1 | Visit the Data Snapshot for news and updates. | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | |||||||||
3 | Notice | Date Posted | |||||||
4 | 6.24.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/24/2022 | |||||||
5 | 6.22.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/22/2022 | |||||||
6 | Trigger Canister Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on June 9 can be viewed here. | 6/22/2022 | |||||||
7 | 6.17.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/17/2022 | |||||||
8 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on June 15 can be viewed here. | 6/17/2022 | |||||||
9 | Trigger Canister Report for Interchange 02 on May 15 can be viewed here. | 6/17/2022 | |||||||
10 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 on May 2 can be viewed here. | 6/17/2022 | |||||||
11 | 6.15.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/15/2022 | |||||||
12 | Trigger Canister Notification (2 Triggers) for Northwest Parkway 02 on June 11 can be viewed here. | 6/15/2022 | |||||||
13 | 6.10.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/10/2022 | |||||||
14 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on June 9 can be viewed here. | 6/10/2022 | |||||||
15 | 6.8.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/8/2022 | |||||||
16 | 6.3.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/3/2022 | |||||||
17 | 6.1.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 6/1/2022 | |||||||
18 | 5.27.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/27/2022 | |||||||
19 | 5.25.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/25/2022 | |||||||
20 | 5.20.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/20/2022 | |||||||
21 | 5.18.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/18/2022 | |||||||
22 | Trigger Canister Notification for Interchange 02 on May 15 can be viewed here. | 5/18/2022 | |||||||
23 | 5.13.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/13/2022 | |||||||
24 | 5.11.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/11/2022 | |||||||
25 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 April 19 can be viewed here. | 5/11/2022 | |||||||
26 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 April 22 can be viewed here. | 5/11/2022 | |||||||
27 | 5.6.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 5/6/2022 | |||||||
28 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 April 10 can be viewed here. | 5/6/2022 | |||||||
29 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 March 29 can be viewed here. | 5/6/2022 | |||||||
30 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 March 27 can be viewed here. | 5/6/2022 | |||||||
31 | 5.4.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates | 5/4/2022 | |||||||
32 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 01 on May 2 can be viewed here. | 5/4/2022 | |||||||
33 | 4.29.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates | 4/29/2022 | |||||||
34 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on February 25th can be viewed here. | 4/29/2022 | |||||||
35 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on March 4th can be viewed here. | 4/29/2022 | |||||||
36 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on March 8th can be viewed here. | 4/29/2022 | |||||||
37 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for United 02 on March 24th can be viewed here. | 4/29/2022 | |||||||
38 | 4.27.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates | 4/27/2022 | |||||||
39 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 01 on April 22 can be viewed here. | 4/27/2022 | |||||||
40 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 02 on April 22 can be viewed here. | 4/27/2022 | |||||||
41 | 4.22.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates | 4/22/2022 | |||||||
42 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 01 on April 19 can be viewed here. | 4/22/2022 | |||||||
43 | 4.20.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/20/2022 | |||||||
44 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 2 on April 19 can be viewed here. | 4/20/2022 | |||||||
45 | 4.15.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/15/2022 | |||||||
46 | 4.13.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/13/2022 | |||||||
47 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 1 on April 10 can be viewed here. | 4/13/2022 | |||||||
48 | 4.8.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/8/2022 | |||||||
49 | 4.6.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/6/2021 | |||||||
50 | 4.1.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 4/1/2022 | |||||||
51 | 3.30.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/30/2022 | |||||||
52 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 1 on March 27 can be viewed here. | 3/30/2022 | |||||||
53 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 1 on March 29 can be viewed here. | 3/30/2022 | |||||||
54 | 3.25.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/25/2022 | |||||||
55 | Trigger Canister Notification for United 2 on March 24 can be viewed here. | 3/25/2022 | |||||||
56 | 3.23.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/23/2022 | |||||||
57 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 2 on March 20 can be viewed here. | 3/23/2022 | |||||||
58 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Livingston 01 on February 19th can be viewed here. | 3/23/2022 | |||||||
59 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Anthem 1 on February 20th can be viewed here. | 3/23/2022 | |||||||
60 | 3.18.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/18/2022 | |||||||
61 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Livingston 2 (2 Triggers) on February 7 can be viewed here. | 3/18/2022 | |||||||
62 | 3.16.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/16/2022 | |||||||
63 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 2 on March 12 can be viewed here. | 3/16/2022 | |||||||
64 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 1 on March 15 can be viewed here. | 3/16/2022 | |||||||
65 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on February 18th can be viewed here. | 3/16/2022 | |||||||
66 | SMALL FIRE AT INTERCHANGE A PAD - North Metro Fire crews were called to an oil and gas site near Huron and 156th. There was a small fire. The fire was promptly extinguished by Extraction crews before the fire engine arrived. No structures were threatened and no other hazards present at this time. The pad is idle until safety checks are performed, a full after action report and root cause analysis is pending. Thank you for your patience while we investigate this matter further, this email was sent to Broomfield City Council following the incident. | 3/12/2022 | |||||||
67 | 3.11.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/11/2022 | |||||||
68 | 3.9.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/9/2022 | |||||||
69 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on March 4 can be viewed here. | 3/9/2022 | |||||||
70 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on March 8 can be viewed here. | 3/9/2022 | |||||||
71 | 3.4.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/4/2022 | |||||||
72 | 3.2.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 3/2/2022 | |||||||
73 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on February 25 can be viewed here. | 3/2/2022 | |||||||
74 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 01 on February 27 can be viewed here. | 3/2/2022 | |||||||
75 | 2.28.22 - O & G in CCOB - Where Have We Been and Where Are We Going? View document here. | 2/28/2022 | |||||||
76 | 2.25.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/25/2022 | |||||||
77 | 2.22.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
78 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on January 17 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
79 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Livingston 01 on January 26 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
80 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on February 3 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
81 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Livingston 02 on February 4 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
82 | Trigger Canister Notification: Northwest Parkway 02 on February 18 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
83 | Trigger Canister Notification: Livingston 01 on February 19 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
84 | Trigger Canister Notification: Anthem 01 on February 20 can be viewed here. | 2/22/2022 | |||||||
85 | 2.17.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/18/2022 | |||||||
86 | 2.15.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/16/2022 | |||||||
87 | 2.10.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/10/2022 | |||||||
88 | 2.8.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent updates. | 2/9/2022 | |||||||
89 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on February 3 can be viewed here. | 2/9/2022 | |||||||
90 | Trigger Canister Notifications (3 Triggers) for Livingston 02 on February 4 & 7 can be viewed here. | 2/9/2022 | |||||||
91 | 2.3.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 2/3/2022 | |||||||
92 | 2.1.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 2/1/2022 | |||||||
93 | 1.27.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/28/2022 | |||||||
94 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for United 02 on January 3 can be viewed here. | 1/28/2022 | |||||||
95 | Trigger Canister Notification for Livingston 01 on January 26 can be viewed here. | 1/28/2022 | |||||||
96 | 1.25.22 - Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/26/2022 | |||||||
97 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Interchange 03 on Dec. 10, 15, & 17 can be viewed here. | 1/26/2022 | |||||||
98 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Interchange 02 on Dec. 19 can be viewed here. | 1/26/2022 | |||||||
99 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Interchange 03 on Dec. 24 & Jan. 1 can be viewed here. | 1/26/2022 | |||||||
100 | 1.24.22 - Extraction provided the City and County of Broomfield with a Root-Cause Analysis report for the Jan. 14 Smoke Plume Event. The report includes a detailed timeline of the event, a root cause analysis, equipment replacements and verifications, and process/procedural modifications to the shut-down and start-up protocol. | 1/24/2022 | |||||||
101 | 1.21.22 - Extraction Resources Extends Apology to Broomfield Community Following Jan. 14 Smoke Plume Event. Read the full letter at Broomfield.org/OilandGas | 1/22/2022 | |||||||
102 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/19/2022 | |||||||
103 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on January 17 can be viewed here. | 1/19/2022 | |||||||
104 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/14/2022 | |||||||
105 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/12/2022 | |||||||
106 | Boulder AIR provided an analysis of air quality impacts due to the Marshall Fire here. | 1/12/2022 | |||||||
107 | Boulder AIR provided an analysis of an air quality event observed on Friday 1/7 here. | 1/12/2022 | |||||||
108 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/7/2022 | |||||||
109 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 1/5/2022 | |||||||
110 | Trigger Canister Notification for Interchange 03 on Jan. 1 can be viewed here. | 1/5/2022 | |||||||
111 | Trigger Canister Notifications (2 Triggers) for United 02 & Interchange 03 on Jan 3. can be viewed here. | 1/5/2022 | |||||||
112 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/31/2021 | |||||||
113 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for Northwest Parkway 02 on November 30 can be viewed here. | 12/31/2021 | |||||||
114 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for United 02 on December 3 can be viewed here. | 12/31/2021 | |||||||
115 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/29/2021 | |||||||
116 | Trigger Canister Notification for Interchange 03 on December 24 can be viewed here. | 12/29/2021 | |||||||
117 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/28/2021 | |||||||
118 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/17/2021 | |||||||
119 | Trigger Canisters Analysis Report for events on December 4 can be viewed here. | 12/17/2021 | |||||||
120 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/15/2021 | |||||||
121 | Trigger Canister Notification for Interchange 03 on 12/10/21 can be viewed here. | 12/15/2021 | |||||||
122 | Plumetracker Report for run on 12/3/21 can be viewed here. | 12/15/2021 | |||||||
123 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/10/2021 | |||||||
124 | Trigger Canister Report for United 02 on October 8 can be viewed here. | 12/10/2021 | |||||||
125 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 on November 5 can be viewed here. | 12/10/2021 | |||||||
126 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/8/2021 | |||||||
127 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 on November 5 can be viewed here. | 12/8/2021 | |||||||
128 | Trigger Canister Notification: United 02 on December 3, can be viewed here. | 12/8/0221 | |||||||
129 | Trigger Canisters Notification: Multiple sites on December 4, can be viewed here. | 12/8/2021 | |||||||
130 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/3/2021 | |||||||
131 | Trigger Canister Report for United 01 & United 02 (2 Triggers) on October 22 can be viewed here. | 12/3/2021 | |||||||
132 | Trigger Canister Analysis for Benzene > 6 ppb (1-Hour Calculation) Events can be viewed here. | 12/3/2021 | |||||||
133 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 12/1/2021 | |||||||
134 | Trigger Canister Report United 01 & United 02 (3 Triggers) on October 18 can be viewed here. | 12/1/2021 | |||||||
135 | Trigger Canister Notifications: (3 Triggers): INTERCHANGE 03 & UNITED 02 on 11/24 & 11/28 can be viewed here. | 12/1/2021 | |||||||
136 | Trigger Canister Notification: NORTHWEST PARKWAY 02 on 11/30 can be viewed here. | 12/1/2021 | |||||||
137 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/24/2021 | |||||||
138 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report UNITED 01 & 02 on October 16 can be viewed here. | 11/24/2021 | |||||||
139 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/19/2021 | |||||||
140 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/17/2021 | |||||||
141 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report UNITED 01 & 02 on October 15 can be viewed here. | 11/17/2021 | |||||||
142 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/15/2021 | |||||||
143 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report UNITED 01 on October 9 can be viewed here. | 11/15/2021 | |||||||
144 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/10/2021 | |||||||
145 | Trigger Canister Notifications: UNITED 01 & 02 on November 5 can be viewed here. | 11/10/2021 | |||||||
146 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/5/2021 | |||||||
147 | Trigger Canister Notifications: UNITED 02 on November 3 can be viewed here. | 11/5/2021 | |||||||
148 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/3/2021 | |||||||
149 | Trigger Canister Notifications: UNITED 01 & UNITED 02 on October 29 & 30 can be viewed here. | 11/3/2021 | |||||||
150 | Trigger Canister Analysis Reports: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 7 & 8 can be viewed here. | 11/3/2021 | |||||||
151 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 11/1/2021 | |||||||
152 | Please see this Public Notice related to air quality data from early October (CSU Plumetracker & trigger canister analysis from 10/6). | 10/28/2021 | |||||||
153 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
154 | Trigger Canister Analysis Reports: NWPKWY 02 on September 23, 25, 29, & 30 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
155 | Trigger Canister Analysis Reports: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 1, 2, & 4 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
156 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report UNITED 02 on October 2 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
157 | Trigger Canister Analysis Reports NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 6 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
158 | Trigger Canister Notification: UNITED 02 on October 21 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
159 | Trigger Canister Notifications: UNITED 01 & UNITED 02 on October 22 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
160 | Trigger Canister Notification: UNITED 02 on October 24 can be viewed here. | 10/27/2021 | |||||||
161 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/22/2021 | |||||||
162 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
163 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report: UNITED 02 on 9/22/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
164 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report: NWPKWY 02 on 9/21/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
165 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report: NWPKWY 02 on 9/20/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
166 | Trigger Canisters Notification (2 Triggers): UNITED 01 & 02 on 10/18/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
167 | Trigger Canisters Notification (3 Triggers): UNITED 01 & 02 on 10/16/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
168 | Trigger Canisters Notification (2 Triggers): UNITED 01 & 02 on 10/15/21 can be viewed here. | 10/20/2021 | |||||||
169 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. See this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/15/2021 | |||||||
170 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. See this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/12/2021 | |||||||
171 | Trigger Canister Notification: UNITED 01 on October 9 can be viewed here. | 10/12/2021 | |||||||
172 | Trigger Canister Notification: UNITED 02 on October 8 can be viewed here. | 10/12/2021 | |||||||
173 | Trigger Canister Notifications: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 7 & 8 can be viewe here. | 10/12/2021 | |||||||
174 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for UNITED 02 on 10/8/21 can be viewed here. | 10/8/2021 | |||||||
175 | Trigger Canister Notifications: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 7 & 8 can be viewed here. | 10/8/2021 | |||||||
176 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/8/2021 | |||||||
177 | Trigger Canister Notification: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on 10/6/21 can be viewed here. | 10/8/2021 | |||||||
178 | Extrction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/5/2021 | |||||||
179 | Trigger Canister Notification: UNITED 02 on 10/2/21 can be viewed here. | 10/5/2021 | |||||||
180 | Trigger Canister Notifications: NWPKWY 02 & 03 on October 1, 2, & 4 can be viewed here. | 10/5/2021 | |||||||
181 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on 10/1/21 can be viewed here. | 10/1/21 | |||||||
182 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on 9/30/21 can be viewed here. | 10/1/21 | |||||||
183 | Extrction Oil & Gas Operations. See this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 10/1/21 | |||||||
184 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for NWPKWY 02 on September 16,17,18 can be viewed here. | 9/30/21 | |||||||
185 | Trigger Canister Analysis Report for UNITED 02 on 9/18/21 can be viewed here. | 9/30/21 | |||||||
186 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on 9/29/21 can be viewed here. | 9/30/21 | |||||||
187 | Extraction noise appeal update & variance hearing. Please see this notice for an important update. Also see this information about Council's study session scheduled for 9/30/21. | 9/29/21 | |||||||
188 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 9/28/21 | |||||||
189 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 9/23/21 | |||||||
190 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 9/22/21 | |||||||
191 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on 9/20/21 can be viewed here. | 9/22/21 | |||||||
192 | Trigger Canister Notification for NWPKWY 02 on 9/18/21 can be viewed here. | 9/22/21 | |||||||
193 | Trigger Canisters Notification for UNITED 02 on 9/18/21 can be viewed here. | 9/22/21 | |||||||
194 | Trigger Canister Notification for Northwest Parkway 02 on 9/17/21. Please see this notice for additional information. | 9/17/21 | |||||||
195 | Trigger Canister Notification & Report*: United 02. Please see this notice for additional information. | 9/17/21 | |||||||
196 | Extraction Oil & Gas Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 9/17/21 | |||||||
197 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for Extraction's most recent operations update. | 9/15/21 | |||||||
198 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Today Broomfield inspectors met with the drilling foreman to perform the pre-drill inspection at the Northwest B Pad. Drilling is anticipated to commence around 10 PM this evening. While we had previously anticipated a start date of this Wednesday 9/15/21, they are operationally, and legally, prepared to proceed. Please see this Public Notice that will be posted today. | 9/13/2021 | |||||||
199 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for the most recent operations update. | 9/10/2021 | |||||||
200 | Carlson 1-24. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 9/10/2021 | |||||||
201 | Davis 43-6. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 9/8/2021 | |||||||
202 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for the most recent operations update. | 9/8/2021 | |||||||
203 | Carlson 1-24. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 9/8/2021 | |||||||
204 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for the most recent operations update. | 9/7/2021 | |||||||
205 | Carlson 1-24. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 9/7/2021 | |||||||
206 | Please see this Public Notice related to the Davis 43-6 remediation project and conditional dependent release of building permits along Graham Peak Way. | 9/3/2021 | |||||||
207 | Carlson 1-24. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 9/1/2021 | |||||||
208 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for the most recent operations update. | 9/1/2021 | |||||||
209 | Carson 1-24 Update. On August 26th, Broomfield received updated test results from the soil sampling protocol at the Carlson 1-24 excavation. Soil testing at 9.5’ of depth revealed trace (0.1 mg. per Kg. or less, most results were ‘non-detect’) residual contamination. Excavation of impacted soils will continue until all testing results are non-detect. View full notice here. | 8/30/2021 | |||||||
210 | Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure. Prior to hydraulic fracturing at the Livingston and Interchange B Pads, Extraction Oil & Gas provided the following list of all non-proprietary chemicals (list of chemicals by phase) in compliance with BMP 13. As with all other on-site chemical compounds, frak chemicals are accompanied by safety data sheets (SDS) that are available for review by CCOB inspectors. See full notice here. | 8/27/2021 | |||||||
211 | Davis 43-6 Update. Today, August 27th, Broomfield received notice from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) that under Rule 913.h.1. (Environmental Impact Prevention) the Davis 43-6 Site Investigation and Remedial Workplan (Form 27) has been approved for final closure and no further remediation is required. See full notice here. | 8/27/2021 | |||||||
212 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for the most recent activity update. | 8/25/2021 | |||||||
213 | Extraction Oil & Gas Upcoming Operations. Please see this notice for today’s Extraction activity update. | 8/20/2021 | |||||||
214 | Trigger canister analysis report from the Aspen Creek/Carlson trigger event at the Carlson 1-24 well site on August 5 confirmed a strong combustion signature, likely sourced from heavy machinery. See full notice here. | 8/17/2021 | |||||||
215 | Activity Update: Extraction Operations in Broomfield - August 17, 2021 See full update here. | 8/17/2021 | |||||||
216 | Notice of public health study timeline. View timeline here. | 8/16/2021 | |||||||
217 | Noise Litigation Extraction. Here is an update on the noise litigation between Extraction and Broomfield. | 8/16/2021 | |||||||
218 | Updated notice on the Carlson 1-24 spill/release can be seen here. | 8/13/2021 | |||||||
219 | The City and County of Broomfield received notice from Extraction Oil & Gas on 8/12/21 that evidence of a historical release(s) was identified in the removal of a tank at the Carlson 1-24 well site and additional soil sampling and testing is underway. View the full notice here. | 8/13/2021 | |||||||
220 | Carlson 1-24 Well Plugging & Abandonment. Plugging and abandonment activity has concluded on the Carlson 1-24 location. No spills or leaks were noted. Broomfield has installed an air sensor to characterize any emissions from the project; a trigger canister was activated during the rigging down & moving off of trucks and machinery - see latest public notice on site activity here. | 8/10/2021 | |||||||
221 | Broomfield received notice from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) that Extraction Oil & Gas (XOG) air quality monitoring (AQM) plans for the Interchange, Northwest and United Pads. View full notice here. | 8/10/2021 | |||||||
222 | The automatic trigger system at the Aspen Creek location activated today at 7:17AM, the full notice can be seen here: Trigger Notification. | 8/6/2021 | |||||||
223 | Carlson 1-24 Well Plugging & Abandonment. Plugging and abandonment activity has concluded on the Carlson 1-24 location. Today Broomfield inspectors noted rigging down of the heavy equipment in preparation for site reclamation. No spills or leaks were noted. Broomfield has installed an air sensor to characterize any emissions from the project; a trigger canister was activated during the rigging down & moving off of trucks and machinery - see trigger notification below, see latest public notice on site activity here. | 8/6/2021 | |||||||
224 | Carlson 1-24 Well Plugging & Abandonment. Plugging and abandonment activity continues on the Carlson 1-24 location. Today Broomfield inspectors attended the morning tailgate safety meeting (Job Safety Analysis) and observed setting of cement plugs into the wellbore as part of the plugging process. No spills or leaks were noted. Work is expected to last 3-4 weeks. Broomfield has installed an air sensor to characterize any emissions from the project. See latest public notice here. | 8/3/2021 | |||||||
225 | Weld County/Erie - Cosslett East Pad Development July 30, 2021 Crestone Peak Resources has submitted its Form 2A (location assessment) for the Cosslett East Pad to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). This proposed location is near Broomfield’s northern boundary, west of I-25 and south of Erie Parkway. View the full notice here. | 7/30/2021 | |||||||
226 | Re: XOG and Interchange A/B - Extraction plans to begin erecting the sound walls at the Interchange Pads on Monday morning, 8/2/21. | 7/30/2021 | |||||||
227 | Update re: Carlson 1-24 - Extraction Oil & Gas has filed a Field Operations Notice (Form 42) and received approval to begin work on the Carlson 1-24 on Wednesday the 28th. Broomfield has also approved its environmental clearance (20 day letter). View the full public notice here. | 7/28/2021 | |||||||
228 | Update re: Davis 43-6 - Construction of the methane mitigation system at the Davis 43-6 well site is complete. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), Broomfield’s environmental consultant and the builder’s environmental consultant have all conducted follow-up testing. Preliminary results indicate that the mitigation system is working and functioning as intended. For the results of these initial tests, the final report from Souder Miller, and next steps, please see the updated public notice here. | 7/28/2021 | |||||||
229 | This afternoon, Extraction provided Broomfield with an anticipated schedule of operations. The schedule is what staff anticipated in planning for inspections and the expansion of the air and sound monitoring equipment. Here is a public notice that contains a link to Extraction's "anticipated" schedule. | 7/16/2021 | |||||||
230 | Here is a chart indicating the dates of upcoming operations at the Northwest, United and Interchange Pads, as submitted to the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) in Extraction’s air quality monitoring plans and as set forth in operational notices received by Broomfield per COGCC Rule 412 and Operator Agreement BMP #6. | 7/13/2021 | |||||||
231 | Extraction will be plugging and abandoning the Carlson 1-24 well. See public notice here. | 7/13/2021 | |||||||
232 | Construction of the methane mitigation system at the Davis 43-6 well site is complete. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) conducted initial tests and provided the results to Broomfield. As a result of this most recent data, COGCC staff indicate that the mitigation system is working to mitigate subsurface methane in the area of the well. For the results of these initial tests and next steps, please see the updated public notice here. | 7/13/2021 | |||||||
233 | EXTRACTION FORMAL NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF OPERATIONS. View the full notice here. | 6/30/2021 | |||||||
234 | Canister analysis from the June 23rd air quality event at Anthem 01 is available here. | 6/29/2021 | |||||||
235 | 6/9/21 update re: trenching along Graham Peak Way, view updated notice here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
236 | Extraction continues with planned maintenance activities as set forth in this updated public notice. Presently, 10 of 12 separators have been serviced on Interchange B, and 5 of 18 separators have been serviced on Livingston. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
237 | 6/24/21 update re: trenching along Graham Peak Way, view updated notice here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
238 | BOULDER COUNTY - See this notice for information regarding permitted flowline removal & abandonment work in Boulder County, west of Anthem Ranch. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
239 | A canister triggered at Interchange 02 on 6/14/21 at 10:00 a.m. The canister triggered showed a four-minute increase in the TVOC Indicator signal racing 331 millivolts. Updated analysis report here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
240 | The Apis system at Anthem 01 registered a TVOC Indicator event between 9:45 am and 10:50 am on June 23, 2021. The system triggered a canister at 9:48 am with a TVOC Indicator signal of 301 mV. View full notice here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
241 | Re: trenching along Graham Peak Way, work is anticipated to take approximately 1-2 more weeks. See latest notice on the Davis 43-6 remediation project here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
242 | On June 1, Broomfield Engineering issued a public-private improvement permit (PPIP) to Richmond Homes’ subcontractor to perform work along Graham Peak Way (in Anthem Highlands) related to the Davis 43-6 remediation project. Ventilation trench construction has begun and is estimated to take 3 weeks. See latest notice on the Davis 43-6 remediation project here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
243 | The sensor system at the Interchange 02 was triggered at 10:00 AM on 6/14/21. The TVOC indicator showed a 3-minute spike peaking at 331 mV. Original notice here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
244 | A canister triggered at the Interchange 02 sensor station on 6/4/21 at 9:03 a.m. The canister triggered did not show any significant oil and gas emissions and all primary compounds monitored were below the weekly average for the site. Original analysis report here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
245 | Pertaining to the Davis 43-6 methane remediation project on Graham Peak Way, Richmond Homes contractor, Souder Miller, has updated the trench design and performed additional soil gas testing on March 29th. The sampling indicates that residual methane remains in the area but does not pose any risk or harm to the public. A history of the project can be seen here. | 7/1/2021 | |||||||
246 | On March 31, 2021 Broomfield Engineering received an application for a grading permit (PPIP) and an environmental review (AKA 20 day letter) associated with the Livingston 43-7 well pad location approximately 200 feet east of the current, operational Livingston Pad (west of the intersection of Sheridan and Lowell). Additional information on the notice can be found here. | 7/1/2021 | |||||||
247 | An anomalous methane plume reading was detected in the open space west of Anthem and El Diente Road on 3/12/21. A summary of that event can be found here. | 7/1/2021 | |||||||
248 | A canister triggered at the Interchange 01 sensor station on 6/1/21 at 10:48 a.m. The canister triggered indicated a four-minute increase in the total volatile organic compound (TVOC) indicator signal. View the full notice here. | 6/11/2021 | |||||||
249 | CIVITAS ANNOUNCEMENT - Broomfield's elected officials and staff are aware of today's announcement that Civitas Resources, Inc., a company that will be formed upon the closing of the merger between Extraction and Bonanza Creek, will acquire Crestone Peak Resources, Inc. In addition to continuing to monitor the Extraction merger, which is expected to close in the third quarter, staff and our legal team are working on understanding and addressing the impact of this acquisition, and will provide pertinent updates when we have them. | 6/7/2021 | |||||||
250 | The Interchange 02 trigger canister (trigger date 5/23/21) analysis is available here, the event is not characteristic of an oil & gas emission. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
251 | Regarding today's Interchange 02 (canister trigger) and Livingston 02 (sensor redeployment): Trigger Canister Notification: Interchange 02 - The sensor system at the Interchange 02 was triggered at 9:06 AM on 6/4/21 with a max TVOC reading of 250 mV. Sensor Redeployment Notice: Livingston 02 - The AQM team made the decision to relocate the Livingston 2 system this morning, as the reclamation work at the site (related to the Livingston 43-7 pipeline removal project) was putting the system at risk from heavy equipment. View today's combined public notice here. | 6/4/2021 | |||||||
252 | See the latest notice on the Davis 43-6 remediation project here. | 6/3/2021 | |||||||
253 | Broomfield has received two Form 44 Pre-Abandonment Notices from Extraction Oil & Gas for work related to two wells located in Boulder County. These wells and associated facilities are located immediately west of the Anthem Ranch neighborhood in the Coal Creek Open Space. See full notice here. | 7/2/2021 | |||||||
254 | Extraction Oil & Gas provided notice to Broomfield regarding planned maintenance on existing pads. See full notice here. | 5/25/2021 | |||||||
255 | Today, Extraction Oil & Gas provided notice to Broomfield that they are planning to install flowlines at the United Pad with work commencing on Tuesday May 25th and is expected to be completed by the end of the day on Friday, May 28th. To view the full notice, click here. | 5/24/2021 | |||||||
256 | The Apis system at Interchange 2 triggered the morning of May 23rd at 10:29 AM. Early analysis indicates that this was not a significant spike caused by a local emission. To view the full notice, click here. | 5/24/2021 | |||||||
257 | Today, Broomfield’s Engineering Division received the application for a public private improvement permit for the construction of two trenches on either side of Graham Peak Way to further mitigate subsurface methane in the area of the Davis 43-6 Well. The Engineering Division has requested additional information from the firm constructing the trenches, and depending on when that information is provided, the permit will be finalized. An estimated start date for the trench construction is June 1st, and the project is expected to be completed in 24 – 28 days. The full notice can be viewed here. | 5/21/2021 | |||||||
258 | Today's courtesy notice re: Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel Energy) installing a 12" high-pressure gas line from the corner of Dillon Road and Aspen St. south to E 13th in Broomfield Commons Park can be viewed here.
| 5/21/2021 | |||||||
259 | Today, Extraction Oil & Gas provided notice to Broomfield that they are planning to install flowlines at the United Pad, with work commencing the week of May 24th. The flowlines are underground pipelines that will eventually be used to move oil and gas from the wells into the production equipment and then eventually into the pipeline for sale. The full notice can be viewed here.
| 5/21/2021 | |||||||
260 | The trigger canister analysis for the April 26th event (including Livingston 1 and Anthem 1 stations) can be found here. | 4/30/2021 | |||||||
261 | Pipeline removal on the former Livingston 43-7 pad (just east of the active Livingston Pad, near the intersection of Sheridan and Lowell) is anticipated to begin on Monday May 3rd. See the full public notice here. | 4/29/2021 | |||||||
262 | The real-time sensor system at Interchange 01 triggered at 10:38 AM on 4/26/21. The trigger notification can be seen here. | 4/28/2021 | |||||||
263 | PUBLIC NOTICE 4-16-21 Oil & Gas Regulations View this public notice on the final draft of the oil and gas regulations. You will find links in this document to the following: latest redline version of the regulations, latest clean version of the regulations, and the memo with answers to recent Council questions on the regulations. | 4/16/2021 | |||||||
264 | Regarding the real-time sensor system at Interchange 01 that triggered at 1:38 PM on 3/14/21, the trigger cannister analysis report can be seen here. | 3/26/2021 | |||||||
265 | Broomfield inspection staff were notified in the field on March 23, 2021 that decommissioning of the Bickler well pad and restoration of the Kats well pad would start in the next day or two. The public notice is linked here. | 3/23/2021 | |||||||
266 | On March 12, 2021 Broomfield Engineering issued a public private improvement permit (PPIP) for decommissioning of flowlines associated with the Bickler 34 well pad location at 424 Lowell Lane in Palisade Park. Additional information can be found here. | 3/19/2021 | |||||||
267 | The real-time sensor system at Interchange 01 triggered at 1:38 PM on 3/14/21. The trigger notification can be seen here. | 3/16/2021 | |||||||
268 | Extraction Bankruptcy Update: Broomfield filed an objection to Extraction's Motion to Assume its Executory Contract (the Operator Agreement) on December 11, 2020. A hearing on Broomfield's objection was set for March 18, 2021 at 10am (EST) in the bankruptcy court in Delaware (the hearing will be virtual). Following a conference with the bankruptcy court today (March 15), that hearing date and time will now be used to address Broomfield's Motion to Abstain, and a discovery dispute before the parties. Special counsel will represent Broomfield in that hearing. Extraction's response to the Motion to Abstain is due March 17. The hearing on the motion to assume will be set for a later date. Special counsel will represent Broomfield in that hearing. Here is a link to the Bankruptcy Judge's page that has information about the virtual hearings for those who are interested. | 3/16/2021 | |||||||
269 | Late today, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) reported to Broomfield staff that they have received data regarding an anomalous methane detection in Broomfield. A summary of the information report can be seen here. | 3/12/2021 | |||||||
270 | Western Midstream Partners submitted a 20-Day Environmental Clearance Letter on March 8, 2021. Additional information and the 20-day Environmental Clearance Letter can be seen here. The Western Midstream Pipeline Maintenance Map can be viewed here. | 3/12/2021 | |||||||
271 | Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) has issued notice for an information docket item on financial assurances for oil and gas operations, beginning on March 31st. Broomfield will be participating with the Allied Local Government Coalition (ALGC) to impact improvements to financial assurances in this docket item. | 7/1/2021 | |||||||
272 | An update on the Davis 43-6 methane attenuation project can be found here. | 3/9/2021 | |||||||
273 | An update regarding the scheduled pipeline maintenance by Kerr McGhee on the Carlson 1-24 well (near 136th and Aspen Street) can be viewed here. | 3/5/2021 | |||||||
274 | Crestone Peak Resources (Crestone) has completed the temporary abandonment for the Stipanovich wells and will perform mechanical integrity tests (MITs) next week with Broomfield inspectors observing. Reclamation at the Kats site will begin this week. For more information and a map of the locations, please see the full public notice. | 7/1/2021 | |||||||
275 | An update on the Anthem 01 and Wildgrass 01 service level availability can be viewed here. | 2/22/2021 | |||||||
276 | An update on the Davis 43-6 plugged and abandoned well can be viewed here. | 2/12/2021 | |||||||
277 | Trigger canister results from the Interchange 01 event on December 20th can be viewed here | 1/13/2021 | |||||||
278 | Occidental has notified the Town of Erie (via this letter from December 22nd) that they will begin the completion phases of the development on the Cleland well pad (north of Erie Parkway and west of I-25). Read full public notice here. | 12/23/2020 | |||||||
279 | Extraction Bankruptcy Update: On June 14, 2020, Extraction Oil and Gas (Extraction) filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. Since this initial filing, there have been numerous developments in the case. Those developments are summarized, along with an FAQ document, here. On December 23, 2020, the bankruptcy court entered an order confirming Extraction's latest plan of reorganization. Court Order. Broomfield's objection to Extraction's Motion to assume the Operator Agreement remains pending before the court and a hearing date on Extraction's motion has not been set. | 12/23/2020 | |||||||
280 | The sensor system at Interchange 01 triggered at 12:57 pm on 12/20/20. This was a short-lived
event lasting about 8-minutes with a max TVOC indicator reading of 638mV. The trigger report can be viewed here. Canister analysis will be provided by CSU within 5-7 business days. | 12/21/2020 | |||||||
281 | In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, on December 4, 2020, Extraction filed its Plan Supplement, which included the Broomfield Operator Agreement (OA) on its list of executory contracts that Extraction intends to assume pursuant to its Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization. In response to the Plan Supplement and Extraction’s claim that it does not have any cure obligation under the OA, Broomfield filed this objection to the assumption of the executory contract. | 12/15/2020 | |||||||
282 | Today, Extraction work crews are sandblasting the pigging station east of Huron and south of the Northwest Parkway, near the Interchange Pad. This is in preparation for painting the pipe at this site the color of desert tan. Work is anticipated to be completed today. Pig stations do not have any vents or flares on them. As such, there would not be any emissions generated by their normal function. | 12/1/2020 | |||||||
283 | A three day trial on Extraction’s noise ordinance violations was scheduled to begin December 7, 2020. That trial has been continued and will be rescheduled to a date in 2021. | 11/30/2020 | |||||||
284 | The Baker/Stipanovich well pad plugging and abandonment work is anticipated to finalize work on the last well on Friday. The crew will move to the Katz battery site on Saturday. Read the full public notice for more information. | 11/25/2020 | |||||||
285 | Pipeline and pigging stations are all painted at the Huron and Livingston sites, except for one water pipe at Livingston. The perimeter fence at Livingston is complete, see photos 1, 2. | 11/25/2020 | |||||||
286 | Broomfield’s Air Quality Monitoring Sensor System at Livingston 02 triggered at 5:17 p.m. on 11/17/20 with a peak volatile organic compound (VOC) indicator signal of 410 mV. The event appears to be a short term event, lasting approximately 15 minutes. Livingston 1 also registered the event with a smaller VOC indicator signal peaking at 5:18 p.m. The sample canister results from the 11/17 trigger event are linked in the public notice here. | 11/25/2020 | |||||||
287 | Update on noise lawsuit with Extraction Oil & Gas: On November 19, 2020, Extraction served Broomfield with a lawsuit appealing what it alleges is Broomfield’s denial of Extraction's request for a noise variance. Extraction submitted a request for a noise variance on September 16, 2020. On October 16, 2020, the City requested Extraction to submit additional information to support its variance request so it could be submitted to City Council for consideration. On November 12, 2020, Extraction submitted a document titled “Request for Reconsideration of Broomfield's denial of Extraction request for variance from BMC 9-36-080.” Extraction filed a complaint in the District Court in Broomfield on November 13, 2020 appealing the denial. The summons and complaint were served on Broomfield on November 19, 2020. The complaint alleges three claims: 1) mandamus requesting the court to find that Broomfield is required to grant a variance and ordering Broomfield to grant one; 2) an appeal of a quasi-judicial decision alleging that Broomfield denied the variance, which was an abuse of discretion; and 3) a request for a declaratory judgment that the noise ordinance and any future regulatory ordinances do not apply to Extraction because of the terms of the Operator Agreement. Since no final decision has been made by City Council the variance request, this lawsuit is premature. | 11/24/2020 | |||||||
288 | The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) announced today, November 23, 2020, it has Unanimously Adopted SB 19-181 New Mission Change Rules, Alternative Location Analysis and Cumulative Impacts. The COGCC stated that it has completed the rulemaking hearings addressing Mission Change, Alternative Location Analysis, Cumulative Impacts, and Compensatory Mitigation for Wildlife, as required by SB 19-181. The hearings began August 24, addressing the 200-600 Series and then the 800, 900 and 1200 Series started in October. The rulemakings were required to implement the change to the COGCC’s mission from “fostering” to “regulating” oil and gas development in a manner that protects public health, safety, welfare, the environment and wildlife resources. Please read more in the full announcement. | 11/23/2020 | |||||||
289 | On Monday, November 23, 2020, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) should finalize deliberations on the 1200 (wildlife) series and may also finally adopt the 800 and 900 series. The Commission has already deliberated the 800 and 900 series rules, so the final vote is merely procedural not substantive. Here is the agenda for Monday’s COGCC meeting. | 11/20/2020 | |||||||
290 | Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Quality Data Portal Update - The CDPHE sent notification that its new Air Quality Data Portal is now live on its website (in both English and Spanish). Right now the only data reported is from the Bell Romero well site in Weld County. The CDPHE plans to use this as the format for adding additional Oil and Gas Health Information and Response Program (OGHIR) data collected across the state. You can find the dashboards in the Weld County > Bella Romero section here. It is anticipated that data collected at the Livingston Pad by CDPHE’s mobile monitoring lab (CAMML) is in the process of being uploaded and, when live, that data will be available on this portal in the near future. | 11/20/2020 | |||||||
291 | REMINDER - Tomorrow, November 20, 2020, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) should finalize deliberations on the 1200 (wildlife) series and may also finally adopt the 800 and 900 series. The Commission has already deliberated the 800 and 900 series rules, so the final vote is merely procedural not substantive. | 11/19/2020 | |||||||
292 | At 5:17 p.m. yesterday, November 17, 2020, a trigger event occurred at the Livingston 02 sensor. Please read the preliminary report here. | 11/18/2020 | |||||||
293 | As requested by Broomfield, Extraction is painting the pig stations at Livingston (see photo) and at 160th and Huron (see photo). | 11/17/2020 | |||||||
294 | The workover rig is currently on site at the Baker/Stipanovich well pad. One of the four Baker wells has been successfully plugged and abandoned. Read the full public notice for more information. | 11/16/2020 | |||||||
295 | Broomfield inspection staff noted that the workover rig is currently on site at the Baker/Stipanovich well pad in preparation for plugging and abandonment activities. Read the full public notice for more information. | 11/12/2020 | |||||||
296 | On November 10, 2020, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) released the final Statement of Basis, Specific Statutory Authority and Purpose (SBP) for the 200-600 Series Rules. The revisions can be viewed here. | 11/12/2020 | |||||||
297 | Extraction notified Broomfield staff that on November 12th they will be performing an aerial survey of their legacy pipeline systems, a portion of which are located in Broomfield. The survey will utilize a low-flying helicopter and is expected to take approximately one hour to complete. | 11/11/2020 | |||||||
298 | The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) 1200 Series Rulemaking Hearing began today, November 10, 2020, at 1 p.m. Read more, including prefiled testimony, in the Data Snapshot linked here. | 11/10/2020 | |||||||
299 | The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission’s (COGCC) 1200 Series Rulemaking Hearing will begin on November 10, 2020, at 1 p.m. The 1200 series rulemaking concerns impacts of oil and gas operations on wildlife. The hearing agenda can be viewed here. (All time subject to change.) Broomfield is a part of the Affiliated Local Government group (ALG) for this rulemaking. Broomfield’s Open Space and Trails Director, Kristan Pritz, is scheduled to testify on behalf of the ALJ. The ALG is currently scheduled to present this Thursday, November 12th at 2:20, with 10 minutes allotted for that presentation. The Revised Draft 1200 Series Rules were published 10/10/2020. Staff released revised draft 1200 Series Mission Change rules and SBP, the revised draft rules and SBP can be viewed here. | 11/9/2020 | |||||||
300 | The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) adopted the 900 series on November 5, 2020, in a 5-0 vote. The new rules, which have not been posted yet, are a significant improvement over the current ones. The rules have a January 15, 2021, effective date and will be finalized on or around November 18, 2020. Next up is the 1200 series (wildlife) rulemaking hearing, which starts next week. Highlights include: - A clear prohibition on the venting and flaring of natural gas that could otherwise be sent to a gathering line. Operators of existing wells that are currently not connected to a gathering line can request permission to flare or vent for up to 1 year. However, all administratively approved venting and flaring must cease by January 15, 2022. - COGCC staff will report to the Commission yearly on cumulative impacts related to oil and gas facilities in the state. As a condition of permitting, COGCC may require an operator to participate in studies related to cumulative impacts from oil and gas facilities. | 11/6/2020 | |||||||
301 | Hydromulch has been applied to the berms around the Livingston well pad. Hydromulch is commonly used for soil stability and generally contains seeds to assist with the reclamation process. (See photo) | 11/5/2020 | |||||||
302 | Broomfield inspection staff were notified in the field that a workover rig would be moving to the Baker/Stipanovich well pad area in the next day or two. Read the full public notice for more information. | 11/4/2020 | |||||||
303 | The video for the Air Quality Monitoring 3rd Quarter Report presentation can be viewed here. | 11/4/2020 | |||||||
304 | The Air Quality Monitoring 3rd Quarter Draft Reports have been received and are linked below: - Ajax Analytics/CSU - Boulder AIR The third quarter reports will be presented at a virtual meeting on Wednesday, November 4th at 3 p.m. | 11/3/2020 | |||||||
305 | The 2020 Ozone Season Report, submitted by Extraction Oil and Gas, can be viewed here. This annual report is submitted as a requirement of the operator agreement. | 11/2/2020 | |||||||
306 | At approximately 12:00 p.m. on November 2, 2020, Broomfield inspectors reported that the Emission Control Device (ECD) was in operation at the Livingston Pad. The ECD was activated for approximately 15-20 minutes as part of routine pipeline maintenance performed by USA Gas Compression. Per the Operator Agreement (Exhibit B, Page 9: Section 20.A.13), Broomfield was not given advance notice of this event because routine pipeline maintenance does not require notification.This event entails the combustion of natural gas which mostly produces carbon dioxide and water vapor as by-products, however, the ECD has a hydrocarbon destruction efficiency rating of 98%. Additionally, the flare must be operated in a manner that will ensure no visible emissions during normal operation. At the time of posting, the air quality sensors surrounding the Livingston Pad did not detect any unusual readings. | 11/2/2020 | |||||||
307 | On October 27, 2020, Crestone Peak Resources notified staff that the four Bickler wells thought to be temporarily abandoned would be permanently plugged and abandoned. Please read the updated notice here. | 10/27/2020 | |||||||
308 | Ajax notified staff of testing being executed today on the Apis systems at Thunder Vista and Soaring Eagle. During the test, you may see a significant short-term spike in the VOC Indicator measurement. This is expected and does not reflect an actual VOC Indicator event. The test period will conclude at approximately 5:00 pm today, 10/29/2020 | 10/29/2020 | |||||||
309 | On October 23, 2020, Crestone Peak Resources notified staff of plans to plug and abandon multiple wells beginning October 30, 2020. Please read the full Public Notice here. | 10/26/2020 | |||||||
310 | Broomfield has approved permits, which will allow cut/cap of the riser and sales line for the Green MA 17-8J and 17-16J wells located generally west of Zuni, between 144th Avenue and 149th Avenue, in Broomfield County. For more information, see the public notice here. | 10/26/2020 | |||||||
311 | Next week the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) will begin deliberations on the 900 Series rules, which includes rulemaking on flaring at oil and gas sites. The COGCC agenda for this rulemaking is linked here and the draft 900 series rules are linked here. (All times are subject to change.) On Monday, October 26, 2020, COGCC Staff will present their draft rules to the Commission starting a little after 9 a.m.; Public comment begins at 1 p.m. The Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), of which Broomfield is a member, are currently scheduled to make their presentation next Tuesday, October 27, 2020, at 3:20 p.m. The ALG supports the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) position in this rulemaking and the EDF's pre-hearing filings are linked here. | 10/23/2020 | |||||||
312 | Broomfield’s air quality monitoring team has partnered with EarthView, a Broomfield based business, to field test two methane air sensors. One has been deployed to the Soaring Eagle site, the other has been deployed to the Davis 43-6 location in Anthem Ranch. The initial purpose of monitoring at Soaring Eagle is to compare the methane concentration readings with onsite, research grade instruments operated by Broomfield and Boulder A.I.R. as part of an ongoing monitoring effort. Such comparison studies are needed to validate instrument performance in the open environment. The Davis Well 43-6 is being monitored to ensure elevated methane readings are not present (see latest public notice here). While no elevated methane levels are anticipated at this particular site, plugged and abandoned wells can be found all over Colorado’s Front Range and represent potential sources of fugitive natural gas leaks. This is a first of its kind study to use continuous, long-term 24/7 monitoring to better understand the behavior of these wells and to help inform area residents. All data are preliminary, the EarthView dashboard can be accessed here. | 10/23/2020 | |||||||
