THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

Period Start Date: November 16, 2009 

Period End Date: June 16, 2010 

Principal Author: Doug Cathro, Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Report Date: July 14, 2010 

DOE Award Number: DE-FE0002314 

Leucadia Energy, LLC 

315 Park Avenue South 

New York, NY 

10010-3607 

Significant Subcontractors: 

 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

5100 Tennyson Parkway #1200 

Plano, TX 75024 

Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. 

6601 College Blvd. 

Overland Park, KS 66211 

Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

University of Texas 

10100 Burnet Rd. 

Austin, TX 78758
- i - 

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any 

agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or 

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, 

completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process 

disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily 

constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United 

States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

Government or any agency thereof. 

Topical 1
- ii - 

Abstract 

The Lake Charles CCS Project is a large-scale industrial carbon capture and 

sequestration (CCS) project which will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture 

and sequester carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources into underground 

formations. Specifically the Lake Charles CCS Project will accelerate commercialization 

of large-scale CO2 storage from industrial sources by leveraging synergy between a 

proposed petroleum coke to chemicals plant (the LCC Gasification Project) and the 

largest integrated anthropogenic CO2 capture, transport, and monitored sequestration 

program in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region. The Lake Charles CCS Project will promote the 

expansion of EOR in Texas and Louisiana and supply greater energy security by 

expanding domestic energy supplies. The capture, compression, pipeline, injection, 

and monitoring infrastructure will continue to sequester CO2 for many years after the 

completion of the term of the DOE agreement. 

The objectives of this project are expected to be fulfilled by working through two distinct 

phases. 

The overall objective of Phase 1 was to develop a fully definitive project basis for a 

competitive Renewal Application process to proceed into Phase 2 - Design, 

Construction and Operations. Phase 1 includes the studies attached hereto that will 

establish: 

 the engineering design basis for the capture, compression and transportation 

of CO2 from the LCC Gasification Project, and 

 the criteria and specifications for a monitoring, verification and accounting 

(MVA) plan at the Hastings oil field in Texas. 

The overall objective of Phase 2, provided a successful competitive down-selection, is 

to execute design, construction and operations of three capital projects: 

 the CO2 capture and compression equipment, 

 a Connector Pipeline from the LLC Gasification Project to the Green Pipeline 

owned by Denbury and an affiliate of Denbury, and 

 a comprehensive MVA system at the Hastings oil field. 

Topical 2
- iii - 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Report Details ................................................................................................................. 3

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .............................................................................. 11

Appendices 

1. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.1.1, Optimization Study of Rectisol and CO2

Compression. 

2. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.1, Preliminary Engineering of CO2 Compression 

Equipment. 

3. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.2, Preliminary Interconnection Study. 

4. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.3, Optimization of the CO2 Compression Equipment 

Selection.

5. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.3, CO2 Injection Site Confirmation. 

6. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.1, Draft Risk Assessment and MVA Plan. 

7. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.2, Site-Specific MVA Options Evaluation. 

8. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.3., Final MVA Plan and Detailed Budget. 

9. Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.8.1, Project Management Plan 

10. Environmental Information Volume 

11. Non-Proprietary Programmatic and Technical Prospectus 

(Fact Sheet) 

Topical 3
- 1 - 

Executive Summary 

Leucadia Energy, LLC signed a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) in November 2009 to complete the first phase of a large scale industrial 

carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project. The Lake Charles CCS Project 

includes integration of CO2 capture, transportation/delivery and sequestration with 

comprehensive monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA). Leucadia Energy 

teamed with Denbury Onshore, Black & Veatch and the University Of Texas Bureau Of 

Economic Geology to execute this project. 

The Lake Charles CCS Project will receive several CO2 streams at 20, 40, and/or 60 

psia from the Rectisol® units and compress the combined stream to 2,165 psia for 

injection into the proposed Connector Pipeline. The Connector Pipeline will transport 

the CO2 to the Green Pipeline and then on to oil fields on the Gulf Coast where it will be 

used for enhanced oil recovery. A comprehensive MVA plan for over 2 million tpy of 

CO2 will be implemented at the Hastings oil field to demonstrate the safe and effective 

storage of CO2 in the oil bearing geological formations with the additional benefit of 

enhancing oil recovery in existing oil fields. 

Phase 1 of the project included preliminary engineering studies to optimize the 

combined cost and energy consumption for Rectisol® and CO2 compression including 

the startup and shutdown energy requirements from the local grid. It also included a 

preliminary engineering investigation into the MVA specifications for two oil fields. 

Denbury also completed a feasibility study of the most effective route for the Connector 

Pipeline. The cost of this study was not included in the scope of the Phase 1 award. 

Leucadia Energy has also performed preliminary engineering of the Rectisol® units. 

The cost of the Rectisol® preliminary engineering was not included in the Phase 1 

award. 

This Topical Report summarizes work completed on the project from November 16, 

2009 through April 15, 2010. During this period, all of the tasks identified in the Phase 1 

SOPO were completed. Weekly, monthly and quarterly reports were submitted and will 

continue to be prepared until the end of the Phase 1 period. An EIV for the Lake 

Charles CCS project was prepared and is attached as Appendix 10. Firm and binding 

commitments for the project sites were confirmed. Teaming agreements with key 

offtakers, licensers, and contractors were developed. Preliminary design of capture, 

compression, transportation and MVA systems was completed and comprehensive 

plans for such facilities, including detailed budgets and schedules, have been 

developed. This work has all been documented in the Phase 2 Renewal Application. 

Attached to this Topical Report, are the following studies upon which much of this work 

was based: 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.1.1, Optimization Study of Rectisol and CO2

Compression. 

Topical 4
- 2 - 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.1, Preliminary Engineering of CO2

Compression Equipment. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.2, Preliminary Interconnection Study. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.3, Optimization of the CO2 Compression 

Equipment Selection.

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.3, CO2 Injection Site Confirmation. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.1, Draft Risk Assessment and MVA Plan. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.2, Site-Specific MVA Options Evaluation. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.3., Final MVA Plan and Detailed Budget. 

 Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.8.1, Project Management Plan. 

 Environmental Information Volume 

 Non-Proprietary Programmatic and Technical Prospectus 

(Fact Sheet) 

Topical 5
- 3 - 

Report Details 

The following is a discussion of the SOPO tasks that were completed during Phase 1: 

C1.1 Project Management and Planning 

C1.1.1 Project Management Plan 

 A project management plan in the form of a resource loaded, CPM schedule 

(RLS) was created using Microsoft Project 2007 and submitted to DOE/NETL. 

Planned costs were loaded as resources to those activities/tasks that were part 

of the cost share. 

C1.1.2 Reporting 

 The project team began reporting progress with updates to the RLS on a monthly 

and quarterly basis. Quarterly reports were also submitted under ARRA 

guidelines. 

 Weekly status reports were issues and reviewed during weekly update calls with 

DOE/NETL. 

C1.2 Environmental Impacts and Permits 

C1.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

 January 18, 2010 Denbury Onshore sent out Requests for Proposals for the 

connector pipeline EIV and awarded the project on February 1, 2010 to CH2M 

Hill with a required completion due to Denbury Onshore on March 1, 2010. 

 January 28, 2010 Denbury Onshore sent out the Request for Proposals for the 

EIV on the West Hastings Field and awarded the project to Walden and 

Associates on February 8, 2010 with a required completion due to Denbury 

Onshore on March 1, 2010. 

