The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutO 1201. ---------------- 2. July 20, 2011 3. August 4, 2011 4. August 5, 2011 5. August 25, 2011 6. -------------------- 7 - -------------------- OTHER ORDER 120 Docket OTH-11-030 Background information Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action, Failure to Test SVS, KRU 2B -pad CPAI's request for informal review AOGCC letter scheduling Informal Review Informal review sign -in sheet and presentation CPAI yearly performance and operating integrity overview Confidential penalty calculations held in secure storage STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Failure to Test Safety Valve Systems Other Order 120 Safety Valve System Test Performance Docket Number: OTH-11-030 Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad May 17, 2017 DECISION AND ORDER On July 20, 2011 the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action (Notice) to ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI) regarding well safety valve system (SVS) testing at the Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad. The Notice was based upon CPAI's failure to test SVS at intervals as required by AOGCC. Included in the Notice was AOGCC's assessment of substandard SVS test performance for the prior two years leading up to the violation. The notice proposed a civil penalty of $580,000 and specific corrective actions. CPAI requested an informal review. That review was held August 25, 2011. Summary of Proposed Enforcement Action: KRU 2B pad was initially placed on a 90 -day SVS test interval by letter dated February 19, 2010. Testing at that interval was required until an acceptable level of performance (i.e., component failure rate less than 10 percent) was achieved. By letter dated May 21, 2010, AOGCC notified CPAI that — because the May 7, 2010 SVS tests at KRU 2B repeated a component failure rate exceeding 10 percent — it was subject to an indefinite extension for SVS testing every 90 days. There was also a defeated SVS component on one well which was discovered during the AOGCC witness of SVS tests done May 10, 2010. The indefinite extension required AOGCC approval before returning the SVS test frequency at KRU 2B from every 90 days to the routine interval of every 6 months. Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 2 of 5 AOGCC records revealed that — beginning August 1, 2010 — CPAI performed SVS tests for KRU 2B pad wells every 6 months instead of at the required SVS testing every 90 days.' There was no AOGCC approval to change the SVS test interval. In response to the violations AOGCC conducted a comprehensive review of CPAI SVS testing in Alaska and determined that the failure rates at KRU 2B are not an isolated occurrence. CPAI's SVS test failure rate for all its wells since September 1, 2009 was 5.03 percent - the highest failure rate among operators with more than 1000 SVS components tested. Ten CPAI-operated pads were on a 90 -day SVS test frequency due to high failure rates, with 4 of those pads requiring SVS tests at intervals not to exceed 90 days until the AOGCC determined that an acceptable level of performance had been achieved. Informal Review: An informal review provides opportunity for the recipient of a proposed enforcement action to submit evidence and make written and oral statements regarding the enforcement action in advance of AOGCC issuing a final decision. CPAI's request for an informal review stated it does not concur with the proposed enforcement and will present written and oral information for AOGCC consideration. CPAI objected to the AOGCC's imposition of the maximum allowable penalty, suggesting it was "out of proportion to the circumstances" and "the violation represents a communication and scheduling error, not a substantive deviation from SVS installation or performance regulations. CPAI also objected to the AOGCC's proposed corrective actions, stating that it "disputes any nexus between the alleged 2B scheduling and the overbroad enforcement proposals based on issues disconnected to 2B SVS testing." I There were a few miscellaneous tests performed on KRU 2B wells that were shut in at the time of the pad test or that had undergone some type of repair affecting the SVS. Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 3 of 5 During the August 25, 2011 informal review, CPAI presented information suggesting SVS testing at KRU 2B during May 2010 met the AOGCC's passing criteria, and that the enforcement action was unfounded. CPAI did not, however, acknowledge that the AOGCC's decision to place KRU 213 -pad on a 90 -day test frequency was based not only on the failure rate but also on a defeated SVS component.2 CPAI also provided general information about improvements to its SVS Management Program, including projected timeframes for completing actions for ongoing and upcoming actions. CPAI committed to communicating with AOGCC as it proceeds with improvements. Discussion: There was nothing ambiguous about the expectations of AOGCC requirements for testing SVS, and specifically the requirement to test KRU 2B wells "at intervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved." Failure to test SVS at a specified interval is a serious matter and CPAI does not dispute that it failed to comply with AOGCC's letter instructing them to test KRU 213 -pad well SVS every 90 days until AOGCC was satisfied with the SVS performance. Regarding SVS test performance of all CPAI-operated wells, AOGCC finds that significant efforts have been implemented to improve upon equipment reliability and tracking of AOGCC instructions. Efforts include: - SVS component upgrades and standardization; - Root Cause Analysis of low pressure detection devices; - Procedural enhancements (clarity, consistency, compliance with regulations); - Analyzing trends and comparing SVS component performance against other operators for improvement; - Focused preventive maintenance practices to reduce failures; - Improved human performance through training, communications, and feedback; 2 AOGCC letter dated May 21, 2010; Defeated SVS at KRU 2B-01 Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 4 of 5 - Automation upgrades to track and notify appropriate personnel of approaching test due dates. CPAI has met with AOGCC personnel at least annually since receiving the Notice to update progress in SVS Management Program efforts and SVS performance. Significant improvements have been achieved as evidenced by CPAI's SVS component failure rate determined from performance tests currently being one of the lowest among operators in Alaska. The AOGCC has considered the factors in AS 31.05.150(g) in its assessment of the violation and finds no evident of bad faith, no benefits derived from failing to test, and no injury to the public. These findings support CPAI's position that the maximum penalty amounts are unfounded. AOGCC has also considered the significant expenditure by CPAI to improve its SVS Management Program. CPAI estimates it has spent more than $6 million to date on SVS improvements.3 Findings and Conclusions: The AOGCC finds that CPAI violated SVS testing requirements by failing to test SVS components on KRU 2B wells as directed in the May 21, 2010 letter. Because of the SVS Management Program efforts — several which were initiated prior to receiving the Notice — AOGCC is eliminating the proposed civil penalty. The value of CPAI's efforts to improve SVS compliance far out -weigh any benefits derived from retention of civil penalties in this enforcement action. As further justification for removal of the penalties, AOGCC has issued to CPAI just one non -civil penalty enforcement action since the 2011 Notice while CPAI operates more than 800 wells with required SVS systems per year.4 Now Therefore It Is Ordered That: CPAI must continue communicating SVS Management Program improvement progress to AOGCC during annual meetings until deemed unnecessary by the AOGCC. All other corrective actions and the civil penalty are revoked. s Email dated February 6, 2017 4 Non -civil penalty enforcement action dated 11/27/2015 for a defeated SVS on KRU 1R-02 Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 5 of 5 As an Operator involved in an enforcement action, you are required to preserve documents concerning the above action until after resolution of the proceeding. Done at Anchorage, Alaska and dated May 17, 2017. �441114��L� Cathy P. Foerster Chai , Commissioner 812�q --- Hollis S. French Commissioner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL NOTICE As provided in AS 31.05.080(a), within 20 days after written notice of the entry of this order or decision, or such further time as the AOGCC grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the AOGCC an application for reconsideration of the matter determined by it. If the notice was mailed, then the period of time shall be 23 days. An application for reconsideration must set out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The AOGCC shall grant or refuse the application for reconsideration in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed. Failure to act on it within 10 -days is a denial of reconsideration. If the AOGCC denies reconsideration, upon denial, this order or decision and the denial of reconsideration are FINAL and may be appealed to superior court. The appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the AOGCC mails, OR 30 days if the AOGCC otherwise distributes, the order or decision denying reconsideration, UNLESS the denial is by inaction, in which case the appeal MUST be filed within 40 days after the date on which the application for reconsideration was filed. If the AOGCC grants an application for reconsideration, this order or decision does not become final. Rather, the order or decision on reconsideration will be the FINAL order or decision of the AOGCC, and it may be appealed to superior court. That appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the AOGCC mails, OR 30 days if the AOGCC otherwise distributes, the order or decision on reconsideration. In computing a period of time above, the date of the event or default after which the designated period begins to run is not included in the period; the last day of the period is included, unless it falls on a weekend or state holiday, in which event the period runs until 5:00 p.m. on the next day that does not fall on a weekend or state holiday. Domestic Mail C For delivery inforrr J ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space nermitc 1 Bill jArnold Manager, North Slope Operations ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 ,Agent X O Addressee B. Received by ( tint INI e) C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from iters 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: p No MAY 2 4 2017 3. Service Type ❑ Priority Mail Express® Certified Mail Fee r -i $ U') Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ I rn ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ Postmark r-3 ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ Here C3 1:3 ❑ Adult Signature Required $ V E] Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ VIII C3 Postage I ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ 9590 9402 1823 6104 6488 70 OryCertified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Total Postage and Fees o Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation ❑ Signature Confirmation Bill T. Arnold 7015 0 6 4 00003 518 5 5727 $ Restricted Delivery u l Sent To Manager, North Slope Operations r-3 O r-eeta- Ajot. No., o-rPo, ConocoPhilli s Alaska Inc. r` --------------------------- P.O. Box 100360 City, State, ZIP+4® Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space nermitc 1 Bill jArnold Manager, North Slope Operations ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 ,Agent X O Addressee B. Received by ( tint INI e) C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from iters 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: p No MAY 2 4 2017 3. Service Type ❑ Priority Mail Express® I I ❑Adult Signature ❑ Registered MaiITM Il I IIII'I I'll lel I II I IIID V I I I VIII l I� I ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑ Registered Mail Restricted 9590 9402 1823 6104 6488 70 OryCertified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery Delivery 4 Return Receipt for ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery Merchandise ❑ Signature Confirmation ❑ Signature Confirmation 2. Article Number {Transfer from service labeg 7015 0 6 4 00003 518 5 5727 n I.,sured Mail sured Mail Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery ver $500) PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Receipt STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 West Seventh Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Failure to Test Safety Valve Systems Other Order 120 Safety Valve System Test Performance Docket Number: OTH-11-030 Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad May 17, 2017 DECISION AND ORDER On July 20, 2011 the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) issued a Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action (Notice) to ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI) regarding well safety valve system (SVS) testing at the Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad. The Notice was based upon CPAI's failure to test SVS at intervals as required by AOGCC. Included in the Notice was AOGCC's assessment of substandard SVS test performance for the prior two years leading up to the violation. The notice proposed a civil penalty of $580,000 and specific corrective actions. CPAI requested an informal review. That review was held August 25, 2011. Summary of Proposed Enforcement Action: KRU 2B pad was initially placed on a 90 -day SVS test interval by letter dated February 19, 2010. Testing at that interval was required until an acceptable level of performance (i.e., component failure rate less than 10 percent) was achieved. By letter dated May 21, 2010, AOGCC notified CPAI that — because the May 7, 2010 SVS tests at KRU 2B repeated a component failure rate exceeding 10 percent — it was subject to an indefinite extension for SVS testing every 90 days. There was also a defeated SVS component on one well which was discovered during the AOGCC witness of SVS tests done May 10, 2010. The indefinite extension required AOGCC approval before returning the SVS test frequency at KRU 2B from every 90 days to the routine interval of every 6 months. Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 2 of 5 AOGCC records revealed that — beginning August 1, 2010 — CPAI performed SVS tests for KRU 2B pad wells every 6 months instead of at the required SVS testing every 90 days.1 There was no AOGCC approval to change the SVS test interval. In response to the violations AOGCC conducted a comprehensive review of CPAI SVS testing in Alaska and determined that the failure rates at KRU 2B are not an isolated occurrence. CPAI's SVS test failure rate for all its wells since September 1, 2009 was 5.03 percent - the highest failure rate among operators with more than 1000 SVS components tested. Ten CPAI-operated pads were on a 90 -day SVS test frequency due to high failure rates, with 4 of those pads requiring SVS tests at intervals not to exceed 90 days until the AOGCC determined that an acceptable level of performance had been achieved. Informal Review: An informal review provides opportunity for the recipient of a proposed enforcement action to submit evidence and make written and oral statements regarding the enforcement action in advance of AOGCC issuing a final decision. CPAI's request for an informal review stated it does not concur with the proposed enforcement and will present written and oral information for AOGCC consideration. CPAI objected to the AOGCC's imposition of the maximum allowable penalty, suggesting it was "out of proportion to the circumstances" and "the violation represents a communication and scheduling error, not a substantive deviation from SVS installation or performance regulations. CPAI also objected to the AOGCC's proposed corrective actions, stating that it "disputes any nexus between the alleged 2B scheduling and the overbroad enforcement proposals based on issues disconnected to 2B SVS testing." 1 There were a few miscellaneous tests performed on KRU 2B wells that were shut in at the time of the pad test or that had undergone some type of repair affecting the SVS. Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 3 of 5 During the August 25, 2011 informal review, CPAI presented information suggesting SVS testing at KRU 2B during May 2010 met the AOGCC's passing criteria, and that the enforcement action was unfounded. CPAI did not, however, acknowledge that the AOGCC's decision to place KRU 213 -pad on a 90 -day test frequency was based not only on the failure rate but also on a defeated SVS component.2 CPAI also provided general information about improvements to its SVS Management Program, including projected timeframes for completing actions for ongoing and upcoming actions. CPAI committed to communicating with AOGCC as it proceeds with improvements. Discussion: There was nothing ambiguous about the expectations of AOGCC requirements for testing SVS, and specifically the requirement to test KRU 2B wells "at intervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved." Failure to test SVS at a specified interval is a serious matter and CPAI does not dispute that it failed to comply with AOGCC's letter instructing them to test KRU 213 -pad well SVS every 90 days until AOGCC was satisfied with the SVS performance. Regarding SVS test performance of all CPAI-operated wells, AOGCC finds that significant efforts have been implemented to improve upon equipment reliability and tracking of AOGCC instructions. Efforts include: - SVS component upgrades and standardization; - Root Cause Analysis of low pressure detection devices; - Procedural enhancements (clarity, consistency, compliance with regulations); - Analyzing trends and comparing SVS component performance against other operators for improvement; - Focused preventive maintenance practices to reduce failures; - Improved human performance through training, communications, and feedback; 2 AOGCC letter dated May 21, 2010; Defeated SVS at KRU 213-01 Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 4 of 5 - Automation upgrades to track and notify appropriate personnel of approaching test due dates. CPAI has met with AOGCC personnel at least annually since receiving the Notice to update progress in SVS Management Program efforts and SVS performance. Significant improvements have been achieved as evidenced by CPAI's SVS component failure rate determined from performance tests currently being one of the lowest among operators in Alaska. The AOGCC has considered the factors in AS 31.05.150(g) in its assessment of the violation and finds no evident of bad faith, no benefits derived from failing to test, and no injury to the public. These findings support CPAI's position that the maximum penalty amounts are unfounded. AOGCC has also considered the significant expenditure by CPAI to improve its SVS Management Program. CPAI estimates it has spent more than $6 million to date on SVS improvements.3 Findings and Conclusions: The AOGCC finds that CPAI violated SVS testing requirements by failing to test SVS components on KRU 2B wells as directed in the May 21, 2010 letter. Because of the SVS Management Program efforts — several which were initiated prior to receiving the Notice — AOGCC is eliminating the proposed civil penalty. The value of CPAI's efforts to improve SVS compliance far out -weigh any benefits derived from retention of civil penalties in this enforcement action. As further justification for removal of the penalties, AOGCC has issued to CPAI just one non -civil penalty enforcement action since the 2011 Notice while CPAI operates more than 800 wells with required SVS systems per year.4 Now Therefore It Is Ordered That: CPAI must continue communicating SVS Management Program improvement progress to AOGCC during annual meetings until deemed unnecessary by the AOGCC. All other corrective actions and the civil penalty are revoked. 