The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5 Exhibits 4A - 4ZEXHIBIT _Fr_ed_J_a_rm_a_n ____________________________________ .,.IA.4AJr .,m: _nt: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Thomas Sisneros <tesisneros@q.com> Sunday, October 25, 2015 10:26 PM Fred Jarman Website inquiry -Community Development FollowUp Flagged Thomas Sisneros has sent you a message: Special Use Permit for Gas Drilling in Battlement Mesa PUD 970-285-5626 To: Fred Jarman We are including some comments regarding the Special Use Permit for gas well drilling in the Battlement Mesa PUD. We hope that these comments can be considered in the discussion at the meeting of October 28. One subject that has not received much attention in discussing Ursa's proposed gas wells is the effect on property values in Battlement Mesa . When we moved to here i n 1998, Battlement Mesa was advertised as an ideal retirement community and promoted as such in national publications. However, with the proposals and plans for gas wells in the community, it is no longer a desirable retirement community and this affects property values and sale of properties in Battlement Mesa . Many residents, who have lived here as long as we have, are approaching a time when it may be necessary to sell their property because of age and medical problems. Selling a property here can be a problem because not many prospective ' · •yers are interested i n buying where there will be ongoing gas well drilling activity for many years. This can result in .. ving to sell at a reduced price. At the meeting on September 23, Mr. Simpson of Ursa stated that property values in Battlement Mesa were up in 2006 and were increasing this year. What he did not mention is that values dropped precipitously between 2009 and 2013 before starting to return to values similar to those of the early 2000's. As an example, a home in our cul-de-sac (65 Lupine Lane) sold for $312,000 in 2007, then recently sat empty for more than a year before selling for $178,000 in late 2014. Consequently, many residents of Battlement Mesa are concerned about the effect of drilling in the PUD on their property values. We realize that Ursa has the mineral rights to access the gas underlying Battlement Mesa; however, most if not all of the gas can be accessed from outside the PUD using current technology. Should the investment that Battlement Mesa residents have in their property be sacrificed so that Ursa can get a maximum return on its investment? We believe that Ursa can get a good return on its investment without drilling in the PUD . Sincerely, Thomas & Roberta Sisneros 66 Lupine Lane Parachute, CO l EXHIBIT 1,.,.a --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Jarman ·?m: .:nt: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Jarman, Carson Lucas <cclkel103@hotmail.com> Sunday, October 25, 2015 5:51 PM Fred Jarman Nancy Payne; Kirby Wynn Battlement Mesa PUD Drilling BMC B Pad I read Olsson Associates' October 20, 2015, response to Mr. Robert Arrington's October 3, 2015, "Analysis of Geological Hazard Report with Consideration of Supporting Pipelines". All following references refer to Olsson Associates' response as presented in Exhibit PPP in the on line October 28, 2015, agenda for the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners' meeting. As stated by Olsson Associates' report: Page 3 - A site visit was beyond the scope of work requested by Ursa. Page 3 -At the time of the Report the BMC B Pad site development was reportedly a production well pad site and available materials, maps and relevant information were provided by Ursa. Page 4 -The WPX Energy pipeline leak/pipeline failure ... was publicly reported •.. as a result of a faulty valve. Page 4 -Automatic closure valves may also be considered as proper installation and design but are not relevant to a natural and geological hazard report. ~,ge 6 -Information was not provided to Olsson indicating BMC B Pad well was an injection well site. Construction of _,ch facilities would require additional analysis. Page 6 -Further ground tests were beyond scope of work requested of the Report. I believe Olsson Associates are disavowing responsibility for several issues due to Ursa limiting the engagement scope and Ursa's inability to provide complete information. It is apparent to me Ursa lacks transparency and is intent on pursuing the most financially advantageous path and continues to aggressively push for approval of the drilling plan which will deliver the quickest results regardless of the impact to Battlement Mesa residents. I sincerely hope Mr. Jarman, even as the Community Development Director, that you do not recommend Ursa's drilling in the BM PUD . I request this e-mail be included as an exhibit to the October 28, 2015, agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commissioners' meeting. Sincerely, Karen Lucas 103 River View Place Willow Creek Village 'ttlement Mesa, CO 81635 _, /0-625-1040 1 EXHIBIT _Fr_e_d_J_ar_m_a_n ______________________ I £ C CG, '>m: -.:nt: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Jarman, Carson Lucas <cclke1103@hotmail.com> Monday, October 26, 2015 1 1 :41 AM Fred Jarman Nancy Payne; Kirby Wynn Directional Drilling Ursa BM PUD I read the The Daily Sentinel's front page article "Battle Over Battlement Mesa 's Backyard" dated October 11, 2015. As quoted from the article: "The company says it's doing what it can to drill Battlement Mesa wells directionally from outside the development. It already has drilled more than SO wells beneath it from outside, and plans to do that in the case of 103 wells altogether." As quoted from the article: "Said, John Doose, a field landman for Ursa, ""Trust me when I say we have looked at all the locations out there to come up with the best project. It's not going to be perfect in some people's eyes but it's a good project and it's doable.'"' I don't agree that just because a project is "doable" that it necessitates being done. Per listening to the audio tape of the September 23, 2015, Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissioners' meeting, Ursa's representative's response to whether directional drilling could be used in order not to invade the PUD, ls "that it was not feasible to use other drilling methods". I assume they mean it is not financially feasible to Ursa for Ursa to utilize directional drilling from outside the PUD. The covenants of Battlement Mesa PUD state that a special use permit must be granted to drill inside the PUD. A special use permit clearly implies it is a use permitted not a legal entitlement. If Ursa has already successfully used directional drilling to avoid encroachment into the PUD, I doubt their inability to continue to do so except for the Company's desire for maximum financial gain at the expense of Battlement residents' health, peace of mind and the eventual resell values of our properties. I would ask that you and the staff do not recommend approval of this special use permit. Please do not set a precedent that future Colorado residential communities will have to fight. I request this e-mail be included as an exhibit to the agenda for the October 28, 2015, Garfield Planning and Zoning Commissioners' meeting. Sincerely, Karen Lucas 103 River View Place Willow Creek Village 1ttlement Mesa, CO 81635 _, /0-625-1040 1 ( EXHIBIT I \)bl))) Dear Commissioners, In reviewing the proposed Conditions of Approval for Ursa's Special Use Permits, we note that number one for B pad and number three for D pad state that "All representations of the applicant, either in testimony or the application, shall be conditions of approval unless specifically altered by the BOCC." I would point out that Ursa has made several representations to the citizens of Battlement Mesa at their public meetings which, in the event that its permits are approved, would be important for the residents. Ursa representatives have told us in their meetings that water trucks would be constantly present on well pads during daily traffic to mitigate the dust from it. We don't find any reference to this assurance in the applicant's materials. Likewise, Ursa has told us that they will not use fracking sand as a proppant, yet there are repeated references to sand in various parts of the application as something to be transported and mitigated. Silica represents a health hazard, and sand is a major raw material to be hauled in significant volumes. If the permits are approved, the absence of this assurance represents another cause for your concern, especially when truck traffic has been represented in the applications as so minimal. ( We would urge that the representations above be restated firmly in writing as part of their applications, and that any indications contrary to those assurances be removed. Sincerely, Douglas Saxton Battlement Concerned Citizens Cc. Dave Devanney EXHIBIT _Fr_ed __ Ja_rm_a_n ________________________________________ j ~~11~ ( To: Mike Samson Monday, October 26, 2015 8:02 PM Fred Jarman Subject: Fwd: Ursa drilling Battlement Mesa FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: RICHARD BUCHAN Owner <ribuchan@g.com > Date: October 26, 2015 at 7:09:42 PM MDT To: <msamson@garfield-count y.com> Subject: Ursa drilling Battlement Mesa October 26, 2015 Dear Commissioner Samson, Ursa Resources Company is seeking Garfield County approval of their plan to drill 53 gas wells on 2 drill pads, as well as a wastewater injection well, and about two and one-half miles of gas pipeline in the Battlement Mesa PUD. This is only Phase l of their plan. Ultimately, it appears their plans will include 5 or more well pads, more injection wells and more pipelines. This work will include drilling, fracking, completion ad production at these pads to harvest natural gas from the more shallow strata of gas producing shale. Eventually they will return to the PUD a number of times to drill for the gas in the deeper strati. Such heavy industrial operations are clearly not compatible with a residential community and will depress the community for the long term. Ursa assures us that there will be minimal impact and that they will use best management practices to protect the community. Yet they propose a noise limit of 80 decibels. Busy street traffic has a rating of 70 db, an elevated train 90 db. Eighty db is clearly not compatible with a residential community. The two pads proposed in phase 1 are near and down slope from numerous homes. Noise and toxic fumes tend to rise. How can they mitigate for that? How can they mitigate for the visual impact to homes located above the pads. Landscaping is unlikely to provide sufficient shielding. A Comprehensive Development Plan should be required prior to any approvals so that the full long-term impacts can be evaluated. The two drill pads proposed in phase 1 pose a serious threat to the homes located up-slope from them. These are the same steep tinder dry slopes vegetated primarily by cheat grass and sage that burned in the late 1990s and destroyed or damaged several homes. Children playing with matches at the base started that fire. A fire here will move swiftly up the slope especially if aided by Battlement Mesa's frequent strong up-slope winds. The threat of ignition and other hazards is real. For ~xample, the Grand Valley Fire District responded to 16 fire and explosion 1 ( ( incidents, 27 vehicle accidents and 9 hazardous materials incidents within the district between January 1, 2004 and October 4, 2009. The Rifle Fire District responded to 423 incidents involving the gas industry including 53 fires and explosions and 111 hazardous materials incidents between January 1, 2004 and December 9, 2009. Should this really be in our neighborhood -near our homes? Harvesting our natural gas resources is an inherently dangerous and risky operation despite best management practices and multiple safety precautions. It should not be allowed in a residential community such as Battlement Mesa. We urge you to protect us from these risks by disapproving Ursa's application. Please do not relegate Battlement Mesa to Garfield County's throwaway community. Respectfully. Richard and Jean Buchan Battlement Mesa, CO 970-285-2234 2 ( ( ( l~su~LESON L LP U ATTORNEYS & ADVISORS October 26, 2015 VIA EMAIL -ORIGNAL TO FOLLOW VIA FEDEX OVERNIGHT Garfield CoWlty Planning Department Attn: Mr . Fred Jarman, Director of Garfield County Community Development 108 81h Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 fjannan@garfield-county .com RE: Ursa Operating Company MIPA-06-15-8341: Special Use Permit-B Pat/ Location MIPA-06-15-8432: Special Use Permit -D Pad Location PDPA-08-15-8378: Special Use Permit-Pipeli11e Dear Mr. Jarman, EXHIBIT l~~r~ Jamie Josi Managi"g Partn er (3 03 ) 801 -3205 (d irect) (30 3) 301 -3201 (fa.'t) i io~t i i hurl c~onllr ccm Ursa Operating Company ("Ursa") has retained Burleson LLP ( .. Burleson"), a regulatory and energy law firm located in Denver, Colorado, to provide an overview of the legal basis supporting Ursa's requests for approval of the three above-referenced Special Use Permits for the proposed B Pad Location, D Pad Location , and transmission Pipeline (collectively, "Permits") pW'Suant to the applicable provisions of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as welJ as the guidelines set forth in the Battlement Mesa PUD Guide. Burleson has been working directly with Ursa for several months on various issues relating to the Permits. Burleson is intimately familiar with the historical and current development of oil and natural gas in the Piceance Basin, the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development lands subject to the pending Permits, the history of lhe pending Pennits and each of the filings submitted by various persons, state or local agencies, and legal counsel in support or against the Permits. Burleson, on behalf of Ursa, respectfully requests that you, as well as each person copied below and each of the members of the Planning Commission, review this letter carefully prior to the October 28, 2015 Planning Commission hearing on the Permits. This letter is intended to provide an overview of the legal positions supporting Ursa's Permits and to illustrate Ursa's proactive, responsible und cooperative development of the valuable hydrocarbons in the Battlement Mesa area. Wells Fa rgo Center 1700 Lincoln. Suite 1300 • Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: 303 .801 .3200 ( ( ( First and foremost, Ursa would like to commend the Garfield County Community Development Department ("Community Development"), and other Garfield County government representatives, on its involvement, patience and dedication to the three Permits. Upon review of the thousands of pages of documents involved with the Pennits, it is clear that Community Development takes its role in the responsible development of oil and gas within its jurisdiction very seriously. Community Development has received hundreds of emails, comments, and telephone calls pertaining to the Permits from Ursa, other governmental agencies, and members of the public. Community Development has handled each one with civility and competence. Garfield County should proud of the example it sets for other local jurisdictions in the State of Colorado as a model for respect ofits citizenry, including an oil and gas operator. Second, Garfield County Ordinance 82-121 expressly allows for the "extraction and processing of natural resources" as a "special use" in all land use districts within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development Area. See Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Ordinance 82-121 dated May 24, 1982. Ordinance 82-121 remains valid as of the date ofthis letter and the Planning Commission must uphold the express allowance established in Ordinance 82-121 for the extraction and processing of natural resources. The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners is the only governing body with the authority to modify a prior ordinance and, in this instWlce, there is no valid reason to modify or amend thirty-three years of precedent. This is especially true in a County that has its own stringent oil and gas regulations, which are then also covered by some of the most stringent State regulations in our nation that govern Ursa's oil and gas development activity within the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development Area. See, in general, Colorado Oil & Gas ConservaJion Commission ("COGCC") regulations; Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment ("CDP HE") air, stormwater and other applicable regulations; Colorado Parks and Wildlife regulations; United States of America Bureau of Land Management regulations; Environmental Protection Agency regulations; Occ,1pational Safety and Health Administration regulalions. Community Development Wld the Planning Commission should continue to recognize and enforce OrdinWlce 82-121 and allow for the recommendation of approval of the Penni ts. Third, Ursa has a contractual right to locate the B Pad, D Pad and Pipeline in the locations detailed in the Permits. It is important that Community Development and the Planning Commission acknowledge Ursa's legal right to site the B Pad and D Pad on the specific locations up for approval on Wednesday, October 28, 2015. On January 15, 2009, Ursa's predecessor-in- interest, Antero Resources executed a Surface Use Agreement with Battlement Mesa Land Investments, et al. that established the locations of the B Pad and D Pad within the boundaries of the Battlement Mesa PUD. The B Pad and D Pad locations are expressly allowed by COGCC Rule 604.b.(2) that provides: "Existing Surface Use Agreement or Site Specific Development Plan. The Director shall grant an exception to setback requirements set forth in Rule 604.a. for a Surface Use Agreement or site specific development plan (as defined in§ 24-68-102(4)(a), C.R.S. that establishes vested property rights as defined in § 24-68-103, C.R.S.), that was executed on or before August 1, 2013, and which expressly governs the location of Wells or Production Facilities on the surface estate, provided mitigation measures imposed in the Fann 2 or Form 2A will eliminate, minimize or mitigate noise, odors, light, dust, and 2 ( ( ( similar nuisance conditions to the extent reasonably achievable and the location complies with all other safely requirements of these Commission Rules." (Emphasis Added) COGCC Rule 604.b.(2). It is clear that the SUA was executed long before August l , 2013 and, therefore, Community Development, the Planning Commission and COGCC must recognize that the B Pad and D Pad arc allowable exceptions to the setbacks provided in COGCC Rule 604.a. Further, Ursa has repeatedly illustrated that the B Pad and D Pad locations are in compliance with the applicable laws of the state. See Ursa Presentation at September 21, 2015 meeting. Ursa is confident that the COGCC will recognize the SUA and aclatowledge that it is in compliance with existing siting regulations applicable to Oil and Gas Locations. Additionally, notwithstanding the express exception to Rule 604.a. for the B Pad and D Pad locations, Ursa has repeatedly stated to Community Development and the Battlement Mesa citizens that Ursa will utilize the mitigation measures set forth in Rule 604.c., as well as other numerous Mitigations mandated by Community Development. Community Development should recognize that Ursa is in compliance with the COGCC Rules for purposes of siting the B Pad and D Pad and should recommend approval of the Permits recognizing Ursa's legal rights. Fourth, Ursa agreed early in the process that numerous Conditions of Approval, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation Measures (collectively, "Mitigations") would be applied to the Permits. The Mitigations already recommended for the Permits will make the B Pad and D Pad two of the most-heavily regulated oil and gas locations in the State of Colorado. As described above, Ursa's locations were determined prior to August 1, 2013 and are therefore excluded from Rule 603 setback requirements. Notwithstanding this exception, Ursa has discussed, presented information and evidence, and voluntarily agreed to approximately 20 pages of conditions of approval on the Permits, respectively. Ursa recognizes that there have been statements by concerned citizens that "[t]here are no mitigations that would make this an acceptable site," however, Ursa maintains that the Mitigations proposed on the Permits, as well as the Mitigations that will be applied to Ursa's Oil and Gas Location Fonn 2As filed with the COGCC, will be considered teclmically feasible and economically practicable Mitigations that will serve to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the Battlement Mesa citizens and community. Community Development and the Planning Commission should recognize Ursa's dedication to protecting the citizens and community by the voluntary application of numerous Mitigations and recommend approval of the Permits. Fifth, Ursa has the right to develop its leasehold interests from the locations proposed by the B Pad and D pad based upon current Colorado statutes and case law, even if it did not have the aforementioned SUA in place. In Colorado, mineral owners and lessees are permitted to use the surface estate to the extent reasonable and necessary to explore for and develop minerals. See C.RS. § 34-60-127(1)(c) (2014) (allowing an oil and gas operator reasonable and necessary use of the surface estate "to explore for, develop, and produce oil and gas."); see also Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913, 929 (Colo. 1997) (allowing mineral lessee access to the surface as is reasonably necessary to explore for minerals). "The 'Reasonable Accommodation' provision of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act requires that oil and gas operations be conducted in a manner that accommodates surface owners and minimizes intrusion upon and damage to surface lands. This can be achieved by selecting alternative locations for wells, roads, pipelines, and production facilities, or employing alternative means of operations, where such alternatives 3 ( ( ( are technologically sound, economically practicable, and reasonably available to the operalor." See lntermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project, University of Colorado Law School -Getches- Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment, hllp :/faww .oilandgasbm12s.oru/laws/colorado law.ph p. Jn this instance, Ursa has, on all Permits, demonstrated that it engaged in an alternative location analysis even though it has legal locations by virtue of lhe SUA. Ursa has employed Mitigations and other accommodation measures that will allow for Ursa's ability to utilize the surface upon which il has a legal right to develop under current Colorado case law and to support the protection of the surface and the citizens of Battlement Mesa by the numerous, stringent, voluntary Mitigations at each location. Based on a recognition of Colorado statutory and case law, the Community Development and Lhe Planning Commission should recommend approval of the Permits. Sixth, the Mitigations on the Permits already accow1t for the Governor's Task Force Rulemaking for Recommendation # 17 (Large UMA Facility) and #20 (Registration with Municipalities) currently pending in front of the COGCC. Ursa is aware of, and has been substantially participating in, the COGCC's current Large UMA Facility rulemak.ing process. Ursa has had conversations with the COGCC Oil and Gas Location department and will have met with representatives of the COGCC prior to filing the Oil and Gas Location Form 2A, planned for early November. There have been several instances where Battlement Mesa citizens, either on their own volition or through their respective legal counsel, have requested that Community Development recognize un-promulgated COGCC rules and to forego any decision on the Permits on the basis that Ursa did not "meet with the local govenunent to discuss siting prior to making a siting decision that might impact a residentially-zoned area." The citizens', and their counsel's, reliance on Task Force Reconunendation #17 fails in this situation for one unique reason -the B Pad and the D Pad have express exceptions from the Rule 604.a. setback rules. See COGCC Rule 604.a. Additionally, the SUA was executed in 2009 and Ursa cannot under the existing, valid SUA, discuss siting "prior to making a siting decision that might impact a residentially-zoned area" as such siting decision was already made with 2009. As with many COGCC rulemakings, there will always be an example of an project that gets "caught in the middle" and this is one of those projects. However, the Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and COGCC must recognize and uphold the current exception to Rule 604.a. since the SUA was executed in 2009, almost four years prior to August 1, 2013. Further, Ursa and Community Development have spoken at length regarding the applicable Mitigations that will apply to the Pennits and, in every possible scenario, technically feasible and economically practicable Mitigations have been applied. Further, in many instances, the best available technologies have also been agreed upon in order to ensure that there are full Mitigations in place during the time upon which Ursa may drill and complete the approved number of wells on each well pad location. Garfield County will also be able to provide comments on Ursa's COGCC Oil and Gas Location Form 2A both prior to filing and during the COGCC review process. Garfield County's input into the Form 2A will be helpful not only for the COGCC, but should also provide comfort to the Battlement Mesa Citizens that Garfield County's involvement with the B Pad and D Pad does not end upon approval of the Permits. Community Development and the Planning Commission must recognize Ursa's anticipation of the COGCC Large UMA Facility rulemak.ing by employing numerous Mitigations, if it applies to the pending locations, and recommend approval of the Permits. 4 ( ( ( Seventh, in order to ensure that the citizens and Planning Commission staff were comfortable with Ursa's utilization of the B Pad and D Pad , Ursa has voluntarily agreed to complete the drilling and completions operations on the B Pad and D Pad locations within a three-year period. Ursa's voluntary, and not mandated, agreement to a three-year drilling period is, to Ursa's knowledge, the first of its kind within Garfield County. Ursa maintains that this voluntary agreement should not be used as precedent in any form or fashion for other operators or other areas of the state as it is limited to only the B Pad and D Pad locations set forth on the pending Pennits. It is clear that neither the COGCC nor Garfield County have the authority under the applicable enabling acts or Land Use Code, respectively, to mandate durational limits on the access rights , drilling and completion times, and production rights of the underlying dominant, mineral estate. See generally, Oil and Gas Consen•ation Act, §34-60-101 et seq. (2014); Colorado Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act, § 29-20-101 et seq. (2014). Ursa requests that the Planning Commission recognize Ursa's cooperation and collaboration with Community Development on this limitation and recommend the issuance of the Permits. finally, Ursa is well aware of the Battlement Mesa citizen attempts to stop oil anc.l gas development within the Battlement Mesa PUD in 2012 and is also aware that such attempts failed and were specifically denied by a Federal District Judge in Denver, Colorado. See Evenson v. Antero Resources, Case No. 2011 CV 5118 (District Court, Denver County, Colorado , August 17, 2012 Order). Ursa has worked hard to ensure that its legal right to develop its mineral and leasehold rights are balanced with the appropriate Mitigations on each of the Permits. This balance has taken into account many of the concerns voiced by the Battlement Mesa citizens in the Antero Resources case. It is Ursa's intent to have the members of the Planning Commission review this letter in an effort to further educate themselves on the legal basis for Ursa's Permits, in addition to the operational and technical reasons supporting a recommendation for approval the Permits at the Wednesday, October 28, 2015 Planning Commission hearing. Ursa has favorable legal grounds to support the approval of the Permits based on the currently locations for the B Pad, D Pad and the Pipeline and requests that the Planning Commission acknowledge such grounds and recommend approval of the Pennits on October 28 , 2015. I would be happy to discuss the contents of this Jetter with you at anytime. