well 41.a3 "j* miles lv6st of tJmJat Isq-1 V16115, . 3 11, and s, 14-::vsl. stxuicturally,, wil;h that %mll,, I t, a e I o v a t i ozi i s -'n24":, ' Tt jaa S1p A _'Ja d on Juana 2a® 1951j, and couirletad ora Jaaua,-4qr 15, 1952, at -A total deT )t.'ni. of 12,57�, J-.avin. -oanatrated a section very, zimilar to t3hat of Umiat Test Well 11110 51 T'113 pion is based on ptaleon',tologic stpudies by 1 lan R,, BergTa:�z` and otn lilbo'o-g-te stu.t, old coxes .,md wall cut -4i s, The firet 4256 are ZGPe D in ago Wmi�at Formatioz�c, Nantishuk Gr,,)17la" Lo"g.'ar Cretaceous),, and are almost baxroa of 'The well. snuddad ia 4a 150-%,Ioot fine-grained sandstone. It is underlain by 1`101 of median Clark gr�:,,T clay zAalk_ ,;Ith a small amount of interbedded saadstorae and some lronstoaa anal rare straaks. of cnal� n Below the shale in a sequece of interbedded?siltetons, sands tone aad &1:2a:, 42,51 the ty-oical "Vernsuilinoides F faunalf marks tk-0 tOP Of One BC (Umia4 Formation, Kanuehulr Group,, Lower Cretaceous%, 5g.veral Sands arc preson't between 450' w3A 12.00" some Of these are capable of pro','Aucing oil. A discussion of 14ha pe'='Sa:611dty ann' pra- daction is given in the Introduction to the Arctic ContractorB RePoTt rifer. ed. to aboveo mihic;,- sand bodies occur between .621 and 530", 860-8909,, end 962-iloW. -1, r3j1_i,,y sac-,Uoa Is present in the lowest sand body, between 1016, and 1036") FChq xest of tihn aoctioa is comoosed of alteniatiag, shalec, sandstone and siltztons�, Inarkers Ammo"�aculltes F and Laevidentalium first occur at 52,511. Wid r zadc rni a J and ,Gmobaculite;AELrefl—iat 730A . Abundant shells of the peleq-;ted k) -'_r, bu' -.�.a Via, z,:oe prey ainti between 8381 and 8451 , and orj,,;., A A!—eP spm shall way; found at 1ITLI TA $'Vernautliaoi des F fanna" of 'Zone 31C continues to the bottom of the -g-911 at Dlet,allad Lithologic Description No sample 5-60 inadecuate sample --all fineang,�aar hard sandstone, 60-1429 Sandsfoae,) fine ai.ned© aao,laro hard, Silty claz steals 78-8.V, 142-2320') Medium darkC-r,XJ' claY Shale, with 83.1adstone from 1651 to 1720 and microcon.glom-sratic spndstone from 1989 to a10; ,) coo-, ,-At 1721 -and clay Ixonstone at 195-1961� 220-2ZOO 140 sample 230-:2701 Clay shale,, medium gray, somewhat flalw- bentoaitic below 25C.9 270-2959 Silt shall 295-310 Clay shale 310-3359 Sandstohe 3&11-- 11,560 9 Clay shale 360-375 Siltstone with clay ironstone, Strs,,Pz of cou", at base, 375-380Q Sandatons 380_385.13 110 sample Ix 11� �61 ", Ore I a 3 4 5 6 a 91 7� Vol Clav'st"nia, dl�!-' to .g it di-sfk E-ra'yf" 51' Si l ty bezntonto. V61 Clays" 'oaci, as abe7-s, T -)i'l 1 31'-" Microfossils ")"Vbaat� 394-4041 101 CIL-vatoze-, ay in core a�607'aa DfAicrofossile -n'ozqrat, A-qu- Z G'aw-'Graq, as is core a �007 a 2110, S�'�Idstaaa, light grav, -very fin --e to -ftas grained, .f sllghtiv Calcareous, thinly l�Binzated, ex b -,rd ajad tight. B11.1ty aaxbonacao�s partings, Coca- zdloaal coal Wents� r wiall-;scale croso'bedding grade s into 01815 Siltstonso madJw.