313 | Davis 43-6 Update - The COGCC confirmed today, October 16, 2020, that the current process to address subsurface methane appears to be working as recent testing shows lower levels. See the updated Public Notice for more information. | 10/16/2020 | |||||||
314 | Plugged and Abandoned - Pad Site Restoration Update: - Restoration of the Brozovich MA 8-8J pad site will begin Monday, October 19, 2020. This well was plugged and abandoned (PA’d) in December 2019 and is generally located southeast of Sheridan and the Northwest Parkway. Work is anticipated to take three weeks. There is an original lease road that goes to the site. Extraction is removing the road base on the lease road as well as any leftover road base where the pad was. In addition, they are going to be bringing in topsoil and will be mulching and reseeding the road/pad site. Equipment on site will be typical construction equipment including an excavator and/or backhoe, a disc, a tractor, and personnel trucks. Inspectors will monitor progress. - Final restoration of the Nordstrom 2-4 site is in process. This well was PA’d in June 2019, and is located northeast of 160th and Sheridan. Seeding and mulch has been completed. | 10/16/2020 | |||||||
315 | A redline of the draft regulations has been posted and is available here. Please read the public notice for more details. The updated regulations are scheduled to be discussed at the October 20, 2020, Study Session. Watch for the agenda and memo here. | 10/15/2020 | |||||||
316 | Rulemaking at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) continues. The 1200 series rulemaking generally concerns wildlife and habitat requirements. COGCC is accepting written public comment on its 1200 Series rulemaking concerning, in part, wildlife and habitat as related to oil and gas operations. Submit your written comments to DNR_COGCC.Rulemaking@state.co.us. Written comments are due on 11/4/20 at 5 p.m. The proposed rules can be viewed here. | 10/14/2020 | |||||||
317 | Broomfield Public Health has written a Health Response related to the acetylene-rich plumes the air quality monitoring team continues to investigate. The response can be viewed here. (The original notice from October 7, 2020, on this phenomenon can be viewed here.) | 10/14/2020 | |||||||
318 | Rulemaking at the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) continues. The 1200 series rulemaking generally concerns wildlife and habitat requirements and has been rescheduled to the week of November 9, 2020. The most recent agenda for the COGCC rulemaking is linked here, with public comment scheduled for November 10th at 1:05 p.m. and COGCC's staff presentation on the 1200 series scheduled for November 12th at 9:00 a.m. The documents being considered by the COGCC for the 1200 series rulemaking are linked here. The Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), of which Broomfield is a member, are currently scheduled to make their presentation on Thursday, November 12th at 10:10 a.m. The ALG's prehearing statements are linked here. Kristan Pritz, Broomfield's Open Space and Trails Director, has provided input on changes concerning the wildlife provisions and will provide testimony for the ALG. | 10/13/2020 | |||||||
319 | Yesterday, October 7, 2020, after a day and a half trial, Broomfield Municipal Court found Extraction Oil and Gas, Inc. guilty of violating Broomfield’s noise ordinance for failing to submit a noise modeling study as required by the ordinance. Broomfield issued seven citations to Extraction for this failure, and the Court found them guilty of the violation on each of the citations. The court levied a $300 fine plus $50 fees and court costs for each of the seven violations. Extraction intends to appeal and the sentence has been stayed pending appeal. The appeal will be to the district court in the 17th Judicial District. There will be another three day trial on other noise ordinance violations that will begin December 7, 2020. A link to the press release on this case is here. | 10/8/2020 | |||||||
320 | Extraction notified our inspectors today (October 8, 2020) of current activity on the Interchange B pads. They are setting tools (Plungers) downhole on three wells on Interchange B. This work is part of routine operations on the wells and should take about an hour per well. The equipment being used is a truck mounted crane and a wireline truck. Work is expected to be completed today. | 10/8/2020 | |||||||
321 | The air quality management (AQM) team continues to investigate potential causes of the acetylene & benzene rich plumes that have been observed over the course of the summer. The public notice that was originally posted on September 24th has been updated and is available here. The AQM team is investigating further with the COGCC and CDPHE as to potential causes of this phenomena. | 10/7/2020 | |||||||
322 | Extraction court case update: 1) In the noise cases, trial started the afternoon of Tuesday October 6, 2020. The City and County of Broomfield (CCOB) completed presenting its case the morning of October 7, 2020. Extraction moved for acquittal at the completion of CCOB’s case. The court denied the motion for acquittal. Extraction began to present its defense case the afternoon of October 7th. 2) On June 14, 2020, Extraction Oil and Gas filed for bankruptcy protection to allow it to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Early the week of October 4, Extraction and its midstream companies continue to argue the issue of whether Extraction can set aside its contracts with the midstream pipeline companies. This includes the contract with Elevations Midstream which was a subsidiary of Extraction and which operates the pipelines in Broomfield under a contract with Extraction. The City and County of Broomfield is not a party to this separate adversarial proceeding, but did submit a declaration stating that the Operator Agreement requires Extraction to use pipelines in specific easements to transport its oil, gas and produced water. The Operator Agreement does not allow trucks to be used. The next hearing on this issue is October 20, 2020. 3) Broomfield has filed a request with the Court for additional time to respond to a lawsuit that Extraction filed against Broomfield on September 14th in U.S. District Court. This case is substantially similar to the suit filed last spring in state district court but it adds civil rights claims under 42 USC 1983 and a regulatory takings claim. The City & County Attorney has made the following statement with regard to the lawsuit: " I wish Extraction would put the money it is spending on legal fees into efforts to address the noise from its industrial operations that disturb the sleep of Broomfield residents who live a mere 1,000 feet away. Broomfield's noise ordinance is an effort by Broomfield to protect the peace of its residents and such future regulations are expressly allowed by the Operator Agreement. Broomfield will vigorously defend this lawsuit." The complaint can be viewed here. | 10/7/2020 | |||||||
323 | Crestone Peak Resources has notified the Town of Erie that they will begin a plug and abandon operation within Erie limits (west of Co Rd 5, north of Co Rd 6) on the 'Costigan 6-8-20' well site. According to Crestone, the operation is expected to begin on or around October 19, 2020 and will take approximately 10 days to complete. This activity will include the use of a service rig, temporary tanks, worker pickup trucks and other heavy equipment. Emission controls will be in place during all operations at this site. All work will be done during the day and all access is restricted to the designated access road. More information can be found on Erie’s interactive mapper here. | 10/7/2020 | |||||||
324 | Three air quality sensors are being temporarily relocated from their current locations (near inactive, future well pads) into more southern parts of Broomfield. This will allow Ajax/CSU to get a better understanding of Broomfield’s urban air quality and how planned and proposed development may change certain air quality markers over time. The new locations at Emerald School, Civic Center, and Lac Amora are collecting data. | 9/30/2020 | |||||||
325 | On September 28th, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) staff presented proposed revisions to the COGCC rules, which can be viewed here. Please read a detailed update on the COGCC Rulemaking here. Broomfield participates in these rulemakings as a member of the Affiliated Local Governments (ALG). Here is a link to the current agenda for the COGCC rulemakings. A reminder that full agendas for the 800, 900, and 1200 Series rulemakings will follow later. | 9/29/2020 | |||||||
326 | The Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) just finished the Regulation 7 rulemaking less than a week ago, however, the Air Pollution Control Division is planning to request the AQCC hold another rulemaking this December. This one includes an update to the State Implementation Plan for ozone as well as new proposed requirements for pneumatic controllers. The Local Government Coalition (LGC) of which Broomfield is typically a member, is planning to participate. | 9/29/2020 | |||||||
327 | On September 28th, the COGCC staff presented proposed revisions to the COGCC rules, which can be viewed here. Here is a link to the current agenda for the COGCC rulemakings. A reminder that full agendas for the 800, 900, and 1200 Series rulemakings will follow later. | 9/28/2020 | |||||||
328 | Three air quality sensors are being temporarily relocated from their current locations (near inactive, future well pads) into more southern parts of Broomfield. This will allow Ajax/CSU to get a better understanding of Broomfield’s urban air quality and how planned and proposed development may change certain air quality markers over time. Watch for updates here. | 9/28/2020 | |||||||
329 | Broomfield’s second set of comments on Erie’s Draft Oil and Gas Uniform Development Code were submitted on September 24th and can be viewed here. | 9/25/2020 | |||||||
330 | Please read the report from CSU and Boulder A.I.R. on the acetylene-related air quality events observed since the beginning of summer. This includes data from the CSU Plumetracker. | 9/24/2020 (updated 10/2/2020) | |||||||
331 | Last night the Quality Control Commission (AQCC) unanimously adopted rules that reduce emissions from oil and gas facilities and require more monitoring of emissions. Please read the Public Notice for more information. | 9/24/2020 | |||||||
332 | Extraction notified inspection staff that they would begin removing the sand cans from the 4 wells on the Livingston pad beginning tomorrow, September 23, 2020. Inspectors plan to be onsite to observe the process | 9/22/2020 | |||||||
333 | Reseeding of the Shirk Well area is expected to begin this week. See an update on the Shirk Well remediation here. (This plugged and abandoned well is located south of the Northwest Parkway, east of Via Varra, north of Highway 36, and west of South 104th Street.) | 9/20/2020 | |||||||
334 | Extraction filed a lawsuit against Broomfield on September 14th in U.S. District Court. It's substantially similar to the suit filed last spring in state district court but it adds civil rights claims under 42 USC 1983 and a regulatory takings claim. The City & County Attorney has made the following statement with regard to the lawsuit: "Broomfield has not yet been served with the complaint in this lawsuit, but it looks substantially similar to the complaint Extraction dismissed last spring. I wish Extraction would put the money it is spending on legal fees into efforts to address the noise from its industrial operations that disturb the sleep of Broomfield residents who live a mere 1,000 feet away. Broomfield's noise ordinance is an effort by Broomfield to protect the peace of its residents and such future regulations are expressly allowed by the Operator Agreement. Broomfield will vigorously defend this lawsuit." The complaint was served on Broomfield today and can be viewed here. | 9/18/2020 | |||||||
335 | Today, September 18, 2020, the COGCC staff presented revisions to the draft mission change rules pursuant to COGCC Commissioner direction, The clean and redline format of the draft rules, can be viewed here. The latest draft of the 600 series rules includes a 2,000 feet setback requirement, but also includes some exceptions to this requirement. The revised Mission Change Rulemaking hearing agenda for September 18 - 24 is available here. Please NOTE there will be no hearings on Wednesday, September 16 and Monday, September 21. Broomfield is a member of the Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), which has presented testimony on several of the rules to date. | 9/18/2020 | |||||||
336 | An update on the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) hearings can be viewed here. | 9/18/2020 | |||||||
337 | Information has been received from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) on the Davis 43-6 plugged and abandoned well. Read the updated public notice here. | 9/16/2020 | |||||||
338 | Extraction filed another lawsuit against Broomfield last night in U.S. District Court. It's substantially similar to the suit filed last spring in state district court but it adds civil rights claims under 42 USC 1983 and a regulatory takings claim. The City & County Attorney has made the following statement with regard to the lawsuit: "Broomfield has not yet been served with the complaint in this lawsuit, but it looks substantially similar to the complaint Extraction dismissed last spring. I wish Extraction would put the money it is spending on legal fees into efforts to address the noise from its industrial operations that disturb the sleep of Broomfield residents who live a mere 1,000 feet away. Broomfield's noise ordinance is an effort by Broomfield to protect the peace of its residents and such future regulations are expressly allowed by the Operator Agreement. Broomfield will vigorously defend this lawsuit." | 9/15/2020 | |||||||
339 | Today was the pre-trial conference in the Extraction noise citation cases in Broomfield Municipal Court. Yesterday Extraction's counsel filed a motion to continue the noise citation cases, citing a litany of issues and concerns. In addition, Extraction filed a motion this morning asking for 7 additional days of trial. After an hour or so of argument with Broomfield opposing both the continuance and the longer trial time, the Court made a number of rulings: 1) He denied the motion for additional time and made it clear, again, that the only issue to be heard is whether Extraction violated the noise ordinance and any defenses for failing to comply - not the constitutional or contractual issues Extraction wants to argue; 2) He moved the first trial to 1:30 on October 6 for 3 days and the second trial to the week of October 27; 3) Extraction waived its right to a speedy trial - to ensure that it will not/cannot raise that defense. | 9/15/2020 | |||||||
340 | Livingston Pad and Interchange A Update - Broomfield inspectors noted a crane onsite today removing the water coolers. All water coolers have been removed. (See photo) | 9/15/2020 | |||||||
341 | A revised COGCC mission change hearing Agenda for September 18th to the 23rd can be viewed here. Broomfield is a member of the Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), which has testified on noise recommendations and other rules to date. | 9/15/2020 | |||||||
342 | Broomfield inspectors observed equipment and crews on the Northwest A Pad last week. Today, Extraction gave written notification of what Extraction said was “minor, ordinary course flowline work (that) will begin this week during daylight hours at the Northwest A pad.” (Please read public notice here.) Extraction also stated, “With respect to restarting drilling and completions activity, our plans remain the same in that Extraction does not currently have any plans for any development operations in Broomfield for the remainder of 2020. Extraction will provide a 30 day advance written notice prior to the re-commencement of any drilling or completions operations. However, there may be other minor, ordinary course non-drilling or completions operations from time to time to maintain the existing well sites.” | 9/14/2020 | |||||||
343 | On September 17, 2020, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) begins its hearing on Regulation 7, which includes new air monitoring requirements for oil and gas operators. Here are links to the September 17-18 agenda and meeting materials. Broomfield will be participating in the AQCC hearing as a member of the Local Government Coalition (LGC), along with many other local governments and CC4CA. The LGC’s pre-hearing statement is linked here. Dr. Jeff Collet will be testifying on behalf of the LGC. His testimony before the AQCC on Broomfield’s Air Quality Program, is currently scheduled to begin at approximately 10:45 a.m. on Thursday. | 9/14/2020 | |||||||
344 | Broomfield submitted comments on certain sections of Erie's draft oil and gas regulations today. | 9/14/2020 | |||||||
345 | Broomfield inspectors noted that flowline installation will begin soon at the Northwest A Pad site and is expected to last one to two weeks. Extraction has also indicated they will be placing separators on the Northwest B Pad in the near future. Other than these activities Extraction has indicated in writing that their "plans remain the same for future drilling and completions activity in that Extraction does not currently have any plans for any development operations in Broomfield for the remainder of 2020." Please read the public notice here. | 9/10/2020 | |||||||
346 | A revised COGCC mission change hearing Agenda for September 16th to the 23rd can be viewed here. Broomfield is a member of the Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), which has testified on noise recommendations and other rules to date. | 9/10/2020 | |||||||
347 | On September 9, 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court denied Extraction’s petition asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the prosecution of the noise citations Broomfield issued to Extraction. Trial for the citations for Extraction’s failure to submit a noise modeling study or to curtail nighttime operations is set for three days beginning September 21, 2020. Trial on the citations for creating excessive noise is set for three days beginning October 6, 2020. | 9/9/2020 | |||||||
348 | Registration to offer public comment opens up 8 a.m. on Tuesday (9/8) and will probably fill up immediately for the AQCC's September 17 meeting. The public can sign up either general public comments or to comment specifically on "Regulation 7" (air & carbon pollution from drilling). | 9/8/2020 | |||||||
349 | The revised COGCC mission change hearing Agenda for September 3-9, can be viewed here. The Affiliated Local Governments (ALG), of which Broomfield is a party, has testified on noise recommendations and other rules to date. The next time the ALG is scheduled to testify is Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 12:45 pm, advocating for a 2,000 setback. (Times are subject to change.) | 9/3/2020 | |||||||
350 | Ajax notified Broomfield staff that the trigger system failed to open during the August 23rd air event. Due to this, no additional analysis will be completed. Ajax is working with APIS to determine the cause of the failure and to avoid this from happening in the future. | 9/2/2020 | |||||||
351 | Ajax is performing testing on sensors in the field. This has created multiple false trigger events. (No air quality events have occurred.) | 8/28/2020 | |||||||
352 | The Air Quality Monitor Program sensor system at Interchange 01 triggered at 9:30 p.m. on August 23, 2020. The initial report can be viewed here. | 8/25/2020 | |||||||
353 | On August 12, 2020, the North Metro Fire Rescue District (NMFRD) responded to fire west of the Anthem Ranch in Boulder County (see Newsflash). As a result of that fire, Broomfield requested that NMFRD do a wildland fire survey for Extraction’s Livingston and Interchange A & B Pads, the results of which are linked here. In summary, the surveys completed by NMFRD personnel of the Livingston Pad Site and the Interchange A & B pad sites revealed a Low Risk to the site if a Wildland/Urban Interface fire were to occur in the area. Pad site construction further reduces risk due to the use of compacted rock and other hard surface materials that provide an additional firebreak from surrounding fuels. | 8/23/2020 | |||||||
354 | The report for the August 11, 2020, trigger event can be viewed here. | 8/21/2020 | |||||||
355 | The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is beginning the Mission Change Rulemaking on Monday, August 24, 2020. The Affiliated Local Governments, of which Broomfield is a member, will be making its presentation on the 300 series rules on Tuesday, August 25, 2020, at 3 p.m., and its presentation on the 500 series rules on Friday, August 28, 2020, at 4 p.m., with these times being subject to change. The agenda for the rulemaking can be viewed here and includes COGCC sign-on information if you would like to listen in to the hearings. | 8/21/2020 | |||||||
356 | On August 17, 2020, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) issued the current draft of the 200-600 rules in the Mission Change Rulemaking. The documents can be viewed here. | 8/18/2020 | |||||||
357 | Please read a Newsflash regarding the wildfire on the Boulder County open space, west of Anthem Ranch and south of Highway 7, which occurred on August 12, 2020. | 8/13/2020 | |||||||
358 | The 2020 2nd Quarter Air Quality Reports for Ajax and Boulder AIR have been released and will be presented at the August 18, 2020, Study Session. | 8/13/2020 | |||||||
359 | The sensor system at Soaring Eagle triggered at 11:04 p.m. on 8/11/20. This was a short-lived event lasting about 5-minutes with a max TVOC indicator reading of 320mV. During the event, there were light winds out of the southeast. Ajax will follow up on this notification when the canister analysis is completed and the canister analysis. Read more here. (NOTE: The sensor system at Wildgrass 01 also triggered at 11:40 a.m. on 8/12/20. Ajax confirmed this was due to field maintenance, and was not an air quality event.) | 8/12/2020 | |||||||
360 | Broomfield’s consultant, ERO Resources, has completed additional Soil Gas testing for the 2020 program. Please read more here. | 8/12/2020 | |||||||
361 | Today, August 7, 2020, the COGCC issued a Final Prehearing Order in the Mission Change Rulemaking. Read more here. Please note the COGCC made one correction to the schedule. Item 8 of the order incorrectly states that August 14 is a Monday. The oral sign-up sheet for public comment will be made available on Friday, August 14. | 8/7/2020 | |||||||
362 | On Saturday August 1, 2020, between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., an air quality event was observed by the shelter monitoring stations at Livingston and Soaring Eagle. A report on the event can be viewed here. | 8/6/2020 | |||||||
363 | The Air Quality Control Commission will hold its next meeting on August 20, 2020, at 9 a.m. Here is a link to the meeting agenda. | 8/6/2020 | |||||||
364 | The COGCC adopted the proposed mill levy rate increase from 1.1 mills to 1.5 mills, which is COGCC’s main source of revenue, at its August 4, 2020, hearing. Read more here. | 8/4/2020 | |||||||
365 | As reported on July 14, 2020, the Associated Local Government Coalition (Broomfield, Boulder County, Lafayette, Erie, Longmont, Ft.Collins, and NWCCOG) filed its pre-hearing statement in the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) Mission Change Rule Making. In its response statement, filed with the COGCC on July 31, 2020, the LGC is responding to other party’s statements. Read more here. | 8/3/2020 | |||||||
366 | August 2, 2020, Update on the Davis 43-6 Testing. COGCC's contractor will begin testing on Monday, August 3, 2020. For more information, see update here. | 8/2/2020 | |||||||
367 | In May 2019, Broomfield contractor, ERO Resources, tested and found methane in the soils around the Davis 43-6 plugged and abandoned well, which is located on Graham Peak Way in Anthem Highlands. After requests from Broomfield, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) repaired the well, however residual methane was still detected in follow up tests. COGCC informed Broomfield that it is anticipated that this additional sampling and vapor extraction pilot testing is scheduled to begin Tuesday August 4th. For more information, see update here. | 7/31/2020 | |||||||
368 | The COGCC invites the public and stakeholders to attend the Commission’s Mill Levy Rulemaking Hearing on Tuesday, August 4. See more information here. | 7/30/2020 | |||||||
369 | Today, the Local Government Coalition (LGC), of which Broomfield is a member, submitted its Prehearing Statement to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) in the current Regulation 7 rulemaking. Read more here. | 7/30/2020 | |||||||
370 | On July 28, 2020, the Broomfield Municipal Court held an arraignment hearing in the Extraction noise violation cases. Judge Fisher noted that he had previously denied Extraction’s motion to dismiss and he confirmed that his written order dated April 1, 2020, stands. He then ruled on Extraction's pending motion, finding that the automatic stay provisions of the US. Bankruptcy Code do not apply to these municipal court cases. Extraction then entered a plea of not guilty for all nine cases. The cases have been consolidated and set for two three-day trials, the first beginning Sept 21, 2020, and the second beginning October 6, 2020. A pretrial conference is set for September 15, 2020. | 7/29/2020 | |||||||
371 | Crestone Peak Resources is anticipating starting work on Tuesday, July 28, 2020, to remove the produced water storage tank at the Alaux/Sears Facility. (This facility is located just east of I-25 and south of County Road 6.) From there Crestone will evaluate the next steps that need to be taken to remediate the spill. For more information, including a map of the site, read the newsflash. | 7/23/2020 | |||||||
372 | Extraction has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Court has issued a stay on many proceedings. Extraction has argued that this stay applies to pending alleged criminal municipal code violations of Broomfield’s noise ordinance by Extraction. On July 21, 2020, Broomfield filed a reply brief in the noise ordinance cases, arguing that the Bankruptcy Court’s stay does not apply to the criminal code violations in Municipal Court. Extraction can file a reply brief no later than July 27. The hearing on this issue is set for July 28, 2020, in Broomfield Municipal Court. If the court agrees that the bankruptcy stay does not apply, then the judge will set the case for trial. | 7/22/2020 | |||||||
373 | With the adoption of Senate Bill 19-181 by the State, local governments were provided additional authority to adopt oil and gas regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare of their citizens. Please read more here, including an anticipated timeline for the adoption of the amended local oil and gas regulations. | 7/22/2020 | |||||||
374 | Please read an update on the proposed work plan for the Davis 43-6 plugged and abandoned well here. (The Davis 43-6 well is located on Graham Peak Way in the Anthem Highlands.) | 7/21/2020 | |||||||
375 | Additional information was received from CSU/Ajax on the July 11, 2020, air quality event. An updated notice can be viewed here. | 7/17/2020 | |||||||
376 | Crestone Peak Resources reported an approximate two barrels of produced water that spilled at Crestone’s Alaux/Sears facility in Broomfield. Clean-up will be overseen by COGCC and Broomfield. The Public Notice can be viewed here. | 7/16/2020 | |||||||
377 | The CDPHE report from the CAMML air quality monitoring lab can be viewed here. | 7/14/2020 | |||||||
378 | On June 30th, the Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) received revised versions of Extraction’s United, Northwest and Interchange Pads air monitoring plans required by Regulation 7, which were developed in response to previous comments from APCD, Adams County, and Broomfield County. On Monday April 19th, CDPHE shared with Broomfield and Adams County the air monitoring plan proposed by Extraction for the United, Interchange and Northwest Parkway pads. See full notice here. | 8/9/2021 | |||||||
379 | Please view the air program trigger reports for the events on June 25, 2020 (Anthem 01), and July 3, 2020 (Livingston 01 - report updated 7/15/20). | 7/13/2020 (Updated Livingston 01 Report 7/15/2020) | |||||||
380 | The trigger notification for the July 3, 2020, Livingston 01 trigger event can be viewed here. | 7/4/2020 | |||||||
381 | Please see the Public Notice on the Shirk 21-4D riser removal and reclamation here. | 6/26/2020 | |||||||
382 | The Apis system at Anthem 01 triggered a canister sample at 2:03 p.m. on June 25, 2020. Ajax has concluded that this does not reflect an air quality event. The increase in the PID signal is from a faulty sensor that will be replaced. The sensor at Anthem 01 is providing data that can capture an actual event most of the time but does have brief periods of erratic signal. The report can be viewed here. | 6/26/2020 | |||||||
383 | Soil Gas Testing and Davis 43-6 - Please read a status update on the soil gas testing here. | 6/25/2020 | |||||||
384 | Carlson 1-24 - The COGCC reports (Form 5 and Form 21) on the completed well repairs can be viewed here. | 6/25/2020 | |||||||
385 | On June 14, 2020, Extraction Oil and Gas (Extraction) filed for bankruptcy protection to allow it to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. (Read the public statement here.) There is a hearing on Extraction's motion to approve the Debtor in Possession Financing Agreement set for July 14, 2020. If approved by the bankruptcy court, this agreement will provide finances for operations while the bankruptcy plan is negotiated. The Bankruptcy court has already granted a number of motions, including, among others: an order to allow Extraction to continue to pay taxes and fees for the next 21 days, an order to allow payment of insurance premiums, an order to allow payment of mineral interests, an order limiting the trading and transfer of Extraction debt and stock, order allowing payment of utilities, and an order to allow payment of wages, salaries and other compensation. Extraction has filed a notice of bankruptcy and the automatic bankruptcy stay in all it's pending court cases. This includes the noise cases filed in our Municipal Court. The bankruptcy code provides an exception for enforcement of government regulatory and criminal prosecutions. On June 19, 2020, Broomfield filed this motion in Municipal Court advising the Judge that the automatic bankruptcy stay does not apply to the noise citation cases and asking the court to proceed to set the cases for trial. The Judge set the noise cases for arraignment on July 7, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. and advised he would take up the question of the bankruptcy automatic stay at that time. | 6/22/2020 | |||||||
386 | Ozone information, and a link to the AirLive site, have been added to Broomfield Public Health’s Air Quality Page. This information is also linked on the Air Quality Monitoring page and includes the CDPHE’s daily air quality forecast & conditions. | 6/22/2020 | |||||||
387 | The report from the June 3, 2020, trigger event at Anthem 02 can be viewed here. | 6/19/2020 | |||||||
388 | This morning the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) approved going ahead with Regulation 7 (oil and gas) rulemaking, with a proposed September hearing date. AQCC documents associated with the Reg 7 rulemaking are linked here. Broomfield is a part of a local government coalition (LGC) with 34 local governments, participating in the Reg 7 rulemaking. As indicated in the LGC statement of support, submitted to the AQCC today, the LGC early comments are in support of the proposed requirement of controls for flowback vessels and tanks at disposal wells and additional air quality monitoring by oil and gas operators in the pre- and early production stages, but will be requesting more specifics in the rule regarding pollutants to be monitored, approval of a monitoring plan, and enforcement. | 6/18/2020 | |||||||
389 | Carlson 1-24 site: New casing and wellhead successfully installed. Completion estimated this week, depending on the weather. (See updated public notice here.) | 6/17/2020 | |||||||
390 | Extraction Bankruptcy Statement | 6/15/2020 | |||||||
391 | Davis 43-6 site: Road repairs are underway. The COGCC program engineer for orphaned wells has received a draft report from their consultant, which is currently being reviewed. Read more here. | 6/12/2020 | |||||||
392 | In 2019, Broomfield issued a citation to Extraction Oil and Gas (Extraction) for adversely affecting wildlife in open space. One of its subcontractors working on a legacy well drove heavy equipment over a prairie dog burrow that had been occupied by burrowing owls. On June 10, 2020, Extraction pled "nolo contendere" (No contest) to the municipal citation and will pay a $400 fine. | 6/11/2020 | |||||||
393 | On June 10, 2020, the COGCC unanimously adopted new rules governing wellbore construction and monitoring. The wellbore integrity rulemaking is one of the rulemakings required by SB 19-181. Read more here. | 6/11/2020 | |||||||
394 | The report from the June 3, 2020, trigger event at Anthem 02 can be viewed here. | ||||||||
395 | An update on the Allison 24-2RC plugged and abandoned well (in Weld County) can be viewed here. | 6/11/2020 | |||||||
396 | On June 1, 2020 a Noble Energy well on the Weld County Farm (owned by Broomfield in Weld County), was disturbed by livestock in the area, after a fence failed. The well was plugged and abandoned on Friday, June 5th. | 6/6/2020 | |||||||
397 | Maintenance work has started at the Carlson 1-24 well site. Workover rig and crew onsite. (Please read the updated public notice here.) Work is expected to be complete the week of June 7th, dependent on weather. | 6/5/2020 | |||||||
398 | An update on the Davis 43-6 plugged and abandoned well can be viewed here. | 6/5/2020 | |||||||
399 | The COGCC announced the June Wellbore Integrity Rulemaking Commission Hearing, June 10-11. The Wellbore Integrity rulemaking, required by SB 19-181, proposes to improve oversight through the entire lifecycle of the oil and gas well, ensuring protection of groundwater resources. Read more here. | 6/5/2020 | |||||||
400 | Maintenance work is expected to begin soon at the Carlson 1-24 well site. Workover rig and crew onsite. Please read the updated public notice here. | 6/4/2020 | |||||||
401 | The trigger canister at Anthem 02 activated at 10:11 a.m. today, see notification here. CSU will analyze the canister and results will be available within 5 working days. With summer and higher temperatures approaching, we do expect to see all the sensors running higher baselines. This potentially means more triggered canisters. Ajax will not adjust trigger thresholds to account for this until trigger canisters are analyzed and can justify setting higher thresholds. All trigger threshold adjustments will be communicated in a timely manner. | 6/3/2020 | |||||||
402 | ERO Resource Corporation, Broomfield’s consultant, will begin soil gas testing and location verification (using a magnetometer) of the plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells in the Anthem Ranch area. These P&A wells were soil gas tested last year. This will be part of the city’s ongoing maintenance moving forward. Read more here. | 6/3/2020 | |||||||
403 | The report for the Trigger Canister events on May 25, 2020, at Livingston 02 and 03 can be viewed here. | 6/2/2020 | |||||||
404 | The report for the Trigger Canister event on May 24, 2020, at Prospect Ridge can be viewed here. | 6/2/2020 | |||||||
405 | The Anthem 02 sensor triggered today at 10:39 a.m. Read the notification here. | 5/29/2020 | |||||||
406 | Extraction Oil and Gas (Extraction) is planning to perform maintenance work at the Carlson 1-24 well site in Broomfield, beginning on June 1, 2020. Please read the public notice here. | 5/28/2020 | |||||||
407 | The CDPHE will be publishing a revised report for the Livingston Pad and statement of errata soon, which corrects a data processing error for the Colorado Air Monitoring Mobile Laboratory. It will be posted under the "Community Investigations" section of the Oil and Gas Health Information and Response Program's website (www.colorado.gov/oghealth). It is anticipated that it will be available by the week of June 1, 2020. While this correction has resulted in revised values for VOC concentrations, it does not change the overall outcomes or recommendations of any of our community investigation reports. | 5/28/2020 | |||||||
408 | Broomfield is a party to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's (COGCC) upcoming series 200 to 600 rulemaking along with other local governments, known as the Affiliated Local Government (ALF) group. The ALF's initial comments on the COGCC’s 200-600 series rulemaking can be viewed here. | 5/27/2020 | |||||||
409 | Broomfield hired a third party consultant to create renderings of the Livingston Pad during production. Information on the production equipment was provided to the consultant to assist in the development of the renderings that indicate how the Livingston Pad will look from the Anthem Ranch, Anthem Highlands and Wildgrass neighborhoods. | 5/26/2020 | |||||||
410 | Read 5/24/2020 Trigger Event Notification. | 5/25/2020 | |||||||
411 | Read 5/25/2020 Trigger Event Notification. | 5/25/2020 | |||||||
412 | Read a summary of Broomfield’s State Regulatory Efforts here. | 5/22/2020 | |||||||
413 | On May 18, 2020, Extraction filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit against the City and County of Broomfield. On May 19, 2020, the court entered the order granting dismissal. This concludes the suit that Extraction filed against Broomfield in March, alleging breach of contract, along with other claims. | 5/18/2020 updated 5/19/2020 | |||||||
414 | United Pad - Updated Notice of Spud | 5/18/2020 | |||||||
415 | Alternate Truck Route - Extraction Oil and Gas | 5/18/2020 | |||||||
416 | Public statement on Extraction Oil and Gas | 5/15/2020 | |||||||
417 | On March 30, 2020, Extraction filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and injunctive relief alleging that Broomfield has been using its regulatory and police powers in bad faith to shut down Extraction’s operations. Extraction filed its Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020. Extraction added a civil rights claim under Section 42 USC 1983 alleging impairment of contract and violation of equal protection. Extraction also added a claim for damages and an injunction alleging that Broofmield violated the Colorado Constitution's prohibition against impairment of contracts and retrospective legislation. | 5/12/2020 | |||||||
418 | Updated notice regarding spudding on the United Pad. | 5/8/2020 | |||||||
419 | The Air Quality Report on the April 30th trigger event can be reviewed here. | 5/7/2020 | |||||||
420 | Extraction provided notice spudding to begin on the United pad as early as May 18. | 4/17/2020 |
1 | Complete | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | In progress | ||||||
3 | |||||||
4 | |||||||
5 | Status | Complete | Question | Date Received (Newest to Oldest) | Submitted by | Date of Response | Answer Staff: If you link to an answer, please confirm the sharing settings are "anyone with the link can view" |
6 | JUNE 2022 - Below | ||||||
7 | |||||||
8 | 1) What noise should be expected from the Production facilities at NW B? 2) Will noise always be present from NW B as long as NWA and NWB are in production? (Re: We have noticed that there appears to be loud vibrational humming noise coming from the direction of Northwest B. I can only characterize it as something similar to a very loud compressor. Totally different noise than what we hear from Interchange fracking engines. It is loud enough to wake us up when windows are open and interfere with concentration when working from home (again when windows are open). QUESTIONS: what noise should be expected from the Production facilities at NW B? Will noise always be present from NW B as long as NWA and NWB are in production?) | 6/16/2022 | Resident | Pending | Staff is researching. | ||
9 | MAY 2022 - Below | ||||||
10 | 1) Can CCOB discuss the placement of the monitors with the noise monitoring company to determine why we are being impacted yet the monitors are not showing exceedances? 2) Has CCOB and the noise monitoring company done any real time analysis of propagation paths since 4/23? Given there are a multiplicity of paths and the total path (all possible avenues) must be addressed, is there any data on this? 3) Can CCOB and the noise monitoring company investigate in depth the specific propagation paths that are impacting residents to the West of Interchange and provide recommendations to the Operator to address the noise? (Re: Since ~ 4/23 the noise from the Interchange and United Pads has been intermittently extremely loud and disruptive. The noise monitors do not seem to be placed in a manner to capture the impact on residents WEST of Interchange anywhere from 2800ft to over a mile west of Interchange. QUESTION: Can CCOB discuss the placement of the monitors with the noise monitoring company to determine why we are being impacted yet the monitors are not showing exceedances? The additional mitigation put in place may be helping those who are on Huron, but apparently is not addressing the impact further West. QUESTION: Has CCOB and the noise monitoring company done any real time analysis of propagation paths since 4/23? Given there are a multiplicity of paths and the total path (all possible avenues) must be addressed, is there any data on this? Sound waves always take the path of least resistance and diffract easily and bend around corners. QUESTION: Can CCOB and the noise monitoring company investigate in depth the specific propagation paths that are impacting residents to the West of Interchange and provide recommendations to the Operator to address the noise?) | 5/17/2022 | Resident | 5/19/22 | 1) - Noise monitoring sensors at Interchange A & B and Interchange A & B South are located to have the highest likelihood for capturing noise exceedances coming from the Interchange well pads since the closer a receptor is to a source, the more likely it is to capture an exceedance. Note that these sensor locations are specifically placed as they are to also capture oil and gas operations noise distinct from highway sound and in the direction of residences (south and west).
2) - The legal Operator’s Agreement contracted between Broomfield and Extraction outlines the enforceable noise limits at 1000’ from the perimeter of the pad. These limits are described in both A-weighting (dBA) and C-weighting (dBC) sound pressure levels. The total noise level is in fact a summation of paths from the pads and ambient noise sources (birds, traffic, wind, etc) at a given receiving point. Unless noise levels are measured and shown to exceed the enforceable levels outlined in the Operator’s Agreement, Extraction is not required to make any changes in their operating procedures. 3) - Prior to drilling and fracking activities on the Interchange Pads, DLAA conducted ambient level noise monitoring and predictive noise modeling, including barrier analysis. DLAA currently has two monitors near the Interchange Pads monitoring noise levels in real time. | ||
11 | 1) Although Staff says there have not been noise exceedances per the Operator Agreement, has Staff discussed with our noise consultant or Extraction any other possible noise mitigations or design changes to relieve the excessive noise being experienced by the residents to the west of Interchange A?
2) Also, have impacted residents conveyed to Staff that many will no longer file noise complaints because "the responses from CCOB discount the impact on us and it is apparent nothing will be done?" (Re: I am continuing to receive multiple residents' complaints of continuing excessive noise from hydraulic fracturing at Extraction's Interchange A Pad (see below). Although Staff says there have not been noise exceedances per the Operator Agreement, has Staff discussed with our noise consultant or Extraction any other possible noise mitigations or design changes to relieve the excessive noise being experienced by the residents to the west of Interchange A? Fracturing operations are only complete for 2 of 10 wells on Interchange A and there are also 4 more to go on Interchange B before the scheduled end of hydraulic fracturing at the end of July. Also, have impacted residents conveyed to Staff that many will no longer file noise complaints because "the responses from CCOB discount the impact on us and it is apparent nothing will be done?" That is what I am being told. From a resident's email: "The noise is very loud multiple times per day.... the noise must have a path of least resistance to travel through. It is obvious that the placement of the noise monitors will not capture what we are hearing. I've given up filing any more noise complaints. The responses from CCOB discount the impact on us and it is apparent nothing will be done.) | 5/11/2022 | Jean Lim | 5/16/22 | 1) - Staff consulted with our noise monitoring consultant prior to operations at the Interchange Pads. Mitigation measures were discussed and the best resolution was the additional soundwall located southwest of the pads. Extraction agreed and constructed the wall.
2) - This has not been communicated to staff by any residents. | ||
12 | The noise was very loud again this afternoon,156th and Huron, Extraction and Broomfield told us there would very limited noise and would do noise medication, have we been lied to again? | 5/9/2022 | Resident | 5/10/2022 | 5/10/22 @ 5:47 p.m. Unfortunately, hydraulic fracturing operations can be louder at certain times. Please note that Broomfield staff does collaborate very closely with our noise monitoring consultant to discover any exceedances should they occur. Our consultant researched the sound data to include the timeframe you referenced and confirmed that the operator did not exceed a permissible decibel level (65 dBA between 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.) during any 15-minute period on May 9th and was within their legal limits. As a reminder, should any exceedances be identified in the future, additional notices of suspected violation(s) will be issued and all legal avenues will be pursued. 5/10/22 @ 8:43 a.m. Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise and general disturbance near the Northwest Parkway and Interchange pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations. Broomfield's Oil & Gas Division continually reviews noise data for exceedances, including the timeframe you mentioned. No noise exceedances were discovered for May 9th from 2:00 p.m. through 6:00 p.m. However, should any exceedances be identified in the future, additional notices of suspected violation will be issued and all legal avenues for remedy and cure will be pursued. The operator continues along with their anticipated development schedule (which includes drill and workover rigs), with a conclusion of operations expected in the fall of this year (mid-August to early September). | ||
13 | 1) Could Staff please post a resident's 4/28 noise complaint and Staff's 4/29 response on the Dashboard Noise tab? The resident shared it with me last week and it is not posted on the Dashboard (see text below). 2) Also, could you please address the resident's concern that given where the current noise monitors are located, they don't appear to be set up to assess the impact to residents to the west of Interchange? (re: 1) Could Staff please post a resident's 4/28 noise complaint and Staff's 4/29 response on the Dashboard Noise tab? The resident shared it with me last week and it is not posted on the Dashboard (see text below). 2) Also, could you please address the resident's concern that given where the current noise monitors are located, they don't appear to be set up to assess the impact to residents to the west of Interchange? The resident supplied the attached map to show where the noise monitors are and there are red x's where the residents live who were awakened by the Interchange fracking noise during the night of 4/28. 4/28 resident submission of noise complaint to Dashboard: 4/28 Nature of Concern: Noise Description of Concern: Noise from fracking at Interchange is extremely loud about 1.2-1.6 miles WEST of Interchange. It is interesting that it is not as loud closer to the pad. But last night [4/28] around 2:40 am it was loud enough to wake us up and one could "feel" the noise. A few other neighbors this far away reported disturbances as well. Suggested they file a report so you have additional data. Have also noticed it extremely loud Tuesday 4/26 at 7pm when out walking. Again, loud 1.2 miles west, not as loud closer. Definitely was noise from fracking. Then again tonight at 6:15pm. Given where your current noise monitors are located doesn't appear to be anything that is set up to assess the impact on the Adams County residents to the west of Interchange. thanks 4/29 email reply from Staff to resident: "Thank you for contacting Broomfield's Oil & Gas Division. Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Interchange pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 4/23/22. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator did not exceed the allowable limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA) for the date(s) and time(s) referenced in Incident #60910 submission. Had any exceedance(s) occurred, Broomfield would notify the Operator. Per the OA, the Operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues could be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity. Regards, Broomfield Oil & Gas Team") | 5/5/2022 | Jean Lim | 5/9/2022 | 1) - The resident submission from 4/28 related to noise will be posted to the Dashboard.
2) - The answer to address the resident’s concern related to the location of the Interchange pad sound monitoring sensor will be posted to the Dashboard as well. | ||
14 | APRIL 2022 - Below | ||||||
15 | 1) - Noise from fracking at Interchange is extremely loud about 1.2-1.6 miles WEST of Interchange. It is interesting that it is not as loud closer to the pad. But last night around 2:40 am it was loud enough to wake us up and one could "feel" the noise. A few other neighbors this far away reported disturbances as well. Suggested they file a report so you have additional data. Have also noticed it extremely loud Tuesday 4/26 at 7pm when out walking. Again, loud 1.2 miles west, not as loud closer. Definitely was noise from fracking. Then again tonight at 6:15pm. 2) - Given where your current noise monitors are located doesn't appear to be anything that is set up to assess the impact on the Adams County residents to the west of Interchange. | 4/28/2022 | Resident | 5/10/2022 | 1) - "Thank you for contacting Broomfield's Oil & Gas Division.
Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Interchange pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 4/23/22. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator did not exceed the allowable limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA) for the date(s) and time(s) referenced in Incident #60910 submission. Had any exceedance(s) occurred, Broomfield would notify the Operator. Per the OA, the Operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues could be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity." 2) - Noise monitoring sensors at Interchange A & B and Interchange A & B South are located to have the highest likelihood for capturing noise exceedances coming from the Interchange well pads since the closer a receptor is to a source, the more likely it is to capture an exceedance. Note that these sensor locations are specifically placed as they are to also capture oil and gas operations noises distinct from highway sound and in the direction of residences (south and west). | ||
16 | FEBRUARY 2022 - Below | ||||||
17 | (1) Please confirm the day and night dBA and dBC noise exceedance thresholds for the United West and United South monitors.
(2) Have there been any noise exceedances in the last few days? (re: On 2/21, a resident living near both the Interchange A and United Pads reported to Council that their family has been kept awake the last couple nights by noise which was at times exceeding 70 dBA on the United South noise monitor. 1) Please confirm the day and night dBA and dBC noise exceedance thresholds for the United West and United South monitors. 2) Have there been any noise exceedances in the last few days? As noted in the 2/17 Extraction Update, these were further noise mitigations planned for when fracking resumed at United: "A total of eighteen (18) frac pumps (6 additional from Northwest) have been staged at the United pad, and temporary walls for noise mitigation will be deployed before the operation begins.") | 2/21/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/24/2022 | (1) - Per the City Attorney’s memo from 10/22/21, permissible noise levels at the United pad are: 65 dBA - Daytime 60 dBA - Nighttime 69.29 dBC - All Hours See chart here. (2) - Staff and the noise consultants have yet to identify a clear violation of the allowable levels in the Operator Agreement. Staff will continue to review the noise data and is prepared to issue notices of suspected violation, should they be clearly identified. | ||
18 | Have our inspectors noticed an increase in noise on the Livingston Pad due to the plunger lifters? Have there been any noise complaints so far? (re: Plungers have been installed on all 7 [Livingston] wells that were fitted with artificial lift springs (2/9)." There is some information that plunge lifters are noisy and walls have sometimes been installed around wells with plunge lifters. Have our inspectors noticed an increase in noise on the Livingston Pad due to the plunge lifters? Have there been any noise complaints so far?) | 2/16/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/16/2022 | The plunger lift systems do generate some additional noise, however it does not exceed noise created by other operating equipment on the pads (for example, an idling heavy duty truck). The noise associated with the valves are intermittent and only last one to five seconds when the plunger arrives at the surface. Inspectors have not noted any additional overall noise levels at the Livingston pad. | ||
19 | Question(s) - When the fracturing fleet shows up at the United Pad any day now, will there be onsite verification by Staff that the additional pumps agreed to by Extraction and recommended by our consultants will be operating? (re: When the fracturing fleet shows up at the United Pad any day now, will there be onsite verification by Staff that the additional pumps agreed to by Extraction and recommended by our consultants will be operating? The 2/10 Extraction Operations Update states that Staff will verify "all chemicals and BMPs are in place" but this noise mitigation is not a BMP in the OA. From the 2/10 Extraction Operations Update: "The fracturing fleet is estimated to begin mobilization to the United pad later this week...Broomfield staff will be on site prior to operations starting to verify all chemicals and BMP’s are in place. Crews have prepared the first five wells for hydraulic fracturing. Tier 4 engines and quiet fleet technologies will be in use for the duration of hydraulic fracturing operations. Additional noise mitigations for this phase can be seen in the noise section below." "XOG will be adding 2-3 additional pumps to the fracturing spread to theoretically lessen the mechanical loads on the equipment. This may mitigate peak noise as each unit will not have to work as hard and will avoid reaching higher RPM. CCOB will monitor noise data to verify if this has the desired effect.") | 2/11/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/11/2022 | Answer(s) - Yes, staff prior to operations commencing staff will verify that additional pumps are being utilized. Previously 14 pumps (12 in use, 2 in reserve) were in use for fracturing at the Northwest pads. Anticipating 16-18 (14-16 in use, 2 in reserve) pumps to be used for operations at the United pad. | ||
20 | DECEMBER 2021 - Below | ||||||
21 | I am wondering what sound monitors on-line they are referring to-- are these the same monitors that you cite in your response?