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 303-801-3200 or jj ost@.burlesonll p.com. Thank you in advance for your time, consideration and attention to this letter. Sin,, -1t~L J~-J- Jamie L. Jost Burleson LLP, Managing Partner 5 ( ( ( cc : Tari Williams -Garfield County Attorney (twilliams@garfield-counly.com) Kelly Cave -Garfield County Assistant County Attorney (kcave@garfield-counly.com) Kirby Wynn-Garfield County Local Government Designee (kynn@garfield-county.com) Matthew Lepore -Director, COGCC (matt.lepore@state.co.us) Dave Kulmann -Deputy Director, COGCC (dave .kulmann@statc.co.us) John Noto -OGLA Supervisor, COGCC (john.noto@state.co.us) Dave Kubeczko-OGLA Staff, COGCC (dave .kubeczo@state.co.us) 6 EXHIBIT _Fr_e_dJ_a_rm_a_n ____________________________________ 4 f~S«) ,-...~m· Kirby Wynn ( ' . .:nt: To: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 12:32 PM Fred Jarman Subject: FW: Follow-up question Re : Garfield County lateral reach consult request I have bolded the relevant conclusion below from our consultant. I am happy to summarize this consultation tonight if you like. --Kirby --Original Message---- From: Jack Potter [mailto:jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:52 AM To: Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE: Follow-up question Re: Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Kirby, I agree with their assumptions concerning higher angles relating to hole integrity and additional drilling expense issues. I have attached zone plots of the different vertical distances and hole angles required to be back to vertical at required lVD depths (the attached plots have the kick-off at 200'). ( k assumption is very sensible drilling practices (best practices) and I can offer no other alternative to increase lateral reach. --Original Message--- From: Kirby Wynn [mailto:kwynn@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:25 AM To: Jack Potter <jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com> Cc: Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE : Follow-up question Re: Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Hi Jack, From Ursa .... For consideration in your consultation to us. They say they require surface casing to 1600-1700' depth to get through heaving gravels zone that otherwise causes problems. They build at 4 degrees to 5 degrees max. Setting surface casing using a 12.25 inch hole, pipe size 8 5/8 inch at up to 36 degree inclination at the 1600-'1700 foot bottom of surface hole. Kickoff point Is between 300-400 feet once they get to more solid formation material. They state drilling angle at 45-46 max in part because they are drilling In relatively loose/unstable formation material and to accommodate the drop and TVO of 3900 (one pad) and 4100 other pad .. They say greater inclination causes )re such as sloughing of hole and that atb 45 degree they already employ specialized and expensive mud formulation 1 .. keep the hole intact In this area of Battlement Mesa . They state that stability of the formation as described Is their primary Issue that prevents drilling from further away than proposed and using greater Inclination. 1 ( ( Anything you provide that verifies soundness of the input assumptions that confirms/denies the ability to significantly push the pad locations out further is much appreciated. I.e. is there a variable that could reasonably be changed that would allow them to push a pad further out that should be considered . Or is what they say perfectly sensible and there eally are no alternatives that significantly increases lateral reach . They have drilled many wells in this area from nearby well pads, Monument Ridge, Yater, Watson B. Thanks! -Kirby Kirby Wynn Oil and Gas Liaison Community Development 0 (970) 625-5905 c (970) 987-2557 kwynn@garfield-county.com -----Original Message----- From: Jack Potter [mailto:jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com] .ent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 11:02 AM To: Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com> Subject: RE : Follow-up question Re: Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Kirby, We are working up a range plot with the step out information you have sent so far and we may not need a specific surface and bottom hole. This should work and will let you know, thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Kirby Wynn [mailto:kwynn@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:27 AM To: Jack Potter <jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com> Cc: Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com> Subject: Follow-up question Re : Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Hi Jack, I do have a couple follow-up questions. If I might be able to speak with you and/or one of your experts it would be a great help. We have a meeting on this topic tonight so any chance to chat today would be great, if feasible. If only to glean a little more understanding of the inclination issue. My questions Interleaved with your initial and very helpful info below •. ~ ·Kirby 2 ' u Kirbv Wynn Oil and Gas Liaison , -.,rfield County .... mmunity Development Dept 0 {970) 625-5905 c (970) 987-2557 --Kirby From: Jack Potter [mailto:jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com] Sent: Friday, October 23 , 2015 2:33 PM To: Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com<mailto:kwynn@garfield·county.com» Subject: RE: Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Kirbv, Please find below general answers to the questions and attached tool and specification back up that gives best practices for well placement. With respect to well placement and survey quality I have attached tools and specifications that we require when drilling multi well pads and other close approach issues in the general area. The use of gyro tool (surface gyro surveys and gyro while drilling) technology are critical for close approach issues when kicking off congested well pad designs. Standard down hole directional tools are required for the drilling process. Please be aware the below and attached are drawn from our drilling experience and are to be used as guide lines of our st experience and procedure suggestions only. 1). 45 degrees of angle are reasonable with the lVD at the top of the Mesaverde (Williams Fork) formation. Dog Leg maximum are to be considered as per hole size and with standard area well designs of 4 degree dog legs ar e recommended. 2). 45 degrees are not the normal maximum angle however this maximum angle has been drilled many times In the general area. (What is the normal max inclination for Battlement Mesa community area if not 45 degrees? Our operator, Ursa Operating Company, states part of their issue is in that ara the upper Williams fork is not stable in this exact drilling area (they have drilled many wells in vicinity) and steep inclination attempts cause issues with hole integrity and ability to get good cement bonding etc .. Also they note a significant cobble zone that forces them to run surface casing to well over 1,000 feet as part of the issue with not exceeding 45 degrees inclination for their 3,900 lVD to top of gas .) 3). Surface location and bottom hole location are required to determine rate of build (dog leg) and maximum angle relative to vertical section distance. (I can provide the exact well pad location and the bottom hole locations if needed. They were plotted in the map sent in the presentation file. Sites are in Battlement Mesa PUD on the south east edge of Town of Parachute.) 4). Operator geology can confirm this location in relation to elevation. In agreement with the attached list of "effects of higher deviation" concerns and would fall on operators well program details address ing them. ( .ease let me know if I can supply any additional information, thanks. 3 Regards, Jack Potter ( :olorado District Manager Scientific Drilling International 29481-70 Business Loop, Suite C Grand Junction, CO 81504 Main: 970.245.9447 Cell: 585.506 .5601 EFax: 970.797.1533 jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com<mailto:jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com> http://cp.mcafee.com/d/2DRPow83gOrhoosK- MehpdTdFTKCVssCCMrjltdOUVdxYSDtBxBZS6VEVdFEllnjuud7a91Gobgw2yeNtBVW1uRmUjbsKr8XSSnDESXlrxcJOVJdAxt SBN_HYevsoKNRXBQSkT- hshhpuLR4kRHFGTvoVkffGhBrwqrhdFCXYCqenPhOUUCYevdTdwOXbsHrnv_BYgNcelomHi9eJqOknbu8AQOiwbwA2x8cQE 92gT4h21QOM4MOw7wso3Fz8ucwi- U6hEcE2UQ6xl15JJOtFEV3gSkwhc9BL1ANAcwayS2RgC8AaOl5UlDNyOsdfwcv4fllOo3841AcwloOowa2I007xAcwi- OMn190n6wij3bw34bxclWlk3whdMcrE40ecuu0Sw545BgCU90e8yOMS2JwjlqyOUwaOlopCSBx49az87d78oCcH9S5016ib M70Gb4MQYcyMq6hlxYG1109y8wOSxxxos71wMj3dlwkrOpAQsxHUF8Cd67M53wUSSv60ma4XA4lmlOAdEcn80iYOV54x k2wMlM9KOV5cZk9y91MJvg6t2o2JyPPMGllpoqcOgG- U5w095ATiMmcwe9h76zAiOVCNAq4BjozJyLblDfUwGBFv2sDpmgz8Y-k2fbCPhO·NuZPob6AzhObRffGobJH6yOmr- AVlwq80nWhEw2mNtBVW1Ew4GJMCmd401SvNQYQgh_r4PhlqladDPd44vSC_FcSejdGzlq<http ://cp.mcafee.com/d/k- Kr410q6zqb33BTS10b9KVJeZQTbzAQS3qtXFKn791fCQXllcLEETd79Jd5ByWrPNEVhdBjlq40khSbllfgbSGT2prBPp7oKOVZOL qHs9BKndFIAbEIKfZvxPXz5SelsKCOC_ObyabbR-EyCJtdmXX7axVZicHs3jqpJcTvAPhO-( ) ( -len 7 4TxPVKVI07prBrqX_ YLy6qpwwa4M8v3 MY2gocE1WOjld1 wer0m8030M bhhOzM90s4Algg61MmS Fz2HA07 a N4xgg6 18160pdOcxclW3gA61sM12tZu0pYow73jU37N3XOg6006ywrlpJIN023Mao30982gNOk9xwm- ozgOOEGYbxEAa250USwccwecgoby8WPl14cyM2E21kYGlaBPSglOEwlG4T181N4md7852FEVSlgC62Uj6MMbulaxqomHvh AncFQ3BBi8EY10VldQw4Ulj3jMOblEp5m70E440C8y03q665xMs631ccQ61rOEc2MoQw6gRYkAj6z2qEcCcxA1khEMM4w 86N9llyVUMplw3ws109clyM5yq816Ww7lplxw0·92Eloo6NrN6bMG8wl8bb6N7r5umHevNllbi- 4VeOlx6hVYE4undCzBZyZXCMmd96yOnGuvkMnrmd40ITZ90HOQgOLQzh04JyXbPQ3h09lrxclq80Hl_zFVEwz- S9Cy2RokrfCq88-bd_iplsCrODGO> From: Kirby Wynn {mailto:kwynn@garfield-county.com] Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:03 PM To : Jack Potter <jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com<mailto:jack.potter@scientificdrilling.com» Cc : Kirby Wynn <kwynn@garfield-county.com<mailto:kwynn@garfield-county.com» Subject: Garfield County Lateral reach consult request Hi Jack, Thank you for looking at this. _) We are requesting consultation in the form of written confirmation (or disagreement) for the maximum lateral reach estimates provided to us by an operator for a two proposed wells. The operator has stated the maximum inclination ,. .. "?Y can effectively and safely use is 45 degrees, as noted in attached file. We are looking for expert opinion on the ( .• lowing: ( 1) Is 45 degrees a reasonable maximum inclination In this Piceance/Williams Fork setting (if greater inclinations that provide significantly larger reaches are feasible, we want to know more about that). If yes then maybe having that in writing is perhaps 90% of what we need. 2) Is there a way to confirm that 45 degrees is a common/reasonable maximum inclination used by operators for our area on similar Williams Fork wells. 3) Are the stated maximum reaches reasonable using standard drilling techniques for Williams Fork wells assuming need vertical entry to Top of Gas. 4) I doubt we want to second guess the operator but if it is easily determined that 3900-4100' top of gas depth near the Colorado River in Battlement Mesa is a reasonable assumption by the operator, confirmation would be nice to have. Not a priority though. What we want to understand, given area residents are being told by some "armchair experts" well pads could farther from homes, is if the operator is providing a reasonable estimate of how close the pads need to be to downhole locations in order to efficiently develop and extract the gas. Fixed Assumptions: Top of gas in Williams Fork for each well pad is about 3900' and 4100' respectively * Water based drilling mud * Mapped proposed downhole locations are correct and correctly spaced apart. • Need to accommodate plungers and usual well production and maintenance activities * Safety first • Using fairly common practice for stable well construction for our area versus experimental approaches The attached PDF of a powerpoint file should contain all the data you need. If not please let me know. Note: The operator is aware we are doing this additional diligence and preapproved our sharing of the attached file for consulting purposes. Thank you for looking at this and look forward to hearing back from you. As I said we are fine with a paid consultation . If this task could be completed before October 28 (our next public meeting regarding the proposed drilling) it would be ideal. By next week some time is even better for our pre-meeting planning. Regards, ( .<irby 5 ( ( Kirby Wynn Oil and Gas Liaison Community Development I {970) 625-5905 c (970) 987-2557 kwynn@garfield-county.com<mailto:kwynn@garfield-county.com> <imageOOl .jpg> Information (including any attachments) contained in this electronic transmission is a PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION . It is for the sole use of the sender and the entity named above. If you received this electronic transmission in error, you are required to immediately delete it in its entirety without making a copy. Further dissemination is absolutely prohibited. Thank you. m 2000 vs _4000 vs 3DLS Plot.p ... .. "l 'l ,. m m. m·, m, r . . 2000 VS 3DLS.pdf 4000 VS 3DLS 4100 4000 VS 30LS.pdf 4000 VS 4DLS.pdf TVD.pdf 6 0 0 0 Fred Jarman ----------------------------------------------------------------------om: t .:nt To: Rob Bleil <rbleil@ursaresources.com> Wednesday, October 28, 2015 9:27 AM Fred Jarman EXHIBIT IJ//111 Cc: Eric Schmela (eschmela@battlementmesa.com); Tilda Evans; Don Simpson; Arthur Bollen; John Doose Subject: Battlement Mesa Citizen Supporting Ursa's Proposal Fred, Our team would like to enter this as an Exhibit for the Plann i ng Commi ssion hearing this evening •... we have Mr Mohrlang's approval to do so. Rob From: mohrlang@q.com (mailto:mohrlang@q.com) Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9 :59 AM To: John Doose <jdoose@ursaresources.com > Cc: marylee <marylee@kw.com > Subject: Drilling John: I know that you and Ursa Resources don't get many "attaboys", but I just wanted to let you know that ·•,ere are many of us in the Battlement Mesa community that applaud the extraordinary lengths that Ursa has .• ade to address the numerous (and often redundant) issues that BCC and others have made over the past few years. This vocal minority will only be appeased after Ursa drills safely and successfully and I have little doubt that your company is capable of doing just that. I wish you continued success in the development of your project in Battlement Mesa . Best , Jerry Mohrlang l . ( (J Arrington Response to Ursa Exhibit JJJ Page 53 Ursa responded to the request to drill outside the PUD with the following submittal of Possible effects of higher deviation. The response was about "higher deviation" usually this is expressed as higher inclination in directional drilling to gain a longer reach from the drill pad. To standardize, the industry takes the angle from the bottom of where a bore would be vertical and measures upward to where the bore is directed. Thus, if you had a 90° inclination, you would be going horizontal (if more than 90°, you would be going upward). Deviation is a term usually associated to the difference of actual bore hole to the planned bore hole route. Of course, "deviation· could also mean exceeding what has been done in the past and can be positive opposed to negative in the greater picture. Bullet Points of Ursa Response: 1. Cement Bond Risks. 2. Hole Collapse/ Well Bore Integrity. 1. Cement Bond Risks Safety of well bore. Safety is a nice word, but integrity was probably what was meant. If the well bore has integrity of construction, it has inherent safety from the reliance of not letting gas escape the confines of the constructed system. Further, those constructed parts will remain in place with the natural and tracking forces applied to them; and, materials used were, when complete, meeting needs of the application with a factor of safety above maximum need. Channeling of cement. The cement is to put a seal between casing pipe or production tubing and rock formation. This is to prevent gas from migrating outside the pipe in the space between pipe and formation rock. No open channels through the cement allowed if sealing is required. All cementing of these zones is supposed to be logged for integrity and to locate any zones needing correction. Isolation of gas. The gas is kept in production tubing or in formation -it is "isolatedn from migrating by cement sealing of production piping and certain casings. Proven Engineering vs. wildcat approach. There is nothing "wildcat" about using a greater than 45° inclination. Inclinations between 60° and 80° pose more problems in removing debris and require drilling fluid changes, but even these have been addressed with steps to use. There is an interesting consideration here. That is the cementing concern. This inclination is in a zone that is often left as open hole , with production tubing only. tf there were problems of formation water or structural weakness, that precluded open hole, the solution would probably be casing . But the cementing of this is defined procedures i.e. "proven engineering~ and the procedures would be the same as any inclination at 45°. The point is, inclinations from 45° to 60°, are not really different than the 45° inclination except in drilling fluid applications employed. ( ( 2. Hole collapsefwellbore integrity -Open hole. Open hole is mentioned here. Open hole is uncased hole or a hole with un-cemented casing i.e. there is not isolation from gas flow to formation except for production tubing . Top to bottom cementing has been suggested to companies, but most reject this as an ~unnecessary cost" except for Chevron that used the practice many times. Stuck pipe issues-key seating. loss of wen. sidetracking. This is a litany of "bogeymen" issues that can go wrong with drilling. These are problems that can happen in any drilling operation regardless of inclination. Stuck pipe issues are primarily centered about not clearing debris or formation collapse and usually near the drill head. But this is also a problem generally associated to drilling fluid management. Too high of pressure can actually "frack" the formation being worked and drill fluid density/viscosity/low pressure that can result in poor debris extraction. The action of key seating is caused by drill string rubbing on a side of the bore causing a channel and wear and tear on drill pipe. This is important if cementing must be done, but if "open hole" is the situation, it won't create cement problems. It should be noted, that almost all cementing will be done in vertical bores. The key seating can be avoided in long inclinations by setting supports or casings. Washouts, as a problem down hole, is again a drilling fluid management issue of moving debris out of hole (washouts being usually referred to being debris surface cleaning or holding operations). This use of terminology can only be assumed. The "ect." (sic) is only more of the disjointed jargon of "insider" terminology to bedazzle and describe their problems that have been encountered and resolved when directional drilling was all "wildcatting". Increased (sic} of time per wen during drilling. Herein is the crux of the opposition, "increased cost". But is it a bona fide argument? There was increased cost to be avoided that caused the BP blowout in the Gulf. In Battlement, it the industrial operation down the middle of the community. The blowout in the Gulf caused fishery and wildlife damages, lost tourism, jobs and business shutdowns. In Battlement, it is lost property values, health risk increases, traffic, 2417 disturbance with noise, odors and lights. There is the ever present danger of industrial accident and possible evacuation. Anything greater than 45 degree inclination becomes a hazard on multiple levels. The hazard is not about a "greater than 45° inclination" and further reaches from pads allowing distance mitigation and staying out of the community. It is about COST of the immediate mineral extraction. Ursa, or their successors, will be doing later Niobrara work. In this work they will be doing horizontal work. to maximize yield in a generally richer formation. No, the issue isn't engineering, capability, developed technique, or even inclination. It is COST for a relatively poor yielding formation, but one that must be developed so that State mandates to develop everything can be met. Then they will go for the Niobrara. And this could mean the same industrial intrusion again. The other points ignored are the furthest reaches require the 60° inclination and each reach coming back to the pad is at a Jess inclination AND there is less pad development cost/well. ( (_) lJ ·4"· (J Arrington quick review of Geologists' Submittal Exhibit PPP Page 127 of Exhibit PPP Reviewing the letter, J can see that Mr. Hix signed as "prepared by" and Mr. Taylor "reviewed". So Mr. Taylor did not attest by stamp of "not visiting" the site. However, it then becomes Mr. Hix did not visit the site and Mr. Taylor has performed "work in the area" and "is familiar with the area geology". But this does not say either geologist visited the site, but defers that it was "beyond the scope of work requested by Ursa." It then appears, although I attributed Mr. Taylor not v isiting the s ite, neither geologist visited the site because of work requested by Ursa. Page 128 of Exhibit PPP 1.) Sameness of mesas will be shown on the image of the 1986 Map used by the geologists. Confusion centered about this exchange may have come about because the geologists were not aware of the WPX pipeline break (2014} I reported on and were aware of another earlier line rupture (2013} at a WPX water treatment facility in another location . Soil stability tests were not done on Pad . Previous constructions in area do not mean that the geologic hazards were considered when built. Garfield County did mappings because of this problem of hazard happenings on constructed sites, but while doing so, did not include these sites of Battlement or Morrisana Mesas. 2 .) Dismissal of WPX pipeline failure is due to not being aware of the correct pipeline failure location. The Ursa pipeline coming to Pad B creates a "to be considered" hazard to the pad and the pipeline. This is further_shown below. Page 129 (continued) The slope of the pipeline coming into Pad B is 63 feet of fall in 200 feet which is a -31.5 % slope into the pad separated by an approximate 50 foot gully . While the pad itself is sUed on a fairly flat fan, the embankment coming down to the area is steep. The slope was calculated on the pipe line, but the hillside profile is steeper and the pipeline actually crosses somewhat diagonally across. Reference to LUDC on pipelines does not recognize the actual cumulative finished pipeline will likely be greater than 5 miles and it is important to know if Article 9 calls it 12 inches nominal as 12 inch pipe is actually 12 3/4 inches in diameter. Should it not be a hazard if drainage that coufd carry wastewater from an industrial site to a drinking water source not be considered except by reliance that another agency may be involved. Early submittals on th is showed only drainage to gully above BMMD inlet. Later, in this packet drainages are shown both ways. But, any drainage to the gully should be piped to the downstream side of the BMMO inlet. 3.) Surfacial structural data is shown. But that is not information about formation integrity below surface or a complete picture of study of subsurface. The 1986 map is shown part below. Page 130 4.) The geologists take issue with examples shown, but these examples show the unexpected surprises of hazard discovery after the fact and how common it is. The geologists defend the maps used ; however, On the surfacial 1986 map the geologists used. it does show the sameness of different named mesas. However, it does not show geologic earlier formation structure to draw conclusion of "no faults ( 1986 map nor did 1973 map). These are mudslide (or slump) coverage of formations that may have hidden faults . If Ursa had seismic maps, why did they not furn ish the geologists with that data? See below maps. 5.) Soil stability with respect to characteristics of subsidence or sinking is reported; but, testing was "beyond scope of workTI requested . Testing was not suggested. ( ( °''• Cot ....... • J ~ ~ ...,... ~/ l ... -O•• ••• ~--£~ AUUW UR (IT al.OU.OU llYU flQ.CIC.U() -N1, 1114 1f'h•I •1-1 ID"'ti..-t tOWnw•t OCHI (41., ... 11 ...... "''"'' d•lh ..... ~ ,...,. 110 ,..-.:Mt rr~tilltflit rm•• &riv ilh.t,a.1111 _ ..... ,,. -"· 1itu.1Y11t...., Roacft'-t• mraun fJIQ.Oct•J u9Cf. w .,..,.,. l.auHr ~h .. co.11 !::'~!~,:.~.'=~'!:~e:!!!.!l:?t .-.U-1ort ... Nt1J•ull7 ..... ...., ci"UJ 11•., CelDr.adlt II'"'. ..., Ull'UI" \mt' fl .. f~;•:o'~r~•=7.f.rrn (IQ.OCtrll 101"1.C • .,~Hr. mW.I•. •Ill ,. ..... 1""' ::.~~-:~r.: rr:'.~!~· u~::, ~Ira.I.-df>pnttt.. •d ~In •r•"P"" 1.-fttone .. stl Ut.1111. •111111 d•,sto..r d'1' 11.tHhlli eftd '1-..,i •llnr re~u...,,. l'la ta1ClM"H fflo•I JO ft (• ., o.te lllFU roPNTrlll Otrtsma• •• fnt..tf 1 ,lffrwllt•!rt n 11.c r•U•I lflnlef tfft"U.it .... f .. flfpo1lt.t· .. Sflt. 9'H•L '$t•, mti.le. ulf tio.ldn-r ~..:·,:~:!:r.:,.:::. ·:1~:!:r ;:~:, llfdfhS..,..,.,. •lfld.lllW' ,,,14 ... c dlt lHrf(''f (1.1rf1u~~ f"'"H " Uf' •!ln~t I (IC-to ~l .~,. C•1or Hll flt..-'. "'~•-. 1~1l ltO ft (at •I .. ,...n_ ...., , .. ,~ .. ~1 ....... 1 u -•-w::it •• tm.I...,. V-T•l In • fJT•t Ntrh tllf co•r ot0f'1, '°''""'· tlutl ,,,..r1r, ~ti. but rQlllf.11,M ..w i~Uo11M 0 .. flttcrN. uid ch'"'°"'• 0...4..W r,,,,.1,. ,,_ .,. SQ.J~:in~ =~::s ~:;,~~-) ... \~I'• 1*.1h1..-,. ""4 ~U~ted •U.rl •l • tt,. .,.. .... ,,, °"''.,.. ..... n ,..,u., ell• .. lir""' 1'111.-, _.41,.,..1,. ~l -.c:isu s • to t,... Mt.l ... , ..... , .IOO'I' 1 I ll·"'"-"f" Plt:lf'Of GM,1£t. Cl.PCSUl rrunTIXfNI. ~ .... , 1111>"'4:!Nkd thllti,. ptl6t• Md m~lt' 9"• Ult1h.U¥, \tl ttt. ...... ll&f'htllftif Ofr ~\•td1 ind ~ lh 11H rOfaatlo.tt. Pt' u.w.il, ....,Cl ... LT • l "I" ,-... 11r ttt •t,..·tllel!M UNI -e 1~h . ~11 ecc1itn c.1 ...... ti ... -. l'lridllft,. ~-"'a .f1 'l.S lMM HD JCllMW!ft ,,,,. l,fOCflW -'~bt, ll~tf !'} f1.C U IOfll A.11.,w••I twr-..i• ............. ,.., .... Tiit u ... , ~·al of ks..tlt 1111\d lou-111 •f"'• ului.w. N r htoM • ..t -..•4'U9M; "'° eiworl7 '°'""'" tl0«'-11 ttr•t o!Ut4~ rvct -· .... ·---·· _........ ·-·--... , ... 