-,.. dlael-, Craj, srd, noxz-calaareo-iaas, breaks lrregularlv8 gr- adlza iata.. claystoaa,, medimi gra , hard, xioz- cslcw,aoas, brealto irreev--lar17. Diy3 fossils absqat� 411-3-42W 101, 3`0' Silty c1skystone, ais in bottom cd coxe above,- r'-Taaaa i -Qt o 4" 614 Ciax-sloaa, mad-I'Lum dazit ZzW, hEird, noa- cal car eoll,%) breaks with 9u*bcoachoid-.--i.*1, 'fracture, oc-xasional zilty- streakm 216, $andstoae, aray, vary fixia grainad, subangulari, non- ep-leareous, hard,, P.-Mards t xdcaceoun, rangges to ftni-, ggra.ixied 1.-- bottom 10". Dip I -OP; Microfossil" a eent'� 42.3-4334 100 210" S.andstone, vexy finagr,-�-aed, as, in cors Above-, gxades into 4, 0" 5ilty claystoaa, as iv. core a"%Yve.- -rades ialo 490" Cla7atoae, as In core above Dip 1-30'. Miarafossils rare Q-1 3-44-3q lW11 Claystone" as above Dip 2-50. Zones Z. -C mia"Ofoss"'.18 (top - farp-quiliaoid— IF f!ijna) 443-4541 101) 108" Clavotone, ,.as above 0994 SiltY C1270t=9 With Dl?.P,,t f.agHaat ;8 206' CIVstoae, as weaven L � MV Clayst-oris as abovs, Elfin smal I- scale compaction (-4') 1'4" Claystoneo as above: grades iz*�4*o W7' Clay iron2toae, madiam light haxe, 146' Clvstone,, as abova, witt, thin. 'band of daxk gray claii-stone near bottom of core. Dip approximately Microfoasils abiaadant,, 2 4,54-464" 'Ath Claystone is lower half of Care; zwu" r"" C:'Of 0 soil- 8 vezy xaxe,.. 434-4741 light gTV, v0z7 fine srbaugulp�,r, roa-- calcareousp interbedded irregearly wpth thl-�u laminP-e Of Cly sa aY Shale aad silty 11ak,,' .L _1.3 � r -1,1sely spaced 1-=ia-_,e of ,3and'stons nnj cj_ sh, 'Ie lau ti ca,_Aarity, Cr,-ms-bedd�,ng, marks, -and coo-aaction zome slickeasides. - `' 7 514-5 a 68 as in core a.bova. c"Oy 3"als with iMRSZORO concretions Wed P-Laal fragmantz,, 7'5" SJaads- r no, ap, above. WjtL, iacrea 00 air, '01 zzlw fraquumt LW Sha -10 Partings near baoo o" cormo D1.0 22- n t poroat, Farm I I �Iw 2.8 iM,,u1,3rmeabje rars. R, $andstoae, griky, fine to madiumo subrouaded grainz, i X1 U- �CpWr part 'Tery a' igbt hare nor M-icacsoua,, mostly clear and. 1,71hite q4'.artz vj-w- a'd-m'xtu;re of r"Ir fTaZm9AtS; occasional carboaaaeous and micaceous partir)Z s. 1,,ID 3-1, Saadstone b3comes finer Rear 1,Ot- .0m co. �iqoq Md. ?4icrOfoSsilz absent. 10 4 4-4,1340 1013 as In Co;,a aboire; nt 1 CrOfOs-sils ab -.;ea';. 424-4941 30 $audstojq, VOrY fiRa graLaad, euba�gjxlar, ipli tl*,,, admix1*o1;L2,,q Of gilt-,, ROR- Cal care mes, hax,-L tig- . It, I �FAa fiasly jn4 c, spar". acqouso Badd.ing, gppe2�,,,a to iklicrOfozails aabsent� 494-4990 01 6if as in core aboVe. ""'dicrofossils Z' a a a t 499-500 00, So as in Core6, , aja 14 C. 0 --502 101 60 34 -ad a toz, a, iR WrS i5 501 2- 5121 11 711 ja as core a7p ,Ovn,. ��Iic rOfOssila a'oseat. 