(re: Here is a complaint registered by a resident that you responded to: Most nights do not get much sleep. tonight have gotten maybe three hours. It is due to the Extraction oil and gas noise coming from all three sites. Looked at the sound monitors online. all three were over 60 at once. the highest of the three was 66. the combined noise of all three at the same time sounded like there was going to be an explosion imminently. They are exceeding their approved noise level and need to be fined or the operation needs to be halted. … There is an unprecedented level of noise tonight. I have gotten at most three hours of sleep. There are three Extraction gas and oil sites running at the same time. At around 4:30 am on December 8, all three were in violation of sound ordinances. All above 60 at the same time. the highest of the three was at 66. all together, it sounded like an explosion was imminent. Extraction gas and oil is violating their sound agreement and need to be fined AND the operation needs to be halted until they can figure out or change the noise. They should not have all three running at the same time, if they are going to be in violation. … It is always in the middle of the night. It starts up at 11 pm and goes off and on all night. … It sounds like a jet engine getting louder and louder as if there is going to be an explosion.) | 12/9/2021 | Resident | 12/9/2021 | Thank you for submitting your noise concern. Data from Broomfield’s noise monitoring system seem to indicate that Extraction/Civitas may have violated the allowable noise levels in the Operator Agreement the early morning of 12/8 (specifically in a timeframe between 3:00AM and 3:15AM) making this the 7th noise violation notice sent to the operator. Please note that 24 hour operations for hydraulic fracturing, drilling, and coiled tubing are permitted by the COGCC and the Operator Agreement. Broomfield does not have any evidence that simultaneous operations (on multiple pads) increase maximum noise levels. Hydraulic fracturing appears to be significantly louder than either coiled tubing or drilling, masking lower amplitude noise signals. This is evidenced by lower overall noise levels observed at the NW-B West meter versus the NW-B East meter (the NW-B West meter is much closer to the millout currently taking place at the NW-A Pad. Between 0:00 Monday and 18:00 Wednesday (12/8), hourly averages at NW-B West exceeded 51.1 dB eight times. In this same timeframe, hourly averages exceeded 51.1 dB twenty-one times at the NW-B East meter (see graph). With regard to drilling (currently taking place at United), noise levels recorded during recent drilling at NW-B (near the pad aperture) were at or below ambient levels originally measured by TruHorizon in 2017 (before pad development took place). | ||
22 | Most nights do not get much sleep. tonight have gotten maybe three hours. It is due to the Extraction oil and gas noise coming from all three sites. Looked at the sound monitors online. all three were over 60 at once. the highest of the three was 66. the combined noise of all three at the same time sounded like there was going to be an explosion imminently. They are exceeding their approved noise level and need to be fined or the operation needs to be halted. … There is an unprecedented level of noise tonight. I have gotten at most three hours of sleep. There are three Extraction gas and oil sites running at the same time. At around 4:30 am on December 8, all three were in violation of sound ordinances. All above 60 at the same time. the highest of the three was at 66. all together, it sounded like an explosion was imminent. Extraction gas and oil is violating their sound agreement and need to be fined AND the operation needs to be halted until they can figure out or change the noise. They should not have all three running at the same time, if they are going to be in violation. … It is always in the middle of the night. It starts up at 11 pm and goes off and on all night. … It sounds like a jet engine getting louder and louder as if there is going to be an explosion. | 12/8/2021 | Resident | 12/9/2021 | Thank you for submitting your noise concern. Data from Broomfield’s noise monitoring system seem to indicate that Extraction/Civitas may have violated the allowable noise levels in the Operator Agreement the early morning of 12/8 (specifically in a timeframe between 3:00AM and 3:15AM). Please note that 24 hour operations for hydraulic fracturing, drilling, and coiled tubing are permitted by the COGCC and the Operator Agreement. Broomfield does not have any evidence that simultaneous operations (on multiple pads) increase maximum noise levels. Hydraulic fracturing appears to be significantly louder than either coiled tubing or drilling, masking lower amplitude noise signals. This is evidenced by lower overall noise levels observed at the NW-B West meter versus the NW-B East meter (the NW-B West meter is much closer to the millout currently taking place at the NW-A Pad. Between 0:00 Monday and 18:00 Wednesday (12/8), hourly averages at NW-B West exceeded 51.1 dB eight times. In this same timeframe, hourly averages exceeded 51.1 dB twenty-one times at the NW-B East meter (see graph). With regard to drilling (currently taking place at United), noise levels recorded during recent drilling at NW-B (near the pad aperture) were at or below ambient levels originally measured by TruHorizon in 2017 (before pad development took place). | ||
23 | NOVEMBER 2021 - Below | ||||||
24 | (1) - Are there 5 noise meters in operation and where are they?
(2) - Where is the "NW A East noise monitor [that] was moved west of the United Pad" in relation to the United meter that is showing up on the DL Adams map and data? (3) - Are we never going to see data from this relocated meter in its new location? (re: Thank you for your reply to my 11/29 noise meter question but I am still confused about the noise monitors. 1) Are there 5 noise meters in operation and where are they? The noise meter map supplied in response to my 11/29 question shows 4 noise meters but the DL Adams webpage shows 4 in addition to the blank gray circle. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i4mxSYjpkVXJRfqA9DJI2E-DrZzfgip_/view 2) Where is the "NW A East noise monitor [that] was moved west of the United Pad" in relation to the United meter that is showing up on the DL Adams map and data? https://public.envcloud.com/pes/broomfield2 3) The Staff response stated, "The NW-A East meter was moved on Monday 11/22 to United, this is why this location is not reporting data." Are we never going to see data from this relocated meter in its new location?) | 11/30/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/30/2021 | (1) - There are four Envirosuite meters that are connected to the online “stakeholder site”. Their locations can be viewed on the stakeholder site here. (2) - These meters are one and the same. (3) - The United meter is functioning properly and displaying data. | ||
25 | The 11/23 Extraction operations update stated that on 11/22 the NW A East noise monitor was moved west of the United Pad. However, the DL Adams location map doesn't show that location and there is no data at all appearing for NW East over the last week. 11/23 Extractions Operations Update -https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oSarLrhFfUrrIEDklxvF2q6xA0TesAvv/view DL Adams monitor webpage https://public.envcloud.com/pes/broomfield2 | 11/29/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/30/2021 | This map should clear up any confusion about the placement of the noise meters. The NW-A East meter was moved on Monday 11/22 to United, this is why this location is not reporting data. | ||
26 | could these noise violation notices be released?
(re: Staff has stated that 6 noise violation notices for Extraction drilling operations that began on 9/14 have been given to Extraction, per noise exceedances as defined by the Operator Agreement. If this is public information, could these noise violation notices be released? I assume that the notices cited specific monitors and noise levels.) | 11/29/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/29/2021 | The notices of suspected violation can be released, they will be published in the November 30th Oil & Gas updates. | ||
27 | I was provided the following for the locations of the NW B noise monitors The exact locations of the NW noise meters are: Northwest B East: 39.981266/-105.005332 Northwest B West: 39.981225/-105.008997 When i map these and measure the distance to the perimeter or interior of the NW B pad, the measurement for NW B West is less than 1000 ft. Given you lost critical data from the NW A East monitor for use in monitoring the noise at NW B pad, why is the Northwest B West: 39.981225/-105.008997 location not outside of the 1000 ft that was mentioned in the Nov 23 update? Also, the location of the NW B West monitor as shown on the public.envcloud site does not seem to match the coordinates provided above. The noise monitoring site shows says it is 1000' SW of NWB. Yet the GPS coordinates you provided to me show it south south east of NW Pad B and those coordinates are only ~ 500 ft from the perimeter of NW B. QUESTION: Could you please clarify and if the coordinates provided previously are incorrect, provide the correct coordinates? OR, if the location shown on the public.envcloud is inaccurate, have that updated? And if the gps coordinates provided are correct, please work to move the noise monitoring equipment so that the data can be used and will meet the requirements of the OA. I am attaching a map showing the distance from Northwest B West: 39.981225/-105.008997 to the NW B pad. thank you | 11/25/2021 | Resident | 11/29/2021 | The location mapped out below (and noted with coordinates in the question) is for NWA East, 1000’ from NWA, it was used during the hydraulic fracturing at the A-Pad and provided basis for the issued notices of suspected violation. It is indeed much closer to NWB Pad. However, this meter has been taken down and moved to the United Pad. Broomfield is no longer acquiring data at 1000’ from NWA. The correct and current coordinates for NWB monitoring are: NWB West: 39.981211, -105.013794 NWB East: 39.981266, -105.005332 These meters are 1000’ from the perimeter of the NWB pad. The coordinates shown on the Stakeholder site are also correct and up to date. | ||
28 | I have a question. Those of us impacted with multiple sleepless nights due to the outrageous level of noise from the NW A & B pads now see that CCOB cannot use ANY of the data from the NW A East noise monitoring to enforce the requirements at NW B because it was not located at the correct distance as is defined in the Operator Agreement. Per the Activity Update from Nov 23: "This meter served its purpose of enforcement of the noise levels permissible in the Operator Agreement (OA) when hydraulic fracturing operations were taking place at the NW A-Pad, however this location was less than 1,000’ from the NW B-Pad perimeter so data from this location could not be used to enforce noise requirements in the OA while fracturing continues at the NW B-Pad." There have been so many issues with the noise monitoring equipment that I can't keep up with what has been working when. But this sounds like CCOB has lost an opportunity to use critical data to enforce noise violations at NW B. QUESTION/REQUEST: Please explain how the inability to utilize the data from the NWA east noise meter impacts any of the six notices for noise violations that have been issued. We continue to be blasted regularly with noise that results in sleep deprivation and impacts our quality of life. | 11/25/2021 | Resident | 11/29/2021 | The notices of suspected violation at the NW-A Pad remain valid. | ||
29 | Does this gap indicate that NW B East was down on 11/21 5 am to 9 am? Should there have been downtime if the battery backup is fully functioning? (re: In response to my 11/20 question about the downtime of noise monitors, I gave an example of downtime of NW B East. However, in Staff's 11/22 response, the linked graphs to demonstrate monitor uptime are for NW B West and NW A East, not NW B East. I have attached the week graph for NW B East which shows a gap in the graph for NW B East.) Link to NW B graph | 11/22/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/23/2021 | The TruHorizon meter at NW-B east appears to have lost power, however the battery backup meter was functioning (this is a wholly separate meter, not a battery backup to the TruHorizon meter). This data has been provided to Broomfield, no exceedances were noted. | ||
30 | Why are taxpayers footing the bill for the DL Adams noise monitoring equipment that does not work correctly? | 11/22/2021 | Resident | 11/23/2021 | Air quality and noise monitoring are approved expenditures of Broomfield’s Oil and Gas budget. | ||
31 | (1) - Given it was so loud last night, what was different at the NW B pad?
(2) - Was any equipment moved? (3) - Were any of the "sound mitigations" moved? (4) - So what was different last night that made the noise so bad? (5) - Did we lose some of the mitigations? (6) - Were operations different last night? (7) - What specifically was happening at the pad overnight? (re:I filed two concerns this morning 11/22 about noise. 1) noise monitors down 2) noise that kept my family awake since about 1:15 am. Looks like my 2 noise concerns were merged into one on the dashboard since i only see one entry. The question that i do not see answered but is listed on the dashboard is the following: Given it was so loud last night, what was different at the NW B pad? Was any equipment moved? Were any of the "sound mitigations" moved? I would really like to understand why the noise was so much worse last night than it has been previously at NW B. We were told there is a lot of sound mitigation in place at NW B, but it no longer seems to be working. So what was different last night that made the noise so bad? Did we lose some of the mitigations? Were operations different last night? What specifically was happening at the pad overnight? | 11/22/2021 | Resident | (1) - Extraction confirmed nothing changed operationally from Saturday to Sunday.
(2) - Other than delivery vehicles, no equipment was moved. (3) - The temporary (10’) walls that were stationed at the A-Pad have been moved to the B-Pad. (4) - Unknown. (5) - No mitigations were lost. (6) - Extraction confirmed nothing changed operationally from Saturday to Sunday. (7) - Extraction confirmed that around 3AM (the early morning of the 22nd) was when the frack pumps were brought up to full pressure to fracture the active stage. Broomfield suspects that this part of the operation is responsible for the variability seen in the sound data. Please note that on 11/23 Broomfield sent Extraction a sixth notice of suspected violation for the period between 1AM and 5AM on the 22nd, corresponding with the period you describe in a recent complaint. Broomfield remains engaged with Extraction on the suspected noise violations, will continue to monitor noise levels, and is prepared to proceed appropriately should further exceedances be observed. | |||
32 | It looks like there are ongoing issues with the noise monitors. Given the noise was so bad for overnight (I submitted a separate complaint for that), i tried to pull up the noise monitor data. NW Pad B East appears to have gone down at ~ 10pm Nov 21. It is really frustrating that we were kept awake last night starting around 1:15 am Nov 22 yet this noise monitor was down. Please see attached screenshot. What are the plans to ensure that the monitors are working? Could you provide the exact GPS coordinates of the noise monitor locations please? As I've pointed out previously, there are multiple variables that need to be taken into account when examining the path that noise travels as well as how loud it will be at various points from the source. Given it was so loud last night, what was different at the NW B pad? Was any equipment moved? Were any of the "sound mitigations" moved? | 11/22/2021 | Resident | 11/22/2021 | Cellular connectivity in this area is responsible for the meters appearing to be offline at various times, however data has been backfilled every time a connection is lost. See complete records for the past seven days at the Northwest East and West locations (if data was missing, there would be gaps in the bar charts). Furthermore, both of these meters have battery backups. Broomfield continues to monitor all of the noise data, and will proceed appropriately should exceedances of the allowable levels in the Operator Agreement be determined. The exact locations of the NW noise meters are: Northwest B East: 39.981266/-105.005332 Northwest B West: 39.981225/-105.008997 | ||
33 | What further fixes are planned by the consultant to ensure functionality of the essential monitors close to NW B? (re: in the 11/18 Extractions Operations Update, it was stated that the NW A monitors were moved to NW B, presumably to have fully functioning monitors closer to the source of the noise with fracking on NW B. However, at 1 am on 11/20 the NW B East monitor went down and has been down until now at 8 am. As shown in the attached NW B East graph from overnight, there were likely noise exceedances before the NW B East monitor went down.) 11/18 Extractions Operations Update - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-w78Km2tLmfZFROBdhWg6mZn1WJrfPXv/view | 11/20/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/22/2021 | Cellular connectivity in this area is responsible for the meters appearing to be offline at various times, however data has been backfilled every time a connection is lost. See complete records for the past seven days at the Northwest East and West locations (if data was missing, there would be gaps in the bar charts). Furthermore, both of these meters have battery backups. | ||
34 | A resident reports that the resident has filed noise complaints every night since 11/11 and does not see them posted on the Dashboard Noise tab. No complaints have been posted on the Noise tab since 11/11. The resident also pointed out that this lack of Dashboard posting was during a gap in the confirmation email process. | 11/15/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/19/2021 | Noise concerns are used by staff and the contractors to investigate possible exceedances of the Operator Agreement, the Dashboard is used to answer questions. If a resident has a question, they can submit it in the Compliance/Operations/General intake form here. | ||
35 | Myself and a few neighbors noticed loud noises last night (early November 11). The noise was like a loud helicopter or train sound. Could you tell me if this is related to oil and gas works near me? I live in Anthem Highlands neighborhood of Broomfield (Humboldt Peak Drive). If it is related to oil and gas works, could you please let me know how I make a more formal complaint? | 11/11/2021 | Resident | 11/12/2021 | In reviewing our noise monitoring data from the incident you describe, there does appear to be a low-flying aircraft in the Anthem area (9:30 PM on 11/9). Our noise monitors at the Northwest Parkway Pads did not pick up any exceedances actionable under the Operator Agreement at that time. Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise near the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative four notices of suspected violations requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. | ||
37 | When is Broomfield going to get the contractor, D L Adams to permanantly fix this? If something was successful for fracking around Livingston was successful why ate we not getting the fix? Broomfield what are you going to do? (re: Health issues were previously reported. The noise from fracking at the NW A pad woke me up several times last night. I believe i started waking up at 1:40 AM but i was so tired i may not be remembering this correctly. I was too tired to write the time down. You might want to consult with a sleep expert to find out why people are so tired they would not be able to write the time down (part of it is that it does no good when you know this company should,be shut down). ... I don't think taxpayers would appreciate hearing money is,being handed over to this contractor for equipment that,has not worked for weeks. ... I believe it was never fixed and all the noisey work was completed. ... Shut it down.) | 11/9/2021 | Resident | 11/15/2021 | Broomfield’s acoustical consultant’s role is to provide noise monitoring to determine if allowable limits under the Operator Agreement are being exceeded. It is Broomfield’s determination that Extraction has exceeded those limits on at least three occasions and has notified Extraction. Extraction is presently in the “remedy” or “cure” window and Extraction has deployed additional operational and physical mitigation to reduce noise levels. Should Extraction continue to exceed noise levels despite the notices and their attempts to remedy the issues, Broomfield intends to pursue all avenues for action available to it under the Operator Agreement. Broomfield continues to pursue possibilities for further mitigation of noise. Presently there are more mitigations in place at the Northwest Pads than there were at the Livingston Pad (no SK-8 mobile sound barriers were deployed at Livingston). | ||
38 | Can someone explain that? Why suspected? You have complaints and I data from the noise monitoring. How is this "suspected" if there is data to show the violations? How can the Operator simply choose to deny the noise violations? (re: Noise from the fracking once again woke us up early morning hours and continued until we had to get up. I am too exhausted to get up in the middle of the night and file complaints anymore, so this is after the fact. Previously we were told that "the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed ". However. given the update from 11/4 it seems as if your noise monitoring program is not reliable. I don't understand how only retrieving data once per week does anything to mitigate the impact on residents. No longer having data to see on the dashboard lacks transparency. Given the 30 day period for the Operator to address violations, looking at data once/week is not sufficient. It is also frustrating that while CCOB has issued 2 notices of "suspected violations " the Operator does "not concede that a violation occurred". ... I am also concerned that CCOB does not fully understand all of the variables that impact what we as residents are experiencing. Diffraction, reflection, refraction, atmospheric conditions, etc all come into play. While my neighbor 1 street over may be experiencing extremely loud noise, my home may not be as impacted at a particular point in time. This continues to impact our health and quality of life. There is no option when indicating the data and time noise was heard to put in a range. The noise was all through the night/early morning hour. | 11/9/2021 | Resident | 11/15/2021 | In the notices of suspected violation, it is Broomfield’s position that the limits in the Operator Agreement are indeed being exceeded. We cannot speculate as to why Extraction would not concede these violations. Should we reach the point of litigation on these violations, a court would decide which party is correct or has sufficient evidence to prove their position. | ||
39 | Are the noise monitors at NW A still malfunctioning or are they working? What are you going to do about this? (re: Health issues have been previously reported. I was woken up several times last night due to the fracking noise from NW A. I believe the worst noise was at 4:30 AM new time but i may be off on the time due to lack if sleep and the time change.) | 11/7/2021 | Resident | 11/8/2021 | Sent to resident on 11/8: Thank you for filing your concern regarding noise levels on the night November 3rd. Broomfield's night guard also responded to the incident and was able to take contemporaneous readings and notes near to the pad. Data from the stationary noise monitors also suggest an exceedance was reached in the timeframe between 11PM and 12AM. On Friday November 5th, Broomfield sent a notice of suspected violation to Extraction regarding this incident (3 in total now). While Extraction is still in their "cure" phase, discussions are ongoing between Broomfield and their operations team to further minimize impacts to residents. Broomfield will continue to monitor noise data for further exceedances and will pursue all avenues for remedy should Extraction not comply with the terms in the Operating Agreement. | ||
40 | Would it be possible to add a small surveillance camera to the noise monitors as a layer of precaution? (re: While concerns regarding loud nighttime noise and inability to sleep continue, I have received multiple concerns about the sensor downtime. I know staff has been working with DL Adams on battery capacity. … Also, there appears to be a noise violation early this morning (Nov 5) near 70 dBA, but there does not appear to be any audio clips.) | 11/5/2021 | Laurie Anderson | Sensor downtime is mainly caused by excessive energy demand from the monitors. The threshold for a sound clip to be recorded was increased to reduce the power loads on the equipment and extend the life of a full charge. Adding cameras (without also adding a direct power source) would further reduce the power cycle period of the monitors. Broomfield continues to work with the acoustical consultant to stabilize the network, both monitors near the current fracking operations have secondary (battery operated) monitors for backup, however this data is not displayed on the noise dashboard. | |||
41 | Is that necessary for ventilation to avoid an explosion? Has another sound wall OUTSIDE the perimeter sound wall further south been considered? Would that necessitate the noise monitor being moved closer to the neighborhood? Is it possible that the mitigation measures have actually made the situation worse for residents? Or as I asked earlier, based on the fact that Extraction was fracking at the end of the first zipper group this weekend, would it have been expected to be the loudest part of hydraulic fracturing of the wells? (re: A resident living near the NW A Pad who is being awakened by Extraction fracking operations had questions about mitigation efforts completed by Oct. 29 since the noise exceedances were worse over the past few nights. The Tuesday Oil and Gas Update states that: "Interior sound walls have been installed around the pump trucks and extra bails are stacked near the opening of the perimeter sound wall on the east side." The resident doubts the effectiveness of the interior sound walls and wonders if Staff has a photo that can be shared. The resident can see some new straw bales in place but doubts the bales are doing anything as there is a clear line of vision into the opening of the perimeter sound wall on the east.) | 11/3/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/4/2021 | Apertures in the 32’ sound wall are required for emergency egress and air circulation. The option of adding an additional sound wall south of the haul road (similar to the NW-B Pad) was initially eliminated for consideration because of an existing drainage ditch, however Broomfield is asking Extraction to reconsider this option. Follow-up here will be reported after data from the newly installed sensor (on private property) is collected and analyzed. | ||
42 | Residents living near the NW A pad during fracking are complaining of the loudest noise ever overnight (Nov 3) and into the morning. Three questions: 1) Based on the fact that Extraction is fracking at the end of the first zipper group, would it be expected to be the loudest part of hydraulic fracturing of the wells? Note from Tuesday update: "Operations are currently being conducted on 3 wells in the first zipper group: Northwest A S20-25-7N, Stage 58 of 61 Northwest A S20-25-9N, Stage 54 of 61Northwest A S20-25-10N. Stage 55 of 61 Fracturing operations are currently nearing completion on the three wells in the first zipper group, with operations expected to shift to the second zipper group (also three wells) in the next 48 hours." 2) Was there an exceedance overnight at the Anthem Highlands monitor before 8 am? The Anthem Highlands monitor is at 63 dBA at 8 am but that is past the overnight threshold. (see attached) 3) NW A East and West monitors are still down at 8 am and have been down for 13 hours and 10 hours, respectively. The Anthem Highlands monitor is at 63 dBA at 8 am, not a violation according to the OA/COGCC but certainly a strong possibility that if NW A East and West had been up, it would have been louder at those monitor sites and there might have been a violation of 65 dBA during the day. When are NW A East and West expected to be back up? | 11/3/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/5/2021 | 1 - Staff explored this theory, it’s the conclusion that overall noise levels from the beginning and the end stages of a well or zipper group are likely very similar. The noise sources are the aboveground frac fleet trucks that constantly run pumps and engines.
2 - From 7AM to 8AM on 11/3 the one-hour average Leq was 60.77 dBA. Sound clips from this period corroborate traffic influence. 3 - The NW-A east and west monitors appear to have experienced a cellular connectivity issue, since data from the downtime was backfilled. In a power failure, no data is recorded and cannot be backfilled. Staff continues to work with the consultant on stabilizing the system and collecting evidence of any noise exceedances. | ||
43 | A resident contacted me at 11:23 pm on Nov 2 and said that the noise was excessively loud during hydraulic fracturing at the NW A Pad. She said there were no noise monitors up at that time and asked how CCOB would know what the levels were without any working monitors. https://public.envcloud.com/pes/broomfield2 When I looked at 11:43 pm (see attached), NW A East and West were both down. NW B showed a noise exceedance of 62 dBA. It seems likely that the monitors closest to NW A would show higher readings, so the down monitors missed even higher exceedances than NW B. NW A East has been down for 7 hours from 5 pm - 12:30 am (current). NW A West has been down from 9:30 pm - 12:30 am (current). How can we get better uptime on the monitors at crucial overnight hours? Yes, NW A East and West are down again.At 11:43 pm, NW B showed an exceedance of 62 dBA. See attached.I will file a concern also. It would logically be even louder at the NW A monitors but neither of them are working.It looks very loud at midnight also. Hope it quiets down quickly. | 11/3/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/3/2021 | Broomfield’s consultant has deployed a battery powered secondary monitor at the NW-A west location. This data will not be available on the dashboard, but Broomfield will review this data for exceedances going forward. Operational adjustments have been made to limit the risk of downtime, however the system is reliant on solar energy for power, which is outside of our control. | ||
44 | It is outrageously loud again at Northwest A again and we are unable to sleep and none of the noise monitors near there are up and running so how does ccob know what the levels are? | 11/3/2021 | Resident | 11/3/2021 | Broomfield’s consultant has deployed a battery powered secondary monitor at the NW-A west location. This data will not be available on the dashboard, but Broomfield will review this data for exceedances going forward. | ||
45 | OCTOBER 2021 - Below | ||||||
46 | As residents continue to report being awakened by fracking noise during the night, there is currently no relief in sight from the viewpoint of residents. These are the indications to which residents point that indicate that noise exceedances are not being taken seriously by CCOB: 1) The noise monitors themselves are not functioning, especially during crucial overnight hours when residents are being awakened. Currently, NW A - West and NW A - East have been down since about 7 pm last night (11/1). NW A - West was also down after 7 pm on October 31. United has been offline all weekend. It was previously stated that there is nothing in the DL Adams Contract to guarantee any percentage of uptime but that DL Adams would be working over the weekend to resolve any issues. 2) It was stated in the 10/28 public update that Extraction noise mitigations would be complete by Friday 10/29. However, there continued to be noise exceedances over the weekend, with NW-B measuring 63-65 dBA at 2200 on 10/29/21 and NW-A West measuring 65 dBA at 1920 on 10/30/21. What update(s) can residents be given during the 30 day "cure" period, as indications from a resident viewpoint are that no progress is being made? | 11/2/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/2/2021 | The entire team working on this issue feels for the residents impacted by the noise. The message remains as it was stated before: staff is immediately responding to each and every noise exceedance, as indicated most recently by direct outreach and a new notice to Extraction yesterday - pushing always for full compliance now and not at the expiration of the 30 day cure period. Staff talks daily - multiple times each day - and works diligently to address all issues related to OG operations. However, we cannot promise that a remedy will be made now or within the 30 days. As we discussed and acknowledged previously, O & G operations are noisy. We are working every day to address it. As previously discussed, staff reviews the daily noise measures and the OG team has taken a proactive approach, as they are not dependent on complaints from residents as we have been in the past. Once aware of the intermittency issues with the noise monitors, staff immediately begins working with the consultant to fix these issues, as well as improving the monitoring now that we are in the fracking phase and can see what works best. Unfortunately, equipment fails, and we are working together to provide constant monitoring while acknowledging the limitations of what is in and out of our control. An example of the proactive approach yielding immediate actions was that the United monitor was moved to NW B to provide better coverage during fracking operations. An important note, we make the real time noise data available to the public in the interest of transparency, but the raw data still has to be reviewed and analyzed before we can definitely say it’s an exceedance under the OA. The turnaround for that process is very quickly, typically a day or two. Citations are for violations under the Muni Code, which we are not issuing at this time because we don't have an enforceable noise ordinance due to the Court's ruling on the noise appeal case. We are recording each and every exceedance of the 60 dBA for purposes of enforcing the OA. There is no need to individually "cite" or notice each violation. We can notice it as a group of violations. Keeping an ongoing record is important for any future mediation or court proceeding to establish the basis for the breach claim and showing a failure to cure. Extraction is on notice, from Oct 25, that we believe they exceeded the noise limits. We are in the 30 day "cure" period from that notice. However, as mentioned in my email yesterday - Extraction asserts there wasn't a violation because it did not exceed the limit for a 15 minute duration. I disagree but, at this time and without waiving or losing that argument, staff is focusing its efforts on having Extraction implement additional noise mitigation measures in the field. To that end, staff is out on site again today related to noise and continues to have daily contact with Extraction on this issue. Depending on the results of those discussions, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation measures and we may send additional notices - the level of formality being dependent on the ongoing and daily conversations with Extraction at the executive level and in the field. | ||
47 | What are allowed days and times for this extremely loud phase? Are setbacks in violation? (re: Round the clock loud compressor noise. Pad surround appears to be closer than 500 feet from property line with large openings facing residence to allow constant deliveries of chemicals by large tractor trailers. Sound barrier is ineffective as built and directs the sound to the residence. … Fracking traffic appears closer than 500 feet from lot line.) | 11/1/2021 | Resident | 11/1/2021 | Email response sent to resident on 11/1/21: Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise near the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. All other operational/physical infrastructure (including the access road) is permitted under the OA as well as applicable rules under the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity. | ||
48 | Were all the proposed Extraction noise mitigations in place on Friday before the noise exceedances over the weekend? (re: See attached graphs of: 1) NW-B measuring 63-65 dBA at 2200 on 10/29/21. 2) NW-A West measuring 65 dBA at 1920 on 10/30/21. | 11/1/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/2/2021 | Yes, all expected mitigation measures were in place. Staff is aware and has sent notice to Extraction of recent exceedances. | ||
49 | Did the process work where the night guards notified DL Adams about NW-A West and United monitor outages? Do we have an update as to when those will be back up?
(re: Both NW A - West and United noise monitors are currently down after work was scheduled by DL Adams this weekend. NW A - West has been down since 7 pm on 10/31 and United has been down since 10/30 at about 2 pm. The Anthem Highlands monitor is stable after intermittent lengthy outages during the previous week. (See attached week long graphs for those monitors.) | 11/1/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/2/2021 | Intermittency continues to be diagnosed as lack of solar power and hardware issues, night guards cannot resolve. As of Tuesday Nov 2nd @ 11:30 AM, both NW-A east and west sensors are online. | ||
50 | Can DL Adams put in a battery back up for the Anthem monitor? Why is Anthem down so much more than the other monitors? Also, Anthem is down now and the sun has been shining brightly for 2 hours. The earlier response to my question was, "It was determined that lack of solar energy led the [Anthem] sound meter to lose power (like the AQM sensors, the noise monitors are solar powered), data cannot be backfilled as it was not able to be collected. Should this problem persist, Broomfield will work with the consultant for a solution." Anthem residents are filing noise complaints and we should be able to see the levels that are waking them up. The Anthem noise monitor has continued to be intermittently down. During the most recent 7pm - 7 am 60 dBA hours, the Anthem monitor was down 6 of 12 hours. (see attached) | 10/29/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/29/2021 | DL Adams is working over the weekend to address hardware/software issues and redeploy sensors to collect admissible data from the activity at the NW-A Pad. | ||
51 | Is DL Adams aware of this and do they have a fix for this?
(re: The Anthem Highlands noise monitor is currently down and has been intermittently down for 6 of the last 24 hours, as shown in the attached screenshot of the DL Adams webpage.) | 10/27/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/28/2021 | It was determined that lack of solar energy led the sound meter to lose power (like the AQM sensors, the noise monitors are solar powered), data cannot be backfilled as it was not able to be collected. Should this problem persist, Broomfield will work with the consultant for a solution. | ||
52 | (1) - Are there any procedures or provisions in the DL Adams contract to prevent 10 hour downtime again during the crucial overnight period when residents are being awakened?
(2) - Would the night guard be able to monitor if the noise monitor goes down and alert DL Adams or check out the monitor for any basic problems? (re: As I noted in an online concern form filed at 12:42 am on October 27, the NW A monitor was down overnight. From the day graph (attached), it shows that NWA was down from about 11:45 pm on October 26 to 9:45 am on October 27 … Residents told me it was very loud in that 7 pm - 7 am period and our main monitor near the pad was down for 70% of that period.) | 10/27/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/29/2021 | 1 - There aren’t any contractual provisions to enforce a service level availability uptime, however DL Adams is aware that this lack of uptime is unacceptable to Broomfield and is working to address hardware/software issues to get to a fully-stable system. 2 - The night guards have been given the link to the DL Adams dashboard, staff has requested that they notify DL Adams if they see monitor intermittency. | ||
53 | Northwest A noise monitor is not operational, according to the display on the DL Adams webpage. https://public.envcloud.com/pes/broomfield2. Currently when NWA is selected, the upper left graph says "no data" and the location map shows a gray circle with no value for the NW A monitor. These displays had been operating previously. | 10/27/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/29/2021 | This sensor is being repositioned, it is anticipated to return to service by Monday November 1. | ||
54 | Could Staff post the following on the Noise tab in addition to the Air tab? "Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity." | 10/26/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/26/2021 | Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity. | ||
55 | Regarding the last concern about the y-axis on the upper left graph on the DL Adams webpage, I had NW B dialed in instead of NW B. So the y-axis scale looks good, but the x-axis time is still incorrect, in the 12:44 pm range instead of 11:44 pm. | 10/25/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/26/2021 | DL Adams also cannot replicate the problem being described. Please send oilandgas@broomfield.org a screenshot of the issue that is being described. | ||
56 | First, the attached chart shows that the dBA at 11:44 pm on Oct. 24 is 67 dBA, which is a noise violation from 7 pm - 7 am. Secondly, the axis of the upper left graph on the DL Adams webpage (see attached) is not marked properly with the time or DB scale at 11:44 pm on Oct. 24. This has been a problem on previous evenings at around this particular time but not at all times of the day, which is unusual. In the attached screen shot, the screen bar at the bottom shows it is only 11:44 pm but the x-axis of the upper left graph shows 12:44 am. Also, the units on the y-axis of the upper left graph at this time are incorrect. In the circle to the right, the reading at NW is 67 dBA. However, the y-axis on the graph to the left shows numbers in the range of 40-50s on the y-axis. | 10/24/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/26/2021 | DL Adams also cannot replicate the problem being described. Please send oilandgas@broomfield.org a screenshot of the issue that is being described. | ||
57 | How much is the fact that 3 wells are being simultaneously stimulated contributing to the noise exceedances?
(re: There appear to have been noise exceedances as high as 67 dBA during fracking at NW A that disrupted residents' sleep around midnight over the weekend. In response to my earlier question, Staff replied that, "Three wells are connected in a series and are being stimulated simultaneously.") | 10/24/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/26/2021 | Clarification, three wells are not being fracked simultaneously. Three wellheads are connected via a manifold that controls which well is being fracked (only one is ever actively fracked at any given time). The other wells in the ‘zipper’ are being plugged and perforated in preparation for frac, which prepares the next zone in the series of the wellbore. Frac pumps & engines all run together on one zone at a time. In other words, there’s no noise abatement that would be achieved if only one well was being stimulated (fracked or plugged and perforated) at a time. | ||
58 | Were the night watch guards in place for the first night of fracking at NW A? (re: A nearby resident reports that the resident filed a health complaint at about 1 am due to excessive noise that woke up the resident. Also, the resident reports that the timestamps do not appear to be accurate on the noise monitoring site. The noise monitoring timestamps appear to be one hour earlier than Mountain Time.) | 10/21/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/21/2021 | Answer(s) - The night guards were on duty early the morning of Wednesday the 20th. No incident report was supplied despite a noise concern being filed at 1am. An investigation into the root cause of the issue determined that the on-duty guard missed the notification from Broomfield that a concern had been filed. This is a failure of the purpose of the night guard program and this was communicated to Colorado Security Services in no uncertain terms. They have assured Broomfield the problem will not be repeated. Nevertheless, Broomfield’s noise consultants are reviewing the data from the timeframe to determine if a violation is defensible. The noise dashboard provides real-time sound readings at the top-left part of the screen. The feed at the bottom of the dashboard generally has a lag since sound files have to be updated before they can be displayed. See this graphic. | ||
59 | Please provide information about the 'closed meeting' with City Council on the Extraction noise variance hearing. | 9/30/2021 | Resident inquiries | 9/30/2021 | The noise variance hearing set for tonight has been cancelled. It is not being held in a closed meeting. The applicant, Extraction, requested a postponement of the hearing on its noise variance request as a result of the District Court's order on Extraction's appeal of its municipal court noise convictions. The order was issued Tuesday, September 28, and the District Court ruled that the noise ordinance does not apply to Extraction. Separate and apart from the noise hearing, the City and County Attorney requested an executive session with City Council to discuss the Court's order on the noise appeal. This is a closed executive session for the purpose of having an attorney-client privilege discussion on the Court's order and legal impacts. The noise variance hearing was not converted to a closed meeting. The noise variance hearing - any variance hearing - cannot be held in private. City Council's consideration of any variance request is a quasi-judicial hearing and the deliberations must be in public. | ||
60 | SEPTEMBER 2021 Below | ||||||
61 | (1) Are noise monitors in place collecting readings?
(2) Is the software functioning so that the noise monitoring readings can be viewed by the public? | 9/14/2021 | Jean Lim | 9/14/2021 | 1) The sound consultants intend to take additional readings with handheld monitors to perform spectral analysis (analysis of each octave band) on the drilling, fracking, and coiled tubing phases of the pad development. 2) Yes, five noise monitors (map here) are operational and the data will be accessible in forthcoming public updates and the main Oil & Gas webpage at https://www.broomfield.org/1820/Oil-and-Gas | ||
62 | MARCH 2021 - Below | ||||||
63 | [RESIDENT] has been experiencing some rumbling sounds (she says it's like an earthquake and won't stop) and her address is XXXX W 150th Ct, Broomfield, CO over by the Livingston pad but that pad hasn't been active in quite a while and has completed the fracking stage a while ago and is now in production with the 18 wells. What other reasons could she be experiencing constant rumbling sounds in that area? I haven't heard from any other neighbors in that area but didn't know if staff was receiving reports of rumbling? The rumbling comes and goes. It may last for a few days and stop. From what I understand about fracking, the oil company has to push compressed air into the shafts in order to force the natural gas out. | 3/5/2021 | Resident via Heidi Henkel | 3/8/2021 | With regard to your email below, an oil and gas inspector investigated the 150th court area today to see if he could find the source of the "rumbling". There is no activity on the Livingston Pad today. Also, he did not detect any significant noise at the time of his field inspection. There is however construction equipment not far from the location on Lowell. It is not uncommon for idling heavy equipment diesel engines to produce a low frequency "rumbling" noise. From Public Works: We've had boring crews along 144th Ave working on street lights and signals for quite awhile, but I'm copying [STAFF]. Response from staff: We recently added rip rap (rock) to the ends of the FRICO ditch culvert at 149th Ct. The rock placement at 149th Ct was completed last week (Thursday). The rock will be grouted today beginning at noon. There was no work occurring on Friday and I would assume this morning until the grout arrives. When I was out there, they were placing the boulders with a small/midsize excavator. It could have been the boulder delivery however, that would have been a short duration and would have been earlier in the week. We haven't received any rumbling complaints along Dillon/144th or started any new work items that would cause it. As Katie mentioned, we've been boring fiber and street light conduit along the corridor for months. | ||
64 | JULY 2020 - Below | ||||||
65 | What is causing the steady hum of the equipment that can be heard at 1000 feet from the pad to the south and in some of the Anthem Ranch residences to the north? Is there anything besides the compressors that could be causing this hum? Is the source of this hum different than what is causing the noise impacts felt by some Anthem Highlands and Wildgrass residents further away? What else can be done to eliminate this noise so that residents do not need to listen to it for 30 years? | 7/24/2020 | Jean Lim | 7/24/2020 | Noise from compressors on the Livingston Pad is what is reported as the only pad noise by Broomfield’s inspectors. As you know, Broomfield has requested that Extraction put in place different sound walls around the compressors that our research indicates may have a measurable impact on dBC noise. Extraction has indicated their willingness to do this. The latest response from Extraction today on this issue is: "Our noise consultants are planning to reach out this next week to begin reviewing frequency data. The removal of sound wall equipment should be finalized this next week which will help for discussion of a monitoring plan. This determination will then drive what permanent mitigation strategies around noise are necessary and will be most impactful." Staff is continuing its work on this issue. We have received a noise complaint from only one person in the last few weeks. If you are receiving others, it would be good to know the general locations so that these can be investigated with sound equipment. | ||
66 | MAY 2020 - Below | ||||||
67 | A homeowner reported that the pipe clanging was loud near the United Pad at about 10 pm and said there would be a written and phone report filed. Were the reports filed and did the night guard do a reading? | 5/23/2020 | Jean Lim | 5/24/2020 | The noise complaint on Friday night was received before 10 p.m. so the night staff did not respond to the location. The Broomfield inspector noted the complaint to Extraction staff on Saturday during the site visit. They stated they would be more aware of the noise created by their activities. There were no noise complaints received Saturday night. | ||
68 | Thank you for talking to the COGCC about the possible noise issues in 3 - 5 years and posting the details on the Oil and Gas Dashboard. To summarize their response: yes, there could be additional gas lifts and pump jacks needed by Extraction on the site in 3 years and Extraction is not required to notify COGCC or CCOB when they add them. So we can either wait to have a noisy surprise when the Livingston wall is down and the added equipment starts in a few years or, if Extraction is ever forced to do a noise study, can we have Extraction model that later noise situation also? | 5/15/2020 | Jean Lim | 5/18/2020 | Broomfield discussed the equipment that could be installed at the Extraction sites in 3-5 years with the COGCC. This equipment could consist of either plunger lifts, gas lifts or possibly even pump jacks, and is determined by the operator depending on what is needed to achieve well production. COGCC does not have specific requirements as to what equipment is installed and they do not require advanced notification. A brief description of this equipment based mostly on information from COGCC is provided below. Plunger lifts operate off of the well formation pressures and do not make much noise. Extraction's legacy wells in Broomfield all operate off of plunger lifts and the Broomfield inspectors have noticed very little noise from those. Gas lifts would require the well gas to be compressed at the ground surface and then injected down the wellbore to help lift the production fluids from the well. The gas compression units could generate noise but COGCC indicated this noise could be mitigated. Pump jacks move rods up and down in the wellbore that operate downhole valves. The pump jacks are operated off of motors which would be electric motors on the Extractions sites in Broomfield. These motors could generate some noise but COGCC indicated this noise could be mitigated. The type of equipment that will be used in 3-5 years has not been specified. | ||
69 | I would like to see the documentation from before the OA and CDP were approved where staff or the Task Force evaluated the information provided by Extraction for both the natural gas compression stations, and the produced water compression stations including: • engine specs • orientation of sound generating equipment away from residences • Use of the best technology, in this case quietest systems • Consideration of improved exhaust mufflers and intake silencers • Permanent Sound walls and/or housing structures The real question is, did Extraction provide this information to Broomfield before we signed agreements? In prior discussions with Vibratech, we know that the monitoring at 1000' from the site near roadways may not have been the best strategy. And we have already found that, even during the extremely loud fracking operations, the 65 dBC limit was rarely sustained for over 15 minutes - at least not by the time the inspector was on site. Not to mention that the frack operation noise levels remained below the baseline noise limits which is seemingly impossible, if our baseline was established correctly. I don't think we can solve the noise problem by sending our inspector out to take readings each night. The problem is one of noise entering homes and causing more of a vibrational, low frequency drone. So here is what was presented to me as one possibility... Take Extraction's own marketing and request that they uphold what they've already promoted: Extraction's Above and Beyond Report: https://extractionog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2019-XOG-ESG-Report_March-2020.pdf -- Tankless Facility Designs: Extraction’s Broomfield Development Plan is built around Tankless Facilities that are a stepchange for the oil and gas industry— multi-well production pads that have near-zero emissions: • Because of our air-tight, closed-loop system that captures 99.9 percent of air emissions, Extraction’s facilities are considered some of the most environmentally friendly operations in the state. • Oil, gas and produced water flows directly through Extraction’s own pipelines to Extraction’s Central Gathering Facility and Compression Station in Weld County. • Tankless Facilities eliminate venting, millions of miles of truck traffic, noise, dust and visual impacts. -- If Extraction is marketing that their Broomfield operation's tankless facilities eliminate noise, then lets hold them to that. Even our inspectors have heard the noise. Anyways, I would appreciate feedback on how we can better address these very real noise concerns. Perhaps we could initiate a conversation with a company that specializes in noise mitigation methods, see what they recommend, and then try to get Extraction to implement these noise mitigations that work, rather than their 20' sound wall. Or can we have our inspectors enter the homes of residents when they are able to? | 5/13/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 6/24/2020 | After a exhaustive review of the data and literature, we believe we have identified a source of low-frequency noise that may be causing the public health impacts that are being reported. Strategic Initiatives, Public Health, CCOB's noise contractor (Vibra-Tech) and Legal have prepared a letter to Extraction O&G counsel that they work with us to mitigate the issue under BMP 31 of the Operator Agreement. Reference documents can be seen here: - Noise study and literature review - Public health investigation - Report from Vibra-Tech EXO is planning maintenance on the compressor station in mid-August, which will provide an opportunity to measure before and after noise data at the suspected source. Vibra-Tech and EXO's noise contractors are working on design of an experiment to test this and take data. | ||
70 | Regarding 5/9 question and response: The construction at Anthem Reserve has not conflicted with the operations at Livingston (and certainly not in the middle of the night), nor do I see any documentation for why we added another 3.5 dBA to the averages where 4 dBA was already added. I also don't see why we would do anything in Extraction's favor when our residents have suffered due to elevated noise, but.rather we could begin to look at our noise data from the standpoint that the dBA maximum is 62.5 dBA at Livingston North (and not 66 dBA). | 5/13/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/14/2020 | The dBA thresholds appear to be derived from a document (linked at right) written by Broomfield's noise consultant Vibratech. From the document: L90 and L95 are most commonly used to describe ambient sound levels, while L99 may be used to eliminate infrequent peaks in the data. For this data set, LN 99 = 62 dBA indicates that 99 percent of the 15 minute LEQ values were 62 dBA or less, while 1 percent of the values were greater than 62 dBA. Suggested dBA Threshold Level LN 99 + 4 dBA Liv N=66, Liv S=63, Liv E=69 | ||
71 | a knowledgeable resident told me that it is common practice that Extraction would add noisy lifts to aid flow in 3-5 years. Can someone investigate that? | 5/11/2020 | Jean Lim | 5/14/2020 | Broomfield discussed the equipment that could be installed at the Extraction sites in 3-5 years with the COGCC. This equipment could consist of either plunger lifts, gas lifts or possibly even pump jacks, and is determined by the operator depending on what is needed to achieve well production. COGCC does not have specific requirements as to what equipment is installed and they do not require advanced notification. A brief description of this equipment based mostly on information from COGCC is provided below. Plunger lifts operate off of the well formation pressures and do not make much noise. Extraction's legacy wells in Broomfield all operate off of plunger lifts and the Broomfield inspectors have noticed very little noise from those. Gas lifts would require the well gas to be compressed at the ground surface and then injected down the wellbore to help lift the production fluids from the well. The gas compression units could generate noise but COGCC indicated this noise could be mitigated. Pump jacks move rods up and down in the wellbore that operate downhole valves. The pump jacks are operated off of motors which would be electric motors on the Extractions sites in Broomfield. These motors could generate some noise but COGCC indicated this noise could be mitigated. The type of equipment that will be used in 3-5 years has not been specified. | ||
72 | A resident pointed out to me that the upper noise limit for Livingston A should be 62.5 dBA, and not 66 dBA which was previously noted as the max allowable. This could change the number of actual violations considerably, so this is critical. The ENRG noise study for Livingston North is linked here to the right. 72-Hour dBA Average (Leq): 58.5 dBA Allowable Noise Level: 62.5 Also from the ENRG report: "As shown on Table 1, ENRG and XOG have measured and reported a 72-hour ambient noise level of 58.5 dBA. Therefore, based on the CCOB Operator agreement the permissible allowable of 62.5 dBA will be utilized during operations..." The other two noise monitoring stations may have a similar higher than required limit set. Or am I missing something regarding how we ended up with 66 dBA as the limit, instead of 58.5 dBA + 4 dBA? | 5/9/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/12/2020 | Thank you for bringing this to our attention. In response to your questions, we went back and reviewed correspondence with Extraction's noise consultant, ENRG, and with Broomfield's consultant, Vibra-Tech, to better understand how the noise limits were determined. On June 6, 2019, Broomfield received a letter from ENRG expressing their concern that their ambient noise studies did not account for the noise that would be generated by the Anthem Reserved development that would be going on simultaneously with development at the Livingston Pad. See the June 6th letter to the right in link. In response, Broomfield asked our noise consultant, Vibra-Tech, to take these concerns into consideration for determining the appropriate noise limits at 1000 feet from the sound walls. Consequently, Vibra-Tech installed three monitoring stations at 1000 feet from the sound walls around the Livingston pad and monitored ambient noise levels from 5/25/2019 to 6/16/2019. The evaluation and subsequent recommendations for the noise limits for each of these three monitoring stations is presented in the attached document, and includes the 66 dBA limit for Livingston North. | ||
73 | In reference to Lim 4/28 question - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OM2MyPDskhWSbp2xfu9X4wt13J1Duq80/view - what is line 731? I think this comment is referring to me, but I do not recall referencing a line item. Also, I did not indicate that this would cause structural damage. This is a loud noise that is irritating, and I was under the impression that after fracking,... and then *surprise* coiling and tubing,.. that Anthem residents would finally get relief from the noise. I was shocked to hear the noise continuing in flowback... and then more concerned that we were not aware of all this noise generating equipment they were bringing on site, or that they had planned a permanent sound wall which clearly indicates that Extraction is well aware that they anticipate generating considerable noise. | 5/9/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/9/2020 | The report's reference is to a 4/28 question I asked about the high noise readings at Livingston South when Tami responded to your noise questions by sending noise readings from the sensors (4/27 Original email from you titled "Mitigating Noise On Compressor Stations," Tami's response included: Here is a link to the sound readings spreadsheet with the last two night's data.) My 4/28 question is on Line 16 on the Oil and Gas Dashboard, Noise. Vibratech's response in the report is that the Livingston South noise is not sustained at a high level and there would have to be a controlled study to prove anything at the required distance close to a home. | ||
74 | In that last graph, the dBC levels were approaching 90, so not sure why they picked a reading in the middle of the night that was much lower to state that it wasn't a problem? | 5/6/2020 | Jean Lim | 5/9/2020 | See answer on low-frequency noise above. | ||
75 | Has the City requested the noise study? Certainly Extraction shared with the City the plans to run large engines 24/7 for flowback and production, right? If yes, we must have those specs to have agreed to them. Can we get those engine specs... short term produced water related engines... longterm production related engines? | 5/6/2020 | Guyleen CASTRIOTTA | 5/7/2020 | You are correct that the CDP did include the initial layout drawings of the permanent equipment to be installed for the production facilities at the pads. These plans were reviewed and questions were asked as part of the CDP approval process. While the sales gas compressors were shown on the drawings, the water coolers were not, possibly because either they are not considered permanent equipment and mostly necessary for flowback. Broomfield is currently in the process of trying to obtain additional information for the water coolers and will pass that information along when it becomes available. | ||
76 | 1) What information did Extraction provide to Broomfield regarding production/flowback noise before the OA was signed? Did they provide noise studies, engine specifications, sound mitigation methods, or nothing indicating there would be associated noise?