1986 Map -Showing Surfacial sameness at note marks 1973 Map (portion of interest) ' 0 0 0 -- T 7 ~- This section is critical. The fresh water, produced water, and gas pipelines must be anchored in this bore. If anchors are concrete, steel or wood, they will be subject to a corrosive soil. This information Is m issing and needs to be part of the application. While the bottom joining is not clearly defined , it is a critical point of load without load relieving anchors in bore. These changes of direction in the gully must be smooth transitions to distribute load . There will be shear stress added to this because pipe in gully may be subject to buoyant lifting forces. For the bore tunnel and underground piping, water seepage can erode and weaken the entire ground and saturation can occur both inside and outside the soil covering. This could allow the entire profile, at least up to the bore setup area to flow into and across the gully onto the pad . This is comparable to the landslide that destroyed a WPX gathering line upstream under CR302 down to the bottom of the Morrisana Mesa in the same type of hillside. This pipeline cluster would be more disastrous as there are three pipes with produced water, water, and NG. This would allow the water to flow into the Colorado River upstream of the Battlement water inlets with NO time for warning or shutdown of the inlets leading to contaminated drinking water in a storage lake. There were no plans submitted showing any automatic shutdown for Ursa pipes. ( ( ( http://e arthg uake.usg s.g ov/hazardsfg faults/map/hazfault2014.html '-0 This is an enlargement of the tota l leaflet the geolog ists submitted in Exhibit marked PPP_ The v iewer would note there are no faults shown anywhere. However when compared to the mapping done by URS for the Grass and Hunter Mesas South of Rifle , there are a p lethora of basement faults and anomalies from shallow to basement (Arrington Analys ls , Figure 5 page 14). This is an example that there has been a lack of definitive mapping, and, assuming a lack of mapping means there are "no faults" is misleading. Further if Ursa has seismic data, why would it not have been given to the geologists to incorporate in their report? It is my belief this lack of mapping is the reason WPX did their own extensive seismic mapping of their interests in this area. 0 0 0 ( EXHIBIT October 28, 2015 J~:lS_J Response to the URSA and Behrens Sound Mitigation Study for Pad B My name is Larry Fonnan and my house is 785 feet east of Battlement Mesa Corporation Pad B. My son Darren is an electrical engineer and he wrote a response to the sound mitigation study done this month by Behrens. My presentation is taken from Darrents paper that was sent to Fred Jannan. My house and several other houses in the neighborhood are on a hill about 200 feet above proposed Pad B. From my back windows, I can see almost all of Pad B. In the URSA drilling proposal, there is a graph entitled Noise Data from Monument Ridge Pad The data was collected over about 8 days in June of2014. The graph shows that the noise level exceeded 75 decibels on at least 3 different occasions during those 8 days. The first episode of75 decibel noise lasted about 10 hours, then it looks like the next day the loud noise lasted about 6 hours and then about 2 days later the loud noise lasted about 5 hours . If there was no sound wall, the noise level would most likely have exceeded 90 decibels . According to Exhibit EEE, Behrens presents two options for sound mitigation. Option 1 reduces the noise east of Pad B by about 14 decibels and Option 2 reduces the noise east of Pad B by about 16 decibels. If Pad 8 noise exceeds 90 decibels at 350 feet like the Monument Ridge Pad most likely did, then there could be sustained noise of 66 to greater than 71 decibels at my house and at other houses in my neighborhood. The Colorado Oil and Gas Commission has designated my residential neighborhood to be a Light Industrial area and that sustained noise can be up to 70 decibels. I am asking that Planning and Zoning request that URSA agree that if their noise exceeds the Light Industrial level rule of70 decibels during drilling or fracing, then on the next well at that location, they will modify their procedures to lower the noise level until they are in compliance with COGCC rules. We are also requesting that URSA notify the neighborhood 3 days before fracing . I know that modifying a fracing procedure is a lot to ask. however, it is also asking a lot to drill in a town next to houses. The city of Farmington New Mexico, which has prospered as a gas drilling town since the 1950s, rules that the limit for noise while drilling is 1 dBA over the background noise level. Some drilling operations drill within the 40 to 45 decibel level of sound. l ( Re URSA Proposed BMC B Pad Darren Forman Oct 2015 Aerial photo ( Dista nee to a residence From master bed window of 47 Locust Way to nearest planned borehole: 785' Source: BMC B / M.l.R. Site Plan/ Exhibit E of B2 Rules on noise emission COGCC Rule The type of land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Director in ·onsultatian with the Local Governmental Designee taking into consideration any .ipplicable zoning or other local land use designation. In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 the noise levels permitted above may be increased ten (10} dB(A) for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes in any one (1) hour period. The allowable noise level for periodic, impulsive or shrill noises is reduced by five (5) dB (A} from the levels shown. Rules on noise emission ZO~E Re:-.idential Agricultural Rural ~ C ommercial Light indu ::.trial ln du ~trial 7:00 am to next 7:00 pm 55 db(!-\) 60 dh(A) 70 db(Al 80 db( A} 7:00 pm to next 7 :00 am 50 db(.-\) 55 dh<A) 65 db(A) 75 dh(A) Garfield LGD comments The State's rules also require consultation with the Local Government Designee (LOG) so that the local zoning context can be considered in determining the appropriate noise levels . Garfield County's LGD, Kirby Wynn, provided comments regarding noise in Exhibit L that support a recommendation that requires a maximum of Light Industrial zone threshold be 1 t for both construction, drilling, and completions due to the close nature of residents in the area. He also notes a recommendation that URSA examine mitigation round the db(C) range noise as a BMP. Finally, because the B Pad area is not flat and located some 200 feet below a residential neighborhood unlike the monument Ridge Pad location, Staff is requesting a more refined noise analysis that is more tailored to this location prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission that addresses this unique circumstance to ensure noise mitigation can be successful. Noise data from Monument Ridge Pad 80dBA I'\ 0\ 70dBA •, \ I ) I \ I • 60dBA i ~ 1· I fl I SOdBA fV r Expected noise level at various distances from Monument Ridge Pad Approximate distance from drilling rig to meter (thru sound wall), based on drawing: 350' + 150' = 500'. Assuming 6 dBA level decrease per doubling of source/receiver distance (point-source model). Distance to rig (feet) Expected daytime 1 sound level . (dBA) 500 70-75+ 1000 64-69+ 2000 58-63+ 4000 52 -57+ From measurement by Behrens and Associates Monument Ridge Pad ''/ __ __ 10 FT OFFSET_/ FffOM SC. L PROPERTY 500 rT OFFSET ')°"'HOUSES r I -l- 1 ---OA-1a-07 95 J~-16-01 9, JJs-1a-01 9' .J.x-1a-c1 9-' :n---.--+--150·oS:W 1a 07 95 .JU.-16-07 9:5 J4/J-16-07 9' I 410-19-07 95 1 LOT j 12524 ACRES S sGM 1Nc. t-----1 Construction Layout MR Pad 118 W. 61 " S••eet. Sulle 200 Sht!tlt No. 2 of II Garfield Coun tu, "'0 f;%;~~~oo9•s.rftk°'9t~Jk~i111------i1-------......------.._:"':....:.. • ...... 1..--'-----f l.leekl', COloradG (970) 878 -~180 onumMt _Ri(J~ Job#2006-479.026 Dotr. 9/22/10 1Jy.0CS . Date on drawing: 9-22-2010 I I 0 ~ Q\ ID o+o, in &I +00 ~,4... . ~ . . "°~ " ;..c: Ill .s -' ~ Ill g ... ~ ~ l ''" r 50' 0 100' I I I Gruphic Sculc In Fret I"= 100' 0 VI <t" . su~o ~'? I l B Pad Section line --.____I Monument Ridge B Pad Proposed Pad Elev. = 5701.8' I I 0 \ ~ c;- 2+00 3+00 .A 4+00 r1 5-tOO 5+30 ,._ : • v Projut: • R\ISO G001·063 Reid 0~1e: 04·27·15 Sale: 1"= 100' D~te: 05 · 14-15 She.t: l of 3 Rev: By: 1."I .!.- 6 ~ ~~ ~ 11'1 ..,. I to . ~ «rursa Form 2A -Attachment I Monument Ridge B Pad Construction Layout Drawing Section 8 & 9, Township 1 South, Range 95 West Date on drawing : 5-14-2015 Estimated daytime sound level at 47 Locust during drill rig operation • Assuming acoustic barriers that are as good as those at the MR Pad (unlikely given the topography) • Level decrease with distance for a point source: Noise reduction = -201og(B/ A) where A is the source to meter distance and B is the source to C residence distance • Typical residential background noise: 40 dBA • A= 500', B = 785', noise reduction = -3.9 dBA • Expected daytime max sound level: 66 to 71+ dBA (compare with COGCC rules) • Perceived as "JS times louder than typical residential background From Resource: Earthworks 45 dBA is achievable, even as close as 350 feet from the noise source There are numerous examples that show that 40 -45 dBA is achievable at 350 feet from the source. The City of Farmington, New Mexico uses "1 dBA over ambient" as a standard for all wells constructed in the city. In January of 2005, OGAP staff conducted sound measurements at well sites in the City of Farmington. Noise levels measured at 300 feet from the noise source varied from 39 to 49 dBA . It is estimated that if measurements had been taken at 350, these sound levels would have been in the range of 37 to 47 dBA. For more information, please download the OGAP/SJCA submission to the COGCC. It is not cost prohibitive to achieve 45 dBA at 350 from the noise source As part of its submission to the Colorado Oii and Gas Conservation Commission noise rule hearing, OGAP prepared a chart of noise mitigation cost estimates for oil and gas facilities that have achieved the 40-45 dBA noise level. -See more at: https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/oil_and_gas_noise#.VgiTC_m6flX ( Earthworks oil and gas accountability proiect: typical noise abatement costs Real noise abatement costs to achieve 46 dBA or lower Pi e-Nobe-Abatement Post-Noise-Abatement Actual dBA ~lllt caku la ~ A.clud dU. d1Acdc'*2t.Pd lat Major Noi5e Non Abatement Cmt measu t ~ a1 11 leel lcr JSO lee1 tom measur~at JCleei lSO fffi rrcm ~· Soi.rce{s) Activities (SU.S.) tom lie noise lnciie sou1ce 'rom the noise IODemutC1P JOUrce SO\ltC:e CASE 1 :!25 H' e'l·;ne ;i '9' ')e ex'l::::OJ>I :> e-.:: e ;. 12,800 ·12 c!3A ·:: t t 525 5.t cMot:i.so· 33 d M o t 1!>25 45.a dlA at l50' O:CJ.i l C verl l ·.:l lC'l C'l ex st "IC ::.J I·~.,.:: lrelrcll l CASE2 400 i-P e'l·;;:ne. c:cJ.i l c ve-i t clc'l. 12.000 U'l<.'l ·::•\"'l U'1<.'1CW'1 40 d M .::t ~S~ ~dlAat 350' 1 f.::cl ccoer e'l?')!'! o r 'llc<e IC 'l i e'l:er frafr.::111 CASE3 411 r-f' e'l;ne. o:cJ;tc veril otc"I. 50.000 ·13 :::M ·Cl 2120 59 ~BA ~I 3~0 H ~.!IA c t I t..4 .-GA dlA at l50' 7·k:-::I c·::oer ·=c·::H!t si-e'lc'l;. erigi'le to'l '11·.::<e C 'ld-!!.-.:'lCJ.il :> e.,:er trelrcf II CASE4 200 !"'f' e"l;ne o:cJih:ci ericcs..re 24.000 8ScBAcl 10 5? cBAct 350 40dBAat 11~ 30dlA at 350' ve'll OI C '\ fc v>:rd CC.it i to ~Coe'l ::li C'l 'lJ'll:;a-d .-0.000 acer.; . .V'lO::M. O'l:::l •<~i;'ll>1 CASES 100 H' e'lgrie C-:CJ.itC·~ e'lCIC.iJe 60,000 U'l<'l·::··"'l U'l<.'l::•v'l 42 a:!Aat SO 2S d IA of 350" ··'ll"l ve'll .::I C'1 l'le»vl CASE& 1478 t-f' 0-C:CJlhCd e'lCCi..fi:! 1"5.00 S2c!!Aal 1181 ~3 C:!!A Cl ;~ ~2'0c!IA-::il 1181 <3 t cBA at l50' a·9'1e. I 3·fcct 11Z x 34 I ._,1 ,., :·:·::ier lc'l ve'll cl C'l. e'1;<'1-!! i -e'l: ~;. C:C·~.9 CASE7 .• ,~:: 13-..,4) ~p C:CJ.ilCCI e'lC:Ci..fi:! 1.20.000 il'l<'lC ,,4 U'l<.'lCW'l :S ::BA =t ~ 21 dlA at 350' a1;;.1e; 'l:::t sJre .. , • .,ct e ;e l'le'•''I ( l Comments I questions • MR Pad appears to have been well out of noise compliance (light industrial zone max acceptable levels) for intervals of many hours during the data collection period. • Multiple houses as well as a school property are within S00'-1000' from the MR Pad. • Residential-zone max acceptable noise levels are much stricter than light industrial- zone. • What drives the recommendation that Pad Bis zoned Light Industrial and not Residential? This classification does not seem to take into account nearby residences? • Does BMC have a noise ordinance that provides acceptable noise levels? If so, it is likely that BMC cooperation with proposed drilling is inconsistent with those levels. • Terrain surrounding MR Pad is flat but several homes overlook the proposed Pad B from above; Pad B noise walls can be expected to be less effective than those at MR Pad. • How long have MR Pad sound walls been up? Perhaps 4 or 5 years (so far)? This is a lower-bound estimate on how long Pad B can be expected to be noisy. ( ( l Resources http ://pstrust. org/docs/GasWel I Dri 11 i ngNoise Im pa eta nd M itig ationStudy. pdf https://www.earthworksaction. org/issues/detail/oil and gas noise#. VgiUhPm6flX D pjrr~'--~Dr ~t<--L.. CJ ~ tokl-', _.2_ D /5 Addendum based on Supplemental ( Asserted vs. realistic unmitigated sound levels • Olsson report, based on Behrens measurements taken 350' from edge of MR pad : 75 dB sustained for several hours with peaks above 80 dB. These are mitigated levels taken with a noise-blocking wall in place . • New Behrens study asserts that unmitigated tracing noise is 70-75 dB at 350'. This makes the asserted levels seem unrealistically low, given \ Behrens measurements included in Olsson report on MR pad . Thus it is doubtful that actual noise levels 350' from Pad B would comply with regulations. \ • Mitigation proposed in new Behrens study would reduce sound levels by "'15 dB. • Back calculating, a more realistic estimate of unmitigated tracing noise is 90 dB sustained at 350', with peaks above 95 dB. This is roughly consistent with tracing noise measurements given at this link: http://switchboard. nrdc.org/blogs/tsrebotnjak/i_cant_hear_you_noise_pollutio.html ) ( ( • • Topography The State's rules also require consultation with the local Government Designee (LOG) so that the local zoning context can be considered in determining the appropriate noise levels. Garfield County's LGD, Kirby Wynn, provided comments regarding noise in Exhibit l that support a recommendation that requires a maximum of light Industrial zone threshold be met for both construction, drilling, and completions due to the close nature of residents in the area. He also notes a recommendation that URSA examine mitigation round the db(C) range noise as a BMP. Finally, because the B Pad area is not flat and located some 200 feet below a residential neighborhood unlike the monument Ridge Pad location, Staff is requesting a more refined noise analysis that is more tailored to this location prior to a recommendation by the Planning Commission that addresses this unique circumstance to ensure noise mitigation can be successful. Garfield Co. staff requested a more refined noise analysis that took topography into account, but this is absent in Supplemental Without topographical analysis, realistic impacts on the proximate residences cannot be known: for example, whether on-pad noises reflecting off the far-side sound walls would amplify drilling/fracing noises in the neighborhood above the pad ( ( ~'f EXHIBIT ~~~~_.,_~--' ~~ - . -. FU R GASF INDER 320 INFRARED CAMERA fARi'h'NO F~K .', I A U Slil l T Y ...... ~ .... ·lo#......_..J_.t._1--~ .......... ~!--·---•.&. .ll. -·--• .... • ••~ ..,.~ __ ,,......_ .•L..-~---• -"'· . • .~ ...... -...... --• .... ..J. THE FLIR (Forward Looking lnfraRed) GF320 CAMERA uses state-of-the-art, independently verified technology capable of detecting volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including known carcinogens, and greenhouse gases. The FUR GF320 1 is the industry standard in identifying emissions, leaks, and events that occur during routine oil and gas operations , or because of faulty equipment, accidents, and i ntentional releases by operators. The GF320 is marketed as a tool for o il and gas operators and government regulators to mai ntain equipment and observe emissions. Its steep price tag and technical requirements would ordinarily prevent communities living with oil and gas development from benefitting from this technology. Earthworks has invested over $100,000 in a FUR GF320 with a telephoto lens in order to document the pollution that may be linked to health and environmental impacts reported by communities, and lo ensure that officials and regulators know when oil and gas facilities cause pollution. FUR video makes visible air q uality problems that warrant air monitoring, operational changes, new emission control technologies, and regula tory action. FUR GF 320 Gas Detection Specifications The FUR GF320 has been specifically calibrated and independently tested to detect the presence of at least 20 gases that Gases Detected and Minimum Detected leak rate (MDLR) Independent laboratory (lhird party) tel ling <onf rms that the GasFindlR cameras ca n see the may be in the air. rollowing gases at the minimum dete<ted teak r ate (MDLR): The emissions that are detected with a FUR camera may include gases such as m~th ane2 , a potent greenhouse gas; benzene3 • a known carcinogen; and a number of other voes that are scientifically established to cause a range of health problems (such as respiratory difficulties, nosebleeds, headaches and nausea). • 1-Pentene • S.6glhr • Benzene • 3.Sg/hr • Butane ·0.4glhr • Ethane • 0.6g /hr • Ethanol · 0.7g/hr • Ethyl benzene -1.Sglh r • Ethylene • 4.4g/hr • Heptane· 1.8glhr • Hexane · l .7gthr • lsoprene • 8.1 gthr • MEK • 3.Sg/hr EARTHWORKS• 16 12 K St., NW , Suite 808 Washingtcn , 0 C ., USA 20006 www .earthworksaciion .org • lnfo@earthworksaction org • 202 .887 .1872 I· Alllll\\OIU•' • Methane • O.Bglhr • Methanol • 3.8glhr • MIBI< • 2.1 g/hr • Octane • 1.2g/hr • Pentane • 3.0gthr • Propane -0.4glhr • Propylene -2 9g/hr • Toluene - 3.8g/hr • Xylene. 1.9g/hr 0FLIR ( l ( l•~'-,.~ j :J - \"'''·~~~~~\Jo.~~ (I Infrared Training Center-Tr a1n ing and Certific(hion ~'V·~(~J The staff who use the FLIR GF320 for Earthworks have completed Infrared Training Center (ITC1 courses, and are trained and certified. ITC trainings are the gold-standard gualification : within the thermography industry and are the same certification required by many industry operators and regulatory agencies prior to FUR camera use. An ITC certified videographer, in order to achieve certification, must be able to distinguish between heat from equipment and the emissions and gases that the camera is designed to detect. To earn an ITC certificati onv, individuals must attend a three-day course, pass closed-book examinations and quizzes, and submit a field assignment demonstrating understanding of their application and proper use of the camera. 1 FUR . FLIR GF300/320 Infrared Cameras. http://www.flir.com/ogi/dlsplay/?id=55671 1 Earthworks. Fracking, methane and climate. http://www.earthworksaction.org/i ssues /detail/fracking_methane_an d_climate 3 Earthworks. Air Contaminents. http://www.earthworksaction .org/issues/detail/air_contaminants# BTEX iv Infrared Training Center. Infrared Thermography Certification. http://www.infraredtraining.com/view/?id=40026 v Ibid. EARTHWORKS• 1612 K St . NW, Suite BOB Washington , DC, USA 20006 www earthworksaction org • info@earthworksaclion .org • 202 BB7.1B72 0 0 0 ( .. GARFIELD COUNTY P&Z HEARING COMMENTS . BY: DAVE DEVANNEY OCTOBER 28, 2015 My name is Dave Devanney and I live in Stone Ridge Village in Battlement Mesa. Stone Ridge Village is in close proximity to both the B and D pads and separated by an open ravine from a large segment of the proposed pipeline. I am also the Battlement Concerned Citizens chair. I wish to talk about the issues of odors, emissions and air quality. Air quality is a critical issue with the scenario of O&G development in a residential community. We will all be forced to breathe the impacted air in our community -unless we wish to wear a gas mask 24/7. Currently I see an increasing number of BM residents connected to an oxygen supply -this Ursa plan will certainly not help their situation. At the last hearing I told you about my experience with odors from Ursa's operations about a mile from my house and outside the PUD boundary, late at night, which caused eye irritation for me. I was told there had been a problem and it should not have happened -but it did. Odors are indicators of emissions and many emissions contain hazardous air pollutants and toxic VOC's. Even at the best facilities, that meet the highest standards, combustion and capture units can still emit up to 5% of harmful air pollutants and probably more, even when operating correctly. ~ Ve have heard some mention of a Forward Looking Infra-Red (FUR) camera. Attached you will find a fact sheet that details the specifications of a FUR camera used by an environmental group called Earthworks. Last March I was present at a tour of some GarCo O&G facilities with Earthworks staff, during which time the FUR camera was used to film those facilities. In particular I want to show you two of the sites that were filmed. In the first video, a "low NOx" burner is shown on Ursa's Monument Ridge well pad, which is located just outside the PUD boundary, next to the densely populated Monument Creek Village. As you see, the air flow carries the emissions toward the homes. Earthworks thermographer Pete Dronkers was unable to get close enough to film the intensity of the hydrocarbon emissions. In the second video, the "low NOx" burner is on Ursa's well pad which is located at the gravel pit on CR 346, between Silt and Rifle. Here is a close-up view of a low NOx burner where you can see the volume of hydrocarbon emissions -the same cloud of emissions that's billowing directly toward those homes in Battlement Mesa in the first video. ( bviously, you can see the heat signature of the combustion, but you can also see the residual cloud of compounds that have not been completely burned off. ( The FLIR camera that captured these images has been specifically calibrated and independently tested to detect the presence of at least 20 gases that may be in the air. The emissions that are detected with a FLIR camera may include gases such as methane, benzeneQ and a number of other VOCs that are scientifically established to cause a range of healtli problems (such as eye and respiratory irritation, nosebleed, headaches and nausea). The submitted fact sheet specifically lists the gases that FLIR cameras can detect to provide more details. Given that this footage shows how even "low Nox" burners and top notch facilities still emit voes, we call on the Planning and Zoning Commission to make the decision that will truly protect the health and welfare of Battlement Mesa Residents. This filmed evidence shows that BM residents have already been exposed to an ever increasing level of polluted air and more will likely be in our future! On another point -the county staff report has made the recommendation that Ursa be required to include a site specific real-time air quality monitoring program as part of their application. The evidence shown here can only further solidify the need for that requirement. Ursa's reluctance can only be due to the additional expense because they surely would not wish to be responsible for polluting the air where we and some of their own employees live. I would further recommend that Ursa be required to present their site specific real-time air quality monitoring program to the residents of BM for their review, evaluation and feedback ( prior to its implementation. We deserve that consideration. Q ( Three additional items that I would like to mention ... All of the Leak Detection and Repair (LOAR) equipment must be inspected at least once a year and this requirement should be included as a condition of approval. ~ Also, all VOC destruction and control equipment, with at least 95% efficiency, must be used on all tanks capable of emitting over 2 tons of VOC's annually. And this should be included as a COA. And finally, if a leak is discovered, the first attempt to repair the leak shall be made no later than 24 hours after discovery. If a repair is not possible within 24 hours, the well should be shut down until a repair can be made. If shutting down the well will not stop the leak, efforts should be made to minimize the leak within the first 24 hours and it shall be reported to the Local Government Designee. And this should be included as a COA. All of these last three requirements have been required of other O&G operators and agreed to. Thank you for thoughtful consideration. Can I answer any questions at this time? 0 1!. . EXHIBIT My Nam is Jerry sJ us I L.L£.(. a..i.:..y e at 1 ·~fo reek Trail Battlement Mesa ( :ave lived there for over 6 years -""? I have over 37 1h years experience in the oil & gas field SPCC (Spill Prevention, Control & Countermeasure Plan) 1) In the event of a spill or release of produce water, condensate, or gas on the production sites like B & D Pads will be unoccupied during production. "What is the response time to get to the location & mitigate the problem. "Do the operators live in Ritle, which is 16 or more miles away! (Is 15 minutes to 45 minutes an adequate response time to a spill?) I don't think so!!! 2) When a malfunction is causing a spill ... "What are the risk to the people living in the area? Odors, fumes, methane gas, well production chemicals. What are all the hazards of a spill that the Battlement Mesa residences are being subjective too and for how long? ( ~)3) With Battlement residences living within 1000 ft. of the B pad, how long does a person have to evacuate their home when a production pad has a malfunction? If Battlement Mesa residences have to evacuate their homes, how long will they be out of their homes? * Fire (does the fire department have foam for fighting VOC 's (volatile organic compound) fires? I have seen tanks on fire and they are very difficult to put out and water will not put them out! * Tank overflows due to a malfunction on the pad separator 4) With all my experience in the oil & gas field I know that there will be some human errors & mechanical failures that will cause produce water, condensate spills and gas releases in the production phase of "B" pad: Here is a listed of things that could caused a spill! * Valves on tanks freezing, pneumatic dumps over tlow to water or condensate tank due to equipment malfunction or operator error * PSV's on popping due to high pressure on the production separator is the worst case scenarios which will causes ALL the wells venting to atmosphere * PSV's malfunction due to mechanical failure or freezing from cold weather * Ball valve, pneumatic controllers, seals on dump valves leaking, pressure transmitter on . . .. ( production separator that might freeze and burst in cold weather situations causing a spill or o[ ( now to tanks * Operator errors (examples: valves left open or closed in the wrong position, inadequate repair on equipment by operators, operators inadequate experience) There is always a chance for human errors! 5) Large scale industrial facilities do not belong next to homes and schools. These are not the conditions in which people bought homes and plan to retire in Battlement Mesa! 6) "Unless you think we should live with these possible consequences, you should reject Ursa's applications to drill on these pads." Are there any questions? Battlement Mesa PUD (Plan Unit Development) Phase 1 Pipeline 1) With a 12" and then converted over to a 16" gas pipeline are there any PSV's on this line in case of high pressure on the line? That is a lot of gas venting to atmosphere before someone can correct the malfunction. Are there any isolation valves on the gas line so that in case of a break in the line it can be isolated instead of bleeding down the whole pipeline for repairs? 2) Does the pipeline have any high/low transmitters on the line for monitoring the pressure for alarms? 3) Does the pipeline have any ESD valves (Emergency Shutdown Valve) for a high/low pressures malfunction on the line? 4) Worst case scenarios is if there is a leak on the 12" or 16" gas pipeline, which means all of the SO+ wells will be venting all at the same time into the atmosphere ... how much gas would be venting? That's a lot of gas if a malfunction occurred next to residential homes and is just not acceptable. If a leak happens there is ( ... 1ways some liquids in the gas pipeline, which will be venting to atmosphere and or ground causing a spill. .· . 