10, P-8 in Cora abo-;-o, 'naj gh qt C-l"Careclus, from 5� _0 w t(T tu 23 abov.3 bo t liom. 'Rlcrofoumlls absent. `' 7 514-5 a 68 as in core a.bova. c"Oy 3"als with iMRSZORO concretions Wed P-Laal fragmantz,, 7'5" SJaads- r no, ap, above. WjtL, iacrea 00 air, '01 zzlw fraquumt LW Sha -10 Partings near baoo o" cormo D1.0 22- n t poroat, Farm I I �Iw 2.8 iM,,u1,3rmeabje rars. R, IS 19 10 21 22 23 24 525-5330 Ps'l 1W as ill base of core abovao ,,radvs jizto 7'1€s Claystone, medium gray, witil oilty a;.h ixtilure a-aCi occasional bands of si-,tstoae; p2,.a_nq; fraojkqx*,�tz, some slickeasides; breaks roli&hly pa:realsl to beddin,-,-, plane, Dip about 50. mkjcxGf dant, --PiXcet occurrence of Laevideat_njjum ,jnd A"mo ba-culites F. 4W ,il t ', W Claystoacie? medium grfv, -darde. IMSsaivo, noa- Calcar v -,,ouzo moderately freeu6sz;% plant fragmut ntq.; -nromin=t slickensiding near I oaze of 'Untsr7a, D i P 0—Q 0' w`andstone. -T_jy, varyrf adfflixt'ArO Of Oilt, Rola-Celcp_z'oo-as, 'Ih_n-xd,, t1glat, massive, carbonaceous, paxtiag: in to- 10" 0V? interval prOMIDeat, slickansid �Jg, tAth poorlqr CLevelooed broccla of ai:�Z-al-zty !3ilty fraf- mentz in Silty carbonn-ceous so.,lads `I-Poaq na'arly flat. k1icrofozalls ab-319ato 513-5531 l cl,:A�Staaeo Wedium, non--calearsouti. bard ,L,j MaOsIve, occasional baa±,',.s lelth silty -n,-ad 2oaes with thinly izterlanipat,�,ad gray zilt- stone, Bedd.IagIMUCrofoasils 'absent., as -Above; brs_-_jjcz choldal fractare rougblj p-sTa_`-IZto Sand�•Aona. as J� 'Wore jg� Cl, stone, as above BGddiIkg flat. 1,11icrofoozile coraxioj�t, goociazz 563-15 73 100 Gla,, Stor Y .0. as aibove. sAjcro:TF.o_,i-,-J'I 3 c,.5jTmon, S.,�),&cjaz rareo 5?Z-.5837 50 QlayStanso as above. 4941 $andatonof, as in Core 19. Bedding, nearly flat. ' 'Y'll � crofosails very ranr-. 10E 002" $aadstoaso as above. grades is -4, 1'110' m&diumZrSI.Yo v9z7 Aightly bardD cF_.rbox?.acQouoant_i. irticP a a 111 * g s., .qecp,jS p r,, .into ZP 0 0`1 Z - ands tone, gra-.y, ver,,,r fire gr<Hjjqd, slightlly ca-A- careoim,, egarsely micac3ous, lri.,--ardr massivq,, carbonaceous partings; grades InAe Siltstonap --a above. I)iD ery rare, -ilt, c1a;1 a V e, meditru gTeq, Ihard, non -c occasion.12 plant fraoRants. Dip a-�proximataly 4P,", microfossile absent. 41 0 0 Cors 0007 26 6OC-611 q B rJ Silty claystons, as abova; axe $ilt-3tone 615-649', CIBY shalec, with Biltstone between 6:35q and 6409, Core ke—Coyerx 27 649-6590 104 Silty ol47G`oRe© as above., Mjcrofc�ssils Cor zo �mon, species common 28 659-6694 100 -9iltY CIVotone, as above, rare, 669-6794 70 WO 5'0" $UtY ClaYstonaz as above 2,15" siltatoae, as in corez -above. Ilicrofoessils common, Species COMMOno 30 679-6881 4q 31 (1 Silty Claysaone® as a:oove. 31 688-69aq 1()" 5 7C " Silty claYsl,'Oneo au a'ove,-, grates into 5" 0" ClaYGY siltstonso as abofey polo o, va; d ypos; ace sional baxids of "c jea:a" oil%c_tc_RB. Rierof'ossile rare. 32 698-7071 100 4410" Siltstoaa, medium light grgy- VrarseUl� M'Lcaceo%xs, extramely hardo 191" ClaWsy Siltstonwas abs ea V411 Siltstoaeo as ia upper part of dorso. bit zligj,.t),y cal carsocm, 146" laterbedded cl-Vrstone and clayty siltstone. 