2) Which staff, Councilmembers, Task Force members, or subcontractor with a background in noise analysis reviewed the provided information for noise? And what was the outcome of their decision? 3) Or did our team at the time have no indication that we should be concerned about noise? Was Broomfield supposed to pull this detail from a site drawing and determine for themselves this would be a problem without any indication from Extraction at the time to be concerned? | 5/6/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 7/7/2020 | Broomfield inspectors have identified the fans on the water coolers as a potential source of the noise that citizens may be hearing from the pads. The cooler fans are manufacured by Ace, and the specifications for a Model A Ace fan can be found at link to right. Broomfield was aware of the use of the sales gas compressors because they were included in the Comprehensive Drilling Plan (CDP). The use of the water coolers, while not specifically called out in the CDP, were added as part of the Next Gen flowback methods being utilied by Extraction at the Broomfield sites to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions. The purpose of the coolers is to cool the flowback water coming out of the wells before it enters the water pipeline which is poly lined. While traditional flowback methods may have eliminated the need for cooling the water, the tradeoff would have been potentially higher emissions, more truck traffic that comes with exhaust emmissions and diesel engine noise, and possibly even a greater potential for spills because of the use and transpost of temporary tanks for traditional flowback methods. (see linked documents >>>>) | ||
77 | Would it be prudent for Broomfield to request a noise study from Extraction since this is a new phase. This should include: Nose study for Flowback with equipment on-site now Noise study for Production once the produced water compressors are removed | 5/5/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/7/2020 | Question 1 - The Comprehensive Drilling Plan (CDP) provides: (1) ambient noise monitoring data and modeling studies for each pad in Sections E and M; (2) a list of expected electrified equipment on the pad in Exhibit C of Section U (page number 1272 of this link); and (3) Bales, and Sound Wall information in Section V (beginning on page number 1286 of this link). The noise modeling presented in Section M focuses on drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations. The list of electrified equipment in Section U does not provide equipment specifications. Also, new ambient noise studies were performed after the CDP was completed and before work on the new well development began. The new ambient reports for the Livingston Pad can be found here. (SEE LINKS TO RIGHT) Question 2 - The ambient noise reports were reviewed by Broomfield staff in combination with Broomfield's noise consultant (Vibra-Tech). This review included an evaluation of the methods, monitored locations, and data collected for the ambient reports. The outcome was the selection and or confirmation of the allowable noise levels for each pad. Question 3 - Broomfield was very concerned about noise at the time and that is why we contracted with Vibra-Tech to help us understand noise and to install monitor stations around the pads to monitor noise levels. Broomfield made their best efforts prior to signing the operator agreement to understand what equipment is responsible for making noise at oil and gas sites. This included all of the effort that went into the Comprehensive Plan update. Consequently, Best Management Practices such as electrified equipment and quiet fracking fleets were incorporated into the operator agreement. | ||
78 | Noise complaint near Zuni and 144th ave. For the last week, excessive and VERY LOUD noise reaching INSIDE my home at night. between midnight and one AM. I am officially complaining about the noise from the well and drilling. This entire area of Broomfield is under perpetual assault from the well noise. Rather than having less noise after 10 PM, the noise ramps up after dark. | 5/5/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/11/2020 | We requested that VibraTech review two concerns that were indicating low frequency vibration and rumbling. The data from these concerns was cross referenced with noise study data from before the Livingston Pad was constructed. From the report: Ambient testing conducted by ENRG on Jan 18-21, 2019 at Livingston North, which is the same location of the Vibra-Tech remote station, over a 72 hour period the dBC noise levels were greater than 65 dBC for 49% of the time before the Livingston Well pad was constructed. During this study, night time (19:00 – 06:59) dBC levels ranged from 54 to 77 dBC. The 72 hour average dBC noise level was 71.1 dBC. Based on this, it appears that there were and still remain many sources of dBC noise in this area prior to well pad development. The main source of dBC noise in this area may be due to traffic noise as the highway is located much closer to the remote sound level meter and the neighborhood to the north compared to the well pad. In addition, in order to potentially cause structural resonance and constant vibration of a structure, the low frequency noise may need to be constant, with an amplitude, frequency, and duration sufficient enough to keep the structure responding over an extended period of time. The dBC readings at 1000 feet do not indicate long term dBC noise at the time of the complaint in question. See Figure 1. Based on this location, it seems daytime dBC noise levels may be related to increased traffic noise during the day. A pattern of decreased dBC levels is apparent during night time hours. | ||
79 | Requesting follow-up per 4/27 question on engine specfication and additional questions - provide specifications for the "temporary" equipment that is being used for the produced water, and when that equipment will be removed. | 5/4/2020 | email from resident | 5/4/2020 | Resolved. Was related to a construction event on 144th back in February and a technical glitch made the email come in as recent even though resident confirms this was resolved in February. The sender stated in a later email to councilmember Henkel that the email had been sent a month ago. The noise had been investigated due to another complaint and was determined to be road construction related. | ||
80 | Will there be two sales gas compressors on each of the 6 pads for a total of twelve gas compressors? | 5/4/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/4/2020 | 1)Unable to acquire specifications from a visual observation. Might need to ask XOG. 2) The equipment will be removed whenever water production declines and it is no longer necessary to cool the water. It is not a function of time.There are currently 2 water coolers on the Livingston site. Eventually one will be removed, and then the second will turn on and off as needed. Until water is minimal there will probably be at least 1. They could eventually remove both or leave 1 on site and use as needed. | ||
81 | The Livingston Site was as loud last night as it was during fracking. 6AM. | 5/4/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/4/2020 | No. Some sites are commingled to utilize one production facility. For example all production equipment for Interchange A and B are located at Interchange A and use the same vessels/scrubbers and compressors. Same thing goes for NW A and B. From the CDP it appears that there will be a total of 8 compressors as following from East to West: Interchange A (2) United (2) Northwest B (2) Livingston (2) Same thing goes for gas compressors as a function of production. Initially large amounts of hydrocarbon are being handled at the production facility. As volume declines it is possible to reduce the amount of compressors being utilized from 2 to 1 speculating 3-5 years here. Unlike the water coolers I would imagine 1 will be permanent, but will still turn on and off as needed to bring gas pressure up to equalize to the line. | ||
82 | What is Broomfield doing to follow-up on noise concerns associated with the Livingston Pad during flowback? | 5/1/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 5/1/2020 | Link to email response | ||
83 | APRIL 2020 - Below | ||||||
84 | The reading at 1:24 overnight at Livingston South when the night staff heard "slight rumbling noise from pad" was 64.07 dBC, which is of course close to the 65 dBC limit in the noise ordinance. Does that warrant more monitoring overnight? | 4/30/2020 | 5/5/2020 | The protocol is: If a noise complaint is received, staff will perform a preliminary review. If the the complaint has validity (after checking noise, geolocation, sound bites & wind data), staff will forward to noise consultant and/or COGCC for further analysis & determination if a vioilation of code or ordinance was broken. If noise consultant determines there is enough evidence that a code or ordinance was broken, staff will forward the complaint to COGCC and/or Broomfield's legal department (as appropriate). | |||
85 | The reading at 1:24 overnight at Livingston South when the night staff heard "slight rumbling noise from pad" was 64.07 dBC, which is of course close to the 65 dBC limit in the noise ordinance. Does that warrant more monitoring overnight? | 4/28/2020 | Jean Lim | 4/28/2020 | Our standard process is to send to Vibratech to review potential actionable recordings,. as they have to be the expert witness. We will do that in this case and take it on to legal if Jon Ferdinand of Vibratech thinks he can testify. We will do that. One thing I would note is that our staff listens to all the recordings, which were linked in the matrix I sent you. There is some traffic in that recording, which typically makes it difficult to defend that oil and gas contributed solely to the elevated decibel level. I was going to ask Laurie if she was measuring dbc or dba on the picture of her meter that she sent, where she was located and what time of day? | ||
86 | Can we check on new reports of low frequency noise that residents at the top of the hill in Anthem Highlands, believe is coming from Livingston. There must be equipment generating significant noise, or they wouldn't be constructing the sound wall. Do you know the specifications (make, model, ratings, etc) for the compressor and other equipment that is running behind the new 20 ft sound wall? Are they using engines powered by pistons or turbines? Are the above ground pipes wrapped with insulating materials? | 4/27/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 4/28/2020 | An extensive low-frequence noise study was commissioned, the final report can be viewed here. The study was unable to establish a connection between noise emanating from the pad and a receptor location in Anthem Highlands neighborhood. Department staff will continue to investigate reports of low-frequency noise and research the issue to better understand the possible connection between the two. | ||
87 | MARCH 2020 - Below | ||||||
88 | Can the compiled air, health (compiled complaints), and sound data from the XOG project be sent to me please? | 3/5/2020 | Heidi Henkel | The aggregate data of health concerns will be sent to Councilmember Henkel. Draft document is being reviewed internally. (On hold) | |||
89 | Will residents who filed complaints and requested noise readings ever be sent those readings? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | Staff will be posting the noise readings weekly. A draft document is being reviewed internally. (on hold) | ||
90 | Is the night guard being dispatched to Adams County? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | If noise complaints are received from adjacent Adams County residents, the night staff will respond. As of March 5th, no noise complaints have been received at night from Adams County. | ||
91 | Can COGCC pursue clear dBC noise exceedances? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | The COGCC stated that they reviewed everything and, with the exception of a couple of spikes which appear to be wind influenced, everything appears to be compliant and they don't see any exceedance of COGCC rules.
| ||
92 | What is the status of Vibratch providing sound bites? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | The link to the Vibra-Tech website was added to the updated Oil and Gas webpage on April 29, 2020. | ||
93 | What is the status of the Vibratech model with correct elevation data? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | Vibratech is rerunning the model with elevation data. | ||
94 | When will the 3 new stationary noise monitors be installed closer to neighborhoods? | 3/4/2020 | Jean Lim | 3/5/2020 | The three stationary noise monitors were installed the first week of March. | ||
95 | CDP Plan for Noise – is this part of the project being executed as described below in the CDP? | 2/24/2020 | Cristen Logan | 2/25/2020 | link to answer | ||
96 | Tami-do we know what was causing the horrific noise all weekend and what is being done to stop it? | 2/24/2020 | Guyleen Castriotta | 2/24/2020 | It is likely the three sets of mill out/tubing equipment that is currently operating on site. The City Attorney has requested that Extraction use one unit for this process instead of 3. We did receive 8 complaints on Friday night and 16 on Saturday night. Our contract inspectors were on site and taking readings at these complaint locations and our consultant is reviewing the data now. Ultimately, the CIty Attorney's Office will make a determination as to whether the evidence is sufficient to pursue noise violations in Court. We have been citing Extraction every night.that their operations continue overnight in violation of Broomfield's Noise Ordinance and the hearing on those citations is March 3rd. | ||
97 | Would it be possible to reinforce the public disturbance noise regulations in Broomfield? | 2/24/2020 | Jamel Benbrik | 2/25/2020 | link to answer | ||
98 | Were there any noise alerts on the noise monitors stationed at 1000 feet from Livingston at any point in the last 30 hours? What were the highest readings at those stations? | 2/23/2020 | Jean Lim | 2/23/2020 | Emailed readings on 2/23 | ||
99 | Is the night guard also out on the weekends, or just Monday through Friday night? Please verify that residents did indeed file "Immediate Concerns" with the City over the past 48 hours. And are they filing them at night when they hear the noise such that our night guard can respond, or are they waiting until morning to file? | 2/23/2020 | Laurie Anderson | 2/23/2020 | The night staff is working seven nights a week. They receive information from the complaint line, either online or by phone. | ||
100 | |||||||
101 | |||||||
102 | |||||||
103 | |||||||
104 | |||||||
105 | |||||||
106 | |||||||
107 | |||||||
108 | |||||||
109 | |||||||
110 | |||||||
111 | |||||||
112 | |||||||
113 | |||||||
114 | |||||||
115 | |||||||
116 | |||||||
117 | |||||||
118 | |||||||
119 | |||||||
120 | |||||||
121 | |||||||
122 | |||||||
123 | |||||||
124 | |||||||
125 | |||||||
126 | |||||||
127 | |||||||
128 | |||||||
129 | |||||||
130 | |||||||
131 | |||||||
132 | |||||||
133 | |||||||
134 | |||||||
135 | |||||||
136 | |||||||
137 | |||||||
138 | |||||||
139 | |||||||
140 | |||||||
141 | |||||||
142 | |||||||
143 | |||||||
144 | |||||||
145 | |||||||
146 | |||||||
147 | |||||||
148 | |||||||
149 | |||||||
150 | |||||||
151 | |||||||
152 | |||||||
153 | |||||||
154 | |||||||
1 | Complete | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | In progress | |||||||||
3 | ||||||||||
4 | ||||||||||
5 | Status | Complete | Question | Date Received (Newest to Oldest) | Submitted by | Date of Response | Answer Staff: If you link to an answer, please confirm the sharing settings are "anyone with the link can view" | Outstanding Issues/Timeline for Answer | Follow up 1 | Follow up 2 |
6 | JUNE 2022 - Below | |||||||||
7 | Are there excessive VOCs from the NW Pads during production or is the NW 2 sensor malfunctioning? (Re: NW 2 AQM sensor triggered on 6/9 and twice on 6/11, triggering the second time at 818 mV. On 6/13 at 10 am, it is 503 mV and should have triggered again. NW 2 sensor was reset on 6/2 due to stoppage from a sharp temperature change, so there is a recent history of malfunctioning. Ajax had indicated on the Dashboard that it was working properly since 6/2 reset. Residents are asking: Are there excessive VOCSs from the NW Pads during production or is the NW 2 sensor malfunctioning? Current NW 2 AQM reading which should have triggered at 503 mV https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1655093162192&to=1655136362192&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO 6/9 13:21 512 mV NW 2 trigger https://trello.com/c/X5sdBefV 6/11 11:58 507 mV NW 2 trigger https://trello.com/c/FR0xQev4 6/11 13:16 818 mV NW 2 trigger https://trello.com/c/BQcT8y5t) | 6/13/22 | Jean Lim | 6/16/22 | Analysis reports for the recent trigger events at the Northwest pads (6/9, 6/11, 6/15) are still pending. Levels of VOC compounds cannot be known until the analyses are complete. When those analyses are finalized by Ajax, Staff will share the reports. Ajax is proactively monitoring the Northwest sensors and performing system maintenance as needed. Staff can report out additional information related to Northwest sensor functionality as it becomes available. | |||||
8 | 1) Northwest 2 sensor made a steady climb up to about 520 mV at about 17:10 on 6/5 from about 100 mV at 9:00, so why didn't the Northwest 2 sensor trigger yesterday?
2) Wildgrass 1 which was manually reset like Northwest 2 last week is still maintaining a high baseline of almost 600 mV. Does Ajax expect 600 mV to continue to be the baseline? 3) Given the volatility, frequent maintenance and replacement of the sensors as documented by Ajax since the Marshall Fire, could Staff please get a list from Ajax of the trigger thresholds for all sensors? (Re: 1) Northwest 2 sensor made a steady climb up to about 520 mV at about 17:10 on 6/5 from about 100 mV at 9:00, so why didn't the Northwest 2 sensor trigger yesterday? Ajax has defined “reliable” as “capable of displaying an increase in sensor signal proportional to the level of VOCs in the air around the sensor system.” 2) Wildgrass 1 which was manually reset like Northwest 2 last week is still maintaining a high baseline of almost 600 mV. Does Ajax expect 600 mV to continue to be the baseline? 3) Given the volatility, frequent maintenance and replacement of the sensors as documented by Ajax since the Marshall Fire, could Staff please get a list from Ajax of the trigger thresholds for all sensors? Northwest 2 steady climb https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1654423412869&to=1654509812869&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_03_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_03&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_03_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO Wildgrass sensor high baseline of almost 600 mV https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1653905122201&to=1654509922201&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_PROSPECTRIDGE_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 6/6/22 | Jean Lim | 6/7/22 | 1) During the manual reset, the trigger threshold for NW-02 was set at 2,000 mV to avoid an invalid sample grab. Once the system stabilized, the threshold should have been reset to the 2-3x baseline of 500 mV, however the field technician failed to do this which resulted in lack of a trigger canister sample being taken during the timeline noted. Ajax recognizes this was a systemic failure and has agreed to increase Broomfield’s canister analysis quota to 84 for 2022 (54 was the contractually agreed upon amount). 2) Wildgrass received PID lamp cleaning maintenance on 6/1. Typically, after cleaning or replacement, the PID signal will be very high, then slowly normalize to expected baseline levels over about 1-2 days. In this case, the signal has not yet normalized to baseline. Next steps in the protocol are to re-clean and re-seat the lamp or replace the entire PID sensor. This troubleshooting and maintenance took place today (June 7) when a new lamp and PID sensor were installed, however both of these fixes failed to return the baseline to normal. The entire system will be replaced with a cold spare the morning of June 8. 3) All trigger thresholds are at 500 mV with the exception of United 2, which is set to 400 mV, as part of the United 2 & 3 co-location test. | |||||
9 | 1) We always have a lot of rapid temperature changes on the Front Range and it is only going to increase. Does Ajax see improvements in the sensor technology to adjust to these temperature changes? 2) Wildgrass 1 has been running around 550 mV for 2 days since reset, a stark contrast to its previous baseline of about 60 mV before it went down for 3 days and was reset. Should we expect the baseline for Wildgrass 1 to continue to be around 550 mv? Northwest 2 has a similar huge increase in baseline after reset. (Re: In response to my question if the cause of of the outage of the Wildgrass 1 AQM sensor being down for about 3 days was known, the response posted was: "Per Ajax: Both systems went offline due to the rapid change in temperature over the weekend, Wildgrass 01 was manually reset and returned to service at 10AM on June 1. As of the time of this response (3PM), Ajax field staff were in the process of manually resetting the Northwest 02 sensor. " Questions: 1) We always have a lot of rapid temperature changes on the Front Range and it is only going to increase. Does Ajax see improvements in the sensor technology to adjust to these temperature changes? 2) Wildgrass 1 has been running around 550 mV for 2 days since reset, a stark contrast to its previous baseline of about 60 mV before it went down for 3 days and was reset. Should we expect the baseline for Wildgrass 1 to continue to be around 550 mv? Northwest 2 has a similar huge increase in baseline after reset. Wildgrass 01 sensor 5/27 to 6/3 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1653658814036&to=1654263614036&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-windroseMetric=NO Northwest 2 sensor 5/27 to 6/3 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1653660235657&to=1654265035657&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 6/3/22 | Jean Lim | 6/6/22 | 1) Per Ajax: We keep an eye on the sensor market, but as of now, the sensors we use from IonScience have done the most to mitigate the humidity/temp impacts on sensors. Some manufacturers (including Apis) are experimenting with system design approaches like heated inlet lines to help manage the sample temperature, but these approaches are too power-hungry to be feasible at the moment. 2) Per Ajax: This is also a situation we are monitoring. If it continues, new PID sensors will be installed. | |||||
10 | MAY 2022 - Below | |||||||||
11 | 1) Both Wildgrass 1 and Northwest 2 AQM sensors have been down for 48 hours, from 5/29 at about 14:30 through 5/31 at 14:30. Is the nature of the problem known and is there an anticipated restoration timeframe for these sensors? | 5/31/22 | Jean Lim | 6/2/22 | Per Ajax: Both systems went offline due to the rapid change in temperature over the weekend, Wildgrass 01 was manually reset and returned to service at 10AM on June 1. As of the time of this response (3PM), Ajax field staff were in the process of manually resetting the Northwest 02 sensor. | |||||
12 | 1) - Does Ajax have a handle on the cause and fixes for the 16 false triggers since the end of January, so that Broomfield can be assured that these sensors are reliable moving forward?
2) - Can Ajax assure us that they have solved each of the cited causes and they will not reoccur: the smoke cause from the Marshall Fire, humidity change, and slow leaking trigger? (re: To track my question that was asked at the May 26 meeting about the AQM sensors to which Staff stated they would respond further: Does Ajax have a handle on the cause and fixes for the 16 false triggers since the end of January, so that Broomfield can be assured that these sensors are reliable moving forward? Can Ajax assure us that they have solved each of the cited causes and they will not reoccur: the smoke cause from the Marshall Fire, humidity change, and slow leaking trigger?) | 5/27/22 | Jean Lim | 6/2/22 | 1) - On 5/23/22, Ajax maintained that the Livingston sensors are currently reliable. We define “reliable” as “capable of displaying an increase in sensor signal proportional to the level of VOCs in the air around the sensor system”. Per Ajax - We continue to troubleshoot all possible scenarios related to wind, temperature, and humidity issues. As any system displays signs of interesting or erratic behavior, we explore possible real-world causes, troubleshoot systems, and attempt to resolve any confirmed issues in a timely manner, so as to maintain our purpose and our Service Level Availability commitments. We are ordering new sensors as we discover issues. On 5/17/22, Ajax provided staff the comprehensive list of site sensors/systems that have been replaced since January 2022 and reported that no systems are currently awaiting full systems replacements.
2) See comprehensive list from answer #1. Ajax cannot provide assurances that sensor damage will not occur relative to acts of God, weather, circumstances outside their control, etc. | |||||
13 | 1) How much longer than the 5 months that have already transpired does Ajax expect that Broomfield will have to wait for reliable Livingston sensors, while possible VOC spikes occur during swabbing operations?
(Re: The 5/17 Extraction Operations Notice stated that, "The swabbing unit has been brought to the Livingston pad." Benzene spikes have been previously recorded during swabbing operations, which the operator uses to stimulate production. The Livingston sensors continue to not be reliable, as shown in Ajax's May 22 List of System and Component Rotations that states, "5/18 Livingston 1 and 2 Awaiting delivery and installation of new electrode stack: Maintenance Test for Baseline Stabilization." How much longer than the 5 months that have already transpired does Ajax expect that Broomfield will have to wait for reliable Livingston sensors, while possible VOC spikes occur during swabbing operations? Ajax May 22 List of System and Component Rotations https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UGvzsOaqCsRE6qHh2AFvNhou3-8za5Yd/view 5/17 Extraction Operations Notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/102bhgHEBbYirO5hJdBaVBZNa7XTUYx7N/viewz) | 5/19/22 | Jean Lim | 5/23/22 | Per Ajax: Ajax maintains that the Livingston sensors are currently reliable. We define “reliable” as “capable of displaying an increase in sensor signal proportional to the level of VOCs in the air around the sensor system”. | |||||
14 | 1) CDPHE Staff had indicated that they might be able to send their AQM equipment during the drilling of 4 wells on Interchange A. In our Ajax/CSU AQM, there was a 5/15 pm trigger at Interchange 02 at 590 mV and Interchange 02 almost triggered at 454.9 mV @ 8:12 p.m., May 10. Has Staff followed up with CDPHE about availability/interest? (Re: CDPHE Staff had indicated that they might be able to send their AQM equipment during the drilling of 4 wells on Interchange A. In our Ajax/CSU AQM, there was a 5/15 pm trigger at Interchange 02 at 590 mV and Interchange 02 almost triggered at 454.9 mV @ 8:12 p.m., May 10. Has Staff followed up with CDPHE about availability/interest? 5/15 11:15 pm Trigger at Interchange 02 at 590 mV https://trello.com/c/bgeZ56jD 5/12 high value of system: Interchange 02 454.9 mV @ 8:12 p.m., May 10 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cx0h4PBJJD0F32ocv4dGUxQCW6KKY7YE/view Last Interchange Pad Status from 5/12 update: Interchange A hydraulic fracturing on 3 wells (2 completed, 3 in process, 5 more to go) Interchange B drilling 3rd well of 4) | 5/16/22 | Jean Lim | 5/18/22 | Staffing issues at CDPHE have prevented a deployment of air quality monitoring resources to Broomfield to date. Program managers at the state have indicated that they intend to attempt a deployment of the MOOSE before drilling is concluded at the Interchange pads; staff remains engaged on this issue. | |||||
15 | 1) Could Staff provide a comprehensive list from Ajax of the site sensors which have been replaced since January or are still awaiting replacement? 2) Could Staff provide a comprehensive list from Ajax of the anemometer firmware updates that have been completed since January or are still awaiting completion? (Re: Could Staff provide a comprehensive list from Ajax of the site sensors which have been replaced since January or are still awaiting replacement? Could Staff provide a comprehensive list from Ajax of the anemometer firmware updates that have been completed since January or are still awaiting completion? I have no idea if I am looking at accurate data on the Ajax Air Monitoring Network or if the system is triggering correctly. Ajax's 5/5 response to my continuing questions since the Marshall Fire about the lack of reliability of the sensors is vague in stating how and when these continuing problems will be resolved. Their 5/5 response was, "Per Ajax: We continue to troubleshoot all possible scenarios related to wind, temperature, and humidity issues. As any system displays signs of interesting or erratic behavior, we explore possible real-world causes, troubleshoot systems, and attempt to resolve any confirmed issues in a timely manner, so as to maintain our purpose and our Service Level Availability commitments. We are ordering new sensors as we discover issues." The 5/10 canister analysis report for the 4/19 United 01 trigger vaguely stated, "It is most likely that this canister triggered as a result of humidity increase on the PID sensor itself. If this pattern continues to persist, a new PID sensor will be installed at United 01." In a 4/29 Dashboard response, Ajax didn't prove a time frame for resolution, "This firmware bug is not affecting all systems in the network. Sensors currently experiencing the firmware bug are: NW 2, United 1, Livingston 1, and Prospect Ridge.") | 5/13/22 | Jean Lim | 5/18/22 | 1) - On 5/17/22, Ajax provided staff the comprehensive list of site sensors/systems that have been replaced since January 2022 and reported that no systems are currently awaiting full systems replacements. 2) - Per Ajax on 5/17/22: Stations awaiting upgrades from service provider to resolve anemometer issues (expected 5/19): Livingston 1 (SN: 1037), Livingston 2 (SN: 1072) Northwest Parkway 2 (SN: 1032) United 1 (SN: 1008), United 3 (SN: 1055) We maintained 93% network-wide uptime during Q1 2022 (as calculated with the TVOC Indicator metric). The three sites with the lowest uptime during Q1 were: Livingston 1 (84%), Livingston 2 (89%), and Anthem 1 (89%). These were the sensor systems most heavily impacted by the Marshall Fire, as they were closest and in direct line with the smoke plume. | |||||
16 | 1) - If the Livingston 02 sensor threshold was set at 500 mV as stated in the 4/26 reply from Ajax, why has it not triggered on 5/2 when it has been much above 500 mV from about 4:30 am MT - current time (12:30 pm MT)? (Re: If the Livingston 02 sensor threshold was set at 500 mV as stated in the 4/26 reply from Ajax, why has it not triggered on 5/2 when it has been much above 500 mV from about 4:30 am MT - current time (12:30 pm MT)? 4/26 Dashboard "4/26/22 - UPDATE for question #5: Staff received the following information Tuesday morning 4/26 from Ajax: LIV 02 - Saturday 4/23 the tech was out in the field changing out Livingston 02 (as it was being heavily influenced by temperature changes). Upon installing the new system, the baseline dropped to normal operations ~ 120 mV and therefore the threshold has been changed back to 500 mV." Data graph from Livingston 02 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1651473299692&to=1651516499693&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 5/2/22 | Jean Lim | 5/5/22 | Per Ajax: We continue to troubleshoot all possible scenarios related to wind, temperature, and humidity issues. As any system displays signs of interesting or erratic behavior, we explore possible real-world causes, troubleshoot systems, and attempt to resolve any confirmed issues in a timely manner, so as to maintain our purpose and our Service Level Availability commitments. We are ordering new sensors as we discover issues. | |||||
17 | 1) - Why does the 5/2 4:17 am United 01 trigger report state that it triggered at 503 mV when the data graph shows that it was about 946 mV at 4:17 am? (Re: Why does the 5/2 4:17 am United 01 trigger report state that it triggered at 503 mV when the data graph shows that it was about 946 mV at 4:17 am? The graph shows these rough data points: starting at 2 am already above 500 mV, 4:17 am at 946 mV, still elevated at 968 mV at 8 am. This joins previous recent triggers at United 01 on 4/10, 4/19 and 4/22 that are waiting for canister analysis. The 4/10 preliminary report states, "With ongoing production and completion activity at the Northwest Parkway pads (southwest of the United 1 station), it is likely that this was the source of the triggered canister." Pad production construction activities are underway at United. Data graph 5/2 past 12 hours United 01 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1651455974896&to=1651499174896&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO United 01 5/2 4:17 am trigger https://trello.com/c/JTmWrcnW United 01 4/10 2:13 am trigger https://trello.com/c/9pmQxg0b) | 5/2/22 | Jean Lim | 5/5/22 | Per Ajax: Early on, Ajax and Broomfield agreed that we would prioritize complete transparency in our monitoring program and share data as real-time as we reasonably could. We discussed the downside of this radical transparency as: 1) we’d occasionally have to correct things and/or apologize for mistakes, and 2) we would all reiterate to stakeholders on the importance of not reading too much into preliminary data or information. The alternative to this approach is to not share any information until we have all of the relevant data and have spent time developing our interpretations. In this case, the stakeholder is asking about a trigger event based on the very first, automated message delivered by the triggering system. There is little to be gained by submitting Support Requests on an Event Report until at least the “Under Review” stage, and Event Reports are not considered to be complete with our best interpretations until they are placed into the “Complete” stage.
Regarding this 5/2 Event Report and the stakeholder question: The automated message includes the 15-second TVOC reading that originally triggered the canister to open. This number is an average of 1-second TVOC measurements performed within the sensor system itself. Our public dashboards present 1-minute TVOC Indicator data. Therefore, we expect some difference between the TVOC Indicator in the 15-second window when the canister was triggered and the 1-minute TVOC Indicator that is referenced in the question. | |||||
18 | APRIL 2022 - Below | |||||||||
19 | 1) - Are all of the Broomfield sensors getting replaced or just the 2 Livingston sensors? 2) - What is the explanation for why it appears that only the Livingston sensors have been malfunctioning for 4 months since the 12/30 Marshall fire? 3) - The Ajax Broomfield Event board indicates that the 4/20 Livingston 2 trigger canister has not been picked up yet. It states, "The Broomfield CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG canister triggered and is ready for pickup." Why has it not been picked up yet? 4) - Ajax replied that the anemometer issues were caused by the lack of Firmware updates and they would deploy the updated firmware when it is tested and generally available. Is all of the wind speed and direction information currently not available/accurate at any of the sensors until the overlooked firmware update? (Re: Ajax's 4/26 reply to my continuing questions about Livingston sensor status indicates that the Livingston sensors are not reliable and they have ordered a new batch of sensors that should arrive by the end of the week. Further questions: 1) Are all of the Broomfield sensors getting replaced or just the 2 Livingston sensors? 2) What is the explanation for why it appears that only the Livingston sensors have been malfunctioning for 4 months since the 12/30 Marshall fire? 3) The Ajax Broomfield Event board indicates that the 4/20 Livingston 2 trigger canister has not been picked up yet. It states, "The Broomfield CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG canister triggered and is ready for pickup." Why has it not been picked up yet? https://trello.com/c/KSyQZWvt 4) Ajax replied that the anemometer issues were caused by the lack of Firmware updates and they would deploy the updated firmware when it is tested and generally available. Is all of the wind speed and direction information currently not available/accurate at any of the sensors until the overlooked firmware update? 4/26 Ajax reply LIV 02 - Saturday 4/23 the tech was out in the field changing out Livingston 02 (as it was being heavily influenced by temperature changes). Upon installing the new system, the baseline dropped to normal operations ~ 120 mV and therefore the threshold has been changed back to 500 mV. LIV 01 - Livingston 01 is operating with slight influences from changes in humidity, although not nearly as drastic as the temperature influence we were seeing at Livingston 02. We have ordered a new batch of PID sensors directly from our supplier so that this can be resolved much quicker than throughout the last few months. Those should hopefully arrive by the end of the week, if not early next week.) | 4/27/22 | Jean Lim | 4/29/22 | 1) - Sensors are repaired, replaced, or left in place as needed in order to fulfill our SLA commitments. 2) - We do not have an explanation for this phenomenon. Please see the Trello Event Card for the Livingston 2 issue history through 2022. 3) - The 4/22 (not 4/20) canister was picked up and replaced on 4/23. 4) - No. Please note that not all sensors run the same version of Firmware. Only those sensors with the firmware version containing the bug present the wind data issues. This firmware bug is not affecting all systems in the network. Sensors currently experiencing the firmware bug are: NW 2, United 1, Livingston 1, and Prospect Ridge. | |||||
20 | 1) - Were there road construction activities that were underway on 4/22 that could be related to the 4/22 Livingston 2 trigger, as inspectors theorized on 4/19? 2) - Is Ajax stating that sensors are likely to malfunction every time there is a drop in humidity? 3) - Is that a likely explanation for the 4/22 trigger, since it was already dry on 4/19? 4) - Is there progress being made by Ajax on the anemometer mechanical issues at multiple sites? 5) - Can Staff have an update from Ajax at the Tuesday April 26 Council monthly report that provides better information showing that the Livingston sensors are reliable. (re: Since the Ajax Livingston 2 sensor was replaced on 4/12 due to its malfunctioning, Livingston 2 has triggered twice above 1000 mV after many hours of elevated emissions on both 4/19 and 4/22. Currently at 2:45 pm on 4/22, Livingston 2 has been elevated above 1000 mV for 3 hours. In the 4/19 Ajax trigger report, it states that, "There are so far two possible theories as the the cause of this triggered canister. Broomfield inspector notes include noted construction activities near the Livingston 2 sensor. It is possible that combustion plume was caught in the wind and crossed the Livingston 2 sensor. It is also possible that this sudden drop in humidity influenced the PID signal and caused a mechanical misfire." The 4/19 Livingston 2 report states, "The anemometer for the Livingston 2 monitoring station at the time of the triggered canister was undergoing mechanical issues that are currently under investigation." Also, the 4/22 7:32 am United 1 trigger report states, "The anemometer for the United 1 monitoring station at the time of the triggered canister was undergoing mechanical issues that are currently under investigation." My questions: 1) Were there road construction activities that were underway on 4/22 that could be related to the 4/22 Livingston 2 trigger, as inspectors theorized on 4/19? 2) Is Ajax stating that sensors are likely to malfunction every time there is a drop in humidity? Is that a likely explanation for the 4/22 trigger, since it was already dry on 4/19? 3) Is there progress being made by Ajax on the anemometer mechanical issues at multiple sites? I am hoping that Staff can have an update from Ajax at the Tuesday April 26 Council monthly report that provides better information showing that the Livingston sensors are reliable. They have not been since the 12/30 Marshall Fire. 4/19/22 12:44 pm Livingston 2 https://trello.com/c/Pikh1Wty/241-4-19-22-1244-pm-livingston-2 4/22 7:32 am United 1 report https://trello.com/c/BlJm51l0/243-4-22-22-732-am-united-1 4/22/22 11:27 am Livingston 2 https://trello.com/c/KSyQZWvt 4/22 Livingston 2 12 hour graph elevated above 1000 mv for 3 hours to current time 2:45 pm https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1650617051736&to=1650660251736&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO 4/19 Livingston 2 12 hour graph https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1650384173924&to=1650470573925&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 4/22/22 | Jean Lim | 4/26/22 | 4/26/22 - UPDATE for question #5: Staff received the following information Tuesday morning 4/26 from Ajax:
LIV 02 - Saturday 4/23 the tech was out in the field changing out Livingston 02 (as it was being heavily influenced by temperature changes). Upon installing the new system, the baseline dropped to normal operations ~ 120 mV and therefore the threshold has been changed back to 500 mV. LIV 01 - Livingston 01 is operating with slight influences from changes in humidity, although not nearly as drastic as the temperature influence we were seeing at Livingston 02. We have ordered a new batch of PID sensors directly from our supplier so that this can be resolved much quicker than throughout the last few months. Those should hopefully arrive by the end of the week, if not early next week. 4/25/22- 1) - According to our inspector, no construction activities were taking place at Livingston prior to the trigger canister event. Inspector noted that the operator was performing a monitoring process of the midstream flow rate with a laptop; the employee was not hooked into the midstream line and there was no potential for venting with his operation. Our inspector also speculated that at some point the Civitas employee would have to disconnect his hose and this may have been the cause for the AQM to pick up a VOC signature since the wind was fluctuating from that direction. After asking a few questions regarding how the equipment was disconnected, the midstream Civitas employee did not have any knowledge of the process that had taken place. Nothing else to report. 2) & 3) - No. We are learning that sensors appear to respond to humidity as the PID sensors age and as the lamp and electrodes in the PID sensor get dirty. We have found that cleaning the lamp and replacing the consumable parts often resolve the issue. 4) - Yes. We have determined that the wind data issues are not related to mechanical issues from the anemometers, but rather are related to a firmware issue introduced with some sensors that were redeployed after cleaning and refurbishment by the manufacturer due to the Marshall Fire impacts. Apis is working on Firmware updates and we will deploy the updated firmware when it is tested and generally available. 5) - Staff reached out to Ajax late afternoon on Friday 4/22 and again on Monday morning 4/25 and await their response. | |||||
21 | (1) - On Ajax Broomfield Events Report webpage, why did a United 1 trigger notification for 4/19 at 3:45 pm not get posted until noon on 4/20 (today)? (2) - Has the canister been replaced? (3) - What was the United 1 threshold set at, since the graph looks like it only peaked at about 163 mV around that time? (Re: On Ajax Broomfield Events Report webpage, why did a United 1 trigger notification for 4/19 at 3:45 pm not get posted until noon on 4/20 (today)? Has the canister been replaced? What was the United 1 threshold set at, since the graph looks like it only peaked at about 163 mV around that time? Delayed posting of United 1 trigger notification 4/19 3:45 pm https://trello.com/c/oajPFgIc Graph of United 1 sensor reading over last 24 hours https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=now-24h&to=now&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 4/20/22 | Jean Lim | 4/21/22 | (1) - Per Ajax: As far as we know, there was likely an issue with the server which resulted in the lack of a trigger announcement to the mailing list. Our IT contact has been informed and is double checking the station’s communication with the server. (2) - Per Ajax: The triggered canister was discovered on the Ajax dashboard this morning and replaced within hours. The United 1 canister was replaced at 12:42 pm on 4/20. (3) - Per Ajax: The canister triggered at the 500 mV triggering threshold, as pictured in the TVOC Indicator graphs on the Trello board. An additional TVOC Indicator graph has been added to the Trello board for further clarification. | |||||
22 | (1) - In the 4/14 Oil and Gas Update released yesterday evening, it states that "Crew and swab unit on-site actively swabbing Livingston S20-25-4N well." Since we have had VOC spikes during swabbing at Livingston previously, did you have a chance to ask Ajax if the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors are operating correctly yet since it has been a problem since 12/31? (Re: In the 4/14 Oil and Gas Update released yesterday evening, it states that "Crew and swab unit on-site actively swabbing Livingston S20-25-4N well." Since we have had VOC spikes during swabbing at Livingston previously, did you have a chance to ask Ajax if the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors are operating correctly yet since it has been a problem since 12/31? 4/14 questions Description of Concern: On 4/12, the Oil and Gas Snapshot stated that "Ajax replaced the Livingston 2 sensor at 4 PM on April 12." In the data graph of TVOC readings for Livingston 1 & 2 listed below for the last 2 days, you can definitely see where Livingston 2 was replaced at that time. This was in line with the "Livingston 1&2 Sensor Investigation" which didn't fully explain the cause of the malfunctioning of those sensors but concluded that "These stations will be pulled from the field and replaced with newly updated ethernet systems from Apis upon their arrival." Questions: 1) Since the Livingston 2 readings varied so greatly from 351 mV to 1141 mV over the last 2 days, does Ajax think this new sensor is operating correctly? If there was an assumption that it was operating correctly, how high was the threshold set to explain why there was no canister triggered at Livingston 2? 2) Is the Livingston 1 sensor still awaiting a replacement? Livingston 1 and over last 2 days from 4/12 to 4/14 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1649787834955&to=1649960634956&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO 4/12 Oil and Gas Snapshot https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zbgLeSuMmlnqkEowJcoQYfo9mgeeb_f4/view Livingston 1&2 Sensor Investigation https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GjXJsUnndlLEK1zKkC0bDW_yTkxMqMZs/view | 4/15/22 | Jean Lim | 4/18/22 | (1) - Per Ajax: Both Livingston sensors appear to be functioning well and delivering signals that we are used to seeing. | |||||
23 | (1) - Since the Livingston 2 readings varied so greatly from 351 mV to 1141 mV over the last 2 days, does Ajax think this new sensor is operating correctly? If there was an assumption that it was operating correctly, how high was the threshold set to explain why there was no canister triggered at Livingston 2? (2) - Is the Livingston 1 sensor still awaiting a replacement? (Re: On 4/12, the Oil and Gas Snapshot stated that "Ajax replaced the Livingston 2 sensor at 4 PM on April 12." In the data graph of TVOC readings for Livingston 1 & 2 listed below for the last 2 days, you can definitely see where Livingston 2 was replaced at that time. This was in line with the "Livingston 1&2 Sensor Investigation" which didn't fully explain the cause of the malfunctioning of those sensors but concluded that "These stations will be pulled from the field and replaced with newly updated ethernet systems from Apis upon their arrival." Questions: 1) Since the Livingston 2 readings varied so greatly from 351 mV to 1141 mV over the last 2 days, does Ajax think this new sensor is operating correctly? If there was an assumption that it was operating correctly, how high was the threshold set to explain why there was no canister triggered at Livingston 2? 2) Is the Livingston 1 sensor still awaiting a replacement? Livingston 1 and over last 2 days from 4/12 to 4/14 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1649787834955&to=1649960634956&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO 4/12 Oil and Gas Snapshot https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zbgLeSuMmlnqkEowJcoQYfo9mgeeb_f4/view Livingston 1&2 Sensor Investigation https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GjXJsUnndlLEK1zKkC0bDW_yTkxMqMZs/view) | 4/14/22 | Jean Lim | 4/15/22 | (1) - Per Ajax: We placed a newly repaired sensor system at Livingston 2 on 4/12 at 4:00 pm. Upon installation, the sensor was exhibiting normal warm-up readings for a refurbished sensor (high, but steadily dropping TVOC Indicator signal). At this time, we are investigating why this newly refurbished sensor did not appear to drop to a normal baseline as expected.