5) How does Ursa plan on notifying the Battlement Mesa residences if there is a gas leak on the 12 " or 16" pipeline? ( , Do you have any high/low shutdowns on the pumps at B & D Pad for the produce water going down the 8" water pipeline to the injection well in case of a break in the lines? ( ( 7) These are not the conditions in which people bought homes and plan to retire in Battlement Mesa. Large scale pipelines do not belong next to residential homes! Drilling in the PUD is just not acceptable! "Unless you think we should live with these possible consequences, you should reject Ursa's applications to drill on these pads!" Are there any questions? ,.I /,'N /"" EXHIBIT Grand Valley Fire Protection District : 2015-0571! https://sccurc.cmcrgencyreporting.c.:om/n I ~/Ai, "". (J (J Grand Valley Fire Protection District Station: 31 Shrrts Or Platoon: Black Crew Location: 309RD Parachute CO 81635 County Rd 309 Lat/Long: Incident Type: 162 -Outside equipment fire FDID: 04530 Incident#: 2015-0578 Exposure ID: 14682104 Exposure #: 0 N 39° 28' 20.62" W 107° SS' 3.1" Incident Date: 10/14/2015 -------------Dispatch Run tt: 2015-578 Zone: 31 -Station 31 First Due Area Location Type: 7 -US National Grid Cross Street, Directions or Natlonal Grid: County Rd 309 Report Completed by: Ferguson , Robert J ID: 0317 Date: 10/19/2015 Report Reviewed by: Ferguson , Robert J ID: 0317 Date: 10/19/2015 Report Printed by: Ferguson , Robert J ID: 0317 Date: 10/26/2015 Time: 06:16 Structure Type: I Property Use: 645 -Flammable liquid distribution, F.l. pipeline - Automatic Extlngulshment System Present: 01 Detectors Present: 01 Cause or IgnlUon: Unintentional -- Aid Given or Received: Auto~atlc aid received I Primary action taken: 11 -Extinguishment by fire service personnel -- Losses Pre-Incident Values Property: Property: Civilian Injuries: 0 Fire Servlce Injuries: 0 Contents: Contents: Civilian Fatalities: 0 Fire Service Fatalitfes: 0 Total: Total: Total Casuilllies: 0 Total Fire Service Casualties: 0 Total # or apparatus on call: 4 Total # of personnel on call: 6 -- NARRATIVE 911 disP. ed to a gas well fire. Passe\b~ Interstate 70 could sec the nre from the road. Upon arrival found a Natural gas farm and separator. ThfSeparator as fully Involved with Flames about 15 feet high and heavy black smoke . oke was traveling to the Northeast rrom 15 feet ad higher. Smoke never came down Into contact with ground areas. Thfs did not pose a Inhalation hazard for any personnel on scene. All operations directly to lank was conducted with SCBA. E33 began to Investigate and discuss problem with the tank that was on nre. One 400 foot 1 3/4 Inch attack line was pulled to help protect tank farm and shut off valves from fire. WPX had H&K Trucking on scene lo help pump orr larger storage tanks. After discussion wrth WPX employees on scene. The larger tanks were full and flowed back to lhe separator and once some oil "burped" up In tank the oil caught on fire when in came In contact with the combustor in separator. The fire was contained to the separator tank . The fire from the tank melted the top and bottom off tank and all flammable liquid burned off until we could get the valve shut orr from the storage tanks. Once the valve was shut the fire burned out and leaving small amount of production water which was left on the dirt pad area. WPX employees started clean up as FD units were picking up equipment and hose. E33 used approx. 500 gallons of waler and roam ran at 3%. After fire was out E33 used an addit!onal 700 gallons of water to cool the tank remains. T43 was on scene to establish a drop lank, which wasn't needed. Before being released T43 topped of E33 water tank. E31,A33,U37, U31, CRFR B<!O were on scene for man power. No other hazards noted and scene was turned over to WPX employees. Kevin McDcrmltt arrived on scene and Chief Ferguson spoke with him. Kevin confirmed what happened and what started and caused the fire. All GVFPD and CRFR units were released, command terminated. EOR.R.Ferguson/ DFC GVFPD lll/Jfi/7fll 'i f\· 17 II M .. Grand Valley Fire Protection D istrict : 201 5-0578 https ://sccure.cmergcncyrcporting.corn /nfu-slprintasp?printtypc""2&pr ... ( APPARATUS ( ----~ Unit E31 Unit E 33 Type: Engine Type: Engine Use: Suppression Use : Suppression Response Mode: Lights and Sirens Response Mode: Lights and Sirens #of People 2 #of People 2 Injury Or Onset -1--1---: --: .... InJ'!.ry Or Onset --/ --I-· -· : --: .... Alarm 10 /14/2015 16:36 :00 Alarm 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Dispatched 10 /l'l/2015 16:36:00 Dispatched 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Enroute 10 /14/2015 16 :40:00 Enroute 10 /14/2015 16 :40:00 Arrived 10 /14/2015 16:53:00 Arrived 10 /14/2015 16:48 :00 Cancelled --/-/--..... : .... : .... cancelled -·/--/-...... : .... : ..... Cleared Scene 10 /14/2015 17:50:00 Oeared Scene 10 /14/2015 17:52:00 In Quarters --I --/-... : --: ... In Quarters --!--/-. .. : .... : ... _ Jn Service 10 /14/2015 17:50:00 In Service 10 /14/2015 17 :52 :00 Unit A 33 Unit u 31 Type: l\LS unit Type: Chier officer car Use: EMS Use: other Response Mode: Lights and Sirens Response Mode: No Lights or srrens #of People 1 #of People 1 Injury Or Onset --I --/ --· : --: -Injury Or Onset -· / --I ---: -· : - Alarm 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Alarm 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Dispatched 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Dispatched 10 /14/2015 16:36:00 Enroute 10 /14(2015 16 :40:00 En route 10 /14/2015 16:41:00 Arrived 10 /14/2015 16:48:00 Arrived 10 /14/2015 17:26 :00 Cancelled -I --/ -· --......... Cancelled --1--1 ---: -: .-. Cleared Scene 10 /M/2015 17:52:00 Cleared Scene 10 /14/2015 17:51:00 In Quarters --1 -1 -a-: ... : •. () In Service 10 /1'1/2015 17 :51 :OO ( Jn Quarters --I --I ·---: --: -- In Service 10 /14/2015 17 :52:00 Number Of People not on apparatus: 0 FIRE Acres Burned Non e or Less Than One Acres Burn From Wildland False Form Material Natural gas Storage Use Pr·occss lng or manufacturing Area Of Fire Origin Open area , outside; Included are Heat Source Incendiary farmland, field device Item First Ignited Flammable liquid/gas -in/from Fire ls Confined To Object rJnal container Of Origin Type Of Material Natural gas Cause Of Ignition Unlntentlonal Factor Contributing To Equipment unatten ded Ignition Human Factors Non e Contributing Equipment Involved Jn True Equipment Involved Burners Ignition Flag Equipment Power Source Nalurar gas or other llghter -Equipment Portability Stationary than-air gas Suppression Factors Natural or other llghter-than·a lr gas prese nt ( l 10/26/201 5 6:17 AM ( ( ( Grand Valley Fire Protection District : 2015-0578 htlps ://!;ccurc .cmcrgcncyreporting.com/nfirs/print.asp?printtypc ~2&pr ... ..... "" HAZMAT Released From Story Of Release Cause Of Release Outside of structure Unintentional release Factors Improper storage procedures Population Density Area Affected Area Evacuated Rural -Scattered small communities 20 Square feet True and farms Estimated Number Of People Estimated Number Of Buildings Estimated Number Of Buildings Evacuated Evacuated Evacuated None 0 0 True Haz Mat Actions Taken Isolate area & establish hazard control zones , Provide apparatus If Fire Or Explosion Is Involved With Incident Which Occured First 1 Disposition Haz Mat Deaths HazMat Injuries Released to property owner or manager HAZMAT Is First Mat False UN Number Name Of Chemical Or Material 1829000 Chemical Name Capacity Units Estimated Amount Released Released Units Gallons Physical State When Released MomO.• M•ki"g R•port (-ty Are a"'' Robert J '"~~ Supervisor (Deputy Fire Chief Robert J Ferguson): Z ~ 7-::;; 7 Natural gas 25 lllnr.1?/l 1 '\ A· 17 AM EXHIBIT 11111*11 www.denver ost.com environment ci fires-wells ENVIRONMENT Front Range firefighters gird after oil fires as wells encroach By Bruce Finlc)· The Denver Post POSTED · 051011201 4 12 01 00 AM MDT2 COMMENTS UPDATED ABOUT A YEAR AGO -. - GREELEY -The proliferation of oil wells near people along Colorado's Front Range has got Greeley Fire Chief Duane McDonald worried. Six recent fires and explosions rocked industry facilities, and McDonald says he dreads what might happen if an industl)' gas truck rolling through Greeley ignites. ( ( "Having a mobile vehicle roll over on a street that is not designed to contain flammable liquids, "ith some going down into storm sewers, that's a whole different scenario," McDonald said. So Greeley is girding, planning to use a $635,000 state grant and local taxpayer funds to build a $5.3 million firefighter training center to hone response capabilities for oil- industl}' emergencies and other threats. Greeley also is boosting its capacity to douse oil fires \\ith foam by accepting a $36,000 gift from Mineral Resources Inc., the company driving expansion of the 425 wells inside the city to more than 1,000. "Yes, obviously there's going to be some risk associated \">1th this," Fire Marshal Dale Lyman told planning commissioners last week before they approved Mineral Resources' latest project for 58 wells and 42 oil storage tanks. "I feel like it is an acceptable risk," Lyman said. But making that risk calculation and being prepared is increasingly complicated as Colorado's oil boom intensifies, concentrated northeast of Denver in Weld County. Local fire departments from Frederick to Windsor are sending crews to study industry facilities and prepare to fight oil and gas fires. Quick access to foam increasingly is seen as essential as wells multiply. "Water won't put them out," Frederick-Firestone Fire District spokeswoman Summer Stair said after her crews recently battled towering flames at an oil tank near homes and an elementary school. Four local fire trucks each carried 30 gallons of foam, Stair said. While schoolchildren were sheltered inside the school, firefighters relied on help from the neighboring Mountain View Fire Department, which has acquired a special foam trailer and sprayed enough to snuff flames in about 30 minutes. State regulators investigate fires to identify causes, but they leave it to local firefighters to respond, Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Director Matt Lepore said. "Local governments are the lead agencies on emergency response and house the expertise in emergency response, including the best understanding of personnel, training and equipment," Lepore said. In Greeley, firefighters' emerging response plans include calling Texas-based industrial firefighting specialists who could arrive in 12 to 24 hours as backup. ( ( The foam trailer being manufactured, for delivery this summer, \\ill add to existing foam assets at Greeley's airport, Lyman said. Greeley firefighters' average response time is four to seven minutes, he said . "From the initial call , it would take approximately 30 minutes to get an actual application of foam agent onto a fire." Those first at an oil fire would conduct rescues, evacuate the area then try to contain the fire by spraying water on surrounding objects with foam trucks en route. Front Range community groups increasingly raise safety concerns in opposing more drilling near people. Greeley leaders ought to be more prudent in their land-use decisions, said Sara Ban,inski, a member of community group Weld Air and Water. "Why plan for emergency response -instead of tl)ing to prevent emergency response?" Ovel" the past two months, Front Range firefighters I"aced to at least six e.\plosions and fil"es at oil and gas facilities: March 3: A worker was injured near Eaton when gas vapors ignited after drilling. March 10: South of Limon, workers installing a water pipe damaged a gas pipe and vapors ignited. "About 15 to 20 minutes later the building exploded, .. COGCC's report said. A worker was hurt. April 8: Gas vapors at tanks ignited during maintenance operations about eight miles east of Kersey. A spark from improper use of electrical equipment may have caused the fire. April 11: East of Kersey, a crude oil truck, idling as it took on oil, ignited vapors. April 16: A fire in Frederick threatened to escaped from a storage tank, 1,800 feet from Legacy Elementary. Fumes from the open tank ignited. COGCC's report said the tank wasn't grounded and a static discharge ignited vapors. April 22: Two barrels of oil somehow came into contact with vapor combustion equipment, igniting a fire at a Conoco-Phillips well south of Watkins in Arapaho County. Source: Colorado Oil and Gas Conse1-vation Commission 1·ecords ( ( http://www.greelevtribune.com/news/feature2/15948232-113/greeley-firefighters-extinguish-( blaze-near-greeley-weld-county-airport Greeley firefighters extinguish blaze near Greeley-Weld County Airport {video) James Redmond jredmond@greeleytribune.com April 17. 2015 CURSED SITE? The site of the fire was near an injection well that was linked to earthquakes outside of Greeley in May and June last year. On May 31, a 3 4 magnitude quake struck the area . On June 23, a 2.6 magnitude quake struck the same area . Researchers from the University of Colorado placed seismic monitors in the general area of several injection wells to better pinpoint the potential source of the quakes They narrowed it to an injection well east of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. ( \. I ( The fire at a wastewater injection well site just northeast of the 'Greeley-Weld County Airport on Friday could mean a total loss at the facility, Greeley Fire Marshal Dale Lyman said. ( About 1: 15 p .m ., a lightning bolt struck a water storage tank at the C4 facility east of the airport , causing a series of explosions and a fire that went on into the evening. After keeping the fire contained much of the day, firefighters began attack operations to extinguish the blaze about 5:30 p.m . Lyman said they had much of it knocked down about half an hour later. By 6:45 p.m . the fire was out. "It was still kind of a smoldering hulk," he said . There were no reports of injuries. Although quickly contained, explosions and fireballs erupted from the fire throughout the afternoon, spewing black smoke into the sky, which was visible for miles. The roar of the fire sounded like a freight train rumbling past. A little after 3 p .m ., the fire spread south toward a grouping of tanks, a loud whistling sound preceded a large explosion that launched a tank into the air. The tank landed about 60 feet from the site . That afternoon , several tanks became airborne in the same fashion . "A lot of oil tanks failed," Lyman said . Minor explosions rocked the site and fireballs erupted from the site during the day as tanks failed, caught on fire or started to leak, he said. Firefighters had to wait throughout the afternoon and evening for the rema ining tanks to fail and for the explosion risk to subside. Once the explosion risk was reduced , firefighters went in with a foam fire suppression agent to subdue the blaze . The foam agent, used for fighting liquid fire, goes over the fuel and cuts off the fire's oxygen supply and cools it down. Lyman said . He said he does not have a dollar amount for damage caused by the fire , but it will be substantial, he said . In the surrounding area, the four homes closest to the site were evacuated as a precaution . Residents farther out reported hearing the sound of an explosion when the fire started . "I heard a sound -boom ," said Kenny Griego, who lives south of the airport, about a mile away from the site of the fire. "And I heard someone say, 'Half the world is on fire over there .'" ( ( Sam Padilla, who was with Griego at the time of the explosion, said he saw a fire engine racing out to the scene right after he heard the explosion. Cars and trucks pulled off the road near the intersection of Weld County roads 64 and 47, about half a mile northeast of the airport. Drivers left their vehicles and stood in the heavy rain watching the rising plume of smoke on the horizon. Farther up the road, vehicles of emergency responders filled the road and parked along its shoulders. Rain fell much of the day and heavy gray skies hung over scene. The clouds began to clear in the hours following the fire, and more cars pulled aside, their occupants watching the scene unfold from afar. Throughout the afternoon, the tanks and a couple of semi-trucks parked nearby burned. "The fire isn't going anywhere,'' Lyman said. The containment measures on site have worked as intended and kept the fire from spreading, he said. The site, a wastewater injection facility owned by NGL Water Solutions , stored oil and gas wastewater, in preparation for injection into underground wells. Though water was inside the fiberglass tanks, as oil and gas wastewater, it had traces of hydrocarbons, which create vapors. Those vapors were ignited by the lightning bolt, said Doug White, vice president of NGL Water Solutions. "It was quite a lightning storm that was moving through here,'' White said. "We 've had it happen in Texas, several times, actually. That's a part of the business. We don't know the amount of damage. We're still assessing the situation." In a prepared statement, NGL officials also vowed to participate fully in the investigation , once the fire was fully out. When the fire began, units from the Greeley Fire Department and Eaton Fire Protection District responded to the blaze and closed roads around the site. Lyman said about 35 firefighters and eight firetrucks from Greeley were on scene, along with about five firefighters from Eaton Fire Protection District. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission also had two people on scene monitoring the fire, he said. In addition to the responders directly on scene, deputies from the Weld County Sheriff's Office helped control traffic around the fire and the Weld County Office of Emergency Management ( supplied equipment to assist fire containment efforts. \. J ( ( White said three employees were on site, as all of their facilities are manned 2417 , and none were injured in the resulting blaze. All were sent home for the day. He said he had no concerns of spills at the site, noting its secondary containment systems held up well in the blaze. He said this facility will be shut down until it can be repaired. The company has several other injection sites throughout the county. -Tribune reporter Sharon Dunn and photographer Joshua Polson contributed to this report ( ( http:ljwww.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/08/08/crews--investigating-and-monitoring--situation - a fter-·la rge·gas -ex p I o s lo n-h a p pen ed--weld-co u nty-j ust-after • 3-pm-th u rs day/31313 817 I Investigation, repairs begin after Weld County explosion Mackenzie Concepcion, J•,; r' ,,,.,,I~.,, -''J•'' { ,,.,.,/ 1\,,,, (Photo SKY9) WELD COUNTY -Crews are investigating and monitoring the situation after a large gas explosion happened in Weld County just after 3 p .m . Thursday. Williams, the company that operates the pipeline , said a contractor conducting trenching work for a third-party pipeline company hit Williams' Lucerne Lateral -a 6-inch natural gas liquids pipeline in Weld County. When the pipeline was hit, it broke and sparked a fire . Weld County Office of Emergency Management and Platte Valley F ire Department worked with Williams during the incident to secure the site and prevent grassfires . ( ' ( ( , ( There were no injuries reported , and no homes or property were in danger. Williams employees notified the appropriate regulatory agencies and an inspector from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration was on site Thursday evening and Friday morning. A small, controlled fire under the trenching equipment continued to burn residual product Friday. Williams personnel and contractors are monitoring the air downwind of the explosion site to ensure no public impacts. Personnel will be on site 24 hours a day monitoring the situation and developing a repair plan for the Lucerne Lateral. The third-party pipeline company and Williams will participate in a full investigation together. The Lucerne Lateral is shut down at this time, and the DJ Lateral continues to flow gas liquids from Wattenberg area of the DJ Basin north to the mainline of Overland Pass Pipeline. (© 2015 KUSA) ( ( ( http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/04/16/tank-fire-frederick/7776009/ Oil tank catches on fire near Frederick A gravity oil storage tank fire al Weld County Road 18 Wednesday morning caused three fire units to respond . 9NEWS at noon . 04/26/14 Bl:1ir Shiff, h:USA ' .. : : '" 1 11 11 11" '' : · .i (Photo Pali Harv1/fe) FREDERICK -Just after 9 a.m. on Wednesday, the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District went to a possible oil-well fire located at Weld County Road 18 and Eagle Boulevard in Frederick. They discovered a gravity oil storage tank on fire. Mountain View Fire Protection District also came to help fight the blaze. A foam truck had to be used. The fire was extinguished just before 1 O a.m . There were no injuries and no hazardous material exposure. During the fire, a nearby school was asked to shelter in place, but that was lifted after the blaze was extinguished. The cause of the fire is unknown at this time. (KUSA-TV © 2014 Multimedia Holdings Corporation) ( ( ' ( / http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/10455258-113/fire-oil-drillinq-zavadil Massive oil, gas explosion north of Greeley results in minor injuries Sharon Dunn sdunn@greeleytribune.com A lire that started with an 11 20 pm explosion Monday ni g ht was fina lly doused by 3 3 0 a m Tuesday morning Firefighters think static elec tricity may have sparked vap ors w h il e w orkers pulled product from storage tanks Static electricity and possibly a parking violation may be the culprits in a massive explosion and fire at an oil and gas drilling site north of Greeley. Neighbors were rocked out of their beds around 11 :20 p.m. Monday, when an explosion shook their doors . The subsequent fire could be seen for miles. "We were getting ready for bed and the whole house shook," said Liz Hergert, a resident in the area . Her husband drove up the road a bit and snapped several pictures of the fire, which was offset from the drilling site at some storage tanks. The fire occurred at a Bill Barrett Corp. drilling site a couple of miles west of Lucerne in the area of Weld County roads 27 and 70 . ( ( ( ''We see th e so urce as eit h er being static e lectricity or it appears so n1eo ne n1ay have parked thei r truck too close to the tank, so t h ere's con1p e ting theories at present as to the actual source o f ignition. -Duan e Za va dil, senio r v ice pres ident of environn1ental h ealth and safety, regul atory and govern n1ental affairs for Bill Barrett Co rp. Though it was technically in the Eaton fire protection district, firefighters from Windsor and Greeley also responded. A total of 18 firefighters were on scene with eight trucks, said Eaton Fire Capt. Michael Lenderink. They cleared the scene about 3:30 a.m ., he said. Officials believe the explosion occurred as workers were separating the initial output of oil and water from the well during the final portions of the drilling process . The oil and water were being placed in temporary storage tanks as a part of the transition from drilling the well to completion, which would be when the well is producing and the liquids stored in permanent tanks on site. Oil had accumulated on top of the water that was being put in a temporary tank, which created vapors that became the fuel for the explosion. Either static electricity arced and caused a spark to set off the vapors, or there was another ignition source, such as a vehicle. Duane Zavadil, senior vice president of environmental health and safety, regulatory and governmental affairs for Bill Barrett, said it was unusual to have oil accumulating on top of the water in this case, but it was more of a function of the initial production from the well bore, which often varies in flowback pressure. Zavadil said the incident remains under investigation, but officials have two working theories on the cause. "We see the source as either being static electricity or it appears someone may have parked their truck too close to the tank, so there's competing theories at present as to the actual source of ignition," Zavadil said. "At end of day, the flammable vapors were present as a consequence of oil accumulation." Firefighters doused the fire with foam, which is typically used on "Class B" fires, or those involving flammable liquids. ( () / "If we put water on it, it'll just make the fire bigger," Lenderink said . "We used our water to ( cool the oil separator and exposures until we could get a decent amount of Class B foam on site, and we used the foam to blanket the fuels and oil until it smothered the fire." /" ( The foam came to the district via Windsor-Severance Fire . Firefighters had to truck in about 20 ,000 to 30,000 gallons of water to create the foam , which created a protective blanket on the fire. "It takes a bit once the blanket builds up ," Lenderink said. "It obviously smothers the fire because it cuts off the oxygen . The blanket cools the liquids and suppresses any vapors ." He said there was no hazardous material spills to worry about. "The fire was burning long enough , it consumed all the product," Lenderink said. Two workers received minor injuries and were treated on scene , which is one of the silver linings. Zavadil said had the workers not been wearing flame resistent clothing, they would have gotten more than the singed eyebrows they did get. There was no resulting damage to neighboring property, and the storage tanks held up well , Lenderink said . "It was down in a hole , at a lower elevation. so any nearby houses were up and over a hill," Lenderink said. "Thankfully, we didn 't have to really worry about that." The well will be shut-in while officials investigate , which could be just a few days, Zavadil figured . But ultimately, that price tag could reach $100 ,000 a day in lost production , he said . Zavadil said the incident is being investigated so officials can learn from it and prevent a second occurrence . "Our management will tell you ... there is no such thing as an accident," Zavadil said. "Ultimately, we 'd consider it something that is mitigable , that we're not going to just simply say it was a freak spark, or someone parked too close . There's something to be learned from this circumstance that we'll be reacting to ." He added, "We don't ascribe any accident to bad luck. They're all things we think we can improve on and learn from ." Bill Barrett has a smaller holding in the DJ Basin than some of the bigger players. such as Anadarko Petroleum or Noble Energy . ( ( ( In an investor presentation last month, the company reported plans to spend upward of $390 million this year on drilling in the DJ Basin, which is a liquids-rich bowl beneath all of northeastern Colorado containing several oil and gas producing formations, most notably the Niobrara Shale. Corporate documents state that Bill Barrett has almost 1, 700 gross drilling locations and more than 54,000 acres throughout the basin, much of which is in Weld County. The 2014 plan calls for drilling 85 wells, plus participating in the drilling of 45 more. Last quarter, the company produced 5, 125 barrels of oil equivalent per day, which ls a mixture of oil, gas and natural gas liquids. ( ( (' http://www. greeleytribune. com/news/9278592-113/fire-crews-platteville-gas ( Crews continue to investigate fire near Platteville oil and gas operation Greeley Tribune . December 9 . 2013 Fire crews spent most of Monday investigating a blaze that charred an open-top water tank in an oil and gas operation near Platteville, but additional details about the Sunday evening fire remained sparse. An oil and gas worker called emergency crews around 3:30 p.m. Sunday to report a 500- gallon water tank that caught fire near the intersection of Weld County roads 35 and 32, east of Platteville, said Erin Medina, spokeswoman for the Platteville Gilcrest Fire Protection District. When crews arrived, they saw thick black smoke billowing and a single involved structure . Oil and gas workers had already evacuated the area. Firefighters from multiple agencies including LaSalle , Platteville and Fort Lupton remained on the scene until about 8 p.m., Medina said . She added that crews were able to keep the fire contained to the single structure. Nobody was injured during the incident. Additional details including the fire's cause and the extent of the damage will be released when investigators complete their assessment, Medina said. EXHIBIT loooo ( ( ( 1 10/30/2015 ( ( 2 ( Refined Noise Analysis '.>• :•• rcqvrn•c:: n :e•.r,e<l enc.\~.; J (;~11:.~'on1:1 s.:o ~;·ec.::c r.'lOGc:in~,1 10 do~e1:ni::c c ·~.w-clc<.! '10..~c 10·. el: r:~ 8 rad cr,.j :J Pod ~l'eling ~i~t'.1 Jnjl•.r..:r1•: 10 .. 01s c:T 350 ~co:• cm r ... :(1,: 11 [CM!Cf'~ f. '\~oc:c•o<; µci!O/rT.!Jd ~J·jd.t.cnol rnodoliflH lhcl dc!Cfm:ncd ~oi\•_• ~ovc.~ ~L<: :1~; bo'h r~W~J t. ccrr.picliom. w1Th rn~:icc~.cn. will l~!l v,j:t,in er tJClo·u lt•o Ugn~ lr'IC'J~~:ll.!1 lo·.o · (')'. 350 foe~ r~crn l/'tO well p<~.j1, :·1 Piopo~ct1rni~igo!ion111c!:.:do1 c ~!c1ior .co loo! <.!cou~tic(;1 !Ol:nd ..... :~l; 1::1 tio~n t:tie:c; m v.-c:~ ra 1n~t'm•:1 X l,x,t v.t:~·. oiov~1 l:acr:inp p·.irr:µ l:uck~ iMldQ l!"io pc.d dL•; ntl com pie tier.' .l) :.•,:i't,l.-:~.cn ;:,:o~ed bv A ppHci11 11 .. i11 o~c.:l.:'e-1 (t•"! IQVl-Cr th•:r., 'he N{)tJO,'c~ ;ovin cl :io·s ltuo;t":o~!~ . .l UI~ mn'l."'Y V1.hi'.o l~(l /.~.p1;c~:~.: G•.,'TCCS wi!ll Jr'leotn!I Ct ~~Ct•cC 11{] tt.e ~UVO'l~~Cd t.:t1c1 ~nOIO ~m.~iC.'.J-.o Ugn~ lnd~~~ie:I ~!.:::md·!l!t lho COCCC r;oi.'' .\cov~c:!:c-n~ l(~mo .n lho.• JUIUS In •• :~ .... I, (Seq ~OA On volv~· cf ~01,,:nd~ 10/30/2015 3 10/30/2015 ( 4 ( Re vise d Emissio ns I Odor Te c hnology s:1~:~ re1~·:f"!