3 Email dated February 6, 2017 a Non -civil penalty enforcement action dated 11/27/2015 for a defeated SVS on KRU 1R-02 Other Order 120 May 17, 2017 Page 5 of 5 As an Operator involved in an enforcement action, you are required to preserve documents concerning the above action until after resolution of the proceeding. Done at Anchorage, Alaska and dated May 17, 2017. //signature on file// //signature on file// Cathy P. Foerster Hollis S. French Chair, Commissioner Commissioner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL NOTICE As provided in AS 31.05.080(a), within 20 days after written notice of the entry of this order or decision, or such further time as the AOGCC grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the AOGCC an application for reconsideration of the matter determined by it. If the notice was mailed, then the period of time shall be 23 days. An application for reconsideration must set out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The AOGCC shall grant or refuse the application for reconsideration in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed. Failure to act on it within 10 -days is a denial of reconsideration. If the AOGCC denies reconsideration, upon denial, this order or decision and the denial of reconsideration are FINAL and may be appealed to superior court. The appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the AOGCC mails, OR 30 days if the AOGCC otherwise distributes, the order or decision denying reconsideration, UNLESS the denial is by inaction, in which case the appeal MUST be filed within 40 days after the date on which the application for reconsideration was filed. If the AOGCC grants an application for reconsideration, this order or decision does not become final. Rather, the order or decision on reconsideration will be the FINAL order or decision of the AOGCC, and it may be appealed to superior court. That appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the AOGCC mails, OR 30 days if the AOGCC otherwise distributes, the order or decision on reconsideration. In computing a period of time above, the date of the event or default after which the designated period begins to run is not included in the period, the last day of the period is included, unless it falls on a weekend or state holiday, in which event the period runs until 5:00 p.m. on the next day that does not fall on a weekend or state holiday. Bernie Karl Gordon Severson Penny Vadia K&K Recycling Inc. P.O. Box 58055 3201 Westmar Cir. 394 W. Riverview Ave. Fairbanks, AK 99711-0055 Anchorage, AK 99508-4336 Soldotna, AK 99669-7714 George Vaught, Jr. P.O. Box 13557 Denver, CO 80201-3557 Darwin Waldsmith P.O. Box 39309 Ninilchik, AK 99639-0309 Richard Wagner P.O. Box 60868 Fairbanks, AK 99706-0868 XA'al(ISd. Colombie, Jody J (DOA) From: Colombie, Jody J (DOA) Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:58 PM To: DOA AOGCC Prudhoe Bay; Bender, Makana K (DOA); Bettis, Patricia K (DOA); Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA); Carlisle, Samantha J (DOA); Colombie, Jody J (DOA); Davies, Stephen F (DOA); Eaton, Loraine E (DOA); Foerster, Catherine P (DOA); French, Hollis (DOA); Frystacky, Michal (DOA); Guhl, Meredith D (DOA); Kair, Michael N (DOA); Link, Liz M (DOA); Loepp, Victoria T (DOA); Mumm, Joseph (DOA sponsored); Paladijczuk, Tracie L (DOA); Pasqual, Maria (DOA); Quick, Michael J (DOA); Regg, James B (DOA); Roby, David S (DOA); Schwartz, Guy L (DOA); Seamount, Dan T (DOA); Singh, Angela K (DOA); Wallace, Chris D (DOA); AK, GWO Projects Well Integrity; AKDCWellIntegrityCoordinator; Alan Bailey; Alex Demarban; Alexander Bridge; Allen Huckabay; Andrew VanderJack; Ann Danielson; Anna Raff; Barbara F Fullmer, bbritch; bbohrer@ap.org; Ben Boettger; Bill Bredar; Bob Shavelson; Brandon Viator; Brian Havelock; Bruce Webb; Caleb Conrad; Candi English; Cocklan-Vendl, Mary E; Colleen Miller; Connie Downing; Crandall, Krissell; D Lawrence; Dale Hoffman; Darci Horner; Dave Harbour; David Boelens; David Duffy; David House; David McCaleb; David McCraine; ddonkel@cfl.rr.com; DNROG Units (DNR sponsored); Donna Ambruz; Ed Jones; Elizabeth Harball; Elowe, Kristin; Elwood Brehmer; Evan Osborne; Evans, John R (LDZX); George Pollock; Gordon Pospisil; Greeley, Destin M (DOR); Gretchen Stoddard; gspfoff; Hunter Cox; Hurst, Rona D (DNR); Hyun, James J (DNR); Jacki Rose; Jason Brune; Jdarlington Oarlington@gmail.com); Jeanne McPherren; Jerry Hodgden; Jill Simek; Jim Watt; Jim White; Joe Lastufka; Radio Kenai; Burdick, John D (DNR); Easton, John R (DNR); Larsen, John M (DOR); John Stuart; Jon Goltz; Chmielowski, Josef (DNR); Juanita Lovett; Judy Stanek; Kari Moriarty; Kasper Kowalewski; Kazeem Adegbola; Keith Torrance; Keith Wiles; Kelly Sperback; Frank, Kevin J (DNR); Kruse, Rebecca D (DNR); Gregersen, Laura S (DNR); Leslie Smith; Lori Nelson; Louisiana Cutler; Luke Keller, Marc Kovak; Dalton, Mark (DOT sponsored); Mark Hanley (mark.hanley@anadarko.com); Mark Landt; Mark Wedman; Mealear Tauch; Michael Bill; Michael Calkins; Michael Moora; Mike Morgan; MJ Loveland; mkm7200; Motteram, Luke A; Mueller, Marta R (DNR); Munisteri, Islin W M (DNR); knelson@petroleumnews.com; Nichole Saunders; Nikki Martin; NSK Problem Well Supv; Patty Alfaro; Paul Craig; Decker, Paul L (DNR); Paul Mazzolini; Pike, Kevin W (DNR); Randall Kanady; Renan Yanish; Richard Cool; Robert Brelsford; Sara Leverette; Scott Griffith; Shahla Farzan; Shannon Donnelly; Sharon Yarawsky; Skutca, Joseph E (DNR); Smart Energy Universe; Smith, Kyle S (DNR); Stephanie Klemmer; Stephen Hennigan; Sternicki, Oliver R; Moothart, Steve R (DNR); Steve Quinn; Suzanne Gibson; sheffield@aoga.org; Ted Kramer; Teresa Imm; Thor Cutler; Tim Jones; Tim Mayers; Todd Durkee; trmjrl; Tyler Senden; Umekwe, Maduabuchi P (DNR); Vinnie Catalano; Well Integrity; Well Integrity; Weston Nash; Whitney Pettus; Aaron Gluzman; Aaron Sorrell; Ajibola Adeyeye; Alan Dennis; Bajsarowicz, Caroline J; Bruce Williams; Bruno, Jeff J (DNR); Casey Sullivan; Catie Quinn; Corey Munk; David Tetta; Don Shaw; Eppie Hogan ; Eric Lidji; Garrett Haag; Smith, Graham 0 (DNR); Dickenson, Hak K (DNR); Heusser, Heather A (DNR); Fair, Holly S (DNR); Jamie M. Long; Jason Bergerson; Jesse Chielowski; Jim Magill; Joe Longo; John Martineck; Josh Kindred; Laney Vazquez; Lois Epstein; Longan, Sara W (DNR); Marc Kuck; Marcia Hobson; Steele, Marie C (DNR); Matt Armstrong; Melonnie Amundson; Franger, James M (DNR); Morgan, Kirk A (DNR); Umekwe, Maduabuchi P (DNR); Pat Galvin; Pete Dickinson; Peter Contreras; Rachel Davis; Richard Garrard; Richmond, Diane M; Robert Province; Ryan Daniel; Sandra Lemke; Pollard, Susan R (LAW); Talib Syed; Tina Grovier (tmgrovier@stoel.com); Tostevin, Breck C (LAW); Wayne Wooster, William Van Dyke Subject: Other Order 120 and AI018C.002 Amended Attachments: aiol8C.002 amended.pdf, other120.pdf Please see attached. Re: Docket Number: AIO-17-014 Request for administrative approval to allow well C134-321 (PTD 2061420) to be online in water alternating gas injection service with a known outer annulus x outer outer annulus communication. Colville River Unit (CRU) CD4 -321 (PTD 2061420) Colville River Field Nanuq Oil Pool Re: Failure to Test Safety Valve Systems Safety Valve System Test Performance Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad .Iod y J. Colom6ie AOyCC Special AssistanI _Alaska Oil and (gas Conservation Commission 333 West 7'' Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 995oi Office: (907 793-1221 Fax: (907) 276-7542 Other Order 120 Docket Number: OTH-11-030 May 17, 2017 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, contains information from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), State of Alaska and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). It may contain confidential and/or privileged information. The unauthorized review, use or disclosure of such information may violate state or federal law. If you are an unintended recipient of this e-mail, please delete it, without first saving or forwarding it, and, so that the AOGCC is aware of the mistake in sending it to you, contact Jody Colombie at 907.793.1221 or iodv.colombie@alaska.gov. Confidential penalty calculations held in secure storage �i 91, Cono hillips 2016 GKA SVS Performance & Operating Integrity Overview Introductions Performance Review ■ Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots Update on Improvements to the SVS Management Program * SSV/LPP/Wing Valve Performance ■ Latent Cause Analysis (LCA) Investigations & Results ■ NSOD Fit for Service Improvement ■ Recent Issues Deficiency Report Process - LPP Set Points for Temporary Operations D SVS Questions & Issues Subsidence Update M. Business Gcnficieta( Cnnoa Phd „_ ' lips !I ROD ConocoPhillips GKA SVS Performance & Operating Integrity Overview Introductions Performance Review ■ Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots Update on Improvements to the SVS Management Program • SSV/LPP/Panel Performance Improvements ■ Wing Valves ■ Latent Cause Analysis (LCA) Investigations & Results ■ NSOD Fit for Service Improvement • Wellhouse Signs ■ Water Injection Pilots ■ Recent Issues Subsidence Update • Program Update ■ Subsidence Improvements IPP PP hq Conoco -Phillips G KA SVS Operating • i September 21st, 2015 Introductions Performance Review r- Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots Update on Improvements to the SVS Management Program SSV/LPP/Wing Valve Performance Improvements Latent Cause Analysis (LCA) Investigations & Results NSOD Fit for Service Improvement Addition of 2S and Testing Months Recent Issues SVS Questions & Issues Subsidence Update Wrap-up COXMrRollps 2 ConocoG°'HOMps TMUI�IMM July 29th,; 2013 (;tqv\- Toyte-5 1 10 Introductions Performance Review C. Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots Is Update on Improvements to the SVS Management Program SSV/LPP/Panel Improvements Wing Valves Latent Cause Analysis (LCA) Investigations & Results 11 SVS Questions & Issues 13 Subsidence Update Cross Country Flowlines Drillsite Pad Subsidence 11 Fit for Service Update Wrap-up ConocoPhillips LE F N - • • Overview [October 29, 2012] Introductions 2012 Performance Review Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots -F- Total Component Failure Rates versus Time Pilot Failure versus Time SSV Failure versus Time --- Pad Failures versus Time Update on Improvements to the SVS Management program Panel Upgrades * SSV Performance Improvements LPP Performance Improvements DS -2W Update 0 Questions & Issues El Subsidence Wrap-up ConocoPhillips SSV 2 ConocoPhillips GKA SVS Performance a`Y �rc?klt %fie eys SL�pv) [March 5, 2012] 0 0 Lrj n� IN, 151T Introductions 2011 Performance Review Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots Pilot Failure versus Time Total Component Failure Rates versus Time -_ Pad Failures versus Time Update on Improvements to the SVS Management program 0 Benchmarking Results ,, LCA Results } Questions & Issues Wrap-up ConocoPhillips z NAME STATE OF ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION INFORMAL REVIEW CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC. KRU #2 ENFORCEMENT ACTION August 25, 2011 at 10:00 am AFFILIATION PHONE # TESTIFY (Yes or No) --Yz- CP��" CIO o Q. cc- '74 /10 �a &01 -T -Z- GPA Zbs'- ll$(, yes i�a � --%&, 0a)Y (LS Aoh cG 74 x- No -71411 l\Jz)►�� rQ�ley C�' h Sg -� 7-19 --Yz- CP��" CIO o Q. cc- '74 /10 �a &01 -T -Z- GPA Zbs'- ll$(, yes i�a � --%&, 0a)Y (LS Aoh cG 74 x- No r�7$7 ` z JrIllsite ZE Introductions " Part 1 — DS 2B SVS Testing in 2010 Core Facts •�•• Improvements to the SVS Management program 0 23 items to improve performance Historical GKA SVS Performance Plots — Pad Failures versus time — Total Component Failure (Rates i conclusion Conoc®Phillips F f. i Core facts • February pad failure, 90 -day cycle "until acceptable level of performance" • May — Early pad test, 11.2% failure rate — AOGCC letter re: defeated pilot and 11.2% failure rate — "until commission determines that acceptable level of performance " — Final pad result for May, including miscellaneous test = pass • August reversion to semi-annual testing AOGCC proposed enforcement action: $580,000 plus specific actions CPAI's response • We failed to comply with AOGCC's letter instruction ConocoPhilli s • Otherwise, our actions complied with past practice and Guidance Bulletin 10-04 • CPAI opposes the proposed enforcement action — Inconsistent with statutory factors governing enforcement discretion — Unnecessary to focus attention on improving SVS program • CPAI is committed to better tracking AOGCC special instructions K, ConocoPhillips a a° i T COCO N I � Z CO° c� V 0 O Q Key Items: •February 2010 —2B fails Pad Test, placed on 90 day test cycle "Until an acceptable level of performance is achieved". •May 2010 - 2B initially fails pad test with failure rate of 11.1%, which includes a defeated pilot discovered during testing. Received AOGCC letter regarding defeated pilot, and instruction for Pad to remain on 90 day cycle "Until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved". ➢Instruction to continue indefinite 90 day testing cycle not entered into CPA[ compliance control document. -An oversight — did the focus on defeated pilot issue contribute? •Miscellaneous testing in May 2010 results in passing pad test. •2B returned to 180 -day Regular Schedule for Pad Testing, with all subsequent tests Passed. *July 21St, 2011: CPAI receives AOGCC Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action. El 0 a a4.` o a a c ° .0 Q 0 C7 Q� Key Items: •February 2010 —2B fails Pad Test, placed on 90 day test cycle "Until an acceptable level of performance is achieved". •May 2010 - 2B initially fails pad test with failure rate of 11.1%, which includes a defeated pilot discovered during testing. Received AOGCC letter regarding defeated pilot, and instruction for Pad to remain on 90 day cycle "Until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved". ➢Instruction to continue indefinite 90 day testing cycle not entered into CPA[ compliance control document. -An oversight — did the focus on defeated pilot issue contribute? •Miscellaneous testing in May 2010 results in passing pad test. •2B returned to 180 -day Regular Schedule for Pad Testing, with all subsequent tests Passed. *July 21St, 2011: CPAI receives AOGCC Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action. El r n syscConocoPhillips omponent Upgrades w • Ongoing process of upgrading SVS panels to "skimpy" panels for standardization and reliability purposes (65% Complete). • Replacement versus rebuilding older style Surface -Safety -Valves (SSVs) that have failed. • Standardized procurement of SSVs 4 Selected two models with the best historical performance. • Root Cause Analysis (RCA) of pilot quality & performance issues with Sigma Valve Company (pilot supplier). Procedural • Recently instituted requirement to perform RCA for any Drillsite that fails a State test. • LPP calibration procedures changed to ensure LPP will reliably trip at the required trip pressure. • Implemented Custody Seal program to ensure proper operating position of SVS block valves. • Standardized Fieldwide SVS Procedures for clarity, consistency, compliance with new Regulation, etc. Began benchmarking with other operators with more than 1000 SVS components tested. • Implemented semi-annual Wellhouse Condition Checks by SVS Testers 4"2nd Set of Eyes". Formalized workflow for wellhouse condition repairs to ensure timely completion • Pursuing LPP flushing in an effort to reduce pilot failures. Engineered/built 2 Hydraulic pumps to facilitate flushing. Personnel • Formed a standing, Fieldwide "SVS Summit" Team to identify & work SVS issues • Conducted "outreach" & training to Fieldwide workgroups to ensure SVS policies, procedures, & issues are understood • Upgraded SVS Lead Tester to Drillsite Operator -Certified position to help identify & implement program improvements. • Hiring 1 additional SVS helper to assist with miscellaneous SVS testing and pilot PMs. Automation Upgrades • Modified Daily Engineering Report to more conservatively identify LPP settings that need reviewed due to flowing tubing pressure changes. • Automation System (SetCim) now includes and sends notification of upcoming 90/180 day pad tests. • LPP Trip pressures now recorded in SetCim (both for PM and State Test data). • SetCim now tracks Pilot replacements & sends notification to Prod Engr Specialist to ensure Misc. Testing is done. • SetCim now includes better tracking/documentation features. Statistical Analysis • SVS database upgraded from Access based to Oracle based allowing for statistical analysis of SVS component failures. • Acquired hand-held infrared temperature gun to determine if there is a correlation between SVS component failures and temperature. 5 ConocoPhillips 0 GKA SVS Performance Plot 15 - 15 12 - 12 9 U. CL 1st time since 10109 with 3 consecutive months ZERO pilot failures with ZERO Pad failures 3 - 3 0 0 V9 Pad Failures -a--# Pads Tested 0 *-II ConocoPhilliDS All Components f # Pads Tested VA GKA SVS Total Component Failure Rate Plot 15% - 15 12% - 12 (D • U- 9% F - 0 CL E 6% - 0 Ri 0 3% 0% Ile 14! All Components f # Pads Tested VA ConocoPhillips u Wellhead SSV/Pilot PM vs SVS Testing Schedules —July 26, 2010 • Attendees — Steve Bradley/Jeff Huber and Jim Regg w/ AOGCC • Purpose of the meeting was to respond to AOGCC questions regarding PM timing b '30 -day Instruction' rescinded, agreed to collect —6 months of data to ensure premise is honored SVS Testing Schedules & General Update — March 14, 2011 • Attendees — Steve Bradley/Jeff Huber and Jim Regg w/ AOGCC • Data supports continued stance with regard to CPAI's PM scheduling practices • Also opened discussion on general SVS Improvement Initiatives: — SVS "Custody Seal" Program — Updated Fieldwide SVS Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) — Improved Data Management and Automation — Skimpy Panel Upgrades Communication Going Forward • Ongoing status of SVS Programs • Regulatory clarification • SVS Testing Compliance Communication Protocols (use of SPDC, etc.) H., ConocoPhillips 2B SVS Testing Cycle • CPAI acknowledges an error • CPAI opposes the proposed enforcement action • Discretionary enforcement unnecessary on these facts SVS Program at KRU • Many active steps for improvement • Performance trend is positive • CPAI is committed to communication with AOGCC on these issues 01 V--,, ConocoPhillips IN Upgrade to Skimp Panel I '0--' ConocoPhillips 11 9 AdM S;t' 317 p OF SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR ALASKA OIL AND GAS r 1111. 7th AVENUE, SUITE 100 CONSERQA'1`IO1�T CODII�IISSIOr1T � ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907)276-7542 August 5, 2011 Bill Arnold Manager North Slope Operations PO Box 100360 ATO -1220 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 Re: Kuparuk River Unit 2B Pad Enforcement Action Dear Mr. Arnold: The Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ("Commission") acknowledges receipt of your request for Informal Review of the Commission's proposed enforcement action regarding the Kuparuk River Unit 2B Pad Enforcement Action. An Informal Review meeting has been scheduled for August 25 2011 at 10:00 a.m. at the Commission's Offices at 333 West 7th Avenue, Suite 100, Anchorage, Alaska. Should you have any additional documentary evidence you wish to provide to the Commission, please submit it at least one week prior to the informal review meeting. If you have any questions you may contact the Commission's Special Assistant Ms. Jody Colombie at 793-1221. Sincerely, Daniel T. eamount, Jr. Chair, Commissioner cc: AOGCC Commissioners ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. August 4, 2011 Daniel T. Seamount, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W.7th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3539 Re: Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action KRU 2B Pad Request for Informal Review Dear Commissioner Seamount: Bill Annold Manager North Slope Operations Post Office Box 100360 Anchorage, Alaska 99510 ATO -1220 Phone 907.263.4822 Bill.Arnold@conocophillips.com FIN/ AUG o 4 2011 AluLa Gil R r1iix. Coos. Coiinission Ainenerisge ConocoPhillips does not concur with the proposed enforcement action set forth in the AOGCC's letter dated July 20, 2011, regarding Safety Valve System (SVS) testing at the Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) 2B pad. ConocoPhillips requests an informal review with the Commissioners to present written and oral information that we believe is important for fair consideration of our recent 2B pad SVS testing. The information we intend to present at an informal review is focused on three key points: (1) KRU 2B pad passed SVS testing for May 2010, although the Commission's proposed enforcement action appears to assume it failed, (2) even if some enforcement action were warranted here, the proposed action would be excessive, and (3) ConocoPhillips has taken major steps recently to improve SVS performance at KRU, with good success. (1) KRU 2B pad passed SVS testing for May 2010 The regulation governing SVS testing cycles is 20 AAC 25.265(h)(5), which provides: "a performance test must be conducted semi-annually, not to exceed 210 days between tests, unless the commission prescribes a different testing interval based on test performance results[.]" Consistent with longstanding agency practice, the Commission has prescribed a different testing interval in Guidance Bulletin 10-004, which provides for a 90 -day testing cycle after an SVS failure rate greater than 10 percent for a drillsite pad. The testing interval reverts to semi-annual if the next pad test passes. Daniel T. Seamount, Commissioner August 4, 2011 Page 2 KRU 2B pad had a greater than 10 percent failure rate for February, 2010, so in conformity with the Guidance Bulletin the pad was tested again in May, with results due by June 15.' ConocoPhillips conducted a pad test early in May, but also conducted a miscellaneous test on well 2B-08 later in the month, when that well was "wagged" to MI injection service. Consistent again with longstanding practice, the Guidance Bulletin specifies that miscellaneous well tests are to be combined with the most recent pad test when calculating a failure rate. The report for the 2B-08 miscellaneous test was timely provided to the AOGCC.2 Before the June 15 due date for May tests, and even before the end of May, 2010, the Commission sent ConocoPhillips a letter, which was focused on other issues, but which also stated that 2B pad failed May testing and would remain on a 90 -day testing cycle. That instruction prematurely identified 2B as failing SVS testing for May. In an email dated June 4, 2010, ConocoPhillips submitted regular updates for miscellaneous testing, noting that two pads that had initially passed ultimately had a failure rate above 10 percent, and thus failed, but that 2B pad, which initially failed, ultimately had a failure rate of 10 percent, and thus passed. AOGCC staff has recently confirmed that AOGCC records show that 2B pad passed SVS testing for May, 2010. Any enforcement action based on a finding that 2B failed SVS testing in May, 2010, would be unfounded. (2) The proposed enforcement is excessive and overreaching The May 21, 2010 letter sent by the AOGCC to ConocoPhillips stated in relevant part: "CPAI is directed to continue testing well SVS at KRU 2B at intervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved." (Partly bold text in original.) For reasons that are still not clear, this instruction was not entered on ConocoPhillip's SVS compliance control document. ConocoPhillips next tested 2B SVS in August, which was both the normal semi-annual testing interval and also would have met a 90 -day testing interval. After having passed in May, 2B pad was put back on a semi-annual testing cycle without express approval from the AOGCC. Testing on the regular semi-annual schedule conformed to the practice that was later codified in the Guidance Bulletin, under which a single pad failure (February) resulted in a 90 -day test interval (May), and then returned to a semi-annual interval (August and February). Even if reversion to semi-annual testing in this case were to be deemed a violation of a valid AOGCC instruction testing cycle other than semi-annual, the proposed enforcement action represents a monetary penalty that exceeds statutory limiting factors, and non -monetary penalties that are extraneous to 2B pad SVS testing. The Testing is done by month. The Guidance Bulletin refers to a "test month" and the regulations specify that test results are due "not later than the 15th calendar day of the month following the testing." 