 URS, who was previously contracted to support permitting of the Lake Charles 

Gasification Project, was awarded the EIV by Leucadia Energy for the capture 

and compression facilities. 

 An EIV has been prepared and is attached to assist DOE in the evaluation of the 

potential environmental impacts of the proposed Lake Charles CCS Project. The 

Lake Charles CCS Project will involve the capture and compression of over 85% 

of the CO2 produced at the LCC Gasification Facility (LCGF). The compressed 

CO2 will be transported via an 11.6-mile pipeline (the “Connector Pipeline”) from 

the fenceline of the LCGF to the Green Pipeline owned by Denbury and an 

affiliate of Denbury. The Lake Charles CCS Project CO2 will be used in an 

Topical 6
- 4 - 

independent commercial enhanced oil recovery (EOR) project at Denbury’s 

Hastings Field in Texas, where Denbury will implement a research monitoring, 

verification, and accounting (MVA) program to demonstrate the effectiveness of 

long-term geologic storage of the CO2. This EIV is divided into three parts to 

cover each of the project components for which DOE funding is sought: Part I 

covers the CO2 capture and compression facilities at the Lake Charles 

Gasification Facility; Part II covers the 11.6-mile Connector Pipeline; and Part III 

covers the MVA activities at the Hastings Field in Texas. 

C1.2.2 Permits and Other Regulatory Authorizations 

The status of all necessary permitted authorizations for the Lake Charles CC Project 

were identified as part of the EIV for each of the capture and compression, pipeline, and 

MVA activities. 

As discussed more fully in the EIV at Part I, pp. 39-42 and below, the LCC Gasification 

Project has already obtained several key regulatory permits. Given the status of the 

LCC Gasification Project and the level of local and state support, no significant 

regulatory hurdles for the LCC Gasification Project are anticipated.

 RCRA/Hazardous Materials Regulations: The LCC Gasification Project 

will not require a RCRA Permit, as there will be no storage or treatment of 

hazardous wastes on site. It is not anticipated that any TSCA or CERCLA 

requirements will be applicable to the LCC Gasification Project. 

 Clean Air Act Permits: As discussed more fully in the EIV, the LCC 

Gasification Project has obtained Title V and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) Air Permits for emissions associated with the 

production of substitute natural gas. Subsequent to the permits’ issuance, 

it has been determined that the LCC Gasification Project will produce 

methanol instead of, or in addition to, SNG. Further design work is 

required to complete characterization of the methanol process, but the 

facility’s emissions are not expected to vary significantly with the 

production of methanol. Any emission changes associated with the 

methanol process will be incorporated with other design clarifications in 

the permit modification process. 

 Clean Water Act: The LCC Gasification Project is permitted to implement 

zero liquid discharge (ZLD) for the gasification process wastewater. The 

wastewater generated in the gasification process will be treated / recycled 

to achieve ZLD. Filtered solids and dewatered salts will be disposed of 

off-site at permitted facilities. Discharge of storm water during 

construction activities will require submittal of a Large Construction Notice 

of Intent (LCNOI) 30 days prior to start of construction. 

 United States Army Corps of Engineers (US COE): A Section 404 

permit was issued by the US COE in August 2008 supported by a 401 

Topical 7
- 5 - 

Water Quality Certification (WQC) issued by the LDEQ. The US COE 

determined that a Section 10 permit was not required. A jurisdictional 

wetland delineation was previously conducted by the US COE and, based 

on this delineation, the Port of Lake Charles mitigated 26.2 acres of the 

wetlands through an agreement with the US COE and Stream Wetland 

Services, LLC. Permitting through the US COE to develop the site has 

been completed and the latest permit was issued on August 18, 2008. 

 Coast Guard Review: Due to the fact that the Calcasieu Ship Channel is 

a federally maintained channel, any activity within the channel, may need 

to undergo Coast Guard review. During the planning and design process, 

a description and map of the facility, including a letter of intent, would be 

sent to this agency for its approval and clearance. Coordination with the 

Coast Guard regarding the construction of the planned structures 

(bulkhead) will be implemented for this project to ensure that all 

requirements are satisfied.

 Endangered Species Act: Based upon information reviewed from the 

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, no rare, threatened or 

endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated for this proposed 

project. In addition, there are no state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, 

scenic streams, or Wildlife Management Areas at or near the proposed 

project site. 

 National Historic Preservation Act: A cultural resources study has been 

prepared as required by the State Department of Cultural, Recreation & 

Tourism, Office of Cultural Development. A prior study by Earth Search, 

Inc. in 2001 identified a Rangia shell midden associated with Site 16CU29 

that potentially extended into the southwest corner of the proposed project 

site. A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey was performed for this site and 

a report was issued to the SHPO. The SHPO reviewed this updated 

information and issued a letter noting that field investigations resulted in 

the delineation of expanded boundaries for this site and the assessment 

concluded that the site was not eligible for listing on the National Register 

of Historic Places due to a lack of depositional integrity and limited 

research potential. The SHPO concurred with the assessments 

conducted and additional assessments are not warranted. 

 Emergency Management Requirements: The LCC Gasification Project 

may also be subject to certain emergency management requirements 

under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

requirements (40 CFR 112). Emergency response procedures will be 

developed for the facility in accordance with the requirements of 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), EPCRA, and 

CAA provisions. Such procedures will cover plant evacuation notification 

to local fire and law enforcement agencies, notification to state and local 

Topical 8
- 6 - 

officials and US EPA. Emergency response procedures will identify 

individuals/positions responsible for decision-making and notification and 

will include provisions for periodic training for plant management and 

employees.

 Local Permits: The LCC Gasification Project is anticipated to require 

building permits and a flood zone management permit from local 

regulators. Coordination on these requirements is being implemented.

The status of all necessary permitted authorizations for pipeline activities are discussed 

in the EIV at Part II, pp. 6-1 to 6-4. The status of all necessary permitted authorizations 

for MVA activities are discussed in the EIV at Part III, pp. 34. 

C1.3 Site Arrangements 

 Lake Charles Cogeneration LLC, an affiliate of Leucadia Energy, has signed a 40 

year lease agreement with the Port of Lake Charles where the CO2 capture and 

compression will take place. 

 West Hastings Field Unit (WHFU) Fault Block B and C - Denbury has the right to 

inject CO2 according to the terms of their mineral leases and the Texas Railroad 

Commission Order regarding unitization. Its CO2 injection wells are permitted by 

the Railroad Commission under primacy from the Underground Injection Control 

regulations of the US EPA. Its oil and gas operations are regulated by the 

Railroad Commission, and its CO2 pipelines are regulated by various State and 

Federal agencies. Thus, a complete legal and regulatory framework exists for 

Denbury to sequester CO2 as part of its CO2 EOR projects for the West Hastings 

Field EOR operation. Denbury purchased the West Hastings Field, a potential 

tertiary flood located near Houston, Texas, in February 2009 from the prior 

operator. 

C1.4 Teaming Arrangements 

Teaming arrangements have been established with key offtakers, licensors, and 

contractors, including the following: 

 CO2 Offtake Agreement between Denbury Onshore and Leucadia Energy. 

 Memorandum of Understanding between Denbury Onshore and Leucadia 

Energy. 

 Subcontract between Denbury and UT BEG GCCC.

 Subcontract between Leucadia Energy and Black & Veatch Special Projects 

Corporation. 