~~e--t ()tr:~ r.~(j ·~~l(~.'~,o;; I f;~1~.l!Qr"'l(~I t r.I OtM•~~icn CT'; lo whcl t.:Oul<t ~·! dOrit• 10 br :ti~-r 1 f!>r.''.JC o cm.~o;;icn~ r::nrl c or~!l::::>I L>dOf~ jthci 1c·c~~ fJfO'lt ;n lt><..t:nOIOf]1 ';I 1 I l •Ol<Jr.!cr! v.:pc:1 ;;cco-..011 L:r.1!s (\. ?U> tJo ~ c ~~<Jc.:110 c::·. r:;:~Jlit•d t::i r!rt ym ·~oo~ retl'J-a ·~. 1: i"'// DV~P i'i~~.c.~ n~cetr.~.nu orl~r1onc1 t'IO~';(• cn11.J·J !oo~ :r:'I :..;;r··., ooJ,:"I:; .. 1tuc..:l1rr,~lU.::S. :') h-c~r.oi~; hra 01olJr.c!~<nc!.• IHA: al Git·c-n ::orr.plc~Ccr.o;; "to·,, omi\~ior·~ r1ciN ooc~ • ~oct>n rt!qU•BU ! ! f I;;, 'n : :.J l :, bl U!o .;~ Cr.;hcm n.a1,~ ct~ on t1irJ. l":<ltchm cJ P::::id1,1C:t.Cl"'I h:.r:ic '~'en~ Con'.bo.,:-:~."Cn ~cquilcd h/ f ?.A 111 ~1.S t~l P'}(..lli:I~ V~Q'C! c: 1R c~:rr.t•rc.n l:i c!n~cci mc~t.o~e ie<::~ ~ 3~ co:, ~l.::J':n\•1c•j· ~i~1.· sr;.ccl:'.c ;...;, Cuot;t; fl!cr.i!.:otir\j"; Ptog::m 1:) -A .~o rx~-.im 1i.::"lded L, Ao:;µf1ccr.: 1',.SC~I bl C i :.1nrer~ t:il<i 1,.,-.;_lt~rn~r;'od t'l1 Cc1~.ck"! Co\.:nl 1 ,. J "Vii\ t 1r. Mei c:crr.:l'lo,n'~ .... ,~11 ~~:\.· !;.>t·c~r.c i~.r:it!'nr.:;0 r. 10/30/2015 5 ( ( Rev ised Nuisance Re sp onse Progro:n .:..:~~ 1e<.;~·c-,•c.1u 1c-'":rc<: ri1•:r. lt!llt a.! ~·.1n ndd.~'°1'1Cj C<'l~r..:-.. , c~ or:1: t"I"'•~ 1~\;JC 1 A' c:-... • c:: '1or '.C.O'-'·!'"S' h,::1"1 i:::: CCL'Yt,11..~ nttoYCrotJ Nhf"]~ ;\ OCCUI ng ~C$fJ~:~, l} Pre .-i\.!<'•! a rn0tc fcrTI1~1 ·u·.:t"fnd ~ric~r!'r:t r::Jt.f.cc!.cn Pro!o..:01 GNJ ;.'C:T;:>lo ~1 fm"" - .·.!"Heh 1'.lu!tm 'l'~ u::,1 p<mcr.ncl to Ct;::'\to-:r f:;r c -.t::•o~, c~ l'l'1'1.11on~)Cn~.JI ;'.SV;?~ i.!N1 >1.tl•l' !ti¢1(' pcrl-enr,oj •::':O ~o:n'1 tf1 l t".u Ov(!r.! c f <..lil •riciclt:-n~. 1) lJ:tn ha~ CIOC'°'1 t1 •,cv1 f.ll":Ol"\C r '-'rTn('i O r.t1 physiccl (JhOr·O 10 t~O U\CO h',I d~•$1~mc'i•1l pe1ror.r-.cl on o •n<.!l l mo ~lM J} 5 .. JCCC$1 c• lr11,.1()V1:.f1 • \-.ill t'c ~C<l'IJIC"d b11~~ 100% 1r":;::>t('r~crfr.~ionw ·!h 1,c: nnrv rn 1,...tTc-!<:lc 1 C1PC'ntl? t:v~ 1¢1!0-'ede, ~,,.111 l;c!icri Revised SPCC & Lightin g Plans SPCC. =-~~~~ 104l:O\~er1 ti (~J;.::~t i,olc;n !hOf lfldkO ~t.''i. °"'tmf i\ !O t~ fJ•~C.'t?d on :!•o \i~l.' I~ ,,·n lhOUQh It 1\ •io: 1oqur10...J umkr COCCC 1u;c~. fl~.µlicun : pio..,·tr!cc1~~ccjr.c1e1J,>OmC!~ cogcrdin~; ~e..:ir: ~~e.'dcfiQf'I. Tn•mH~.n111.i1ec:1Nt1!!1on 11 ... en:~ "'~h.n or:01'~G•r.rrt.>nt '"hich i:u cdoqun'c ~!.1'! re·,.;\~$ H1-:J COA ~o t)(!~!ct·: .. :n lho in!or~lGtK;fi in u )i!t: ~f.~~ll1c ~f'CC ~'l<:.."'1 r~~ ·:I') T. t:.ut! <..end !.('II') ~l'' COCCC ·u'os. ~r-.o .A;.:~JiCl.!r~t •C \ M:n I~.· Ltvn!.nsJ P' ... 'l.'l t:>1nC'~O tt.c ~f.! c: 1£0 liUJlf\O~ ;..>r<·..::•CH' o :c! "" t•n·.ph.!J~ on :.h•cll~ nuc!),..t1w1;1(J (.!."'l11 lr.""u:;1 w11r. Gr ·/ n10bi'o li\)i1!.t1\:. r•I·. t:.:::>01i<J ••··~ ;)(;., ~ 'o• l0/30/2015 6 ( ( Conoitions of Approval ; • ,, ~_,Uc .·.•:111; ~cc ~ ·:r : .~ ,.11 ::x:.1.n c: nc :(!~c cc:., !~c t i:1t' .,·.c1:;~1 :o '~.!<!:e'.~ ~;··:I.e.. cor·c ~r~ ~ 1c1ot1 b1 ~·~:~· C !"l<.1 c1 r·lcr.n.nn C crr.m .:i1C111:'. t ·t!O<!C .1 ''1''-~c'-c no;~o• ~~ :•o.(";1 t,'. rr-._. :w:·$ t »l'~\c-.1 en11\~~.cJ p to!'("'C ! 10.•c--n !1.P'!r:!iE!!.hiblt CCC· 1 : • . .1·.· \loh.1m.9olth•tovndgen91afed f 1 ~JM1 1 ·!1 1., ... :1 ~· 1-:' •,-,,,,., r..--·.:·-----·r;..,••l •l , ........ ,~1 ~ .... , T. ll-.1. '·.-.-• 1 ·;. -•• •. •.-..-_·_-, .---'({'.•·,• .... .it-,.. ...... ~ •'k 'c.-··•-: ....... , .... "" ,_1 ~~·;..·~J ,, 1• .. -; ~:·-_,."( _': •.• , .. "' .... ~-.~~!4 -,,f _••''\.··T".r.t ' .... :O.--: '··i :-i .. , . .., .-.... , '•····· ;r1f'!"l ··;, ... ..,'ft ~ .. Qi ~1 :1r '°"''o:..-:<!'-~ ... ~-·•·.-\ ·, ·. • · ~.!"' •-I .._.... • .• -.,._ "· ~ t· 1 •:I""<:"!:"'-.... '"'..:• t -n j ", ~•t"(1of :·~ .:-;.. '"· ·__::__ •_.:_·_~' _·.-IJI llutoi1'tng c ·:,.,' ~·· ir,.....,, .... • Jlco-1 ~•• l•J~o•i. r~-,:i,·_ :1 ··'•.J : • -~····. ,. : :·• l :;.,• ·•· : l'-t -.r -~"' 1.·. ,J~v···• .)J"•k • 0 •' 1te:"vr .. ,.. ·I!.:.·"•·' ; •. : •. -•. , . .,, -. -.-•. ,. •-., , .. • U.:,:J~r.!.l "_!".,..:....i.:rt.:"':'.:.:!:~~r. ·.-·;_j~.·~~,,.:-t '>•;-• 11 ": .• . ........... ... ~ .. ~·~:--·I. ···-·2"•J'!°1':i;•.1 1 :~ .. -~.1.!_t···.:_f(i,;r-........ ~ ·•---;·-..;, ··-=~.:. ~;-!' -...... 'f,.·. --~-~ '._:"t..-...-._r:-_~ .. '-.:·....:.·~, ~·-~'...._'! ~ : ... _. ':· ..... :-;·.··-._ -. --~ ~-:--~L ~____':~ :·.:..:-:..:.. ·, ':Z •· .. ·;.: •.... :.: ' "';: ~-,;-,.~·-";_.)': .:. ·J "'-~I .H. ~ ••• _., •• I I ;- ..,.. ,..,,,., "·.: .• , i '<"'i.' :-......... Conditions of Approval .·~~-. ··1'>:' .. •·(l !·~:t r •• :V'-1 •!·1~·,,..'7':';''11 '•.>.·, .. · ''"'·''· ~--'J·_n ·--.:! :;__ ... ~~:.:.-~..r :.J -:p.i;-~'f.t'l;.s r'-!•J ~l'J ~ ~..,...':;.· · • "'·J ·•,r. •i. ; • "'" ..... ~ : ·~ J ·,-_,.. •:".'.l'l'("olt>lio=-'1 •Jo:,,~ 1l'o)i I _, .-• '-_•I ,. •.•.•~ ·~···~"!~• N.•' :IU n!n •.:.-:.:ll0'~~~..:·•1 l·C"'l'!'i .a 1 ·)IT •::1 .. · .-•·!·· •w .' ~ .·_v"J ""'' ·~·.: ·.:.• . .:.tl.J.oe.".'.:0::.Zll?""'~a .l';.;;.t."\I:"·;·.;.· :ot-.• ) .~,.·:J ~ L '.-I~ ... · .. tu•J·~: 11l.J:..:..,..J:{,.,_4.:t.~O:.~\.J:..'h.1,r"!; -.:..:;:~~1'.l:J..~·.!.LJ .-..: .. , ·~·--~lf_:~~~J...:..Jl ~~~:!l'ILL: .• .... .... ' • '.1°!i "-~~~-.;: : :·.r,_.,. ... ;:;·.--:.__ ... ~!~ .,:Lv~J:,lfi;"t.ft.J...:t-~"i:.;.11;~::.r.:J.IC."t; ~'''J'1:.: ... ··t•\ -~ · •: ·~--""'.'-:; J ~ .... _• •••. -:_'_"!.t.:.•:,:,.1-.,K.•.:I.!;, ,., .. ~·~:. •"•l' -.·-' ! 0• .. ••lt~+P..• ..... _... ...... lo., . ....,_,,hl-1<1 ••-•n _\,... __ .._ • •-~1-.-.J,o.-., l~ - ~. t· •, •• o-Lf"I . ..,_ ••. ,,.14--.,-. ..... LI -.r.i .•J ! -:'\.-:.·.i;.,:.-IJ•.A.:~·:.,t>.t:..!_-.~::~.!:C'r..t1 ... •.--....··...:·..; _ _. .. ~:J •• -:·· [.· -· -.•·.__'.___.,,.: ~ • .....;,iJ-:.:.:.;,:.:_::~"ri....~:. .. .:-'-~ • .J J'·. rl"t~'-t1 10/30/2015 7 ( ( Conditions of Appro v a l ... ~···.; · .. , .: ----.1. ',· :.u .:.'··• >.':!>_•.;;u.; i;•;J'' J~:t u. ··-;.·· ·; ~ '".:,;;:,; ;.-: ·~--:-~-~-~ :":...''. ~ ~-;..; .:._. ;·~ .::.....• . .''_ : .•• :; ~-L~....;..:...:; •'' , '· "Ji,!.:.)~!...:..!2~J·.:_..r --~~,;.: • ~'.\. -L J ..,... ~-• ... : .. f':;..·JJ._ • -:--:-_j,;\•··;r;,;r--.o...ci ... ~J~. ~ ···,; •r-\Jo.~ ;····;··• 1~ ~:..-.· .. : .. • !'.".J.1::.::;.~:..=i:.:~~~~ --~~ •.-. ~~ ,. ~~~-..:._ .-.....!...:~ · ........ •'-' .'.'. ·,' '!'i '•J,i' •J:···~,. !J .... J.,•,Jt,1'.l,fl.~ ::.;__-;_'!..:..;.' -~·-1 ·,~1· ~ ... r."wr:r .•• .-.. -.... ·~~··J•J'r':'..,'··=-·: •:..11"·· -,_":)', ·-.;1,~1-. ;''l'"itt t .... r;l-1.••!ii<:..:vJoo,;T ••;,_; -~.-....,-,. r r•..-, >., r -; ~ .,,_ ... : r,_ •. : •··1 :O'\ol"::.•·r ... ·~r...., Ytl~ol.oi'e't.•io;..-.~-.;J'\.'io•"l'·-'·;·11•·--·,!•:-",•Y' •--c ,_.._. :.'.'!l.J-·1,.P•'\o•J'; ..... 'llr.:':..".;...~;,.!.::~t~~~_.:!.U'i .O.'Y:-:0.-.\'7"~:_~',.:1.r•.~··,;· .; .. o! ·-'~:1.' ""~:_:.:~r._~~::::C:...:..:!Jl~"'~~W'');.';i'U":'"~..:...:.>~~....:.·1 -~·...:...!...!J,1 l.4"..!..."-!6':!..J...~~!~.~ .. ~ttJ.!~l'.L'......:.!J':l~·:.:._ .. ;·•L .• :~.·:-. ....;._·~;~"..::!. "'•:•') l!P•,.,:J.; .:-.-.?~•'.til)(~(:j1ot"...,.•:··.-l""'•·•:--.-•.•r > • ..-• .·~r· "'-''J :•;1 .... 1r.. : ..... -..:".1.l:•·,~ ... .-.;l,,.r ·,:J11~ ..... --':1":.4..f~'\,;-N.:'••'•1·•~ "'l~.: ... ,.:,·a••>·•"' I• ,,-.-, '• · · " 1• l I "'" · r'<.f" . ~ 1 ; J! ;.r : .,,.. •• ~, •ti ... ~·· I. .;, t"'". " ".('. • ,, .. ~.' :: · '.( -: • J • -'· ; • :.•• ~-·~ ~· ..... -'~ .J° ... ~.·. 11;·•:· ·'"! '-.;."! 10/30/2015 8 ( ( Conditions of Approval a r.o~ ·.:...· ..:.:·.:..·....:.:·. · ..... -.._. ·J'-:.0 ,~,....:-:-" :..,. .... t!rCG(.o.:0:: ·.10..•.:· <:i.."o ~··~· :, . : .; .I"-~-· :'I"""~.,..~ .. -.-1..c1• ~t..I". 'rT" .. 1'r"'•I I:: '."''"f It"! .. ": •• _·.11 ..... _ ... ..._ : ',.., • "'r .. · ...... ~.::i_:::ur~~ ~ ~ ....... , r -.;.J;.:.·.::..· :.:_• ~· ,,._~·:: ... - ·.: ::··.i..•....:,.•L'.: • .r ~~ ... ~:.~1._::t_"J..~"::'.!_.;.';..:S.~~...r:.....;.~:..~-:_'..,;.· ·...:::; .. :,. •• · -· . .:_· .. •-~:c-'',_~.·:U:i._:.t,._~l'..i.l..•~T't • '•"(" • ~ ~~~._·:~ -~:_..j,~,_;· .,j_.._J_ ~ .:.~. ,,,:. ~~-·--....:::::· .:.:... · ·.:. ••·•• ·:\ ·• w;.. ,r.;1 :"'l:O.J.~ ,, ~,..., 1 (f'lc 'l< .....,.._...~ o·· r -....--."t ~ .,, , -·.: .... ..:···; '\'.o,J"'~"IJ :'o"it:'l'-,:~I"'(; ,-..tt, 1 1 ~ ~ l~·~.LJ-«"• l'"u -:-t_,.. ~· · "· · :-.• ·,.i·. •.•-1~·~ ,-... 11-1--.-............. 1T . .,.~QAl:-J,-4 •J •.J'l""11f.'~":;.r~' .,.., ···---~ ·-.'._. :.·.· )' ___ _., ,._. • ;•·~·-~---=~• ••'~.,..,"~'-le'!..,......,_,, __ L• .. ,.._\.f• .. l>..O::'rr r-'" ," .• <·•.'• •. , . .,-1 -~· :·.._. i;•• \l'-=·~·-·_.:v . .ta.:•.:rt"" ~ ~~-... ·"X'1i 1,....-...... ~11· •..,1;.• :·. ~·1 .. r.·· ·r , ··.:._':. L.:~~·•-"":::,..;:.--r Conditions of Approval .. -;·• ·.:.:.....: .. .-· ...... :..-..::.;.:.:1·i~ .... 11..•:.VJ.1.:·.ur~"' ..L."'A....:J...!t!.r;;..J~..o.:.:·:..-: .. · ... J ~·t::':··· -'~· ,;~.,. \·.:.'...:.."'J' -• ·:.. ~ ..... • :..:...:.'J' :--~ ~~4~...,_.Jlc..;,..i..~J ':l 1 .. ~u·:.,:.r. ..;.!:-...; ~:: :...: _'.:. :":.._ ._ ;· -~~ :·.-: ~·-•:."!..:t..:..::.:..:..1r1 ,...::...::..:,_. • .. ~r..:·~:~:!....:...:.:.-........:.!.:..~:.. ,;...:_·· ·i..: . .;:..tJ ..... : . .I.. :~R:.i...'.!:....o i.."-:.'.·_a,;.,_"?:..~~~-;::.n~.:.lU:~.;i,.;1J;.J:·· .:.:.;.?O.)..Z-:4.~0 1: .~ .'."" .:: _ -~:.~ ··JL ;..;..~..>'.---..:'.I:) c.:;;w,.~.L,-...&. 1.,.lf.·J~.o:J! ·• .... ;:ai~•-;;; :1'.J'.-JI.· 1--..·.c -tL •(•J:.2.J'~•l.~lll"t.,.;t'•Y· . ._,;t :-.; .. ~ .......... . .., , 1.0.• '• "• •. ·...::•'"" ~·~-·-.J :•' ~-· :1-..: nol L l'.J •''!1:11~·J 0:.•" .-"J: -:"6•'.'. '( •·, : • .._ •. ~ .-.-... : J' l 1· •• '•: =-i11"1,' !'°".l~L .. t ... •,-.·-:J "l-;·~~ ... "tJtr :-a :·~;.r'.I """.: ...... : ,,.,....-:1·.:-·1, 11 '""'•"·' "::.:. o.r~-,J :;.-. ,,.., ':.•.J"ll :":"l L-i..·;:)..i:D ~~~~ !"::lL !l:C';~"'t~·~ 'e'J!'"' .. .o~.-J :...··-..--·,;,,:' -~J..;.·..:.;,-:.:.."'~ '--'" ·..:::...~"'*:':..·!.r-· ···~~.l '.I' ~·:r,.:-:;;."';.J:'~n-...l....L'J .:.....~ ·r-:..··.'·;t ... ~ ~·.)'_:i·:c~:·.;~'.L.:; ~~-'.:..:..:.'":.eR-J ~J.'.U.'..'~;:o-a::..~-..n;.Ll ··!:'.·~··.·.,;· 10/30/2015 9 ( ( ( Cond:ti ons of Approval Pi ellne Exhibit CCC -3 '; -.; ...:••-• .':A.~~ . ."~~<'.'1~""!..'"'"_.(i_:;r r -~~ .. ·:r;-_1;.~·- .I :·.·:· ·~ ... _..··.:__..:.:·-.~-___:~~~-~1!.•..:...:...• .... -·• '-~!· ,_-:.· ..... oi ~·1..l-·.;•:: :o-:;.;,..~".. .. ·;i t.~:-.·..,.;~ro.• ..... ,~--·=.r: •.1 ,.;.;._;.•-.--1 -,_.·,~' " ., "':. • i -"--._-· ·:-' 11 tlo ~, .. ,.,_ .,ro)t[4 .,... .. .,..,.-,_I•" •••.•I· J' "t ·J.•.: • ~ ;_,_.-· "'J' ·,-,,,I-, ,f ..,..,.t•-._10ji ,s..-.f4,·ol 1 ..... 1..;.r,,.;"'i...-.~,-:i.. .. t•l.J---·r· ;:.,...., ,;;,.,..,,. .......... 1 •• : ..... u .1 .. -~·-...,,. _ ... 1 .. ~ 1.-.ri ~ ....... w._:..<11~:J-i...-........... ..: .~ .. -·-· ·-·· ,· .... -•. ,, .. ,.l!_ .. , ............................. _-,._.-,,_~lfr :_. •)'-~:_~·~,: ·~-"-"'° --:· •r-.• ~IQ ,.t--Jr-'U"~.!!"." '.) ..... J ••:t.,.,...'1 •.I', ~I'• , •-·. ·,\))""I'-• r -l·!-~-•Jc··-1•,t:1·.--·-'".'• ...... _.. ... ,11t>e.r(;llo 1""1"-~.;..._~11 -·'·'~• l"·ro("·· •.'••."" -,,• .-.... -,. r...--·.-r _· .. ~1~··. ·: '• .. , •...:--:' 10/30/2015 10 I ~ I lUE Ursa ~:~~ -___ __,..-~ Battlement Mesa Planned Unit · Developm~ht (P.U.D.) Phase I BMC B -BMC'D -Pipeline lllUTMm ftelllllllot)' -.Id~,,..,..., OpetallanS ~iOllll OVERVIEW c-llllnt P~ SpK&.llat l.agalC_NI _ Oalober 2•, ~15 • Provrite brief summary of Phase I scope and Locat10ns • Summarlie community engagement • Summarize HIA conslderatlons • Alldress key Issues ralsed at September 23 hear ing • Orlll tng Reach Am1lysls • Oevelopmentlimeframe • Address Imm raised bV'Gatfleld County Community Devel dpment • Address Conditions of Approval • Lepl SUmlMJV PHASE I APPUCAnoN IHOifDES: • sMc s -:2sY(e1s - • BMC D-28 Wells • PiP,Fllnt -2.S m':ei •od 8 ID 16 lnehes In Diameter • \Niter rnan1rernfllt facllity-Not needed dunn1 Phase I BAm.EMENr MESA~_M • 197~ propos i'iitn the llattl•ment M-1re1 • 94 wdls p~sed on up ID 5 well pa ct!_ with in thtt P.U.D. • BMCA, BMC B, BMC D, BMCL, BMCM • 103 wells wlll be drilled from~ the P.11.D. • S& ot 103 {28"1 wdls have atready bHfl drill ed ll?ursa • All locatlol\S Inside the P.U.0.1r1t pursuant ID the Community ~lopment Plan and surface Use Alfeem•nt. 1 ( ( p.u.o. PHASE 1 LOCATIONS LOCATIONS-PHASE I G?ursa , • Well pads have bHn reduced from 14 to 10 •nd currently to S Eath are l1>Cated based on abllity to reach bottom l\oles and other factors deicribed In previous atiemattves analYJb slide - • Ursa has located well pads outside of lhe P.U O.to lhe 1re•tesl ment possible. • BMC Band Dwell pad locations wuri determmed hosed on .historical community development p~ns for th P.Ll.D. as aulborized In Ille 2009 •mended Surfac .. Use A&reement PHASE I COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ~ . Ursa held five Focused Communltv Meetings in additi on to numerous public meetings Jnd ud i ng EAB, Communi ty counts, NW Colorado Forum , etc. [J Jun 15 -Geology 9f th~ Plc ean ce Basin [J Jul 13 -Comprehens ive Development Plan a Aug3 -Operations {Construction Phase) iJ Aug 17 -Operations (Drilling/Completions Phasel [J Sep 2-Operations (Production Phase) & summary of all previous meetings 10/30/2015 0 2 P~E I COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT )> All meetings included! Cl o.;r..tew of the BM Comprehtnslve Development Plan Cl Spedal guests, Including agendtt. 0 Qu~ons and answers fr!!m the ccmmunily. Cl Battlement Mesa/P.U .O. !IBeniY permlttln1 proce55es & status. a 'fechnli:al operations symms, p~s & t lm ln1. O Curre nt opellltlons statm& proposed schedules. 0 Regulatory, Envlronmental, Health and Safety, and communltV ccnctrns In the 2011 Healdl lmp1ct Assessment (HIA) for each operations phase. HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT u?ursa ;;;. November 2Cll'-Battlement Concemed Citizens (BCC) requested t ljal Gameld County conduct a Health Impact Assess;.,ent (HlA) p~ l o illowlng-dffllopmeni wit~ltfthe P.U,D, ;;;. ft!bruifY 2011 , The 111A W2S completed by Colorado School of PubOCi'Health_ It the dlr ectlon of Garlleld County. -; 1~2014-Garflelcl County requested~ U ~'pnwlde responas tu the HIA, which was done ll the September 23 hearln1. Hcwtver, resolutlon of the concems are u1t1m~ th1 county's decision. ;. Ursa believes that the Conditions of Approval propQS@d by Garfleld County adequately addres.s the by HIA concerns. 10/30/2015 3 ( ( ( Vc"lc:.alwelt bore • D drcr~ lndlnat.n n l l!Vtll ptrwtll P•d Ct ~lon~l ddlnn• .al2a-t111 mt1tttph: ~Iii Pt:i" ,.en 11•d. a~di:te .a tfy tttt.cn dd1t.1tb•h~ D dt&r·H lndin1llen r .,. v •• 1ir .. e~;t"I t.ruc,>1 t..1'ctti.• f'<r.;".'l .:),)\,£.f.l \:'I: ! ............ .!.l .... -~l __ _ ~,- .r1tot ,,.J•o'1'l:...llntuto1V1! ll'{.t.•.,tt.f ..,L w1'dt. ,, Ui'ursa •• •a-- JNe\41"-lt -~•TDGvw"'9Mll •iN~M1:.M.•euc••.-.Ktt,..., . • ~ ... ~--' .... '°""'" ' 10/30/2015 0 0 c 4 ('J ') . * • POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF HIGliER DEVIATION li?ursa • Cemoot l!Ond Rilkl • S.fotyol-•bonl • Chlmolinii:ofc.omtnt/bolatlonof1P1mlc-ICD&CC•ulosl • P1ovtnerc.neot1rc ~s.wldcat 11~ • Hole collapso/wehbore lntt1dty -Opon hole • Jtuc:~ plpt lsluos-l:ay sa1tlna, loss of Mil. sldettatldna • ,,,,,_...,d cf tln)9 por weU durlnc drll8iw • r..1m1t1on coll1polna dvrina drillln1 • Hyd,.uffcs/holt clt1nl~ iwblems-ccntrlbutos to cenwnt lssue1, -houtsetc. • Allythlllc •-1""1.S deer-llidl!loUon bec:omo: a ..,,.,.. "" multiple!r.rels 10/30/2015 5 ( ( ( DEVELOPMENTTIMEFRAME • Clock beginning at the start of constructio n of either Phase I well pad or the associated pipeline, alid ends with all wells being In the production phase. • Ursa agrees to a 3 year development timeframe for Phase I ~ctfvitles . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC B • Un•.,,.., with Coodltlon• of Approvol (COA) nu ntO.n 1 l ~ro"lh 10, 1J throu1h 19, 21 throu1h 26 • COA> for funher discussion : • 11 -W.tland Delineotlon • 12 -eorroshlo Soll• • 14 -VRLls(Vap0rR9aweryUpltsl • 20 -FHt·Actlon lncldont t4otllkltlon P<Ot- • 27•AlrQv1lltyMonltori111 - • 21 -AltennoW. PhysJcal Wat er Jntab Systam CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC B COA 11. 'tlor l o BOCCHe•rlns. tho Appllcont shall pravldo on l(<u~t• lontion of tho bounduy of tho 1dJ1cont wotlond as ldont iflod In tho Westwater roport , Onr.e ldontffiod, th<o loco tllo n olU.o B Pod (ind 1ny assoaotod a<tivhy ,.latocl to the dovelopmont of the B Pod I sh1U b. locoled at lout 351111 bock from Ille ldontlli.d woitland • Uno hos r-:ttthls COA bysubmlltlna 1 Welland Do onHtion lleport by WostWat., fn1 lll•erlfll wl<lch lndlcltAos l'ilottht cloM st portion of th• wetlondtothepad Is 65 r.ot, which ls locotAod more thin 35 IHI from th• Identified wotlond. This roport Is bhlbll m. • U... wUI not dlstwl> 1riytllinc Withlo! ti.. 55 fool bvfr.< 10/30/2015 0 0 0 6 ( r') CONDITIONS OF A PPROVAL • BMC B fi?ursa COA U ! ds>o<ator Wll comply wlth cCIGIXSe<id UoO tvl9S and asiocblocl j uld.anc. ,;;\,rd. 'iaqulru at last one annual pressura test bo petfonNd Opcr°'orsholl utlliU'OnlV .,.(lec1 .,,.{lb~ conMCtlonr tar an b1111od ~.Opomorwll l>td ind CC111rflowllnas with .--live soils t o ellmlnat. cotrosivasoll ....,..,,,. • Urn Ill'""' Wflh Ille MW lon1u>ee ond JUUtstJ addln1 tht fa~, Operator WIN lino 1111 Rowllt!4 trondloJ """" • l>tntonlte !Iner 11 leoot 6 1..-1ndeptll. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC B COA 14. ~rator w• ~Ibo COPHE ra1 ul•tlon1 and •Ir qiiolity ptrn:lt condftions ~.•11\l»IOn conttofs conskl•'1flJ tochniully a nd tconomk111ff11slbli BMPs. • u,.. 11,.os wtlh the now lan1ua11. • V.Po• R.ICOYory .Un~1 fl/RU) aro not tht best tochnololy to .. du.o a:, poQution .1ncl odat's. • lW dry not uro of tho naturol 111 in tho Bottlo "1ont M-FMld 11 not conduc~toifie UH otvi:.us. • A VllU wou~ roqlilN. 1 w.• ~ coin pro nor whkh Is an adrc!•loml nob4 source, • """°' ,._, iowetwlih • htflht of 30 foot or""'"'• in add~lon toacom~stor. • • The ootnbUJlor la Mly ondosltd, so It doos not haw •n open llam1 foko 1 """'· Pot monufacluren spodfbtliiii;' tht cDmbustMho• • 9'"' Sffldoncy rotln• to twduco 'llOCI. • Tho HIA. draft -cocnploi.d 11!2at1. W.w tochnolo1lo1 .... oc111111 1ffldeflde1 o/\ll!Us. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC B C~ 20. POO. to a rocommondotkm Irr tho Garflold Counql planninc C.Ommls &IO'\ tho Opomor sllafi cl.volop a moni fo,.,,..fuod 24/7 fast·t~n complo lnt roC81pe and '"Sf'O'IM P.rocramtllat wll a,,...ro l'llJldtnts ...,,, lmmodloto !CUSS!o ropoit and t1e'iin "''°lot'°" of n.iunct or 11~1s .... s 1i..t,,..y1r!M • Ursa has~ thtlr ~llrlcldtnt llolilicatfotl Protoail ind Con>plalnt Fotm u t'ihlbft GGG • Ursa has lmplem-d a SlakeholdtrKatllne '"' concems and co"'plllnts that wla i.. a~artd 24 ho...s ptt~/7 days pet-k by a do~d Ursa staff member. 970-620-2787 • Ursa wtl continu. ID Ullllzl tlwlr lllltrlellCY hoUIM number !hat Is staffld 24/7uwoL 855-625-9922 10/30/2015 7 ( ( CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL• BMC B COJ\ 27 jOrfslnatJ. R•1•rdlna 1!fqu1l~ty. !fl-"Oporotor•hall dutan ind lmjilomoot •nalr qu•U1V '1'10nlto~n1 pro1rom at tho wall pad (fDcu11d on vot -coll!ctlonl prior, dui'.,I 1hd;1fterthe drlllin1 .•nd1:4mpletlcins 1rw ~ltte to bettar undorstand air enilssions II tht lbuir.tl , }o U11a llfWH to tho COA.and cornintuto Mridnlwlth G1tfiold County LGD ind Envlronm11rt staff to fl111tru pro1~m d1talls ind d1!1.r1nbles, provld1d G1rfltld County 11rw11 to .Omply With EPA ind CDPllE 1Cr mon~ Jt1nd1rds and Dita Q.111lhy Objt~s (OCIOs -det1rmlnln1 nuts1neo od011 vs . h .. hh lmpocu !~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC B li.?ursa tOA u. Prior lo appl'DVll bv 1h1 Board of County Commln lontrs, th• App lieant shall dosi1n • propoStd 1ri.m1ttv• ph)'sictilWOtofintag syotemfar pull n1 wotor"!'m tho Coloro~o Rim u'P,!&: f~ !ho _!!Pi'f loe •tlo~ to 1dd ~· •n ohornotov• wau.r supply rn tha ovent ol o spfU r11 eb ln1 tho Colo rodo l\fver ot Cf nHrth• •J1istin1 'nt.ake. • Ursa'"s propoud lan1u•1•: Prior to ton.stnKtlon, tht Appl!nnt shall dos f1n 1 pl'OP<>ffd ohomat!n physi<al wot.r Intake symm far pullins wator from tho Coloiiulo Rive r up mer from th1 B pad lon!Jon to 1dd .. an 1lt.1notlllt woler s•pplyln th• IVlnt of a spjn causod by tho Opor.uor rt1cl\lna tht tolorodo Rf\,orat or noar tht oxlstin1 lntab. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· BMC D llPursa • Ursa •1rtt1 wlth COAs 3thro"~17, 20 throush 27 ind 29 . • COAs ft>rfurther d!Kuislan: • 11 -lnstalladon of rnonltonnc wot:s • l9-0nioln1watorAmpllnr • OOA 14: ~for to BMC B tOA 14 ,...rcllnr the u11 ofvopor rt<aVtry units • COA211; Roforto BMC B COA 27 roprclln1 llrsa's aimmltmontta eondtKt 1lr quallty monltorln1 10/30/2015 0 0 0 8 Cr') r) C.ONDITIONS QF APPROVj'.l ·BMC D liPUrA ),--ii# 1 COAJ 11 and 1!1 rw1ardl~1tht1Mtalbi toon of monitorlnf w1n1 ancl ... mp!.llJ. s...-"""-w-- • The ~pth to 1.-..lwai.r In tM ••n oftho BMD D w•• pad Is In uca,. of 100 !Mt .,;seil o" hy,l ro1ot1< stlidlti done In !ht Baitltmenl Mesa .... , CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL· PIPELINE • Ursusrwes w11h t OAJlthro111•3.Sl"""'l h 17, 1tthroush 2l • COAs for Nrit.or di1eu111ot1> 4 • 4 •~Cl~ ptrmltt"•I • 11 -r::o~uctlon .d!odult CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • PIPELINE w ~UrA C~'-P.tlOrtobW.nC8o1~"'1;Hll1"\IM~~ll'c>~111>•1 ~••• nleU'l'\Oot~y aljOiallliO'd piife1i1Q;;l1thOiiiOAmijO>fpoli!iilnMf'1 PtrinlU•ro ""u11oc1 rw 11ic~~~·"'"r.m1 c;;;;m.;.i1i-.the~00tPDI , • ..,_,, o:Oiilllm"'&tlia1 no~1ioreq..li0il.d ,.........,."'llllrM•heysholb< ---sut.mlnocl to lllitc:::;;;,ypt/M,..~al dwJpedlliiii;m;.i. · • ur.1'J~l!qliap. llrior 10-U...lht ~shaU ,..,.. ooplo&al .,.,.,.._.,....~~ 1'r li>eAml\'tl><!"ofi:~(·~ • ~latiiislhot1'faor .-0.E -...ruatod!iv~trenpn..,.lo111tlr ,.p111tindudad In tho &edWalr~ applla~cbce- • the prale-.!whv ...,...i lilt 'NollWllol ,.,..i h • qualftesl proftulona(111 ....... , •• h .......... ~~ • laatd0111ho-ta ...... 1111.IM ...... wllbebcndlllWletlhe-.tlonoltolM •Ht ohhe I pad aNI II llGl Mlldpotad to lmpacuf,. ......,;, • +--.WIM........,_toboalfwdod,a"l'pOlonlltl~IOidllnlht d .... tt.1-nd _... _ lht _.., ......... ..w..,. pemli( 10/30/2015 9 ( ( CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-PIPELINE U?ursa cliA 11. 'ril• co"stllletlon ol th• 'llii>il1n1 sh•tl h. limltld to t ho hours of 7;00AM ID 7;oOPM , Monday throui h Satunlay . • u .... ·s ~rop0 .. d 1ancu•1•• 111• const,...~io.P o,l tho plpo]ln1 s~1 ll be limltod to lh• hou1J of7:llOAM to 7;00PM, Monday t rou1 1i.s.fu ~1t-.itherconditio111 "'f10ld ,Condii1o1U-19qu1111 scft..dull! <"3f16c•, C011'1""'1k>!> m:ir -~ron5undavs to rneottho corutructlon sch<dalo , U1$:1wlt ~lfy ~Id County and 1ff4ct•d "'sld•nts Jf .Sunday worl< Is nocessary. • Th• addltkmal lanl"•I• 1 liaw1 tlru IQ rtoy on 1chodule If llnfor91oon "'1•ntsD«U< This II 11pocJally "'1portont wh1nlllorkln1 nortlo the \laUoy Vlow Wta11 arN of th• plp1 Un1. Legal Rights to B & D Pad Locations Geursa • Garfield County Ordinance 82-1_21 • Expresslv provldes for extraction and processing of natural resources • Valid, existing Surface Use Agreement with Surface Owner dated January 15, 2009 • Prlvate contract co ntemplated B & O Pad locatlonsln 2009 • COnfirmssurface property rights Legal Rights to B & D Pad Locations , U?ursa • Surface Use Agreement allows fur exception from COGCC Rul~ 604,a . • To be clea r, exception from setback rule , but still man dates mitigation measures for locations • Colorado statutes and case law allow for B & D Pad locations • Even without the Surface Use Agreement, Ursa has a right to use the surface to develop the leasehold estate 10/30/2015 0 0 10 er; Voluntary AJlplicatlon of Mitigations G'?Ursa • Recogn i zes COGCORulemaking on Large UMA Fac i lity • Mltlcations account for strin gl!nt mltication mea sures discussed at COGCC level o lnduding: "' Noise control s .,' Visual Mitigatio n " Pipeline utilization _,, Orilli n& and Comple tlons sc'1edule 10/30/2015 11 ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control November 18, 2015 URSA Operating Company, LLC 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Matt Honeycutt Subject: BMC B Pad Drilling and Fracing Noise dBA Modeling Report Dear Mr. Honeycutt, EXHIBIT I I flltttL The following report provides a noise assessment for the drilling and fracing operations at the BMC B pad. The BMC B pad is located off of River Bluff Road Garfield County, Colorado. Existing occupied structures in the vicinity of the site include a group of homes located approximately 780 feet southeast of the site, another group of homes located approximately 1, 150 feet north of the site, and a single home located approximately 3 75 feet south of the site. This report includes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) noise standards, the results of our noise modeling and our assessment relative to the standards. ( Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Noise Standards ( The analysis was developed to evaluate drilling and fracing noise levels at adjacent occupied structures and verify compliance of drilling operations with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Section 802 "Noise Abatement" requirements. The COGCC Code lists exterior noise limits for stationary noise sources. The noise limits are provided in Table 1. Table 1. COGCC Sec. 802(b) Noise Abatement Requirements "Exterior Noise Level Limits" Zone 7:00 am to next 7:00 pm 7:00 pm to next 7:00 am Residential/ Agricultural/Rural 55dBA 50dBA Commercial Light Industrial Industrial 60dBA 70dBA 80dBA Hawthorne, California -Aledo , Texas -Napa California - Denver, Colorado -Mead, Colorado 55dBA 65dBA 75dBA Phone 800-679-8633 -Fax 310-331-1538 www.environmental-noise-control.com -www.drillingnoisecontrol.com ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page2 Section 802.b of the standard states: The type of land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Director in consultation with the Local Government Designee taking into consideration any applicable zoning or other local land use designation. In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m. the noise levels permitted above may be increased ten ( 10) dB( A) for a period not to exceed fifteen ( 15) minutes in any one ( 1) hour period. The allowable noise level for periodic, impulsive or shrill noises is reduced by five (5) dB (A) from the levels shown. ( 1) Except as required pursuant to Rule 604.c.(2)A., operations involving pipeline or gas facility installation or maintenance, the use of a drilling rig, completion rig, workover rig, or stimulation is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for industrial zones. Section 802C.( 1) of the standard states: Sound levels shall be measured at a distance of three hundred and fifty (350) feet from noise source. At the request of the complainant, the sound level shall also be measured at a point beyond three hundred fifty (350) feet that the complainant believes is more representative of the noise impact. If an oil and gas well site, production facility, or gas facility is installed closer than three hundred and fifty (350) feet from an existing occupied structure, sound levels shall be measured at a point twenty-five feet from the structure toward the noise source. Noise levels from oil and gas facilities located on surface property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the operator shall be measured at the three hundred and fifty (350) feet or at the property line, whichever is greater. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Setback Rules Section 604.c.(2) A. Noise. Operations involving pipeline or gas facility installation or maintenance, or the use of a drilling rig, are subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for Light Industrial Zones, as measured at the nearest Building Unit. Short-term increases shall be allowable as described in 802.c. Stimulation or re-stimulation operations and Production Facilities are governed by Rule 802. Noise levels were assessed at 4 receiver locations for the drilling and fracing operations. Receivers A, B, C, and D were located 350 feet from the nearest noise emitting equipment toward the nearest occupied structures. A-weighted (dBA) noise levels were assessed at Receivers A through D. Attachment 1 shows the location of the receivers utilized in the assessment. ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 3 Sound Modeling Methodology Sound level data for a super single drill rig was obtained from a previous noise level survey performed on another site and used for the BMC B pad model. Sound level data for the fracing operations were based on measurements of diesel powered Haliburton Q-10 pump unit frac trucks. Measurements of the drilling and fracing equipment were conducted with a Briiel & Kjrer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250. Sound level measurements were obtained adjacent to and at increasing distances from the noise emitting equipment at various sites with similar equipment operating. The noise modeling was completed with SoundPLAN Version 7.4 software which performs the noise level calculations in accordance with ISO 9613.1 /2 standards. The projected drilling and fracing sound levels were modeled while taking into consideration the effects of location, noise level, and frequency spectra of the noise sources, geometry and reflective properties of local terrain, buildings and barriers. Upon completion of the unmitigated noise impact models, it was determined that fracing operations will require noise mitigation. Table 2. Modeled Fracing Scenarios Modeled Scenario Description Unmitigated 9 Haliburton diesel Q-10 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wireline crane operating • 9 Haliburton diesel Q-10 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wireline crane operating • 20-foot high acoustical wall with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of33 Mitigated-Option 1 around all frac trucks with openings to the wellheads (See Attachment 4) • 1,000 foot long, 40-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall around the perimeter of the site with acoustical gates blocking openings for two access roads • 9 Haliburton diesel Q-10 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wiretine crane operating • 20-foot high acoustical wall with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 33 around all frac trucks with openings to the wellheads (See Attachment 7) • 1,000 foot long, 40-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall around the perimeter of the site Mitigated-Option 2 with acoustical gates blocking openings for two access roads • 248 foot long, 32-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall on the west sides of the affected residents (See Attachment 8) • 744 foot long, 16-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall on the west sides of the affected residents (See Attachment 8) • 1,216 foot long, 24-ft high, STC-33 acoustical wall on the west sides of the affected residents (See Attachment 8) ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. -- Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page4 Noise Modeling Results The predicted noise levels in this section represent the contribution of the drilling and fracing operations to the overall sound levels at the specified receiver points. Actual field sound level measurements may vary from the projected noise levels due to existing non-drilling and non-fracing related noise sources such as traffic, other human activity, or environmental factors. Table 3 shows the predicted noise levels of the drilling operations at the noise sensitive receivers identified in Attachment I. Table 4 shows the predicted noise levels of the fracing operations at the noise sensitive receivers identified in Attachment 1. The results are reported utilizing the A- weighted decibel scale. A-weighted sound levels represent the response to sound of human hearing, emphasizing the mid to high frequencies. Table 3. Summary of Results in dBA For Drilling Operations Unmitigated Drilling Receiver Location DescriDtion Operations dBA A 350 ft east of noise emitting equipment 54.5 B 350 ft southeast of noise emitting equipment 59.8 c 350 ft southeast of noise emitting equipment 59.6 D 350 ft north of noise emitting equipment 54.3 Allowable 350 ft from the noise source towards an noise level existing, occupied structure or nt the 70.0 Day I 65.0 Night property line, 'vhichever is 2reater Table 4. Summary of Results in dBA For Fracing Operations Option 1: Option 2: Unmitigated Mitigated Mitigated Fracing Fracing Fracing Operations Operations Operations Receiver Location Description dBA dBA dBA A Sile property line wesl of Pad 73.1 59.3 59.3 B Site property line east of Pad 71.4 58.7 58.7 c Site property line southeast of Pad 74.5 60.7 60.7 D Site property line southeast of Pad 68.9 58.0 58.0 350 ft from the noise source Allowable towards an existing, occupied 70.0 Day / 65.0 Night noise level structure or at the property line, whichever is 2reater - ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 5 The results of the noise modeling are displayed as noise contour maps and are included as attachments to this report. Maps showing the noise contour lines of the drilling and fracing operations are provided in dBA for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. The noise contours are provided in 5 dB increments with the color scale indicating the sound level of each contour. The included noise contour maps are as follows: • Attachment 2-Unmitigated Drilling Noise Contour Map (dBA) • Attachment 3 -Unmitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) • Attachment 4 -Option 1: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 5 -Option 1: Mitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map {dBA) • Attachment 6 -Option 2: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 7 -Option 2: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 8 -Option 2: Mitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map ( dBA) Conclusions ( Our analysis indicates that the unmitigated drilling noise levels will comply with both the ( COGGC allowable dBA limits. As a result, no noise mitigation is required at the site during drilling operations. The unmitigated fracing noise levels will exceed the dBA noise limits at all four locations by as much as 8.1 dBA. With the implementation of the Option 1 mitigation measures detailed in Table 2, the fracing nose levels with comply with the dBA noise limits. Mitigation Option 2 provides an alternate mitigation layout that will also result in fracing noise levels in compliance with the dBA noise limits. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, Jason Peetz Senior Acoustical Consultant Attachments Behrens and Associates .. Inc. Environmental Noise Control ....- Attachment 1 BMC B Pad Locations and Receivers Map dBA Compliance Assessment Locations --. Behrens and Associates, Inc. Environmental Noise Control Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 4 5.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 ::: 70.0 = 75.0 ::: 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 800 - -•feet Attachment 2 Unmitigated BMC B Pad Drilling Noise Contour Map (dBA) ........... ,..-....., Behrens and Associates .. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30 .0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 BOO - -•feet Attachment 3 Unmitigated BMC B Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) - Behrens and Associates._ Inc. Environmental Noise Control 1340ft I Ie~xaru1r ... ""nl.t ~ 20 ft high STC-33 panels installed around frac trucks ·-- - ...-.., 350.0 0 o I ~ __ _J Pump House (20'x40') e~ 86 ee \@~7~i~· 1,680 foot long, 40 ft high STC-32 Acoustical Wall Produced W<1ter (ombustor and Condensate Tanks (B) Attachment 4 l ~ ii· I a. I c j Secondary ll ; Combustor I q < (Optional) I ~ ~ ~ .... 3 0 I -a i.n -N I ~ I :J I ,,,,,.---=-=1 ~/ -· (~ Option 1: BMC B Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ~ r' f'"°"'... ....-.... Behrens and Associates, Inc. Environment al Noise Control .__ Average Noi se Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80 .0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 8 00 --•feet Attachment 5 Option 1: Mitigated BMC B Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) ,...-..,.. Behrens and Associates. Inc. Environmental Noise Control ~ 350.0 Te letlon ~I 20 ft high STC-33 panels ~ 1 installed around frac trucks --~ -/ Pump House {201x401 ) 78.2' , 10.0· I J-- ~-ci~;;-1 booooooo(')'6--~ _ ·-·- .s· Well Slots 1 I 75 .0' ooooooroooo 95.o'[ l J I ~I I . ·~ : -; -c I I I I I £: 3 Secondary --a b I ~ ~• •• e ,, I ;. 0 Com. us tor I "' OJ (Optional) 0 ee 86 I I 2.01 Ac • .t j ee I r 1,680 foot long, 40 ft high STC-32 \88J..-_ 75 :0' _j __ , 'A~?u~~ica!.~~~I ·~-/ Min c < I ~ ~ I "2- 1 ~ L ~ 0 0 U'l N Produced Water "' and Condensate Tanks (B) (~ Attachment 6 Option 2: BMC B Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ~ ,,........_ Behrens and Associates .. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 7 Option 2: BMC B Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ,,-..... r--. ~ Behrens and Associates .. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 800 - -•feet Attachment 8 Option 2: Mitigated BMC B Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) EXHIBIT lssss Behrens and Associates Inc. r Environmental Noise Control \ ( November 18, 2015 URSA Operating Company, LLC 792 Buckhorn Drive Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Matt Honeycutt Subject: BMC D Pad Drilling and Fracing Noise dBA Modeling Report Dear Mr. Honeycutt, The following report provides a noise assessment for the drilling and fracing operations at the BMC D pad. The BMC D pad is located off of River Bluff Road in Garfield County, Colorado. Existing occupied structures in the vicinity of the site include a group of homes located approximately 750 feet northeast of the site, a group of homes located approximately 950 feet north of the site, and a group of homes approximately 700 feet south of the site. This report includes the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) noise standards, the results of our noise modeling and our assessment relative to the standards. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Noise Standards The analysis was developed to evaluate drilling and fracing noise levels at adjacent occupied structures and verify compliance of drilling operations with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Section 802 "Noise Abatement" requirements. The COGCC Code lists exterior noise limits for stationary noise sources. The noise limits are provided in Table l. Table 1. COGCC Sec. 802(b) Noise Abatement Requirements "Exterior Noise Level Limits" Zone 7:00 am to next 7:00 pm 7:00 pm to next 7:00 am Residential/ Agricultural/Rural 55 dBA 50dBA Commercial Light Industrial Industrial 60dBA 70dBA 80dBA Hawthorne, California -Aledo, Texas -Napa California - Denver, Colorado-Mead, Colorado 55 dBA 65dBA 75dBA Phone 800-679-8633 -Fax 310·331-1538 www.environmental -noise-control .com -www.drillingnoisecontrol.com ( ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 2 Section 802.b of the standard states: The type of land use of the surrounding area shall be determined by the Director in consultation with the Local Government Designee taking into consideration any applicable zoning or other local land use designation. In the hours between 7:00 a.m. and the next 7:00 p.m. the noise levels permitted above may be increased ten (I 0) dB( A) for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes in any one ( 1) hour period. The allowable noise level for periodic, impulsive or shrill noises is reduced by five (5) dB (A) from the levels shown. (1) Except as required pursuant to Rule 604.c.(2)A., operations involving pipeline or gas facility installation or maintenance, the use of a drilling rig, completion rig, workover rig, or stimulation is subject to the maximum permissible noise levels for industrial zones. Section 802C.(1) of the standard states: Sound levels shall be measured at a distance of three hundred and fifty (350) feet from noise source. At the request of the complainant, the sound level shall also be measured at a point beyond three hundred fifty (350) feet that the complainant believes is more representative of the noise impact. If an oil and gas well site, production facility, or gas facility is installed closer than three hundred and fifty (350) feet from an existing occupied structure, sound levels shall be measured at a point twenty-five feet from the structure toward the noise source. Noise levels from oil and gas facilities located on surface property owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the operator shall be measured at the three hundred and fifty (350) feet or at the property line, whichever is greater. Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission Setback Rules Section 604.c.(2) A. Noise. Operations involving pipeline or gas facility installation or maintenance, or the use of a drilling rig, are subject to the maximum permissi~le noise levels for Light Industrial Zones, as measured at the nearest Building Unit. Short-term increases shall be allowable as described in 802.c. Stimulation or re-stimulation operations and Production Facilities are governed by Rule 802. Noise levels were assessed at 7 receiver locations for the drilling and fracing operations. Receivers A through G were located 350 feet from the nearest noise emitting equipment toward the nearest occupied structures. A-weighted (dBA) noise levels were assessed at Receivers A through G. Attachment I shows the location of the receivers utilized in the assessment. ( ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 3 Sound Modeling Methodology Sound level data for a super single drill rig was obtained from a previous noise level survey performed on another site and used for the BMC D pad model. Sound level data for the fracing operations were based on measurements of diesel powered Haliburton Q-10 pump unit frac trucks. Measurements of the drilling and fracing equipment were conducted with a Brue) & Kjrer Hand-held Analyzer Type 2250. Sound level measurements were obtained adjacent to and at increasing distances from the noise emitting equipment at various sites with similar equipment operating. The noise modeling was completed with SoundPLAN Version 7.4 software which performs the noise level calculations in accordance with ISO 9613.112 standards. The projected drilling and fracing sound levels were modeled while taking into consideration the effects of location, noise level, and frequency spectra of the noise sources, geometry and reflective properties of local terrain, buildings and barriers. Upon completion of the unmitigated noise impact models, it was determined that fracing operations will require noise mitigation. Table 2. Modeled Fracing Scenarios Modeled Scenario Descrip tion Unmitigated 9 Haliburton diesel Q-10 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wireline crane operating • 9 Haliburton diesel Q-I 0 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wireline crane operating • 20-foot high acoustical wall with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of Mitigated -Option I 33 around all frac trucks with openings to the wellheads facing northwest (See Attachment 4) • 1,020 foot long, 40-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall around the south, east, west and partial north sides of the perimeter of the site with acoustical gates blocking openings for access road (See Attachment 4) • 9 Haliburton diesel Q-10 pump unit frac trucks and a wireline truck and wireline crane operating • 20-foot high acoustical wall with Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 33 around all frac trucks with openings to the wellheads facing northwest (See Attachment 4) Mitigated -Option 2 • 1,020 foot long, 40-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall around the south, east, west and partial north sides of the perimeter of the site with acoustical gates • 1,240 foot long, 32-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall in front of affected residents to the north • 880 foot long, 16-ft high, STC-32 acoustical wall in front of affected residents to the south ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page4 Noise Modeling Results The predicted noise levels in this section represent the contribution of the drilling and fracing operations to the overall sound levels at the specified receiver points. Actual field sound level measurements may vary from the projected noise levels due to existing non-drilling and non-fracing related noise sources such as traffic, other human activity, or environmental factors. Table 3 shows the predicted noise levels of the drilling operations at the noise sensitive receivers identified in Attachment 1. Table 4 shows the predicted noise levels of the fracing operations at the noise sensitive receivers identified in Attachment I. The results are reported utilizing the A- weighted decibel scale. A-weighted sound levels represent the response to sound of human hearing, emphasizing the mid to high frequencies. Table 3. Summary of Results in dBA For Drilling Operations Unmitigated Drilling Receiver Location Dcscriotion Ooerations dBA A 350 ft north of noise emitting equipment 50.0 B 350 ft northeast of noise emitting equipment 49.3 c 350 ft east of noise emitting equipment 59.9 D 350 ft east of noise emitting equipment 59.4 E 350 ft south of noise emitting equipment 59.7 F 350 ft south of noise emitting equipment 55.8 G 350 ft west of noise emitting equipment 46.7 Allowable 350 ft from the noise so~rce towards an noise level existing, occupied structure or at the 70.0 Day/ 65.0 Night property line, whichever is 2reater ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 5 Table 4. Summary of Results in dBA For Fracing Operations Option 1: Unmitigated Mitigated Fracing Fracing Operations Operations Receiver Location Description dBA dBA A 350 ft north of noise emitting equipment 68.4 57.8 B 350 ft northeast of noise emitting equipment 68.7 55.5 c 350 ft east of noise emitting equipment 75.7 59.0 D 350 ft east of noise emitting equipment 76.1 60.9 E 350 ft south of noise emitting equipment 73.2 60.6 F 350 ft south of noise emitting equipment 67.9 55.4 G 350 ft west of noise emitting equipment 60.2 58.8 350 ft from the noise source towards an Option 2: Mitigated Fracing Operations dBA 57.8 55.S 59.0 60.9 60.6 55.4 58.8 Allowable noise level existing, occupied structure or at the 70.0 Day / 65.0 Night property line, whichever is e:reater The results of the noise modeling are displayed as noise contour maps and are included as attachments to this report. Maps showing the noise contour lines of the drilling and fracing operations are provided in dBA for the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios. The noise contours are provided in 5 dB increments with the color scale indicating the sound level of each contour. The included noise contour maps are as follows: • Attachment 2-Unmitigated Drilling Noise Contour Map (dBA) • Attachment 4-Unmitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) • Attachment 3 -Option I: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 4 -Option 1: Mitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map ( dBA) • Attachment S -Option 2: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 6 -Option 2: Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation System Layout • Attachment 7 -Option 2: Mitigated Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) Conclusions Our analysis indicates that the unmitigated drilling noise levels will comply with the COGGC allowable dBA limits. As a result, no noise mitigation is required at the site during drilling operations. ( The unmitigated fracing noise levels will exceed the dBA noise limits at six of seven locations by as much as 11.1 dBA. With the implementation of the Option 1 mitigation measures ( ( Behrens and Associates Inc. Environmental Noise Control URSA Operating Company, LLC November 18, 2015 Page 6 detailed in Table 2, the fracing nose levels with comply with the dBA noise limits. Mitigation Option 2 provides an alternate mitigation layout that will also result in fracing noise levels in compliance with the dBA noise limits. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments. Regards, Jason Peetz Senior Acoustical Consultant Attachments ,,,..-... ,.-., ~ Behrens and Associates._ Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 1 BMC D Pad Locations and Receivers Map ,,,.-..., """\ ........... Behrens and Associates. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t ""L «YI o 200 400 600 aoo feet Attachment 2 Unmitigated BMC D Pad Drilling Noise Contour Map (dBA) ,,-...... Behrens and Associates. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 3 Unmitigated BMC D Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) Average Noise Level , Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 800 --===--=::::::i fee t .-., Behrens and Associates . Inc. Environmental Noise Control 1dW1ter ll!S BMC D Pad 1.97 Ac.:t / / / / / .............. , 340 ft Attachment 4 Surface Owner: Battlement Mesa Land Investments Option 1: BMC D Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ...-.... r--.. Behrens and Associates. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 5 Option 1: Mitigated BMC D Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35 .0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50.0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 800 llllil::::::::llilllllili::::::J feet ....-... " Behrens and Associates. Inc. Environmental Noise Control id Water 1es BMC D Pad 1.97 Ac.± / / / / ,, / / ~ 340ft Attachment 6 Surface Owner: Battlement Mesa Land Investments Option 2: BMC D Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ........... --#o -- ,,,.......... ~ ~ Behrens and Associates-Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 7 Option 2: BMC D Pad Modeled Fracing Noise Mitigation Layout ;---... ,-.. Behrens and Associates .. Inc. Environmental Noise Control Attachment 8 Option 2: Mitigated BMC D Pad Fracing Noise Contour Map (dBA) Average Noise Level, Leq dBA = 30.0 = 35.0 = 40.0 = 45.0 = 50 .0 = 55.0 = 60.0 = 65.0 = 70.0 = 75.0 = 80.0 = 85.0 = 90.0 t 0 200 400 600 BOO --===--=:::::i feet ,..-...., ( ( EXHIBIT Battlement Concerned Citizens Battlement Mesa , Colorado 1-r TTr Introduction Battlement Concerned Citizens (BCC) is proposing changes to the conditions of approval (COAs) adopted by the Planning Commission or proposed by the Garfield County planning staff. This document should in no way be read as an endorsement of the location or an acknowledgment that the proposed conditions of approval are sufficient to make this an acceptable proposal. BCC strongly believes that Ursa has not complied with its obligation to pursue other sites farther away from homes (COGCC Rule 604(c)(2)E.) Large scale oil and gas facilities are not compatible with residential areas like Battlement Mesa. The proposed COAs do not make this location compatible with the residential uses within the Battlement Mesa PUD. We strongly encourage the Garfield County Commissioners to reject the Ursa applications. Proposed COA changes SCC's proposed changes to the mitigations include, but are not limited to, the following issues. sec reserves the right to raise additional issues in its testimony before the Garfield County Commissioners. Other Regulatory Agencies S-4. D-6 sec agrees with the staff comments. Garfield County has independent authority to regulate land use, including oil and gas development.1 BCC has offered the language below to memorialize Garfield County planning staff and Ursa's commitment to include these Conditions of Approval in Ursa's applications to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Having the COAs on the state drilling permits allows the state, as well as the county, to enforce these conditions. Operation of the facility must be In accordance with all Federal, State and local regulations and permits governing the operation of this facility. The Operator shall include these Conditions of Approval on all Applications for Permit-to-Drill. Form 2. and Oil and Gas Locat ion Assessments. Form 2A. submitted to the COGCC within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Inspections 1 Colorado Revised Statutes§ 29-20-104 ("Land Use Enabling Act"); Meadowbrook-Fairview Metropolitan District v. Boord of County Commissioners, 910 P.2d 681 (Colo.1996) (counties have such police powers as granted by constitution or delegated by General Assembly). ( ( ( 8-5. D-7 8CC agrees with the staff comments and the proposed change of the COA. The current COA states that the County would be precluded from contacting another agency (including the COGCC) until they have first conducted an inspection with the operator. The County commits to notifying the operator of any compliance concern. This may include direct notice by Garfield County to other affected permitting agencies if necessary depending on the compliance concern. COGCC regulations are only enforceable by the COGCC. If there is a suspected violation of state rules, the COGCC should be informed immediately. Any delay could pose a health or safety concern. The current wording also sends the signal that the County is more interested in protecting the operator than in compliance with the law. To deter violations, and to ensure the protection of the public and the environment, Garfield County should ensure that the COGCC is immediately informed of all complaints and potential violations of COGCC rules. 8-6. D-8 8CC proposes replacing the COA with the following language: County personnel and/or agents of the County may immed iately access the location in the event of an emergency. or immediate threat to public health. safety. or the environment. In all other instances, the personnel and/or agents of the County have the right to enter upon private property only after reasonable notification to the Operator. and reasonable compliance with any safety requirements of the Operator. The Operator will be given an opportunity to be present at the inspection. The County may use the information collected by the inspections to enforce the conditions of approval or County Codes . These enforcement actions may be either through enforcement of these conditions of approval. County regulations or. in the case of state statutes or regulations. the County may report the inspection information to appropriate state officials for proper enforcement.2 8CC does not believe that a full days' notice should be required prior to an inspection. This language would ensure that the appropriate agency is notified in the event a violation of state rules is suspected. Noise 8-7(1 ), D-9(1) 8CC Supports the Staffs proposed change to the condition of approval. 2 This is si milar to language adopted by Brighton and Broomfield i n their land use codes. See Brighton Land Use and Development Code, §17-64-40. 2 ( ( Volume of the sound generated: Every use shall be so operated that the volume of sound inherently and recurrently generated does not exceed 70 dB(A) from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM and 65 dB(A) from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM, measured 350 feet from the edge of the pad. In the case of noise complaints. measurements will also be taken from the nearest building unit as required by COGCC Regulation 604.c.