20 AAC 25.265(h)(7). 2 The report erroneously listed the well as 2B-02, but the error in well identification had no effect on the testing or the SVS failure rate for the pad. Daniel T. Seamount, Commissioner August 4, 2011 Page 3 maximum allowable penalty the AOGCC is authorized to impose is up to $100,000 for the initial violation, and up to $10,000 for each day thereafter. Here, the Commission has proposed a fine at the absolute maximum for the alleged initial violation, and a daily fine for over 150 days afterwards. This results in a proposed fine out of proportion to the circumstances. The discretion of the AOGCC in determining the amount of a penalty is governed by AS 31.05.150(g), which provides: In determining the amount of a penalty assessed under (a) of this section, the commission shall consider (1) the extent to which the person committing the violation was acting in good faith in attempting to comply; (2) the extent to which the person committing the violation acted in a willful or knowing manner; (3) the extent and seriousness of the violation and the actual or potential threat to public heath or the environment; (4) the injury to the public resulting from the violation; (5) the benefits derived by the person committing the violation from the violation; (6) the history of compliance or noncompliance by the person committing the violation with the provisions of this chapter; the regulations adopted under this chapter, and the orders, stipulations, or terms of permits issued by the commission. None of those factors weigh in favor of a maximum penalty in this matter, or a penalty for an ongoing violation. Assuming for present purposes that a violation occurred, the violation represents a communication and scheduling error, not a substantive deviation from SVS installation or performance regulations. There is no bad faith, no willful violation, no injury, and no derived benefit. In addition to the monetary penalty, the Commission has proposed actions that are unrelated to testing schedules at 2B pad, such as the identification of individual persons assigned tasks within ConocoPhillips, and reporting on maintenance procedures for cold weather performance. These actions are predicated on an asserted comparison to other operators, and to a failure rate that is alleged to be high, but is still within the Commission's guideline for a passing rate. ConocoPhillips disputes any nexus between the alleged 2B scheduling and the overbroad enforcement proposals based on issues disconnected to 2B SVS testing. (3) KRU has taken important steps on SVS testing, with good results The Commission said in the proposed enforcement letter that it is "aware of some ongoing efforts by CPAI to improve SVS performance however little detail has been provided to the Commission[.]" ConocoPhillips has made extensive improvements to its SVS program, and we would be pleased to provide details on these efforts to the Daniel T. Seamount, Commissioner August 4, 2011 Page 4 Commissioners. In brief, we have upgraded equipment, improved procedures, added personnel, upgraded automation, performed root cause analyses, and incorporated statistical analysis into our program. The results have been good. 2B pad, for example, has passed the last 4 pad tests and has also achieved a zero percent failure rate for the last two tests. Throughout the KRU, for May, June and July of 2011, zero pads failed SVS tests. Not only has ConocoPhillips made extensive improvements, we have also kept AOGCC staff informed. We met July 23, 2010 to discuss wellhead SVS/pilot preventative maintenance and SVS testing schedules. We met March 14, 2011 as a follow-up to the earlier meeting, and to discuss accomplishments to improve SVS performance and on- going initiatives. A further meeting has been planned for September. We would welcome the opportunity, however, to provide details on these matters to the Commissioners at an informal review, and we would be happy to meet more often with AOGCC staff on these issues on request. Conclusion ConocoPhillips seeks an informal review of the proposed enforcement action to provide important information bearing on the alleged violation. We dispute the proposed fine and other components of the proposed enforcement action. Looking to longer term issues, ConocoPhillips welcomes the opportunity at an informal review to inform the Commissioners directly and in detail of the efforts currently underway to improve the SVS program at Kuparuk. These efforts have already borne fruit, and we expect even better results in the future. We believe we can demonstrate that ConocoPhillips has put improvements in place, including better procedures for ensuring that any AOGCC letter instructions are entered on a compliance control document and given priority over the Guidance Bulletin, so that further enforcement action by the AOGCC is unnecessary. We recognize the importance of safety valve systems and the need for robust maintenance and testing programs, as well the need for regulatory compliance and effective communication with the AOGCC on these matters. Yours truly, a4 Bill Arnold -, 0 Ftr A �LL L A SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR ALASKA OIL AND GAS333 W. 7th AVENUE, SUITE 100 CONSERFATION CO11"HSSION ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907)276-7542 July 20, 2011 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested 7009 2250 0004 3911 4306 Mr. Bill T. Arnold Manager, North Slope Operations ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P. O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 Re: Notice of Proposed Enforcement Action Failure to Test Safety Valve Systems KRU 2B -pad Dear Mr. Arnold: Pursuant to 20 AAC 25.535 (b), the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Commission) hereby notifies ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (CPAI) of a proposed enforcement action. Nature of the Apparent Violation or Noncompliance (20 AAC 25.535(b)(1)). The Commission considers that CPAI has violated the provisions of 20 AAC 25.265 ("Well Safety Valve Systems") in its operation of Kuparuk River Unit 213 -pad (KRU 213). Basis for Finding the Violation or Noncompliance (20 AAC 25.535(b)(2)). CPAI failed to test safety valve systems (SVS) at intervals as required by the Commission. Pursuant to AS 31.05.030, the AOGCC promulgated regulations to establish requirements for automatic shutdown equipment in production and injection operations. 20 AAC 25.265 mandates all wells be equipped with a Commission approved fail-safe automatic SVS capable of preventing uncontrolled flow by shutting off flow at the (Domestic Mail Only, No Insurance Coverage Provided) piFor delivery information visit our website at www.usps.come ANURA9W16-'V^'-360 Er Postage $ $1.08 0535? _ m Certified Fee -I-$2.85 {fes E3 Return Receipt Fee �t O (Endorsement Required)i 2.30 O Restricted Delivery Fee ' C3 (Endorsement Required) $0.0 U-) Op S h ry Total Poster- " $6.23 071�01� ru Mr. Bill T. ArnoI TU a— Sent To Manager, North Slope Operations O Streef,ApP-%V� ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. ® or PO Box No r` PO Box 100360 city sisie, zil Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mr. Bill T. Arnold Manager, North Slope Operations ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. PO Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 A.Sig ure X Agent /9"Addressee ,WuI jr Pfinftj Nap C. Date of Delivery 7-2►- u D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 11 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type Orbertified Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mail ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes 2. Article Number 7009 2250 0004 3911 4306 (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 Mr. Bill Arnold July 20, 2011 Page 2 of 5 wellhead. The SVS must be maintained in working condition at all times unless the well is shut-in and secured. The SVS for all wells on a pad must be tested every 6 months unless a shorter period of time is designated. Testing is based on industry standards. Commission Inspectors randomly witness scheduled SVS tests and periodically conduct unscheduled SVS tests. If a pad's component failure rate exceeds 10 percent, surveillance is increased on the pad and the operator is required to test SVS for all pad wells at intervals not to exceed 90 days. KRU 213 pad was initially placed on a 90 -day SVS test interval by letter dated February 19, 2010 until an acceptable level of performance (i.e., component failure rate less than 10 percent) was achieved. On May 21, 2010, the Commission notified CPAI that because a May 7, 2010 test repeated a component failure rate exceeding 10 percent, CPAI was subject to an indefinite extension for 90 -day SVS testing: "CPAI is directed to continue testing well SVS at KRU 2B at intervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved." Commission records reveal that CPAI performed SVS tests for KRU 213 every 6 months beginning August 1, 2010, with a few miscellaneous tests performed on wells that were shut in at the time of the pad test or that have undergone some type of repair affecting the SVS. The following table shows CPAI-performed SVS tests: Date Tested Type of SVS Test # Wells # Components 8/1/2010 Pad 10 20 8/20/2010 Miscellaneous 1 2 8/24/2010 Miscellaneous 4 4 8/27/2010 Miscellaneous 1 2 11/1/2010 Missing 2/1/2011 Missin ; refer to Pad test 2/23/2011 2/4/2011 Miscellaneous 1 2 2/23/2011 Pad 8 16 4/11/2011 Miscellaneous 2 4 5/1/2011 Missing; efer to Pad test 6/17/2011 6/17/2011 Pad 111 122 In response to these violations the Commission conducted a comprehensive review of CPAI SVS testing in Alaska and determined that the failure rates at KRU 2B do not constitute isolated incidents. CPAI's SVS test failure rate since September 1, 2009 is 5.03 percent - the highest failure rate among operators with more than 1000 SVS components tested. Ten CPAI-operated pads are currently on a 90 -day SVS test frequency due to a high failure rate, with 4 of those pads required to test at intervals not ' Commission terminology for the type of test: "Pad" - test all wells on pad or platform; "Miscellaneous" - well(s) that have commenced operations since the pad test, or undergone some modification that would have invalidated the previous SVS test Mr. Bill Arnold July 20, 2011 Page 3 of 5 to exceed 90 days until the Commission makes a determination that an acceptable level of performance has been achieved for the pad in question. Proposed Action (20 AAC 25.535(b)(3). The Commission proposes to order the following corrective actions by CPAL (1) Within 2 weeks following the Commission's final decision, CPAI shall provide a detailed description of its SVS management practices; including how CPAI monitors the operability and reliability of SVS performance; how performance reporting is accomplished; how increased SVS testing (i.e., 90 -day determinations) are tracked; the identity of the person or persons responsible for determining and implementing remedial action in response to SVS failures and preventing future SVS failures; the identity of the person or persons responsible for tracking exceptions noted by Commission Inspectors to ensure these are corrected in a timely manner; and how maintenance requirements are addressed to improve cold -weather performance of SVS components; (2) Within one month following the Commission's final decision, CPAI shall develop a root cause analysis methodology to improve the reliability of SVS components which includes equipment failures, equipment modifications, and efforts focused at protecting freezing concerns for well hydraulic control systems ; (3) Beginning the first quarter following issuance of the final decision, provide quarterly status reports of CPAI efforts to improve SVS performance. The Commission is aware of some ongoing efforts by CPAI to improve SVS performance however little detail has been provided to the Commission. Time -lines that include expected completion of efforts such as standardization of SVS control panels should be integral to the proposed corrective actions. For violating 20 AAC 25.265, and more specifically, the SVS testing directives of the Commission in the May 21, 2010 letter, the Commission intends to impose civil penalties on CPAI under AS 31.05.150 (a) as follows: - $100,000 for the initial violation on November 1, 2010;2 - $3,000 for each day between November 2, 2010 and February 23, 2011;3 - $3,000 for each day between May 1, 2011 and June 17, 2011.4 The total proposed civil penalty is $580,000. 2 AS 31.05.150(a) provides for not more than $100,000 for the initial violation and not more than $10,000 for each day thereafter on which the violation continues. s 113 days - tested on August 1, 2010 and February 23, 2011; should have tested on or before November 1, 2010 and on or before February 1, 2011. 4 47 days — tested on February 23, 2011 and June 17, 2011; should have tested on or before May 1, 2011. Mr. Bill Arnold July 20, 2011 Page 4 of 5 Rights and Liabilities (20 AAC 25.535(b)(4)). Within 15 days after receipt of this notification—unless the Commission, in its discretion, grants an extension for good cause shown—CPAI may file with the Commission a written response that concurs in whole or in part with the proposed action described herein, requests informal review, or requests a hearing under 20 AAC 25.540. If a timely response is not filed, the proposed action will be deemed accepted by default. If informal review is requested, the Commission will provide CPAI an opportunity to submit documentary material and make a written or oral statement. If CPAI disagrees with the Commission's proposed decision or order after that review, it may file a written request for a hearing within 10 days after the proposed decision or order is issued. If such a request is not filed within that 10 -day period, the proposed decision or order will become final on the 11th day after it was issued. If such a request is timely filed, the Commission will hold its decision in abeyance and schedule a hearing. If CPAI does not concur in the proposed action described herein, and the Commission finds that CPAI violated a provision of AS 31.05, 20 AAC 25, or a Commission order, permit or other approval, then the Commission may order one or more of the following: (i) corrective action or remedial work; (ii) suspension or revocation of a permit or other approval; (iii) payment under the bond required by 20 AAC 25.025; and (iv) imposition of penalties under AS 31.05.150. In taking action after an informal review or hearing, the Commission is not limited to ordering the proposed action described herein, as long as CPAI received reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard with respect to the Commission's action. Any action described herein or taken after an informal review or hearing does not limit the action the Commission may take under AS 31.05.160. Sincerely, Daniel T. Seamount, Jr. Chair, Commissioner Mr. Bill Arnold July 20, 2011 Page 5 of 5 TION AND APPEAL NOTICE As provided in AS 31.05.080(a), within 20 days after written notice of the entry of this order or 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 of the matter determined by it. If the notice was mailed, then the period of time shall be 23 days. An application for reconsideration must set out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The Commission shall grant or refuse the application for reconsideration in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed. Failure to act on it within 10 -days is a denial of reconsideration. If the Commission denies reconsideration, upon denial, this order or decision and the denial of reconsideration are FINAL and may be appealed to superior court. The appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes, the order or decision denying reconsideration, UNLESS the denial is by inaction, in which case the appeal MUST be filed within 40 days after the date on which the application for reconsideration was filed. If the Commission grants an application for reconsideration, this order or decision does not become final. Rather, the order or decision on reconsideration will be the FINAL order or decision of the Commission, and it may be appealed to superior court. That appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes, the order or decision on reconsideration. As provided in AS 31.05.080(b), "[t]he questions reviewed on appeal are limited to the questions presented to the Commission by the application for reconsideration." In computing a period of time above, the date of the event or default after which the designated period begins to run is not included in the period; the last day of the period is included, unless it falls on a weekend or state holiday, in which event the period runs until 5:00 p.m. on the next day that does not fall on a weekend or state holiday. 161 to -3h (to ,b' I ( J , 2) ,-21�3�11 St��►�zo�a sys rJl+1C� Il�� (z) 75s \3 . 4, L' i6( Ar (?-} ss� � �� P � - -4v C_ r,T OI� z 1 (ll WIC, Combined SVS Test Results Summary BADAMI Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/23/2010 12/2/2010 BADAMI BADAMI Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 6 16 0 4 11 0 10 27 0 0.00% 10 27 0 0.00% Inspections1: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary BELUGA RIVER Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/17/2009 4/10/2010 4/13/2010 10/17/2010 BELUGA RIVER BELUGA RIVER Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason ='Retest') 19 42 16 35 2 5 19 43 56 125 56 125 2 1 1 0 4 3.20% 4 3.20% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary COLVILLE RIVER Date Tested Tests CRU_CD1 CRU—CD2 Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Components Failures Fail Rate 9/8/2009 24 72 12/27/2009 2 6 1/4/2010 2 6 2/2/2010 1 3 3/7/2010 23 69 4/8/2010 1 3 5/24/2010 1 3 6/7/2010 2 6 7/4/2010 2 6 9/14/2010 18 54 11/19/2010 2 6 12/7/2010 1 3 1/20/2011 1 3 1/22/2011 1 3 81 243 9/5/2009 49 147 12/27/2009 6 18 1/8/2010 2 6 2/2/2010 3 9 2/4/2010 1 3 2/7/2010 1 3 3/10/2010 48 144 4/9/2010 7 21 5/21/2010 2 6 6/8/2010 2 6 7/3/2010 2 6 8/13/2010 3 9 9/16/2010 40 118 9/19/2010 6 18 9/30/2010 2 6 10/10/2010 1 3 10/11/2010 1 3 11/19/2010 3 9 12/21/2010 1 3 1/3/2011 1 3 181 541 10/18/2009 11 33 12/31/2009 2 6 1/8/2010 2 6 1/24/2010 8 23 1/25/2010 1 1 4/25/2010 12 36 4/27/2010 4 12 5/20/2010 2 6 2 2 2 t 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 5 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 4.12% 3.70% Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 2 COLVILLE RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 6/10/2010 7/27/2010 8/5/2010 10/10/2010 11/21/2010 12/9/2010 12/23/2010 CRU—CD3 9/7/2009 10/17/2009 11/3/2009 12/29/2009 1/8/2010 3/8/2010 4/17/2010 7/5/2010 7/17/2010 9/21/2010 10/9/2010 10/10/2010 11/21/2010 12/6/2010 1/20/2011 CRU—CD4 COLVILLE RIVER Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 2 6 1 16 48 1 2 6 0 16 48 2 4 12 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 84 249 16 6.43% 2 6 0 10 30 3 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 6 0 12 36 2 1 3 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 8 24 1 3 9 1 1 3 0 2 6 0 1 3 0 47 140 7 5.00% 393 1173 53 4.52% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Combined SVS Test Results Summary DEEP CREEK Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/19/2009 6 12 0 4/12/2010 5 10 0 10/13/2010 5 10 0 DC_HAPPY_VALLEY_A 16 32 0 11/19/2009 2 4 0 4/12/2010 2 4 0 10/13/2010 2 4 0 DC HAPPY VALLEY B 6 12 0 DEEP CREEK 22 44 Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page l of I Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest') ENDICOTT Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/3/2009 1 3 0 9/8/2009 1 3 0 9/11/2009 1 3 0 9/17/2009 3 9 0 9/19/2009 1 3 0 9/30/2009 1 3 0 10/7/2009 1 3 0 10/21/2009 1 3 0 11/2/2009 1 3 0 11/3/2009 1 3 0 11/15/2009 l 1 33 0 11/26/2009 7 21 0 11/27/2009 16 48 0 11/29/2009 5 15 0 11/30/2009 1 3 0 12/12/2009 1 3 0 12/24/2009 2 6 1 12/26/2009 1 3 0 12/31/2009 1 3 0 1/16/2010 1 1 0 1/19/2010 1 3 0 1/25/2010 1 3 0 2/12/2010 l 3 0 2/24/2010 1 3 0 3/25/2010 1 3 0 4/11/2010 3 9 0 5/13/2010 15 45 0 5/14/2010 5 15 0 5/15/2010 13 39 1 5/17/2010 1 3 1 5/22/2010 1 3 0 5/25/2010 1 3 0 5/26/2010 l 3 0 6/1/2010 2 6 0 6/14/2010 1 3 0 6/18/2010 1 3 0 6/22/2010 1 3 0 6/26/2010 1 3 0 7/2/2010 1 3 0 7/20/2010 1 3 0 7/24/2010 2 6 1 8/3/2010 1 3 0 8/6/2010 1 3 0 10/2/2010 1 3 0 10/31/2010 1 3 0 Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 2 ENDICOTT Date Tested 11/3/2010 11/4/2010 11/5/2010 11/13/2010 11/19/2010 12/9/2010 12/12/2010 12/13/2010 12/17/2010 1/4/2011 1/29/2011 ENDICOTT MPI 9/11/2009 10/2/2009 10/15/2009 11/26/2009 11/28/2009 1/24/2010 2/8/2010 2/26/2010 3/17/2010 3/25/2010 4/19/2010 5/16/2010 5/18/2010 5/19/2010 5/21/2010 5/22/2010 5/30/2010 6/15/2010 6/24/2010 7/11/2010 8/10/2010 9/16/2010 10/2/2010 10/8/2010 10/24/2010 11/7/2010 11/19/2010 12/8/2010 1/7/2011 ENDICOTT—SDI ENDICOTT Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Tests 12 11 11 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 162 17 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 21 2 1 1 87 249 Components 36 33 33 12 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 484 Failures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Fail Rate 0.83% 3 0 3 0 3 0 51 0 12 0 3 0 3 0 6 1 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 9 0 12 0 15 1 15 0 15 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 63 0 6 0 3 0 3 0 261 2 0.77% 745 6 0.81% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Combined SVS Test Results Summary GRANITE PT Date Tested Tests 9/30/2009 1 1/7/2010 2 6/30/2010 1 9/28/2010 1 12/16/2010 1 GP_ANNA_PLATF 6 9/25/2009 8 3/24/2010 8 9/25/2010 8 GP GRANITE PT PLATF 24 GRANITE PT Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 30 Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Components Failures Fail Rate 2 4 2 2 2 12 16 16 16 48 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 7 0.00% 4.17% 3.33% Inspections1: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary KASILOF Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 1/17/2011 