Topical 9
- 7 - 

 A license agreement between Lake Charles Cogeneration and Lurgi for the 

Rectisol® Unit. 

 A license agreement between Lake Charles Cogeneration and GE Energy for the 

gasification technology. 

 A construction agreement with Turner Industries. 

A more extensive list of key teaming arrangements has been provided in Appendix B of 

the Phase 2 Renewal Application, along with support letters from key stakeholders and 

government officials. 

C1.5 Conceptual/Preliminary Design 

C1.5.1.1 Optimization Study of Rectisol® and CO2 Compression 

 The optimization study was issued in draft on February 15, 2010. Final version is 

attached. The three CO2 pressure case was determined to be most economical 

and was subsequently utilized as the design basis. 

C1.5.2.1 Preliminary Engineering of CO2 Capture and Compression Equipment 

 Based upon results of the optimization study, data sheets were issued to 

compressor vendors for cost and performance data. The data sheets referenced 

bid specification documents that were developed for Leucadia’s Chicago Clean 

Energy Project. The Preliminary Engineering Study was issued April 14, 2010 

and is attached. The report includes both capture (Rectisol) and compression 

data. 

C1.5.2.2 Preliminary Transmission Interconnection Assessment 

 The integrated gasification and CCS projects will have a single grid 

interconnection. The actual interconnection study will be done as part of the 

gasification project. There may be an incremental cost associated with the CCS 

project needs, but it is not included in the Phase 2 funding request. The 

assessment was issued April 14, 2010 and is attached. 

C1.5.2.3 Optimization of CO2 Compression Equipment 

 Based upon the preliminary engineering and vendor data the type of compressor 

and the configuration was determined. The preferred configuration is 2 x 50 

percent integrally geared multistage centrifugal compressors. The optimization 

was issued April 14, 2010 and is attached. 

C1.5.2.4 Capture and Compression Phase 2 Application 

Topical 10
- 8 - 

 The Topical Reports and the Resource Loaded Schedule were relied upon to 

develop the Phase 2 Application 

C1.5.3 Enhanced Oil Recovery /Geologic Sequestration / Injection 

 In preparation for the Draft risk assessment and MVA plan, Denbury’s Field 

Operations and Reservoir Team for Hastings Field began the planning of the 

injection program for WHFU Fault Block B and C. A report of the planned 

commercial field development was prepared and submitted to Sue Hovorka at 

BEG GCCC on February 26, 2010 and a formal report prepared on April 13, 

2010 and is attached. 

 The Preliminary CO2 Injection Site Confirmation – West Hastings Field Unit Fault 

Block B and C provides detailed data on CO2 injectivity, storage capacity, field 

development plans for Fault Block B and C, and characteristics of the geologic 

formations. 

C1.5.4.1 Draft risk assessment and MVA plan 

 On December 15, 2009 a review team composed of Susan Hovorka, University 

of Texas - Bureau of Economic Geology [BEG] and sixteen Denbury staff refined 

the plan for development of the Phase 1 Storage MVA plan for the capture 

project linked to the storage project proposed under DOE FOA 15. This prepares 

the way for development of detailed proposals that will be judged competitively 

for major funding in Phase 2. 

 There were two fields that Denbury was considering as sequestration sites, 

namely Oyster Bayou Field and Hastings Field. Both are excellent CO2 EOR and 

sequestration candidates, but a preferred field would need to be chosen as part 

of the Phase 1 MVA planning process on the basis of certain criteria. 

Environmental risks to sensitive habitats, historical sites, or populated areas were 

considered, as well as subsurface complexity and anticipated operational 

problems associated with MVA activities in each field. Uncertainties associated 

with the EOR process were considered, insofar as the required volume and 

duration of CO2 injection – and consequent MVA activity – are concerned. The 

availability and quality of historical data, and additional data required prior to 

flood implementation was also a consideration in the field selection process, as 

well as the existence of existing transportation and communication infrastructure 

in terms of effective monitoring of the sequestered CO2. 

 After a formal review of the two fields nominated in the initial proposal the one 

that seemed to be most competitive in the context of the next round of proposal 

preparation was Hastings East Field fault block B and C. The main driver behind 

our choice of Hastings over Oyster Bayou had to do with contemplated 

development schedule, and Ms. Hvorka’s perception that NETL would prefer to 

fund projects that are relatively "untouched" by CO2 EOR/sequestration prior to 

Topical 11
- 9 - 

project startup. We expect to have initiated the CO2 flood in both Oyster Bayou 

and a portion of Hastings Field prior to availability of anthropogenic CO2 . The 

entirety of Oyster Bayou Field will be developed at about the same time, with first 

injection in 2010 or 2011. The main fault block in Hastings (Fault Block A) will be 

developed at about the same time, but there are two other fault blocks to the 

south that will take additional time to develop, and we envision that the 

commencement of injection in these portions of Hastings will coincide with first 

deliveries of anthropogenic CO2. 

 We then discussed the separation of monitoring activities into (1) those 

conducted commercially as part of a “Best Practices” approach for an effective 

EOR flood or to meet current regulatory requirements (these are not subject to 

NEPA) and (2) those that are surface and sub-surface research-oriented 

monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) activities that will be conducted to 

further demonstrate the effectiveness of storage and monitoring currently 

standard procedure for Denbury. This report proposes a draft research MVA 

program. It is intended that this draft will discuss a broad scope of all the 

activities that might be selected for the Phase 2 proposal. This broad scope will 

help us focus further cost/feasibility/optimization discussion as well as allow 

preparation of the EIV. 

C1.5.4.2 Site-specific MVA options evaluations 

 Site-specific MVA options review started on January 6, 2010 between Sue 

Hovorka of BEG GCCC and Denbury Onshore’s Business Development Team, 

Field Operations Team and Reservoir Team. A report of the proposed MVA 

options was prepared and submitted by Sue Hovorka of BEG GCCC on February 

22, 2010 and a formal report prepared on April 11, 2010 is attached. 

 The Site-specific MVA options evaluation for West Hastings Field Unit Fault 

Block B and C provides detailed recommendation on how to document 

commercial CO2 EOR field development practices and the proposed research 

MVA program that will prove the confidence level of the commercial practices. 

Research MVA options evaluated were broken down into four categories: Flood 

Conformance, Fault Monitoring, Well Integrity and Above-Zone Monitoring. 

These items were planned to include feasibility tests and risk assessments in 

Phase 2A; well preparation and baseline testing in Phase 2B; and time lapse 

testing in 2C. The BEG is also proposing a predictive reservoir model of the CO2 

plume that is injected during the Denbury Onshore commercial EOR process. 

C1.5.4.3 Final MVA plan and detailed budget 

 The Final MVA plan and detailed budget planning started on February 1, 2010 by 

Sue Hovorka of BEG GCCC in consultation with Denbury Onshore and Sandia 

Laboratories. A report of the proposed MVA plan and detailed budget was 

prepared and submitted by Sue Hovorka of BEG GCC on March 15, 2010. After 

Topical 12
- 10 - 

several revisions the Final MVA plan and detailed budget were completed April 

11, 2010 and is attached. 