11 P" SiltstOnes 91403b.t17 Calcaxsouse as above. 3010" SJUstorie, az in ton intt�)rvai_ r,:p ccrq, - J� - wj th intOr'bsds Of CIWf-Q,'r Biltstone, exose,-bedding. t-:�ua bedding naaxll -Y flat- dpi Va-�7. rare), 707-7203 720-7271 727-730 0 M-7150 5 750-8094 Core 33 Sandstone, fiAe grained, anga:tarm '11V clay Sandstone Silty clay Shale KO sample die-+tReCOVEZ Siltstons, medium light griv, apar-aa3q micaceous, aztremelly "--do nO?I-Calcareous,, vitll irregularly distributed clay admIxII-1-M. at 811-129 thin ClVev c_P-r1)anac9o%z9 partiags indicate dip of lC".0a bedding not diacerm34,le thrwag;".iout remainder Of core, 10 Core 34 35 36 38 39 Es 41 :ate t3a�Zlteawoxemry irreG--U-L1X clav a&aixtlira, as in bottom 'aterval of core a J. !�Ove� �:jj cro:ro sail s Common, species rare, 314" Clayey, elltstone, as aj)ova; grades .ate 3001, Clays"'Jouee dark gray to medium dark. R;rW,., hard,. breaks irragglarly with subcoazho i d sl frac rL&ra,, 04" Clayey siltstone, as aboye, common., 3-700cies rare. 838-8480 $Q loft V0" ;iiltY O'Ltone, s abo; grades into a WO" ClayaYs `stone, medidearth gray, ba -rd, '-w breaks irregularly, small, well-preserved pelacypods (Ro x b a. 2. a - �) common Iz lower ,poart of interval. 2010! -911V claYstone, and cl.V97 sj-, tstone, as above, '4icrOOlssils common, species rare, 848-8580 .109 990" CIV3tonao medium damk gray, hard, naa-calcareousi, bXeLak-3 with irregular fracture, few pelacrpods as in abova coree occasional silty. baads, dip 49. 110" Glayey ailtstoaae© as above. Microfossils abuadaatp 708cies common. 858-8684 100 1#10" Slltstoaa,, medium grafi to medl,= ligbt graj, hard, u0n-CalcareOtlsv with irregzulaxly iaterlamiaated bedded) claYD peleqypod shell fragments presentf, grades into V61' Silty clay stone, as above 108" CI -V, stoneo medium dark gray,, hard, -40-a-calcareous, breaka 11-Tragularly, abundant -plant fossils and coal fragments. 3"8" SiltstOxls, with interlaminated clay as in app e3. - most interval of core, slickensides at baS3 of interval 114" Sandstone. light gray, fine, sabrounf-1, moi a-eately friable,, non -calcareous. 1, 0 species rare,, icrozf ssils common, 8�88�8789 93 G" $aadstone, as in core abOlxa, %ith 00(,lasional carbonap,eous atrea�--a in lower 'half ,�Oros Ren At 11 Porg qI e r m 2 ab 1 k Lr 87711 15�.,, 1,s3 msi, 878-8681 61 S-andsIfons as above. 21-9 A-11 P or o si -'if, ',larmeabiIA& 8809 L ).