KASILOF KASILOF Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest") 1 2 0 1 2 0 0.00% 1 2 0 0.00% Inspections1: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March la, 2011 Page 1 of I Combined SVS Test Results Summary KENAI Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 1/17/2011 1 2 0 KENAI DEEP UNIT 1 2 0 0.00% KENAI Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 1 2 0 0.00% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page I of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") MCARTHUR RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/9/2009 2 6 0 9/29/2010 2 6 0 12/21/2010 2 6 0 TBF_(TBU)_MONOPOD_PLATF 6 18 0 0.00% 3/24/2010 2 6 1 TBF MONOPOD PLATF 2 6 1 16.67% 9/4/2009 13 29 5 11/30/2009 14 31 1 3/5/2010 13 29 0 5/28/2010 13 29 1 12/6/2010 11 24 0 12/7/2010 1 1 0 TBU DOLLY VARDEN PLATF 65 143 7 4.90% 11/29/2009 15 33 2 4/7/2010 15 33 1 10/4/2010 14 31 3 11/19/2010 1 2 0 1/27/2011 13 28 1 TBU GRAYLING PLATF 58 127 7 5.51% 10/22/2009 5 9 0 4/15/2010 5 10 0 10/8/2010 4 8 0 TBU KING SALMON PLATF 14 27 0 0.00% 9/5/2009 1 2 0 9/8/2009 1 2 0 9/18/2009 1 3 0 10/14/2009 1 3 0 10/18/2009 1 3 0 11/14/2009 16 47 0 12/13/2009 1 2 0 1/21/2010 1 3 0 2/4/2010 18 54 1 2/15/2010 1 3 0 3/7/2010 1 3 0 4/8/2010 1 3 0 4/17/2010 1 2 0 5/15/2010 16 48 3 5/28/2010 1 3 1 8/15/2010 1 3 0 8/19/2010 18 54 2 10/22/2010 2 6 1 Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of MCARTHUR RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/12/2010 19 57 2 1/16/2011 1 3 0 1/19/2011 1 3 0 1/31/2011 1 3 0 TBU STEELHEAD PLATF 105 310 10 3.23% MCARTHUR RIVER 250 631 25 3.96% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Combined SVS Test Results Summary MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL Date Tested Tests Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Components Failures Fail Rate 1/19/2010 1 3 8/5/2010 1 3 12/29/2010 1 3 MGS_BAKER_PLATF 3 9 11/17/2009 15 32 5/3/2010 15 32 11/12/2010 7 16 11/13/2010 8 16 MGS_XTO_A_PLATF 45 96 11/16/2009 12 26 12/14/2009 1 3 5/3/2010 12 26 11/11/2010 12 26 MGS XTO C PLATF 37 81 MIDDLE GROUND SHOAL 85 186 Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 1 1.23% 1 0.54% Monday, March 14, 2011 Page l of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") MILNE POINT Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 1/16/2010 8 16 0 7/24/2010 8 16 1 1/29/2011 8 16 0 MPU B 24 48 1 2.08% 10/18/2009 1 2 0 11/27/2009 l 2 0 1/16/2010 15 30 0 1/23/2010 1 2 0 2/25/2010 1 2 0 3/13/2010 1 2 0 7/24/2010 14 28 2 9/12/2010 1 2 0 10/15/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 13 26 0 1/30/2011 1 2 0 MPU C 50 100 2 2.00% 2/25/2010 13 27 3 3/13/2010 1 2 0 5/15/2010 1 2 0 6/5/2010 1 2 0 7/8/2010 1 2 0 8/12/2010 13 27 1 8/19/2010 1 2 0 10/4/2010 1 2 0 10/30/2010 1 2 0 MPU -E 33 68 4 5.88% 9/18/2009 1 2 0 9/20/2009 1 2 0 11/22/2009 29 58 1 11/27/2009 2 4 0 12/1/2009 1 2 0 12/18/2009 1 2 0 1/27/2010 2 4 0 3/13/2010 1 2 1 3/25/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 2 0 5/15/2010 29 58 3 7/24/2010 1 2 0 7/29/2010 1 2 0 8/12/2010 1 2 0 10/20/2010 1 2 0 11/25/2010 26 52 1 11/27/2010 1 2 0 Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 3 MILNE POINT Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate MPU_F 100 200 9/13/2009 5 10 3/13/2010 5 10 9/12/2010 5 10 MPC' G 15 30 9/14/2009 6 12 12/14/2009 1 2 3/13/2010 7 14 9/12/2010 5 10 10/30/2010 1 2 MPU_H 20 40 10/18/2009 4 8 11/16/2009 1 2 1/23/2010 1 2 4/3/2010 6 12 6/7/2010 1 2 6/27/2010 1 2 8/8/2010 1 2 10/15/2010 7 14 MPU -1 22 44 10/18/2009 8 16 10/31/2009 1 2 4/9/2010 6 12 4/24/2010 1 2 5/15/2010 1 2 10/15/2010 7 14 MPU—i 24 48 2/25/2010 3 6 8/12/2010 3 6 8/22/2010 1 2 10/4/2010 1 2 MPU_K 8 16 12/14/2009 14 28 3/13/2010 1 2 3/19/2010 1 2 3/25/2010 1 2 5/4/2010 1 2 5/22/2010 1 2 6/4/2010 16 32 7/1/2010 1 2 12/3/2010 17 34 MPU L 53 106 9/14/2009 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3.00% 0.00"/ 0.00% 2.27% 0.00% 0.00% 0.94% Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 2 of 3 MILNE POINT Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/18/2009 14 28 2 1/10/2010 1 2 0 3/19/2010 13 26 0 3/26/2010 1 2 0 3/31/2010 l 2 0 4/4/2010 1 2 0 9/30/2010 11 22 0 10/4/2010 1 2 0 MPU S 44 88 2 2.27% MILNE POINT 393 788 17 2.16% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 3 of 3 Combined SVS Test Results Summary NINILCHIK Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 1/21/2011 1 2 0 NINILCHIK A 1 2 0 0.00% NINILCHIK 1 2 0 0.00% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl : 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page I of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary NORTH COOK INLET Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/23/2009 11/24/2009 5/21/2010 5/22/2010 11/14/2010 1/7/2011 NO—COOK—INLET NORTH COOK INLET Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest") 15 45 1 1 3 0 13 38 1 1 1 0 10 30 0 1 3 0 41 120 2 1.67% 41 120 2 1.67% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary NORTHSTAR Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/12/2009 25 75 0 1/2/2010 1 3 0 2/16/2010 24 72 1 4/6/2010 1 3 0 8/26/2010 24 72 0 NORTHSTAR UNIT 75 225 1 0.44% NORTHSTAR 75 225 1 0.44% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") OOOGURUK Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/18/2009 2 6 2 10/22/2009 2 5 0 10/27/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 3 0 2/13/2010 6 18 3 5/12/2010 8 24 0 7/6/2010 1 3 0 8/8/2010 1 3 0 8/13/2010 5 12 1 8/15/2010 5 13 1 8/19/2010 1 3 0 8/20/2010 1 3 0 9/5/2010 3 9 0 11/6/2010 1 3 0 OOOGURUK 38 107 7 6.54% OOOGURUK 38 107 7 6.54% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspectionsl : 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page I of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Summary TRADING BAY Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/9/2009 13 33 1 3/24/2010 13 32 0 9/29/2010 13 32 4 12/21/2010 12 30 1 TBF MONOPOD PLATF 51 127 6 4.72% TRADING BAY 51 127 6 4.72% Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') Inspections1: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Monday, March 14, 2011 Page 1 of I Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest') KRU_26 Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 2/6/2010 6 12 2 4/7/2010 1 2 1 5/7/2010 9 18 2 5/31/2010 1 2 0 6/7/2010 1 2 0 7/5/2010 2 4 1 8/1/2010 10 20 2 8/20/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 2 4 0 8/27/2010 1 2 0 34 68 8 11.76% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Tatf t� 512-1110 T-,v�VL4-(-el Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason ="Retest") Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 9/21/2009 10/19/2009 11/21/2009 12/10/2009 3/6/2010 6/26/2010 8/27/2010 9/21/2010 10/20/2010 11/19/2010 12/13/2010 12/14/2010 12/31/2010 1/30/2011 KRU_2V 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 1 9 18 1 1 2 0 8 16 2 1 2 0 8 16 2 6 12 0 1 2 0 6 12 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 48 96 6 6.25% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page I of 1 Ci 0 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Zl Z� D Summary (Excludes Reason ="Retest") Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 9/23/2009 4 8 0 11/19/2009 1 2 0 12/12/2009 10 20 1 2/12/2010 1 2 0 2/13/2010 1 2 1 2/15/2010 1 2 0 4/8/2010 1 2 1 5/10/2010 1 2 0 5/30/2010 1 2 0 6/4/2010 11 22 0 6/27/2010 1 2 0 8/2/2010 1 2 0 9/26/2010 1 2 0 10/22/2010 1 2 0 11/11/2010 1 2 0 12/12/2010 8 16 2 1/9/2011 3 6 1 KRU lA 48 96 6 6.25% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = 'Retest") KRU 11, Date Tested Tests Components Failures 9/23/2009 1 2 0 10/18/2009 14 28 1 4/5/2010 12 23 2 4/12/2010 2 4 2 4/14/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 2 0 5/28/2010 1 2 0 6/5/2010 1 2 0 6/25/2010 3 6 0 7/3/2010 16 32 1 7/4/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 2 4 1 10/21/2010 16 31 6 10/22/2010 1 2 0 11/20/2010 2 4 0 12/14/2010 1 2 1 1/20/2011 6 12 0 1/26/2011 10 20 1 91 180 15 Failure Rate 8.33% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page I of 1 90 10/21✓Iv qO d—i 11//3/10 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 10/20/2009 1 1 0 11/13/2009 9 17 1 5/4/2010 10 20 2 5/31/2010 2 4 1 7/27/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 1 2 0 8/27/2010 1 2 0 11/13/2010 8 16 2 11/23/2010 1 2 0 KRU 2H 34 66 6 9.09% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page I of l q0a4_ Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 9/21/2009 1 2 0 11/13/2009 10 20 2 11/28/2009 1 2 2 12/17/2009 1 2 0 2/7/2010 10 19 2 2/8/2010 1 2 0 3/6/2010 1 2 0 5/8/2010 10 18 2 5/11/2010 2 4 0 8/20/2010 8 16 1 8/23/2010 2 4 0 9/23/2010 1 2 0 11/13/2010 10 17 3 11/22/2010 3 6 0 12/11/2010 1 2 0 KRU 2U 62 118 12 10.17% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of I Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 9/17/2009 1 2 0 10/19/2009 9 18 0 11/17/2009 1 2 0 11/20/2009 1 2 0 4/3/2010 8 16 0 7/26/2010 2 4 0 9/20/2010 2 4 0 10/17/2010 10 19 5 12/18/2010 1 1 1 1/9/2011 1 2 0 1/29/2011 10 18 6 KRU 2W 46 88 12 13.64% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page I of I q0 c�111 10/I%/1O Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures 12/13/2009 7 14 1 3/13/2010 1 2 0 4/6/2010 1 2 0 5/28/2010 1 2 0 6/1/2010 9 18 1 7/23/2010 1 2 0 7/24/2010 1 2 0 9/22/2010 1 2 0 9/25/2010 1 2 0 12/10/2010 11 22 2 1/6/2011 1 2 0 1/9/2011 2 3 1 1/19/2011 1 2 1 KRU 313 38 75 6 Failure Rate 8.00% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 2/6/2010 10 20 1 5/11/2010 1 2 1 8/2/2010 10 20 3 11/16/2010 10 20 1 12/19/2010 1 2 0 KRU 3J 32 64 6 9.38% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Combined SVS Test Results Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest') Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate 10/15/2009 15 30 0 4/2/2010 11 22 0 4/14/2010 1 2 0 5/6/2010 1 2 2 5/31/2010 1 2 0 9/23/2010 1 2 0 10/13/2010 13 26 3 12/8/2010 1 2 0 1/4/2011 12 24 0 1/19/2011 1 2 0 KRU 30 57 114 5 4.39% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 1 q6 dal- io/l3/ 10 Combined SVS Test Results Summary PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Sep 01, 2009 Through Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Components Failures Fail Rate 11/7/2009 1 3 0 11/8/2009 1 3 0 12/7/2009 1 2 0 1/18/2010 22 42 2 3/25/2010 1 2 0 6/29/2010 l 3 1 7/10/2010 10 20 1 7/20/2010 2 4 0 7/25/2010 2 4 0 8/15/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 3 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 9 18 2 1/30/2011 1 3 0 PBU A 54 111 6 5.41% 1/17/2010 9 27 2 3/12/2010 1 3 0 7/23/2010 10 30 1 1/30/2011 10 28 1 PBU AGI 30 88 4 4.55% 9/7/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 10/13/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/7/2009 2 6 1 12/16/2009 2 4 0 1/24/2010 16 32 1 3/13/2010 1 2 1 5/4/2010 2 5 0 5/10/2010 1 2 0 7/20/2010 13 26 0 9/13/2010 1 2 0 11/6/2010 1 3 0 11/7/2010 1 2 0 11/15/2010 2 4 0 12/5/2010 1 2 0 1/27/2011 12 22 2 PBU B 59 120 5 4.17% 9/7/2009 15 30 0 9/13/2009 1 2 0 10/6/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 3 6 0 10/13/2009 1 2 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 1 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/20/2009 1 2 11/6/2009 2 4 11/9/2009 1 2 11/23/2009 1 2 11/25/2009 1 2 11/30/2009 1 2 12/4/2009 12 24 1/10/2010 6 12 1/17/2010 2 4 2/14/2010 l 2 3/29/2010 16 32 4/6/2010 1 2 5/23/2010 2 4 6/6/2010 2 4 6/15/2010 1 2 6/29/2010 2 4 7/6/2010 l 2 7/20/2010 1 2 8/10/2010 1 2 8/15/2010 1 2 8/29/2010 1 2 9/24/2010 15 30 10/1/2010 2 4 10/9/2010 1 2 10/12/2010 2 4 10/20/2010 1 2 10/26/2010 2 4 10/28/2010 1 2 11/24/2010 1 2 12/14/2010 1 2 1/29/2011 1 2 PBU C 105 210 9/28/2009 1 2 10/9/2009 2 4 10/20/2009 19 38 10/27/2009 2 4 11/6/2009 1 2 11/23/2009 1 2 12/16/2009 1 2 4/11/2010 20 40 4/19/2010 1 2 5/10/2010 2 4 5/16/2010 1 2 6/7/2010 1 2 8/15/2010 3 6 9/5/2010 1 2 9/20/2010 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.38% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/26/2010 15 30 10/28/2010 1 2 11/15/2010 2 4 12/14/2010 2 4 12/21/2010 2 4 1/29/2011 1 2 PBU_D 80 160 9/22/2009 1 2 9/25/2009 1 2 10/8/2009 1 2 10/10/2009 1 2 10/16/2009 1 2 10/25/2009 1 2 10/31/2009 1 2 11/6/2009 2 4 12/15/2009 1 2 1/7/2010 1 2 2/14/2010 9 18 2/25/2010 1 2 3/5/2010 2 4 3/15/2010 1 2 3/25/2010 2 4 4/18/2010 1 2 4/25/2010 1 2 4/27/2010 1 2 5/3/2010 1 2 5/9/2010 1 2 6/13/2010 1 2 6/18/2010 1 2 7/6/2010 1 2 8/23/2010 15 30 10/9/2010 2 4 11/10/2010 2 4 11/16/2010 4 8 PBU DSI 57 114 10/4/2009 10 20 11/10/2009 1 2 11/23/2009 1 2 12/8/2009 1 2 1/18/2010 2 4 1/31/2010 1 2 3/3/2010 1 2 4/18/2010 11 22 6/7/2010 1 2 10/4/2010 10 20 10/23/2010 2 4 11/23/2010 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.25% 3.51% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 3 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 2 12/7/2010 1 12/17/2010 PBU_DS11 90 18 11/7/2009 17 5/7/2010 1 5/29/2010 1 6/3/2010 1 10/31/2010 18 11/8/2010 1 11/10/2010 1 12/2/2010 PBU_DS12 116 1 11/12/2009 8 2/1/2010 1 2/13/2010 5 8/30/2010 3 8/31/2010 1 9/4/2010 1 11/6/2010 PBU_DS13 40 22 9/6/2009 1 9/13/2009 1 9/26/2009 1 10/6/2009 1 12/8/2009 1 2/5/2010 23 3/14/2010 1 3/18/2010 2 5/1/2010 1 8/23/2010 12 9/26/2010 5 10/25/2010 2 10/27/2010 1 11/6/2010 2 11/9/2010 1 11/14/2010 1 11/15/2010 1 11/22/2010 1 11/26/2010 1 11/30/2010 1 12/2/2010 PBU_DS14 166 1 9/19/2009 19 11/21/2009 1 12/8/2009 2 4 1 2 45 90 18 36 17 34 1 2 1 2 1 2 18 36 1 2 1 2 58 116 1 2 8 16 1 2 5 10 3 6 1 2 1 2 20 40 22 44 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 23 46 1 2 2 4 1 2 12 24 5 10 2 4 1 2 2 4 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 82 166 1 2 19 38 1 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 3.33% 1.72% 0.00% 3.01% Friday, March 1 12011 Page 4 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_DS15 PBU_DS16 PBU_DS17 1/15/2010 1/19/2010 1/25/2010 2/1/2010 2/13/2010 4/3/2010 5/11/2010 5/15/2010 6/11/2010 6/13/2010 6/19/2010 7/2/2010 7/11/2010 7/24/2010 7/26/2010 8/23/2010 9/14/2010 9/26/2010 10/25/2010 11/8/2010 11/22/2010 1/6/2011 11/10/2009 3/5/2010 5/7/2010 5/25/2010 7/28/2010 9/14/2010 11/9/2010 11/23/2010 1/10/2011 9/28/2009 12/10/2009 3/13/2010 4/4/2010 5/7/2010 6/7/2010 11/9/2010 12/7/2010 12/16/2010 9/25/2009 11/23/2009 12/5/2009 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 17 34 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 23 46 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 87 174 4 16 32 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 15 30 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 14 28 0 1 3 0 2 4 0 53 108 0 1 2 0 13 26 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 15 30 1 1 3 0 14 28 0 1 2 0 48 98 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 8 16 0 2.30% 1.02% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 5 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_DS18 PBU_DS2 12/15/2009 12/25/2009 1/12/2010 1/24/2010 2/14/2010 2/25/2010 3/9/2010 3/12/2010 5/29/2010 6/5/2010 6/18/2010 6/27/2010 7/27/2010 9/19/2010 10/16/2010 11/1/2010 11/10/2010 12/6/2010 12/12/2010 1/1/2011 9/22/2009 10/10/2009 10/20/2009 10/25/2009 12/11/2009 1/7/2010 2/25/2010 3/9/2010 3/15/2010 6/3/2010 7/24/2010 8/23/2010 9/10/2010 9/24/2010 9/27/2010 11/29/2010 12/6/2010 12/22/2009 1/26/2010 4/4/2010 5/2/2010 6/7/2010 7/3/2010 7/28/2010 9/14/2010 Friday, March 11, 2011 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 4 8 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 4 0 12 24 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 11 22 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 56 112 7 21 42 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 18 36 1 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 26 52 5 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 21 42 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 l 2 1 1 2 0 105 210 8 1 3 0 17 35 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 13 26 0 2 4 0 3 7 0 6.25% 3.81% Page 6 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/4/2010 1 3 0 10/23/2010 1 2 0 1/30/2011 18 37 0 PBU DS3 59 124 2 1.61% 9/13/2009 6 12 0 9/28/2009 1 2 0 12/10/2009 1 2 0 2/14/2010 6 12 1 3/13/2010 4 8 0 3/30/2010 2 4 1 4/18/2010 1 2 0 5/2/2010 1 2 0 6/1/2010 2 4 0 7/3/2010 1 2 0 8/15/2010 8 16 0 9/14/2010 3 6 0 10/4/2010 1 3 1 10/23/2010 2 4 0 12/7/2010 2 4 0 12/17/2010 2 4 0 PBU DS4 43 87 3 3.45% 10/10/2009 19 38 0 10/25/2009 2 4 1 11/6/2009 1 2 0 12/11/2009 1 2 0 1/7/2010 2 4 0 2/25/2010 1 2 0 3/9/2010 1 2 0 3/12/2010 1 2 0 4/12/2010 16 32 1 4/20/2010 2 4 1 6/3/2010 1 2 0 6/18/2010 1 2 0 7/20/2010 1 2 0 7/27/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 9/10/2010 1 2 0 9/19/2010 1 2 0 9/24/2010 1 2 0 10/16/2010 19 38 1 12/12/2010 1 2 0 1/28/2011 2 4 0 PBU DS5 76 152 4 2.63% 11/12/2009 1 2 0 11/21/2009 1 2 0 12/12/2009 14 28 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 7 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_DS6 PBU_DS7 12/14/2009 2 4 1 1/15/2010 2 4 0 1/18/2010 1 2 0 4/24/2010 1 2 0 5/11/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 16 32 0 6/8/2010 1 2 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 9/22/2010 1 2 0 10/5/2010 1 2 0 10/27/2010 1 2 1 12/5/2010 17 34 0 12/27/2010 1 2 0 62 124 2 10/6/2009 24 48 1 10/25/2009 2 4 0 11/12/2009 1 2 0 1/10/2010 1 2 0 2/9/2010 1 2 0 4/4/2010 18 36 0 4/6/2010 4 8 0 4/9/2010 1 2 0 5/1/2010 1 2 0 6/12/2010 1 2 0 6/17/2010 1 2 0 6/19/2010 1 2 0 7/2/2010 2 4 0 8/13/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 2 4 0 10/5/2010 21 42 2 10/31/2010 1 2 0 11/9/2010 1 2 0 11/26/2010 1 2 0 85 170 3 9/20/2009 16 32 3 9/28/2009 4 9 0 10/4/2009 2 4 0 11/10/2009 1 2 0 12/22/2009 3 6 0 3/3/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2010 10 20 0 3/10/2010 1 3 0 3/30/2010 3 6 2 4/18/2010 2 4 0 5/16/2010 1 2 0 6/7/2010 1 2 0 7/3/2010 3 6 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 1.61% 1.76% Page 8 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/14/2010 16 32 1 10/23/2010 2 5 1 11/23/2010 1 2 0 12/7/2010 l 2 0 1/30/2011 3 6 0 PBU DS9 71 145 7 4.83% 10/4/2009 19 38 2 10/13/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/25/2009 1 2 0 12/4/2009 1 2 0 12/27/2009 1 2 0 2/1/2010 1 2 0 2/28/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 3/25/2010 1 2 0 4/11/2010 1 2 0 4/16/2010 20 40 0 4/26/2010 2 3 1 5/10/2010 1 2 0 5/16/2010 2 4 0 6/6/2010 2 4 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 8/5/2010 1 2 0 10/19/2010 18 36 0 10/26/2010 2 4 0 11/7/2010 2 4 0 11/15/2010 2 4 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 2 4 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 3 6 0 PBU E 92 183 3 1.64% 9/18/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 10/27/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/25/2009 1 2 0 12/11/2009 19 38 1 1/10/2010 1 2 0 1/24/2010 1 2 0 2/9/2010 1 2 0 2/16/2010 1 2 0 2/23/2010 1 2 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 9 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_F PBU G 3/7/2010 1 3/13/2010 2 3/20/2010 1 4/11/2010 1 4/19/2010 1 6/15/2010 20 8/5/2010 1 8/15/2010 1 8/18/2010 1 9/13/2010 5 9/29/2010 1 10/6/2010 1 11/2/2010 2 12/19/2010 22 1/4/2011 l 179 90 9/21/2009 15 10/4/2009 l 10/6/2009 2 10/13/2009 1 10/20/2009 1 11/11/2009 1 11/30/2009 1 12/22/2009 1 12/27/2009 1 3/18/2010 12 3/20/2010 1 4/26/2010 1 5/4/2010 3 5/16/2010 1 6/6/2010 1 8/15/2010 1 8/29/2010 1 9/5/2010 1 9/21/2010 11 9/29/2010 2 10/1/2010 1 10/20/2010 3 10/26/2010 3 10/28/2010 1 11/15/2010 1 12/14/2010 1 12/21/2010 1 1/29/2011 1 142 71 9/8/2009 13 9/9/2009 3 2 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 40 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 10 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 43 5 2 0 179 7 3.91% 30 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 24 1 2 0 2 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 22 0 4 0 2 0 6 0 6 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 142 1 0.70% 26 1 6 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 10 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/13/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 2 4 0 11/11/2009 2 4 0 1/10/2010 1 2 0 1/17/2010 1 2 0 3/12/2010 19 38 3 4/6/2010 3 6 0 4/19/2010 1 2 0 4/22/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 9/10/2010 17 33 1 9/13/2010 2 4 0 9/20/2010 3 6 0 10/6/2010 1 2 0 1/4/2011 2 4 0 PBU H 74 147 5 3.40% 9/9/2009 l 2 1 10/13/2009 1 2 0 11/3/2009 16 32 0 11/11/2009 1 2 0 5/16/2010 13 26 1 6/7/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 9/5/2010 2 4 0 9/13/2010 1 2 0 10/6/2010 1 2 0 11/21/2010 15 30 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 12/5/2010 1 2 0 PBU J 56 112 2 1.79% 9/6/2009 6 12 0 9/9/2009 1 2 0 9/18/2009 3 6 0 9/28/2009 1 2 0 2/16/2010 8 16 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 3/18/2010 1 2 0 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/11/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 9 18 0 10/6/2010 1 2 0 10/26/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page I 1 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU K 36 72 0 0.00% 9/9/2009 1 3 1 11/23/2009 2 6 0 11/27/2009 18 36 0 11/30/2009 1 2 0 12/4/2009 1 2 0 12/28/2009 1 3 1 1/10/2010 1 3 0 2/16/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 2 5 0 4/22/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 3 0 5/23/2010 23 50 0 6/6/2010 1 3 0 6/29/2010 3 7 0 8/29/2010 2 5 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 11/23/2010 13 26 0 11/24/2010 1 3 1 12/13/2010 1 2 0 12/21/2010 3 6 0 1/28/2011 1 2 0 PBU L 79 173 3 1.73% 10/11/2009 4 12 0 11/27/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 1 3 0 4/4/2010 4 12 0 5/2/2010 1 3 0 10/15/2010 3 9 0 10/16/2010 1 3 0 10/29/2010 1 3 0 1/22/2011 1 3 0 PBU LIS LI 17 51 0 0.00% 10/11/2009 5 12 0 11/27/2009 1 2 0 12/16/2009 1 3 1 4/4/2010 3 7 0 5/29/2010 l 2 0 9/13/2010 1 2 0 10/15/2010 3 9 1 1/3/2011 1 3 0 1/23/2011 1 3 0 PBU LIS L2 17 43 2 4.65% 10/11/2009 4 12 2 11/16/2009 1 3 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 12 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested 4/4/2010 9/13/2010 10/15/2010 10/18/2010 10/30/2010 PBU_LIS_L3 10/6/2009 10/11/2009 10/18/2009 3/23/2010 4/4/2010 10/14/2010 10/31/2010 11/9/2010 PBU_LIS_L4 9/28/2009 10/12/2009 10/18/2009 10/27/2009 11/16/2009 12/9/2009 1/24/2010 2/22/2010 4/3/2010 4/27/2010 5/30/2010 5/31/2010 10/14/2010 10/30/2010 1/23/2011 1/24/2011 1/26/2011 