(2)A. As set forth in COGCC Regulation 802(b), the noise levels shall be subject to an increase by 10 dB(A) for a period not to exceed 15 minutes in any one (1) hour period and cannot exceed 65 dB(A) for shrill or periodic impulsive noise. Complaint protocols shall be governed by COGCC Rule 802(c). Since Ursa has agreed that it can bring noise levels down to 65d8 within the Battlement Mesa PUD, the same technology should be employed now on the noise sources that have impacted Battlement Mesa residents from just outside the PUD for years. This same technology should be employed immediately on all active pads on the perimeter of the PUD. In the event that there are noise complaints, the reading should take place at the home of the complainant. Because of the topography, a noise measurement 350 feet from the source might be lower than a measurement taken upslope at a nearby home. Hours of Operation B-10,. D-11 BCC supports the language limiting the hours of operation for anything but drilling from 7:00AM -7:00PM. BCC supports the changes proposed by Ursa to allow for exceptions in the event of emergencies. (Ursa's proposed changes in green). The construction of the B Pad shall be limited to the hours of 7:00AM to 7:00PM , with the exception of emergencies and episodic events beyond Ursa's control. Drilling may occur continuously 24 hours a day. Well completion activity shall be limited to occurring between 7:00AM and 7:00PM. Once the wells are in production, vehicle trips to the pad shall be limited to the hours of 7:00AM to 7:00PM, with the exception of emergencies and episodic events beyond Ursa's control. Air Quality B-14, D-14 Given that the development is .happening within a PUD and in close proximity to a number of homes, the CDPHE rules for air quality emissions need to be supplemented with the following requirements: Operator shall comply with the CDPHE regulations and air quality permit conditions for emission controls considering technically and economically feasible BMPs. !n addition to current CDPHE regulations. the following minimum standards should be followed: 3 ( ( .:L. voes destruction or control technologies with at least 95% efficiency must be employed on all tanks capable of emitting over 2 tons of VOCs annually; 2 . All facilities onsite shall be subjected to an instrument-based leak detection and repair (LOAR) inspection at least once a year: 3 . If a leak of over 10,000 ppm hydrocarbons is discovered the first attempt to repair the leak shall be made no later than 24 hours after discovery. If a repair is not possible within 24 hours. the well should be shut down until a repair can be made . lf shutting down the well will not stop the leak. efforts should be made to minimize the leak within the first 24 hours and it shall be reported to the County Local Government Desiqnee . The current CDPHE regulations allow for NO INSPECTIONS and NO voe reduction on any equipment hat is estimated to emit less than 6 tons of VOC a year. This is not sufficient protection for residential areas with numerous homes nearby. The CDPHE regulations that allows Operators to wait 15 DAYS before making repairs to a gas leak is also unacceptable for operations so close to homes. Any technology that limits impacts inside the PUD should also be used on well pads on the perimeter of Battlement Mesa because these impacts respect distance and wind direction much more than boundaries. Lack of success to date on the perimeter does nothing for our confidence in Ursa's commitment to odor mitigation within the Battlement Mesa PUD. Dust Impacts B-17. D-17 BCC proposes the following changes to the proposed conditions of approval: The Operator shall commit to ensuring truckloads of dirt, sand, aggregate materials, drilling cuttings, and similar materials are covered to reduce dust and PM emissions during transport and storage onsite. Operator agrees to not use silica as a proppant and will have a water trucks onsite for dust abatement. During the public meetings on this application, Ursa committed to not using sand or other silica as a fracking proppant and also committed to having a water truck onsite for dust abatement when necessary. These commitments are presumed to be reflected in its traffic estimates and should therefore be made part of the conditions of approval for this application. ( Complaint system 4 ( ( 8-20 . D-20 BCC proposes the following COA to replace the current 8-20 . This recommended language incorporates the intent of the current 8 -20 COA but the following language is better suited as a condition of approval for both the County and COGCC permits: The operator shall develop and implement a 24/7 fast-action complaint receipt and response system . All complaining parties should get a receipt from the Operator acknowledging the complaint within 24 hours. The LGD and COGCC shall receive copies of the receipt and the Operator's response w ithin two business days. Since drilling began on Monument Ridge in 2012 and continuing through the most recent drilling on the Watson 8 and Yater pads, homeowners have complained about noise and odors persistently. The response from Ursa is not always timely. In either case it has seldom or never been satisfactory. Ursa always has an explanation-it wasn't us, oops, this or that happened, sorry, we'll look into it, it will be over in a few weeks. (The euphemism is "episodic events", but these are the only kind and the episodes are frequent.) We have only heard of one instance where the problem was fixed , and then it happened again, and then again. We don't complain just for something to do, to annoy Ursa, to get an explanation of what happened or an apology. We want the problem to stop-for good . Otherwise there is no point to making a complaint or setting up a system . Perpetual nuisance to homeowners violates compatible use conditions of permitting . 8-22 . D-22 BCC proposes the following changes to the language approved by the Planning Commission: The Operator shall provide a formal update to the Board of County Commissioners on a quarterly basis as to the progress of the project, including but not limited to, advancement and utilization of odor and emissions technology. The update will include the number and type of complaints that were submitted over the past year as well as over the past quarter. This update shall be coordinated through the Community Development Department specifically i ncluding the Oil and Gas liaison's office. Updates shall begin at the beginning of construction and continue throughout drilling and completion operations and cease once the pad is in full production operations. Air Quality Monitoring 8-27 . D-28 BCC Supports the Planning Commission's proposal to require air quality monitoring and offers the following additions: 5 ( ( ( Regarding air quality, Garfield County shall design and implement an air quality monitoring program at the well pad (focused on VOC collection) prior, during and after the drilling and completions are complete to better understand air emissions at the source. This program will include the purchase of monitoring equipment, sampling events, and consultant assistance with equipment placement, frequency of sampling and sample analysis, and total monitoring duration with a total cost not to exceed $50,000 to be funded by the Applicant. The air quality monitoring results will be available to the public and summarized in the quarterly reports to the County Commissioners. BCC believes ongoing air quality monitoring is essential to the operator's commitment to achieve the lowest voe levels technically possible at its wells sites (B-15). Similar requirements have already been adopted by the Town of Timnath and the City and County of Broomfield.3 We also expect that Ursa will continue to be helpful to the CSU study and offer the findings to the CSU study's Principle Investigator. Duration & Cumulative Impacts B-29. D-30 BCC offers the following addition to require a comprehensive drilling plan: Applicant agrees and commits to a three year time frame for Phase I activities which includes placing up to 53 wells into full production . This time frame will commence at the start of construction of either Phase I well pads or pipeline. During this three years. Ursa will engage with Garfield County. BCC, Battlement Mesa residents. and other stakeholders in a comprehensive drilling plan (COGCC Rule 216) to plan development of Phase II and Phase Ill and any other plans of Operator's to drill within or around the Battlement Mesa PUD. The designation of "Phase I" to these three applications totally distorts the scope and magnitude of the "Battlement Mesa Project", the intent of which is to "drill out Battlement Mesa". For three years Ursa has already been reaching minerals beneath the community from just outside the boundaries of the PUD instead of just inside the PUD. The cushioning of impacts suggested by changes in well pad locations has been marginal at best as complaints have been ongoing. As many as 56 wells have been drilled from four pads, some already from as close as 500 feet to homes. The same four villages have been impacted repeatedly by multiple occupations of the first Monument Ridge pad, and then Watson Band Yater pads . These villages will be 3 City of Broomfield, Colorado. Ordinance No. 1986 "An Ordinance Amending Chapter 17-54, Oil And Gas land Use Regulations, Of The Broomfield Municipal Code" As amended September 24, 2013. Available at: http://www.broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/5772; Timnath MOU, signed on March 10, 2015 between the Town ofTimnath and Peterson Energy. 6 ( ( ( impacted again in the proposed Phase I, which is promised to last three years, as well as when the A pad is drilled in a subsequent phase, and then again when Ursa returns to the Watson B pad on the perimeter to drill three Niobrara wells. Thus, the impacts from drilling that's anticipated both in and around Battlement Mesa could be felt for 12 years all together, without even considering the impacts of at least 20 years of production for these 200 wells. The cumulative effects of all this activity is functionally denied by the County and the State by considering activities on every well pad independently of activities on all the other nearby well pads. We have heard Fish and Wildlife say that multiple operators with multiple pads in the same region have collaborated with the agency to insure habitats by planning non- intrusive well locations. We appreciate that these species are protected -if only our residences were given the same respect. Emergency Response B-30, D-31 BCC offers the following GOA to ensure nearby residents receive timely notification in the event of an emergency. B-30 Operator must produce an emergency response plan that sets out procedures for notification. evacuation. and shelter in place for all residents and occupied buildings within ~ mile of the facility. Specific plans shall be created for higher occupancy bulldings such as schools. assisted living facilities, and the recreation center. Impacted residents. the school district. and the general public shall be given an opportunity to comment on the proposed community emergency response plans. Adequate emergency response plans are essential to the health and safety of Battlement Mesa residents. Similar requirements are in place throughout Colorado including in City and County of Broomfield, Gunnison County, Town of Timanth, La Plata, and the City of Brighton. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the conditions of approval for th ese permits. Sincerely, Dave Davenney Doug Saxton Co-Chairs of Battlement Concerned Citizens 7 ( ( ( EXHIBIT l"\\NestWater Engineering S:.._;r Consulting Engineers & Scientists I IA 11 ~W 2516 FORESIGHT CRCLE.11 GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO 81505 (9701241-7076-FAX (9701241-7097 I November 41 20 IS r:· ~ -. -...... -~· .. • I Ms. Carrie Sheata, Project Manager Colorado West Regulatory Branch Regulatory Division via e-mail: Carrie .A.Sheata@usace .1ann y.mil U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 400 Rood Ave ., Room 224 Grand Junction t CO 81501 RE : Ursa Operating Company LLC 's proposed Battlement Mesa PUD Phase l Pipeline Ms . Sheata, At the request of Ursa Operating Company LLC (Ursa), WestWater Engineering is writing to notify the Anny Corps of Engineers that the Battlement Mesa PUD Phase I project (see attachment) will be constructed under Nationwide Pennit 12 . The pipeline will be approximately 2.6 miles in length and will be located in Garfield County, Colorado on private lands in Sections 17 and 18, Township 7 South, Range 95 West. A wetland evaluation was conducted by WestWater biologists on May 28, 2015 , July 23, 2015, and October 20, 2015. The pipeline will cross nine intennittent and ephemeral streams and four areas with associated wetlands (Table I). The proposed pipel ine right-of-way will also parallel an irrigation ditc h (Wet-4) which exhibits wetland vegetation ; however, pipeline construction will not directly impact wetlands present along the ditch . ln areas where the pipeline will cross wetland areas, Ursa plans to instaH the pipeline utilizing a directional bore . No direct impacts to wetlands are anticipated . If the bore fails during project construction, activities would halt and the Anny Corps of Engineers would be notified immediately. Table 1. Potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. , Liief ..... ~"''.:,.~J~·~~ :..~~~~ --""' -. - . -ilii'' .. ~.'..tr'if:°.;"":l;J-t~. . No., Ji €oilii ... - Potential Wetlands Points Approximately 0. t 0 acres within ROW. Pipeline installation Wet-I 4369699 754257 planned to be completed by directional bore -direct impacts unlikely. Approximately 0.05 acres within ROW . Pipeline installation Wet-2 4369734 754304 planned to be completed by directional bore -direct impacts unlikely. : Approximately 0.08 acres withi n ROW. Pipeline installation Wet-3 4369850 754463 planned to be completed by directional bore -direct impacts unlikely. Irrigation ditch flowing 12 inches wide and 2 inches deep . Wetland Wet-5 4369227 757199 vegetation approximately 18 inches on each side. Pipeline installation planned to be completed by directional bore -direct I imoacts unlikely . ( T bl 1 P t ti II . . d" f I W t a e . o en a lY 1uns 1c 1ona a erso fth us e .. Label Northine Eastine: Comment Potential Wetlands Line Wet-4 4369394 757195 Approximately 320.25 meters (linear) of wetland along irrigation ditch paralleling the edge of the ROW. Potential Waters of the US WOUS-1 4369941 755030 Dry. No OHWM. Perennial vegetation present. WOUS-2 4369928 755145 Stonnwater drainage. WOUS-3 4369874 755148 Drv. No OHWM. Perennial vegetation present. WOUS-4 4369559 755161 No OHWM. Dry, grassy drainage bottom . WOUS-5 4369537 755214 No OHWM. Dry, grassy drainage bottom. WOUS-6 4369485 755957 No OHWM but mapped as ephemeral drainage. Completely vegetated . WOUS-7 4369573 757177 Ditch with live water, 15 inches wide by 3 inches deep . Perennial uoland vegetation in channel. WOUS-8 4369425 757187 Water present, 36 inches wide by 6 inches deeo. WOUS-9 4369276 757187 Ditch with water present. 24 inches wide by 6 inches deep, banks vegetated with upland soecies. Please contact our office with any questions/concerns regarding this project. Sincerely, ( Amie Wilsey Environmental Scientist/Biologist attachment ( ,.... ,-... ·~ Pot.-1 Wll•ro ot the U.S. ~ Pipolne .. Po!oma!Wollands c:::J Pipolne50FoolROW c:::J 30 Moler Woed& Survey Mio c:::J Pa1- c:::J 1111 Mol. R1plct S""'""f AIH --C"""Y Road 0 BLM J . ~ .\_-. s llB ( ·-r ,,,, r --J:>-->· --1 I ...- Figure 1 Ursa Operating Company BatUemenl Mesa PUO Phase I Plpellne ~ Blologlcal Survey ~---~~ LocaUon and PotenUal Waters of the US • ft'flestW.ter EnglneerlRg '-:;;1 ~r,.,.,_,..as°""*''• ""' ....... JulyZ015 ... ( Fred Jarman --------------------------------------------------------------·om: .,,ent To: Mike Samson Sunday, December 13, 2015 5:39 PM Fred Jarman EXHIBIT lvvvv Subject: Fwd: Website inquiry -BOCC FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Peggy Tibbetts <peggyt@siltnet.net> Date: December 13, 2015 at 3 :50:15 PM MST To: <msamson@garfield-county.com> Subject: Website inquiry-BOCC Peggy Tibbetts has sent you a message: Ursa's special use permit applications for Battlement Mesa 970-876-2196 I am writing to you today to urge you to protect the residents of Battlement Mesa and vote no on the three special use permits to drill 53 natural gas wells on two pads and build a pipeline within Battlement Mesa. In October, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published a study of more than 10,000 pregnancies. The study links living near active drilling and frack.ing operations with a much higher risk of premature births. http://cp .mcafee.com/d/ljWVIg418e6jgb3ZXI3HFICXCOXTj sKejjodFTKCVssCM-riKOMO- yzs0sCQQmm7C64km3gJdlFmOa8X5SnDE5XlrxcJOVIzinpuuwnJIK40TbCQ4T7k777- LP5QT7T7eLsKCOaehTfnphs7nVgWdA.klrCzBzBgY- F61Kl FJ4SOrLObxEVuhhpjKYrKr0129eyNfLgr07Cap3P52Yvf gvj4XELVirg loKX7r5pg8BV ggrFe9oKo YY- xvgkHgmPZOKoBcCnmzWK.PrzVsxacOvOUSObk5pgl h7oKOYZOLgHs9BK.ndLCzB5wSOLAai DVEwBOmrB4Ig82U06 I 8idFECZlypbbe4g o 1 Earlier this year, Physicians, Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy conducted an analysis of more than 400 peer-reviewed studies on the impacts of oil and gas development. http://cp.mcafee.com/d/k- Kr418SyM uXO\VWr9KVJeZQTbzAOS3gtXFK.n79IfCQXIIcLEETd79Jd5BxVxx55wSHilqlw 2yeNtBVWluRmUibsKr8X5SnDE5XlrxcJOVJldNRlNN HYNtdNZNfHThFICzAtPRSknlR- mKzp55m VEVo VkffGhBrwgridlCXYyUgenAkmkXL6XCMOiRf9 FYOprUv4ymU03y6PT1 w o5g0Sv3UWgfY12Rlx1DxMH003FIOmEaOw2yeNtBVWluRmUjbsKrvd7ablllv8kBfPhlaOIT a9oQg5NAc2gArjhd-Lca ( The analysis found 96 percent of studies published on the health impacts of oil and gas development show potential risks or adverse health outcomes, and that children are especially vulnerable to air pollution from oil and gas development. 1 ( If my health can be devastated like this from ambient BTEXS, just imagine what it will be like for Battlement Mesa residents living only thousands of feet from not one but two large-scale multi-well facilities, with pipelines running through their backyards. They will be constantly exposed to even higher levels of ambient BTEXS emissions than they are now from existing oil and gas operations outside the PUD. Many Battlement Mesa residents have testified to the planning commission that they are already suffering with health problems related to living near oil and gas operations. I am not implying that the Battlement Mesa residents "might" get sick from exposure to ambient BTEXS emissions caused by oil and gas operations. I am forewarning you: They will get sick! No human being deserves to be sentenced to a life plagued with poor health because of toxic chemicals in the air we breathe. It is your duty and your obligation to protect the health and safety of ALL the residents of Garfield County. Again, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to vote no on the three special use permits to drill 53 natural gas wells on two pads and build a pipeline within Battlement Mesa. Thank you. Peggy Tibbetts 3 EXHIBIT Fred Jarman ---------------------------------------------------------- lnx.t. --om: _.mt: To: Tom Jankovsky Saturday, December 12, 2015 10.06 PM Fred Jarman Subject: Fwd : drilling in Battlement Mesa Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Sandra Getter <gettersandy@gmail.com> Date: December 12 , 2015 , 4 :05:54 PM MST To: Jankovsky Tom <tjankovskv@garfield-county.com> Subject: drilling in Battlement Mesa Dear Commissioner Jankovsky: On Tuesday you will hear a lot of evidence on why Ursa and B. Mesa Corp. should not be allowed to drill within the PUD of Battlement Mesa. I'd like to list a few of the reasons as a reminder to you, so that you will voice your opposition to ( their plan: 1. Battlement Mesa Co. has not acted in good faith to many of the people in the community. They filed their drilling plan with the county in 1999 after many of us had bought property directly from them before that time, and they had no disclosure about those intentions. (They even continued to sell and not disclose verbally, with a map, or as an addendum to the sale, after 1999.) 2. Our community was established with strict covenants, and drilling is incompatible with them. Approving this plan could lead to other heavy industries coming in,' saying that the covenants no longer are valid. 3. A comprehensive drilling plan that includes ALL future pads within the PUD was not presented with this application . There is only a verbal statement that 2 more pads are planned along the golf course, I more is planned west of the pad by our water intake along with an injection well . Without the CDP we have no assurance that more pads won't be planned and approved in the future within the PUD. 4 . Ursa owns 3 approved future pads surrounding our community. If they get a different drill, or hire someone with a drill that can access the gas up to a mile away, then there's no need to come into the community. 1 EXHIBIT _Fre_d_Jar_ma_n ________________________ 1111t -.. om: ( ent: To: Mike Samson Sunday, December 13, 201 S 2:38 PM Fred Jarman Subject: Fwd : Website inquiry -BOCC FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Nina Hiatt <farmemina@yahoo.com> Date: December 11, 2015 at 8 :04:56 AM MST To: <msamson@garfield-countv.com> Subject: \Vcbsite inquiry-BOCC Nina Hiatt has sent you a message: Battlement Mesa drilling I live in Delta Colorado now but I spent 10 years in battlement Mesa. When I lived there I was concerned about the drilling and how it would affect our health and water. I am glad that I don't live there now considering all the drilling that is proposed but I am concerned for my friends and ( for the state of Colorado. I strongly urge you to vote against the special pennit that would allow drilling within the boundaries of battlement Mesa. 1 I. ( Karen Knupp Group text messages to John Doose & Kirby Wynn about the odors of URSA'S well pads in Battlement Mesa 2015 ** * OCT 10,2015 Karen 9:03 pm We just got home from Glenwood the smell start up by St Johns school through Canyon View Sub and down to our house Doose: 9 :05 pm I will call into our group Thank you Doose: 9:36 pm Got folks on ground waiting for update Karen : 9:36 pm ok thanks Wynn : 9:45 pm thanks John Look forward to update • • *Oct14, 2015 8:52 pm Karen: The odor is bad tonight Have you guys figured it out yet????? It is really getting old .... maybe we need to call other people in and get them involved in this situation so we can get an answer to what this order isl!! And yes it is the same odor no xcel gas ... and our SWAMP COOLER JUST KICKED ON AND MY EVES ARE WATERING NOW!!! ANSWERS ANY TIME SOON on when this will stop???? Doose: 8:53 pm People reporting to me soon. I will call soon. Karen: 8:55 pm Do we need to get the EPA involved .... we had 2 weeks straight of this smell and no answers????? ***Oct 18,2015 8:13PM Karen : 8 :13 pm the smell is back by ST John school Doose : 8:14 pm I will folks out very soon Thanks Doose: 8:21 pm Folks on ground now Report back soon ***Nov3, 2015 Karen: 4:46 AM The odor of your production water is really awful this morning thankful we are leaving for work to not have to smell it anymore Doose: 4:49 AM I will check out Kirby: 8:35 AM Thanks John ***Nov 24, 2015 ( Karen : 6 :18 pm it would really be nice to be able to live in our community without have this (odor) all the time ... is really out of control and very annoying I! 11 WE NEED SOMETHING DONEABOUT IT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER!!!!! Doose: 6:19 pm I am heading out. I'll call soon Wynn: 6:19 PM Is it occurring right now? Doose: 6:24 pm on my way Karen : 6:26 pm Yes now has been for 1/2 hour 6:26 pm and earlier today when we left 7 :23 pm John you called 6:53 and said you couldn't smell it and here it 7;23 and we can still smell it 7 :51 Pm Weather bug is an app you can put on your phone that is at the middle school so you look up the wind and d irection yourself Doose: 7:52 thanks .. *Nov 25,2015 Karen : 8:37 AM Still have gas odor in the air up here it is the holidays and we really shouldn't have ever ( put up with this Is anything ever going to be done about it or are we going tohave put up with when drill your pads??? Doose: 8 :38 AM I am on my way down Do you have time to meet? Karen : 9:13 AM No we are not home smelled it on our way out Doose: 9:13 am Thanks Karen : 9 :14 am Canyon View up past 3 way stop took left at Kum & Go and downhill half way ***Dec 3,2015 Karen : 6:36 PM took picture of my log book and text to Group 6:37 pm Really is annoying this odor in the air I'm over it what is going to be done & when?????????? 6 :41 pm I don't even want to live here anymore because of we can't even enjoy our homes because of it Doose : 6 :41 PM Have someone there in 5 minutes to check it out Karen : 6:47 pm Have them bring a cashier check for $800,000.00 so we can hire movers and leave Battlement Mesa and start a new life outside of URSA & Garfield County's drilling dreams 774 ft from our living room bedroom & dinning roomll!I ( ( 6:49 pm That's not the only page we have 6:52 pm We are sick wasting our valuable time at our home on having to contact you & Wynn who do nothing and keep records of this annoying odor all the time Wynn: 7:06 pm Karen, understand URSA has already checked this evening and found no odor at your home but did note some by Firehouse. Did you have this at your home ? I recall some issues have been down the road rather than at your home Also, I appreciate your keeping notes on these issues Karen : 7 :07 pm At our house of course Doose: 7:08 pm thanks Got folks on the ground checking everything Karen : 7 :09pm most all have been at our house 7 :10 pm Maybe URSA should hire someone who can smell and their job properly 7 :35 PM It doesn't really matter where the odor is ! It continues to be a problem here in Battlement Mesa that is not being taken care of by either of you IT IS BIG PROBLEM IN BATILEMENT MESA that should be handled immediately 7:37 pm Except for those that are URSA payroll 8:15 pm yep odor is still there????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 8:16 pm 2 hours now 8 :23 pm JOHN do you have someone by our house now I just seen a laser light in my back yard 8 :23 pm @8:18pm Wynn: 8 :24 pm I just tried to call you.-- Karen : 8 :24 PM ya I know Karen : 8 :26 PM I don't really care to speak with you Wynn now or ever you can call Stan I don't care for you or your attitude Karen : 8 :28 pm Laser light in backyard means a gun to WTF Doose: 8 ;28pm No one has a laser Karen : 8 :45 pm Our dogs started barking and I went to let them in and saw the laser in our backyard •••oec 4,2015 ( ( 7:45 pm Karen 7 :22 pm odor at school and Northstar Now at our front door to our house I have had sinus problems for over 3 months was not doing well today so we left around3 pm and started feeling better now we are home and the odor is here my sinus problems are back in full force Something has to be done immediately The price of our house will continue to rise daily if this problem does not stop soon for us to relocate 7:49 pm It is a health problem now too as I have discovered today bad headaches for last week & half with sinus problems 8 :37 pm I have gone to the doc tor and am presently on a new medication for the problem of my sinus issues! 11 the problem is within this community of nasty odors we smell constantly and someone or company needs to be hired to test the quality here 24/7 Preferably by someone with good ethnics and honesty Ill Wynn: 9 :36 pm Awaiti ng a call from Stan Do recommend lodgi ng formal complaint to COGCC using the information provided of you and Stan via email today Dec 6,2015 Karen: 9:33PM Odor present at 9:05 Pm at our house SM I/hrs ENE Please do not contact us tonight ... Just an FYI Wynn: 10:41 pm ok Karen: 10:43 pm That was meant by not texting us either ... the no contact tonight Wynn ***Dec7,2015 Karen: 5:59 pm When i n the Hell do we get to enjoy living at our home in Battlement Mesa again??? So aggravating to have to deal with BS!!! Can we get put on the payroll for having to do this paper work, calls , texting, emails, weather bird, selling the fowl odor all the time???????? Life is supposed to be good when you go home to enjoy the tranquility of our personal space ...... NOT filled with BSl!I ! 6:43 pm 6mi/hrs ENE wind 6:41odor still present Is anything being done????? Have had no response from URSA!! !!t Except Wynn in Denver Doose: 6:46 PM We sent someone though at first contact Found no odors Dwayne drove all around Call me if you want to discuss Karen : Seriously how can you people never smell it very present at this time and since 1st contact!!! Maybe you need to hire people that can smell the fowl odor 6 :49 PM that can smell the fowl odor 6:50 Pm Why are you not here if they can 't smell maybe you should be Battlement Mesa ***Dec 9,2015 { ( Karen : 6 :43 Pm 1 hour 42 minutes later and we still have the odor! 11 ! When is going to end???? 6:44 pm 4 months now is way to longlll! December 8, 2015 Garfield County County Commissioners 108 gth Street, Suite 101 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Ursa's proposed well pads in Battlement Mesa Dear Commissioners: EXHIBIT 12222 I urge you to deny Ursa's application. I bought my townhome at 76 Cliff View Court in Battlement Mesa 8 years ago. I am terribly upset and frightened by the location of the well pads and pipeline 250' from my backyard fence. I'm 71 and I was going to use the proceeds from the future sale of my property for my retirement. I can kiss my retirement goodbye. Even today, before the pending arrival of a well pad down the hill from my house, I open the sliding glass doors of my bedroom at night to let my dog out in the back yard and some nights I have to quickly close the doors because of the industrial smell coming from oil and gas operations already present in Battlement Mesa. I can't imagine how much worse this is going to be if you allow Ursa to drill near our homes. Not to mention that we don't know what these toxic fumes are doing to our bodies. I have enclosed a very informative article on Cracking impacts written March 2014 by Resource Media, a non-profit PR firm which I hope you can read. Please help us in Battlement Mesa. Sari~~ 7t/Cliff View/ Ct. ' f Battlement Mesa Resource Medi.a -Drilling vs. the American Dream: Fracking impacts ... http://www.resource-media.org/drilling-vs-the-american-dream-frac ... • , • • Archives lo i • ' ... Drilling vs. the American Dream: Fracking impacts on property rights and home values March 14, 2014 Therearecurrentlymorethan 1i1. .. 