 The Final MVA plan and detailed budget includes : (1) the schedule of activities; 

(2) the current state of site characterization and capacity assessment; (3) the 

current assessment of uncertainties that lead to assessment of risks and guide 

the research MVA plan; (4) the commercial monitoring activities that provides the 

standard for the research MVA plan; and (5) the research MVA plan that tests the 

effectiveness of the commercial plan and several novel approaches that may 

extend the level of confidence beyond the commercial activities. This is followed 

by a scope of work detail in the tasks divided by project phase and task number 

with a reporting plan, a cost justification, experience of key participants, and 

budget. 

C1.6 Phase 2 Project Description and SOPO 

 A Phase 2 Project Description and SOPO covering all activities associated with 

capture, compression, transport, and MVA was prepared and included in the 

Phase 2 Renewal Application. 

C1.7 Intellectual Property 

 A revised Intellectual Properties Form covering all Phase 1 and Phase 2 activities 

was submitted to NETL on April 13, 2010. 

C1.8 Phase 2 Project Costs, Funding and Budget 

 Technology Cost Data was submitted with the Phase 2 Renewal Application and 

is attached as an Appendix to this Topical Report. 

 A Project Financial Plan was developed and submitted with the Phase 2 Renewal 

Application. 

 Budget Details and Monthly Spend Plans were developed for all Phase 2 

capture, compression, pipeline and MVA tasks. These were also submitted with 

the Phase 2 Renewal Application. 

C1.9 Phase 2 Renewal Application 

 A Phase 2 Renewal Application was prepared for submission on April 16, 2010. 

C1.10 Phase 2 Topical Report 

 This Phase 1 Topical Report was prepared as an attachment to the Phase 2 

Renewal Application for submission on April 16, 2010. 

Topical 13
- 11 - 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ARRA ............................................................. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

AZMI.................................................................................Above Zone Monitoring Interval 

BEG.....................................................................................Bureau of Economic Geology 

CCS............................................................................Carbon Capture and Sequestration 

CCP..............................................................................................Carbon Capture Project 

CO2...................................................................................................................................................................Carbon Dioxide 

CO.........................................................................................................Carbon Monoxide 

COP ...........................................................................................................ConocoPhillips 

COS ........................................................................................................ Carbonyl Sulfide 

DOE ....................................................................................... U.S. Department of Energy 

EOR .............................................................................................Enhanced Oil Recovery 

GCCC....................................... Bureau of Economic Geology Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

GE............................................................................................................General Electric 

H2 .......................................................................................................................Hydrogen

HCPV ...................................................................................... Hydrocarbon Pore Volume 

H2SO4............................................................................................................ Sulfuric Acid 

H2S.........................................................................................................Hydrogen Sulfide 

IWR ........................................................................................ Injection/Withdrawal Ratios 

MP......................................................................................................... Medium-Pressure 

MVA ............................................................ Monitoring, Verification and Accounting Plan 

NETL.................................................................. National Energy Technology Laboratory 

NOx............................................................................................................ Nitrogen Oxide 

P&A............................................................................................Plugged and Abandoned 

PSIG................................................................................Pounds Per Square Inch Gauge 

RCSP ......................................................... Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships 

SO2..............................................................................................................Sulfur Dioxide 

SO3............................................................................................................. Sulfur Trioxide 

SNG ............................................................................................... Synthetic Natural Gas 

SOPO.............................................................................. Statement of Project Objectives 

STPD..................................................................................................Short Tons Per Day 

USDW ................................................................Underground Sources of Drinking Water 

Topical 14
- 12 - 

WSA................................................................................................Wet Sulfuric Acid Unit 

Topical 15
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 1 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.1.1 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Opitimization Study

Topical 16
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 1.0 Rectisol and CO2 Compression 

Optimization Study 

B&V Project Number: 042152 1-1

APPENDIX 1.0 CO2 COMPRESSION OPTIMIZATION 

STUDY 

This appendix provides the results of a CO 2 com pression optim ization study 

carried out in order to determine the optimum Rectisol configuration for the Lake Charles 

CCS Project. The details and results of th e study are provided in the attached report 

conducted by Black & Veatch. 

Topical 17
LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PETROLEUM COKE GASIFICATION 

TO CRUDE METHANOL PROJECT 

Rectisol and CO2 COMPRESSION OPTIMIZATION STUDY 

REV. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHECKED APPROVED

 

 

C 2/18/2010 Incorporated Leucadia Comments GPG GPG RAS 

B 2/15/2010 Incorporated Leucadia Comments GPG GPG RAS 

A 2/10/2010 Issued for Review WLB/MJC/GPG GPG RAS 

Topical 18
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Table of Contents 

B&V Project 166376 TC-1 

February 18, 2010 

Table of Contents 

1.0 Summ ary.............................................................................................................. 1-1 

2.0 Background .......................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Scope of Work and Deliverables .............................................................2-1 

2.2 Methanol Production and CCS Project Boundaries.................................2-1 

2.3 CCS Project Inputs................................................................................... 2-2 

3.0 Project Configuration........................................................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Rectisol Selective Acid Gas Removal Process Configurations ............... 3-2 

3.2 CO 2 Compression..................................................................................... 3-4 

3.3 Optimization Study Results ..................................................................... 3-5 

4.0 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 4-1 

Tables 

Table 1-1 Optimization Study Results Summary..................................................... 1-2 

Table 3-1 Rectisol Feed Gas..................................................................................... 3-6 

Table 3-2 Optimization Study Process Data ............................................................ 3-7 

Table 3-3 Specific Energy Use................................................................................. 3-8 

Table 3-4 Differential Capital and Operating Cost Estimates.................................. 3-9 

Figures 

Figure 3-1 Block Flow Diagram.............................................................................. 3-11 

Figure 3-2 Selective CO2 and Sulfur Removal........................................................ 3-12 

Topical 19
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Summary 

B&V Project 166376 1-1 

February 18, 2010 

1.0 Summary 

 At the request of LHXcadia Energy, LLC, Black & Veatch perforPHd a n 

optimization study that evaluated potential Rectisol ® configuration impacts on the overall 

cost and energy efficiency of the Lak e Charles Petroleum Coke Gasification to Methanol 

Plant. Three Rectisol configurations were evaluated, in which one, two, and three carbon 

dioxide (CO2) stream s were produced at varying pressures a nd purities. The one CO 2

stream case includes a large vacuu m flash compressor, w hich is replaced by additional 

CO2 flash equipment in the two and three CO2 stream cases. 

 Based on the available infor mation, Black & Veatch determined that the Rectisol

configuration producing three CO 2 stream s would have the lowest cost, highest CO 2

recovery, and lowest specific energy use. The results are summarized in Table 1-1. 

 Capital cost includes Rectisol, CO 2 com pression, and the wet sulfuric acid unit 

(WSA), which is af fected by the v olumetric acid gas flow. The W SA nitrogen oxide 

(NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2) em issions are proportional to the volum etric acid gas 

flow; however, the cost im pact of higher emissions was not included. The three CO 2

streams case also has the lowest acid gas flow. 

 The &O2 purity IRr thH three CO 2 stream s case is well within Denbury’s 

specifications for enhanced oil recovery. In the one CO2 stream case, the CO2 purity just 

met the hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) specification; the two CO2 streams case did not m eet the 

combined H2S and carbonyl sulfide (COS) specification. 

 The &O2 r ecovery and hydrogen (H 2) and carbon mRnoxide (CO) loss are 

essentially the same for the three and one CO 2 stream cases. Cost and CO 2 recovery are 

much closer for the three and one CO2 stream cases than for the two CO2 streams case. 