PBU_LIS_L5 10/13/2009 4/25/2010 7/7/2010 9/13/2010 10/19/2010 10/29/2010 PBU_LIS_LGI 9/9/2009 9/27/2009 11/9/2009 11/10/2009 11/23/2009 Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 4 12 1 3 4 12 1 3 1 3 16 48 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 5 1 2 1 3 1 2 9 21 1 3 2 6 4 12 1 3 1 3 2 6 1 3 1 3 4 12 1 3 1 3 1 3 3 9 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 28 84 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 l 3 9 27 I 2 1 2 11 22 4 8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 6.25% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 3.57% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0 1 0 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 13 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_M PBL! N 11/30/2009 12/16/2009 5/25/2010 6/30/2010 7/25/2010 8/5/2010 8/10/2010 11/22/2010 11/24/2010 12/13/2010 1/28/2011 9/13/2009 9/29/2009 11/6/2009 12/16/2009 2/14/2010 3/12/2010 4/19/2010 8/14/2010 8/30/2010 9/5/2010 9/10/2010 1/14/2010 1/17/2010 1/24/2010 2/14/2010 7/24/2010 7/27/2010 1/27/2011 PBU_NGI 10/13/2009 10/18/2009 10/27/2009 11/2/2009 4/3/2010 4/6/2010 5/2/2010 9/20/2010 10/14/2010 PBU_NIAKUK 9/13/2009 9/22/2009 9/28/2009 1 2 1 2 12 24 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 24 1 2 4 8 1 2 56 112 3 6 1 3 1 2 1 2 15 30 1 2 1 2 12 24 2 4 1 2 2 4 40 81 10 30 2 6 l 3 1 3 12 36 2 6 13 39 41 123 10 30 1 3 2 6 1 3 7 21 2 6 1 3 1 3 9 27 34 102 1 3 14 28 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.89% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2.47% 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 3.25% 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2.94% 0 0 1 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 14 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/13/2009 1 l 1 3/9/2010 16 32 0 3/18/2010 1 3 0 4/22/2010 1 3 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 3 0 9/29/2010 18 37 0 PBU_P 56 116 2 10/9/2009 9 27 0 11/10/2009 1 3 0 11/16/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 1 3 0 3/14/2010 1 3 0 4/12/2010 8 24 0 4/25/2010 1 3 0 4/30/2010 1 2 0 5/16/2010 1 3 0 5/22/2010 1 3 0 9/3/2010 1 3 0 9/22/2010 1 3 0 10/16/2010 1 2 0 10/29/2010 8 24 1 11/11/2010 1 3 0 12/6/2010 2 6 0 1/3/2011 1 3 0 PBU_PT_MAC_Pl 40 118 1 10/10/2009 29 87 2 10/27/2009 1 3 0 11/2/2009 1 3 0 11/16/2009 1 3 0 11/27/2009 2 6 0 12/6/2009 2 6 0 12/22/2009 1 3 0 1/27/2010 1 3 0 3/14/2010 1 3 0 3/23/2010 1 1 0 4/13/2010 28 83 1 4/15/2010 2 6 0 5/8/2010 1 3 1 5/18/2010 1 3 0 5/30/2010 2 6 0 8/23/2010 1 3 0 8/30/2010 1 3 0 9/13/2010 2 6 0 10/9/2010 25 74 3 10/10/2010 7 21 0 10/31/2010 1 3 0 1.72% 0.85% Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 15 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/8/2010 1 3 1 12/20/2010 2 6 0 PBU PT MAC P2 114 338 8 2.37% 11/3/2009 3 6 1 11/27/2009 1 2 0 1/5/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 5/10/2010 6 12 0 9/5/2010 1 2 1 11/21/2010 3 6 0 1/4/2011 2 4 0 PBU_Q 18 36 2 5.56% 9/9/2009 4 8 1 9/13/2009 2 4 0 11/30/2009 2 4 0 12/21/2009 16 32 0 6/30/2010 9 18 1 7/2/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 3 6 0 9/10/2010 1 2 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 12/13/2010 12 24 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 PBU R 52 104 2 1.92% 9/9/2009 4 8 0 9/13/2009 3 6 0 9/18/2009 1 2 0 9/29/2009 3 8 1 9/30/2009 1 2 0 10/4/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 10/26/2009 2 4 0 11/23/2009 2 4 0 11/27/2009 2 6 0 12/16/2009 1 2 1 12/21/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 2 4 0 2/16/2010 25 50 0 3/7/2010 1 3 0 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/26/2010 1 3 0 5/4/2010 2 6 0 5/16/2010 1 2 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 6/29/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 16 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested 8/30/2010 10/16/2010 11/7/2010 11/24/2010 12/21/2010 PHI C PBU_U PBU V 10/12/2009 11/23/2009 12/16/2009 3/7/2010 4/6/2010 6/6/2010 7/25/2010 10/6/2010 12/21/2010 10/12/2009 10/26/2009 11/23/2009 11/27/2009 12/29/2009 1/10/2010 3/1/2010 3/7/2010 4/19/2010 4/22/2010 4/26/2010 6/29/2010 8/29/2010 10/10/2010 10/23/2010 11/7/2010 12/13/2010 12/21/2010 9/9/2009 9/29/2009 10/13/2009 10/14/2009 11/23/2009 1/17/2010 1/31/2010 3/7/2010 3/12/2010 4/22/2010 5/4/2010 Tests 28 1 1 2 1 91 2 1 I l 3 1 1 2 1 13 18 2 5 1 1 2 1 1 20 1 1 2 1 26 2 1 1 1 87 4 2 1 2 1 27 2 2 2 1 2 Components 59 3 2 6 2 197 4 2 2 2 6 2 2 4 2 26 36 6 14 2 3 6 2 3 40 3 3 6 2 58 5 2 3 3 197 9 6 2 6 2 53 4 6 4 3 6 Failures Fail Rate 2 1 0 1 0 6 3.05% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3.85% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 2.03°/ 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Friday, March 11 2011 Page 17 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 6/28/2010 3 8 1 7/10/2010 29 58 1 7/20/2010 2 4 1 9/20/2010 1 2 0 11/7/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 5 15 2 12/5/2010 1 2 0 1/30/2011 22 44 1 PBU W 110 236 11 4.66% PBU_WGI PBU_X PBU_Y 1/14/2010 8 24 1 7/22/2010 7 21 0 1/27/2011 6 18 0 1/30/2011 1 3 0 22 66 1 1.52% 12/6/2009 21 42 2 12/7/2009 1 2 0 4/6/2010 1 2 0 6/7/2010 17 34 1 6/29/2010 3 6 0 8/10/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 12/5/2010 20 40 1 12/14/2010 1 2 0 1/4/2011 1 2 0 67 134 4 2.99% 9/6/2009 12 24 0 9/9/2009 1 2 0 9/13/2009 1 3 1 11/25/2009 1 2 0 12/22/2009 1 3 1 2/16/2010 1 2 0 2/23/2010 10 21 1 4/26/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 2 0 7/11/2010 1 3 0 7/25/2010 2 4 0 8/24/2010 14 30 0 9/5/2010 1 2 0 10/20/2010 1 3 0 11/15/2010 l 2 0 49 105 3 2.86% 9/9/2009 4 8 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 10/26/2009 3 7 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 18 of 19 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/11/2009 1 2 0 11/23/2009 2 5 0 12/19/2009 1 2 0 1/31/2010 19 38 2 2/1/2010 1 2 0 4/19/2010 2 4 0 5/4/2010 2 5 0 6/30/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 14 28 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 3 6 0 9/20/2010 1 2 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 10/16/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 12/5/2010 1 2 0 1/28/2011 15 30 0 PBU Z 76 155 2 1.29% PRUDHOE BAY Sep 01, 2009 - Jan 31, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 2895 6247 163 2.61% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Friday, March 11, 2011 Page 19 of 19 Combined SVS Test Results Feb 01, 2010 Through Summary (Excludes Reason = "Retest") q o d V 4,'s� oU, 't'6 fic e � )V. • • • Z W ` <12A I 0 1 kAACjea,,,, Aw— �- N )-a t /, 11( 7110 x�lj�t 1� dtAk �� Zv i1 _ dit,tl 2(z zci1 Aw— r. t cLdI�L air, I z6i( Friday, June 10, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Date Failure Tested Tests Components Failures Rate l�l`) 2/6/2010 6 12 2 f CA Ah qOAAf iYlkvV"e-- ge, Ltdw 14/ IO 4/7/2010 1 2 1 'tib vatfev Lekkp, SOLI /10 Cj 0 5/7/2010 9 18 2 C14CU M WAtfixOt 5/31/2010 1 2 0 6/7/2010 1 2 0 7/5/2010 2 4 1 060 8/1/2010 10 20 2 8/20/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 2 4 0 NOV. '10 8/27/2010 2/4/2011 1 1 2 2 0 0 2/23/2011 8 16 0 4/11/2011 2 4 0 KRU M 45 90 8 8.89% µay 'll 'il�.wC. wA�►ti� a ICKd 2.Q Pal. �� - 20 l/ q o d V 4,'s� oU, 't'6 fic e � )V. • • • Z W ` <12A I 0 1 kAACjea,,,, Aw— �- N )-a t /, 11( 7110 x�lj�t 1� dtAk �� Zv i1 _ dit,tl 2(z zci1 Aw— r. t cLdI�L air, I z6i( Friday, June 10, 2011 Page 1 of 1 ALASKA OIL AZA➢ GAS CONSERQA'nON CCdMnSSIION May 21, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7009 2250 0004 3911 4924 Mr. Paul Dubuisson NS Operations Manager ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P. O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 Subject: Defeated SVS at KRU 213-01 Dear Mr. Dubuisson: SEAN! PARNELL, GOVERNOR 333 W. 7th AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907) 276-7542 On May 7, 2010 an Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Commission) Inspector accompanied by a ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI) representative performed safety valve system (SVS) inspections at Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) pad 2B. The low pressure pilot on Well 213-01 (PTD 1841150) had been defeated some time prior to the inspection. A copy of the inspection report is attached. The facts reported by the Commission's Inspector indicate a failure to maintain an operable SVS, which would be a violation of State regulations. Within 14 days of receipt of this letter, you are requested to provide the Commission with an explanation of how this event happened and what has or will be done in the future to prevent its occurrence in CPAI-operated fields. The inspection of KRU 213-01 revealed that the low pressure pilot was defeated at the SVS control panel. You are reminded that Conservation Order 348, Rule 5 modifies the requirements of 20 AAC 25.265 (Automatic Shut-in Equipment) as follows: a. Each well shall be equipped with a Commission approved fail-safe automatic surface safety valve system (SVS) capable of preventing uncontrolled flow by shutting cif (flow at the wellhead and shutting down any artificial lift System where an over pressure of equipment may occur. b. The safety valve system (SVS) shall not be deactivated except during repairs, while engaged in active well work, or if the pad is manned. If the SUS cannot be returned to service within 24 hours, the well must be shut in at the well head and at the manifold building. 1. Wells with a deactivated SVS shall be identified by a sign on the wellhead stating that the SVS has been deactivated and the date it was deactivated Mr. Dubuisson May 21, 2010 Page 2 of 3 2. A list of wells with the SYS deactivated, the dates and reasons.for deactivating, and the estimated re -activation dates must be maintained current and available for Commission inspection on request. Also noted during the testing was a SVS component failure rate of 11.2 percent (9 wells; 18 components; 2 failures). By letter dated February 19, 2010 the Commission placed KRU 2B on a 90 -day SVS test interval. CPAI is directed to continue testing well SVS at KRU 213 at ntervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved. When testing is scheduled, CPA1 must notify the Commission Field Inspector (907-659-2714) at least 48 hours in advance to provide an opportunity to witness the SVS test. The Commission reserves the right to pursue enforcement action in connection with the KRU 2B-01 defeated SVS as provided by 20 AAC 25.535. Sincerely, Daniel T. Seamount, Jr. Chair Attachment cc: P. Brooks, AOGCC AOGCC Inspectors Production Engineering Specialist — NSK 69 ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. F.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL NOTICE As provided in AS 31.05.080(a), within 20 days after written notice of the entry of this order or 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 of the matter determined by it. If the notice was mailed, then the period of time shall be 23 days. An application for reconsideration must set out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The Commission shall grant or refuse the application for reconsideration in whole or in part within 10 days after it is filed Failure to act on it within 10 -days is a denial of reconsideration. If the Commission denies reconsideration, upon denial, this order or decision and the denial of reconsideration are FINAL and may be appealed to superior court. The appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes, the order or decision denying reconsideration, UNLESS the denial is by inaction, in which case the appeal MUST be filed within 40 days after the date on which the application for reconsideration was tiled. if the Commission grants an application for reconsideration, this order or decision does not become final. Rather, the order or decision on reconsideration will be the FINAL order or decision of the.Commission, acid it may be appealed to superior court. That appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes_ the order or decision on Reviewed By: Safety valve & Well Pressures Test Report P.1. Supry Comm Pad: KRU_2B InspDt: 5/7/2010 Inspected by Chuck Scheve Interval lmpNo sysCS100508070631 Related Insp: Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILL [PS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Mike Reason 90 -Day Sre: Inspector Well Data Pilots SSV SSSV Shutln Dt Well Type I Well Pressures Gas Lift I Waiver Comments Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date Sl Oil WAG,GINJ, Inter Outer Tubiog N—t— N.—h— Pqr ncr Trim ('ndp CndP Cndi- C.AS CYCI F. CI PSI PSI PSI Yes/. to Yes/No 213-01 1 1841150 100 1 70 1 70 1 10 1 P 1 -OIL Pilot was fointd defeated at tine panel Worked properly when placed in service. 213-03A 2030090 100 70 68 P P I -OIL 2B-04 1841200 100 70 70 P P I -OIL 213-09 1840270 2000 1920 P P WAGIN 213-10 1840290 200 1890 P P WAGIN 213-12 1840380 2000 12000 P P WAGIN 2B-14 1841110 100 70 68 P P I -OIL 213-15 1841130 100 70 64 P P I -OIL 213-16 1841140 100 70 65 P 4 1 -OIL SSV had slow leak when pressure tested. Comments Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 9 18 2 11.11% Tuesday, May 18. 2010 EV7 0 > o o � aA OU �L/ r u L ce x N ^' O � y O y� C� bb a 41 F V o U a p I a. U "lo 00 00 p N [� N= M A O O O O O O a\ u 0 O Q 0 0000 0000 OHO 0�0 ^p Z N N I N N N N c .O cc Qw W Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test Report Pad: KRU_2B Insp Dt 5/7/2010 Inspected by Chuck Scheve Interval 90 Days inspNo sysCS100508070631 Related Insp: SVSOP000008031 Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Mike Reason 90 -Day Well Data Pilots , SST SSSV Shutln Dt Well Type Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oil,WAG,GINJ, Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI 2B-01 1841150 100 70 70 10 P Src: Inspector Well Pressures Gas Lift Waiver:' Comments Inner Outer Tubing PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes/No 213-03A 2030090 100 70 68 P P 1 -OIL 213-04 1841200 100 70 70 P P 1 -OIL 213-09 1840270 2000 1920 P P WAGIN 213-10 2B-12 213-14 213-15 1840290 1840380 1841110 1841130 100 100 200 2000 70 70 1890 2000 68 64 P P P P P P P P --�--- WAGIN WAGIN 1 -OIL 1 -OIL � _i 2B-16 1841140 100 70 65 P 4 1 -OIL - Comments Friday, June 10, 2011 Page 1 of I of was found defeated at the ael. Worked properly when placed in service. SSV had slow leak when pressure tested. Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 9 18 2 11.11% Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test Report Pad: KRU_2B Insp Dt 8/1/2010 Inspected by Chuck Scheve Interval 90 Days InspNo sysCS100802060904 Related Insp: SVSOP000008353 Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Mike Somaduroff Reason 90 -Day Sre: Inspector - � 1 ut j_ _ YP f Comments Well Data Pilots SSV SSSV Shutln Dt Well T e Well Pressures Gas Li t Waiver Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oil,WAG,GINJ, Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes/No 2B-01 213-03A j 1841150 2030090 98 98 85 85 i 98 89 P P P P �I 1 -OIL 1 -OIL i 213-04 184120098 85 89 P P 1 -OIL 213-06 1840220 2000 1950 P 4 WAGIN Wing valve leaked, tested SSV ---- using the lateral valve. Slow — gas leak to atmosphere on grease fitting on lateral valve. 213-07 1840240 �2000�1680� 30 P WAGIN Pilot was re -set and tested Wing valve leaked, good. tested SSV using the lateral valve. 213-08 1840260 200012100 P P WAGIN —I 2B-10 1840290 2000 1990 P P WAGIN 2B-14 1841110 98 85 93 P P 1 -OIL 213-15 1 1841130 98 85 84 P P 1 -OIL 213-16 1841140 98 85 83 P P 1 -OIL Comments Friday, June 10, 2011 Page I of 1 Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 10 20 2 10% Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test Report Pad: KRU_2B Insp Dt 2/23/2011 Inspected by Interval InspNo SVSOP000009016 Related Insp: Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Hight / Alan Reason 180 -Day Src: Operator Well Data l Pilots ` SSV I SSSV S uan Dt Well Type Well Pressures Gas Lift Waiver j Comments Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oil,WAG,GINJ, Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes/No 2B-01 1841150 97 85 82 P P OIL 173 213-02 213-03A 1841220 2030090 97 97 85 85 74 76 P P P P OIL OIL 167 182 213-04 1841200 97 85 79 P P OIL 146 2B-05 1840040 WAG 2B-06 i 1840220 WAG 213-07 1840240 I WAG 213-08 1840260 WAG 213-09 1840270 WAG 213-10 1840290 I 2000 1956 P P GINJ 3070 213-11 1840350 WAG 213-12 1840380 WAG 213-13 1841040 7/19/2010 SI 213-14 1841110 97 85 78 P P OIL 146 213-15 1841130 97 85 85 P P OIL 148 213-16 1841140 97 85 75 P P OIL 145 Friday, June 10, 2011 Page I of 2 Pad: KRU_213 Insp Dt 2/23/2011 Inspected by Interval InspNo SVSOP000009016 Related Insp: Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Hight / Alan Reason 180 -Day Src: Operator Well DataPilots i SSV SSSV I Shutln Dt{ Well Type Well Pressures Gas Lift Waiver Comments Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oi1,WAG.GINJ, Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes[No Comments Friday, June 10, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate -8 - -- 16 - -- - 0 09/01/09-04/30/11 Field Tests Components Failures Failure Rate Ak,,zk, Albert Kaloa 1 2 0 0.00% Badami 12 30 0 0.00% d., Beaver Creek 7 14 3 21.43% CPA -:z-- Beluga River 75 168 5 2.98% CP4s Colville River 445 1329 62 4.67% ikkl(,c Deep Creek 29 58 0 0.00% , t3,^ Endicott 265 793 6 0.76% ua-�'\ Granite Pt 39 78 3 3.85% (A,,, Ivan River 2 4 0 0.00% P4�, Kasilof 1 2 0 0.00% A4U Kenai 35 70 6 8.57% A4- ( Kenai CLU 6 12 0 0.00% 16�it� Lewis River 1 2 0 0.00% Lone Creek 2 4 0 0.00% w., McArthur River 278 709 27 3.81% kro Middle Ground Shoal 85 186 1 0.54% Milne Point 451 905 18 1.99% Moquawkie 3 6 0 0.00% Nicolai Creek 5 10 2 20.00% Est. Nikaitchuq 10 19 0 0.00% A� Ninilchik 20 40 1 2.50% Cpm North Cook Inlet 41 120 2 1.67% a,r , North Fork 4 8 1 12.50% ' ' 1 Northstar 99 297 1 0.34% Oooguruk 51 146 11 7.53% Pretty Creek 2 4 0 0.00% P4 ,t Sterling 1 2 0 0.00% Stump Lake 1 2 0 0.00% ,L�luw Three Mile Creek 2 4 0 0.00% Trading Bay 63 157 10 6.37% All Other Fields Total: 2036 5181 159 3.07% fjp Prudhoe Bay 3486 7526 209 2.78% CP Kuparuk River 2659 5375 283 5.27% Tr'S45 CaQhC!n �5Lls 5 z, z,0 c.Z 3 but 4 ,� rd� �►w-3. �`%, SKI LI l �, j ¢ U to k�� F:\InspForms\SVS 90 and Non 90 Day Letters190 Day speadsheet 06-10-11.xls Pad Frequency Effective Date Time Frame Osprey 90 InddWite KRU 1A 90 3/25/2011 indefinite KRU 2B 90 5/21/2010 Indefinite KRU 2V 90 10/7/2010 ndefinite KRU 2W 90 3/22/2011 itF KRU 1B 90 3/16/2011 Sep 11* KRU 2G 90 4/8/2011 Oct 11 KRU 2U 90 11/13/2010 nwvW KRU 2Z 90 3/12/2011 Sep 11* KRU 3B 90 12/10/2010 Jun 11 KRU 30 90 4/24/2011 Oct 11 PBU LIS L5 90 4/12/2011 Oct 11 TBF Monopod 9/29/2010 Sep 11 +--20-- *SVS test schedule Jun/Dec Indefinite 90 day letters will include the verbiage... until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance is achieved. Indefinite - DO NOT change 90 day status on the inspection record. .'✓ t0,?*/ 100 t. 0 NO WINJ wells on SVS reports (only HPP) O Zv C is v ►� '�'"� c:y�-�- �c rLv 2-U S Gt'tki SVS Conoco Phillips Failures 09-01-09 - 04-30-11 InspDt Well# W! Permit Pilot SSV SSSV Reason Comments 01/31/11 1E-166 2041530 1 P 180 01/31/11 1E-34 1971660 1 P 180 11/20/10 1E-32 1971320 P 4 NA Misc Inspector code 40 01/13/10 1E-29 1821540 P 4 180 07/04/10 1E-29 1821540 P 41 180 01/13/10 1E-28 1821580 P 4 180 05/06/10 2E-15 1841890 3 P Misc 08/01/10 2E-15 1841890 P 4 180 02/06/10 2E-11 1842260 2 NT 180 01/31/11 1E-02 1800500 1 P 180 12/12/10 1A-03 1810880 P 4 180 03/10/11 1A-03 1810880 P 4 90 02/13/10 1A -04A 2001940 P 4 Misc 12/12/10 1A-08 1780400 P 4 180 04/08/10 1A-11 1811730 43 P Misc LPP tripped low 12/12/09 1A-16RD 1820310 P 4 180 01/09/11 1A-17 1901510 3 P Misc Inspector code 30 03/10/11 1A-17 1901510 P 4 90 03/16/111B-01 1800400 P P 9180 09/19/09 1B-03 1810560 P P 9 90 12/13/09 1B-03 1810560 P P 9 180 08/21/10 113-05 1770010 P 4 8 Misc 12/13/09 1B-06 1810750 P P 8 180 12/09/10 113-06 1810750 P 4 8 180 12/13/09 1B-07 1810890 P 4 9,180 08/21/10 1B-07 1810890 P 4 8 Misc 03/16/111113-08A 1971120 43 P 9,180 LP Pilot valve alignment was set "incorrectly". Pilot was set up for water injection when well was on gas injection. Pilot would have tripped at a much lower pressure than required. Gas injection pilot was operational within spec. 06/27/10 16-12 1930610 P P 9 Misc 06/06/10 1B-13 1940550 P P 9 180 06/28/10 18-13 1940550 P P 9 Misc 03/16/11 1B-16 1940370 P P 9 180 09/19/091113-18 1940610 P 43 P 190 SSV took over 3 minutes to close, valve passed pressure test once closed 12/13/09 1B-18 1940610 P P 9 180 06/06/10 16-18 1940610 P P 9 180 12/09/10 1B-18 1940610 P 5 NT 180 03/16/11 1B-18 1940610 P P 9 180 03/27/11 113-18 1940610 P P 9 Retest 03/31/11 1B-18 1940610 P P 8 Retest 09/19/09 1B-19 1940640 P P 9 90 07/01/10 1C-02 1801350 P 4 180 01/19/11 1C-02 1801350 P 4 NA Misc 01/26/11 1C-02 1801350 P 4 Retest 01/14/10 1C -07A 2090290 P 5 180 Inspector code 50 07/01/10 1C-135 2012200 P 4 180 02/14/10 1D-03 1790840 P 5 90 08/22/10 1D-112 1981830 P 4 180 03/01/11 1D-129 1972130 3 P 180 03/01/1111D-131 11981100 P 4 180 11/15/09 1D-134 1981110 1 P 90 Inspector code 10 12/01/09 1D-134 1981110 P 4 Misc 05/06/10 1D-34 2001430 P 4 Misc 03/01/11 1D-36 2001300 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 11/15/09 1D-37 2002040 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 04/06/11 1F-13 1831440 3 P NA Imisc 02/08/10 1F-18A 2041670 P 4 180 08/02/10 1F-18A 2041670 P 4 180 11/21/10 1F-18A 2041670 P 4 Misc 08/02/10 1F-20 1960530 P 4 180 04/06/10 1G-04 1821610 3 P Misc 02/12/10 1G-05 1830200 P 41 Misc 04/06/10 1G-09 1831240 P 4 Misc 03/05/10 1G-13 1831400 3 P 180 09/20/09 1H-06 1820680 P 4 180 04/08/101J-122 2070700 P 4 Misc 07/07/10 1J-137 2061080 P 4 180 04/12/10 1L-05 1841230 P 41 Misc 01/26/11 1L-08 1841500 P 4 90 10/18/09 1L-10 1900350 P 4 180 04/12/10 1L-10 1900350 P 4 Misc 10/21/10 1L-10 1900350 P 4 1180 10/21/10 1L-11 1900450 3 P 180 04/05/10 1L-14 1910100 P 4 180 10/21/10 1L-15 1841830 3 P 180 08/23/10 1L-18 1910350 P 4 Misc 04/05/10 1L-19 1900610 P 4 180 10/21/10 1L-19 1900610 3 P 180 02/01/11 1L-19 1900610 P 4 Misc 04/29/11 1L-19 1900610 P 4 NA 180 07/03/10 1L-20A 2000360 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 12/14/10 1L-21DPN 1910060 P 4 Misc 10/21/10 1L-24 1910660 3 P 180 10/21/10 1L-28 1990980 3 P 180 11/12/09 1Q-03 1842330 1 P 180 Inspector code 10 08/20/10 1Q-03A 2100260 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 11/12/09 1Q-04 1842340 1 P 180 Inspector code 10 11/12/09 1Q-05 1842170 11P 180 Inspector code 10 05/03/10 IQ-09 1841920 43 P 180 Pilot tripped below 1700 psi, pilot replaced & passed retest @ 2170 psi trip. Tree cap o-ring found failed & leaking, repaired & OK. There is a slight gas leak from the pilot threads. 