-,b 274 md. 888-8980 100 073" Silty 0 1 IV shale 9171 Smasto-Ile. as above, 1dtea bands of vex7 fijq to silty sandstone. M Care lienth Dorosi -Fermeabill 8941, 14� 2� F3 3 0 d, Aicrofossils abaent� A2 Sands;one. as in core it mediats'ly abova,, Kicrof'ossils absent. 4' 3 901-9111 8G 6" Sandstooaap as above. � path Poro si Y �e Ksaab ill t -Y -S 9019 1z' 56) J. ape =-3 a b I a 114 911-9193 61 Saadi sono„ as above, becoming lneraa2iagly ail-Ity and slightly calcareous toward base„ frequent crboDazeous partin3 a gs -46 from base, Re —Ot h Porosity -Fermeobili-v 919, 9A2m-3, a rm,-- ab). a 45 919-9290 109 SOOT' Siltztcwanc, medium grAjr,, extrema'_-y 4aard, tight massive, ncderatsl,7 well-dave-lo-ped s.2. i ckoa. sides at 10-150. W"O" CIVOY ililtstonev non-Co2careoas, becoming "clean", hard,, Biltstone in lower balf of interval,. Dip 4P. 1A`;.crofo3G-;Ilz absent, 46 929=939, 813 7" Siltstoae, as above, Ath fine jami.yjae of clWrg becomiaP, silty claystons at base of coTe� fossils common, species rare, 47 939-9491 lov W10" Silty C1-f4!StOaGP as above 100" CIA70Y Biltstonai, as above 05211 Sandstone,, fine to medi=,p sabaargalar,, noni . calcaxaottsi, hard, non-mleaceoits, somewhat car-.- bonacsouz� MOrofozssile common, apecier, rare,, 48 9.49-9590 39 215" SandstGale, ae in lowormost ojo, core a,,Xve. 50 7" Silty claystone, as ZI)OVS VI,Jxrofoasils abundant, species common, 491 959-9690 101 1080 Sandstone, as it care above,, 1444 SiltY Claystoner, as abo'Tfe,- Ata tkaia.R Irregnlar 1=-inae of Siltstone. 110" Sandstone,, as above, but fine graiaad, vith thia irregular laminae ©f silty rIgrqtoaa 0991 Claystoneo dark gray,, haxdo noa-Calzareoixe, b-7-s-Altz irregularly. 002" Coal 501" Sandstone, light gray. fins grainedo subaagular,, non -micaceous, naa-00-careous,, occasional coaly w -id carbonaceous partings (mora a7owidant in upper 66 of interval). 7 0 0 Core Zw) h Ea cov- -t 1� An -q —Z' 96611 M 110 1rd..' Microfoq3ils. ab'voudant', enecies, commOa,, . 50 969-9791 "?6 01 Sand3t.onaq as above 51 979-9899 101 Saadatona, as above PMD a i 2 Ask 11- Perna b i 1 i 9849 10aye i up 9 r -ra s a b I a 52 939-1COO9 69 b- ;Snndstone, as azbove, Mijcrofossili3 abfaatc 53 1000-101011 a Sandstone, as eho—ve emDentIft ROroskV Preabil 10080 9a 14;S impermeable 54 1010-101711.8 P Siandstoaia, as above-, grades ia-ita 740" Si"ItStOD.0, light gray, h2TCI, fi'le!V MIC,,3,CSOUS, 0 non -ca lcarsous, c-arboaaceous a:Id a0leacaous -9,axtiag% cross—bedded, some "Sid-ir1y0 71-addlirlgo Microfoasils absent. 55 1017-1027" q'I '70 406" t a IL' Siltstona. as above, grades i -a 216" -Sandstono, as in upper part, of '30are but wi-14b ilty admixture. V011 Clays tonne„ medium gray,, hard, with siltstona band 211 thick in middle of -Iitovval,. 