(2) - Per Ajax: Livingston 1 was replaced on 4/2 and appears to be functioning normally. Baseline has been between 80 and 94 mV over the last 7 days, which is expected for a well-functioning sensor in clean air. | |||||
24 | (1) - Are the scientists surprised that VOC plumes from the production facility on NW B traveled about a half mile to trigger the United 1 sensor? (2) - Is Boulder Air North Pecos also missing these VOC plumes due to wind direction? (3) - Can the scientists estimate the actual concentrations closer to the point of origin coming off the NW Pads? Would these concentrations be similar to the plumes captured at NW 2 during production showing benzene exceedances (4 one hour estimates of benzene over 9 ppb with 46 ppb on 2/25, 13 ppb on 1/17, 13 ppb on 2/3, 12 ppb on 3/8)? (4) - About how often is the sand truck still getting filled up and emptied at NW B due to fracking sand still found in the product? (Re: In the last two weeks, preliminary Ajax reports show long duration (8 hour) VOC plumes traveling from the NW pad in the production phase to the United 1 sensor, due to wind patterns out of the SW. Questions: 1) Are the scientists surprised that VOC plumes from the production facility on NW B traveled about a half mile to trigger the United 1 sensor? 2) Is Boulder Air North Pecos also missing these VOC plumes due to wind direction? 3) Can the scientists estimate the actual concentrations closer to the point of origin coming off the NW Pads? Would these concentrations be similar to the plumes captured at NW 2 during production showing benzene exceedances (4 one hour estimates of benzene over 9 ppb with 46 ppb on 2/25, 13 ppb on 1/17, 13 ppb on 2/3, 12 ppb on 3/8)? 4) About how often is the sand truck still getting filled up and emptied at NW B due to fracking sand still found in the product? Staff's earlier theory on the hydrocarbons in the exposed sand in the truck creating the plumes indicated that these plumes should become less frequent over time. 4/10 United 1 trigger at 2 am at 502 mV https://trello.com/c/9pmQxg0b 3/27 United 1 trigger at 6:27 am at 401 mV https://trello.com/c/QXSZDyPt United 1 Sensor over last 7 days compared to sensors at NW https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1649256095151&to=1649860895152&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_03&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_03_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NOr) | 4/13/22 | Jean Lim | 4/15/22 | (1) - Per Ajax: No, during drilling and other activities at the Northwest Pad, we did see TVOC Indicator events show on the United sensors during light to medium winds from the southerly directions. It is not surprising to see a plume travel from Northwest Parkway to United. (2) - Staff has reached out to Boulder Air and will provide an update when additional information is available. (3) - Per Ajax: At this time, we do not have a verified and validated estimating model or algorithm for back-calculating concentrations from the site of the sample toward the presumed source of the emissions. (4) - Inspectors estimate that the sand cans are emptied into the sand tank two times in a 24 hour period. The sand tank is then emptied as needed, generally once every couple of days. | |||||
25 | (1) - Was there swabbing ongoing on Livingston on 2/7 when the elevated TVOCs and benzene were detected at 14:44 pm? (2) - Could Ajax update the 2/7 14:44 pm Ajax event report so it is marked as a real TVOC event? (Re:The Livingston 2 trigger on 2/7 was determined to have "captured a real, slightly elevated, TVOC event," according to the 3/30 "Livingston 1 & 2 Sensor Investigation." It had an i/n pentane ratio indicating a hydrocarbon source and the canister analysis showed elevated TVOCs and benzene, with wind direction showing the Livingston Pad as a possible source. Was there swabbing ongoing on Livingston on 2/7 when the elevated TVOCs and benzene were detected at 14:44 pm? The inspector note on the canister analysis report states that the inspector arrived at 15:40 pm and that Extraction was “demobilizing the swabbing unit.” The context may be lost by now, but it was not possible to ask this question earlier when Ajax continued to respond that all Livingston sensor triggers were under investigation. Also note, the canister analysis states, "At this time, the Boulder AIR station at North Pecos did not show an enhancement of benzene or toluene (levels were below 0.2 ppb for both); however wind patterns at the time would make detection of this event at this site unlikely." Could Ajax update the 2/7 14:44 pm Ajax event report so it is marked as a real TVOC event? It is still marked as not accurate due to sensor malfunction investigation. Livingston 1 & 2 sensor investigation https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GjXJsUnndlLEK1zKkC0bDW_yTkxMqMZs/view 2/7 CCOB Canister Analysis report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MrIH4kuUXcvEpWBKrVmMcM5lw2-B-r0q/view 2/7 14:44 pm Ajax event report incorrectly marked as not accurate due to sensor malfunction https://trello.com/c/0aTYefXH/221-2-7-22-244-pm-livingston-2) | 4/4/22 | Jean Lim | 4/6/22 | (1) - The inspector reported that the swabbing unit was being demobilized at the time of his arrival on 2/7 at 3:40 p.m. Although the swabbing unit was operating earlier that day, it is unknown if those operations were active at the exact time of the trigger.
(2) - Staff reached out to Ajax and received their response: “The quarter 1 reports from all Livingston events now read, “As of 3/29/22, Ajax has determined that the Livingston stations have had higher baselines due to a mechanical malfunction with the Apis sensors themselves. All events from 1/26/22 through 3/20/22 have been part of this investigation. 10 of the 11 collected canisters have TVOC signatures consistent with weekly background activity. 1 of the 11 canisters (2/27 @ 2:44 pm) saw slight elevations in TVOC species.” The 2/7 2:44 pm event at Livingston 2 now reads, “Benzene was measured at 1.23 ppb, with a 1-hour estimate of 1.06 ppb. Light Alkanes were elevated at 282.35 ppb, BTEX at 5.02 ppb, and Heavy VOC's at 8.58 ppb. The TVOC concentration was measured at 210.68 ppb. Out of the 11 triggered canisters throughout Quarter 1 2022 across the Livingston stations, this was the only canister which positively correlated a rise in the PID signal and an elevation in TVOC, unlike the others canisters which collected signatures similar to background activity.” | |||||
26 | MARCH 2022 - Below | |||||||||
27 | This is a followup to my question at the March 29 Council meeting since there is now a statement from Ajax that the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors have been malfunctioning for at least 2, maybe 3 months. In the trigger report posted by Ajax on 3/30 for the 3/12 trigger on Livingston 2, it states, "As of 3/29/22, Ajax has determined that the Livingston stations have had higher baselines due to a mechanical malfunction with the Apis sensors themselves. All events from 1/26/22 through 3/20/22 have been part of this investigation and should be considered invalid trigger samples upon review."
From 2/1 to 3/23, I had asked 10 questions to the Dashboard if these Livingston sensors were malfunctioning and Ajax continually responded that they were investigating. There are approximately 1750 homes within 1 mile of the Livingston pad and 6200 within 2 miles and there are residents who are concerned why so many triggers have been going off at Livingston. | 3/31/22 | Jean Lim | 4/1/22 | Staff is cognizant of the concern around this issue and have addressed this, including discussion about refunds, with Ajax, spending considerable time working on this matter in the last week since we received the root cause analysis. Staff, along with all of our consultants, take these issues seriously, the staff’s activities include working with the consultants to resolve all issues as promptly as possible. Providing milestone updates (not daily updates) as we move through the resolution process oftentimes takes longer than anyone would like, so staff focuses on reporting the milestone events. Now that the root cause has been identified (which was the priority), staff and Ajax have been discussing a reasonable and equitable resolution to the Livingston sensor issues. Staff will be moving forward with adding further cold spares to the Apis sensor inventory as it avoids any future network issues (should a similar problem present itself). | |||||
28 | (1) - Ajax states that the 1/26 - 3/20 trigger events are invalid due to the malfunctioning sensors, but does Ajax know if the sensors themselves have been malfunctioning since the 12/30 Marshall wildfires? (2) - Does Ajax know what caused the Livingston 1 and Livingston 2 sensors to malfunction since at least 1/26? (3) - If Ajax now states that the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors have not been functioning from 1/26 to 3/20, are the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors functioning correctly now? (re:In the trigger report posted by Ajax on 3/30 for the 3/12 trigger on Livingston 2, it states, "As of 3/29/22, Ajax has determined that the Livingston stations have had higher baselines due to a mechanical malfunction with the Apis sensors themselves. All events from 1/26/22 through 3/20/22 have been part of this investigation and should be considered invalid trigger samples upon review." 1) Ajax states that the 1/26 - 3/20 trigger events are invalid due to the malfunctioning sensors, but does Ajax know if the sensors themselves have been malfunctioning since the 12/30 Marshall wildfires? 2) Does Ajax know what caused the Livingston 1 and Livingston 2 sensors to malfunction since at least 1/26? 3) If Ajax now states that the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors have not been functioning from 1/26 to 3/20, are the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors functioning correctly now? Ajax admissions of malfunction of Livingston 1 and 2 sensors in report https://trello.com/c/ovke2UPh) | 3/31/22 | Jean Lim | 4/1/22 | Based on Ajax’s full report of the issue (released 4/1/22), there were two separate problems: one caused by the Marshall Fire (cold spare parts were used to fix this problem on 1/7) and one caused by a hardware failure (ethernet systems, which weren’t isolated as the second problem until late March). New ethernet systems were ordered as soon as the root cause hardware failure was verified and will be installed as soon as they arrive. Staff will update Council and the public on timeline as soon as they are confirmed and shipped by Apis, until then the systems are not fully functional. Update - Ajax confirmed on 4/6/22 that for Livingston, two new systems were installed and both sensors are confirmed as fully functioning and operating normally. | |||||
29 | (1) - Are you agreeing that the IR video and certified technician captured evidence of emissions from Interchange A? (2) - Are you concerned about emissions not captured by our equipment as further evidence for the state to consider when it comes to BMPs? (3) - It seems that there is a tendency on the part of the city and state to deny, minimize, or ignore real emissions given the lack of standards and ability to enforce standards. Am I correct in that perception? (4) - Are you saying it is too much of a burden on inspectors to use IR cameras to capture VOC emissions from these pads other than in LDAR work? (re: Dear staff who answered my questions about IR video that captured VOC emissions at Interchange A: I’m trying to understand what you are saying. It sounds like the technical opinion from Tim Doty gave you further insight on what the video captured. It is difficult to have these discussions through the dashboard and perhaps a meeting with the IR technician would be helpful for inspectors and other staff involved. Let me know if you would like for me to arrange that. I would like for everyone to be on the same page. We all have had learning curves in this very complex process of dealing with horizontal drilling and multi-well pads in our community. Are you agreeing that the IR video and certified technician captured evidence of emissions from Interchange A? I know that the IR camera doesn’t measure emissions like AJAX and Boulder Air equipment does and that a number of factors affect their ability to measure. Are you concerned about emissions not captured by our equipment as further evidence for the state to consider when it comes to BMPs? It seems that there is a tendency on the part of the city and state to deny, minimize, or ignore real emissions given the lack of standards and ability to enforce standards. Am I correct in that perception? If so, we carry too much of a burden to prove that something is harmful, and the evidence that we can gather should matter to local and state personnel. Are you saying it is too much of a burden on inspectors to use IR cameras to capture VOC emissions from these pads other than in LDAR work? These questions are in response to staff dashboard reply to earlier questions, which is: “As mentioned previously, no trigger canisters were activated on 2/20 near the Interchange A pad. Broomfield’s original response did not directly state the video was observing water/steam, but rather heat. Additionally, staff mentioned steam rises in similar shape and plume as a hydrocarbon emission. The original question only included the video, which does not have a temperature scale or the additional information that is now provided. There are multiple sources of heat on the drilling pad including mud and cuttings coming from downhole at higher temperatures. A combustion unit that burns encountered formation gas, and the boiler as mentioned before. Best management practices related to drilling can be seen here. Broomfield staff members are method 9 opacity certified to evaluate emissions into the atmosphere and are considered qualified observers. Staff was not present during the recording of the video, nor have the original video with details and temperature scales to evaluate and make a conclusion. Understand that the staff was only given a youtube video. There are multiple conditions and factors for a trigger to activate including: wind direction, wind speed, Total Volatile Organic Compound (TVOC) concentration, meteorological factors, humidity, etc. Broomfield uses the infrared (IR) camera to detect emissions from wellheads, separators, tanks, combustion devices, and all equipment associated with production facilities. The IR camera is used for leak detection and does not quantify emissions. Broomfield has no authority to regulate emissions sources or air quality. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) issues permits, enforces reporting requirements, and can issue orders of non-compliance (which can lead to citation and other legal actions).” | 3/26/22 | Resident | 4/1/22 | (1) - Staff has mentioned before, but will state again, the IR camera differentiates heat signatures and therefore can detect emissions. There are emissions with drilling, as our AQM program has captured numerous times during operations. (2) - No, the youtube video in question does not suggest any further evidence that we are unaware of or that we have already captured with our AQM program. Additionally, the state has deployed other air monitoring (CAMML & MOOSE) around drilling numerous times. (3) - No one is denying emissions from oil and gas sites in particular at the drilling rig. That is why the AQM program was created. However, Broomfield has no authority to enforce air quality regulations or standards related to operations. (4) It is not a burden on inspectors to use the IR camera to observe emissions. However, to capture emissions the AQM system is the best tool to do so. The camera does not capture or quantify emissions. | |||||
30 | (1) Are our inspectors doing this kind of technical measuring of emissions or just trying to catch leaks with their Infrared cameras (see third party opinion below)? (2) Should our inspectors be given further training on ways to work with their cameras to discern emissions vs. steam? (Original questions: Did our AQM pick up on anything from this pad on 2/20/22? If not, does this mean that it is hard for us to capture all emissions and that AJAX monitors tend to pick up on emissions closer to the ground? (re: A ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographer used a FLIR GF320 camera to video emissions from Interchange A on 2/20/22. I understand that VOCs are seen in plumes that rise from a site while steam/water effects are lower and near the site. Hence, the camera tracks the plumes rising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLxxY_6VrJw Did our AQM pick up on anything from this pad on 2/20/22? If not, does this mean that it is hard for us to capture all emissions and that AJAX monitors tend to pick up on emissions closer to the ground?) Staff response: Broomfield staff have two ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographers and have reviewed the video. The infrared camera only detects heat and not emissions. Steam/water also rises in plumes as seen at power plants. The rig has a boiler room that creates steam as water is heated up to keep equipment warm. No canisters have been triggered since drilling commenced at the Interchange A pad. Third party opinion, Tim Doty, ITC Level III Thermographer and Instructor, TCHD Consulting: The optical gas imaging video was recorded with a FLIR GF320 optical gas imaging camera that is specifically manufactured to detect hydrocarbon gases in the 3.2 - 3.4 micrometer range by using an onboard filter. This technology is used by the EPA to conduct leak detection and repair monitoring that is now considered the best system for emission reduction per federal legislation. The OGI camera can successfully detect hydrocarbon emissions with three conditions: an onboard camera filter that has a spectral range to match the chemical(s) of interest, at least a 3.6-degree Fahrenheit difference between the emission plume and the background, and plume movement. These field conditions existed at the Broomfield, Colorado site on February 20, 2022. Thus, there were no visible emissions including steam, hydrocarbon, and/or particulate matter, to the bare eye as documented on multiple digital photos even though emissions were clearly visible via OGI. The image was recorded from 14:52 - 14:55 in both the Iron and Rainbow High-Contrast (HC) Palettes documenting lofting hydrocarbon emissions from Extraction Oil and Gas - Interchange Pad A, Broomfield, Colorado. The camera was adjusted to the 120 - 50-degree F temperature range and was later adjusted to the 77 - 14-degree F temperature range when recorded in the Rainbow HC. At the beginning of the video, the Iron Palette was used to document emissions that were arising from behind the wall barrier in purple hues, while the emissions were represented by blue hues in the Rainbow HC Palette. Evidence in both of these color palettes document non-heated emissions. In addition to the fact that there was no visible steam as documented by multiple digital photos, the OGI video documents that the emissions could not have been steam as it would be more than 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This temperature would have been above the temperature range of the camera and was not represented in the thermography. Resident concern: Are our inspectors doing this kind of technical measuring of emissions or just trying to catch leaks with their Infrared cameras? Should our inspectors be given further training on ways to work with their cameras to discern emissions vs. steam? I am very interested in measuring what is happening at these pads and want to assure that our data is scientifically sound. Using these cameras can aid in our measurement of emissions, which are not always captured by Ajax and Boulder AIR monitoring) | 3/23/22 | Resident | 3/25/22 | As mentioned previously, no trigger canisters were activated on 2/20 near the Interchange A pad. Broomfield’s original response did not directly state the video was observing water/steam, but rather heat. Additionally, staff mentioned steam rises in similar shape and plume as a hydrocarbon emission. The original question only included the video, which does not have a temperature scale or the additional information that is now provided. There are multiple sources of heat on the drilling pad including mud and cuttings coming from downhole at higher temperatures. A combustion unit that burns encountered formation gas, and the boiler as mentioned before. Best management practices related to drilling can be seen here. Broomfield staff members are method 9 opacity certified to evaluate emissions into the atmosphere and are considered qualified observers. Staff was not present during the recording of the video, nor have the original video with details and temperature scales to evaluate and make a conclusion. Understand that the staff was only given a youtube video. There are multiple conditions and factors for a trigger to activate including: wind direction, wind speed, Total Volatile Organic Compound (TVOC) concentration, meteorological factors, humidity, etc. Broomfield uses the infrared (IR) camera to detect emissions from wellheads, separators, tanks, combustion devices, and all equipment associated with production facilities. The IR camera is used for leak detection and does not quantify emissions. Broomfield has no authority to regulate emissions sources or air quality. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) issues permits, enforces reporting requirements, and can issue orders of non-compliance (which can lead to citation and other legal actions). | |||||
31 | (1) - When Staff meets with Ajax AQM consultants at the weekly meeting or has a chance to otherwise consult with them ahead of the 3/29 meeting, could they please ask Ajax if the 3/20 Livingston 02 trigger at 2000 mV has given them enough information to determine what the trigger should be set at, following 8 other triggers at different levels at Livingston since the Marshall fire smoke impacted sensors? (2) - How much longer than 3 months do they need to "work toward understanding whether the situation at Livingston is sensor-related or ambient air-related? (3) - Could Ajax/CSU please explain how they "have determined that the Livingston site sensor systems are capable of responding to passing VOC plumes? (re: I am hoping to hear further explanations at the 3/29 Monthly Oil and Gas Update. The production phase baseline clearly goes down to a level below 800 mV at times, as shown in the graph linked below.) | 3/23/22 | Jean Lim | 3/30/22 | Councilmember Lim, thank you for your patience while we managed the post-fire response. The questions are now up on the dashboard and they were a topic of discussion at our weekly meeting with Ajax/CSU and Boulder AIR.
Briefly, there still is not definitive evidence to ascertain the cause of the sensor activity at Livingston. Currently the theory is that there is a VOC source in the area that the PID sensors are responsive to but is not analyzed in the suite of 49 VOCs at CSU’s laboratory (since all canister results thus far show near baseline levels of all analytes). This would also indicate that the source is not oil & gas related as the suite of VOCs were selected for their direct and indirect association with subsurface hydrocarbons and combustion of the same. Solvent emissions have also been ruled out. It also does not appear to be a sensor damage/malfunction issue as the sensors in question appear to move in correlation and bulbs/PIDs have been swapped out and/or serviced. Staff will direct the AQM team to further investigate this matter. | |||||
32 | A resident asked me if the incorrect pad was identified in the Extractions Operations Public Notice. From what I can tell, the following paragraph refers to NW B and not NW A: Text as written: "The coiled tubing unit has successfully completed mill out for four the (4) wells on the Northwest A pad. The unit and components are being dismantled and demobilized offsite. No canisters were triggered at nearby air quality monitoring stations throughout mill out operations at the Northwest A pad. A workover rig will be transported to the site on Wednesday 3/23/22 to begin installation of production tubing. Flowback for these four (4) wells is expected to begin in late March or early April." | 3/24/22 | Resident via Jean Lim | 3/24/22 | This was in error, the notice has been corrected. | |||||
33 | What did Extraction/Civatas use to put out the March 12, 2022 fire on the Interchange pad? This is the one where the flames exceeded the 32ft sound walls. Where any PFA chemicals used? | 3/18/22 | Resident | 3/21/22 | Extraction crews shoveled dirt on the fire to smother the flames. Handheld extinguishers were also used. North Metro Fire used a foam to extinguish remains of the fire/embers. NMFD does not use products that contain PFAS or PFOAs. The product that was applied is called Microblaze-Out, the product is biodegradable, non-toxic, and the safety data sheet can be viewed here. | |||||
34 | (1) - QUESTION: when Denver is having poor air quality days what are the requirements for what work/processes they are allowed to work on per the OA/MOU/BMPs? (2) - QUESTIONS: can a diesel engine producing this amount of black smoke and particulates be operated on a Denver bad air day? If March 16 was not a bad air day what other days was this engine run and were these bad air days? How quickly does a filter become this clogged so that such an alarming amount of smoke is released into the air? (re: I saw the large black cloud coming from the NW B pad on March 16, 2022. The size of the cloud indicated there was yet another fire but CCOB is saying it was a diesel engine. No one that saw the cloud or the video believes this was anything but a fire.) | 3/18/22 | Resident | 3/22/22 | The Operator is required to take measures to reduce emissions during ozone action days (see below), however March 16th was not an ozone action day and the equipment that caused the visible smoke is not considered “ancillary”. The pump used for coiled tubing was in operation from 3/10/22 - 3/21/22. Filters are replaced as needed and emissions can also be dependent on the quality of fuel. From the Operator Agreement: The Operator shall respond to air quality Action Day advisories posted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the Front Range Area by implementing their suggested air emission reduction measures as feasible. Emission reduction measures shall be implemented for the duration of an air quality Action Day advisory and may include measures such as: Minimize vehicle and engine idling; Reduce truck traffic and worker traffic; Delay vehicle refueling; Suspend or delay use of fossil fuel powered ancillary equipment; and Postpone construction activities, if feasible. | |||||
35 | (1) - Can CCOB Please provide the full story as to the root cause of the black plume. Please confirm the following: Apparently a fuel filter on a pump truck was plugged/dirty -- that is the real cause of the black plume when the diesel engine was started.
(2) - Was it only that one pump truck shut down was other equipment shut down/taken offline while the fuel filter was being replaced in that pump truck. (3) - What protocols are in place to ensure that all equipment being used at these sites is properly maintained/inspected? (4) - Is there a need for more frequent maintenance given the upset event at Interchange, the valve separator failure earlier this year, and now this event? (On 3/16 residents observed a massive black plume from Northwest B pad. The update on the CCOB O&G page and in the dashboard states that what we observed was "a diesel engine startup, not a fire, and also confirmed no hazards at the site.” A normal diesel engine startup should NOT produce the amount of dark black smoke that was seen at NW B. QUESTION: Can CCOB Please provide the full story as to the root cause of the black plume. Please confirm the following: Apparently a fuel filter on a pump truck was plugged/dirty -- that is the real cause of the black plume when the diesel engine was started. Again, that black plume is not and should not be a normal occurrence for a diesel engine startup. The Operator shut down the pump truck and replaced the fuel filter. QUESTION: Was it only that one pump truck shut down was other equipment shut down/taken offline while the fuel filter was being replaced in that pump truck. QUESTION: What protocols are in place to ensure that all equipment being used at these sites is properly maintained/inspected? Is there a need for more frequent maintenance given the upset event at Interchange, the valve separator failure earlier this year, and now this event?) | 3/17/22 | Resident | 3/17/22 | There is a tradeoff between timeliness and the full picture when it comes to sharing of information. Since you (understandably) were alarmed after the fire on Saturday, I made the judgment call to let you know that the incident was not an emergency or fire. I immediately gave you information as it was relayed to me by the Broomfield Police Department, who were onsite. I did dispatch my inspectors to perform follow up on the site and we made some recommendations to the field crews that should reduce visual emissions like the one you saw. We will not be notifying the public every time an engine is started or diesel emissions are seen. We also cannot report out every detail of our day to day operations. We will continue to rely on our first responders in case of emergency, Broomfield Oil & Gas staff will continue to enforce the Operator Agreement, and we will message out information with respect to incidents like this Saturday. | |||||
36 | I noticed a massive black plume at Northwest B afrom 12:15 today ... can staff investigate? | 3/16/22 | Resident | 3/16/22 | Broomfield Police responded to the pad after several Adams County residents called 911, confirmation from them and CCOB inspectors was that the visual you saw was from a diesel engine startup. No fire, no hazard. | |||||
37 | (1) - Was the swabbing unit operating yesterday afternoon (3/15) when Livingston 1 triggered?
(2) - Are the inspectors aware that there have been previous triggers during swabbing? (3) - Should the Livingston 1 trigger be set at 1000 mV when the baseline is about 250 mV? (4) - Isn't a baseline a minimum used for comparisons? (re: On March 15 at 3:54 pm, Livingston 1 triggered at 1004 mV during the Livingston production phase. Questions: 1) The swabbing unit was on the Livingston pad yesterday afternoon (3/15), as confirmed by the 3/15 Extractions Operations Update and my sighting of it. The inspector's notes on the 3/15 Trigger Canister Notice state that there was "No activity at the Livingston pad" and the "Inspectors were on site from 3-3:30 with an infrared camera as part of routine quarterly inspections." Was the swabbing unit operating yesterday afternoon (3/15) when Livingston 1 triggered? Are the inspectors aware that there have been previous triggers during swabbing? 2) Should the Livingston 1 trigger be set at 1000 mV when the baseline is about 250 mV? Isn't a baseline a minimum used for comparisons? I provided a link on 3/12 to show that the Livingston 1 baseline was about 250 mV and I am providing another one for the last 7 days and 30 days for Livingston 1. The baseline appears to be about 250 mV, not 800mV to 1200 mV for Livingston 1 as stated in the 3/15 reply, not unless there is a different definition of a baseline. 3/9-3/16 Livingston 1 last 7 days https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1646848519273&to=1647449719273&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-windroseMetric=NO Previous 30 days to 3/16 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644861831120&to=1647450231120&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-windroseMetric=NO Extractions Operations update: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oRMPoSP-rZ8xAVMuy0AAMUg7TtPPyMJU/view Trigger Canister Notice 3/15 15:54 pm Livingston 01 TVOC 1004 mV https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QUncoknirwUNwc2S-5BfjGAYQoUZka1N/view) | 3/16/22 | Jean Lim | 3/16/22 | (1) - Inspectors indicated that swabbing operations were not taking place during the trigger. The unit was brought to the site, but there were no personnel operating equipment or onsite during the trigger. (2) - Inspectors and staff are aware that there have been triggers during swabbing. However, this event was not a direct result of swabbing operations for the reason mentioned above. (3) & (4) - From Ajax: We understand the Livingston sites continue to exhibit interesting TVOC Indicator readings. Ajax is working to determine whether these readings are sensor-related baseline shifts, or if they may be related to VOCs in the area. During this process, Broomfield can expect baseline changes and other oddities as we change or test systems as part of our investigation. We have determined that the Livingston site sensor systems are capable of responding to passing VOC plumes, therefore we consider the systems fully functional. We will set trigger thresholds as necessary to capture plumes above and beyond the ambient baseline mV readings of a given system. Typically, thresholds are set about 3 standard deviations above baseline. We will continue our work toward understanding whether the situation at Livingston is sensor-related or ambient air-related. So far, none of the latest Livingston canister samples indicate that there are concerning levels of VOCs at the site. We will keep Broomfield apprised of any relevant findings as we explore the Livingston phenomenon. Until we know more, future questions are likely to receive this same response. | |||||
38 | There was a fire/smoke at Northwest A pad in November 2021. There was another fire/smoke at Northwest B pad in January 2022. Then there was another fire/smoke at Interchange A pad this month, March 2022. That's one incident every other month. Is this typical for well pad operations? | 3/16/22 | Resident | 3/17/22 | Fires are not typical of well pad operation; however these fires are accidents, or incidents, and are unable to be predicted. COGCC and the operator to implement more safety factors to ensure these incidents do not occur again. The forthcoming after action report will identify corrective measures to minimize risk of a similar incident. | |||||
39 | Did our AQM pick up on anything from this pad on 2/20/22? If not, does this mean that it is hard for us to capture all emissions and that AJAX monitors tend to pick up on emissions closer to the ground? (re: Did our AQM pick up on anything from this pad on 2/20/22? If not, does this mean that it is hard for us to capture all emissions and that AJAX monitors tend to pick up on emissions closer to the ground? (re: A ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographer used a FLIR GF320 camera to video emissions from Interchange A on 2/20/22. I understand that VOCs are seen in plumes that rise from a site while steam/water effects are lower and near the site. Hence, the camera tracks the plumes rising. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLxxY_6VrJw Did our AQM pick up on anything from this pad on 2/20/22? If not, does this mean that it is hard for us to capture all emissions and that AJAX monitors tend to pick up on emissions closer to the ground?) | 3/15/22 | Resident | 3/16/22 | Broomfield staff have two ITC certified optical gas imaging thermographers and have reviewed the video. The infrared camera only detects heat and not emissions. Steam/water also rises in plumes as seen at power plants. The rig has a boiler room that creates steam as water is heated up to keep equipment warm. No canisters have been triggered since drilling commenced at the Interchange A pad. | |||||
40 | (1) - The fire at the Interchange pads - since the consensus appears to be that there was no risk to anyone I would like to know if this is a commonplace event that occurs in very rural areas on fracking pads?
(2) - if the air monitors triggered any chemicals that my family should be concerned about (3) - What's with the black plastic lined holding ponds located just north east of Huron and 160th? (4) - I would like to know if the air is being monitored there and what type of checking is occurring with respect to casualties of wildlife entering the ponds. Is someone tracking this? (re: Three questions: 1. The fire at the Interchange pads - since the consensus appears to be that there was no risk to anyone I would like to know if this is a commonplace event that occurs in very rural areas on fracking pads? Also, if the air monitors triggered any chemicals that my family should be concerned about. 2. What's with the black plastic lined holding ponds located just north east of Huron and 160th? I thought there would not be any ponds. I would like to know if the air is being monitored there and what type of checking is occurring with respect to casualties of wildlife entering the ponds. Is someone tracking this? 3. This site needs to add a tab specific to fires as this appears to be a common and reoccurring event.) | 3/13/22 | Resident | 3/14/22 | (1) - NMFD determined that there was no immediate risk to people due to the fire. There was no consensus, just a direct report to the public that the fire had been contained. At this time it is unknown if this is a ‘commonplace’ type accident. Extraction is performing a root cause analysis and after action report that may provide more context into the nature of the event. (2) - The air quality monitoring system did not measure any elevated levels of chemicals during this event. Similar to the January 14th event on the Northwest pad, this event was characterized by a heated, vertical plume that traveled north and east due to wind patterns at the time. The air quality team has been asked to provide additional analysis, if possible. (3) - Per the Operator Agreement, Extraction cannot truck water into the pad sites. Extraction has a lease on the Webber property (noted in the query) for water storage: the Webber Modular Large Volume Tank (MLVT). The pads are serviced by a 'lay flat' line from the Webber location as approved by Resolution 2013-22. (4) - The tanks hold fresh water, produced water (from hydraulic fracturing) is transported offsite via pipeline and is not exposed to the environment. See environmental clearance. | |||||
41 | Can Boulder Air please do an analysis of the plume caused by the March 12 Interchange A fire?
(re: There is no indication yet on the Broomfield Event Reports that any Ajax/CSU AQM sensor triggers occurred to prompt triggered canister analysis, but that can be dependent on wind direction and trigger location. There was a Livingston 2 trigger at 1504 mV yesterday morning. With the Jan. 14 fire at NW B, Boulder Air provided an analysis that unfortunately showed that the plume missed their North Pecos equipment due to wind direction, but hopefully the wind direction was better for capturing the plume this time. A nearby resident to Interchange A is reporting eye irritation and diesel fumes still this morning. Jan 14 fire AQM Boulder Air analysis https://drive.google.com/.../1tyYhBl17G3GDlUOEcBPMFM.../view Trigger Livingston 2 March 12 9:26 am https://trello.com/c/ovke2UPh Photo of fire attached.) | 3/13/22 | Jean Lim | 3/16/22 | Update - Boulder AIR has provided an analysis of the event, available here. In brief, the plume bypassed the AQM network. 3/14/22 - (INTERIM) Boulder AIR has been asked for an analysis of the event, any findings will be posted here. | |||||
42 | (1) - have they increased the amount of equipment used for that or changed the type of equipment ? (2) - Is there something used for cleanup at the interchange pad that had the significant fire Saturday that could be causing this irritating odor? Or some from United? (3) - Or some from United? (re: Heavy diesel odor We often see a lot of diesel emissions from the Northwest pad during coil tubing, have they increased the amount of equipment used for that or changed the type of equipment ? Is there something used for cleanup at the interchange pad that had the significant fire Saturday that could be causing this irritating odor? Or some from United? I took an air sample) | 3/13/22 | Resident | 3/16/22 | Broomfield discussed potential odor sources following the 3/13 event.
(1) - The coiled tubing contractor (KLX Energy Services) and equipment is the same as previously used before. (2) - The dirt was removed from the site and taken to a proper disposal facility after the fire was extinguished. (3) - The fleet at United is slightly different than previously used. Fracturing operations at NW A were conducted with the use of tier 4 engines that used only diesel as a fuel source. The fracturing fleet at United is tier 4 and uses natural gas supplementally with diesel. This fleet should have lower emissions with the use of natural gas. | |||||
43 | 1) Were any inspectors in the area to observe anything at Livingston to cause that significant increase in TVOCs? 2) What is the baseline of Livingston 1 set at? (re: Livingston 2 triggered on 3/12 at 9:26 am at 1504 mV. It climbed steadily since about 4:30 am from about 630 mV, actually plateauing at about 1700 mV from noon until now (1 pm). 1) Were any inspectors in the area to observe anything at Livingston to cause that significant increase in TVOCs? 2) What is the baseline of Livingston 1 set at? Today it climbed from 300mV to about 800 mV in the same time frame as Livingston 2 but Livingston 1 didn't trigger. In a 2/27 preliminary report, Livingston 1 triggered at 500 mV. There has been no reply to my 3/7 question that noted that the baseline of Livingston 1 now seemed to be about 250 mV and asking about the Livingston 1 trigger threshold. I have been asking questions about the functionality of Livingston 1 and 2 ever since they were not working correctly due to smoke from the Marshall Wildfire on Dec. 30. Livingston 1 trigger 3/12 https://trello.com/c/ovke2UPh Livingston 1, 2, Anthem Ranch and Wildgrass over past 12 hours https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1647071192504&to=1647114392505&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO Livingston 1 trigger preliminary report 2/27 https://trello.com/c/yllvJGFJ) | 3/12/22 | Jean Lim | 3/15/22 | The on-duty inspector reported “no activity” all weekend at the Livingston Pad.
From Ajax: As of now, we believe that these systems are operating normally, just with an elevated baseline voltage output (800mV - 1,200 mV). We do not believe that there is a steady emission source near Livingston, though canister results will help to confirm this. | |||||
44 | We need a definition and some parameters on what a small fire is. When we see flames exceeding the height of the sound walls which are 32 feet tall we don't think this is small. | 3/12/22 | Resident | 3/14/22 | The size and scope of the fire was determined by professional firefighters, a transcript of the incident response can be seen here. | |||||
45 | How did you determine that the fire at interchange was “small “? I saw a video of the flames that is not a small fire. Question: can you Please add a category for fire to your list of concerns since this seems to have become a frequent event with these pads. From your website: NMFD: Small Fire Extinguished at Oil and Gas Pad Near Huron and 156th | 3/12/22 | Resident | 3/14/22 | The size and scope of the fire was determined by professional firefighters, a transcript of the incident response can be seen here. | |||||
46 | (1) - Do we have any insight into this recurring pattern of high VOC spikes involving benzene exceedances from the NW A Pad in production?
(2) - Is there an atmospheric explanation, although the times have varied within the similarity of being outside the inspection window? (3) - Is it possible that operations can be controlled so that the ECD is only used in non-inspection hours? (re: From 1/17- today (3/8), there have been a series of 6 triggers due to short duration VOC spikes from the NW A pad in production, where flowback started on 1/8. The only published reports so far are the first two which each show 1 hour benzene exceedances over 13 ppb (9 ppb acute MRL, ATSDR 2007). Coincidentally or not, these triggers have all occurred outside the inspection window. Do we have any insight into this recurring pattern of high VOC spikes involving benzene exceedances from the NW A Pad in production? Is there an atmospheric explanation, although the times have varied within the similarity of being outside the inspection window? Is it possible that operations can be controlled so that the ECD is only used in non-inspection hours? List of triggers attributed to NW A Pad from 1/17 to current 3/8: 1/17 NW 2 21:51, one hour estimated benzene exceedance 13.11 ppb https://drive.google.com/file/d/17wjxDTnQpYbjbIE8WniiS10RAgXu1K_U/view 2/3 NW 2 18:35, one hour estimated benzene exceedance 13.05 ppb https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R5Dhu0J5z148IDjG6HI8JSHFFg1Ks2F2/view 2/18 NW 2 1:29, official report pending, one minute benzene 31.263 ppb, 1-hour estimate of 5.36 ppb https://trello.com/c/VQMsSVXm 2/25 NW 2 0:12 https://trello.com/c/SdB2tOUu 3/4 NW 2 0:35 https://trello.com/c/xv88YupS 3/8 NW 2 4:40 https://trello.com/c/NgnFJuX9) | 3/8/22 | Jean Lim | 3/8/2022 | (1) - Staff have some theories on what could be causing some of these air canister triggers. Inspection staff will investigate further before making any assumptions.
(2) - Unknown, however staff will follow up with the AQM team to discuss possibilities. (3) - The wind direction during these events are from the west and therefore it is unlikely that the ECD is responsible for these AQM events. Further, the ECD is activated automatically so it is unlikely that activation would be delayed to non-inspection hours. | |||||
47 | (1) - Revised question: Since the baseline of Livingston 1 has been about 250 mV for the past 2 days, will Ajax lower the Livingston 1 trigger from 1000 mV?
(2) - What caused Livingston 1 to suddenly have a much lower baseline? (re: Correction to previous question submitted earlier today. It is Livingston 1 which now seems to have a 250 mV baseline. Revised question: Since the baseline of Livingston 1 has been about 250 mV for the past 2 days, will Ajax lower the Livingston 1 trigger from 1000 mV? What caused Livingston 1 to suddenly have a much lower baseline? Response to my 3/3 question on 3/4: "Upon results of canister analysis from 3/2, it has been determined that the Livingston 1 should have an increased threshold of at least 1000 mV for the time being. The results from the canister triggered on 2/19 at a triggering threshold of 500 mV were insignificant, reflecting a composition well below average background activity, see below. This gives us confidence that the new higher baselines from which these stations are operating are not indicative of elevated concentrations in TVOC near the Livingston pad." Sensors readings 2 days https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1646501842910&to=1646674642910&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 3/7/22 | Jean Lim | 3/15/2022 |
From Ajax: We understand the Livingston sites continue to exhibit interesting TVOC Indicator readings. Ajax is working to determine whether these readings are sensor-related baseline shifts, or if they may be related to VOCs in the area. During this process, Broomfield can expect baseline changes and other oddities as we change or test systems as part of our investigation. We have determined that the Livingston site sensor systems are capable of responding to passing VOC plumes, therefore we consider the systems fully functional. We will set trigger thresholds as necessary to capture plumes above and beyond the ambient baseline mV readings of a given system. Typically, thresholds are set about 3 standard deviations above baseline. | |||||
48 | will Ajax lower the Livingston 2 trigger from 1500 mV? What caused Livingston 2 to suddenly have a much lower baseline?
(re: Since the baseline of Livingston 2 has been about 250 mV for the past 2 days, will Ajax lower the Livingston 2 trigger from 1500 mV? What caused Livingston 2 to suddenly have a much lower baseline? Response to my 3/3 question on 3/4: "Livingston 2 has been set at a triggering threshold of 2000 mV, so as to not trigger canisters at this site (unless of a dominant and significant TVOC presence) until we could determine the correct triggering threshold for Livingston 1. After receiving the composition of the 2/19 canister at Livingston 1 and analyzing the relationship between the 2 PID signals, the Livingston 2 threshold has been set to 1500 mV for the time being. The threshold of both stations may be increased again if another triggered canister results in compositions near weekly average backgrounds." Sensors readings 2 days https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1646501842910&to=1646674642910&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 3/7/22 | Jean Lim | 3/15/2022 | From Ajax: We understand the Livingston sites continue to exhibit interesting TVOC Indicator readings. Ajax is working to determine whether these readings are sensor-related baseline shifts, or if they may be related to VOCs in the area. During this process, Broomfield can expect baseline changes and other oddities as we change or test systems as part of our investigation.