05/03/10 1Q-11 1841990 P 4 180 05/06/10 1Q-16 1850470 3 P Misc 01/12/10 111-03A 2000210 P 4 Misc 04/04/10 111-07 1850720 P 4 180 12/18/09 1R-09 1850950 1 P Misc 10/17/09 111-12 1850980 P 4 180 02/13/10 1R-17 1911140 43 P Misc LPP tripped low and was replaced and passed retest on 02/13/10 05/03/10 lY-01 1830500 P 41 180 11/29/09 1Y-12 1830260 P 4 Misc 09/25/10 1Y-12 1830260 P 4 Misc 12/18/09 1Y-16 1830420 P 4 Misc 09/24/10 1Y-16 1830420 P 5 Misc 11/18/0911Y-22 11930700 31P 180 11/18/0911Y-24A 12041250 1 31 41 180 02/09/10 1Y -24A 2041250 P 4 90 11/18/09 1Y-31 1930900 P 4 180 04/10/10 212-25 1620330 P 4 NA 180 10/17/09 241-34 1720160 3 P NA 180 3rd string 10/17/09 241-34 1720160 3 P NA 180 04/13/101241-34 1720160 43 P NA 1180 Annulus string; LP tripped but panel failed to dump, retested, passed. 04/24/11 241-34 1720160 P 4 180 03/08/10 2A-11 1860030 1 P 90 06/02/10 2A-13 1851440 P 4 180 12/15/09 2A-17 1931400 1 NT 180 12/16/09 2A-17 1931400 3 NT Retest 03/08/10 2A-17 1931400 3 P 190 12/11/10 2A-17 1931400 3 P 180 12/20/09 2A-25 1960620 P 4 Misc 12/15/09 2A-26 2080940 1 P 180 05/07/10 26-01 1841150 1 P 90 Inspector code 10 02/06/10 26-04 1841200 2 P 180 07/05/10 28-06 1840220 3 P Misc 08/01/10 213-06 1840220 P 4 90 08/01/10 213-07 1840240 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 04/07/10 26-09 1840270 P 4 Misc 02/06/10 213-16 1841140 P 4 180 05/07/10 213-16 1841140 P 41 90 04/27/11 2C-03 1830890 P 4 NA Misc 04/28/11 2C-03 1830890 P 4 NA Retest 01/17/10 2C-10 1842140 2 NT 180 01/17/10 2C-12 1842060 3 P 180 01/07/11 2C-14 1842100 3 P 1180 01/17/10 2C-16 1842020 P 4 180 08/01/10 2D-12 1840940 1 NT 180 02/05/10 2D-13 1840120 2 P 180 02/05/10 2D-15 1841600 3 P 180 09/19/10 2F-18 1961780 3 P 180 10/16/09 2G-02 1841210 P 51 180 10/19/09 2G-02 1841210 P 5 Retest 04/08/11 2G-04 1841410 1 P 180 Inspector code 10 04/03/10 2G-05 1840800 3 P 180 04/08/11 2G-08 1840880 1 P 180 Inspector code 10 08/24/10 2G-15 1841310 P 4 Misc 10/16/10 2G-15 1841310 1 P 180 04/08/11 2G-15 1841310 1 NT 180 Inspector code 10 02/16/11 21-1-01 1840770 P 4 Misc 11/13/10 21-1-09 1852590 3 P 180 05/04/10 21-1-10 1852600 43 P 180 21-1-10 failed, tripped below 50% of PSP 11/13/10 21-1-10 1852600 P 5 180 Inspector code 50 11/13/09 21-1-16 1840870 1 NT 180 05/04/10 21-1-16 1840870 43 P 180 21-1-16 failed, tripped below 50% of PSP 05/31/10 21-1-17 2000190 43 P Imisc LPP Tripped below 1700 psi 03/09/10 2K-04 1881190 P 4 180 09/18/10 2K-04 1881190 P 4 180 09/18/10 2K-07 1890710 3 P 180 03/13/11 2K -21A 1981580 2 P 180 03/13/11 2K-26 1900150 P 1 4 180 01/10/1012L-325 1982090 P 5 1180 12/14/1012M-20 1920480 3-P 1 180 12/14/1012M-21 1911290 3 P 1 1180 12/14/10 2M-24 1920500 3 P 180 12/14/10 2M-25 1910210 3 P 180 06/09/10 2M-32 1921040 3 P 180 02/01/11 2N-350 2011750 1 NT Misc 01/27/11 2P-432 2020910 P 4 180 09/22/0912T-03 1861420 P 4 1180 12/17/09 2T-03 1861420 P 4 Misc 03/07/10 2T-218 2030170 2 P 180 09/22/09 2T-22 1950860 P 4 180 11/28/09 2U-03 1850060 43 4 Misc LPP tripped low 02/07/10 2U-03 1850060 P 4 90 11/13/1012U-03 1850060 P 4 1180 02/08/11 21.1-04 1850070 1 P 90 Inspector code 10 05/08/10 2U-05 1850180 43 P 90 21-1-05 LPP tripped below required, replaced and passed retest on 05/08/10 04/25/11 21-1-05 1850180 1 NT Misc 04/27/11 2U-05 1850180 P 4 NA Misc 04/28/11 2U-05 1850180 1 4 NA Retest 04/29/11 21-1-05 1850180 P 4 NA Retest 11/13/10 21.1-06 1850190 P 4 180 02/08/11 2U-06 1850190 1 41 90 11/13/09 2U-08 1850210 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 11/13/09 2U-10 1850390 P 4 180 02/07/10 21-1-10 1850390 P 4 90 08/20/10 21-1-13 1842460 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 05/08/10 21-1-15 1842480 3 P 90 11/13/10 2U-15 1842480 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 02/08/11 21.1-15 1842480 1 NT 90 11/21/09 2V-01 1831580 43 P Misc 2V-01 LPP tripped below required trip pressure. 09/21/10 2V-01 1831580 P 4 90 06/26/10 2V-10 1850480 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 06/26/10 2V-12 1850500 P 4 180 09/21/10 2V-12 1850500 3 P 90 Inspector code 30 12/10/09 2V-14 1850310 P 5 180 03/12/11 2V-15 1850320 P 4 90 01/29/11 2W-01 1850100 P 4 90 04/05/11 2W-01 1850100 3 P NA 90 Inspector code 30 01/29/112W-03 1850110 P 4 90 10/17/10 2W-05 1841910 P 4 180 01/29/11 2W-07 1842040 1 NT 90 03/29/112W-09 1842190 P 4 Misc 01/29/112W-10 1842230 P 4 90 10/17/10 2W-11 1842220 3 P 180 01/29/11 2W-12 1842240 1 NT 90 12/18/10 2W-13 1842360 1 NT Misc 01/29/11 2W-13 1842360 P 4 90 10/17/10 2W-14 1842370 1 4 180 10/17/10 2W-15 1842380 3 P 180 04/16/11 2W-17 2071350 3 P NA Misc Inspector code 30 10/16/09 2X-02 1831030 P 4 1180 10/19/09 2X-02 1831030 P 4 Retest 11/19/10 2X-03 1831090 1 P Misc 11/24/09 2X-04 1831180 2 P Misc 11/19/10 2X-04 1831180 P 4 Misc 05/06/10 2X-05 1831070 P 4 Misc 04/05/10 2X-08 1831140 1 43 P 1 1180 LPP tested failed,bad root valves, well 514/5/10, Ischeduled for repair. 12/17/09 2Z-10 1851370 P 4 Misc 03/12/11 2Z -12A 1951480 2 P 90 Inspector code 20 10/19/09 2Z-20 1881240 3 P Misc 12/14/10 2Z-21 1881250 P 4 Misc 03/12/11 2Z-21 1881250 P 5 90 03/12/1112Z -23A 2101570 P 4 190 06/03/10 2Z-29 1881290 P 5 1180 12/13/10 2Z-29 1881290 P 5 180 03/12/11 2Z-29 1881290 2 P 90 01/11/10 3A-08 1852240 P 4 180 07/02/10 3A-08 1852240 P 4 180 01/19/1113A-08 1852240 2 P NA Misc Inspector code 20 10/14/10 3A-13 1852810 P 5 190 Inspector code 50 01/04/11 3A-13 1852810 P 4 180 04/30/11 3A-13 1852810 P 4 Misc 01/11/10 3A-16 1852840 P 4 180 07/02/10 3A-16 1852840 P 4 180 Inspector code 40 06/01/10 3B-04 1850610 P 4 180 03/10/11 36-04 1850610 P 4 90 12/10/10 3B-09 1851130 P 4 180 12/13/09 36-10 1851140 1 P 180 01/09/11,3B-10 1851140 43 NT Misc 3B-10 LPS (solenoid) tripped immediately when test port block valve was opened (Approximately 1600 psi). Unable to re- establish FTP detection due to an obstruction upstream of the test port connection. Well was SI pending repairs. 01/19/11 313-10 1851140 2 P NA Misc Inspector code 20 12/10/10 36-13 1850230 P 4 180 01/05/11 3C-10 1851010 P 4 Misc 03/06/10 3C -15A 2080810 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 08/21/10 3F-05 1852420 P 5 180 02/20/11 3F-05 1852420 P 5 1180 02/27/11 3F-06 1852440 P 4 Imisc 06/01/10 3G-03 1961220 P 4 180 09/22/10 3G-03 1961220 P 4 Misc 12/12/10 3G-04 1901310 P 4 180 12/12/10 3G-18 1901250 P 4 180 03/06/11 3H -13A 1961970 P 41 180 02/03/11 3H -14B 2050210 P P 9 Misc 02/03/11 3H-19 1871330 P P 9 Misc 02/16/11 3H-19 1871330 P P 9 Misc 02/03/11 3H-20 1871340 P P 9 Misc 03/06/11 3H-20 1871340 P P 9 180 03/06/10 3H-26 1940290 P 41 180 09/18/09 3H -28A 1960370 P 4 180 09/17/10 3H -28A 1960370 P 4 180 11/16/09 3H -33A 2091030 P 4 Misc 10/13/10 31-03 1853090 3 P 180 02/11/11 3J-06 1852140 3 P 180 02/06/10 3J -07A 2010980 P 4 180 05/11/10 3J -07A 2010980 P 4 Misc 08/02/10 3J -07A 2010980 1 4 180 02/11/11 3J-14 1852880 2 NT 180 11/16/10 3J-15 1852890 P 4 190 08/02/10 3J-18 1961470 P 1 41 180 11/16/09 3M-17 11870540 1 31P 1 180 04/24/11 30-05 1880760 3 P 180 04/24/11 30-07 1880770 3 P 180 04/24/11 30-11 1880420 P 5 180 04/24/11 30-12 1880410 3 4 180 10/13/10 30-13 1880400 P 5 180 10/13/10130-14 1880390 3 P 1180 04/24/11 30-14 1880390 3 P 180 05/06/10 30-17 1880290 43 4 Misc LPP tripped low 10/13/10 30-17 1880290 P 4 180 04/24/11 30-17 1880290 3 P 180 Inspector code 30 06/02/10 3Q-10 1861870 3 P 180 12/13/0913Q-12 1861890 3 P 1180. Inspector code 30 06/02/10 3Q-16 1861790 43 P 180 LPP tripped below 1700 psi 02/05/10 3R-12A 1920140 P P 9 180 08/04/10 3R-12A 1920140 P P 9 180 01/26/11 3R-12A 1920140 P P 9 Misc 08/04/10 3R-17 1920050 P P 1 9 180 02/19/11 3R-17 1920050 P 4 P 180 11/14/09 3R-18 1920170 P P 8 90 02/05/10 3R-19 1920460 P 4 P 180 08/04/10 3R-19 1920460 P P 9 180 05/21/10 A-02 1680910 P P 9 180 11/23/09 A-06 1690500 P P 9 180 12/27/09 CD1-04 2001170 P P 9 Misc 01/04/10 CD1-04 2001170 P P 9 Misc 03/07/10 CD1-08 2040590 P 4 P 180 02/02/10 CD1-ll 2041800 P P 9 Misc 03/07/11 CD1-17 2001450 3 P P 180 03/07/11 CD1-18 2042060 P P 8 180 03/07/11 CD1-24 1990260 P 5 P 180 09/14/10 CD1-27 2000060 P P 9 180 03/07/11 CD1-34 2000430 P P 8 180 09/14/10 CD1-35 1990380 P P 9 180 09/08/09 CD1-41 2000170 P P 9 180 12/27/09 CD1-42 1991190 P P 8 Misc 01/04/10 CD1-42 1991190 P P 8 Misc 09/08/09 CD1-44 2000550 P P 9 180 03/07/11 CD1-48 2090010 P P 8 180 09/16/10 CD2-01 2051180 P IP 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-03 2050920 P P 9 180 03/10/10 CD2-05 2040970 P P 9 180 03/10/10 CD2-14 2011770 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-25 2020740 P P 9 180 03/10/10 CD2-28 2022170 P P 9 180 03/19/11 CD2-31 2040820 P P 9 Misc 03/10/10 CD2-34 2011910 P P 9 180 03/10/10 CD2-39 2011600 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-39 2011600 P P 9 180 03/10/10 CD2-464 2080820 3 P P 180 09/16/10 CD2-468 2081800 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-469 2081220 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-47 2012050 NT NT 8 180 02/21/11 CD2-54 2041780 3 4 P Misc 02/22/11 CD2-54 2041780 3 P P Retest 03/10/10 CD2-58 2030850 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-58 2030850 P P 9 180 09/16/10 CD2-72 2070570 P P 9 180 02/04/11 CD2-73 2081960 P P 9 Misc 09/19/10 CD2-75 2080640 P P 9 180 01/24/10 CD3-107 2061890 IP P 9 90 04/25/10 CD3-107 12061890 IP 1p 8190 SVS Conoco Phillips Failures 09-01-09 - 04-30-11 10/10/10 CD3 -107 2061890 P P 9 180 07/27/10 CD3 -110 2050410 P 4 P 90 10/18/09 CD3 -113 2070040 P P 890 66 10/18/09 CD3 -114 2070330 P P 8 90 10/18/09 CD3 -117 2090260 18 3 43 P 190 3/8" swedgeloc valve on control line from the control panel to the SSV was found to be closed, defeating SSV. 10/10/10 CD3 -117 2090260 P P 9 180 22 12/31/09 CD3 -118 2080250 P P 8 Misc 15 01/08/10 CD3 -118 2080250 P P 8 Misc 10/18/09 CD3 -316A 2080110 P P 890 12/31/09 CD3 -316A 2080110 P P 8 Misc 01/08/10 CD3 -316A 2080110 P P 8 Misc 06/10/10 CD3 -316A 2080110 P P 9 Misc 11/21/10 CD3 -316A 2080110 P P 9 Misc 04/17/10 CD4 -211 2061530 P P 9 180 10/17/09 CD4 -215 2061570 P P 8 180 04/17/10 CD4 -215 2061570 P P 9 180 10/17/09 CD4 -301B 2071800 P P 8 180 10/09/10 CD4 -304 2071320 P P 9 180 10/10/10 CD4 -320 2060550 P P 9 180 10/17/09 CD4 -322 12071010 P 180 IP Code: Pilot SSV 5175 / 1 315v 2 12 3 66 4 135 5 18 6 0 8 22 9 59 43 15 2 0 Total Failures: 124 155 81 360 I Combined SVS Test Results Summary KUPARUK RIVER Sep 01, 2009 Through Apr 30, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/23/2009 4 8 0 11/19/2009 1 2 0 12/12/2009 10 20 1 2/12/2010 1 2 0 2/13/2010 1 2 1 2/15/2010 1 2 0 4/8/2010 1 2 1 5/10/2010 1 2 0 5/30/2010 1 2 0 6/4/2010 11 22 0 6/27/2010 1 2 0 8/2/2010 1 2 0 9/26/2010 1 2 0 10/22/2010 1 2 0 11/11/2010 1 2 0 12/12/2010 8 16 2 1/9/2011 3 6 1 3/10/2011 8 16 2 3/11/2011 1 2 0 3/29/2011 2 4 0 4/11/2011 1 2 0 4/17/2011 1 2 0 KRII lA 61 122 8 6,56% 9/19/2009 11 33 3 12/13/2009 12 36 5 2/13/2010 2 4 0 4/12/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 12 35 2 6/27/2010 1 3 1 6/28/2010 2 6 1 8/21/2010 3 9 4 9/25/2010 1 2 0 10/24/2010 1 3 0 11/10/2010 1 3 0 12/9/2010 14 41 3 12/11/2010 2 4 0 12/14/2010 1 3 0 2/5/2011 1 2 0 2/10/2011 1 2 0 2/24/2011 1 2 0 3/9/2011 1 3 0 3/16/2011 12 36 5 3/21/2011 1 3 0 3/27/2011 1 3 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page I of 16 IIU9.1 RIS 'aATA_�3 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate KRU 1B 82 235 24 10.21% 11/17/2009 1 2 0 12/23/2009 1 2 0 1/14/2010 17 31 1 1/17/2010 10 19 0 2/12/2010 1 2 0 2/15/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2010 1 2 0 4/8/2010 2 4 0 5/30/2010 1 2 0 7/1/2010 20 40 2 7/5/2010 1 2 0 7/7/2010 1 2 0 7/8/2010 1 2 0 7/31/2010 2 4 0 8/27/2010 1 2 0 8/28/2010 1 2 0 9/23/2010 1 2 0 10/20/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 1/9/2011 1 2 0 1/13/2011 13 26 0 1/19/2011 4 8 1 1/26/2011 2 4 0 3/8/2011 1 2 0 3/24/2011 1 2 0 4/6/2011 2 4 0 KRU 1C 89 174 4 9/21/2009 4 8 0 11/15/2009 14 28 2 12/1/2009 21 42 1 12/13/2009 1 2 0 12/18/2009 1 2 0 12/23/2009 1 2 0 1/20/2010 3 6 0 2/14/2010 29 58 1 2/16/2010 1 2 0 4/8/2010 2 4 0 4/12/2010 1 2 0 5/6/2010 2 4 1 6/27/2010 2 4 0 8/22/2010 26 52 1 10/20/2010 2 4 0 10/24/2010 1 2 0 11/21/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 3/1/2011 28 56 3 2.30% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 2 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate KRU_1D KRU_IE KRU 1F 4/14/2011 9/21/2009 10/20/2009 11/24/2009 12/18/2009 12/20/2009 1/13/2010 1/18/2010 1/20/2010 2/15/2010 5/30/2010 6/5/2010 6/27/2010 7/4/2010 8/23/2010 9/24/2010 10/24/2010 11/20/2010 12/14/2010 1/31/2011 2/2/2011 2/8/2011 3/8/2011 3/29/2011 4/6/2011 9/23/2009 2/8/2010 5/6/2010 7/28/2010 8/2/2010 8/3/2010 11/21/2010 12/8/2010 2/19/2011 3/4/2011 4/6/2011 4/14/2011 4/19/2011 1 2 142 284 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 18 36 1 2 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 19 38 1 2 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 2 14 28 1 2 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 81 162 1 2 10 20 1 2 1 2 11 20 2 4 1 2 1 2 7 14 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 40 78 9/19/2009 7 14 12/11/2009 7 14 2/12/2010 1 2 3/5/2010 5 10 3/8/2010 1 2 0 9 3.17% 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7 4.32% 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 6.41% 0 0 1 1 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 3 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER 8 16 1 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 4/6/2010 2 4 2 4/7/2010 1 2 0 5/11/2010 1 2 0 9/21/2010 6 10 0 11/11/2010 2 4 0 3/5/2011 6 12 0 KRU 1G 39 76 4 5.26% 9/20/2009 8 16 1 12/18/2009 1 2 0 2/18/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2010 9 18 0 3/15/2010 1 2 0 9/20/2010 9 18 0 10/24/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 3/28/2011 10 20 0 KRU 1H 41 82 l 1.22% 1/13/2010 15 30 0 2/12/2010 1 2 0 2/18/2010 1 2 0 4/8/2010 2 4 1 7/7/2010 17 34 1 7/31/2010 2 4 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 2/4/2011 3 6 0 3/4/2011 1 2 0 3/21/2011 1 2 0 KRU 1J 44 88 2 2.27% 9/23/2009 1 2 0 10/18/2009 14 28 1 4/5/2010 12 23 2 4/12/2010 2 4 2 4/14/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 2 0 5/28/2010 1 2 0 6/5/2010 1 2 0 6/25/2010 3 6 0 7/3/2010 16 32 l 7/4/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 2 4 1 10/21/2010 16 31 6 10/22/2010 1 2 0 11/20/2010 2 4 0 12/14/2010 1 2 1 1/20/2011 6 12 0 1/26/2011 10 20 1 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 4 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 2/1/2011 4/29/2011 4/30/2011 KRU_1 L 11/12/2009 12/22/2009 2/8/2010 4/7/2010 5/3/2010 5/6/2010 5/30/2010 8/20/2010 8/21/2010 9/23/2010 9/30/2010 10/20/2010 11/11/2010 11/13/2010 12/13/2010 KRU_1Q 1 13 3 108 9 1 10 1 10 1 1 10 I 1 I 1 I1 1 1 60 10/17/2009 16 11/18/2009 2 11/19/2009 2 12/18/2009 2 1/12/2010 2 2/11/2010 1 2/13/2010 4 4/4/2010 17 4/7/2010 1 7/28/2010 1 10/22/2010 10 12/13/2010 3 12/31/2010 1 4/28/2011 11 KRU_1R 73 11/18/2009 16 11/23/2009 I 11/24/2009 1 11/29/2009 2 12/18/2009 2 1/12/2010 1 2/9/2010 16 3/9/2010 1 5/3/2010 12 5/4/2010 5 5/6/2010 1 2 1 23 1 4 0 209 17 18 3 2 0 20 0 2 0 20 2 2 1 2 0 19 1 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 22 0 2 0 2 0 119 7 32 1 3 0 4 0 4 I 4 1 2 0 8 1 34 1 2 0 2 0 20 0 6 0 2 0 22 0 145 5 32 4 1 0 1 0 4 1 4 1 2 0 32 1 2 0 23 1 10 0 2 0 8.13% 5.88% 3.45% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 5 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER 2 0 10 19 2 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 5/30/2010 1 2 0 6/27/2010 1 2 0 9/24/2010 1 2 1 9/25/2010 1 2 1 10/22/2010 1 2 0 10/25/2010 1 2 0 11/12/2010 17 34 0 12/13/2010 3 6 0 2/27/2011 1 2 0 4/11/2011 1 2 0 KRU 1Y 86 169 10 5.92% KRU_2A KRU 2B 11/17/2009 12/15/2009 12/17/2009 12/20/2009 3/8/2010 4/8/2010 5/6/2010 6/2/2010 6/25/2010 7/25/2010 8/20/2010 9/20/2010 10/20/2010 12/11/2010 12/13/2010 4/6/2011 4/14/2011 4/27/2011 2/6/2010 4/7/2010 5/7/2010 5/31/2010 6/7/2010 7/5/2010 8/1/2010 8/20/2010 8/24/2010 8/27/2010 2/4/2011 2/23/2011 4/11/2011 1/17/2010 2/10/2010 Friday, June 17, 2011 1 2 0 10 19 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 11 22 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 13 26 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 13 26 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 62 123 7 6 1 9 1 1 2 10 1 2 1 1 8 2 45 9 1 12 2 18 2 2 4 20 2 4 2 2 16 4 90 17 2 2 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 5.69% 8.89% KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 7 of 16 4/4/2010 9 18 0 7/26/2010 10 20 0 11/19/2010 1 2 0 1/7/2011 8 16 1 4/14/2011 1 2 0 4/27/2011 2 4 1 KRU 2C 41 81 5 6.17% 12/17/2009 1 2 0 2/5/2010 8 15 2 2/6/2010 2 4 0 2/8/2010 1 2 0 5/7/2010 10 20 0 8/1/2010 8 15 1 2/23/2011 8 16 0 KRU 2D 38 74 3 4.05% 12/1/2009 1 2 0 2/6/2010 4 7 1 5/6/2010 1 2 1 5/7/2010 4 8 0 8/1/2010 5 10 1 2/20/2011 3 6 0 KRU2E 18 35 3 8.57% 9/18/2009 8 16 0 3/9/2010 8 16 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 9/19/2010 9 18 1 3/6/2011 7 13 0 3/8/2011 1 2 0 4/7/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2F 35 69 1 1.45% 10/16/2009 5 10 1 10/24/2009 1 2 0 11/17/2009 1 2 0 2/10/2010 1 2 0 4/3/2010 6 12 1 5/6/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 1 2 1 10/16/2010 9 18 1 4/8/2011 8 15 3 KRU 2G 34 67 7 10.45% 10/20/2009 1 1 0 11/13/2009 9 17 1 5/4/2010 10 20 2 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 7 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER 15 30 0 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 5/31/2010 2 4 1 7/27/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 1 2 0 8/27/2010 1 2 0 11/13/2010 8 16 2 11/23/2010 1 2 0 2/8/2011 8 16 0 2/16/2011 2 4 1 3/21/2011 1 2 0 4/19/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2H 46 90 7 7.78% 9/17/2009 15 30 0 3/9/2010 13 26 1 4/3/2010 1 2 0 5/31/2010 2 4 0 8/24/2010 1 2 0 9/18/2010 15 30 2 10/25/2010 1 2 0 2/4/2011 1 2 0 3/13/2011 10 20 2 3/15/2011 1 2 0 4/11/2011 1 2 0 4/14/2011 1 2 0 4/24/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2K 63 126 5 3.97% 1/10/2010 9 18 1 2/13/2010 1 2 0 5/31/2010 l 2 0 6/25/2010 l 2 0 7/30/2010 14 26 0 8/28/2010 1 2 0 11/19/2010 1 2 0 1/28/2011 7 14 0 1/31/2011 2 4 0 2/16/2011 1 2 0 3/24/2011 1 2 0 4/21/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2L 40 78 1 1.28% 12/11/2009 19 38 0 12/17/2009 1 2 0 1/12/2010 1 2 0 4/3/2010 1 2 0 5/6/2010 2 4 0 6/9/2010 25 50 l 8/24/2010 3 6 0 12/14/2010 12 24 4 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 8 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 12/16/2010 16 32 0 12/18/2010 1 2 0 2/27/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2M 82 164 5 3.05% 9/17/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 11/17/2009 2 4 0 1/8/2010 20 40 0 2/10/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2010 2 4 0 3/6/2010 1 2 0 4/6/2010 3 6 0 7/25/2010 15 30 0 8/24/2010 1 2 0 8/28/2010 1 2 0 11/20/2010 1 2 0 1/6/2011 17 34 0 1/9/2011 2 4 0 2/1/2011 1 1 1 2/23/2011 1 2 0 4/16/2011 1 2 0 KRU_2N 71 141 1 9/17/2009 1 2 0 1/8/2010 10 20 0 4/6/2010 1 2 0 7/23/2010 10 20 0 7/24/2010 1 2 0 11/19/2010 1 2 0 1/27/2011 11 22 1 2/1/2011 1 2 0 4/16/2011 1 2 0 4/25/2011 1 2 0 KRU_2P 38 76 1 9/22/2009 17 34 2 12/17/2009 3 6 1 1/12/2010 1 2 0 2/10/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 18 36 1 4/7/2010 1 2 0 5/6/2010 1 2 0 5/31/2010 1 2 0 6/24/2010 1 2 0 9/28/2010 18 35 0 9/29/2010 1 2 0 10/20/2010 2 4 0 11/19/2010 1 2 0 0.71% 1.32% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 9 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 2/28/2011 2 4 0 3/11/2011 16 32 0 3/13/2011 1 2 0 3/15/2011 1 2 0 4/14/2011 1 2 0 4/16/2011 2 4 0 KRU 2T 89 177 4 2.26% 9/21/2009 1 2 0 11/13/2009 10 20 2 11/28/2009 1 2 2 12/17/2009 1 2 0 2/7/2010 10 19 2 2/8/2010 1 2 0 3/6/2010 1 2 0 5/82010 10 18 2 5/11/2010 2 4 0 8/20/2010 8 16 1 8/23/2010 2 4 0 9/23/2010 1 2 0 11/13/2010 10 17 3 11/22/2010 3 6 0 12/11/2010 1 2 0 2/4/2011 1 2 0 2/6/2011 1 2 0 2/8/2011 11 17 4 2/9/2011 3 6 0 2/16/2011 3 6 0 4/5/2011 2 4 0 4/25/2011 1 1 1 4/27/2011 1 2 1 KRU_2U 85 158 18 9/21/2009 l 2 0 10/19/2009 2 4 0 11/21/2009 1 2 l 12/10/2009 9 18 1 3/6/2010 1 2 0 6/26/2010 8 16 2 8/27/2010 1 2 0 9/21/2010 8 16 2 10/20/2010 6 12 0 11/19/2010 1 2 0 12/13/2010 6 12 0 12/14/2010 2 4 0 12/31/2010 1 2 0 1/30/2011 l 2 0 2/4/2011 1 2 0 3/12/2011 6 12 l Friday, June 17, 2011 11.39% Page 10 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 3/21/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2V 56 112 7 6.25% 9/17/2009 1 2 0 10/19/2009 9 18 0 11/17/2009 1 2 0 11/20/2009 1 2 0 4/3/2010 8 16 0 7/26/2010 2 4 0 9/20/2010 2 4 0 10/17/2010 10 19 5 12/18/2010 1 1 1 1/9/2011 1 2 0 1/29/2011 10 18 6 3/29/2011 1 2 1 4/5/2011 10 20 1 4/16/2011 2 4 1 4/21/2011 l 2 0 4/27/2011 1 2 0 KRU 2W 61 118 15 12.71% 9/21/2009 1 2 0 10/16/2009 13 26 1 11/24/2009 1 2 1 1/11/2010 1 2 0 2/11/2010 1 2 0 2/13/2010 1 2 0 4/5/2010 13 26 1 5/6/2010 1 2 1 5/11/2010 1 2 0 7/5/2010 1 2 0 8/24/2010 1 2 0 10/15/2010 12 24 0 11/19/2010 3 6 2 2/28/2011 2 4 0 4/8/2011 11 22 0 KRU 2X 63 126 6 4.76% 10/19/2009 l 2 1 12/10/2009 7 14 0 12/15/2009 1 2 0 12/17/2009 2 4 1 12/22/2009 l 2 0 3/5/2010 l 2 0 4/8/2010 l 2 0 6/3/2010 8 16 1 6/6/2010 1 2 0 6/25/2010 1 2 0 7/27/2010 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 11 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/23/2010 1 2 0 12/13/2010 6 12 1 12/14/2010 1 2 1 12/31/2010 1 2 0 1/1/2011 1 2 0 2/28/2011 1 2 0 3/4/2011 2 4 0 3/12/2011 6 12 4 3/13/2011 1 2 0 4/6/2011 1 2 0 4/16/2011 2 4 0 KRU 2Z 48 96 9 9.38% 10/18/2009 1 2 0 1/11/2010 12 24 2 5/27/2010 1 2 0 7/2/2010 10 20 2 8/3/2010 2 4 0 10/14/2010 8 16 1 10/25/2010 1 2 0 11/14/2010 1 2 0 12/19/2010 1 2 0 1/4/2011 9 18 1 1/6/2011 1 2 0 1/19/2011 1 2 1 4/6/2011 1 2 0 4/30/2011 1 2 1 KRU 3A 50 100 8 8.00% 12/13/2009 7 14 1 3/13/2010 1 2 0 4/6/2010 1 2 0 5/28/2010 1 2 0 6/1/2010 9 18 1 7/23/2010 1 2 0 7/24/2010 1 2 0 9/22/2010 1 2 0 9/25/2010 1 2 0 12/10/2010 11 22 2 1/6/2011 1 2 0 1/9/2011 2 3 1 1/19/2011 1 2 1 2/4/2011 1 2 0 3/10/2011 13 26 1 KRU 3B 52 103 7 6.80% 9/20/2009 11 22 0 9/23/2009 1 2 0 10/3/2009 l 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 12 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate KRU 3C KRU 3F KRU 3G 3/6/2010 9/17/2010 1/5/2011 3/5/2011 4/11/2011 11/17/2009 1/12/2010 2/6/2010 6/25/2010 8/21/2010 9/24/2010 12/8/2010 12/19/2010 2/20/2011 2/22/2011 2/27/2011 3/5/2011 4/19/2011 10/18/2009 11/17/2009 12/14/2009 12/15/2009 4/6/2010 6/1/2010 6/25/2010 8/23/2010 9/22/2010 10/13/2010 12/12/2010 12/13/2010 12/19/2010 2/1/2011 4/5/2011 4/25/2011 9/18/2009 11/16/2009 11/21/2009 12/1/2009 3/6/2010 6/25/2010 9/17/2010 9/23/2010 12/17/2010 Il 22 1 ll 22 0 1 2 1 11 22 0 1 2 0 48 96 2 2.08% 1 2 0 I 2 0 12 24 0 1 2 0 7 14 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 12 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 35 70 3 4.29% 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 18 36 0 1 2 0 17 34 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 16 32 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 64 128 4 3.13% 15 30 I 1 2 1 I 2 0 1 2 0 15 30 l 1 2 0 14 28 1 1 2 0 2 4 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 13 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 12/18/2010 3 6 0 12/19/2010 1 2 0 2/3/2011 3 9 3 2/16/2011 2 6 1 3/6/2011 14 30 2 3/15/2011 1 2 0 KRU 3H 75 157 10 6.37% 10/16/2009 7 14 0 3/5/2010 1 2 0 4/2/2010 6 12 0 8/19/2010 1 2 0 10/13/2010 7 14 1 4/7/2011 6 12 0 KRU 3I 28 56 1 1.79% 2/6/2010 10 20 1 5/11/2010 1 2 1 8/2/2010 10 20 3 11/16/2010 10 20 1 12/19/2010 1 2 0 2/6/2011 1 2 0 2/11/2011 10 19 2 2/16/2011 2 4 0 KRU 3J 45 89 8 8.99% 11/16/2009 12 24 0 1/10/2010 I 2 0 2/10/2010 I 2 0 5/9/2010 13 26 0 7/23/2010 1 2 0 8/25/2010 1 2 0 8/28/2010 1 2 0 11/22/2010 11 22 0 11/23/2010 1 2 0 12/8/2010 3 6 0 12/13/2010 1 2 0 2/20/2011 2 4 0 KRU 3K 48 96 0 0.00% 11/16/2009 13 26 1 11/28/2009 1 2 0 5/7/2010 13 26 0 11/14/2010 13 26 0 KRU 3M 40 80 1 1.25% 11/15/2009 8 16 0 5/1/2010 8 16 0 7/27/2010 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 14 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate KRU_3N KRU_3O KRU_3Q KRU_3R 11/22/2010 11/23/2010 12/8/2010 10/15/2009 4/2/2010 4/14/2010 5/6/2010 5/31/2010 9/23/2010 10/13/2010 12/8/2010 1/4/2011 1/19/2011 3/19/2011 3/29/2011 4/24/2011 4/27/2011. 