Topical 20
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Summary 

B&V Project 166376 1-2 

February 18, 2010 

Table 1-1 

Optimization Study Results Summary 

Parameter Units 

Denbury 

CO2 Spec 

One 

CO2

Stream 

Two 

CO2

Streams 

Three 

CO2

Streams 

CO2 Pressure(s) psia 29 17.4 

48.6 

23 

40 

60.7 

CO2 Purity %v CO2 97.0 99.2 98.0 99.1 

CO2 Purity ppmv H2S 20 20 7 1 

CO2 Purity ppmv H2S+COS 35 33 42 3 

CO2 Recovered (NOC) stpd CO2 12,577 11,967 12,591 

CO2 Recovered (NOC) stpd total 12,619 12,069 12,660 

Acid Gas to Wet Sulfuric 

Acid Unit (WSA) 

MMscfd 24.7 34.2 23.5 

Acid Gas to WSA %v CO2 52.9 67.8 52.7 

CO2 Lost in Acid Gas % 5.2 9.5 5.1 

H2 and CO Loss to CO2

and Acid Gas 

MMscfd 1.9 4.1 2.0 

Electricity Use MW 1.5 -4.9 Base 

Cooling Water Heat 

Rejection 

MBtu/h -53 -35 Base 

Steam Use MBtu/h 6.8 26.3 Base 

Specific Energy Use MBtu/ton 

recovered CO2

 0.78 3 0.818 0.759 

Operating Cost at 90% 

Capacity Factor 

$ millions/year 0.77 -1.35 Base 

Product Credit at 90% 

Capacity Factor 

$ millions/year -0.44 -44.88 Base 

Capital Cost $ millions 0.8 6.3 Base 

NOC = Normal Operating Case of 6.3%w S in petroleum coke feed to gasification. 

Topical 21
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Background 

B&V Project 166376 2-1 

February 18, 2010 

2.0 Background 

2.1 Scope of Work and Deliverables 

This report fulfills the objectives of Item C1.5.1.1 - Optim ization Study of the 

Statement of Project Objectives (S OPO) in the Cooperative Agreem ent for the Lake 

Charles CCS Project. 

Engineer will perform a n optim ization study for the com bined cost and energy 

consumption of Rectisol and CO 2 com pression. A critical re view of the integration 

between the Lake Charles Chem ical Proje ct Rectiso l unit and the C O2 com pression 

design will be perform ed to optim ize the de sign between the two fa cilities. Design 

configurations will be evaluated regarding reducing CO2 compression power. Capital and 

operating costs for several cases will be eval uated to determ ine the Rectisol design that 

optimizes the com bined costs of Rectiso l and CO 2 compression. Cooling and water 

requirements f or the com pressors will be integra ted with the coo ling and water 

requirements for the chemical plant. 

The delive rable to th e Client f or this subtas k is an en gineering re port tha t 

describes th e results of the optim ization s tudy. The report will include (1) design 

recommendations for integ ration of com pression equ ipment with Rectisol, (2) a 

discussion of the design elem ents that m inimize the power requirem ents of the system , 

(3) a summary of capital and operating cost es timates of the cases evaluated, and (4) an 

overall design recommendation, including the expected capital and operating costs of the 

recommended design. 

2.2 Methanol Production and CCS Project Boundaries 

Lake Charles Cogeneration, LLC has been developing a petroleum coke (petcoke) 

gasification project near Lake Charles, Louisiana for several years. Configurations that 

have been investigated include the cogeneration of electricity, H 2,and steam ; synthetic 

natural gas (SNG) production with and without H 2 production; and m ost recently, 

methanol production. The SNG, H 2, and m ethanol projects included CO 2 capture and 

compression. 

Leucadia Energy, LLC has entered into a Cooperative Agreem ent (Award No. 

DE-FE0002314), effective Nove mber 16, 2009, w ith the U nited States Departm ent of 

Energy/NETL Pittsburgh Campus for the Lake Ch arles CCS Project. The scope of this 

agreement is CO2 capture and sequestration (CCS). 

The interface between the methanol production facility and the CCS facility is the 

CO2 transfer piping at the Rectisol unit battery limits. 

Topical 22
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Background 

B&V Project 166376 2-2 

February 18, 2010 

2.3 CCS Project Inputs 

Black & Veatch is relying upon data provi ded by others (including Rectisol data) 

for the m ethanol production facility. The work performed on the m ethanol production 

facility can be chara cterized as feasibility level and will be further refined as the project 

is developed. Lurgi provided Rectisol inform ation for both SNG and H 2 production. 

Black & Veatch adjusted this data for the methanol production. 

Topical 23
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-1 

February 18, 2010 

3.0 Project Configuration 

 The Lake Charles CCS Project will gasify approximately 7,400 short tons per day 

(stpd) of petcoke to produce 6,890 stpd of crude methanol, with a methanol concentration 

of 94.1 percent weight (%w). Byproducts will include sulfuric acid (H2SO4), CO2, argon, 

and electricity. Sulfuric acid production will range fr om 830 to 1,972 stpd of 97.5%w 

sulfuric acid for petcoke sulfur contents of 3.5 to 8%w, dry basis. Norm al sulfuric acid 

production will be 1,3 39 stpd for 6.3%w sulfur petcoke. CO 2 production will be 

approximately 12,600 stpd. Argon production will be approximately 373 stpd. The gross 

electricity production will range from 200 to 213 MW at design m ethanol production. 

This electricity will no rmally be p roduced from process generated steam in a steam 

turbine generator. The plant will typi cally consum e appr oximately 260 M W, which 

includes 40 MW for CO2 compression. The net electricity import to the plant will be 47 

to 60 MW at design methanol production conditions. 

 The plant configuration is shown on Fi gure 3-1 (included at the end of this 

section). Key aspects are highlighted in this section. 

 The plant w ill consist of five General Electric (GE) Quench gasifiers and two 

trains of syngas processing, including sour sh ift conversion, Lurgi Rectisol selective acid 

gas removal, methanol synthesis and stabili zation, and Haldor Topsoe wet sulf uric acid 

production. At design plant capacity, four GE Quench gasifiers will operate at their 

design rate, which allows one gasifier to be on hot standby or shut down for maintenance. 

Gasifiers will be started up using natural gas to minimize the SO2 emissions. 

 About 63 percent of the raw syngas will flow through two shift conversion trains, 

where nearly all of the CO will be reacted with water vapor over a catalyst to produce H2

and CO2. The flow through shift conversion will be controlled to produce the following 

required methanol syngas feed stoichiometric ratio: 

(H2-CO2) / (CO+CO2) = 2.05 

 H2S, COS, and CO 2 will be se lectively r emoved f rom the sour syng as in the 

Rectisol unit using cold methanol as a physi cal solvent. The Rectisol unit will pro duce 

syngas containing less than 0.1 ppmv tota l sulfur com pounds and 2.8 percent volum e 

(%v) CO2 for feed to methanol synthesis. The sweet syngas from the Rectisol unit will be 

compressed, com bined with recycle syngas, and reacted over a catalyst to pro duce 

methanol. 

Topical 24
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-2 

February 18, 2010 

 The Rectisol unit will p roduce an acid gas stream that contains H 2S and COS for 

feed to the WSA process. The acid gas H 2S and COS concentrations will vary with their 

concentrations in the so ur syngas to the Rect isol unit, which will va ry with the petcoke 

sulfur concentration. The acid gas stream will be combusted to produce SO2, which will 

be catalytically oxidized to sulfur trioxide (SO 3) and then reacted with con densing water 

to produce 97.5%w sulfuric acid. 