1051 Slltstozxe,� as above M-Crofossils rare, *6 1027-1037" 61 70 WSW Siltstoneo as above 142" Sandstoae, as in cores It m-ediataly abo'va� 00611 Siltstona, medium grW, very hard, massive sparsW,Tf micaceous,, 0140 Claystone 3911'5 511tatoze, as immediately above, bv*miag slightly coarser at bases klicrofo sails rare., 57 1037-10471 10, SULty f38=dstoas(, very fine sulbaagular, very haTd, maasive, norx-calcareouz, sparsa3q mica,-,eaus. 58 1047-10579 103 5-11tv aendstoaso as above AS -P —bh K-O—rog�-L& 10520 10 � 0E-" im-p2rmeable 59 1057-10671 38 118 S i I V € ennd.stgne> as abovec, but Ath a 'few cax-- bonaceousand micaceous r,-artiaga near base. Micro- fossile absent. 60 1067-107W ?I il" 601011 Silty sandstone, as above-, grad -as into 11111 ystone with bands of silty sandstone -S il ty c.), a, a 0 Core Danth 'Recoverz 61 1076-10860 99 111, 62 1066-10964 1W 63 1096-11060 JOR 64 1106-11174 V 6" 65 1117-1127 30 7" 66 1127-11370 33 on 67 1137-11463 93 68 1146-11579 100 69 1157-11674 59 70 1167-11770 go 6" 71 1177-11873 84 72 1187-11971 109 73 1197-12069 8e 661 74 1,M-6-12081 11 611 75 1208-1218Q 53 6" 0 Silty sLzdstoneo as above. 09 Mt Porosity 4.47A Silty saadstonee as above, bacomiag very clayey noar base. Microfossils absent. Silty c1Vstoae, medium dark g. -ray, non -calcareous,, hard, finely micaceouso moderatel;r carbon,,ceous. blicrofossils coi mon, species rare. Silty claystoas, as above. Mi;arofossils common,) Species very rare,, Silty claystone, as above, wit,.A 10" bad of silt - stone rou&ly in middle of raca7ered core, 1,41icrofossils rarep, spocies vari rare, SlItstone, with carbonaceous partings and some Silty claystone. Silty claystone and clayey siltstoas in approxi- mately equal proportions. Dip about 4P. Silty claystoae with P. few bands of clayey silt - stone, Dip 5--7Q Hicrofossils rate, Silty clp-ystone with a few bands of. clayey silt - stone. Silty, claystone, as above, but with somewhat less silt. Ammonite (Soamhitez wo,) at 1172. Hicrofossils common. Silty claystone, as above. Microf o sail a rare, species common. Sil-ky claystone, as above. Microfossils comraoao species common. Silty claystone, as above; fflacrofoasil at 119741 Hicrofossils rare. Silty claystone, as above. Microfossils coaMoRD species rare. ,Silty claystone, as above. Mi f,,rof o isi la common, species rare. P, 0 0 ,-al - -, '. L - - li, WA; t r"'cla- Call Cox. ce 4slli-fjy,l bedding, ad, plaat im,t-,3ra of cay w, th 2 77 226-12 361 6,1 latef�eldoii cL.L�;.rq"Ol all-ty claystc�ac a -1 C -L - d 7 ir, ap-roximatele" -PTOPGrt� 'yj about I 78, 1 2317el— 1247 100 0�; cz j ? ty c ad, S to a v a-0070.; of Bid l- r-, COr-, li c:rG fo 3 Sl 3. t� rL 79 2 -,1 1.25 7 1-01 011 l5lightly Siltir cs'l_la ,,�tnn�,-L:,,, qJ Is xar, d. 2.5 7 drip" b,0. ,-al - -, '. L - - li, • • EXPLANATION 0 OIL WELL i BARROW AREA i i BARROW AREA O C f f 1 C :� `�` TULAGEAK 1 4 ,t, -� ARCON BARROW 1 R C S. BARRO �:5 � ' "a � -d p SE I + S. BARROW + P WALAKPA '(I(0 SAYI SIMPSON i c o f + +WALAKPA 2 S, BARROW 2 ' �`'u ; E. SIMPSON 2 J W DALTON I FF I KUYANAKJ �; _ E. SIfI�IPSQN tom..