1111111 ••· •••', d '-1 in the United States, and more than IS million Americans now live within a mile of the hundreds of thousands that have been drilled since 2000, according to an _1•1 •• t, ~1-I , tlt• ii ,tlf '.111. 1 1, 11• 11.11. Made possible by the advent of fracking, drilling is taking place in shale fonnations from California to New York and from Wyoming to Texas . And there's no indication that this "unprecedented industrialiZ'Btion" shows anysignsofslowing. ,:_n-_• • 1H• :t 11111111111111··! 111li ·11 , ! r'I '11 'l ',andindusbyanalysts 11,11t.1: 1••·• 11111 1!1 ,.111111.,1 ... Drilling rigs now regularly inch up and even into communities that never anticipated having to address problems like round-the-clock noise, storage tanks, drums of toxic chemicals, noxious fumes, near-constant truck traffic and pipelines near homes, schools, playgrounds and parks. For many, the impacts of this kind of large-scale industrial activity are incompatible with quality of life. Congressman Jared Polis saw this fll'Stband fast fall when a drilling rig went up on property neighboring his small fann in Weld County, Colorado. Polis, who said he had no notice of the fracking operations, filed a complaint with state regulators and then a lawsuit over concerns "about the impact that fracking has on the health of communities as well as .. Also look no further than Exxon CEO and board chainnan Rex Tillerson, who is suing to stop construction of a water tower that would supply nearby drilling "You c;ould end up where someone puts a drilling platform on that property. We'd have to tell their neighbors, 'We're sony, your property value just went down.'" -Jim Blaine, President & CEO of State Employees' Credit Union in North Carolina, which decid~J this year to no longer approve mortgages on properties where the mineral rights are severed from the property. operations because of the nuisance of, among other thing5 , heavy truck traffic, noise and traffic hazards from the tracking operations the tower would support. That's right, the head of the single largest drilling company in the world, acknowledges the "constant and unbearable nuisance" that would come from having "lights on at all hours of the night •.• traffic at unreasonable hours ... noise from mechanical and electrical equipment." Tellingly, lillerson 's lawsuit -filed in 2012 with other plaintiffs, including Conner House Majority Leader Dick Anney -claims the project would do 1215/2015 4:26 PM 1217/2015 Resource Media-Orilhng vs . the American Dream : Fracking impacts on property rights and home values _...,......,.,, __ ...._ ~--• , l Nortn :.mMcaf\ shale plays , .... "'::::'l ..... '"-"lO t h -__ .....,,... __ _ ==-~- There are currently more than 1.1 million active oil and gas wells in the United States, and more than 15 million Americans now live within a mile of the hundreds of thousands that have been drilled since 2000, according to an analysis by the Wall Street Journal. Made possible by the advent of fracking, drilling is taking place in shale formations from California to New York and from Wyoming to Texas. And there's no indication that this "unprecedented industrialization" shows any signs of slowing. Almost 47.000 new oil and natural gas wells were driJled in 2012 , and industry analysts project that pace will only continue. Drilling rigs now regularly inch up and even into communities that never anticipated having to address problems like round-the-clock noise, storage tanks, drums of toxic chemicals, noxious fumes, near-constant truck traffic and pipelines near homes, schools, playgrounds and parks. For many, the impacts of this kind of large-scale industrial activity are incompatible with quality of life. )ngressman Jared Polis saw this firsthand last fall when a drilling rig went up on property neighboring his small farm in Weld County, Colorado. Polis, who said he had no notice of the Cracking operations, filed a complaint with state regulators and then a lawsuit over concerns "about the impact that fracking has on the health of communities as well as the economic impact as it relates to property value ." "You could end up where someone puts a drilling platform on that property. We'd have to tell their neighbors, 'We're sorry, your property value just went down."' -Jim Blaine, President & CEO of State Employees' Credit Union in North Carolina, which decided this year to no longer approve mortgages on properties where the mineral rights are severed from the property . Also look no further than Exxon CEO and board chaim1an Rex Ti11erson, who is suing to stop construction of a water tower that would supply nearby drilling operations because of the nuisance of, among other things, heavy truck traffic, noise and traffic hazards from the fracking operations the tower would support. That's right, the head of the single largest drilling company in the world, acknowledges the "constant and unbearable nuisance" that would come from having "lights on at all hours of the night ... traffic at unreasonable hours ... noise from mechanical and electrical equipment." Tellingly, Tillerson's lawsuit -filed in 2012 with other plaintiffs, including fonner House Majority Leader Dick Anney -claims the project would do "irreparable hann'' to his property values . httpJ/www .resource-media.Ofg/drilling-vs-the-americao-dream-fracking-impacts-on-property-rights-and-home-values/#.Vm YHctlr JMw 12/7/2Q15 Resource Media -Drilling vs. the American Dream : Fracking impacts on property rights and home val ues Drilling near Mansfield, Texas At a more macro level, research is staring to show that energy booms such as the current drilling frenzy may not be the economic windfall that boosters make them out to be. After thi; initia l :;,ur ~c iQ inco m e d job s that comes w ith <lrilHn1'. pro ble ms in~vi tubl y fo li o}\: higher crime rate, decreased educational attainment and over the long run, significant declines in income. The more heavily a community ties itself to the drilling economy, the greater the decline. ••Tbc lllilgnitu<Jc of this relationsh ip i.l s ub~tan l ia l," the study authors are quoted saying in the Washington Post, .. decreasing per capita income by as much as $7 ,000 for a county with high participation in the boom." For those who own the rights to the oil and gas on their properties, the impacts of drilling can be offset by royalty payments t hat come from selling them to oil and gas developers. But in most parts of the country, the legal doctrine of split estates allows one party to own the rights to minerals and other resources below the surface while someone else hold the rights to property above ground. With the oil and gas industry showing little self- restraint and drilling encroaching into cities ,. towns and suburbs, split estates have left millions to deal with problems such as increased truck traffic, chemicals, lights, noise, heavy equipment, noxious air emissions and water -all without any compensation. There are weak regulatory protections and few legal "'"ecedents to protect residents from this kind of Justrial activity in their back yards. Regulations on how far drilling must be set back from homes and schools, for example, provide almost no cushion -often only several hundred feet -to mitigate drilling's impacts "The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries just described. The injuries and losses are continuing. The property and rights owned by Plaintiffs are unique and irreplaceable so that it will be impossible to measure accurately in monetary terms the damages d " cause ... -From a lawsuit filed by Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to stop construction of a wate r tower that the complaint says will be used to support fracking near his horse ranch outside Dallas. http://www.resource-media.orgldrilling-vs-the-american-dream-rrack ing-im pacts ·oo-property-rights -and-llam e-val ues/#.Vm YHctlr JMw 4116 1217/2015 Resource Media-Drilling vs. the American Dream ; Fracking impacts on property rights and home values . on nearby homes and businesses. Feeling unprotected by weak state and federal regulations, however, more and more communities are "tarting to fight back by passing local laws restrictin g or bann ing fracking w ithin the ir b o rders. ittsburgh became one of the first to take matters into its own hands with an ordinance in 2010. Since then, many others have followed suit: Dallas, Los Angeles, multiple cities and towns in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, counties in New Mexico. Last fall in Colorado, voters in four cities passed ballot measures bannint: or severely restricting frackini:, three of them overwhelmingly. And this year, backers are gathering signatures for a 2014 statewide ballot measure that would give Colorado cities and towns local control over drilling-related policy decisions within their borders. -:t-well flaring near a playground in Denton, • t!xas . Photo courtesy: Cathy McMullen This pushback against drilling and its impacts goes beyond simple NJMBYism. The financial risks posed by dri11ing are real and substantial enough, as detailed below, that banks and insurers are also now adopting guidelines that forbid mortgage loans or insurance coverage on properties affected by drilling. It's a battle between oil and gas and the nest egg of countless Americans. The following examples begin to piece together the ways in which the threats posed by drilling and the deep pockets of the oil and gas industry quite literally hit home. Taken together, they are a call for decision-makers to start quantifying data and asking tough questions about drilling vs. the American Dream. Property Values • In April 2014, a Texas jury awarded just under $3 million to a family whose health and lives were turned upside down by the emissions coming from dozens of wells that had been drilled near their home. The verdict, which compensated the family for pain and suffering from illnesses linked with exposure to oil production and fracking chemicals, also included $275.000 for the loss in market value of their property c a u sed b v a ll th e dri lling. • In a 2013 survey of 550 people conducted by business "I for one don't want a I drilling) pad right behind my home. Not because I'm scared of dying of cancer, but because my property values will decrease. Everybody needs their property values http://www.resource-media.ocg/cri Iii ng-vs-lhe-american-dream -fracki ng-im pacts -on-property-rights·and-hom e-valuest#.Vm YHctrr JMw 5116 1217/2015 ( Resource ME!(jja -Orilling vs . the American Dream · Fracking impacts on property rights and home values · ·researchers at the University of Denver, a strong protected." majority said they would decline to buy a home near L c· C ·i 8 · · · · d bl. h · I J 1 if -ongmont 1ty ounct man nan dnllmg site. The stu y, pu ts ed m t1e ourna o 8 1 h . . b · db b h Real Estate literature, also showed that people bidding ~gdey, w osde chity is emfgCsule dy ot ti · l · d d 1 · ffi • m ustry an t e state o o ora o over on homes near rackmg ocatlons re uce t le1r o ers . db f d ·ir · ·d by up to 25 percent. Its voter-approve an o n ~ng 11_ns~ e R I . C l d k . 1· b city nmts. • ea tors m o ora o are ta mg note as c tents ecome increasingly hesitant about buying homes near drilling sites, with fewer and fewer bids rolling in. "Some don't want to even look at anything remotely close to any existing or proposed well sites ," Boulder County real estate agent Nanner Fisher told the Colorado Independent. She also told Boulder iJournal that "if there is a well that's visible when you show a property. [the prospective buyer] will ask to look for something else . A lot of it is the visual effect of the well site," she said. "And, they think if you can see it, it's gotta be close enough that it's not healthy." • An economic analysis by the Headwaters Institute undermines the idea that oil and gas developments fatten the bank accounts of communities and leave them better off than before drilling started. While there may be short-term windfalls, the study of six western states found that over the long-term .. oil and gas specialization is observed to have negative effects on change in per capita income, crime rate and education rate." • Denver Realtor Adam Cox wrote in a column in the Colorado Statesman that .. potential buyers balk at buying homes near a drilling site, even though that's often where the discounted homes are" because they are so close to oil and gas activity. Similarly, he said, homeowners near drilling sites .. often have to sell at significantly lower prices than when originally purchased due to the oil and gas industry neighbors." • The fumes, lights and deafening noise that came after a neighbor leased adjacent land for fracking forced a Cleveland became unbearable and forced to move from their suburban home. In an interview with Reuters, she said they were able to sell their house for $225.000. only half its appraised value. • In the Catskills, fracking fears have already impacted the real estate market even though the state has yet to make a determination on whether to aJlow drilling. The prospect that the state will open the region to drilling, as the Nelv York Times reported, "has spooked potential buyers" in upstate New York. The Times story also quoted a realtor who shut down her business In Wayne County, Penn. Agents there, the woman said, are having trouble selling rural properties .. because people don't want to be anywhere near the drilling." • A study conducted by researchers at Duke University found that the risks and potential liabilities of drilling outweigh economic benefits like lease payments and potential economic development in Washington County, Penn. Even though lease payments can add overall value to homes with wells drilled on them, the possibility of contaminated water decreases property value by an average of 24 percent, leaving a net decreas~ in value of 13 percent. • A 2010 study of the Texas real estate market in the heavily drilled suburban-Dallas area near Flower Mound concluded that homes valued at more than $250,000 and within 1,000 feet of a drilling pad or well site saw values decrease by 3 to 14 percent. • Faced with a boom in coal-bed methane development in the early 2000s, officials in La Plata County. Co lo ra do s tudi e d the impa c ts of o il gnd eas development and found that properties with a well drilled on them saw their value decrease by 22 percent. • In a 2005 peer-reviewed study, researchers found that oil and gas production "significantly affect the sale price for rural properties." The study determined that the presence of oil and gas facilities within 2 .5 miles of "We need basic numbers and figures, like 'How much am I going to lose in property value if they start drilling in my subdivision?' These aren't unreasonable http://www.resource-media .orgldrilling-vs -the-american-dream-fracki ng-impacts -~property-rights-~hom e-va lues/#.Vm YHcllr JM w 6/16 1217/2015 . • Resource Media -Drilli ng vs. the American Dream : Fracking impacts on property rights and home values ·. rural re s ident ia l propertie$ in A lberta. Canada reduced property values between 4% and 8%, with the potential for doubling the decrease, depending on the level of industrial activity. • In Pavilion, Wyo., where the EPA has linked groundwater contamination with fracking, Louis Meeks saw the value of his 40-acre alfalfa fann all but questions to ask. I think people deserve some real answers." -Boulder County (Colo.) Commissioner Elise Jones disappear completely. In 2006, his land and home were appraised at $239,000. Two years later, as ProPuhlica reported, "a local realtor sent Meeks a coldly worded letter saying his place was essentially worthless and she could not list his property. 'Since the problem was well documented ... and since no generally-accepted reason for the blowout has been agreed upon,' she wrote, 'buyers may feel reluctant to purchase a property with this stigma.' " • Similar nightmares have befallen residents of Dimock. Penn .. where frack ing problems d e cimated home values, and the drilling company responsible, Cabot Resources, was ordered to pay impacted families settlements worth twice their property values, a total of more than $4 mil- lion. • In North Texas, the Wise County Central Appraisal District Appraisal Review Board knocked down the appraised yaJ ue o f one fam ily 's b2me and IO-acre ranchette from $257,000 to $75,000 -a decrease of more than 70 percent. The board agreed to the extraordinary reduction as a result of numerous environmental problems related to fracking -just one year after the first drilling rig when up on the property. A well and battery of natural gas storage tanks near homes in Longmont, Colo. Photo courtesy: Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont Property Rights • Unbeknownst to many suburban homeowners, homebuilders are starting to quietly retain mineral rights beneath the subdivisions they build in suburban "This quintessential American dream is soon http://Www.resource-media.org/drilling-vs-the-american-dream-fracking-impacts-oo-property-rights-and-home-values/#.VmYHcUr JMw 7116 1217120_15 Resource Media -Orllhng vs. the American Dream : Fracking impacts on property rights and home values · ·areas. DR Horton has been perhaps the most notable rudely interrupted when construction company to employ this new tactic. In heavy industrial activity 2012, after an investigation by the North Caro Jina Attorney General's Office and the state's Real Estate appears at their backyard Commission, officials pressured the Texas-based fence sometimes with little to homebuilder to return mineral rights it had retained ' f [C I d ] from beneath about 850 homes. Residents who live in a no no ice. 0 ora ans soon Florida subdivision built by Horton were equally discover that oil and gas surprised when they found out that the company also activity does not make a good held the rights to prospect for whatever minerals lie beneath 2.500 of their homes near Tampa. neighbor." • As documented by Reuters, homeowners in -Denver Realtor Adam Cox describing subdivisions in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, how drilling has hanned property values Louisiana and other states have all purchased homes and the real estate market in Colorado. without disclosure about severed mineral rights only to see drilling rigs spring up next door too late for them to do anything about it. "This is a huge case of buyer beware," University of Colorado-Denver Law Professor Lloyd Burton told reporters. "People who move into suburban areas are really clueless about this, and the states don't exactly go out of their way to let people know." • Senate and House committees in the Colorado Legislature have passed a measure that, much like disclosures for lead paint, would rcguirc sellers to notify prospective homebuyers about separated mineral rights and whether a property may be subject to oil, gas or mineral development. Senate Bill 14-009 is awaiting approval by both chambers to be forwarded to the governor. • Jn at least 39 states. there are laws that compel "holdout landowners" to join g as-leasing agreements with their neighbors, allowing oil and gas companies to drill horizontally to tap into oil and gas reserves that cross property lines -whether the owner of a property wants to allow the drilling or not. Called "mandatory pooling" or .. compulsory integration," these laws basically create eminent domain by private enterprise. • Pooling gives the owner an interest in the well, including royalty payments, but as in Colorado, where forced pooling orders were issued by the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 48 times in 2010, the law also makes the unwilling owner ••Jiable for the further costs of th e operation. as if he had participated in the initial drilling operation." • The intent of forced pooling is to create more orderliness in drilling underground oil and gas reserves, which rarely adhere to the patchwork of surface ownership. Forcing holdout landowners into leasing agreements is supposed lo lead to fewer wells drilled and more efficiency in the ones that are. But it's also frequently used as a threat by landme n lookini: to cash jn on leases. Mortgages and Fracking Recognizing the numerous ways that drilling and fracking could damage value, the mortgage industry is starting to refuse to take on the financial liabilities and is tightening policies that prohibit lending on properties with wells on them or that are subject to leasing. /::."My beautiful house was all of a sudden on an industrial site. We wanted to get as far • Following the debacle in North Carolina over severed mineral rights (see above) the State Employees' Credit Union in North Carolina officially has decided it will no to nger.approve mo rtga~e finan c in g fo r properties where tbedrill ine ri~h t~ ha ve been sold off to someone away from fracking as we could." -Susan Fowler, who sold her suburban Cleveland home next to neighbors who le a sed their land for fracking for about half its appraised value. ~Jlwww.rescuce-media.org/driUing-vs ·lhe-american-dream-frack ing-impacts-oo-property·rights·ald-home-values/#.VmYHcllr JMw 8116 12'7/2015 • • Resource Media -Drilling vs. the American Dream : Fracking impacls on property rigits and home values ( .. else. The credit union, which manages almost $I 2 billion in residential mortgages, said it considers loans on such land to be riskier than those where the mineral rights remain with the land. • According to American Banker, at least three mortgage lending institutions -Tompkins Financial in Ithaca, N.Y., Spain's Santander Bank and State Employees' Credit Union in Raleigh, N.C. -are now refusing to make mortgages on land where oil or 1:as rights have been sold to an ener~y company. The publication quoted the president and CEO of the North Carolina credit union saying that if a landowner allows a drilling rig to go up on his or her their land, "We'd have to tell their neighbors, "We're sorry, your property value just went down.'" (Also quoted in the Motley Fool.) • Language in Freddie Mac's standard mortgage contracts prohibit a "borrower from taking any action that could cause the deterioration, damage or decrease in value of the subject property," and if the prohibition is broken by say, a landowner signing a drilling lease or entering into a mineral-rights agreement, Freddie Mac has the let:al authority to exercise a call on a mortgage's full amount if a borrower, according to an agency spokesman. • According to a white pape r prepared fo r the Ne w York State 6 ar Assoc iation , Wells Fargo, one of the largest home mortgage lender in the United States is approaching home loans for properties that have gas drilling leases attached to them with a high degree of caution . • In addition to Wells Fargo, Provident Funding, GMAC, FNCB, Fidelity and First Liberty, First Place Bank, Solvay Bank, Tompkins Trust Co., CFCU Community Credit Union are either putting hard-to-meet conditions on mortgages or denying loans altogether on properties with oil and gas leases. (Excellent summary of oil and gas issues related to mortgage lending from a brokerage vice president is available online.) • The backgrounder prepared by the NYSBA about gas leasing impacts on homeowners also includes a section on residential mortgages and says the combination of home-ownership and drilling, "creates a perfect storm begging for immediate attention." Risks include: -Homeowners being confronted with uninsurable property damage for activities they cannot control. -Banks refusing to provide mortgage loans on homes with gas leases because they don't meet secondary mortgage market guidelines . -Impediments to new construction starts, long a bellwether of economic recovery , since construction loans depend on risk-free property and a purchaser. -The possibility of a property owner defaulting on a mortgage by signing a gas lease. -Prohibitively expensive appraisals and title searches that are complicated by assessing the value of risks and the arcane paper trail of mineral rights and attached liabilities. • A Pennsylvania couple was rec ently denied a new mort2age on their form by Quicken Loans because of a drilling site across the street. According to the lender, "gas wells and other structures in nearby lots ... can significantly degrade a property's value" and do not meet underwriting guidelines. Two other lenders also denied the family mortgages. • Federal lending and mortgage institutions (FHA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) all have prohibitions against lending on properties where drilling is taking place or where hazardous materials are stored. A drilling lease on a property financed through one of these agencies would result in a "technical default." FHA's guidelines also don't allow it to finance mortgages where homes are within 300 feet of an active or planned drilling site. Also see http://bit.ly/l dlen28 . I 11surance Coverage Homeowners who think damage to property incurred by drilling accidents is covered by insurance need to think again. Such damages are typically not covered. N.tp:/Jwww .resOU'ce-media.or!Vdrilling-vs·lhe-american-dream-fracki ng·impacts-orrproperty·rights·and-home-values/#.Vm YHctlr JMw 9i1 6 1217f2915. • • Resource Media -Drilling vs. the Ameri can Dream: Fracking impacts on property rights and home values · " tast July, Nationwide Insurance spelled out specifically that it would not provide coverage for damage related to fracking . According to an internal memo outlining the company's policy, "After months of research and discussion, we have determined that the exposures presented by hydraulic fracturing are too great to ignore. Risks involved with hydraulic fracturing are now prohibited for General Liability, Commercial Auto, Motor Truck Cargo, Auto Physical Damage and Public Auto (insurance) coverage." • Often. a driller or well operator's insurance won't cover damages, according to the NYSSA summary. Homeowners may have to sue for damages and, even if they win, may not get paid for all damages since drillers admit in their regulatory filings that they may not carry enough insurance. Other online resources: • Save Colorado from Fracking on how fracking lowers the value of property and real estate. • The New York Times has compiled hundreds of pa~es of documents related to drilling and property rights and values that include federal guidelines, emails from realtors and mortgage brokers, memos from bankers etc. • Reute1 :~ investigated the mushrooming iss ue of split e s tates and the conflicts between min e ral rights and property rights, finding numerous instances across the country of homebuilders and developers holding on to ownership of oil and gas deposits while selling off subdivision lots, while providing little to no infonnation about the issue to buyers. • An in-depth look by the Colorado !ndepe11de111 at ways the fracking boom is coming into conflict with homeowners. • Approximately 90 percent of all home purchases in the U.S. are made with money loaned by a bank, credit union or government entity in the form of a mortgage. Boulder Weekly has a detailed explanation of the mechanics of property values and the mortgage market, their intersection with fracking and the shale oil/gas boom and how they pose a "substantial threat to the entire system as it's currently built." hltp:/lwww .resourc~mediaorg/dr illing·vs·lhe-amer ican-dream-frack1119·im pacts -on-property ·rights-and-hom~values/#.VmYHctlrJMw 1~6