We have determined that the Livingston site sensor systems are capable of responding to passing VOC plumes, therefore we consider the systems fully functional. We will set trigger thresholds as necessary to capture plumes above and beyond the ambient baseline mV readings of a given system. Typically, thresholds are set about 3 standard deviations above baseline. We will continue our work toward understanding whether the situation at Livingston is sensor-related or ambient air-related. So far, none of the latest Livingston canister samples indicate that there are concerning levels of VOCs at the site. We will keep Broomfield apprised of any relevant findings as we explore the Livingston phenomenon. Until we know more, future questions are likely to receive this same response | |||||
49 | Date Rec'd 3/3/22 - Are Livingston 1 and 2 AQM sensors functioning correctly and set at the correct thresholds to capture a sudden large emissions plume as occurred on Dec. 4 at the beginning of mill out at NW A? (re: The 3/3 Extraction Operations Public Notice stated that coiled tubing is about to begin milling out the plugs at NW B. At the beginning of these operations on NW A, the yet unexplained largest one hour calculated benzene spike of 224 ppb occurred on Dec. 4. Despite inquiries from several sources, Extraction did not discover "a specific point of failure that may have caused the event" but "prior to pressure testing or opening of a well, additional inspection of connection gaskets will occur in addition to visual inspections of surface equipment." (see 2/17 Dashboard Air/Odor response) Since the Dec. 4 unexplained huge emissions plume during millout caused 4 triggers in the area, my 3/2 unanswered questions about the functionality of Livingston 1 and 2 AQM sensors now are more in focus. Are Livingston 1 and 2 AQM sensors functioning correctly and set at the correct thresholds to capture a sudden large emissions plume as occurred on Dec. 4 at the beginning of mill out at NW A? 3/3 Extraction Operations Public Notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hV5blo0Y-NCcobG466wtElfLsbpjifPW/view Dec 4 highest benzene report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1deXXP0YfDG1ZvNLoonS74OYbSw8f_VR9/view) Date Rec'd 3/2/22 - (1) - Ajax says they are "both operating correctly in sync." Then why did they both start out about the same level at 4 am but Livingston 2's incremental rise was much significantly larger by about 500 mV? (2) - Ajax's response was "We did not see a canister trigger at Livingston 2 because the station is currently set to a higher triggering threshold." Why did Livingston 2 not trigger when it reached almost 1500 mV, rising almost 1000 mV since 4 am? What trigger is it currently set at? (3) - Now, my concern is that there may be plumes missed from Livingston since the sensors are not operating correctly, so is Ajax/CSU willing to err on the side of caution with triggering until the problems with the sensors get figured out? (re: A resident wrote to me about the PID sensor threshold questions published by Erie. It is related to the concern that I continue to have about the functionality of the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors. https://cvcpl.us/2hY5RCY. In the graph that Ajax provided in response to my 2/27 question about the functionality of Livingston 1 and 2, it clearly shows that Livingston 1 and 2 were both close to 500 mV at 4 am on 2/27, yet Livingston 2 rose to about 1500 mV at 12:00 pm and Livingston 1 rose to only around 1000 mV. Livingston 1 triggered at 500 mV but Livingston 2 did not trigger. Ajax says it is because it is set at a higher trigger. 1) Ajax says they are "both operating correctly in sync." Then why did they both start out about the same level at 4 am but Livingston 2's incremental rise was much significantly larger by about 500 mV? 2) Ajax's response was "We did not see a canister trigger at Livingston 2 because the station is currently set to a higher triggering threshold." Why did Livingston 2 not trigger when it reached almost 1500 mV, rising almost 1000 mV since 4 am? What trigger is it currently set at? 3) Ajax's response was that "the results from the Livingston 1 trigger (which fired during the plume on 2/27 at 10:15 am) will help us determine an effective triggering threshold for Livingston 2....we do not want to exceed our canister quota on this testing." Ajax's response during the 2/15 Council meeting was that they were not concerned about canister analysis counts per the CCOB contract because it was adding to their scientific investigation. Now, my concern is that there may be plumes missed from Livingston since the sensors are not operating correctly, so is Ajax/CSU willing to err on the side of caution with triggering until the problems with the sensors get figured out? graph https://drive.google.com/file/d/14LdjBz5MugBEC30pRMAnF14DO5e6Ep8n/view) | 3/3/22 | Jean Lim | 3/4/2022 | From Ajax: The monitoring stations at Livingston 1 and 2 are operating successfully, however at higher baselines than other stations. For the time being, the PID signal of these 2 stations should not be looked at in comparison to other stations apart of our monitoring networks. Ultimately, we are trying to determine the proper threshold that the Livingston stations should be set at. For the past week, we have had a more conservative approach, setting the threshold lower than is likely needed to capture any real rises in TVOC. That being said, we do not want to trigger canisters with every elevation over 500 mV, as its baseline is at almost 500 mV. For reference, other systems in the network are set at a 500 mV threshold, however their operating baselines are near 120 mV. Upon results of canister analysis from 3/2, it has been determined that the Livingston 1 should have an increased threshold of at least 1000 mV for the time being. The results from the canister triggered on 2/19 at a triggering threshold of 500 mV were insignificant, reflecting a composition well below average background activity, see below. This gives us confidence that the new higher baselines from which these stations are operating are not indicative of elevated concentrations in TVOC near the Livingston pad. Livingston 2 has been set at a triggering threshold of 2000 mV, so as to not trigger canisters at this site (unless of a dominant and significant TVOC presence) until we could determine the correct triggering threshold for Livingston 1. After receiving the composition of the 2/19 canister at Livingston 1 and analyzing the relationship between the 2 PID signals, the Livingston 2 threshold has been set to 1500 mV for the time being. The threshold of both stations may be increased again if another triggered canister results in compositions near weekly average backgrounds. Composition of 2/19 canister triggered at Livingston 1 at a triggering threshold of 500 mV: link to chart. | |||||
50 | FEBRUARY 2022 - Below | |||||||||
51 | (1) - Why did the Livingston 2 sensor not trigger when it rose from 720 mV to 1400 mV from about 10 am - 1:30 pm?
(2) - If the high readings at Livingston 1 and 2 do not have an emissions source but are just due to faulty equipment, how does Ajax explain that no other sensors in the system are rising like that today? (re: At 10:15 am this morning, the Livingston 1 sensor triggered at 501 mV and climbed up to its current plateau to about 750 mV at 1:30 pm. Livingston 2 climbed from about 720 mV to 1400 mV during that period and didn't trigger. A resident reported that they experienced significant health impacts at about 11:50 am in the area. Questions: 1) Why did the Livingston 2 sensor not trigger when it rose from 720 mV to 1400 mV from about 10 am - 1:30 pm? 2) The Livingston sensors have been erratic since the wildfire and on 2/24 Ajax wrote a response to my question that, with pending canister analysis coming, "the sensors [are] being influenced by the extreme cold and humidity (highly likely), or 2) a slow build up emission sourced somewhere in the area, trapped by the meteorological conditions (less likely)." With such significant rise in emissions at both Livingston 1 and 2 today, it seems there could have been a significant source of emissions. If the high readings at Livingston 1 and 2 do not have an emissions source but are just due to faulty equipment, how does Ajax explain that no other sensors in the system are rising like that today? Livington 1 trigger 2/27 10:15 am https://trello.com/c/yllvJGFJ Ajaxhttps://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1645949147503&to=1645992347504&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/27/22 | Jean Lim | 3/2/2022 | From Ajax: The Livingston stations have been fully operational since 2/11/22. We are however watching the baseline of the PID signal at both stations to determine a valid triggering threshold for canisters. We did not see a canister trigger at Livingston 2 because the station is currently set to a higher triggering threshold. This station is acting as our control as we learn about these two systems, as we do not want to exceed our canister quota on this testing. The results from the Livingston 1 trigger (which fired during the plume on 2/27 at 10:15 am) will help us determine an effective triggering threshold for Livingston 2. As of now, we believe that these systems are operating normally, just with an elevated baseline voltage output. We do not believe that there is a steady emission source near Livingston, though canister results will help to confirm this. See graph. You can see that the PID signals at the two stations are following similar patterns in response to rises and falls in TVOC. Livingston 1 is operating at a lower baseline than Livingston 2, although the stations are operating in sync. | |||||
52 | Did Ajax and Staff make a decision since yesterday afternoon (Sat 2/19) to raise the trigger threshold at Livingston 1?
(re: Did Ajax and Staff make a decision since yesterday afternoon (Sat 2/19) to raise the trigger threshold at Livingston 1? During production operations today, Livingston 1 readings started climbing from about 450 mV at 6:30 am to 950 mV at 12 pm and did not trigger at the 500mV threshold that it triggered at yesterday. Livingston 1 is still at 900 mV at 12:45 pm. In contrast, Anthem 1 started climbing today from about 216 mV at 6:30 am and triggered at 11:46 am at 505 mV. It is still above 500 mV an hour later. Also, see yesterday's question if swabbing activities are still ongoing at Livingston. Anthem 1 preliminary trigger report https://trello.com/c/1IT7q3TW Past 12 hours Ajax Livingston 1, 2, Anthem 1 and Wildgrass 1https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1645342208309&to=1645385408309&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/20/22 | Jean Lim | 2/24/2022 | From Ajax: We caught a canister during this long-running (potential) event on 1/19. As the TVOC Indicator was remaining above the 500 mV threshold, we increased the trigger threshold to 1000 mV. The reasoning was two-fold: 1) we didn’t want to trigger another canister right after changing the canister (the swap happened 20 min after the trigger - See graph. ) 2) we wanted to capture a sample at a much higher mV value, should the potential event continue its slow climb. Unfortunately, the trace peaked just under 1,000 mV. After checking on this site early this week and noting that the long-running potential event was over, we reset thresholds to 500 mV. Until we have the canister results to help us verify, our best guess right now is that this long-running event was either: 1) the sensors being influenced by the extreme cold and humidity (highly likely), or 2) a slow build up emission sourced somewhere in the area, trapped by the meteorological conditions (less likely). UPDATE from Ajax on 2/24: a new system was installed at Livingston 2 in order to get some more consistency between the 3 stations near the Livingston pad. On the dashboard, some may notice that the PID signal rose to 613 mV around 10:30 am and has since been steadily decreasing. This is a result of the installation of a new system. The triggering threshold was raised to 1000 mV and will remain there until the station has leveled out at its new baseline. At that time I will send another information email to everyone and the triggering threshold will be decreased to the normal operation standard of 500 mV. | |||||
53 | Is that operation still ongoing on 2/19? (re: With Livingston in production, the Livingston 1 sensor climbed from 255 mV to about 740 mV over the past 5 hours and is still above 600 mV at 5 pm on 2/19. The 2/17 Oil and Gas Update stated that "Livingston Pad: Swab unit still working on the S20-25-4N well." Is that operation still ongoing on 2/19? 12 hours Livingston 1,2,Anthem 1, Wildgrass 1 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1645271562511&to=1645314762511&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/19/22 | Jean Lim | 2/24/2022 | The well swabbing unit demobilized on 2/17. | |||||
54 | Why do at least 7 of the 1-hour benzene estimates in the Ajax/CSU 4th Q 2021 Report Chart differ from the estimates stated in the Trigger Canister Analysis Reports released earlier?
(re: Why do at least 7 of the 1-hour benzene estimates in the Ajax/CSU 4th Q 2021 Report Chart differ from the estimates stated in the Trigger Canister Analysis Reports released earlier? There are no updates in these reports that values have been recalculated. See attached Xcel sheet with the data listed below, including hyperlinks to Trigger Canister Analysis Reports linked off the CCOB Trigger Matrix. Event Date 1-Hour Benzene Report ppb 1-hour Benzene Chart in PPT ppb 10/30/2021 13:07 18.79 2.1 11/3/2021 23:45 21.65 10.7 11/5/2021 1:30 9.37 2.4 11/5/2021 9:19 15.042 1.5 11/28/2021 19:44 11.04 2.3 12/4/2021 4:16 24.982 4.5 12/4/2021 4:37 26.671 3.6 Ajax CSU 2021 Q4 Broomfield Quarterly Report PPT p. 18-19 https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19EmEX9CqNQGmn4KZJC7Zp7WIXigi5jUE) | 2/17/22 | Jean Lim | 2/22/2022 | From Ajax: When validating 1-hour estimate calculations while drafting the Q4 report, we identified some miscalculations. We updated corrected values on the public event report web page. However, we did not follow through with a protocol that involves documenting the changes in the “Activity” section of the event reports. This caused the noted discrepancy between the originally posted estimates and the estimates currently published. All of the published event reports that have been changed are now documented as having been edited in the comments section at the very bottom of each event report. We apologize for the discrepancy and will ensure any future changes are documented moving forward. | |||||
55 | (1) - Has Extraction been informed by Staff that its summary of Dec. 4 NW A coiled tubing operations is not consistent with the times of the trigger canisters from Ajax/CSU and Boulder Air's detection of the "highest methane measurement ever recorded in the Boulder A.I.R. 6-station network during the past 4 years?" (2) - How does Extraction respond to the fact that it is not logical that a record one-hour estimated benzene level of 223.59 ppb occurred while Extraction crews were "preparing the surface equipment in advance of the Coil Tubing?" (re: 2/10 Letter from Extraction to Broomfield Staff "The following is a summarization of the field notes related to activities that occurred at the Northwest A Pad for December 4th, 2021. Between midnight and 5:00 a.m. crews were on location preparing the surface equipment in advance of the Coil Tubing entering the well for mill-out/clean-out operations. During this time equipment was being connected and prepared including pressure testing to ensure safe operations. After pressure testing passed, at approximately 5:15 a.m. the well head was opened and coil tubing began to run-in-hole and enter the well. Between 5:15 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. coil tubing ran-in-hole and successfully milled out two frac plugs." https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yXDiDdS3lk80TmtQrngxiaKrSx5VSJWb/view List of trigger canisters on Dec. 4 12/4 4:06 am NW 2 one-hour average estimate for benzene at the site was 223.59 ppb. 12/4 4:16 am NW 3 12/4 4:37 am United 1 12/4 4:45 am United 2 Trigger Matrix https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rgLFcI3OU8fdN52cv5nNSZWMN-JePY-FwNbO_IdRtb8/edit#gid=0 Boulder Air Q4 Summary Observations https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1GQvr4QVoCeRSBUcxVE-ZzjMLQE39kHcx Dec. 4 AQM trigger canister report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1deXXP0YfDG1ZvNLoonS74OYbSw8f_VR9/view) | 2/16/22 | Jean Lim | 2/17/2022 | Staff has had no less than a dozen conversations with CDPHE, COGCC and the operator regarding this air quality event. The issues noted in the question have been brought up numerous times, and staff remains in the same place. On 2/17, Extraction provided Broomfield an email identifying some actions that may minimize risk of a similar event taking place in upcoming operations. The email is copied below:
Extraction understands that Broomfield has questions regarding the December 4th air quality event that was detected by both our and your monitoring networks. Per the requirements in Regulation 7, we conducted an internal investigation as to the potential causes of the event. V1.C.1.b.(x)(B) – Extraction currently employs two different alert levels for total VOCs: An alert level of 1 ppm (15-minute average) triggers an internal email alert to staff to monitor the situation. This alert is sent to the air quality manager and the air quality field management lead. An alert level of 1 ppm (1-hr average) triggers an internal investigation as to potential causes of the event. This event triggered the second alert level, the results of which were included in our December report to the APCD and are copied below. Alerts from air monitoring devices were received early in the morning on December 4, 2021 and an internal investigation was initiated. The results of the investigation determined that normal operations were occurring on the pad that morning. Prep work for Mill out operations and repair of a flange on a coil tubing unit occurring at the Northwest A pad. Hydraulic fracturing operations were continuing at the Northwest B pad. Data from the laboratory for method 325 Benzene monitoring also later confirmed there were no fence line concentrations of Benzene that approached exposure guidelines that are commonly referenced by CDPHE. This data was included in the December monthly monitoring report and is publicly available. While our internal investigation did not reveal a specific point of failure that may have caused the event, Extraction would like Broomfield to know that measures will be taken to minimize the risk of a similar occurrence in upcoming mill out operations. Prior to pressure testing or opening of a well, additional inspection of connection gaskets will occur in addition to visual inspections of surface equipment. | |||||
56 | What is the status of Ajax Livingston 1 and 2 sensors? Are they both considered to be operating accurately?
(re: On 2/8 in response to my 2/6 Dashboard question, Ajax stated, "By the end of this week, the system will be pulled and bench-tested to evaluate why we are seeing such a high baseline. An extra system with a “normal” baseline will be put in its place." From the graphs, it looks like there was an abrupt break and change in readings around 2/10, but I am not sure that the current readings represent a stable system. Also, would it be expected that the past 12 hour readings would differ greatly between Livingston 1 and 2 sensors? Livingston 1,2, Wildgrass and Anthem over last 7 days https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644250915436&to=1644855715437&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO Livingston 1, 2, Wildgrass and Anthem Sensors over past 12 hours https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644809563381&to=1644852763381&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/14/22 | Jean Lim | 2/14/2022 | FOLLOW UP from Ajax 2-15-22 - The operations performed at Livingston 1 were successful and the stations is running as expected. For confirmation, you can follow the signatures of the Livingston 1 and Anthem 1 stations (adjacent across the Northwest Parkway toll road). These PID signals are very similar over the last four days, as to be expected. However, in comparison Livingston 2 is still running a lower baseline than it should be. I will be out in the field aiming to resolve the issue. Despite the new updated system that was installed, if we cannot get this system fully operational by tomorrow, I will pull the system from the field tomorrow afternoon and replace it with a fully operational system, either a spare or one from another less crucial site. Broomfield staff inquired about the sensors on Friday 2/11. In brief, yes. As of Friday morning the Livingston 01 & 02 sensors are considered to be operating accurately. From Ajax: The Livingston sites are back up and running after some maintenance this morning. Ignoring the patchiness of system testing in the graph below, you can see that the baselines of the 2 sites are running very closely with Livingston 1 ~200 mV and Livingston 2 around ~100 mV. A new lamp was installed at Livingston 1, which is why we see that high value ~700 mV around 08:35, followed by a long, gradual decrease. The 200 mV baseline at which it currently sits should continue to fall until it reaches a normal baseline ~100-130 mV. The lamp at Livingston 2 was fairly new and only needed a cleaning. The cleaning was performed at Livingston 2 which brought the baseline up from ~87 mV up to about ~100-110 mV. Triggering thresholds for the two sites have been returned to 500 mV, matching the network’s other systems. We will keep an eye on these systems over the next few days to see how the systems respond to the maintenance. Mainly, we will be checking to see how Livingston 1 levels out at its new baseline and to see if the lamp cleaning alone resolved the low baseline at Livingston 2. It is difficult to see if the systems are responding in sync to elevations in TVOC with only a few minutes/hours of data. I’ll be sure to keep everyone updated on any progressions/setbacks we encounter over the weekend and into early next week. | |||||
57 | Is our Staff going to ask the CDPHE for the Dec. 4 log? | 2/9/22 | Jean Lim | 2/11/2022 | Answer: Broomfield staff made this written request to the CDPHE staff in the series of questions that were posed to CDPHE/APCD following the January 5th consultation between CCOB & CDPHE. Answers to those questions were provided to CCOB on 2/9/22 in this document. Specific to this question: CDPHE’s response: Because APCD does not have authority to request the detailed activity logs Broomfield is seeking, we suggest Broomfield work with COGCC to ask about requesting logs or other information. A follow up from APCD was provided on 2/9/22 via email: To provide a little more context about our statement that APCD does not have authority to request the detailed activity logs Broomfield is seeking. Reg 7 Part D, Section VI.C.2.a.(iii) does require that operator monthly monitoring reports include activity logs which include a description of the monitoring operations (see section for what this description must include VI.C.2.b.(iii)). However, they are only required to provide that information as part of their monthly monitoring report. The APCD does not have authority to compel an operator to provide anything outside of that process. It is APCD’s understanding that Extraction has filed their monthly monitoring report from December and it will include information about their millout activities. Once APCD has an opportunity to review and reject or accept that monthly report, they will make it publicly available and share it with Broomfield staff as they have done in previous months. Extraction shared with Broomfield staff a summary of field notes from December 4th, available here. Nothing in the summary indicates a failure or upset condition. | |||||
58 | Can Staff please request that Ajax/CSU prioritize the processing of the 2/4, 2/7 1 am and 2/7 3 pm trigger canisters at Livingston 2?
(re: Can Staff please request that Ajax/CSU prioritize the processing of the 2/4, 2/7 1 am and 2/7 3 pm trigger canisters at Livingston 2? There are over 1700 homes within one mile of the Livingston Pad and there is no explanation as to why there were 548 mV, 507 mV and now about 1000 mV TVOC levels during production operations within the last few days. 2/4 at 5:09 pm https://trello.com/c/MQowUnEC 2/7 at 1:02 am https://trello.com/c/UceVm7SC 2/7 at 14:44 pm https://trello.com/c/0aTYefXH) | 2/7/22 | Jean Lim | 2/8/2022 | Ajax & the CSU lab have been asked to prioritize these canisters for analysis and report. | |||||
59 | (1) - Why is there no consistency in the recent Ajax triggers at Livingston 2? (2) - Are there emission problems at Livingston that are not being captured (see also 2/4 trigger)? (3) - My 2/6 question was: Over the last 2 days (2/5 Saturday and 2/6 Sunday), the Ajax monitoring network at Livingston... 2 shows excessively high TVOC levels ranging from ..250 mV - 700 mV for Livingston 2. Why didn't these levels of TVOCs trigger canisters? (re: Why is there no consistency in the recent Ajax triggers at Livingston 2? It looks like Livingston 2 triggered last night 1/7 at about 1 am at 500 mV at Livingston 2 (see below) but didn't trigger over the weekend when it was over 500 mV for hours (see my 2/6 question). It looks like Livingston 2 is currently offline on 2/7 at 10:50 am after it reached 500 mV again. Are there emission problems at Livingston that are not being captured (see also 2/4 trigger)? In the response to my 2/3 question it states, "While we continue to monitor the baseline readings at Livingston 1, closest sites in full operation and efficiency include Livingston 2(as of 2/1)...If residents are concerned about general elevations in TVOC and possible elevations in benzene during well swabbing, they can follow the PID signal of any of or monitoring sites closest to their home or area of activity. " My 2/6 question was: Over the last 2 days (2/5 Saturday and 2/6 Sunday), the Ajax monitoring network at Livingston... 2 shows excessively high TVOC levels ranging from ..250 mV - 700 mV for Livingston 2. Why didn't these levels of TVOCs trigger canisters? https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644035769359&to=1644208569360&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) 2/7 1 am Livingston 2 trigger https://trello.com/c/UceVm7SC Ajax PID readings over last 12 hours at Livingston 02 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644212690059&to=1644255890059&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO Current Livingston 2 offline https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644253250892&to=1644256850893&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/7/2022 | Jean Lim | From Ajax: We did not see a trigger at Livingston 1 this week as a result of this increased triggering threshold. We did not see a triggered canister at Livingston 2 because the previously triggered canister from 2/4 had not yet been replaced with a clean canister. This is the sequence of canister pick up over the last 72 hours;
The 2/4 triggered canister was replaced on 2/6. The canister installed on 2/6 triggered early this morning (2/7). The canister was replaced with a new clean canister about 2 hours ago (2/7 ~10:30am). After evaluating the canister results from the Livingston 1 event on 1/26, a PID signal of 500 mV, and the manually triggered canister on 1/29, a PID signal of 1076 mV, it is confirmed that these events were not a result of elevations in TVOC. As previously suspected, the Livingston 1 station is operating at a higher baseline (~450-500 mV) than normally expected (~130 mV). This is the result of a newly installed PID lamp that is communicating with the system slightly differently than baselines we see at other systems. The events on 1/26 and 1/29 showed concentrations lower than the weekly averages for almost all species, and are not consistent with the signature of oil and gas activities as seen at other monitoring stations near the active pads. The triggering threshold for the system will be adjusted accordingly to this new higher baseline. By the end of this week, the system will be pulled and bench-tested to evaluate why we are seeing such a high baseline. An extra system with a “normal” baseline will be put in its place. | ||||||
60 | Why didn't these levels of TVOCs trigger canisters? Is this related to the malfunctioning described in reply to my earlier 2/1 and 2/3 questions? If so, do we have any update on a resolution?
(re: Over the last 2 days (2/5 Saturday and 2/6 Sunday), the Ajax monitoring network at Livingston 1 and 2 shows excessively high TVOC levels ranging from about 500 mV - 1500 mV for Livingston 1 and 250 mV - 700 mV for Livingston 2. Why didn't these levels of TVOCs trigger canisters? Is this related to the malfunctioning described in reply to my earlier 2/1 and 2/3 questions? If so, do we have any update on a resolution? https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1644035769359&to=1644208569360&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 2/6/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/8/2022 | From Ajax: We did not see a trigger at Livingston 1 this week as a result of this increased triggering threshold. We did not see a triggered canister at Livingston 2 because the previously triggered canister from 2/4 had not yet been replaced with a clean canister. This is the sequence of canister pick up over the last 72 hours;
The 2/4 triggered canister was replaced on 2/6. The canister installed on 2/6 triggered early this morning (2/7). The canister was replaced with a new clean canister about 2 hours ago (2/7 ~10:30am). After evaluating the canister results from the Livingston 1 event on 1/26, a PID signal of 500 mV, and the manually triggered canister on 1/29, a PID signal of 1076 mV, it is confirmed that these events were not a result of elevations in TVOC. As previously suspected, the Livingston 1 station is operating at a higher baseline (~450-500 mV) than normally expected (~130 mV). This is the result of a newly installed PID lamp that is communicating with the system slightly differently than baselines we see at other systems. The events on 1/26 and 1/29 showed concentrations lower than the weekly averages for almost all species, and are not consistent with the signature of oil and gas activities as seen at other monitoring stations near the active pads. The triggering threshold for the system will be adjusted accordingly to this new higher baseline. By the end of this week, the system will be pulled and bench-tested to evaluate why we are seeing such a high baseline. An extra system with a “normal” baseline will be put in its place. | |||||
61 | The Ajax Broomfield Event board states that there are 2 triggered canisters, one at NW 2 and one at Livingston 2, that have not been picked up in the last 24 hours. Both are located at pads in production. Will these canisters be picked up and replaced before the weekend? | 2/4/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/4/2022 | Ajax confirmed that the two canisters will be picked up before the weekend. Ajax field staff work Tues through Saturday in order to help ensure that contract requirements are met even over the weekends. | |||||
62 | (1A) - On p. 4 of the Air Monitoring report (see link below) under "E. Date(s), Time(s), and Duration(s) of Monitoring Equipment Downtime," it describes that the required Reg 7 United Pad monitor was down during the month of October until October 19, 2021. Does Reg 7 have any required percentage uptime for the monitors in order for the operator to meet the requirements of Reg 7? (1B) - Does the operator have to report in a reasonable time frame before submitting the monthly report that its monitors are not operational? (2A) - The APCD marked Extraction's October 2021 United Pad Reg 7 report as final on 1/27/22. Was there any specified APCD turnaround time in the Reg 7 legislation to try to ensure timely review of operations which could be causing harm to the health and safety of residents? (2B) - Was there any initial learning curve with this inaugural Reg 7 implementation or should we expect about 3 months from the end of the reporting period to reception of the report on a regular basis? (re: In looking at the October 2021 Extraction United Pad Reg 7 APCD report that was just released on 2/3/22, I have a few initial questions: 1) On p. 4 of the Air Monitoring report (see link below) under "E. Date(s), Time(s), and Duration(s) of Monitoring Equipment Downtime," it describes that the required Reg 7 United Pad monitor was down during the month of October until October 19, 2021. Does Reg 7 have any required percentage uptime for the monitors in order for the operator to meet the requirements of Reg 7? Does the operator have to report in a reasonable time frame before submitting the monthly report that its monitors are not operational? Since APCD has not shared any reports beyond this October 2021 report with Broomfield, do we know if the Reg 7 monitors have continued to have excessive downtime during Extraction operations since October? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wWUvJj2eXOCcW5-j8DUfHRFuIKEgqQtU/view 2) The APCD marked Extraction's October 2021 United Pad Reg 7 report as final on 1/27/22. Was there any specified APCD turnaround time in the Reg 7 legislation to try to ensure timely review of operations which could be causing harm to the health and safety of residents? Was there any initial learning curve with this inaugural Reg 7 implementation or should we expect about 3 months from the end of the reporting period to reception of the report on a regular basis? https://drive.google.com/drive/u/1/folders/1wBf_W2nTsrWuweaVoxtKmcd90n_xh3Ai) | 2/3/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/10/2022 | (1A): Regulation 7 does not prescribe a requirement for sensor uptime.
(1B): Reporting requirements (Part D, VI.C.2.b) are that: Owners or operators must submit monthly reports of monitoring conducted to the Division by the last day of the month following the previous month of monitoring. There is nothing specific about advance notice of equipment failures. (2A): Regulation 7 does not prescribe a turnaround time for release of the reports. (2B): Unknown, however CCOB staff was informed that additional resources were given to the APCD to attempt to expedite processing of the reports (currently there is one person reviewing reports for the entire state of Colorado). | |||||
63 | (1) - How long have the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors not been operating to give accurate readings? Ajax's reply states that they have been in maintenance through January, so does that mean Livingston 1 and 2 have not been operational since the Marshall Wildfire?
(2) - What source would be available in close to realtime if residents wanted to know that there were not repeated benzene exceedances now during well swabbing? (3) - Are Livingston 1 and 2 sensors the only Ajax sensors that are still not operational since the Marshall Wildfire? (4) - Will the remaining sensors in the Ajax system still need to be calibrated with new lamps? (5) - Does the Ajax system uptime percentage accurately reflect the downtime due to maintenance and inaccurate readings of the sensors due to the Marshall Wildfires? (re: After reading the Ajax response to my 2/1 question about why Livingston 01 and 02 didn't trigger at high TVOCs that were reported in the 2/2 Snapshot, I have the following questions: 1) How long have the Livingston 1 and 2 sensors not been operating to give accurate readings? Ajax's reply states that they have been in maintenance through January, so does that mean Livingston 1 and 2 have not been operational since the Marshall Wildfire? 2) This is a problem if there is no functional sensor around Livingston during well swabbing, since we previously had benzene exceedances during well swabbing operations and those are again reported to be currently taking place. What source would be available in close to realtime if residents wanted to know that there were not repeated benzene exceedances now during well swabbing? 3) Are Livingston 1 and 2 sensors the only Ajax sensors that are still not operational since the Marshall Wildfire? 4) Will the remaining sensors in the Ajax system still need to be calibrated with new lamps? 5) Does the Ajax system uptime percentage accurately reflect the downtime due to maintenance and inaccurate readings of the sensors due to the Marshall Wildfires?) | 2/3/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/7/2022 | 1) Following the smoke plume from the Marshall fires, it became clear from a dropped baseline response in the PID signal, that these systems were impacted/made dirty by particles from the smoke plume and while were still operating and responding to small elevations in TVOC, were not operating at full efficiency. 2) It is important to note that the PID signal our system measures is not a direct indication of benzene levels. Through a triggered canister analysis we can directly measuring the benzene levels for a 1-minute sample, and then can calculate a 1-hour estimate for that measured benzene level. If residents are concerned about general elevations in TVOC and possible elevations in benzene during well swabbing, they can follow the PID signal of any of or monitoring sites closest to their home or area of activity. While we continue to monitor the baseline readings at Livingston 1, closest sites in full operation and efficiency include Livingston 2(as of 2/1), Anthem 1, and Wildgrass 1. 3) All of the systems in the Broomfield network are operational following the impacts from the Marshal fires. Following the canister analysis of the Livingston 1 manual triggers, we will determine if the baseline for that system needs to be redefined. 4) No. All of the systems which needed calibration have been repaired (either with a new lamp installation or a lamp cleaning.) 5) The uptime percentage due to the Marshall Wildfires maintenance operations will impact the Q1 2022 calculation. At this time, we do not anticipate that the downtime related to maintenance from the Marshall Wildfire will impact our SLA commitment. The readings which were impacted on the evening of 12/30/21 and 12/31/21 are not enough to impact our overall uptime calculation for Q4 of 2021. | |||||
64 | What was the cause of high emissions on the Livingston Pad on January 31? Why are there no triggered events listed on the Ajax/CSU Broomfield Event Board when the 2/1/22 Oil and Gas Snapshot states the following high values for the Ajax sensors: Livingston 01 1,690 mV @ 1:57 p.m., January 31 Livingston 02 1,208 mV @ 2:13 p.m., January 31 (re: What was the cause of high emissions on the Livingston Pad on January 31? Why are there no triggered events listed on the Ajax/CSU Broomfield Event Board when the 2/1/22 Oil and Gas Snapshot states the following high values for the Ajax sensors: Livingston 01 1,690 mV @ 1:57 p.m., January 31 Livingston 02 1,208 mV @ 2:13 p.m., January 31 Those triggers are set to go off at 500 mV, as stated in the 1/26 Livingston 1 trigger event: "The canister triggered at a TVOC Indicator reading of 500 mV, the station's triggering threshold. At the time of this written summary, the maximum TVOC Indicator level reached was 685 mV at 2:42pm." Oil and Gas Snapshot 2-1-22 http://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZRWPmVWFNZY-oGexAzr0injlvPFVxZwH/view 1/26 Livingston 1 trigger event https://trello.com/c/m8nFdQ0G) | 2/1/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/2/2022 | From Ajax: Livingston 1: The Livingston 1 station was undergoing maintenance throughout early January, and was reinstalled into the field on 1/23. The maintenance involved was installing a new photo-ionization detection (PID) lamp. On the public dashboard, we are viewing the PID signal which is in response to elevated TVOC levels. This lamp is very critical to the successful operation of the system and each system responds differently to each lamp (giving us different slightly different baseline mV readings across the different stations.) We triggered multiple canisters in response to the high TVOC levels reported at Livingston 1 on 1/29, in an attempt to verify if these events are real high TVOC levels or if the system is operating at a higher baseline reading than previously measured. As you can see in the figure here, Livingston 1 and Anthem 1 (nearly directly adjacent to one another across the Northwest Parkway toll road), the systems are responding in generally the same patterns. This is likely an indication that Livingston 1 is operating at a higher baseline around ~700/800 mV whereas Anthem 1 is operating at a “normal” baseline of ~130 mV. This would also mean that Livingston 1 is not responding to any significant TVOC elevation that would measure a 1690 mV reading at a “normal” baseline. We will have more knowledge about the situation when we get the results of the canister analysis. Livingston 2: Similarly at Livingston 2, we needed to clean the PID lamp as the system’s baseline was flatlining around 65 mV. Upon the reinstallation of this station, there was an initial startup PID signal extremely high that took several hours to return to a normal operation at a baseline of around ~130 mV, reached around 9pm on 1/31, which is visible in the image here. Any elevations in the PID signal before the station stabled out at 9pm should not be considered as valid elevations in TVOC. | |||||
65 | JANUARY 2022 - Below | |||||||||
66 | What type of combustion was ongoing for 2 1/2 days, as the graph clearly shows a continuing pattern of spikes? Is it possible that it involved extended use of the ECD on Interchange B during production? (re: In the Jan 1 Interchange 03 trigger canister analysis report that was published on 1/27, it states that "this sample was taken as part of a long-term event that lasted from the evening of 12/31/21 through the morning of 1/3/22." Based on the composition analysis, it also states that, "The i/n pentane ratio of 1.28 is highly suggestive of combustion activity in the area." What type of combustion was ongoing for 2 1/2 days, as the graph clearly shows a continuing pattern of spikes? Is it possible that it involved extended use of the ECD on Interchange B during production? Dec 24 and Jan 1 Trigger Canister Analysis Report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xS5YLFWWvuN0FJEMep8v2 UUoqX056_QrE/view | 1/29/2022 | Jean Lim | 2/2/2022 | There is no ECD at Interchange B. The production at Interchange B is handled at the commingled production facility at Interchange A. Regarding the 1/1 event, Broomfield inspectors reported that the ECD was not in use during their daily rounds for 12/31, 1/2, and 1/3. Additionally, the ECD is only used during upset conditions or if maintenance is being conducted and therefore unlikely to be in use for 4 days. The 12/24 event shows more oil and gas influence with a lower i/n pentane ratio less than 1. The i/n-pentane ratio tells us that the air was influenced by both oil and gas activity and combustion sources for both events. The combustion sources could have been traffic, an engine running in the area, or an ECD. Based on the wind patterns from the Southeast, it is possible the source came from an outside of Broomfield. However, we cannot be sure of the source of these emissions. | |||||
67 | The 1/17 NW 2 Trigger Notification was published on 1/18 but is not listed in the trigger matrix for tracking. 1/17 NW 2 Trigger Notification https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EMReImsQnXmbiN-jszjLuXPbVtcF8Z0y/view Trigger Matrix https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rgLFcI3OU8fdN52cv5nNSZWMN-JePY-FwNbO_IdRtb8/edit#gid=0 | 1/23/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/24/2022 | The O&G Trigger Matrix has been updated to include the 1/17/22 trigger event information. The event report was published in the Thursday Jan 20th snapshot. | |||||
68 | QUESTION: Given the incident in 2015, did the Operator take any action to proactively modify protocols/procedures to better assess/address potential issues with product flowing to the ECD in a manner that is not normal operations?
(re: REQUEST FOR MEETING: As a follow up to the Jan 14 ECD incident with visible flames and black plume, I would like to request that a meeting be held where the COGCC inspector, Broomfield O&G staff and technical representation from XOG are present to walk through the timeline and series of events in detail and allow residents to ask detailed questions and clarifications in real time. There appears to be a lot of differences with respect to terminology that is used among the three parties. So as an impacted resident, i would really like to have all three parties together to explain to us what happened and allow for us to get clarification on so many different points. This would really help those of us who live near the pads in Broomfield. I am concerned that the Operator had an ECD incident in Windsor in 2015 at the Windsor Pavistma well pad where a resident called to report an explosion and there were visible flames burning above the top of the ECD. In reviewing the COGCC report, Document Number: 673801860, it is concerning that there does not appear to have been any thorough inspection of the ECD after the event to ensure it was not damaged. My understanding is that whoever is responsible for ownership/maintenance of the ECD would have the appropriate insight/training as to their specific piece of equipment. Visual inspection by the Operator field crew and/or COGCC inspector would not be sufficient. QUESTION: Given the incident in 2015, did the Operator take any action to proactively modify protocols/procedures to better assess/address potential issues with product flowing to the ECD in a manner that is not normal operations? Here is an excerpt from 673801860: "....he observed one of the ECD burning at a high rate above the top of the ECD. He said as they were bring the other ECD’s on at the location to help lower the rate on the high burning ECD, a control valve on the second ECD was frozen and it caused a build up of gas in the second ECD, and when the frozen valve slammed open it caused a large volume of gas to fill the second ECD causing the noise heard by the complainant. Luke advised me Extraction would shut down the operation for the evening and would attempt to restart the operation the next morning. " thank you) | 1/22/2022 | Resident | 2/4/2022 | CCOB confirmed with Jeff Robbins (COGCC Commission Chair) on 2/4/22 that COGCC considers the matter closed after inspectors visited the site on 1/25/22.
Similarly, Extraction also considers the written debrief and incident report as closure to the 1/24 event. It is Broomfield’s understanding that the consensus (by Extraction and the COGCC) is that this matter is closed and that there will be no further action from either (including a public debrief). CCOB did not participate in the decision-making process for this outcome. 1/24/22 Staff has requested a public meeting with COGCC and EXO - status will be posted once the confirmation of a date and time is received. | |||||
69 | 1/21/2022 | Update to smoke plume Jan. 14 at Northwest A Pad The City and County of Broomfield is following up on the inconsistencies in the recently reported timeline of the smoke plume incident on Jan. 14. More information will come. | ||||||||
70 | My questions: 1) How soon will Broomfield know if the ECD is operating correctly? 2) Please describe the worst case scenario if a repeat event were to occur and the ECD is not operating correctly.
(re: The 1/20 Extraction Operations Public Notice states under the heading "Controlled Combustion Event 1/14," "The manufacturer of the ECD (IES Combustors) is inspecting the combustor for damages and to ensure it is operating correctly." My questions: 1) How soon will Broomfield know if the ECD is operating correctly? 2) Please describe the worst case scenario if a repeat event were to occur and the ECD is not operating correctly.) | 1/21/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/24/2022 | 1) - The manufacturer (IES) of the ECD conducted an inspection of the unit and determined that there were no damages and that it is functioning properly. COGCC inspected the unit and determined there were no damages. Extraction conducted a method 22 affirming full functionality after the incident.
2) - Additional safety controls have been added to prevent this type of event from occuring again. The malfunctioning valve has been replaced, and additional sensors have been installed. It is difficult to speculate on potential worst case scenarios, any scenario would be dependent on the quantity of liquids entering the ECD & extent of damages from the resulting combustion. | |||||
71 | What is the accurate timeline of events for the Extraction separator valve malfunction and black smoke and flare?
(re: Yesterday at 5 pm Broomfield published the Extraction Operations Public Notice which begins, "At approximately 3:48 PM on Friday January 14th, a valve at the production facility on the Northwest B pad (which is currently receiving flowback from the NW-A pad) malfunctioned." Brian Cain of Extraction states in his Next interview that aired one hour after the Broomfield public notice release that the separator valve malfunction happened "hours earlier in the day" and all the wells were shut in before the later restart of the flowback operations sent liquids trapped in the pipe to the combustor causing the black smoke and flare. What is the accurate timeline of events for the Extraction separator valve malfunction and black smoke and flare? 1/20 Extraction Operations Public Notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZA9GXoDuE9pbjigbUN6COyMQ-EDC6w8u/view 1/20 Next with Kyle Clark report titled "Neighbors still coping with Marshall Fire wanted more warning about oil and gas site malfunction" https://www.9news.com/video/news/local/next/neighbors-still-coping-with-marshall-fire-wanted-more-warning-about-oil-and-gas-site-malfunction/73-0fd8a3e9-8307-49be-8684-7a57810182dc) | 1/21/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/24/2022 | Extraction is anticipated to release an after-action report detailing all the events leading up to the flash and smoke event on 1/14. This will be made available to Council and the public as soon as staff has received and reviewed the document. | |||||
72 | IF this is true, that the malfunction happened hours earlier, I would like answers to the following please and request a change in notification procedures if another malfunction of any sort were to happen in the future: 1) why was CCOB not notified of the malfunction at the time of the malfunction, not hours later after the restart and the flames. 2) why were residents not notified to expect flames and massive black plume on restart? 3) why was NMFD not alerted and on standby in the event something went wrong when restarting? 4) did Civitas/XOG know that the fluid would cause flames and a massive black plume? If not then that is actually more concerning. Additional questions: 5) Who owns maintaining the ECD? My understanding is that these devices are not owned by the Operator but typically are rented. Has the company responsible for the ECD fully inspected it to ensure there was no damage from the combustion of fluids? 6) When did the company responsible for the ECD inspect it? What day? Again, I am not talking about Civitas/XOG or COGCC inspectors, I want to know if the company responsible for the ECD who would have the appropriate skills inspected it and when that occurred. 7) It was stated in the news report that a code red notification would typically not be sent for an incident like this. Can we change that? This terrified our community. 8) It was stated in the news report that CCOB stated the info was posted in realtime on the CCOB O&G dashboard. I do not think that is accurate. I was monitoring the dashboard beginning at 3:35 and did not see an update until much later, at least after 4pm. (re: I saw the Civitas/XOG Chief Sustainability Officer Brian Cain interviewed tonight on the local news about the malfunction that occurred Jan 14 at 3:33pm at the Northwest Pads that resulted in visible flames and a massive dark plume. He stated that "The malfunction happened hours earlier in the day". That is, the incident where we saw the flames and massive black plume did NOT happen at the same time as the malfunction. It was stated that AFTER the equipment was replaced, the restart sent liquids trapped in the pipes to the combuster and that is when the flames and plume occurred. He made the analogy of "throwing a piece of bacon or something greasy on a bbq grill". IF this is true, that the malfunction happened hours earlier, I would like answers to the following please and request a change in notification procedures if another malfunction of any sort were to happen in the future: 1)why was CCOB not notified of the malfunction at the time of the malfunction, not hours later after the restart and the flames. 2) why were residents not notified to expect flames and massive black plume on restart? 3) why was NMFD not alerted and on standby in the event something went wrong when restarting? 4) did Civitas/XOG know that the fluid would cause flames and a massive black plume? If not then that is actually more concerning. Additional questions: 5) Who owns maintaining the ECD? My understanding is that these devices are not owned by the Operator but typically are rented. Has the company responsible for the ECD fully inspected it to ensure there was no damage from the combustion of fluids? 6) When did the company responsible for the ECD inspect it? What day? Again, I am not talking about Civitas/XOG or COGCC inspectors, I want to know if the company responsible for the ECD who would have the appropriate skills inspected it and when that occurred. 7) It was stated in the news report that a code red notification would typically not be sent for an incident like this. Can we change that? This terrified our community. 8) It was stated in the news report that CCOB stated the info was posted in realtime on the CCOB O&G dashboard. I do not think that is accurate. I was monitoring the dashboard beginning at 3:35 and did not see an update until much later, at least after 4pm. NOTE - not all residents, especially those in Adams County are familiar with the CCOB dashboard. Many residents, regardless of county of residence, are not computer savvy. Can we work together to come up with a realistic, real time communication system (Code Red comes to mind) so that we can ensure residents aren't traumatized the next time there is a malfunction? I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with staff. thank you!) | 1/20/2022 | Resident | 1/24/2022 | 1) Extraction has acknowledged that this was a missed opportunity to proactively communicate a potentially upset condition on the pad. They have agreed to contact CCOB & NMFD in the future of any automatic shutdowns (this is not prescribed in the Operator Agreement).
2-4) Extraction is anticipated to release an after-action report detailing all the events leading up to the flash and smoke event on 1/14. This will be made available to Council and the public as soon as staff has received and reviewed the document. 5-6) The week of January 17th, the manufacturer (IES) of the ECD conducted an inspection of the unit and determined that there were no damages and that it is functioning properly. COGCC inspected the unit and determined there were no damages. Extraction conducted a method 22 affirming full functionality after the incident. 7) There are federal (FCC) and state (PUC) rules regulating use of CodeRED, it cannot be used for anything other than an explicit emergent circumstance. Broomfield is discussing a notification protocol for “high-visibility, non-emergent” situations like the Jan 14th event. 8) After the CCOB inspector provided field verification of the incident, and city leadership discussed the situation with North Metro Fire and the operator’s representatives, the status of the incident was posted on the dashboard at 4:37 PM. | |||||
73 | What will Broomfield and/or the state do to investigate the incident independently?