- S. BARROW 4 ULL CL W T. FOi2AN I .c... SIMPSON I _ S. BARROW 5 D EW s' + s POINT I -(CAPE HALKETT I � S. BARROW 6 S. SIMPSON I c r - TQPAGORUK I s f ESHEPUK \',+ATIGARU S. BARROW 7 c v r KUGRUTA I�� a .-_, E• P_ RUK .n.r,ti• ,...--- POINT I li - * ---- - -- S. MEADE 1 • # PIKPUK. I HARRISON S. BARROW 8 f l•,.. ALIKPIK I T S. BARROW 9 - T.- ` .d 11 .—per G . 1 i`_ . • f. �. u 4 , 1 , - r N.W. FISH CREEK I / �� BAiN S BARROW 10 TUNALIK i L Y N.INIGOK I w�T'CREEK I S. BARROW II _ -ai I . . . . 0 S. BARROW 12 rr �y i r r –; s_ T�!� -IWNWADE 1 Q Ci,. oV :. INIGOK I ITKILLIK (I � S. BARROW 13 KAbLAK I _. _ # >� . . .., + . . . . �? + E S. BARROW 14 V R 1 P-77 y ' (industry) - - OUtiIA!.IK I �� S. BARROW 15 - ((( OUMKOLUKTAK I _ f S. BARROW 16 T SENTINEL ALI S. BARROW 17 HILL SQUARE gQUARE , S. BARROW 18 _ r'LAKE 1`®� GUBIK S. BARROW !9 r-- - LF } TITALUK i - CREEK y SEABEE i :� S. BARROW 20 i UMIAT -- �` _+ 27,3 �.►y AREA GUBIK AVAK ! v t -.� • UMIAT AREA 1 J -T AWUNA I _ _ IFEBLADE—� GRANDSTAND I + UMIAT I j ` A S \. .4 ' UMIAT 2 UMIAT 3 0 UMIAT 4 L't� �'✓' � ®`� ! � • UMIAT 5 % • I LISBURNE I 0 25 50 Mi. �V 0 25 50 75 Km. QROIIO OQO ''"' (•. TETRA TECH REPORT NO -8200 fi.1rET" it s0K�mc INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944 -53.1974 -al NPR ALASKA �w..�•E�9uE�oPc .� GAS WELL OIL AND GAS WELL E OIL SHOW -ABANDONED - GAS SHOW -ABANDONED i BARROW AREA i i BARROW AREA O C f f 1 C :� `�` TULAGEAK 1 4 ,t, -� ARCON BARROW 1 R C S. BARRO �:5 � ' "a � -d p SE I + S. BARROW + P WALAKPA '(I(0 SAYI SIMPSON i c o f + +WALAKPA 2 S, BARROW 2 ' �`'u ; E. SIMPSON 2 J W DALTON I FF I KUYANAKJ �; _ E. SIfI�IPSQN tom..- S. BARROW 4 ULL CL W T. FOi2AN I .c... SIMPSON I _ S. BARROW 5 D EW s' + s POINT I -(CAPE HALKETT I � S. BARROW 6 S. SIMPSON I c r - TQPAGORUK I s f ESHEPUK \',+ATIGARU S. BARROW 7 c v r KUGRUTA I�� a .-_, E• P_ RUK .n.r,ti• ,...--- POINT I li - * ---- - -- S. MEADE 1 • # PIKPUK. I HARRISON S. BARROW 8 f l•,.. ALIKPIK I T S. BARROW 9 - T.- ` .d 11 .—per G . 1 i`_ . • f. �. u 4 , 1 , - r N.W. FISH CREEK I / �� BAiN S BARROW 10 TUNALIK i L Y N.INIGOK I w�T'CREEK I S. BARROW II _ -ai I . . . . 0 S. BARROW 12 rr �y i r r –; s_ T�!� -IWNWADE 1 Q Ci,. oV :. INIGOK I ITKILLIK (I � S. BARROW 13 KAbLAK I _. _ # >� . . .., + . . . . �? + E S. BARROW 14 V R 1 P-77 y ' (industry) - - OUtiIA!.IK I �� S. BARROW 15 - ((( OUMKOLUKTAK I _ f S. BARROW 16 T SENTINEL ALI S. BARROW 17 HILL SQUARE gQUARE , S. BARROW 18 _ r'LAKE 1`®� GUBIK S. BARROW !9 r-- - LF } TITALUK i - CREEK y SEABEE i :� S. BARROW 20 i UMIAT -- �` _+ 27,3 �.►y AREA GUBIK AVAK ! v t -.� • UMIAT AREA 1 J -T AWUNA I _ _ IFEBLADE—� GRANDSTAND I + UMIAT I j ` A S \. .4 ' UMIAT 2 UMIAT 3 0 UMIAT 4 L't� �'✓' � ®`� ! � • UMIAT 5 % • I LISBURNE I 0 25 50 Mi. �V 0 25 50 75 Km. QROIIO OQO ''"' (•. TETRA TECH REPORT NO -8200 fi.1rET" it s0K�mc INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944 -53.1974 -al NPR ALASKA �w..