47-019-00460

This is an older well that has been converted for commercial injection in Fayette county. This well is situated at the facility that serves both this and another nearby injection well by pipeline (47-019-00508). In some instances the documents listed below serve both wells because they pertain to the facility.

When the facility was first constructed there were two large pits used for disposal fluid storage as well as a tank battery. By 2007 when the permit was up for renewal a host of issues had created widespread negative public comment. There was noticeable contamination of surface water unacknowledged by the Office of Oil and Gas. A Consent Order was written in 2008 for the operator, in order to keep the pits, to perform periodic sampling and analysis of the nearby affected stream. It quickly became evident that the operator was not performing the sampling and analysis required by the Consent Order but the Office of Oil and Gas made no attempts to enforce the Order.

When the permit again come up for renwal public comment was again negative, with more persons participating in the comment process. The 2014 permit was revoked in March 2014 and a new permit was applied for and received in 2015. The two pits were closed as part of the 2014 permit.

USGS and Duke University scientists have visited the site and found surface water contamination associated with oil and gas activity.

The documents collection is presented as a narrative because of the complexity and variety of documents related to the well and facility.

 

Well drilled in 1981. Converted for injection in 2002.
Formation into which waste is injected -- Weir
Geographic location: latitude 38.014943, longitude -81.152326

 

Major issues

  • Operator has a cavalier attitude toward regulations and Office of Oil and Gas.
  • Contamination of ground and surface water associated with activities at the facility and/or failure of part II mechanical integrity of the well.
  • Office of Oil and Gas was unable to enforce a Consent Order.
  • Failure of Office of Oil and Gas on a number of points to enforce compliance.

Documents

1981 Completion report

2007 Public Hearing on the permit

2007 Permit

Document group including 2007 Permit, letters to an attorney and operator, Notification of Violation and 2008 Consent Order, all related to the closing of the pits

2008 Consent Order
2009 letter to Webb from DEP regarding testing

Stream and pit fluid lab tests. (Note that the tests are required to take place twice a year in three locations and that lab tests must cover the list of constituents in the 2009 letter. It is easy to verify the operator's failure to meet the requirements of the Consent Order.)

Operator's samples

Date Sample locations Notes
3/18/2009 pit, adjacent to pit, downstream  
12/28/2009 upstream, midstream, downstream  
12/7/2010 upstream, midstream, downstream  
12/6/2011 upstream, midstream, downstream  
12/29/2011 upstream, midstream, downstream  
1/6/2012 upstream, midstream, downstream  
10/11/2012 upstream, downstream shares file with 12/11/2012 test
12/11/2012 grab from pit shares file with 10/11/2012 test

Other samples

2/7/2013 up stream, off pit, downstream Office of Oil and Gas
2/2013 upper creek, middle creek samples collected by Mary Rahall
3/15/2013 iron discharge, downstream, pit Office of Oil and Gas
3/18/2013 Webb stream Office of Oil and Gas
3/29/2013 L-upstream left trib, R-upstream right trib, downstream, pond discharge Office of Oil and Gas
13/4/2013 stream Plateau Action Network


YouTube videos show the pits above the stream and the stream below the pits.


FOIA document group with many of the above documents (24 MB)


2012 Mechanical Integrity Test (WR-37)

September 2010 Notification of Violation

November 2010 inspection report


Example WR-40 monthly report forms
WR40 forms for first permit period (2002-2007) -- 2003-2006 and February 2007. WR-40 forms for the second permit period (2008-2012). April 2013 when waste was being injected even though the permit expired in October 2012. Additional WR-40 forms for period when the operator did not have a permit but was injecting waste (January and February 2014).


2013 Draft Permit

2013 Public Hearing on the draft permit

2014 Permit and permit cover letter

2014 DEP response to comments

Site inspection in February 2014


Operator's SPCC Plan. The plan shows that secondary containment for the storage tanks is adequate assuming the walls between containment cells are perforated. 2014 site inspections found problems with secondary containment.


In March 2014 the Office revoked the permit and issued an order, with conditions, allowing the operator to inject waste until a new permit was granted.

An appeal was made to the Environmental Quality Board in 2014 regarding the permitting process and other factors. The Office of Oil and Gas created a large document file with materials related to the well, including 2013 inspection reports and the application materials for the 2013 permit application. The appellant's brief gives an excellent survey with issues with the operator's actions and has an analysis of stream contamination by Dr. Avner Vengosh of Duke University. According to Dr. Vengosh the stream shows contamination from Marcellus produced waters.

The operator closed and reclaimed the pits in mid-2014. This group of soil tests shows that the pits were leaking.


The operator apparently conducted a pipeline integrity test in 2014. It's not at all clear which pipeline was being tested. There is a pipeline between this well's facility and the operator's sister well nearby. This group of documents shows the pipeline integrity test being conducted between the tanks and the pump in 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, and 2010. The documents all have the same wording and were received by the Office at the same date.

The operator apparently did not inject into the well for part of 2014. Injection resumed in December 2014 for 4 days as shown by this WR-40.


The operator submitted new applications for this well and the sister well nearby (47-019-00508) in 2014.

The Office issued new permits for this well and the sister well at the end of 2015.

2015 Response to Comments.

 

Goggle Earth Imagery

Facility in 2013. The tank battery is visible as well as one of the two pits. The triangular pond is freshwater. The well itself is behind the two buildings next to the drive for trucks unloading at the pond.

The complete facility showing the two pits and locations of water sample collection. A Google Earth KMZ file has this information for samples collected up thru the end of March 2012.

This is a closer view of the facility showing the types of storage tanks at a facility like this and the types of contents.


 

Underground Injection Control Class 2 Wells

Introduction to Class 2 Wells in West Virginia

Collected documents and information for a number of Class 2 disposal wells and secondary recovery area permits

Searchable tables for UIC inspections, UIC permitting and MITs based on a copy of the Office of Oil and Gas' online UIC databases made in 2016.

Background materials related to West Virginia's primacy (including the primacy application), EPA guidance documents, and a lot more.

Select wells which present important issues

A UIC well constructed without any cement behind the steel casing strings to protect groundwater.

A commercial UIC well where activity on the site contaminated groundwater.

A commercial UIC well where activity on the site or because of well failure has contaminated surface water.

A UIC well whose use led to earthquakes in the area.


Gas Well Study is the examination of natural gas wells in West Virginia.

Underground Injection Control Class 2 Wells
These wells are used either for the disposal of oil and gas liquid waste or for the enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas.

Gas Well Study Site Visits
Annual reports, environmental assessments, and individual well information.

YouTube Videos
Select videos from the Gas Well Study YouTube channel.

What Happened at Fernow
An investigation into what caused the vegetation death in the land application area after landspraying hydraulic fracture flowback waste.

The Spill at Buckeye Creek
An investigation into a spill from a Marcellus well site into Buckeye Creek in Doddridge county.


The Details

Plunger Lift Technology on Gas Wells
Fluids Brought to the Surface during Production
Plugging a Well
How To Read a Lab Report
Information the Completion Report Provides
Casing and Cementing