 The Rectisol unit will also produce CO 2 suitable for enhanced oil recovery. The 

CO2 concentration will be higher than 98%v. The CO 2 pressure will depend on the 

Rectisol configuration and can vary from a single stream at 29 pounds per square inch 

absolute (psia) to m ultiple streams ranging from 17.4 to 60.4 psia. The CO 2 fro m t he 

Rectisol unit will be compressed to 2,250 psia. 

3.1 Rectisol Selective Acid Gas Removal Process 

Configurations 

The following three Rectisol configurations were evaluated: 

1. Single CO 2 stream at 29 psia, with a single reabsorber colum n with a 

vacuum flash compressor. 

2. Two CO2 streams at 17.4 and 48.6 psia, with a single reabsorber colum n 

without a vacuum flash compressor. 

3. Three CO2 streams at 23, 40, and 60.7 psia, with two reabsorber colum ns 

and a hot flash column without a vacuum flash compressor. 

 The single CO2 stream Rectisol design has been the most common and typically 

most if not all of the C O2 is vented. The two CO2 str eam Rectisol design redu ces the 

total electricity use for Rectisol and compression of all of the CO2 The three CO2 stream 

Rectisol design futher reduces the total electri city use for Rectisol and compression of all 

of the CO 2 and increases CO2 recovery and pur ity. Lur gi develop ed the thr ee CO 2

stream Rectisol design for the Lake Char les C ogeneration Coke Gasification to SNG 

Project. Th e th ree CO2 stream pres sures were optim ized to further minimize the total 

electricity u se for Rectisol and CO 2 compression. Lurgi did not perform an econom ic 

assessment including capital cost . So prior to this study th e relative overall econom ic 

performance of these three Rectisol configurations was unknown. 

 The Lurgi Rectiso l f low diagram f or the sing le CO 2 stream case is shown on 

Figure 3-2. The gas feed to the Rectisol un it will be chilled to 50° F and passed through 

an ammonia scrubber. The m ixed syngas will then be contacted with CO 2 rich methanol 

in the prewa sh section a t the bottom of the absorber to rem ove any rem aining ammonia 

and hydrogen cyanide. After that, H 2S and COS will be re moved in the H 2S absorption 

section of the absorber. CO 2 will then be rem oved in the CO 2 absorption section of the 

Topical 25
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-3 

February 18, 2010 

absorber. The temperature of the methanol to the absorber will be approximately -30° F. 

This temperature will increase with the heat of absorption, requiri ng additional methanol 

chilling at intermediate absorber locations. 

 CO 2 laden m ethanol from the absorber will be flashed in the m edium-pressure 

(MP) flash colum n to rem ove dissolved hydr ogen and CO. The flash gas will then be 

compressed and recycled back to the feed to the absorber. 

 The sulfur rich m ethanol will be f lashed in the bottom of the MP stripper to 

remove dissolve hydrogen and CO. This flash gas will also be com pressed and recycled 

back to the absorber. 

Topical 26
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-4 

February 18, 2010 

 The CO2 rich m ethanol from the MP f lash column will be subcooled in a chille r 

and then flashed in the reabsorb er colum n(s). The sulfur rich m ethanol from the MP 

stripper will be flashed in the reab sorber(s) to rem ove CO 2. This flash gas will be 

washed with m ethanol from the CO 2 flash section at th e top of th e reabso rber(s) to 

reabsorb H2S and COS. The m ethanol will be flas hed to s uccessively lower pres sures. 

The methanol capacity to hold dissolved gas wi ll decrease with decreas ing pressure. As 

the pressure is reduced, the m ethanol temperature will be decreas ed by the ref rigeration 

produced from desorption. In the single CO2 stream case, the methanol will be flashed to 

a vacuum and the resulting flash gas will be compressed and added back to the higher 

pressure flash gas in the reabsorber. The two and three CO2 stream cases do not have the 

flash gas compressor. 

 Ammonia and hydrogen cyanide laden m ethanol from the prewash section of the 

absorber will be fed to the top of the hot re generator. Sulfur rich m ethanol from the 

reabsorber will be fed to a lowe r section of the hot regenerator. Methanol at the bottom 

of the hot regenerato r will be ind irectly h eated to its b oiling point by conden sing 

60 pounds per square inch gauge (p sig) steam in reboilers. H2S, COS, and CO2 will then 

be released from the bo iling methanol. Metha nol removed from the bottom of the ho t 

regenerator will be f ully regenera ted and retu rned to the absorber a fter cooling and 

chilling. The acid gas from the hot regenerato r will be coo led to condense water v apor. 

The cooled acid gas will be fed to the WSA. 

 A m ethanol-water side stre am f rom the hot regene rator will be f ed to the 

methanol water co lumn. W ater at the botto m of the m ethanol wate r colum n will be 

indirectly heated to its boiling point by condensing 140 psig steam. Methanol has a lower 

vapor pressure than water and will be pref erentially vaporized. The methanol vapor will 

be fed to the hot regenerator. An impure water stream will be taken f rom the bottom of 

the m ethanol water co lumn, where it will b e used f or coke slur ry m akeup water. 

Methanol will also be purged as n eeded to co ntrol amm onia and hydrogen cyanide 

buildup. The methanol purge stream will be used as fuel in the WSA furnaces. 

3.2 CO2 Compression 

 The Rectisol CO2 streams will be com pressed to 2,150 psia and cooled to 90° F. 

At these conditions, CO2 is a supercritical flu id. The compressed CO2 will flow through 

a metering station and will be analyzed before custody transfer to the Denbury pipeline at 

a minimum pressure of 2,100 psig. 

 The optiminum number of CO 2 compressors is two each with a capacity of 50% 

of the total CO2 flow. This matches the two 50% capacity gas processing trains which is 

an optimum combination of equipment size, process availability/operating flexibility, and 

Topical 27
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-5 

February 18, 2010 

cost. Each gas proce ssing tra in will be shutdown once a year f or preventative 

maintenance. One of the CO 2 compressors will also be shutdown at the sam e time for 

preventative maintenance. 

Two types of com pressors are comm ercially available for this se rvice: betwee n 

bearings and integrally geared m ultistage centrifugal compressors. Dre sser, Elliot, GENuovo Pignone, and MHI, offer between the bearings m ultistage cen trifugal 

compressors, either on one shaft driven by a single motor or with separate motors for the 

low-pressure and high-pressure casings. Thes e compressors have four stages with three 

stages of intercooling. MAN and Siem ens offer integrally g eared multistage centrifugal 

compressors with eigh t stages and s ix stag es of inte rcooling. MAN integra lly ge ared 

centrifugal compressors have been op erating for 10 years in a sim ilar CO2 compression 

service at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. 

 Black & Veatch recently ob tained CO 2 com pressor budget pricing and 

performance data from Dresser, GE-Nuovo Pignone, MAN, MHI, and Siem ens for 

several projects. The polytropic stage e fficiencies for the between the bearings 

compressors ranged from 84 to 64 percent. The polytropic stage efficiencies for the 

MAN compressors were all 85 percent, which makes it the most ef ficient machine. The 

more efficie nt MAN co mpressors were also the m ost econom ical. Polytropic s tage 

efficiencies of 85 percent were used in this optimization study. 