9/21/2009 11/24/2009 12/13/2009 1/12/2010 4/29/2010 6/2/2010 12/10/2010 2/6/2011 3/19/2011 11/14/2009 2/5/2010 8/4/2010 1/26/2011 2/5/2011 2/19/2011 2/20/2011 10/18/2009 11/17/2009 12/17/2009 1/10/2010 2/10/2010 3/5/2010 5/28/2010 7/2/2010 Friday, June 17, 2011 5 10 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 2.5 50 0 15 30 0 11 22 0 1 2 0 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 0 13 26 3 1 2 0 12 24 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 15 29 7 2 4 0 77 153 12 1 2 0 1 2 0 11 22 1 f 2 0 1 2 0 11 22 2 9 18 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 38 76 3 7 21 1 7 21 2 7 21 3 2 6 l 1 3 0 5 15 1 2 6 0 31 93 8 ] 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 9 18 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 10 20 0 0.00% 7.84% 3.95% 8.60% Page 15 of 16 KUPARUK RIVER Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 7/25/2010 8/19/2010 9/22/2010 1/5/2011 1/17/2011 2/4/2011 2/22/2011 4/5/2011 KRU_3S KUPARUK RIVER Sep 01, 2009 - Apr 30, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') 1 2 0 1 2 0 l 2 0 9 18 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 42 84 0 0.00% 2659 5375 283 5.27% Inspectionsl: 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 16 of 16 Combined SVS Test Results Summary PRUDHOE BAY Sep 01, 2009 Through Apr 30, 2011 (Excludes Reason = "Retest") Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/7/2009 1 3 0 11/8/2009 1 3 0 12/7/2009 1 2 0 1/18/2010 22 42 2 3/25/2010 1 2 0 6/29/2010 1 3 1 7/10/2010 10 20 1 7/20/2010 2 4 0 7/25/2010 2 4 0 8/15/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 3 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 9 18 2 1/30/2011 1 3 0 2/2/2011 2 5 1 2/8/2011 1 2 0 2/18/2011 1 2 0 3/1/2011 1 2 1 3/8/2011 2 4 0 3/15/2011 1 2 0 4/5/2011 1 2 0 4/12/2011 2 5 1 MIA 65 135 9 6.67% 1/17/2010 9 27 2 3/12/2010 1 3 0 7/23/2010 10 30 1 1/30/2011 10 28 1 2/2/2011 1 1 0 2/7/2011 1 3 0 2/28/2011 1 1 0 4/16/2011 1 3 0 PBU AGI 34 96 4 4.17% 9/7/2009 l 2 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 10/13/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/7/2009 2 6 1 12/16/2009 2 4 0 1/24/2010 16 32 1 3/13/2010 1 2 1 5/4/2010 2 5 0 5/10/2010 1 2 0 7/20/2010 13 26 0 9/13/2010 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page l of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/6/2010 l 3 0 11/7/2010 1 2 0 11/15/2010 2 4 0 12/5/2010 1 2 0 1/27/2011 12 22 2 2/2/2011 2 4 0 2/22/2011 3 6 0 3/8/2011 1 3 1 3/15/2011 1 2 0 PBU B 66 135 6 4.44% 9/7/2009 15 30 0 9/13/2009 1 2 0 10/6/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 3 6 0 10/13/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 2 4 1 11/9/2009 1 2 0 11/23/2009 1 2 0 11/25/2009 1 2 0 11/30/2009 1 2 0 12/4/2009 12 24 1 1/10/2010 6 12 1 1/17/2010 2 4 0 2/14/2010 1 2 0 3/29/2010 16 32 0 4/6/2010 1 2 0 5/23/2010 2 4 0 6/6/2010 2 4 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 6/29/2010 2 4 0 7/6/2010 1 2 0 7/20/2010 1 2 0 8/10/2010 1 2 0 8/15/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 9/24/2010 15 30 2 10/1/2010 2 4 0 10/9/2010 1 2 0 10/12/2010 2 4 0 10/20/2010 1 2 0 10/26/2010 2 4 0 10/28/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 1 2 0 2/8/2011 1 1 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 2 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_C PBU_D 2/22/2011 3/23/2011 4/3/2011 4/5/2011 4/12/2011 4/25/2011 9/28/2009 10/9/2009 10/20/2009 10/27/2009 11/6/2009 11/23/2009 12/16/2009 4/11/2010 4/19/2010 5/10/2010 5/16/2010 6/7/2010 8/15/2010 9/5/2010 9/20/2010 10/26/2010 10/28/2010 11/15/2010 12/14/2010 12/21/2010 1/29/2011 2/2/2011 3/8/2011 4/9/2011 4/18/2011 9/22/2009 9/25/2009 10/8/2009 10/10/2009 10/16/2009 10/25/2009 10/31/2009 11/6/2009 12/15/2009 1/7/2010 2/14/2010 2/25/2010 3/5/2010 3/15/2010 1 2 0 19 38 2 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 133 265 7 1 2 0 2 4 0 19 38 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 20 40 1 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15 30 1 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 14 28 1 1 2 0 97 194 3 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 9 18 1 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 2.64% 1.55% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 3 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU_DS1 PBU_DSl l 3/25/2010 4/18/2010 4/25/2010 4/27/2010 5/3/2010 5/9/2010 6/13/2010 6/18/2010 7/6/2010 8/23/2010 10/9/2010 11/10/2010 11/16/2010 2/2/2011 2/11/2011 3/14/2011 4/16/2011 10/4/2009 11/10/2009 11/23/2009 12/8/2009 1/18/2010 1/31/2010 3/3/2010 4/18/2010 6/7/2010 10/4/2010 10/23/2010 11/23/2010 12/7/2010 12/17/2010 3/22/2011 4/18/2011 4/26/2011 11/7/2009 5/7/2010 5/29/2010 6/3/2010 10/31/2010 11/8/2010 11/10/2010 12/2/2010 2/22/2011 3/6/2011 4/25/2011 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 l 2 0 1 2 0 15 30 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 4 8 0 1 2 0 16 32 1 1 2 0 2 4 1 77 154 6 3.90% 10 20 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 11 22 0 1 2 0 10 20 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 12 22 1 2 4 0 60 118 4 3.39% 18 36 2 17 34 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 18 36 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 4 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU DS12 61 123 2 1.63% 11/12/2009 1 2 0 2/1/2010 8 16 0 2/13/2010 1 2 0 8/30/2010 5 10 0 8/31/2010 3 6 0 9/4/2010 1 2 0 11/6/2010 1 2 0 2/11/2011 9 18 0 2/19/2011 1 2 0 2/28/2011 1 2 0 PBII DS13 31 62 0 0.00% 9/6/2009 22 44 0 9/13/2009 1 2 0 9/26/2009 1 2 0 10/6/2009 1 2 0 12/8/2009 1 2 0 2/5/2010 1 2 0 3/14/2010 23 46 4 3/18/2010 1 2 0 5/1/2010 2 4 0 8/23/2010 1 2 1 9/26/2010 12 24 0 10/25/2010 5 10 0 10/27/2010 2 4 0 11/6/2010 1 2 0 11/9/2010 2 4 0 11/14/2010 1 3 0 11/15/2010 1 3 0 11/22/2010 1 2 0 11/26/2010 1 2 0 11/30/2010 1 2 0 12/2/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2011 1 2 0 3/7/2011 20 41 3 4/22/2011 2 4 0 4/29/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS14 106 215 8 3.72% 9/19/2009 1 2 0 11/21/2009 19 38 3 12/8/2009 1 2 0 1/15/2010 1 2 0 1/19/2010 1 2 0 1/25/2010 1 2 0 2/1/2010 1 2 0 2/13/2010 1 2 0 Friday June 17, 2011 Page 5 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 4/3/2010 1 2 0 5/11/2010 1 2 0 5/15/2010 17 34 0 6/11/2010 1 2 0 6/13/2010 1 2 0 6/19/2010 2 4 0 7/2/2010 2 4 0 7/11/2010 1 2 0 7/24/2010 3 6 0 7/26/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 2 4 0 9/14/2010 1 2 0 9/26/2010 2 4 0 10/25/2010 1 2 0 11/8/2010 23 46 1 11/22/2010 1 2 0 1/6/2011 1 2 0 2/7/2011 1 2 0 2/19/2011 2 4 0 3/4/2011 1 2 0 3/24/2011 1 2 0 4/7/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS15 93 186 4 2.15% 11/10/2009 16 32 0 3/5/2010 1 2 0 5/7/2010 1 3 0 5/25/2010 15 30 0 7/28/2010 1 2 0 9/14/2010 2 4 0 11/9/2010 14 28 0 11/23/2010 1 3 0 1/10/2011 2 4 0 3/22/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS16 54 110 0 0.00% 9/28/2009 1 2 0 12/10/2009 13 26 0 3/13/2010 1 2 0 4/4/2010 1 2 0 5/7/2010 1 3 0 6/7/2010 15 30 1 11/9/2010 1 3 0 12/7/2010 14 28 0 12/16/2010 1 2 0 PBU DS17 48 98 1 1.02% 9/25/2009 1 2 0 11/23/2009 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 6 of 22 PBU_DS18 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 12/5/2009 8 16 0 12/15/2009 1 2 0 12/25/2009 1 2 0 1/12/2010 1 2 0 1/24/2010 1 2 0 2/14/2010 1 2 0 2/25/2010 4 8 1 3/9/2010 1 2 1 3/12/2010 1 2 1 5/29/2010 2 4 0 6/5/2010 12 24 2 6/18/2010 1 2 0 6/27/2010 1 2 0 7/27/2010 1 2 0 9/19/2010 1 2 0 10/16/2010 1 2 0 11/1/2010 1 2 0 11/10/2010 1 2 0 12/6/2010 11 22 2 12/12/2010 1 2 0 1/1/2011 2 4 0 2/2/2011 1 2 0 2/3/2011 1 2 0 2/10/2011 1 2 0 3/1/2011 I 1 0 3/10/2011 I 2 0 4/10/2011 l 2 0 62 123 7 9/22/2009 21 42 0 10/10/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 10/25/2009 2 4 0 12/11/2009 18 36 1 1/7/2010 1 2 0 2/25/2010 3 6 0 3/9/2010 1 2 0 3/15/2010 26 52 5 6/3/2010 2 4 0 7/24/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 1 2 0 9/10/2010 21 42 1 9/24/2010 2 4 0 9/27/2010 2 4 0 11/29/2010 1 2 1 12/6/2010 1 2 0 3/6/2011 1 2 0 3/11/2011 18 36 1 5.69% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 7 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY 3 0 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 3/12/2011 1 2 0 3/14/2011 2 4 0 3/19/2011 2 4 0 3/27/2011 1 2 0 3/31/2011 1 2 0 4/26/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS2 132 264 9 3.41% PBU_DS3 PBU_DS4 12/22/2009 1/26/2010 4/4/2010 5/2/2010 6/7/2010 7/3/2010 7/28/2010 9/14/2010 10/4/2010 10/23/2010 1/30/2011 2/26/2011 4/18/2011 9/13/2009 9/28/2009 12/10/2009 2/14/2010 3/13/2010 3/30/2010 4/18/2010 5/2/2010 6/1/2010 7/3/2010 8/15/2010 9/14/2010 10/4/2010 10/23/2010 12/7/2010 12/17/2010 2/1/2011 2/19/2011 3/22/2011 4/18/2011 4/30/2011 10/10/2009 10/25/2009 11/6/2009 Friday, June 17, 2011 1 3 0 17 35 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 0 13 26 0 2 4 0 3 7 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 18 37 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 61 129 2 1.55% 6 12 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 6 12 1 4 8 0 2 4 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 8 16 0 3 6 0 1 3 1 2 4 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 10 20 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 57 115 3 2.61% 19 38 0 2 4 1 1 2 0 -- — - _ Page 8 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 12/11/2009 1 2 0 1/7/2010 2 4 0 2/25/2010 1 2 0 3/9/2010 1 2 0 3/12/2010 1 2 0 4/12/2010 16 32 1 4/20/2010 2 4 1 6/3/2010 1 2 0 6/18/2010 1 2 0 7/20/2010 l 2 0 7/27/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 9/10/2010 1 2 0 9/19/2010 1 2 0 9/24/2010 1 2 0 10/16/2010 19 38 1 12/12/2010 1 2 0 1/28/2011 2 4 0 2/10/2011 2 4 0 3/10/2011 1 2 0 3/14/2011 1 2 0 4/10/2011 1 2 0 4/19/2011 16 32 3 PBU DS5 97 194 7 3.61% 11/12/2009 1 2 0 11/21/2009 1 2 0 12/12/2009 14 28 0 12/14/2009 2 4 1 1/15/2010 2 4 0 1/18/2010 1 2 0 4/24/2010 1 2 0 5/11/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 16 32 0 6/8/2010 1 2 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 9/22/2010 1 2 0 10/5/2010 1 2 0 10/27/2010 1 2 1 12/5/2010 17 34 0 12/27/2010 1 2 0 4/4/2011 1 2 1 4/24/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS6 64 128 3 2.34% 10/6/2009 24 48 1 10/25/2009 2 4 0 11/12/2009 1 2 0 1/10/2010 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 9 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 2/9/2010 1 2 0 4/4/2010 18 36 0 4/6/2010 4 8 0 4/9/2010 1 2 0 5/1/2010 1 2 0 6/12/2010 1 2 0 6/17/2010 1 2 0 6/19/2010 1 2 0 7/2/2010 2 4 0 8/13/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 2 4 0 10/5/2010 21 42 2 10/31/2010 1 2 0 11/9/2010 I 2 0 11/26/2010 1 2 0 2/9/2011 2 4 0 4/4/2011 22 44 1 4/22/2011 1 2 0 PBU DS7 110 220 4 1.82% 9/20/2009 16 32 3 9/28/2009 4 9 0 10/4/2009 2 4 0 11/10/2009 1 2 0 12/22/2009 3 6 0 3/3/2010 1 2 0 3/5/2010 10 20 0 3/10/2010 1 3 0 3/30/2010 3 6 2 4/18/2010 2 4 0 5/16/2010 1 2 0 6/7/2010 1 2 0 7/3/2010 3 6 0 9/14/2010 16 32 1 10/23/2010 2 5 1 11/23/2010 1 2 0 12/7/2010 1 2 0 1/30/2011 3 6 0 3/8/2011 15 31 0 PBU DS9 86 176 7 3.98% 10/4/2009 19 38 2 10/13/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/25/2009 1 2 0 12/4/2009 1 2 0 12/27/2009 1 2 0 2/1/2010 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 10 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures 2/28/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 3/25/2010 1 2 0 4/11/2010 1 2 0 4/16/2010 20 40 0 4/26/2010 2 3 l 5/10/2010 1 2 0 5/16/2010 2 4 0 6/6/2010 2 4 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 1 2 0 8/5/2010 1 2 0 10/19/2010 18 36 0 10/26/2010 2 4 0 11/7/2010 2 4 0 11/15/2010 2 4 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 2 4 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 3 6 0 3/1/2011 1 2 0 3/30/2011 I 2 0 4/15/2011 23 46 3 PBU E 117 233 6 9/18/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 10/27/2009 l 2 0 11/6/2009 1 2 0 11/25/2009 1 2 0 12/11/2009 19 38 1 1/10/2010 1 2 0 1/24/2010 1 2 0 2/9/2010 1 2 0 2/16/2010 1 2 0 2/23/2010 1 2 0 3/7%2010 1 2 0 3/13/2010 2 4 0 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/11/2010 1 2 0 4/19/2010 1 2 0 6/15/2010 20 40 1 8/5/2010 1 2 0 8/15/2010 1 2 0 8/18/2010 1 2 0 9/13/2010 5 to 0 9/29/2010 l 2 0 Fail Rate 2.58% Friday June 17, 2011 Page 1 l of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 10/6/2010 1 2 0 11/2/2010 2 4 0 12./19/2010 22 43 5 1/4/2011 1 2 0 2/8/2011 1 2 0 2/22/2011 2 4 0 3/1/2011 1 2 0 3/8/2011 2 4 0 3/13/2011 22 44 2 3/25/2011 2 4 1 3/30/2011 1 2 0 4/25/2011 1 2 0 PBU F 122 243 10 4.12% 9/21/2009 15 30 0 10/4/2009 1 2 0 10/6/2009 2 4 0 10/13/2009 1 2 0 10/20/2009 1 2 0 11/11/2009 1 2 0 11/30/2009 1 2 0 12/22/2009 1 2 0 12/27/2009 1 2 0 3/18/2010 12 24 1 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/26/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 3 6 0 5/16/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 1 2 0 8/15/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 9/5/2010 1 2 0 9/21/2010 11 22 0 9/29/2010 2 4 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 10/20/2010 3 6 0 10/26/2010 3 6 0 10/28/2010 1 2 0 11/15/2010 1 2 0 12/14/2010 1 2 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 1/29/2011 1 2 0 3/18/2011 14 28 0 3/30/2011 1 2 0 4/4/2011 1 2 0 4/25/2011 1 2 0 PBU G 88 176 1 9/8/2009 13 26 0.57% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 12 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 9/9/2009 9/13/2009 10/9/2009 11/6/2009 11/11/2009 1/10/2010 1/17/2010 3/12/2010 4/6/2010 4/19/2010 4/22/2010 7/25/2010 9/10/2010 9/13/2010 9/20/2010 10/6/2010 1/4/2011 3/1/2011 3/14/2011 3/20/2011 4/12/2011 4/18/2011 4/25/2011 PBU 11 9/9/2009 10/13/2009 11/3/2009 11/11/2009 5/16/2010 6/7/2010 7/18/2010 7/25/2010 9/5/2010 9/13/2010 10/6/2010 11/21/2010 11/24/2010 12/5/2010 3/1/2011 3/25/2011 PBU J 9/6/2009 9/9/2009 9/18/2009 9/28/2009 2/16/2010 3/7/2010 3 6 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 19 38 3 3 6 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 17 33 1 2 4 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 17 34 3 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 97 193 8 4.15% 1 2 1 1 2 0 16 32 0 1 2 0 13 26 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15 30 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 60 120 2 1.67% 6 12 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 8 16 0 1 2 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 13 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 3/18/2010 1 2 0 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/11/2010 1 2 0 6/6/2010 1 2 0 8/23/2010 9 18 0 10/6/2010 1 2 0 10/26/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 1 2 0 2/18/2011 6 12 1 3/8/2011 2 4 0 3/15/2011 3 6 0 4/4/2011 1 2 0 PBU K 48 96 1 1.04% 9/9/2009 1 3 1 11/23/2009 2 6 0 11/27/2009 18 36 0 11/30/2009 1 2 0 12/4/2009 1 2 0 12/28/2009 1 3 1 1/10/2010 1 3 0 2/16/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 2 5 0 4/22/2010 1 2 0 5/4/2010 1 3 0 5/23/2010 23 50 0 6/6/2010 1 3 0 6/29/2010 3 7 0 8/29/2010 2 5 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 11/23/2010 13 26 0 11/24/2010 1 3 1 12/13/2010 1 2 0 12/21/2010 3 6 0 1/28/2011 1 2 0 3/9/2011 6 16 2 PBU L 85 1.89 5 2.65% 10/11/2009 4 12 0 11/27/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 1 3 0 4/4/2010 4 12 0 5/2/2010 1 3 0 10/15/2010 3 9 0 10/16/2010 1 3 0 10/29/2010 1 3 0 1/22/2011 1 3 0 4/12/2011 4 12 1 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 14 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU LI5 Ll 21 63 1 1.59% 10/11/2009 5 12 0 11/27/2009 1 2 0 12/16/2009 1 3 1 4/4/2010 3 7 0 5/29/2010 1 2 0 9/13/2010 1 2 0 10/15/2010 3 9 1 1/3/2011 1 3 0 1/23/2011 1 3 0 2/7/2011 1 3 0 4/12/2011 3 7 0 PBU LIS L2 21 53 2 3.77% 10/11/2009 4 12 2 11/16/2009 1 3 0 4/4/2010 4 12 0 9/13/2010 1 3 0 10/15/2010 4 12 1 10/18/2010 1 3 0 10/30/2010 1 3 0 4/12/2011 5 15 0 4/26/2011 1 3 0 PBU LIS L3 22 66 3 4.55% 10/6/2009 1 2 0 10/11/2009 1 2 0 10/18/2009 1 3 0 3/23/2010 1 2 0 4/4/2010 2 5 0 10/14/2010 1 2 0 10/31/2010 1 3 0 11/9/2010 1 2 0 3/28/2011 1 2 0 4/12/2011 2 4 0 4/23/2011 4 8 2 PBU LIS L4 16 35 2 5.71% 9/28/2009 1 3 0 10/12/2009 2 6 0 10/18/2009 4 12 0 10/27/2009 1 3 0 11/16/2009 1 3 1 12/9/2009 2 6 0 1/24/2010 1 3 0 2/22/2010 1 3 0 4/3/2010 4 12 1 4/27/2010 1 3 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 15 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 5/30/2010 5/31/2010 10/14/2010 10/30/2010 1/23/2011 1/24/2011 1/26/2011 4/12/2011 PBU_LIS_L5 10/13/2009 4/25/2010 7/7/2010 9/13/2010 10/19/2010 10/29/2010 4/12/2011 PBU_I.IS_LGI PBU_M 9/9/2009 9/27/2009 11/9/2009 11/10/2009 11/23/2009 11/30/2009 12/16/2009 5/25/2010 6/30/2010 7/25/2010 8/5/2010 8/10/2010 11/22/2010 11/24/2010 12/13/2010 1/28/2011 3/9/2011 9/13/2009 9/29/2009 11/6/2009 12/16/2009 2/14/2010 3/12/2010 4/19/2010 8/14/2010 8/30/2010 9/5/2010 9/10/2010 1 3 1 3 3 9 2 6 l 3 1 3 1 3 7 21 35 105 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 1 3 2 6 11 33 1 2 1 2 11 22 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 24 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 12 24 1 2 4 8 1 2 1 2 57 114 3 6 1 3 1 2 I 2 15 30 1 2 1 2 12 24 2 4 1 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 6 5.71% 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3.03% 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.88% 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 16 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY 1 3 0 9/22/2009 Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 3/4/2011 15 30 2 1 3/20/2011 1 3 0 0 4/18/2011 1 2 0 4/22/2010 PBU N 57 116 4 3.45% 1/14/2010 10 30 0 3 1/17/2010 2 6 0 0 1/24/2010 1 3 0 PBU P 2/14/2010 1 3 0 9 7/24/2010 12 36 2 3 7/27/2010 2 6 0 0 1/27/2011 13 39 2 3/14/2010 3/10/2011 1 2 0 8 4/10/2011 1 1 0 4/28/2011 2 6 0 PBU NGI 45 132 4 3.03% 10/13/2009 10 30 1 10/18/2009 1 3 1 10/27/2009 2 6 0 11/2/2009 1 3 0 4/3/2010 7 21 1 4/6/2010 2 6 0 5/2/2010 1 3 0 9/20/2010 1 3 0 10/14/2010 9 27 0 2/18/2011 1 3 0 4/8/2011 9 27 0 PBU NIAKUK 44 132 3 2.27% 9/13/2009 1 3 0 9/22/2009 14 28 0 9/28/2009 2 4 1 10/13/2009 1 1 1 3/9/2010 16 32 0 3/18/2010 1 3 0 4/22/2010 1 3 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 8/29/2010 1 3 0 9/29/2010 18 37 0 3/30/2011 18 36 0 PBU P 74 152 2 1.32% 10/9/2009 9 27 0 11/10/2009 1 3 0 11/16/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 1 3 0 3/14/2010 1 3 0 4/12%2010 8 24 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 17 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 4/25/2010 4/30/2010 5/16/2010 5/22/2010 9/3/2010 9/22/2010 10/16/2010 10/29/2010 11/11/2010 12/6/2010 1/3/2011 4/9/2011 4/11/2011 4/23/2011 PBU_PT_MAC_P1 10/10/2009 10/27/2009 11/2/2009 11/16/2009 11/27/2009 12/6/2009 12/22/2009 1/27/2010 3/14/2010 3/23/2010 4/13/2010 4/15/2010 5/8/2010 5/18/2010 5/30/2010 8/23/2010 8/30/2010 9/13/2010 10/9/2010 10/10/2010 10/31/2010 11/8/2010 12/20/2010 2/7/2011 2/17/2011 3/14/2011 4/9/2011 4/23/2011 4/26/2011 PBU PT MAC P2 11/3/2009 11/27/2009 I I 1 1 1 i 1 8 1 2 1 1 7 1 49 29 l 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 28 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 25 7 1 1 2 1 1 1 26 2 9 154 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 24 3 6 3 3 18 3 142 87 3 3 3 6 6 3 3 3 1 83 6 3 3 6 3 3 6 74 21 3 3 6 3 3 3 78 6 27 458 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 1 0 0.70% 2.40% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 18 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 1/5/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 5/10/2010 6 12 0 9/5/2010 1 2 1 11/21/2010 3 6 0 1/4/2011 2 4 0 3/20/2011 1 2 0 3/25/2011 1 2 0 PBU_Q 20 40 2 5.00% 9/9/2009 4 8 1 9/13/2009 2 4 0 11/30/2009 2 4 0 12/21/2009 16 32 0 6/30/2010 9 18 1 7/2/2010 1 2 0 7/25/2010 3 6 0 9/10/2010 1 2 0 10/1/2010 1 2 0 12/13/2010 12 24 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 3/1/2011 2 4 0 4/3/2011 1 2 0 PBU R 55 110 2 9/9/2009 4 8 0 9/13/2009 3 6 0 9/18/2009 1 2 0 9/29/2009 3 8 1 9/30/2009 1 2 0 10/4/2009 1 2 0 10/9/2009 1 2 0 10/26/2009 2 4 0 11/23/2009 2 4 0 11/27/2009 2 6 0 12/16/2009 1 2 1 12/21/2009 1 3 0 1/17/2010 2 4 0 2/16/2010 25 50 0 3/7/2010 1 3 0 3/20/2010 1 2 0 4/26/2010 1 3 0 5/4/2010 2 6 0 5/16/2010 1 2 0 6/15/2010 1 2 0 6/29/2010 1 2 0 7/18/2010 1 2 0 8/30/2010 28 59 2 10/16/2010 1 3 1 1.82% Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 19 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 11/7/2010 1 2 0 11/24/2010 2 6 1 12/21/2010 1 2 0 3/2/2011 22 44 1 3/9/2011 2 5 0 3/20/2011 1 3 0 3/25/2011 1 2 0 4/5/2011 3 6 0 4/25/2011 1 2 0 PBU S 121 259 7 2.70% 10/12/2009 2 4 0 11/23/2009 1 2 0 12/16/2009 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 2 0 4/6/2010 3 6 0 6/6/2010 1 2 1 7/25/2010 1 2 0 10/6/2010 2 4 0 12/21/2010 1 2 0 3/1/2011 1 2 0 3/9/2011 1 2 0 4/3/2011 4 8 0 PBL U 19 38 1 2.63% 10/12/2009 18 36 0 10/26/2009 2 6 0 11/23/2009 5 14 0 11/27/2009 1 2 0 12/29/2009 1 3 0 1/10/2010 2 6 0 3/1/2010 1 2 0 3/7/2010 1 3 0 4/19/2010 20 40 1 4/22/2010 1 3 1 4/26/2010 1 3 0 6/29/2010 2 6 0 8/29/2010 1 2 0 10/10/2010 26 58 2 10/23/2010 2 5 0 11/7/2010 1 2 0 12/13/2010 1 3 0 12/21/2010 1 3 0 3/5/2011 2 5 0 4/29/2011 2 6 0 4/30/2011 8 19 0 PBU V 99 227 4 1.76% 9/9/2009 4 9 2 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 20 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate PBU W PBU_W GI PBU X 9/29/2009 10/13/2009 10/14/2009 11/23/2009 1/17/2010 1/31/2010 3/7/2010 3/12/2010 4/22/2010 5/4/2010 6!28/2010 7/10/2010 7/20/2010 9/20/2010 11/7/2010 11/24/2010 12/5/2010 1/30/2011 3/5/2011 4/3/2011 1/14/2010 7/22/2010 1/27/2011 1/30/2011 4/26/2011 12/6/2009 12/7/2009 4/6/2010 6/7/2010 6/29/2010 8/10/2010 8/29/2010 12/5/2010 12/14/2010 1/4/2011 9/6/2009 9/9/2009 9/13/2009 11/25/2009 12/22/2009 2/16/2010 2/23/2010 4/26/2010 2 6 1 2 2 6 1 2 27 53 2 4 2 6 2 4 1 3 2 6 3 8 29 58 2 4 1 2 1 2 5 15 1 2 22 44 5 10 4 8 119 254 8 24 7 21 6 18 1 3 1 3 23 69 21 42 1 2 1 2 17 34 3 6 1 2 1 2 20 40 1 2 1 2 67 134 12 24 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 2 10 21 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 12 4.72% 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.45% 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2.99% 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 21 of 22 PRUDHOE BAY Date Tested Tests Components Failures Fail Rate 5/4/2010 7/11/2010 7/25/2010 8/24/2010 9/5/2010 10/20/2010 11/15/2010 2/8/2011 2/18/2011 3/1/2011 4/25/2011 PBU Y 9/9/2009 10/9/2009 10/26/2009 11/6/2009 11/11/2009 11/23/2009 12/19/2009 1/31/2010 2/1/2010 4/19/2010 5/4/2010 6/30/2010 7/18/2010 7/25/2010 8/29/2010 9/20/2010 10/1/2010 10/16/2010 11/24/2010 12/5/2010 1/28/2011 3/5/2011 3/20/2011 4/3/2011 4/5/2011 4/25/2011 PBU Z PRUDHOE BAY Sep 01, 2009 - Apr 30, 2011 (Excludes Reason = 'Retest') — 1 2 0 1 3 0 2 4 0 14 30 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 9 18 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 2 6 1 62 133 4 3.01% 4 8 0 1 2 0 3 7 0 1 2 0 I 2 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 19 38 2 1 2 0 2 4 0 2 5 0 1 2 0 14 28 0 1 2 0 3 6 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 15 30 0 3 6 0 2 4 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 84 171 2 1.17% 3486 7526 209 2.78% Inspectionsl : 2a) SVT Combined Results, Sel Date and Field Friday, June 17, 2011 Page 22 of 22 Page 1 of 1 Regg, James B (DOA) From: ALP Ops Maint Supt [alp1167@conocophillips.