… Please investigate this matter ASAP and protect Broomfield citizens and property. (re: 1/16 resident email to Council: https://www.reporterherald.com/2021/11/08/berthoud-loveland-fire-crews-responding-to-oil-separator-fire-at-county-road-7/ This is a link to a short article that illustrates how terrible a fire near Silver Leaf, Anthem Ranch and Wildgrass could be - especially on a day with wind gusts like we had the day of the Marshall fire. There’s no doubt such a fire would be a devastating catastrophe. The fire on Friday at the Northwest B pad in Broomfield makes clear this is still an issue for Extraction. What will Broomfield and/or the state do to investigate the incident independently? We have no faith in Extraction to do this honestly or responsibly. Any possible fire hazard with potential for death and destruction is unacceptable in Broomfield. Please investigate this matter ASAP and protect Broomfield citizens and property.) | 1/16/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/19/2022 | On Tuesday 1/18, Broomfield’s lead technical analyst met with Extraction representatives at the production facility to review in detail the specifics of the incident and discuss. No inconsistencies were discovered, however Broomfield will be requesting that the COGCC also follow up on the event and obtain any field logs or notes that are available. A meeting with the COGCC to review response and possible process improvement suggestions is scheduled for 1/20/22. | |||||
74 | did the test of the ECD on 1/15 show it is operating efficiently?
(re: Regarding the 1/14 malfunction of an Extraction separator valve which sent the fluid to the ECD causing huge plumes of black smoke coming from the NW Pads, did the test of the ECD on 1/15 show it is operating efficiently? We were told by Staff that Extraction would be performing this test on 1/15. Outside sources state that there is incomplete combustion from an ECD if it puts out that volume of black smoky emissions, as shown in resident photos and video.) | 1/16/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/19/2022 | The Method 22 investigation on 1/15 was performed by Extraction’s leak detection crew and showed proper function of the ECD. Summary sheet available here. | |||||
75 | why weren't any Ajax sensors triggered at about 3:30 pm on 1/14? (re: Regarding the malfunction of an Extraction separator valve which sent the fluid to the ECD causing huge plumes of black smoke coming from the NW Pads, why weren't any Ajax sensors triggered at about 3:30 pm on 1/14? It is hard to believe in light of resident video and photos of the event that these sensors were accurately picking up the emissions and didn't trigger. Here is the link to the AQM sensor readings for a few hours surronding the event. https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1642200612445&to=1642211412445&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_03&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_WILDGRASS_02_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_LIVINGSTON_03_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_03&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_ANTHEM_02_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_THUNDERVISTA_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_PROSPECTRIDGE_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_SOARING_EAGLE_01_IMPACT&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02&var-site_id=CCOB_CIVICCENTER_URBAN&var-site_id=CCOB_EMERALD_URBAN&var-site_id=CCOB_LACAMORA_URBAN&var-site_id=CCOB_LOWELLMIDWAY_URBAN&var-site_id=Aspen_Creek_PA&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 1/14/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/19/2022 | The air quality team has been asked for input on why this event does not appear to have registered on the network. UPDATE: The event did not register elevations in Broomfield’s air quality monitoring system, however Boulder AIR did provide an analysis here. In brief, it appears that the bulk of the plume missed the air quality monitoring equipment. | |||||
76 | When would a code RED be considered?
(re: On January 14, 2022 at approximately 3:15 pm, I witnessed dark black plumes of smoke in the direction of the NW A pad (my property is within 1500' feet south of these wells). Shortly afterwards the plume appeared extinguished. At that time I called 911 to report the fire and was advised emergency response was already there. I am assuming the fire was going on for quite some time as I saw the tail end of it. At no time did I receive a code RED so assuming this was under control? The winds and gusts were substantial by my house and I had concerns about a wild grass fire and if I should evacuate. In any event, this is frightening. I had so many concerns with the Marshall fire and these wells located too close to communities, but to see a fire break out right now during flow back is particularly dangerous. When would a code RED be considered? | 1/14/2022 | Resident | 1/19/2022 | If an incident requires evacuation or poses a threat to public safety, CodeRED would be utilized. Broomfield was in direct communication with the operator during this event and it was determined that this event did not warrant a CodeRED notification (the actual combustion lasted approximately 60 seconds). Updates were provided in real time on the oil & gas dashboard, however Broomfield is discussing a non-emergency notification protocol for high-visibility events like the one on January 14th. Once this is established, it will be posted in the News and Information section of the snapshot (available on the oil & gas main page here. | |||||
77 | 1) - Why is Extraction sending flowback fluid to the ECD? 2) - Was this something they planned to do? 3) - And did they know it would cause a gigantic black plume resembling a fire which no doubt would cause panic for nearby residents and drivers on the roads nearby? | 1/14/2022 | Laurie Anderson | 1/19/2022 | Answers to these questions have been provided in this Q & A document. | |||||
78 | Please report back as to the source of this frightening enormous black plume.
(re: I had several neighbors contact me to report a massive black plume that appeared to be at Northwest A pad today around 3:40 pm Jan 14. Some called 911. Please report back as to the source of this frightening enormous black plume. Winds out of the NE, variable, steady around 6mph but gusting Based on a previous query i posted on 1/1/22 related to the Marshall Fire, it is extremely disconcerting that CCOB does not already have evacuation order procedures from the Operator or an understanding of how long it would take in the event of a catastrophic event, whether from an event onsite at the pad or from an external source.) | 1/14/2022 | Resident | 1/14/2022 | At 4:00PM on Friday January 14th, Extraction notified CCOB of an event at the NW-B that caused a visible smoke plume. This was caused by flowback fluid being sent from one of the separators to the ECD and combusting in a controlled manner within the device. This was not a fire, and the event appears to have been short lived. North Metro Fire Department was alerted and has been in communication with Extraction’s emergency manager on if response is needed (response had not yet taken place at the time of the call). The on-duty Broomfield inspector has dispatched to the site to provide field verification of the information XOG supplied. Root cause investigation is taking place and I will update the Council as soon as more information is available. No trigger canisters were activated from this event. UPDATE: North Metro Fire, in an abundance of caution, did respond to the incident and got visual confirmation that the incident was limited and short-lived and there was no damage or injuries. CCOB inspector confirmed the same. Root cause analysis is that a separator valve malfunctioned which sent the fluid to the ECD. The valve and electronic controller have been replaced. Tomorrow (1/15), Extraction is voluntarily performing an opacity test of the ECD to ensure it is combusting with proper efficiency.” Despite this incident, the City Manager is in daly contact with Extraction and was in close communication during the recent fires. CCOB is completing an emergency management analysis following the Marshall Fires and will be recommending enhancements of our system, including impact on drilling sites, within the next couple of months. | |||||
79 | Do the inspectors know what was causing those huge black emissions coming from the NW Pads? Did NMFRD respond to the 911 call and what did they discover?)
(re: At 1/14 on 3:33 pm, a resident just reported a huge plume of black emissions coming from the Northwest Pads. The resident called 911. NW A is undergoing flowback and NW B is being used to separate the liquids. Do the inspectors know what was causing those huge black emissions coming from the NW Pads? Did NMFRD respond to the 911 call and what did they discover?) | 1/14/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/14/2022 | At 4:00PM on Friday January 14th, Extraction notified CCOB of an event at the NW-B that caused a visible smoke plume. This was caused by flowback fluid being sent from one of the separators to the ECD and combusting in a controlled manner within the device. This was not a fire, and the event appears to have been short lived. North Metro Fire Department was alerted and has been in communication with Extraction’s emergency manager on if response is needed (response had not yet taken place at the time of the call). The on-duty Broomfield inspector has dispatched to the site to provide field verification of the information XOG supplied. Root cause investigation is taking place and I will update the Council as soon as more information is available. No trigger canisters were activated from this event. | |||||
80 | So what are the scientists saying is the likely source of the Jan 7 oil and gas emissions event, which was the "highest ethane and propane values measured at any of the Broomfield monitoring sites" and “the 4th highest benzene level measured by Boulder Air”? (re: Submitted to Dashboard: In yesterday's Oil and Gas Snapshot, there was a link to a special Boulder Air report on a record AQM oil and gas emissions event captured by Boulder Air Soaring Eagle that was on Jan 7 from 12:08 pm - 12:18 pm. Ajax sensors were down due to the wildfires at that time. As is noted in the Snapshot, flowback had not started at that point on NW A and drilling had been completed at United and not yet started on Interchange A. So what are the scientists saying is the likely source of the Jan 7 oil and gas emissions event, which was the ""highest ethane and propane values measured at any of the Broomfield monitoring sites" and the 4th highest benzene level measured by Boulder Air?) | 1/12/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/13/2022 | Unknown. Broomfield has requested that the APCD collect field logs from this as well as the December 4th event to potentially provide further insight into these events. | |||||
81 | Please investigate and let's get it back online since flowback and drilling are happening simultaneously along with P and A operations in our neighborhood.
(re: Boulder Air data at PECOS station for key VOCs has not reported since Jan 11 1:04:53pm. temp, wind speed/direction and methane are reporting, but none of the VOCs. See attached snapshots. This is extremely concerning as the values were on a significant upward trend at that time. Please investigate and let's get it back online since flowback and drilling are happening simultaneously along with P and A operations in our neighborhood. thank you! Note i selected none on the health report even though i am being impacted since i summited a health complaint yesterday.) | 1/12/2022 | Resident | 1/12/2022 | Update from Boulder AIR 5PM on 1/12: The A/C ran for an hour but just stalled again. Ryan is back at the site doing some more troubleshooting now. Boulder AIR provided this update the afternoon of 1/12 (3PM): The issue was a failure of the roof A/C unit. The fan had stalled. This caused overheating of the trailer during warm/sunny days and we had to turn the VOCs instrument off because of concern that it would get damaged. We identified the issue last week and ordered a new capacitor that provides a startup voltage burst for the A/C fan. That was just received today and Ryan installed it this afternoon. The A/C seems to be working again. We just turned the VOCs instrument back on and anticipate data to come back at any moment now. | |||||
82 | What was happening around this time at NW, United and Interechange? Anything being moved on the haul road? Did any canisters trigger? (re: ~ 2pm Jan 11 acute onset eye, throat, nasal, lung irritation I was unable to get an air sample as I was out walking and the impact was so extreme i had to return home and flush my eyes. I did not want to go outside after that. Wind was variable, NNW then seemed to shift to NNE at (im guessing) 3-4 mph What was happening around this time at NW, United and Interchange? Anything being moved on the haul road? Did any canisters trigger? I suspect this was from the direction of the NW pads - what was happening with flowback at that time? I will only select NW pads in the suspected source, but it is possible it was from United or Interchange, thus the request for staff to find out what was happening at all of them. It could also have been a cumulative effect of operations on all O&G pads in the area. thank you) | 1/11/2022 | Resident | 1/12/2022 | At the Northwest pads, flowback from six wells from Northwest A was underway with the use of the production facility at Northwest B. The rig at Interchange A was drilling the vertical section at the time mentioned. The United site was mostly idle with the exception of some dirt work and housekeeping. The haul road is always in use, as it is required to reduce traffic off Huron and other roads. | |||||
83 | a resident would like to know if flowback started on Friday on NW A and drilling started on Sunday on Interchange A (re: Since the Ajax AQM sensors are down due to wildfire smoke damage, a resident would like to know if flowback started on Friday on NW A and drilling started on Sunday on Interchange A, as indicated possible in the 10/6 Oil and Gas Update.) | 1/10/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/10/2022 | Flowback began at NW-A at 16:00 on Friday 1/7. As of Monday afternoon, drilling had not yet commenced at Interchange-A but is anticipated to begin later today (1/11). | |||||
84 | Do we know if the Operator's own air quality monitoring was also impacted by the fire? Please confirm that the Operator's AQ monitoring was NOT impacted by the fire.
(re: Based on the Jan 6 O&G update, "Ajax & CSU have notified Broomfield that smoke from the Marshall Fire has severely damaged most of the PID sensors in the network." Do we know if the Operator's own air quality monitoring was also impacted by the fire? I would assume that they would need to shut down all operations until their AQ is functional otherwise that is a significant safety issue for their workers and surrounding residents. Please confirm that the Operator's AQ monitoring was NOT impacted by the fire.) | 1/10/2022 | Resident | 1/10/2022 | It appears that XOG’s network did not suffer the same damage as Broomfield’s. This status report was provided to CCOB the morning of 1/10/22:
I actually asked our consultant about the sensors this morning, knowing you guys were experiencing some challenges from wildfire and I wanted to see if we had the same problems; it sounds like our systems are unaffected. Here’s Quandary’s reply: Hi Kathy, Thanks for the heads up, but as of yet, I have not seen any issues. The VOC sensors have an inlet particulate filter and I will swap those filters next time I’m up that way, as they are due for replacement in the next month or so. They were not visibly dirty when I was up there last week, and the Broomfield monitors all had flow rates within the appropriate range when I did the flow checks. | |||||
85 | 1) Are there any sensors working after the wildfire smoke and has Ajax/CSU strategically prioritized their placement to be near known emissions production during flowback at NW A and drilling at Interchange A?
2) What is the estimated timeframe for replacement of the sensors? 3) What alternative is there to real time monitoring of emissions with the sensors? 4) Are we watching Boulder Air for indications of excessive emissions over the weekend? We have never had both flowback and drilling simultaneously at two nearby pads. 5) Did Ajax/CSU know that this smoke might permanently damage the sensors? | 1/7/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/10/2022 | 1) - Since the fire, five systems have been restored to full functionality as of Friday 1/7. Status update as of Monday 1/10 is: 6 Healthy Systems (Prospect Ridge, United 1, 2, & 3, Northwest Parkway 3, and Interchange 3) 2 Inoperable Systems (presently being worked on) 4 partially functional Systems (Interchange 2, Livingston 1, Anthem 1, Northwest Parkway 2) 2) - Ajax received the sensor parts on Friday 1/7 and expects to have the 2 remaining Inoperable systems (Wildgrass and Livingston) back online, AND the remaining 4 partially functional systems back to 100% by Tuesday (1/11), possibly sooner. 3) - This question assumes that the systems around the O&G activities are not functional. The systems are functional, so there is no real need for an alternate back-up plan, though monitoring Boulder AIR may be useful if the wind conditions cooperate with the location of the trailer. 4) - There is no permanent damage to the sensors. The sensors have small lamps (bulbs) that buildup a film/residue and electrodes and filters that need periodic replacement (this is part of our annual maintenance when systems get refurbished and recalibrated in the spring/summer). From Ajax: We did not know that the smoke was so intense as to impact the sensors the way it did until we saw trends in the data in the few days after the fires. After pulling a couple of systems to see what may be going on, we quickly discovered that the systems were just dirty from the smoke (Originally, we thought it may have been the cold weather and snow that was muting the sensors’ electronics). Network Update 1:10PM 1/10: Bench work over the weekend and a field deployment today have moved us closer to 100% efficiency: Right now (1/10), we have: 10 Healthy Systems (Prospect Ridge, United 1, 2, & 3, Northwest Parkway 3, Livingston 1 & 2, Interchange 1 & 2, Wildgrass) 0 Inoperable Systems 2 Sickly Systems (Anthem 1 and Northwest Parkway 2) Once all sensor systems are functioning at 100%, we’ll move into ensuring that trigger devices are fully functional. Trigger boxes should be working fine, but when we shuffle sensor systems around or deploy the cold spares, we like to test to ensure everything is compatible and working well together. | |||||
86 | Can Staff please remind the CDPHE that if they want to learn about operations causing emissions that they need to request the Dec 4 millout log from Extraction? Please let us know if they once again refuse to ask for the log for Dec. 4, our highest level of benzene exposure. | 1/5/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/7/2022 | Staff is collecting pending & follow up questions for next week’s regularly scheduled meeting with CDPHE/APCD. This item has been added to the list. | |||||
87 | Please tell us what a "reportable incident" is.
(re: It is frustrating that we have been exposed to benzene levels far above the health guidelines and yet in the dashboard response to a question submitted 12/22 asking if COGCC can request logs from the Operator, the response was "2 - Yes, COGCC could request the Extraction log; however, COGCC does not request operational logs unless a reportable incident or accident occurred." What is considered a "reportable incident"? Were logs requested after the fire on NW A? I assume that is an "accident" and/or "reportable incident". If they were not requested after the fire, why weren't they? Thanks. Note - i selected none for health symptoms even though i have repeatedly suffered acute health issues from the odors at the pads - i simply can't fill out any more health assessments) | 1/3/2022 | Resident | 1/7/2022 | Accidents involving “significant damage” to production or other equipment, injury of field personnel, or hospitalization of members of the public must be reported to the COGCC with the Form 22 under Rule 602.b. Spills and leaks must be reported to the COGCC with the Form 19 under rule 907. Most other reportable events are covered under Form 4’s (sundry notices) or Form 42’s (field operations notices). Neither the small fire at NW-A nor the observed air quality event during millout qualify as reportable. | |||||
88 | The residents have not yet received the link for the Wednesday 1/5 CDPHE meeting from 11 am - 12:30 pm.
(re: The 12/31 Data Snapshot didn't contain it and stated: "Consultation with CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division. A date of January 5th (11 AM-12:30 PM) has been set for Broomfield’s consultation with the APCD regarding Broomfield’s observed air quality monitoring data since the resumption of development activities at the Extraction Oil & Gas pads in northern Broomfield. Please review Council questions that have been submitted to the APCD that will be addressed in the meeting and previous questions that have already been answered here. Additional questions submitted by members of the public will also be shared with the APCD.") | 1/3/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/5/2022 | The link for the Wednesday 1/5/22 CDPHE public meeting has been posted in the Snapshot dated 1-4-22. | |||||
89 | What operations would have been underway on United (most likely) for 14 hours that suddenly halted at around 8 am on Jan 2?
(re: Interchange 3 triggered on 1/1/22 at 20:50 and is still listed under "Event Notification" on the Ajax site. It looks like this event was part of a 14 hour emissions event from 18:00 on 1/1/22 to 8:00 on 1/2/22. During those 14 hours, it bounced around 500 mV for those 14 hours until it peaked at 838 mV at 7:45 am. Then there was a precipitous decline to below 200 mV within an hour. Did there happen to be an inspector around on the morning of 1/2 to address this question: what operations would have been underway on United (most likely) for 14 hours that suddenly halted at around 8 am on Jan 2? Ajax's Broomfield Air Quality Reports https://trello.com/b/yYVuC58v/broomfield-air-quality-event-reports Event Notification for Trigger at Interchange 3 on 1/1/22 at 20:50 https://trello.com/c/GAfFXh4Q Ajax AQM graphs for Interchange 3 (past 2 days) https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1640998039684&to=1641170839685&var-site_id=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_03&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_INTERCHANGE_03&var-windroseMetric=NO) | 1/2/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/7/2022 | The drilling rig was in the hydrocarbon zone early Friday and completed drilling the well over the weekend. The inspectors report mentioned the well was finished being drilled at 18,235 feet on 1/2/2022. | |||||
90 | Residents would like to know if the list of resident questions that were due on Dec. 30 ahead of the Jan. 5 CDPHE meeting can be published ahead of time. Perhaps this would be with names redacted? | 1/2/2022 | Jean Lim | 1/5/2022 | Resident questions have been published as a part of the Snapshot dated 1-4-22 and can be viewed here. | |||||
91 | DECEMBER 2021 - Below | |||||||||
92 | (1) - Was the Interchange 03 canister swapped out since it triggered at 503 mv on 12/24 at 3:55 pm?
(2) - Were other parts of the extended VOC event captured that the preliminary report shows lasted about 32 hours, starting "around 11:00 pm on 12/23 and [was] observed through 7:00 am on 12/25?" | 12/27/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/28/2021 | From Ajax: (1) - Yes, the Interchange 03 canister was swapped out. No canisters at other AQM sites were triggered during this event. (2) - No, we only captured one sample during this prolonged event. | |||||
93 | Residents would like to know if there is a deadline for submitting resident questions for the Jan. 5 CDPHE meeting. | 12/26/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/29/2021 | The deadline for the public to submit questions is no later than the end of business on December 30, 2021. | |||||
94 | Residents would like to know if the Jan. 5 CDPHE meeting will be recorded, for those who cannot attend at 11 am. | 12/22/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/22/2021 | The meeting will be recorded and stored in the oil & gas archive (where City Council meeting recordings are stored). | |||||
95 | 1) Would Extraction have written in the operations log what operational activity could have caused this event (which was the "largest concentrations we have measured" with a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb)? 2) Could the COGCC request the Extraction log? Our community was exposed to the "largest concentrations we have measured" and a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb. (re: These are followup questions to 12/21 Staff responses to my 12/18 questions regarding: The 12/16 trigger analysis report for six 12/4 triggers shows that the NW 2 4:06 am trigger during millout (coiled tubing) had the "largest concentrations we have measured" and a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb. Staff response: Follow-up conversations with Extraction indicate that the well being worked on around the time of the AQM event had to be closed off for a brief time while a coupling was serviced on the coiled tubing unit. Closing off an active well has been observed in the past during the millout process when debris or barriers are encountered downhole. However, Extraction reported that there was no residual gas aboveground that needed to be sent to the emission control device (which potentially could have been a source of the event). Without inspectors being onsite to verify this information, it is not possible to know or speculate what other operational activity could have caused the release. New questions: 1) Would Extraction have written in the operations log what operational activity could have caused this event (which was the "largest concentrations we have measured" with a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb)? 2) Could the COGCC request the Extraction log? Our community was exposed to the "largest concentrations we have measured" and a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb.) | 12/22/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/28/2021 | 1 - Broomfield asked this question following the trigger canister events on 12/4 and Extraction’s information was posted on the Q&A Dashboard in response to a question from 12/18 (RE the well being temporarily closed off). According to Extraction, there was no other indication of any irregularities in the handoff logs from the night crew to the day crew. 2 - Yes, COGCC could request the Extraction log; however, COGCC does not request operational logs unless a reportable incident or accident occurred. | |||||
96 | The resident link for submitting CDPHE comments is not allowing comments due to lack of permission. In the "Consultation with CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division" section of today's Oil and Gas Snapshot, it states, "If members of the public have a question that has not already been asked and answered or posed by the City Council, those can be submitted here." The error message is: You need permission This form can only be viewed by users in the owner's organization. Try contacting the owner of the form if you think this is a mistake. Learn More. If members of the public have a question that has not already been asked and answered or posed by the City Council, those can be submitted here. | 12/22/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/22/2021 | The access issue has been fixed. | |||||
97 | Given that data could indicate winds blowing from the United or NW Pads, what can the scientists state about the source of the plume that hit at Soaring Eagle?
(re: A resident whose child had an extended nosebleed which expelled a large blood clot prompted me to look at the AQM data. On 12/18 at 8:39 pm, Boulder Air Soaring Eagle shows the largest VOC spike of the last 30 days where toluene was 8.779 ppb (next highest 5.738 ppb on Dec. 5), ethane 51.66 ppb, etc. The i/n pentane ratio was .71 and winds were from the ESE. Given that data could indicate winds blowing from the United or NW Pads, what can the scientists state about the source of the plume that hit at Soaring Eagle? It looks like there were VOC spikes at Boulder Air North Pecos on 12/18 at 6 pm and 9 pm.) | 12/21/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/22/2021 | North Pecos: At 6:05PM, benzene reached a max value of 2.58ppb with winds from the NW (direction of the NW Pads). At 11:05PM benzene was measured at 1.98ppb with winds from the NE (direction of the United Pad). Soaring Eagle: At 9:00PM, benzene reached a max value of 1.56ppb with winds from the SE (not in the direct line of any active pads, however the Livingston Pad is to the south and the Northwest Pads are to the east of Soaring Eagle station). 12/21/21 - Boulder AIR & CSU have been asked for additional analysis on this event. | |||||
98 | 1) Is that an accurate preliminary picture? 2) Should Ajax be changing the Interchange sensor threshold to 500 mV as set at United to capture the peaks? The Dec.10 trigger notice seems to be an example of how it would have been better to have it set at 500mV at the Interchange sensors. 3) Does Staff agree with Ajax that it is in the best interest of Broomfield residents' health to have the NW sensors remain at 300mV? (re: It appears from the 12/10 trigger notice and 3 very recent triggers (12/17 Interchange 3, 12/19 Interchange 2 and 3) that the United drilling emissions are coming from the north towards these Interchange sensors. 1) Is that an accurate preliminary picture? 2) Should Ajax be changing the Interchange sensor threshold to 500 mV as set at United to capture the peaks? The Dec.10 trigger notice seems to be an example of how it would have been better to have it set at 500mV at the Interchange sensors. 3) Does Staff agree with Ajax that it is in the best interest of Broomfield residents' health to have the NW sensors remain at 300mV? Dec 10 trigger notice https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ypX0ZznzFGdlIby45tIFk_mrqk6UM53E/view | 12/20/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/21/2021 | 1 - According to Ajax, the source of the Interchange triggers (8 since 11/24) is not yet clear. Some trigger events appear to coincide with drilling within the formation at the United pad, some do not. Ajax is presently reviewing the latest canister data (between 12/10 and 12/19) to try and provide some insight regarding this question. 2 - Ajax reported to Broomfield that in their December 20th AM staff meeting, it was determined that there is sufficient justification to raise trigger thresholds in the entire system to 500mV (with one co-located canister at United 03 [co-located with United 02] set at 1,000mV.. 3 - As noticed on the dashboard on 12/15, the NWPKWY 01 & 02 trigger thresholds were raised the week of December 13th to 500mV and 750mV respectively. | |||||
99 | 1) What caused the unanticipated huge VOC emissions during this millout operation? “Extraction representatives confirmed that crews entered the first well with the coiled unit (for millout of the plugs) on the NW-A pad at around 3:50 AM.” Did Staff ask Extraction if there were any irregularities in operations at that time? 2) Broomfield inspectors were not on the pad to observe during overnight hours, but do they have any theories about what Extraction procedural irregularities could have caused these unanticipated huge VOCs? 3) Has Broomfield asked the COGCC if they have any theories about what Extraction procedural irregularities could have caused these unanticipated huge VOCs? Does the COGCC have any suggested mitigations? 4) Please revise the standard text used in every Extraction Operations Update in the Look Ahead section regarding the coiled tubing to reflect our data which showed that coiled tubing can emit larger VOCs than drilling. (re: The 12/16 trigger analysis report for six 12/4 triggers shows that the NW 2 4:06 am trigger during millout (coiled tubing) had the "largest concentrations we have measured" and a 1-hour calculated benzene level of 186.479 ppb. “The acute health guideline standard that Broomfield uses for contextual comparison for benzene is 9 ppb for a 1-hour exposure.” The 12/16 Extraction Operations Update states regarding coiled tubing, “Some VOCs are to be expected, but less than during the drilling phase because the casing and water column act as a barrier to the atmosphere.” Questions: 1) What caused the unanticipated huge VOC emissions during this millout operation? “Extraction representatives confirmed that crews entered the first well with the coiled unit (for millout of the plugs) on the NW-A pad at around 3:50 AM.” Did Staff ask Extraction if there were any irregularities in operations at that time? 2) Broomfield inspectors were not on the pad to observe during overnight hours, but do they have any theories about what Extraction procedural irregularities could have caused these unanticipated huge VOCs? 3) Has Broomfield asked the COGCC if they have any theories about what Extraction procedural irregularities could have caused these unanticipated huge VOCs? Does the COGCC have any suggested mitigations? 4) Please revise the standard text used in every Extraction Operations Update in the Look Ahead section regarding the coiled tubing to reflect our data which showed that coiled tubing can emit larger VOCs than drilling. 12/16 Report on 12/4 Six Trigger Canister Notifications: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1deXXP0YfDG1ZvNLoonS74OYbSw8f_VR9/view !2/16 Extraction Operations Update https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nkuZsjf96KxHxxtYxtkJBSB4fppbA3gU/view) | 12/18/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/21/2021 | 1 - After the event, Broomfield asked Extraction representatives if any operational failures occurred that may have led to the release. Overnight crews reported no incidents or failures.
2 - Follow-up conversations with Extraction indicate that the well being worked on around the time of the AQM event had to be closed off for a brief time while a coupling was serviced on the coiled tubing unit. Closing off an active well has been observed in the past during the millout process when debris or barriers are encountered downhole. However, Extraction reported that there was no residual gas aboveground that needed to be sent to the emission control device (which potentially could have been a source of the event). Without inspectors being onsite to verify this information, it is not possible to know or speculate what other operational activity could have caused the release. Extraction’s air quality manager has preemptively collected the benzene tubes for lab analysis (even though the 5PPM/+4Hr. threshold was not reached in this event - the highest reading for the event was 4.699PPM for 1, 15 minute interval). Broomfield expects to see this data and will share as soon as it is available from the lab. 3 - Broomfield shared data from this event with both CDPHE and COGCC. Both state agencies indicated that without further information about exact operations at the time of the event, it is not possible to recommend any mitigations or other best practices. 4 - The section has been updated. | |||||
100 | My 12/14 complaint with questions about why Ajax is opening trigger canisters at 300mV. Tax payer's what to know what the real benzene and other chemical concentrations are in the air. When Ajax triggers canisters at smaller events and the early shoulders of large events it doesn't get close to measuring concentrations around the health standard of 9ppb for benzene. The CCOB is not a university, and this is looking like too much of a research project rather than applied technology. Tax payers just want to know what concentrations are actually in the air. No one gets interested in AQM events that result in less than 9ppb so why is Ajax intentionally trying to measure smaller (less than 9ppb) or measure on the early shoulder of a large event which would also result in less than 9ppb. Citizens get very little traction on anything and clearly have zero traction on AQM events with less than 9ppb. Why is Ajax intentionally doing this? The milli volt output does appear to be appropriate for use of zero slope during AQM events. It is understood that the trigger canister would open for the first peak and that subsequent peaks that may occur and may have higher concentrations during an AQM event would not be measured. | 12/16/2021 | Resident | Ajax remains firm that the trigger thresholds are presently set at the correct levels to properly characterize AQM events. | ||||||
101 | My questions are: 1) Can Staff ask the CDPHE if there is a federal health-based guideline level of 9 ppb benzene that the CDPHE is using? That is what the article indicates and I was only aware of a CA acute benzene health guideline level of 9 ppb. 2) CDPHE spent 400 hours finding one exceedance. Based on the recent 12/3 plume tracker run, Broomfield Staff seems to have a narrower window to attempt to get peak emissions. Could Staff ask the CDPHE if they would like to again consider bringing the CAMML back to Broomfield? (re: Attached is a 12/15 Denver Post article titled "Colorado health officials detect elevated benzene in Weld County community." The article states: "The state’s mobile lab last week measured benzene in the air north of Union Reservoir at 9.9 parts per billion, above the federal health-based guideline level of 9 ppb. While this doesn’t mean an immediate health risk to nearby residents, further investigation is necessary, Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment officials said Wednesday, and they’ll seek help from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission." My questions are: 1) Can Staff ask the CDPHE if there is a federal health-based guideline level of 9 ppb benzene that the CDPHE is using? That is what the article indicates and I was only aware of a CA acute benzene health guideline level of 9 ppb. 2) CDPHE spent 400 hours finding one exceedance. Based on the recent 12/3 plume tracker run, Broomfield Staff seems to have a narrower window to attempt to get peak emissions. Could Staff ask the CDPHE if they would like to again consider bringing the CAMML back to Broomfield? article attached and here is the link https://www.denverpost.com/2021/12/15/colorado-health-officials-detect-elevated-benzene-weld-county/) | 12/15/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/16/2021 | 1) CDPHE uses a federal health-based guideline value (HGV) for acute exposure to benzene. The value of 9 ppb for acute exposure that CDPHE uses is based on the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). See a complete list of CDPHE’s HGVs here. Each HGV referenced in the document provides the agency from which that number was adopted from. The acute reference exposure level (REL) for benzene in California is 8 ppb. 2) CDPHE communicated to Broomfield that they have not yet reevaluated their deployment of the CAMML resource for 2022. CDPHE is prepared to address this when they present to Council. | |||||
102 | What is the exact level of benzene in ppb in both of those grab canister samples from the 12/3 plume tracker run?
(re: In the 12/3/21 plume tracker report, grab canister analysis initiated by the plume tracker showed "captured plumes likely originated from the United pad." What is the exact level of benzene in ppb in both of those grab canister samples from the 12/3 plume tracker run? The chemical composition charts from Ajax have always included a marker for the CA acute health guideline of 9 ppb benzene and I don't see it on the charts on p. 2 for comparison. It appears that both of the grab canister samples are above that benzene health guideline. Of note surrounding this plume tracker run, there was one 12/3 trigger at 6:25 am and 6 triggers on 12/4 which have pending canister analysis. plume tracker report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nTJbwJyci3clsbEzWHcaR-6JFojK1D2-/view Trigger matrix https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rgLFcI3OU8fdN52cv5nNSZWMN-JePY-FwNbO_IdRtb8/edit#gid=0) | 12/15/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/15/2021 | The exact measurements of benzene for the two 60-second canisters are 5.794 ppb (canister 1) and 7.643 ppb (canister 2). The raw data can be seen here. Staff will ask CSU to include HGVs in future reports. | |||||
103 | Can you ask Ajax why they are guessing at what milli voltage should be used to open the 60 second trigger canister (300mV or 500mV)? Everyone else uses the point at which the slope of the peak equals zero. No one goes around guessing peak maximum and therefore maximum concentration. It appears the benzene concentration is consistently under measured and that the actual concentrations are much higher. Is there some technical reason why Ajax does not open the valve when the slope of the peak is zero? If you look at Detlev's benzene peaks captured at Pecos you will consistently notice the peaks start, rise to maximum, then drop down. This occurs over a two hour period for drilling (have to watch what happens during the other phases). If peaks of benzene last two hours how is it remotely possible that the current Ajax AQM is capturing the highest benzene concentrations around the pad with 60 seconds of sampling and guessing when the valve should be opened? Ajax is clearly capturing smaller events and the very early shoulder of large events which results in under reporting the benzene concentrations. Tax payers want to know what their actuals exposures are. We were told the AQM would protect our health but when benzene is under reported doesn't this become a weapon to use against us? (We submitt health complaints and CCOB rolls their eyes at us because the AQM shows low benzene). If benzene is under reported how can Public Health correlate health issues to air concentrations? I am requesting that i be informed of Ajax's response and when they will start using a slope equal to zero for the maximum peak concentration. Yes i understand that if multiple benzene peaks occur after the first one they will not be sampled as the trigger canister has already sampled. | 12/14/2021 | Resident | 12/15/2021 | This was a topic of discussion at the 12/15 AQM collaborative meeting.
From Ajax: We are only beginning to change the base principles for triggering that we’ve maintained since initial deployment. This base principle being that we will learn more by capturing smaller events (and the early shoulders of large events) than it is to miss many of the smaller events by trying to capture the peaks of events. We are working to “fill in” the sampling bias we experienced in the triggered canisters (see plot). Only recently have we begun to adjust trigger thresholds higher, as we did at United 01 & 02 (which is presently at 500 mV and 1,000 mV respectively). We agree with the resident that at this point there is sufficient low TVOC triggers at NWPKWY that the threshold for these sites can be increased (500 mV and 700/800 mV for the two sites). A zero-slope trigger activation would not achieve the resident’s desired outcome. Many (thousands) times throughout the diurnal cycle (both during AQM events and otherwise) the slope of the TVOC indicator is at or near zero. Further, the software doesn’t presently allow multivariate trigger activations. Broomfield and Ajax/CSU are working to better understand 1-hour exposures to air toxics and will be implementing a trial with 15 minute canisters at multiple locations. This may validate (or invalidate) the formula used to calculate the 1-hour estimates and may also increase the likelihood of capturing the VOC peak of AQM events. | |||||
104 | what is happening at the United pad and northwest pads during this time frame that could be the root cause of the odor?
(re: Strong petro chemical odor, wind out of the north east Causing lung irritation. Question: what is happening at the United pad and northwest pads during this time frame that could be the root cause of the odor? Odor dissipated after about five minutes but caused acute onset irritation I am out walking so unable to get a grab the sample) | 12/11/2021 | Resident | 1/12/2022 | Drilling was occurring at the United pad. Coiled tubing work was occurring at Northwest A pad. Hydraulic fracturing was occurring at Northwest B pad. | |||||
105 | why NW and Interchange triggers are set at 300 mV rather than 500 mV like United trigger thresholds. | 12/6/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/7/2021 | Response from Ajax: We have two factors at play here:
We are working to “fill in” the sampling bias we experienced in the triggered canisters (graphic below). However, as we do this, we need to maintain some control sites to ensure that the trends are not also changing at lower sensor levels. Northwest Parkway was envisioned to be the control (stays the same and has pre-production activity), while United drilling was our test (increased thresholds to fill-in the sampling bias data gap). To that end, we also setup a United 3 system co-located with United 2. United 1 and United 2 trigger at 500 and United 3 triggers at 1000. Interchange thresholds have not had as much recent thought behind them – in this case, there is not yet new activity at Interchange so we did not change the production phase thresholds at this site. See graphic illustration. More specifically, we have not yet changed the base principles for triggering that we’ve maintained since initial deployment. This base principle being that we will learn more by capturing smaller events (and the early shoulders of large events) than it is to miss many of the smaller events by trying to capture the peaks of events. Note: I suspect we are nearing the point where we can justifiably refine this principle to segment trigger thresholds that should be set for community and production operations from trigger thresholds that should be set for the different pre-production operations. We do want to see what trends come out of the above correlation plot to fuel that decision. | |||||
106 | (1) - What specifically is happening at Northwest Pads and United pads around 10:20 am 12-5-21?
(2) - Please confirm NEOFLOW is still in use at United Pad. (3) - What is different at United Pad with respect to drilling than what we had at Northwest Pads? (4) - Is the larger drilling rig at United exposing us to larger amounts of tailings at a given time? (5) - Are pipe pulling procedures different at United? (6) - Are there chemicals in use at NW pads that could be the root cause of this odor? (re: Strong chemical odor that is irritating eyes/throat/lungs. The winds are variable but right now NNE ~ 3 mph This is the same odor we keep smelling that is causing health issues. I will file a separate health concern as it seems my odor concern was lost when i filed the last one that contained both health and odor. I used my grab sample canister friday to capture air sample when this same odor enveloped our property so i do not have one available today. QUESTIONS: What specifically is happening at Northwest Pads and United pads around 10:20 am 12-5-21 Please confirm NEOFLOW is still in use at United Pad What is different at United Pad with respect to drilling than what we had at Northwest Pads? Is the larger drilling rig at United exposing us to larger amounts of tailings at a given time? Are pipe pulling procedures different at United? Are there chemicals in use at NW pads that could be the root cause of this odor?) | 12/5/2021 | Resident | 12/6/2021 | (1) - Inspection reports indicate that on December 3rd: NW-A was operationally idle (millout/coiled tubing did not begin at that pad until Saturday [12/4] morning). NW-B was actively fracking 2nd zipper group. United was actively drilling and running casing in the wellbore. (2) - Neoflow was verified as the drilling fluid in a recent drilling inspection and prior to drilling operations taking place. (3) - The major difference is the rig is more equipped (more redundancies) at United. The drilling process is the same. (4) - Cuttings are being generated at a similar rate as the previous rig and are transported off site within a similar time frame. (5) - Pipe pulling procedures remain the same. Staff verifies on site daily with a visual inspection. (6) - On December 3rd, two enhancements of ethane and propane (see graph) were measured at the North Pecos AQM station at approximately 5AM and 6PM. The 5AM event was accompanied by a moderate methane enhancement (see graph). Note that these events did not register enhancements of benzene or toluene. A trigger canister was activated at the United 02 location on 12/3 at 6:25AM. The following morning (12/4) the Broomfield inspector noted a faint hydrocarbon odor at the United Pad and verified that the wellbore being actively drilled had been within the hydrocarbon formation the previous day. This evidence suggests that the root cause of the odor was drilling at the United Pad, not either of the NW pads. | |||||
107 | My immediate question is: Will all 5 canisters be replaced on Saturday morning in case there is an ongoing cause of the spikes?
(re: I am resubmitting this with a correct date of Dec 4. I am concerned that there have been 5 triggers in the last 5 hours and Boulder Air North Pecos also shows a large AQ event starting at about 3 am. The Ajax trigger matrix shows 4 triggers went off at the same time at NW 2, NW 3, United 1 and United 2. I am obviously concerned about the cause of this unprecedented number of triggers at the same time. My immediate question is: Will all 5 canisters be replaced on Saturday morning in case there is an ongoing cause of the spikes? Interchange 3 - Dec 4 about 12:30 am https://trello.com/c/pSPQb4Rs Northwest 2 - Dec 4 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/uTNFUuad Northwest 3 - Dec 4 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/kj5WorJZ United 1 - Dec 4 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/It3FDyUf United 2 - Dec 4 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/94cvxG5v Here are the numbers at 5:30 am on Boulder Air.CompoundCurrentPast 8-hour averagePast 24-hour maximumMethane (ppb)290322284103Collection time: Methane at 12/4 04:30.Ethane (ppb)96.4823.5396.48Propane (ppb)49.9011.4649.90Benzene (ppb)2.1200.4532.120i-Butane (ppb)8.7582.0218.758n-Butane (ppb)27.9506.04627.950Acetylene (ppb)0.8410.5391.730Toluene (ppb)4.2290.9014.229) | 12/4/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/6/2021 | Ajax confirmed: all 5 stations were changed between 10:59 am and 11:16 am. | |||||
108 | My immediate question is: Will all 5 canisters be replaced on Saturday morning in case there is an ongoing cause of the spikes?
(re: I am concerned that there have been 5 triggers in the last 5 hours and Boulder Air North Pecos also shows a large AQ event starting at about 3 am. The Ajax trigger matrix shows 4 triggers went off at the same time at NW 2, NW 3, United 1 and United 2. I am obviously concerned about the cause of this unprecedented number of triggers at the same time but realize that will take time. My immediate question is: Will all 5 canisters be replaced on Saturday morning in case there is an ongoing cause of the spikes? Interchange 3 - Dec 3 about 12:30 am https://trello.com/c/pSPQb4Rs Northwest 2 - Dec 3 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/uTNFUuad Northwest 3 - Dec 3 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/kj5WorJZ United 1 - Dec 3 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/It3FDyUf United 2 - Dec 3 about 4:30 am https://trello.com/c/94cvxG5v Here are the numbers at 5:30 am on Boulder Air.CompoundCurrentPast 8-hour averagePast 24-hour maximumMethane (ppb)290322284103Collection time: Methane at 12/4 04:30.Ethane (ppb)96.4823.5396.48Propane (ppb)49.9011.4649.90Benzene (ppb)2.1200.4532.120i-Butane (ppb)8.7582.0218.758n-Butane (ppb)27.9506.04627.950Acetylene (ppb)0.8410.5391.730Toluene (ppb)4.2290.9014.229) | 12/6/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/6/2021 | Ajax confirmed: all 5 stations were changed between 10:59 am and 11:16 am. | |||||
109 | (1) - What are the chemicals coming off the pads?
(2) - What chemicals are coming off the three pads that cause a lot of eye stinging and very bad headaches. (3) - What chemicals are coming off the pads (NW A or B or drilling at United) that have and odor and cause a lot if eye,burning and stinging? (4) - What are we breathing? (re: There are some kind of emissions coming of NW A or NW B or Unitef causes pretty bad headaches. What are the chemicals coming off the pads? This is a lot worse than normal. … My eye are stinging much worse than normal. … What chemicals are coming off the three pads that cause a lot of eye stinging and very bad headaches. … What chemicals are coming off the pads (NW A or B or drilling at United) that have and odor and cause a lot if eye,burning and stinging? Previous resisedents around Livingston had permanant corneal damage during drilling. What are we breathing?) | 12/3/2021 | Resident | 12/7/2021 | On the morning of December 3rd, two enhancements of ethane and propane (see graph) were measured at the North Pecos AQM station at approximately 5AM and 6PM. The 5AM event was accompanied by a moderate methane enhancement (see graph). There are no human exposure related health guideline values for methane, propane or ethane. Note that these events did not appear to register enhancements of benzene or toluene, which do have health guideline values. A trigger canister was activated at the United 02 location on 12/3 at 6:25AM which suggests that drilling at United may be the source of the methane/ethane/propane event, however winds from the west/southwest appear to contradict the theory of the United Pad as the source. The canister analysis will help further characterize the event. No canister was activated at the Northwest sites on 12/3.
It is difficult to determine the exact source or chemical that may be causing a headache and/or eye irritation. Trigger canisters are analyzed for 52 chemicals and provide us with important data to understand emissions from oil and gas operations. Toxicological studies have documented that some of these chemicals are known to cause symptoms when levels exceed health guideline values. It is difficult to predict which symptoms an individual may experience as frequency, magnitude, and duration also play a very important role when assessing exposure to chemicals from oil and gas sites. | |||||
110 | What specifically was taking place at NW A, NW B and United pads at this time? (re: 6pm Both eye and lung irritation - horrible chemical smell. There are cranes on both Northwest A and B pads. And United drilling rig in progress. Wind is variable. When i did the air sample, it was from NE, shifting to from N. QUESTION: What specifically was taking place at NW A, NW B and United pads at this time. EG, pipe pulling, tailings removed, frack chemicals/sand prepared, coil and tubing, etc.) | 12/3/2021 | Resident | 12/8/2021 | During the time frame requested (6 pm) on Friday operations at NW A and NW B were idle. Coiled tubing finished on the 2N at approximately 12 pm. The dismantling of equipment and components took approximately 3-4 hours and prohibited fracturing operations to continue. The coiled tubing unit was transported to NW B and assembled from 4 pm until about midnight. Coiled tubing operations did not resume until 3 a.m. on Saturday. Fracturing operations resumed at approximately 8 p.m after coiled tubing was completely off the pad. At United the rig was actively drilling the United B S16-20-12N well. | |||||
111 | My question is what are these emissions and are they harmful to our health or are they a safety hazard (fires and explosions).