3.3 Optimization Study Results 

 The Rectisol data supplied by Lurgi for the Lake Charles coke gasification to 

SNG and H 2 projects were adjus ted by Black & V eatch for coke gasification to crude 

methanol. Lean m ethanol solven t rates wer e e stimated by adjusting f or CO2 and H 2S 

rates and partial pressures in the feed gas to the Rectiso l unit. Tower sizes were adju sted 

to maintain constant superficial gas velocitie s. Heat duties were adjus ted for m ethanol 

circulation rates. Pump and compressor horsepower values were estim ated for the 

adjusted liq uid and g as rates. The str eam rate and com position data and the adjusted 

equipment size data were used to estimate capital and operating costs. 

 The Rectisol feed gas study basis is presented in Table 3-1. 

Topical 28
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-6 

February 18, 2010 

Table 3-1 

Rectisol Feed Gas 

Syngas Feed Gas Flow Rate lb-moles/hr 83,036 

Syngas Feed Gas H2+CO Flow Rate lb-moles/hr 54,416 

Operating Pressure psia 850 

CO2 Concentration %vol dry 32.28% 

CO2 Partial Pressure psia 274 

H2S Concentration %vol dry 1.41% 

COS Concentration %vol dry 0.04% 

Topical 29
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-7 

February 18, 2010 

 A detailed summary of the study pro cess data is presented in Table 3-2. Utilities 

consumptions for the one and two CO 2 streams cases are listed as the d ifference from the 

three CO2 streams base case. 

Table 3-2 

Optimization Study Process Data 

Parameter Units 

Denbury 

CO2

Spec 

One 

CO2

Stream 

Two 

CO2

Streams 

Three 

CO2

Streams 

Treated Syngas from Rectisol Unit 

Treated Syngas Flow 

Rate 

lb-moles/hr total 56,293 56,051 56,379 

Treated Syngas Flow 

Rate 

lb-moles/hr 

H2+CO 

 54,2 10 53,968 54,200 

CO2 Concentration %vol 2.81% 2.81% 2.81% 

Operating Pressure psia 810 810 810 

CO2 Absorbed, per train lb-moles/hr 12,612 12,615 12,611 

Product CO2 from Rectisol Unit 

CO2 Pressure(s) psia 29.0 17.4 

48.6 

23.0 

40.0 

60.7 

CO2 Purity %v CO2 97.0 99.2 98.0 99.1 

CO2 Purity ppmv H2S 20 20 7 1 

CO2 Purity ppmv H2S +COS 35 33 42 3 

CO2 Recovered (NOC) stpd CO2 12,577 11,967 12,591 

CO2 Recovered (NOC) stpd total 12,619 12,069 12,660 

Acid Gas from Rectisol Unit 

Acid Gas to WSA MMscfd 24.7 34.2 23.5 

Acid Gas to WSA %v CO2 52.9 67.8 52.7 

CO2 Lost in Acid Gas % 5.2 9.5 5.1 

Rectisol General 

Lean Methanol Rate gpm at 60° F 5,85 8 6,648 5,580 

H2 & CO Loss to CO2 & 

Acid Gas 

MMscfd 1.9 4.1 2.0 

Topical 30
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-8 

February 18, 2010 

Table 3-2 (Continued) 

Optimization Study Process Data 

Parameter Units 

Denbury 

CO2

Spec 

One 

CO2

Stream 

Two 

CO2

Streams 

Three 

CO2

Streams 

Electricity Use 

Pumps MW 0.0 -1.2 Base 

Recycle Gas Comp MW 0.1 0.1 Base 

Flash Vacuum Comp MW 5.9 0.0 Base 

Refrigeration Comp MW -6.7 -5.9 Base 

CO2 Compression MW 2.3 2.2 Base 

Cooling Water MW -0.2 -0.1 Base 

Total MW 1.5 -4.9 Base 

Cooling Water Duty 

Rectisol Process MBtu/h 2.7 24.0 Base 

RectisolRefrigeration MBtu/h -62.4 -59.3 Base 

CO2 Compression MBtu/h 6.8 0.7 Base 

Total MBtu/h -52.9 -34.6 Base 

Steam Use 

140 psig 1,000 lb/h 2.8 10.7 Base 

60 psig 1,000 lb/h 4.9 18.8 Base 

Total MBtu/h 6.8 26.3 Base 

Energy use is summarized in Table 3-3. 

Table 3-3 

Specific Energy Use 

Parameter Units 

One CO2

Stream 

Two CO2

Streams 

Three CO2

Streams 

Electricity and Steam MBtu/h 412 409 400 

CO2 Recovered stph CO2 524 499 525 

Specific Energy Use MBtu/ton recovered CO2 0.78 3 0.818 0.759 

Topical 31
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-9 

February 18, 2010 

 The three CO2 streams case uses th e least electricity and steam energy per ton of 

CO2 recovered. The sp ecific en ergy use of the one CO 2 stream and two CO 2 stream s 

cases are 3.1 percent and 7.7 percent higher than the three CO2 streams case, respectively. 

 Capital and operating cost estim ates are su mmarized in Table 3-4 as the 

differences between the one and two CO 2 streams cases and the three CO 2 streams base 

case. The two CO 2 streams case has the lowest Rectisol capital cost because it uses less 

equipment, which is why it has lower CO2 recovery and higher CO and H2 losses. Lower 

CO2 recovery increas es the CO 2 level in the ac id gas to the W SA, which increa ses the 

WSA cost. Lower CO 2 recovery in creases the CO2 level in the a cid gas to the W SA, 

which increases the WSA cost. The WSA NOx and SO2 emissions are proportional to the 

volumetric acid gas flow; however, the cost impact of higher emissions was not included. 

The three CO2 streams case also has the lowest acid gas flow. 

Table 3-4 

Differential Capital and Operating Cost Estimates 

Parameter Units 

One CO2

Stream 

Two CO2

Streams 

Three CO2

Streams Unit Costs 

Capital Costs 

Rectisol $ millions -4.3 -15 Base 

CO2 Compression $ millions 6.9 6.6 Base 

WSA $ millions -1.8 4.7 Base 

Total $ millions 0.8 6.3 Base 

Operating Costs at 90% Capacity Factor 

Electricity $ millions/yr 0.87 -2.55 Base $0.067/kWh 

140 psig Steam $ millions/yr 0.22 0.85 Base $10.00/1,000 lb 

60 psig Steam $ millions/yr 0.17 0.67 Base $4.50/1,000 lb 

Cooling Water $ millions/yr -0.42 -0.7 Base $1/MBtu 

Makeup Methanol $ millions/yr 0.00 0.01 Base $1/gallon 

Total $ millions/yr 0.85 -1.30 Base 

Production Credits at 90% Capacity Factor 

Methanol Production $ millions/yr 0.12 -2.65 Base $1/gallon 

CO2 Production $ millions/yr -0.80 -36.93 Base $7.5/ton 

Total $ millions/yr -0.68 -39.58 Base 

Topical 32
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Project Configuration 

B&V Project 166376 3-10 

February 18, 2010 

 The three C O2 stream s case has th e lowest capit al cost and highest production 

credits. The two CO 2 streams case has th e lowest operating cost, but the operating cost 

savings are overwhelm ed by higher capital cost and lower production credits. Overall, 

the economics for the three CO2 streams case and the one CO2 stream case are close, with 

the three CO2 streams case being the m ost economical. The three CO2 streams case will 

also be more reliable than the single CO2 stream case, because it does not have the flash 

gas compressor. 