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 3:26 PM To: Regg, James B (DOA) Cc: Hinchcliff, Ray S; Schneider, Tim S.; ALP DS Lead and Simops Coord; NSK Well Integrity Proj; NSK Prod Engr Specialist; Fullmer, Barbara F (LDZX); Wheatall, Michael; Kanady, Randall B Subject: Alpine CD2 -467 SSSV Attachments: 2011-2-3 AOGCC Notification CD2-467.pdf Jim - In follow up to our conversation earlier today, attached is a letter regarding the missing injection valve from Qannik water injection well, CD2 -467. Please give me a call or e-mail with any further information needs. Thank you, Warren Dobson Alpine Operations/Maintenance Superintendent 907-670-4021 3/15/2011 March 2, 2011 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 333 W 7th Ave, Suite 100 Anchorage AK 99501 Attention: Mr. Jim Regg, Petroleum Engineer Re: SSSV - CD2 -467 Colville River Field — Qannik Pool Mr. Regg: Ray S. Hinchcliff Manager WNS Operations ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. 700 G Street, ATO 1720 Anchorage, AK 99501 907-263-4464 This letter is to inform the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission that during a slickline operation preparing the CD2 -467 well in the Colville River Field — Qannik Pool for e -line work, it was discovered that an SSSV had not been installed. This situation was remedied as soon as circumstances allowed. Below is a brief outline of events and the corrective actions taken to remedy the situation along with steps taken to ensure other injectors are in compliance. Please let us know if any further action is needed regarding this well. Summary of Events: On February 24, 2011, a slick line unit was dispatched to CD2 -467 to prep the well for e -line by pulling the Al injection valve. The slick line operator reported that when the well was entered, there was no Al present. The last time the well was entered was by e -line on September 14, 2008, for a water flow log. The CD2 -467 well was completed on August 9, 2008. In a standard injector, the procedure is for an Al injection valve to be set by slickline as part of the post rig well work. In the case of the CD2 -467 well, a cement bond log was not run during drilling operations and a follow up water flow log was required by the AOGCC to demonstrate that injection was confined to the approved interval. Injection began on September 12, 2008 to allow the well to stabilize prior to the water flow log. The Al was not run in order to accommodate the required water flow log. The water flow log was performed on September 14, 2008. An Al injection valve was not run after the water flow log was performed. The Well Commissioning Checklist that was used by Alpine operations to ensure CD2 -467 was ready for service referenced "hydraulic safety systems checked and operational'. Al style SSSV injection valves do not require any surface mounted hydraulic systems. As a result, the checklist did not clearly remind the commissioning operators to check for a functioning SSSV. The non-standard well work, the long time lag between when the well was completed and when the valve could have been set (after the water flow log), the well already being on injection at the time of the flow test, and the lack of specificity on the commissioning checklist appear to be the factors that contributed to the missing Al being overlooked. To remedy the situation, the CD2 -467 well was shut in and freeze protected as soon as weather conditions allowed as the conditions were Phase 3 at Alpine at the time. An Al injection valve was installed and a positive SSSV test obtained on February 26, 2011. The well was returned to service on February 27, 2011. A summary timeline on the recent events is provided below: • The missing Al was discovered the night of February 24, 2011 by slickline • Phase 3 conditions began February 25, 2011 • Phase 3 conditions ended February 26, 2011 Mr. Jim Regg Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission March 2, 2011 Page 2 • Well shut-in and freeze protected on February 26, 2011 • Al set on February 27, 2011, tested (Passed) and returned to injection Corrective Actions: As a precaution, the SSSV status of other Qannik injectors in the field have been reviewed and the remaining injectors are all in compliance. Alpine safety valve system (SVS) monitoring has been improved over the past two years. The changes are noted below: 1. All SVS that are out of compliance are placed on the Safety Defeat Log (SDL). The Log is carried on the automated system for Operators and Superintendents to review daily. 2. Automated system (IP21) that is used as the interface to control and monitor the Alpine wells has a red flashing box that appears when an Alpine well has a Defeated Safety Device. 3. The Automated SDL is programmed to send out emails to the Drill Site Lead operator and responsible production engineer when ever there is an SVS on the SDL for more than 8 days (14 days allowed) and will continue to send out the email daily for the affected well until repairs have been made and the well is removed from the SDL. Current action items to prevent this type of event from occurring again in the future are: 1. For new wells: A Start -Up checklist did not previously address non -hydraulic controlled SSSV wells (Injectors). A checklist item regarding an "Injection valve in place" was added as a result of the CD2 -467 finding. 2. New well head signs will be made stating "SSSV REMOVED" and will be hung on the well as soon as the well is turned over to Operations from the Drilling Department. A sign with this wording is currently used when an SSSV is removed for well work. 3. Well operating guidelines have been reviewed with operators currently on the North Slope and the review will be carried over to the operators during the work rotation. In summary, it was discovered during routine well work that a SSSV was not present in the CD2 -467 well in the Colville River Field — Qannik Pool, and the situation was remedied as soon as circumstances allowed. No problems with the well occurred during the time between when the flow log was run and the omission was discovered and remedied. If there are questions or you wish to request additional information, please contact Warren Dobson or Mike Lyden at 907-670-4021. Sincerely, J cc: Helene Harding, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Paul Dubuisson, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Michael Wheatall, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Randall Kanady, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Warren Dobson, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Michael Lyden, ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Page 1 of 1 Regg, James B (DOA) From: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:08 PM' �� 21 t ro: NSK Prod Engr Specialist Cc: Regg, James B (DOA) Subject: RE: KRU 2B Bob, We do have two reports submitted for May 2010, the Pad test dated 05/07/2010 (9 wells, 18 components, 2 failures) and the Misc. test dated 05/31/2010 (1 well, 2 components, 0 failures). Phoebe Brooks Statistical Technician II Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Phone: 907-793-1242 Fax: 907-276-7542 From: NSK Prod Engr Specialist [mailto:n1139@conocophillips.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 20119:59 AM To: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) Cc: Goltz, Jon K (LDZX); NSK Prod Engr & Optimization Supv Subject: RE: KRU 2B Phoebe, am currently reviewing the SVS Test Results on 2B Pad during May, 2010. Our records indicate we tested 10 wells, 20 components, with 2 failures. The resulting failure rate equals 10.0%. 1 am requesting verification that your database reflects the same information. If not, please forward your test result records 'by well), so we can reconcile any differences that may exist. Thank you, Bob Christensen / Darrell Humphrey NSK Production Engineering Specialist ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. Kuparuk Office: 907.659.7535 Kuparuk Pager: 659.7000; #924 CPAI Internal Mail: NSK-69 This email may contain confidential information. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. From: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) [mailto:phoebe.brooks@alaska.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 20118:36 AM To: NSK Prod Engr Specialist Subject: KRU 2B Bob, Jim is out of the office until tomorrow; do you mind emailing me your question/request? Thank you, Phoebe Phoebe Brooks ,tatistical Technician 11 daska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Phone: 907-793-1242 Fax: 907-276-7542 7/28/2011 Page 1 of 2 Regg, James B (DOA) From: Regg, James B (DOA) Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:35 PM ro: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) Subject: RE: KRU 2B You should acknowledge that we do have the May 31, 2010 miscellaneous test of 2 SVS components on KRU 213-02 but do not offer any interpretation of what that means to the overall decisions made by the Commission. Jim Regg AOGCC 333 W.7th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501 907-793-1236 From: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:35 AM To: Regg, James B (DOA) Subject: FW: KRU 2B Jim, It looks like there was an additional Misc. test for 213-02 dated 5/31/10, the Indefinite/Defeated SVS letter was dated 5/21/10 (using just the pad test results dated 5/7/10). I'll look into the August 2010 gists. Phoebe Brooks Statistical Technician 11 Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Phone: 907-793-1242 Fax: 907-276-7542 From: NSK Prod Engr Specialist [mailto:n1139@conocophillips.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 20119:59 AM To: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) Cc: Goltz, Jon K (LDZX); NSK Prod Engr & Optimization Supv Subject: RE: KRU 2B Phoebe, I am currently reviewing the SVS Test Results on 2B Pad during May, 2010. Our records indicate we tested 10 wells, 20 components, with 2 failures. The resulting failure rate equals 10.0%. 1 am requesting verification that your database reflects the same information. If not, please forward your test result records (by well), so we can reconcile any differences that may exist. Thank you, Bob Christensen / Darrell Humphrey NSK Production Engineering Specialist mocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. ,uparuk Office: 907.659.7535 Kuparuk Pager: 659.7000; #924 CPAI Internal Mail: NSK-69 7/27/2011 Page 2 of 2 This email may contain confidential information. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. From: Brooks, Phoebe L (DOA) [mailto:phoebe.brooks@alaska.gov] lent: Tuesday, July 26, 20118:36 AM .o: NSK Prod Engr Specialist Subject: KRU 2B :•. Jim is out of the office until tomorrow; do you mind emailing me your question/request? Thank you, Phoebe Phoebe Brooks Statistical Technician II Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Phone: 907-793-1242 Fax: 907-276-7542 7/27/2011 Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test R Pad: KRU_2B Insp Dt 5/31/2010 Inspected by Interval InspNo SVSOP000008064 Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Somaduroff / Well Data Pilots SSV SSSV Shutln Dt Well Type Well Pressures Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oil,WAG,GINJ, Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI PSI PSI PSI P P GINJ 213-02 1841220 2000 2000 Comments Tuesday, July 26, 2011 Page 1 of 1 Gas Lift Yes/No Yes/No Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 1 2 0 Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test Report Pad: KRU_2B Insp Dt 5/7/2010 Inspected by Chuck Scheve Interval 90 Days InspNo sysCS100508070631 Related Insp: SVSOP000008031 Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC Operator Rep Mike Reason 90 -Day Src: Inspector --��----- �---- Well Data Pilots I SSV SSSV Shutln Dt Well Type Well Pressures Gas LO I Waiver I Comments Well Permit Separ Set UP Test Test Test Date SI Oil,WAG,GINJ, Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCLE, SI PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes/No 213-01 1841150 i100 70 70 10 P 1 1 -OIL L Pilot was found defeated at the panel. Worked properly when placed in service. 213-03A T 00 203009 10 70 68 P P 1 -OIL �— ii 213-04 j 213-09 — -- 1841200 1840270 1001 70 2000 70 1920 P P P P 1 -OIL WAGIN - I 2B-10 1840290 200 1890 P P WAGIN 213-12 1840380 2000 2000 P P WAGIN 213-14 1841110 100 70 68 P P 1 -OIL j 2B-15 1841130 100 70 64 P P 1 -OIL I 1 213-16 1841140 j100 70 65 P 4 1 -OIL SSV had slow leak when pressure tested. Comments Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 9 18 2 11.11% Tuesday, July 26, 2011 Page I of 1 Jr 1 .A , l fl) q , v ASUNILIAL May 21, 2010 CERTIFIED MAIL — RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7009 2250 0004 39114924 Mr. Paul Dubuisson NS Operations Manager ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P. O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 Sub}ect: Defeated SVS at KRU 213-01 Dear Mr. Dubuisson: SEAN PARNELL, GOVERNOR 333 W. 7th AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3539 PHONE (907) 279-1433 FAX (907)276-7542 On May 7, 2010 an Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Commission) Inspector accompanied by a ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. (CPAI) representative performed safety valve system (SVS) inspections at Kuparuk River Unit (KRU) pad 2B. The low pressure pilot on Well 213-01 (PTD 1841150) had been defeated some time prior to the inspection. A copy of the inspection report is attached. The facts reported by the Commission's Inspector indicate a failure to maintain an operable SVS, which would be a violation of State regulations. Within 14 days of receipt of this letter, you are requested to provide the Commission with an explanation of how this event happened and what has or will be done in the future to prevent its occurrence in CPAI-operated fields. The inspection of KRU 213-01 revealed that the low pressure pilot was defeated at the SVS control panel. You are reminded that Conservation Order 348, Rule 5 modifies the requirements of 20 AAC 25.265 (Automatic Shut-in Equipment) as follows: a. Each well shall be equipped with a Commission approved fail-safe automatic surface safety valve system (SVS) capable of preventing uncontrolled flow by shutting {off flow at the wellhead and shutting down any artificial lift system where an over pressure of equipment may occur. b. The safety valve system (SVS) shall not be deactivated except during repairs, while engaged in active well work, or if ' the pad is manned. If the SVS cannot be returned to service within 24 hours, the well must be shut in at the well head and at the manifold building. 1. Wells with a deactivated SVS shall he identified by a sign on the wellhead stating that the SVS has been deactivated and the date it was deactivated. Mr. Dubuisson May 21, 2010 Page 2 of 3 2, A list of wells with the SVS deactivated, the dates and reasons fior deactivating, and the estimated re -activation dates roust be maintained current and available for Commission inspection on request. Also noted during the testing was a SVS component failure rate of 11.2 percent (9 wells; 18 components; 2 failures). By letter dated February 19, 2010 the Commission placed KRU 2B on a 90 -day SVS test interval. CPAI is directed to continue testing well SVS at KRU 213 at intervals not to exceed 90 days between tests until the Commission determines an acceptable level of performance has been achieved. When testing is scheduled, CPAI must notify the Commission Field Inspector (907-659-2714) at least 48 hours in advance to provide an opportunity to witness the SVS test. The Commission reserves the right to pursue enforcement action in connection with the KRU 213-01 defeated SVS as provided by 20 AAC 25.535. Sincerely, 01-� Daniel T. Seamount, Jr. Chair Attachment cc: P. Brooks, AOGCC AOGCC Inspectors Production Engineering Specialist — NSK 69 ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, AK 99510-0360 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL NOTICE As provided in AS 31.05.080(x), within 20 days after written notice of the entry of this order or 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 of the matter determined by it. If the notice was mailed, then the period of time shall be 23 days. An application for reconsideration must set out the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. The Commission shall grant or refuse the application for reconsideration in whole or in part within 10 days after it is riled Failure to act on it within 10 -days is a denial of reconsideration. If the Commission denies reconsideration, upon denial, this order or decision and the denial of reconsideration are FINAL and may be appealed to superior court. The appeal MUST be tiled within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes, the order or decision denying reconsideration, UNLESS the denial is by inaction, in which case the appeal MUST be tiled within 40 days after the date on which the application for reconsideration was tiled. If the Commission grants an application for reconsideration, this order or decision does not become final. Rather, the order or decision on reconsideration will be the FINAL. order or decision of the*Commission, and it may be appealed to superior court. 'that appeal MUST be filed within 33 days after the date on which the Commission mails, OR 30 days if the Commission otherwise distributes, the order or decision on Mr. Dubuisson May 21, 2010 Page 3 of 3 reconsideration. As provided in AS 31.05.080(b), -[t]he questions reviewed on appeal are limited to the questions presented to the Commission by the application for reconsideration." In computing a period of time above, the date of the event or default after which the designated period begins to run is not included in the period; the last day of the period is included, unless it falls on a weekend or state holiday, in which event the period runs until 5:00 p.m. on the next day that does not Fall on a weekend or state holiday. b1CC Z l �f a i�fiCi, cs�- �' C�.trL�ss� �-,� tv►� C-I-CtiEs 1E-+�v) C kAZ.,P, lia O(t� S . C. Pam lei f v a uez '� u2 iw� Reviei+ru dv: Safety Valve & Well Pressures Test Report P.I.Supry Comm Pad: KRU_28 InspDt: 5/7!2010 Inspected by Chuck Scheve Interval InspNo sysCS100508070631 Related Insp: Field Name KUPARUK RIVER Operator CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA INC operator Rep Mike Reason 90 -Day Sre: Inspector F_— Well Data Pilots SSV SSSV Shutln Dt Well Type I Well Pressures Gas Lift Waiver Comments Well Permit Separ Set UP Test rest Test Date SI OiLWAG,GIN), Inner Outer Tubing Number Number PSI PSI Trip Code Code Code GAS,CYCL.E, SI PSI PSI PSI Yes/No Yes/No 213-01 1841150 100 1 70 1 70 1 10 1 P 1 -OIL Pilot was found defeated at tlx: panel. Worked propefi, when placed in service. 211-03A 2030090 100 70 68 P P 1 -OIL 213-04 1841200 100 70 70 P P 1 -OIL 213-09 1840270 2000 1920 P P WAGIN 213-10 1840290 200 1890 P P WAGIN 213-12 1840380 2000 2000 P P WAGIN 213-14 1841110 100 70 68 P P 1-011- 213-15 1841130 100 70 64 P P I -OIL 213- 16 1841140 100 70 65 P 4 1 -OIL SSV had slow leak when pressure tested. Comments Performance Wells Components Failures Failure Rate 9 18 2 11.11% Tuesday, May 18. 2010