�•E�9uE�oPc .� SUSPENDED GAS WELL i OIL AND GAS SHOW E ABANDONED - DRY AND ABANDONED 0 SUSPENDED OIL WELL f t i BARROW AREA i i BARROW AREA O C f f 1 C :� `�` TULAGEAK 1 4 ,t, -� ARCON BARROW 1 R C S. BARRO �:5 � ' "a � -d p SE I + S. BARROW + P WALAKPA '(I(0 SAYI SIMPSON i c o f + +WALAKPA 2 S, BARROW 2 ' �`'u ; E. SIMPSON 2 J W DALTON I FF I KUYANAKJ �; _ E. SIfI�IPSQN tom..- S. BARROW 4 ULL CL W T. FOi2AN I .c... SIMPSON I _ S. BARROW 5 D EW s' + s POINT I -(CAPE HALKETT I � S. BARROW 6 S. SIMPSON I c r - TQPAGORUK I s f ESHEPUK \',+ATIGARU S. BARROW 7 c v r KUGRUTA I�� a .-_, E• P_ RUK .n.r,ti• ,...--- POINT I li - * ---- - -- S. MEADE 1 • # PIKPUK. I HARRISON S. BARROW 8 f l•,.. ALIKPIK I T S. BARROW 9 - T.- ` .d 11 .—per G . 1 i`_ . • f. �. u 4 , 1 , - r N.W. FISH CREEK I / �� BAiN S BARROW 10 TUNALIK i L Y N.INIGOK I w�T'CREEK I S. BARROW II _ -ai I . . . . 0 S. BARROW 12 rr �y i r r –; s_ T�!� -IWNWADE 1 Q Ci,. oV :. INIGOK I ITKILLIK (I � S. BARROW 13 KAbLAK I _. _ # >� . . .., + . . . . �? + E S. BARROW 14 V R 1 P-77 y ' (industry) - - OUtiIA!.IK I �� S. BARROW 15 - ((( OUMKOLUKTAK I _ f S. BARROW 16 T SENTINEL ALI S. BARROW 17 HILL SQUARE gQUARE , S. BARROW 18 _ r'LAKE 1`®� GUBIK S. BARROW !9 r-- - LF } TITALUK i - CREEK y SEABEE i :� S. BARROW 20 i UMIAT -- �` _+ 27,3 �.►y AREA GUBIK AVAK ! v t -.� • UMIAT AREA 1 J -T AWUNA I _ _ IFEBLADE—� GRANDSTAND I + UMIAT I j ` A S \. .4 ' UMIAT 2 UMIAT 3 0 UMIAT 4 L't� �'✓' � ®`� ! � • UMIAT 5 % • I LISBURNE I 0 25 50 Mi. �V 0 25 50 75 Km. QROIIO OQO ''"' (•. TETRA TECH REPORT NO -8200 fi.1rET" it s0K�mc INDEX MAP -PET -48 NPRA TEST WELLS AND SELECTED CORE TESTS, 1944 -53.1974 -al NPR ALASKA �w..�•E�9uE�oPc .� FIGURE 2 UMIAT 6 UMIAT 7 E UMIAT B 0 UMIAT 9 0 UMIAT 10 -*- UMIAT 11 FIGURE 2 4 "Old" 2davy Wells (1944-53) 1 w ! ' well game Avak - 1 South Barrow -1 /bU -d0� South Barrow -2 South -Barrow -3 /00 602-6 South Barrow -4 / 0 U r Ooh Fish Creek -1 /Do -i6b I Grandstand -1 / 00 ' 3 Gubik-1 106-0.01 Gubik-2 %00 -aa Kaolak-1 /00-o'�o�y Knifeblade-1 /V '491 j Y,ni:feblade-2 Kni.,f eblade-2A ;6 na f(a; t'a blade b Meade -1 oum. alik-1 j East Oumalik-1 j Simpson -1 i Squzre hake -1 Titaluk-1 /D6-196 Topagoruk-1 100 -161 Eadt Topagoruk-1 Umiat-1 100 Umiat-2 / ov -1.;11 b j Umiat-3 100- I OV- a I Umiat-4 160 'a 1 Umiat-5 /00-913 Umiat-6 /00 -a/y Umiat-7 II I Umiat-8 /00-9140 Umiat-9 Umiat-10 Umiat-11 100-011� I �1 ! Wolf Creek -1 Wolf Creek -2 IVUI l Wolf Creek -3 l &D — 41 c) "Intermediate" Wells at Barrow -(1955-1974) South Barrow -5 160-0016 South Barrow -6 /W -0-0a? y South Barrow -7 /66-030 ,South Barrow -8 /04--031 South Barrow -9 IW- 3a South Barrow -10 /U0-053 South Barrow -11 /OD -5341 South Barrow -12 /60--636-- 1W Af5/