(re: At approximately 7:00PM last night (Dec 1, 2021) I noticed a huge plume of emissions coming from the NW B pad. The cloud was going straight east and at times went approximately three times the height of the sound walls or 96 feet into the air (see the photo). My question is what are these emissions and are they harmful to our health or are they a safety hazard (fires and explosions). No new health issues are being reported for this huge plume of emissions.) | 12/2/2021 | Resident | 12/2/2021 | The coiled tubing unit and components are not equipped with the same tier 4 technology as the hydraulic fracturing fleet. From the image provided it appears that the emissions from the pad is most likely diesel exhaust and is further illuminated at night from the lights on site. | |||||
112 | Has Boulder Air been notified? Could the inspectors do a field observation in case anything obvious is wrong?
(re: Boulder Air North Pecos has been down since about 4 pm yesterday (18 hours) except for the methane monitoring component, as shown in the attached screenshot. Has Boulder Air been notified? Could the inspectors do a field observation in case anything obvious is wrong?) | 12/1/2021 | Jean Lim | 12/1/2021 | Boulder AIR confirmed that the GC station suffered a software malfunction, a field technician responded the morning of 12/1 and they anticipate restoring data collection by this evening. Note that the data is unable to be backfilled. Boulder AIR was notified the morning of 12/1, updates will be posted here. | |||||
113 | NOVEMBER 2021 - Below | |||||||||
114 | what activities were happening today that may have caused this noxious odor. They were curious if it is related to the new apparatus at the NW B pad, or if it is coming from United with pipe pulling or tailings removal.
(re: Several neighbors have reached out to me today complaining of a strong diesel/hydrocarbon odor. They state it was worse this afternoon around 4pm, but noticed it all day. They do not have the ability to access this site to report so i am submitting for them. I have been gone all day so have not been present to observe any odors. Question: they would like to know what activities were happening today that may have caused this noxious odor. They were curious if it is related to the new apparatus at the NW B pad, or if it is coming from United with pipe pulling or tailings removal.) | 11/30/2021 | Resident | 12/1/2021 | The coiled tubing unit at the NW-B Pad was releasing a sand blockage in one of the wells and during rounds the inspector did note a faint diesel combustion odor at the pad, however light to moderate winds were blowing from the south/southeast for the majority of the day (including around 4PM - see link) so a source of any odors detected in the 156th Ave. area is unknown. A trigger canister was captured at the NW-02 location at 10AM on 11/30, canister analysis may help determine a source for this event. | |||||
115 | Based on wind direction from the ENE, could the source have been the United Pad and the Ajax trigger system have just missed it? (re: In response to a resident's question about a chemical odor detected on 11/29, Staff replied that "No trigger canisters were activated the entire day of Nov 29." However, Boulder Air North Pecos shows a large methane spike and toluene spike near that time. Based on wind direction from the ENE, could the source have been the United Pad and the Ajax trigger system have just missed it? See 3 attached graphs of Boulder Air North Pecos. Upload photo 1: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Og-793kB01lG6MDSEps4djPOxeSPAI2v&export=download&display=/893658465Nov3020211027AMAir_83667940_MethanespikehealthimpactNov29noonBoulderAirNorthPecos.docx Upload photo 2: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1owpOLAv-xHH597OnM467HupYmJVTtVMX&export=download&display=/893658465Nov3020211027AMAir_83667941_MethanespikeothervocshealthimpactNov29noonBoulderAirNorthPecos.docx Upload photo 3: https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1nuSYQ-PFiVo94LCQhZ2fsqQCgQ8QrzBz&export=download&display=/893658465Nov3020211027AMAir_83667942_MethanespikewinddirectionhealthimpactNov29noonBoulderAirNorthPecos.docx) | 11/30/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/30/2021 | The inspector noted a faint petroleum odor at the United Pad during daily rounds on 11/29, given wilds from ENE it is possible that airborne VOCs were transported across the Northwest Parkway to the south. It’s possible that the plume did not pass over any of the Ajax sensors or that the plume was not significant enough to trigger an air canister sample. | |||||
116 | (1) - my questions related to those toluene spikes are: Why would these toluene spikes show up as significant on Boulder Air and not cause a trigger at any Ajax sensor?
(2) - Does the wind direction show that the source could have been the NW or United Pads since the spikes showed up on both Boulder Air sites? (3) - What were/are the days/time frame during which injection of compressed natural gas was/is taking place at Livingston? (4) - here was a note in the 11/23 Extraction update that "Swabbing maintenance operations have concluded. Injection of compressed natural gas will be used to return the wells to production (closed loop)." 3) Does the wind direction show that the source could have been the Livingston Pad? (re: A resident conveyed a health concern of a nosebleed occurrence on 11/26 at about 10 am and asked about any notable AQ events on the monitors that might have caused it. Although there are no triggers for that time reported on the Trigger Matrix, there were significant spikes of toluene and other VOCs at both Boulder Air North Pecos and Soaring Eagle around that time. See 3 attached graphs. So my questions related to those toluene spikes are: 1) Why would these toluene spikes show up as significant on Boulder Air and not cause a trigger at any Ajax sensor? 2) Does the wind direction show that the source could have been the NW or United Pads since the spikes showed up on both Boulder Air sites? 3) What were/are the days/time frame during which injection of compressed natural gas was/is taking place at Livingston? There was a note in the 11/23 Extraction update that "Swabbing maintenance operations have concluded. Injection of compressed natural gas will be used to return the wells to production (closed loop)." 3) Does the wind direction show that the source could have been the Livingston Pad?) | 11/30/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/30/2021 | (1) - It is possible that if there was a plume, it did not pass directly over any Ajax sensors, however the trigger canisters are activated by total VOCs (not any one compound on its own). United 01 & 02 appear to show some variability around this time, however not enough to trigger a canister (166 mV max).
(2) - Inconclusive, light winds were alternating from NNE and ESE during this timeframe. (3) - The injection of the compressed natural gas has been mostly constant since swabbing operations concluded, the gas will be cut off as soon as bottom hole pressure returns. (4) - Unlikely, winds appear to have been blowing from the northeast at the Livingston Pad around this time. | |||||
117 | (1) - what was happening at Northwest B at the original time of my complaint submission? *date/time of original submission (#55577) = approximately Nov 29, 2021 - 12:16pm.
(2) - Is it possible activity at Northwest B could have caused the strong chemical odor? (3) - Did any canisters trigger at any location during this time frame? (re: I just realized that the fracking crane is gone from Northwest B — what was happening at Northwest B at the original time of my complaint submission? Is it possible activity at Northwest B could have caused the strong chemical odor? Did any canisters trigger at any location during this time frame?) | 11/29/2021 | Resident | 11/30/2021 | (1) - NW-B Pad was operationally idle at this time, crews were awaiting a coiled tubing unit to release a sand blockage in the wells. Wells were sealed off and closed from the atmosphere.
(2) - Possible but highly unlikely. Inspector had just completed rounds, no odors were noted at the NW-B Pad. (3) - No trigger canisters were activated the entire day of November 29th. | |||||
118 | What specifically was happening at United Pad at this time? (re: Strong chemical odor as wind shifted to be out of the northeast. I am out walking so unable to take an air sample What specifically was happening at United Pad at this time? date/time = approximately Nov 29, 2021 - 12:16pm) | 11/29/2021 | Resident | 11/30/2021 | Broomfield inspector confirmed that drill pipe was being removed from the wellbore at around this time. Pipe stands were being wiped down and a rubber gasket was observed in use. | |||||
119 | (1) - Will all 8+ likely one hour average estimated benzene exceedances of 9 ppb be published before the Dec. 14 Council Oil and Gas Update item?
(2) - Would it be possible for Staff to prioritize publication of any benzene exceedances when they are marked "complete" on the Ajax/CSU tracking system? (3) - Has Public Health discussed with CDPHE that there have been 3 published one hour average estimated benzene exceedances, with the likely addition of 5 one hour average estimated benzene exceedances in the short time frame of Oct 30 - Nov 5? (4) - What has been CDPHE's response? (re: Will all 8+ likely one hour average estimated benzene exceedances of 9 ppb be published before the Dec. 14 Council Oil and Gas Update item? That is the acute health guideline standard that Broomfield uses for contextual comparison. Would it be possible for Staff to prioritize publication of any benzene exceedances when they are marked "complete" on the Ajax/CSU tracking system? During Extraction drilling operations that began on 9/14 and are continuing, there are 8 likely one hour average estimated benzene exceedances - 3 published by Staff, 3 marked complete by Ajax and waiting for Staff to finalize, and 2 marked "Under Review" by Ajax. The 8 exceedances have ranged from 9.37 ppb to 120.48 ppb. (See attached file.) Has Public Health discussed with CDPHE that there have been 3 published one hour average estimated benzene exceedances, with the likely addition of 5 one hour average estimated benzene exceedances in the short time frame of Oct 30 - Nov 5? What has been CDPHE's response? Procedural background as noted on the public Oil and Gas Snapshot: Ajax has set up a system to track and report progress of trigger events in real time. Much of this data has not passed QA/QC and should be viewed as preliminary until reports are marked “Complete” and finalized by Broomfield. This dashboard can be viewed here https://www.ajax-analytics.com/broomfield-event-reports). | 11/29/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/30/2021 | (1) - Staff is working on publishing as many trigger event reports as possible in advance of the December 14th Oil and Gas update to City Council.
(2) - Staff can prioritize publishing the higher benzene events. (3) - At regular intervals, Broomfield shares data with CDPHE’s Air Pollution Control Division and state toxicologist on all events of higher significance. (4) - CDPHE is appreciative of Broomfield’s continued efforts to collect and share local air quality data and will continue to work with Broomfield on areas of mutual interest such as rulemaking, formal comment on oil & gas development plans, recommendations on better industry practices, and joint data collection efforts. | |||||
120 | Could Staff please note that relevant information about the ability of a site to capture an event in the summary going forward so that information in the summary is not misleading?
(re: In the 11/23 published report for 3 triggers at United 01 and 02 that occurred on 10/16, it reports that there was an estimated exceedance of the benzene acute health guideline at United 02 on 10/16 at 6:32 pm: "The one-hour average estimate for benzene at the site was 18.269 ppb. The acute health guideline standard that Broomfield uses for contextual comparison for benzene is 9 ppb for a 1-hour exposure." It is appreciated that Staff sought further information from Boulder Air at the time of the trigger. In the summary of Boulder Air's research in the 11/23 published report, it states that, "Monitored VOCs were at relative moderate levels." However, the summary omitted an important piece of information from the Boulder Air report: "Given the wind conditions during the timing of the trigger event it appears unlikely that any potential emissions from the United pad would have been observed at BNP." Could Staff please note that relevant information about the ability of a site to capture an event in the summary going forward so that information in the summary is not misleading? Thank you. 11/23 published report for 10/16 3 triggers at United 01 and 02 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OXOPTDzQZxK4IpUilO31DUcFdF5l_6MP/view Boulder Air report https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Qq1p87b8Z7KouBg_1TZ6XYX6hGTXgYxE/view) | 11/24/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/24/2021 | This relevant information - “Given the wind conditions during the timing of the trigger event it appears unlikely that any potential emissions from the United pad would have been observed at BNP.” - has been added to the 11/23/21 United 01 & 02 report. | |||||
121 | (1) - Over the 4 day holiday weekend, will triggered canisters on United 1 and 2 and NW 2 and 3 be changed? (2) What are the trigger thresholds set at for United 1 and 2 and NW 2 and 3? (re: In the 11/23 email update regarding Extraction operations at the United Pad, it stated that, "Rigging up rig 769 is complete. Drilling planned to start later this morning." At the 11/17 biweekly meeting, Staff stated that the new drill rig added a 3rd pump but they were not clear if there would be increased emissions due to this increase in pumps or not. Given the new drilling operations, I have been asked by residents: 1) Over the 4 day holiday weekend, will triggered canisters on United 1 and 2 and NW 2 and 3 be changed? 2) What are the trigger thresholds set at for United 1 and 2 and NW 2 and 3?) | 11/24/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/29/2021 | Ajax supplied the following answers: (1) - Trigger cans will be changed over the weekend as needed. (2) - The following thresholds are set for the active drilling area: United 1- 500mV United 2- 500mV United 3 (co-located with United 2)- 1000mV NW 2- 300mV NW 3- 300mV Interchange 2- 300mV Interchange 2- 300mV Note about Interchange 02 sensor: We are working through the transition of pulling Interchange 2 online. I was able to install the updated system yesterday with a corrected vacuum sensor, however if you see on the dashboard, the data is temporarily unavailable and not displaying. To the best of our knowledge, the data is still actively collecting, it is just taking some time to connect with the server and display properly. We will let you know when it is back online. | |||||
122 | In response to my questions as to why Interchange 02 did not trigger at high TVOC levels on 11/2 (909 mV), 11/10 (816 mV @ 12:58 a.m.), and 11/18 (806 mV @ 6:31 a.m.), the response states that "The Interchange 02 site’s trigger box is struggling to hold a vacuum seal, meaning any canisters that would have been captured at these TVOC levels would be invalid." There are several questions which remain unanswered: 1) What are the Interchange 02 trigger thresholds set at? (which I asked earlier)? 2) Why is Interchange 02 consistently having high TVOC levels? (New question now that I understand from the response that the readings of the sensor are accurate as reported on the Snapshots but the trigger is not operating correctly.) 3) Why was my Nov 12 question not posted on the Dashboard? (see attached email confirmation) Entire 11/19 question posted on Dashboard: Is the Interchange 02 sensor still having technical problems or are there emissions events at Interchange 02 that are being missed, as shown by another lack of a triggers at a high TVOC level? What are the Interchange trigger thresholds set at? Why isn't Interchange 02 triggering? (re: I submitted an Air Oil and Gas Concern on Nov 12 which was not posted to the Dashboard Air tab. My email confirmation is attached. My question remains the same, with even further data to support the question … In the 11/18 Data Snapshot, it lists: Interchange 02 806 mV @ 6:31 a.m., November 18 Interchange 02 527 mV @ 7:10 a.m., November 18 However, there is no trigger for either 11/18 high TVOC level listed on the Trigger Matrix. … What are the Interchange trigger thresholds set at? Why isn't Interchange 02 triggering? On 11/4, I asked a similar question about an 11/2 emissions event of 909 mV at Interchange 02 and Ajax's response was that they believed there was a technical sensor problem but it was possible there was an emissions event. (See Dashboard.)) Entire response on Dashboard: From Ajax: The Interchange 02 site’s trigger box is struggling to hold a vacuum seal, meaning any canisters that would have been captured at these TVOC levels would be invalid. The site is awaiting this next round of upgraded monitoring units to arrive (they are estimated to arrive tomorrow, Saturday 11/20) in order to fix this problem. The returning shipment was slightly delayed due to an unexpected issue with the vacuum sensors during the upgrade process. We can expect the Interchange 02 trigger box to be fully operational by Tuesday 11/23. | 11/19/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/23/2021 | (1) - Due to the vacuum sensor issues at Interchange, the trigger thresholds are currently set to 1000, ensuring we do not waste any canisters on invalid samples. These will be set to 300, matching the Northwest Parkway sites, later this morning when the updated trigger boxes are installed. (2) - Over the last 7 days, the higher TVOC levels are consistently occurring in the early hours of the morning, with wind directions blowing from a general northern direction. Based on the location of the sites in proximity to the nearby highways and the Interchange Pad, it is possible that the higher TVOC levels are coming from either increased traffic activity during morning rush hours, or from pre-production preparation at the Interchange Pad. Once we install the new trigger boxes and are able to capture a sample during these TVOC increases, we will be able to better understand the source of these higher readings. (3) - The 11/12 question has been posted and answered on the dashboard in the appropriate entry as well as on the entry for 11/19 (both under the Air/Odor tab). POSTED 11/23/21 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) - Ajax has been asked. (2) - Ajax has been asked. (3) - The 11/12 question has been posted and answered on the dashboard in the appropriate entry as well as on the entry for 11/19 (both under the Air/Odor tab) POSTED 11/22/21 | |||||
123 | Is the Interchange 02 sensor still having technical problems or are there emissions events at Interchange 02 that are being missed, as shown by another lack of a triggers at a high TVOC level? What are the Interchange trigger thresholds set at? Why isn't Interchange 02 triggering? (re: I submitted an Air Oil and Gas Concern on Nov 12 which was not posted to the Dashboard Air tab. My email confirmation is attached. My question remains the same, with even further data to support the question … In the 11/18 Data Snapshot, it lists: Interchange 02 806 mV @ 6:31 a.m., November 18 Interchange 02 527 mV @ 7:10 a.m., November 18 However, there is no trigger for either 11/18 high TVOC level listed on the Trigger Matrix. … What are the Interchange trigger thresholds set at? Why isn't Interchange 02 triggering? On 11/4, I asked a similar question about an 11/2 emissions event of 909 mV at Interchange 02 and Ajax's response was that they believed there was a technical sensor problem but it was possible there was an emissions event. (See Dashboard.)) | 11/19/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/19/2021 | From Ajax: The Interchange 02 site’s trigger box is struggling to hold a vacuum seal, meaning any canisters that would have been captured at these TVOC levels would be invalid. The site is awaiting this next round of upgraded monitoring units to arrive (they are estimated to arrive tomorrow, Saturday 11/20) in order to fix this problem. The returning shipment was slightly delayed due to an unexpected issue with the vacuum sensors during the upgrade process. We can expect the Interchange 02 trigger box to be fully operational by Tuesday 11/23. | |||||
124 | Is the Interchange 02 sensor still having technical problems or are there emissions events at Interchange 02 that are being missed, as shown by another lack of a trigger at a high TVOC level? In the 11/12 Data Snapshot, it lists: Interchange 02 816 mV @ 12:58 a.m., November 10 However, there was no trigger for that 11/10 high TVOC level listed on the Trigger Matrix. (re: On 11/4, I asked a similar question about an 11/2 emissions event of 909 mV at Interchange 02 and Ajax's response was that they believed there was a technical sensor problem but it was possible there was an emissions event. (See Dashboard.) Details: 11/12 Data Snapshot https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cuN9qxupiWQ9Pl5UnDYNRdHJ2fHB4D5F/view Details from 11/4 question, as posted on the Dashboard: Why didn't that high of value trigger one of the Interchange sensors? (re: The Nov 2 Oil and Gas Update states in the Location High Value section: Interchange 02 909 mV @ 11:29 a.m., November 1. ... There is no trigger for that listed in the Trigger Matrix at that time and location. Nov 2 Oil and Gas update https://drive.google.com/file/d/18yIPYlLriHGBAZmkVjDhsFgzSZsSF5dc/view Response from Ajax: Interchange 2 issues began on 10/27, when the vacuum sensor showed an issue (see vacuum plot here). Shortly thereafter, we started seeing increased TVOC from only this sensor system. Interchange 3 did not show any increases during this entire period. We went out on 11/2 to troubleshoot and attempt to fix the sensor system. The 11/2 attempt did not resolve the issues. We went out again on 11/4 to troubleshoot and attempt to fix the system. It is Ajax’s diagnosis that Interchange 2 had a sensor issue (likely dust and/or moisture in the sample chain) that was resolved on the 11/4 visit. A new trigger box is slated to be installed this week in an attempt to resolve the remaining issues with the system. It does remain possible, though quite unlikely, that these increased measurements were the result of increased pollutants in the air rather than a sensor issue. However, the suspect measurements 1) occurred during periods of increased humidity and PM, 2) stopped after a field service call, and 3) did not show at nearby Interchange 3, all supporting the assessment that this was not a real event, but rather caused by external influences on the sensor. At this point, we do not anticipate that this issue puts our SLA at risk.) | 11/12/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/19/2021 | From Ajax: The Interchange 02 site’s trigger box is struggling to hold a vacuum seal, meaning any canisters that would have been captured at these TVOC levels would be invalid. The site is awaiting this next round of upgraded monitoring units to arrive (they are estimated to arrive tomorrow, Saturday 11/20) in order to fix this problem. The returning shipment was slightly delayed due to an unexpected issue with the vacuum sensors during the upgrade process. We can expect the Interchange 02 trigger box to be fully operational by Tuesday 11/23. | |||||
125 | When the trigger analysis report for the 5 triggers on 11/5 is issued, would it be possible to note that the peak reading for the day of 3,206 mv at United 02 as reported in the Data Snapshot was not captured at 10:30 pm because United 02 was not replaced at 9:52 pm? (re: It is a good example of additional resident benzene exposures which are missed in our AQM data. Trigger Notification Report for Nov. 5 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YZm3HonkZ6qbhLSbbE9v_Tv778WU0258/view Nov. 9 Data Snapshot https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mgmKsejlKidOJ6mbs1YGK0ZmBZCcL5RY/view | 11/11/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/15/2021 | This will be noted in the canister analysis report. | |||||
126 | what can we find out about the source of 11,313 ppb methane at 7:50 pm on 11/9?
(re: As Dr. Helmig briefly alluded to at the 11/9 Council meeting, there was a huge methane spike that evening at 7:50 pm of about 11,313 ppb at Boulder Air North Pecos. It was my understanding that the Staff and scientists moved the methane monitor to North Pecos in order to get readings on methane levels because they thought it would be helpful in understanding the emissions at that site. Since the level of methane at that time seemed to alarm Dr. Helmig during the Council meeting…) | 11/11/2021 | Jean LIm | 11/19/2021 | Analysis of this event has been provided by Boulder AIR and is available here. In brief, the plume does appear to have traveled to the air quality monitoring trailer from the northwest (in the direction of the Northwest-A Pad) and while this was a relatively significant methane event for the Broomfield AQM stations, the VOCs enhancements were relatively moderate compared to other plume events that were observed earlier in the month of October. posted 11/19/21 | |||||
127 | What is in the fracking chemicals and what is happening to our health?
(re: This is related to the noise and odor complaint I submitted today for issues that started at 4:25AM today. I was not able to submit noise, odor, and health on one complaint (I tried twice). ... The hydrocarbon AQM does not measure the health harming chemicals that are also volatile in the fracking fluid. How is our health protected? No BMP are not going to protect our health.) | 11/10/2021 | Resident | 11/12/2021 | (1) - Under normal operations, the hydraulic fracturing process is entirely closed loop (all sands, waters, hydrocarbons, and chemicals are fully contained and not exposed to the atmosphere). The only emissions from the site are from the diesel engines. (2) - Broomfield’s air quality monitoring program has two automatic trigger canisters stationed around the Northwest Pads (and all the other Extraction pads) that activate should a sudden elevation in volatile organic compounds be detected. To date, no trigger canisters have been activated during the frack at NW-A. (3) - The same processes and procedures Broomfield established for Livingston are in place for all the active pads. | |||||
128 | (1) - What is in the fracking chemicals that is harmful to health and volatile/airborne. (2) - How are we protected when these are not measured? Please remember that things are hot/warm underground which effects volatility. (3) - What was done to protect health around Livingston when fracking was occurring? | 11/10/2021 | Resident | 11/19/2021 | (1) - Under normal operations, the hydraulic fracturing process is entirely closed loop (all sands, waters, hydrocarbons, and chemicals are fully contained and not exposed to the atmosphere). The only emissions from the site are from the diesel engines.
(2) - Broomfield’s air quality monitoring program has two automatic trigger canisters stationed around the Northwest Pads (and all the other Extraction pads) that activate should a sudden elevation in volatile organic compounds be detected. To date, no trigger canisters have been activated during the frack at NW-A. (3) - The same processes and procedures Broomfield established for Livingston are in place for all the active pads. | |||||
129 | Is work or construction being conducted where the dust is occurring?: Appeared to be from NW B. I do not know what is happening behind the curtain. (re: I was driving on Huron directly east of NW A and NW B. There was a huge plume in the air (it is windy today) of what appeared to be frac sand that can cause lung cancer and silicosis. The plume was light tan in color. Isn't the sand supposed to be in a container so it does not blow around.) | 11/10/2021 | Resident | 11/10/2021 | Fracking sand is transported and stored in fully enclosed boxes on site. It is very unlikely that sand was being blown around as it is always kept in an enclosed container. Field crews report that the dust is likely from ground level dirt inside of the pad that is disturbed as trucks maneuver around the site. Extraction is aware and is applying some water for dust control. Construction of the production facility is underway at the NW B pad and could have contributed to the dust along with high winds. Inspectors were on site this morning and did not observe any plumes or operations out of the ordinary. | |||||
130 | Wind is very strong, was this fracking sand? Diesel emissions? Were inspectors onsite at this time today? IF not can you find out the details of the SPECIFIC operations underway around that timeframe?
(re: At around 12:50 pm today, 11/10, I observed large dark plumes that appeared to be from the Northwest pads, blowing due east. … It acutally looked like smoke from a fire initially, but cleared up in a minute or so.) SEE CORRECTED TIME ON INCIDENT #55010: At around 2:50 pm today, 11/10, I observed large dark plumes that appeared to be from the Northwest pads, blowing due east. | 11/10/2021 | Resident | 11/12/2021 | Fracking sand is transported and stored in fully enclosed boxes on site. It is very unlikely that sand was being blown around as it is always kept in an enclosed container. Field crews report that the dust is likely from ground level dirt inside of the pad that is disturbed as trucks maneuver around the site. Extraction is aware and is applying some water for dust control. Construction of the production facility is underway at the NW B pad and could have contributed to the dust along with high winds. Inspectors were on site this morning and did not observe any plumes or operations out of the ordinary. | |||||
131 | Question(s) - Did that methane spike get picked up in a triggered canister? If not, is there an explanation as to why not?
(re: As Dr. Helmig briefly alluded to at the 11/9 Council meeting, there was a huge methane spike last evening at 7:50 pm of about 11,313 ppb at Boulder Air North Pecos. See attached Boulder Air and Ajax screenshots with that time period. It does not appear that Ajax picked up the methane spike. … I hope Broomfield has some data to pinpoint the source of such a huge methane spike.) | 11/10/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/10/2021 | The Apis PID sensors are not designed to detect methane, no trigger canisters were activated during the methane event from 11/9. While methane is sometimes a good tracer for oil & gas emissions, other local and regional sources can contribute to enhancements of methane. | |||||
132 | (1) What can Broomfield do to bring greater awareness to a broader swath of neighborhoods not immediately next to the current pre-production pads that these emissions might reach them? (2) I appreciate the effort this took on the part of the scientists to analyze multiple data sets. Can Broomfield please encourage the scientists to continue to provide this type of analysis that looks at broader spatial impact of oil and gas emissions from one pad? (re: At last night's Council meeting, I cited the Ajax/CSU 3rd q report (p. 27) that provided data to show that an Oct. 7 emissions event at NW A caused plumes containing high levels of benzene to reach Soaring Eagle a mile away. Dr. Helmig replied that it was plausible under certain meteorological conditions for that to occur, and it was more likely under upcoming winter conditions. Two questions: … From the Ajax/CSU 3rd q report (p.27) "Early on October 7th two substantial BTEX plumes were detected by the PTR-MS at Soaring Eagle between 12 AM and 2 AM. Benzene concentrations reached nearly 6 ppbv and toluene concentrations 10 ppbv. The wind direction was from the SE, ESE and E with low wind speed. The Boulder A.I.R continuous methane analyzer and GC system also observed the plume beginning around 12 AM. The i-/n- pentane ratio was reported as 0.66 from 12:34-01:34 AM. Sensor systems at Anthem 1, at Livingston 1 & 2 and Northwest Parkway 2 observed VOC plumes just after 12 AM and before 2 AM which were associated with wind transport from the NE, E and SE. The elevated BTEX in the Soaring Eagle PTR-MS, the methane concentration from the Boulder A.I.R methane analyzer, the low i/n-pentane ratio observed in the Boulder AIR GC, and the increase of PID measurements in Anthem 1, at Livingston 1 & 2 and Northwest Parkway 2 and associated wind directions together suggest this event was likely associated with sources at the Northwest Parkway B pad transported to the west." Ajax/CSU 3rd Quarter Report https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1X1k3gItJiqdFmmM6zJ1UNJrcLBQGahyC | 11/10/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/12/2021 | (1) Broomfield has made robust efforts to inform residents about all oil & gas activity within and proximate to the city & county’s jurisdiction, including sending approximately 4,000 postcards to residents in neighborhoods around oil & gas development. Those efforts are detailed in this letter that was recently sent to a Broomfield resident. At this time, Broomfield does not have any plans for expansion of the present oil and gas communications efforts. (2) Broomfield continues to provide information and data on air quality monitoring (AQM) around active operations. For more significant AQM events (like the one noted on October 7), multiple sources are (and will be in the future) analyzed in the reports for additional data that may provide insight into the event. | |||||
133 | What chemicals were being used at NW A overnight and this morning and what are the health effects? What are we breathing? (re: Started overnight with a non hydrocarbon odor. Canister sample was taken at 4:45 AM but I don't think the AQM tests for fracking chemicals. … I debated on taking a canister but finally did at 4:45AM. At 5:18 AM the odor became worse. … Odor is faint and not unpleasant but causing health effects and I can slightly taste it.) | 11/10/2021 | Resident | 11/10/2021 | Chemicals used at the NW A pad for hydraulic fracturing operations are all listed on the chemical disclosure list here. These chemicals are in enclosed containers or totes and placed on containment. Field reports indicate that there were no failures or spills during the time frame mentioned. The health effects related to fracking chemicals are more related to personnel handling the chemicals as they are in direct contact with them. These chemicals remain in a liquid state as they are held in appropriate containers. The actual hydraulic fracturing operation is a closed system. Produced water and subsurface hydrocarbons are not exposed to the atmosphere, and since fracking began at NW-A Pad no air quality monitoring trigger canisters have been activated. | |||||
134 | Why didn't that high of value trigger one of the Interchange sensors? (re: The Nov 2 Oil and Gas Update states in the Location High Value section: Interchange 02 909 mV @ 11:29 a.m., November 1. ... There is no trigger for that listed in the Trigger Matrix at that time and location. Nov 2 Oil and Gas update https://drive.google.com/file/d/18yIPYlLriHGBAZmkVjDhsFgzSZsSF5dc/view | 11/4/2021 | Jean Lim | 11/9/2021 | Response from Ajax: Interchange 2 issues began on 10/27, when the vacuum sensor showed an issue (see vacuum plot here). Shortly thereafter, we started seeing increased TVOC from only this sensor system. Interchange 3 did not show any increases during this entire period. We went out on 11/2 to troubleshoot and attempt to fix the sensor system. The 11/2 attempt did not resolve the issues. We went out again on 11/4 to troubleshoot and attempt to fix the system. It is Ajax’s diagnosis that Interchange 2 had a sensor issue (likely dust and/or moisture in the sample chain) that was resolved on the 11/4 visit. A new trigger box is slated to be installed this week in an attempt to resolve the remaining issues with the system. It does remain possible, though quite unlikely, that these increased measurements were the result of increased pollutants in the air rather than a sensor issue. However, the suspect measurements 1) occurred during periods of increased humidity and PM, 2) stopped after a field service call, and 3) did not show at nearby Interchange 3, all supporting the assessment that this was not a real event, but rather caused by external influences on the sensor. At this point, we do not anticipate that this issue puts our SLA at risk. | |||||
135 | OCTOBER 2021 - Below | |||||||||
136 | I'm wondering if the results from that data collection process have been made available and what residents might be able to learn from that in relation to "plumes" and how they are moving through our neighborhoods, potentially hitting schoolyards, open space, recreation areas, etc. (re: I saw on a daily snapshot that the plume tracker was sent out on 10/5 and 10/6.) | 10/27/2021 | Resident | 10/27/2021 | CSU Plumetracker data was received by Broomfield the evening of Tuesday the 26th. This data is being reviewed by the oil & gas team and will be published as a Public Notice in Thursday’s (10/28) snapshot and on the oil & gas dashboard. | |||||
137 | Could Staff post the following on the Noise tab in addition to the Air tab? "Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity." | 10/26/2021 | Jean Lim | 10/26/2021 | Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity. | |||||
138 | What chemicals is this phase of fracking putting into the air?
(re: Fracking at NW A woke me up last night right before 2:00 AM. What chemicals is this phase of fracking putting into the air? It was harder to breath and the air seemed thicker with a slight smell of soap.) | 10/25/21 | Resident | 10/25/21 | The hydraulic fracturing operation at the Northwest A Pad is a closed system so significant elevations of air toxics and VOCs are not anticipated in normal conditions (aside from diesel emissions from the fleet trucks). Broomfield’s air quality monitoring program has not activated a trigger canister at the Northwest PKWY monitoring sites since fracking began on 10/20. Extraction has suppled its chemical disclosure to Broomfield and it has been checked for any prohibited chemicals. Inspectors have also verified proper containment, labeling and BMPs are in place on the pads. Broomfield is aware of the increased levels of noise at the Northwest Parkway Pads since the Operator began hydraulic fracturing operations on 10/20/2021. In preparation of the multi-pad operations, the City & County has developed and deployed a noise monitoring system to help us enforce allowable noise levels as set by the Operator Agreement. Given we now have a noise program in place, we have taken a proactive approach and thus, we are no longer solely reliant on our resident’s complaints. Data from the noise monitoring system indicates that the Operator may have exceeded the limits allowed in the Operator Agreement (OA). Broomfield has sent the Operator’s representative a notice of suspected violation requesting that a remedy or cure be implemented as soon as possible. Per the OA, the operator has 30 days to reduce noise to the allowable levels, or legal avenues will be pursued against the Operator, which Broomfield is prepared to do. Broomfield continues consistent monitoring and will continue to monitor data from the sound meters as well as all noise concerns filed on the Immediate Concern line at https://broomfield.org/ImmediateConcern. Once a suspected violation is identified, we will pursue all avenues for remedy, including legal citations. Again, the noise enforcement program is not dependent on a concern being filed, however this information continues to be useful for Broomfield’s programmatic and policy efforts in minimizing impacts from oil & gas activity. | |||||
139 | (1) - What were the levels of TVOCs around that time on the PRA sensor that caused her health impacts and could impact more sensitive children?
(2) - Was the canister reset at the United pad by 5:45 pm on Friday, Oct 22 after it triggered at 15:51 pm? (re: A resident reported to Council that when she was picking up her child from after school care at Prospect Ridge Academy on 10/22 about 5:45 pm that there was a strong petroleum odor on the playground that made her eyes water. She was concerned about the exposure that children are having on the playground all day. … On the public Trigger Matrix, there was a United 01 canister triggered at 15:51 pm on 10/22. The inspector's notes state, "Inspector arrived on the United pad at 16:24. Winds were very calm and coming from the Southeast. A faint petroleum odor was observed. The rig was actively drilling and the personal 4-gas monitor did not alert during the visit." It would seem that winds coming from the southeast would move plumes toward PRA. … If so, it would be helpful to be able to get a better chemical composition of what was coming at the resident when she was at PRA if it was reset and triggered.) | 10/24/21 | Jean Lim | 10/26/21 | (1) - TVOC readings from the Prospect Ridge sensor appear to be within baseline thresholds on 10/22 for the normal diurnal cycle (see image) between 85mV and 125mV. (2) - The United 1 canister was replaced on 10/23 at 11:00 am – 19 hours after it fired. | |||||
140 | Was the chiller being used at NW B and now at United?
(re: Residents continue to be very concerned about the high VOC spikes during Extraction drilling. Since the COGCC has not offered any further suggestions to mitigate the TVOCs, residents feel they need to ensure all previously used protocols are occurring. One resident recalled a chiller was used to cool down the drill cuttings at Interchange, following a COGCC inspector suggestion.) | 10/24/21 | Jean Lim | 10/26/21 | Affirmative. Before cuttings go to the shale shaker (where liquids and solids are separated) and right after they come out of the ground, the cuttings go through a chiller (which is a closed system) to bring the slurry to ambient temperature. Inspectors verified this on both pads. | |||||
141 | Which spikes were captured in the trigger canisters at United 01 and United 02? (re: The Ajax graphs show the TVOCs just hit the highest level yet during drilling at 1904 ppb/mv at United 02 at 00:00 on 10/22 (see 24 hour and 90 day graphs links below). There were a series of very high spikes in the hours leading up to 00:00, going back to about 21:00 with 1484 ppb/mv. … Also, in response to my previous question, I was told that North Pecos can accurately capture the United Pad spikes across the NW Parkway. Since these TVOC levels are so high, this might be a good case to look at North Pecos readings to verify that.) Last 24 hours https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1634826208872&to=1634912608873&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_03&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=TVOC Last 90 days https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1627137324633&to=1634913324635&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_NWPKWY_03&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-windroseMetric=TVOC | 10/22/21 | Jean Lim | 10/22/21 | So far, 10 trigger canisters have been captured at United 01 & 02 for the following dates and times, events that align with ethane and propane enhancements (O&G tracer compounds) over background at North Pecos: 10/9/2021-4:50, 10/15/2021-4:49, 10/15/2021-5:06, 10/16/2021-0:41, 10/16/2021-12:14, 10/16/2021-18:32, 10/18/2021-14:52, 10/18/2021-21:20, 10/21/2021-20:50, 10/22/2021-15:53.
Canister analysis will help characterize the events. | |||||
142 | Why is the onus on us, and not on the company causing the spikes?
(re: I live in Anthem Ranch and we have had many problems with the pad in our backyard. Extraction has been a terrible neighbor. The City indicated that area residents can monitor the real-time data about air spikes on the Boulder Air and Ajax webpages and decide to keep their windows closed or stay indoors First of all, we don't find out about spikes until after they happen and it is too late; ie we have already been exposed. But secondly it is the best we can do to monitor real time data and decide to keep our windows closed???? We should be stopping the spikes before they happen. Extraction should be held responsible for polluting our air and possibly endangering our lives.) | 10/19/21 | Resident | 11/1/21 | Although the data from the air quality monitoring system is carefully monitored, this system is not intended to be an emergency response protocol nor an acute exposure warning system. Broomfield staff publishes monitoring data from the trigger canisters as soon as it can be validated. Other real-time data is accessible from Ajax/CSU and Boulder Air. An FAQ on the air quality monitoring program can be found here. The Extraction Operations update (published twice a week on the data snapshot) now includes a 'look ahead' section on what was observed in past development activity by phase. | |||||
143 | You may have seen this recently published study, but in case you haven't, I thought it was telling and quite robust. Perhaps it can be used in conjunction with results from our AQ studies. Some takeaways-- During preproduction there were increased concentrations of PM2.5 and CO @ 3km (1.86 mi.), increased concentration of NO2 1-2 km (.62-1.24 mi.), and increased O3 2-4 km (1.24-2.49 mi.). During production of at least 100bbl/d, there were increased concentrations of PM2.5, NO2, and VOCs within 1 km and increased concentration of O3 at 1-2 km). https://news.stanford.edu/2021/10/12/living-near-oil-gas-wells-increases-air-pollution-exposure/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721053754 | 10/18/21 | Resident | 10/18/21 | Thank you for sharing this research. | |||||
144 | (1) - One question: if the air quality metrics aren't something the city can use to take action one way or another to protect residents, how on earth can they say this data is sound enough for individual residents who don't even know how to read these reports? (2) - How are these all of a sudden actionable metrics if you are a resident but not if you're someone who works in the city and responsible for protecting the health and safety of residents? (re: I'm sharing this feedback in response to the 10/15/2020 responses to Jean Lim's questions about the air quality on the Oil and Gas Q&A dashboard. The reply from the city seems feels like a very dangerous position to take with local residents who are concerned about their health and their family's health. It's making an assumption that the air quality data being gathered is registering ALL chemical plumes and releases, which we know isn't true. Again, the characteristic of these chemical plumes, as discussed several times on record with scientists and city staff, is that they travel in very condensed formations that are here one minute and gone the next. My own experience with a chemical exposure to these plumes verifies this. My guess is that there are a ton of these plumes being released into the environment, and that the really high reading by the sensors are registering a plume, but that edges of other plumes are also being registered by some of the other trigger canisters. Most of these plumes are probably not being captured, but the fact that we likely captured one gives us insight to the highly toxic characteristics of these plumes. To suggest that if the air quality monitors aren't registering spikes means that the air is clear seems negligent and absolutely bogus. And no one knows the health impacts of these plumes, short or long-term. Another false assumption is that a common local resident understands how to read these air quality monitoring reports. Those of us who have been following these issues for years and know the chemicals well have been perplexed by these systems and reports from time to time. To assume that any resident can, out of the blue, read and configure these reports (especially Ajax) is a stretch. Show these system dashboards to 100 people and see how many of them can read them with the intention of determining whether it's safe to open windows or go for a walk with their baby. I bet maybe 5-10 can actually figure it out. The staff is not doing itself any favors with these dismissive responses. It shows how little they care about protecting the health and safety of community members. It shows how incompetent they are and brings up issues of negligence. When people do not feel safe in their HOMES, community spaces, and in open space, and the city staff is dismissing it and putting it back ON THEM, it's totally inappropriate. … You can't have your cake and eat it too: either the data is sound and the city can take action based on it OR it's not sound and can't be used as a gauge for local residents to take action on. It's problematic.) | 10/16/21 | Resident | 10/19/21 | (1) - The City and County of Broomfield staff focuses on transparency and providing data to residents. Air quality data is collected with equipment that is operated and analyzed by teams of experienced air quality scientists. The purpose of the air quality monitoring system has always been to provide residents with information about emissions from oil and gas sources. The AQM system is not an emergency response system.
(2) - The health and safety of Broomfield residents is of utmost importance to City staff. The readings that we receive from the air quality monitoring program provide us with information that can help inform air quality experts and the community about the frequency, magnitude, and duration of various compounds released by oil and gas operations. These results are shared with atmospheric scientists and health professionals to better understand the potential implications in terms of human health. When assessing air quality readings, we consult with our inspections team to determine pad activities as well as the COGCC and the operator to ascertain better practices that may reduce uncontrolled emissions. | |||||
145 | Was there a trigger at that time (peak of 534 ppb at 8:30 AM) @ UNITED 02? (re: The trigger matrix shows 2 triggers from Oct 15 at 4:49 am and 5:06 am at United 02 and 01, respectively. Peak VOCs were 327 ppb. According to the Ajax graph (see below), there was a larger peak of about 534 ppb at 8:30 am. The attached North Pecos Boulder Air graphs also show elevated VOC levels at that time. Ajax United sensor link for Oct 15 and 16 https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1631854571214&to=1632027371214&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=TVOC | 10/18/21 | Jean Lim | 10/19/21 | The peak of 534 ppb at 8:30 AM shows up in the data provided from the link included in the original submission: https://charts.apis-aq.com/broomfieldajax/d/NO95kw2Wk/city-of-broomfield-ajax-air-monitoring-metrics?orgId=1&from=1631854571214&to=1632027371214&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_01_OG&var-site_id=CCOB_UNITED_02_OG&var-time_avg=5m&var-metric=TVOC&var-windroseSite=CCOB_NWPKWY_02_OG&var-windroseMetric=TVOC. Note that this link is for the range of data on 9/16/21 (22:56) to 9/18/21 (22:56). At 8:30 AM on 9/18/21, UNITED 02 registered at 534 ppb on the TVOC Indicator. The canister at UNITED 02 triggered on this date at 8:22 AM, just prior to 8:30 AM, and again on 10:07 AM and then a final time at 11:25 PM (view that report here). For 10/15, canister trigger events occurred at UNITED 02 at 4:49 AM and at UNITED 01 at 5:06 AM. No triggers occurred for either UNITED sensor site after the 5:06 AM trigger on this date. On 10/15 at 8:30 AM, the TVOC Indicator measured 83 mV and 89 mV for UNITED 01 and 02, respectively. | |||||
146 | Did drilling start yesterday at United? (re: A nearby resident would like to know when to expect VOC spikes again as there were at NW B so the resident can close the windows and stay inside. The resident can see the Extraction update posted on the Dashboard from 10/12 but that just says the rig was in the process of getting moved to United. The 10/14 update sent to Council at 5:14 pm says, "Drilling equipment currently onsite and drilling expected to start the afternoon of 10/14." Per usual pattern, there will be no further update to Council or residents of Extraction activity until 10/19 and any triggers over the weekend will not be posted until at least 10/18. The resident would like to know if the resident should plan to stay inside all weekend.) | 10/15/21 | Jean Lim | 10/15/21 | Yes, drilling on the United pad started on October 14. Unfortunately, we cannot predict when VOC levels may go above background levels due to the variability in oil and gas operations, vehicular/equipment emissions, weather patterns, or other external factors. The next operational update will be posted on October 19. Area residents can monitor the real-time data on the Boulder Air and Ajax webpages and decide to keep their windows closed or stay indoors. As communicated previously, residents are encouraged to complete this form to report any health or operations concerns related to oil and gas. | |||||
147 | (1) - Could Staff use LDAR during expected VOC peaks at United during drilling to verify the statement by Staff that the VOC spikes are "likely due to fugitive VOCs from drill cuttings?"
(2) - Based on the pattern of spikes seen at NW B, can Staff use this pattern plus the observations of our inspectors on the ground to provide imminent warnings as to when these residents might expect similar health impacts? (3) - How close to real-time could Staff get this information to residents? | 10/14/21 | Jean Lim | 10/15/21 | (1) - Staff has submitted a request to use our leak detection and repair (LDAR) instrument outside of the quarterly monitoring program. Extraction will provide a response next week. (2) - The air quality monitoring program provides real-time air quality data on the Boulder Air and Ajax webpages. An event that triggers a canister doesn’t mean a health guidance value or air quality standard has been exceeded. In addition, as shown in the preliminary and final reports that have been completed through October 2, all of the 1-hour benzene levels were below the 9 ppb health guidance level except for one trigger event on October 1 at Northwest Parkway 2. All trigger canisters capture a point in time observation and the various constituents that make up their contents when the canisters are triggered cannot be differentiated or quantified on a real time basis. Residents can monitor the data on the Boulder Air and Ajax webpages and make their own decisions to stay indoors, close windows or take other precautions. (3) - See answer #2. | |||||
148 | (1) - Residents are asking where the canister analysis reports are. (2) - Why we aren't concerned about reviewing them before drilling operations continue at United in case there is anything we can learn from them to protect health and safety. (3) - Does Staff have information on the bottleneck and know when it will be resolved? | 10/12/21 | ||||||||