 

Topical 33
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study B&V Project 166376 3-11 February 18, 2010 

Figure 3-1 

Block Flow Diagram 

Topical 34
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study B&V Project 166376 3-12 February 18, 2010 

Figure 3-2 

Selective CO2 and Sulfur Removal 

Process 

Condensate 

B.L. 

Cooling Water 

Raw Gas 

B.L. 

Treated Gas 

B.L. 

Topical 35
Lake Charles CCS Project 

Rectisol and CO2 Compression Optimization Study Conclusions 

B&V Project 166376 4-1 

February 18, 2010 

4.0 Conclusions 

 The three CO 2 stream s case is optimu m because it has the lowest capital cost, 

highest CO 2 recovery, and lowest specific energy use per ton of CO 2 r ecovered. The 

three CO2 streams case should be used for inquiring the CO2 compressors. 

Topical 36
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 2 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.1 

CO2 Capture and Compression Equipment 

Preliminary Engineering 

Topical 37
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-1

APPENDIX 2.0 CO2 CAPTURE AND COMPRESSION 

EQUIPMENT PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING 

This appendix provides a prelim inary pl ant arrangement, system de finition, and 

material balances for th e Lake Charles CCS Project’s CO 2 captu re and com pression 

systems. 

2.1 General Project Background 

The Lake Charles CCS Project will gasify approximately 8,810 short tons per day 

(STPD) of petcoke to p roduce approximately 7,284 STPD of Methanol. Byproducts will 

include sulfuric acid (H2SO4), CO2, argon, and electricity. 

The plant w ill consist of five General Electric (GE) Quench gasifiers and two 

trains of syngas processi ng, including sour shift conversion, Lurgi Rectisol ® se lective 

acid gas removal, m ethanol synthesis and stabilizat ion, and Haldor Topsoe wet sulfuric 

acid (WSA) production. At desi gn plant capacity, four GE Qu ench gasifiers will operate 

at their design rate, which allows one gasi fier to be on hot standby or shut down for 

maintenance. Gasif iers will be s tarted up using natural gas to m inimize the SO 2

emissions. 

The Rectisol unit will produce approxim ately 237 MMSCFD of CO 2 suitable for 

enhanced oil recovery. The CO 2 concentration will be m ore than 99 percent by volum e. 

The Rectisol unit will p roduce CO2 at three different pressures that will subsequently be 

forwarded to the CO 2 com pression system . A general block flow diagram of the 

gasification, CO2 capture, and CO2 compression system is shown on Figure 2-1. 

2.2 Plant Arrangement 

A conceptual layout of the CO 2 capture and compression equipm ent is shown on 

Figure 2-2 and drawing 162882-1000-X1000. 

Topical 38
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression Equipment PreB&V Project Number: 042152 

41,304.5 TPD 8,810.1 TPD 13,399.6 TPD

6610.4 MTPD

8,657.4 TPD 7284.6 STPD

 1,478 TPD

456.2 TPD

32,237.6 TPD 396.6 TPD

12.1 MGD 291.5 MW 

75.5 MW 

1,213 GPM 

GASIFICATION

UTILITIES

AIR SEPARATION

AIR COKE

SULFURIC 

ACID 

GAS TREATING

SLAG

Treated 

Wastewater

CO2 TO 

COMPRESSION

O2

ELE

TO IN

U

SYNGAS

RAW SYNGAS

558 MMSCFD

(H2+CO)

WATER

WASTE

STEAM WATER

RAW WATER

WATER STEAM

N2 Argon

ELE

FR

Figure 2-1. Gasification and CO2 Capture and Compression Block Flow Diagram

Topical 39
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-3

Figure 2-2. CO2 Capture and Compression Equipment Layout 

(Refer to drawing 162882-1000-X1000 for scale) 

Topical 40
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-4

Topical 41
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-5

General CO2 Capture System Definition 

Process flow diagram s of a single Rec tisol train are shown on drawings 042152-

0601-P1001 though 042152-0601-P1007. The gas feed to the Rectisol unit will be 

chilled to 5 0° F and passed throug h an amm onia scrubber. The m ixed syngas will then 

be contacted with CO2 rich methanol in the prewash section at the bottom of the absorber 

to remove any remaining ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. After that, H 2S and COS will 

be removed in the H 2S absorption section of the absorber. CO2 will then be removed in 

the CO 2 ab sorption section of the absorber. Th e tem perature of th e m ethanol to the 

absorber will be approxim ately -42° F. Th is temperature will inc rease with the heat of 

absorption, requiring additional methanol chilling at intermediate absorber locations. 

CO2 laden m ethanol from the absorber will be flashed in the m edium-pressure 

(MP) flash colum n to rem ove dissolved hydr ogen and CO. The flash gas will then be 

compressed and recycled back to the feed to the absorber. 

The sulfur rich m ethanol will be f lashed in the bottom of the MP stripper to 

remove dissolve hydrogen and CO. This flash gas will also be com pressed and recycled 

back to the absorber. 

 The CO2 rich methanol from the MP f lash column will be subcooled in a chille r 

and then flashed in the reabsorb er colum n(s). The sulfur rich m ethanol from the MP 

stripper will be flashed in the reab sorber(s) to rem ove CO 2. This flash gas will be 

washed with m ethanol from the CO 2 flash section at th e top of th e reabso rber(s) to 

reabsorb H2S and COS. The m ethanol will be flas hed to s uccessively lower pres sures. 

The methanol capacity to hold dissolved gas wi ll decrease with decreas ing pressure. As 

the pressure is reduced, the m ethanol temperature will be decreas ed by the ref rigeration 

produced from desorption. 

Ammonia and hydrogen cyanide laden m ethanol from the prewash section of the 

absorber will be fed to the top of the hot re generator. Sulfur rich m ethanol from the 

reabsorber will be fed to a lowe r section of the hot regenerator. Methanol at the bottom 

of the hot regenerator will be indirectly heated to its boiling poin t b y condensin g 70 

pounds per square inch gauge (psig) steam in reboilers. H2S, COS, and CO2 will then be 

released from the boiling m ethanol. Methanol rem oved from the bottom of the hot 

regenerator will be f ully regenera ted and retu rned to the absorber a fter cooling and 

chilling. The acid gas from the hot regenerato r will be coo led to condense water v apor. 

The cooled acid gas will be fed to the WSA. 

A m ethanol-water side stre am f rom the hot regene rator will be f ed to the 

methanol water co lumn. W ater at the botto m of the m ethanol wate r colum n will be 

indirectly heated to its boiling point by condensing 200 psig steam. Methanol has a lower 

vapor pressure than water and will be pref erentially vaporized. The methanol vapor will 

Topical 42
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-6

be fed to the hot regenerator. An impure water stream will be taken f rom the bottom of 

the m ethanol water co lumn, where it will b e used f or coke slur ry m akeup water. 

Methanol will also be purged as n eeded to co ntrol amm onia and hydrogen cyanide 

buildup. The methanol purge stream will be used as fuel in the WSA furnaces. 

The Rectisol unit will require approximately 42.3 MW during normal operation. 

2.3 General CO2 Compression System Definition 

The CO2 Compression System compre sses all o f the flashed CO 2 from Rectisol 

unit into a sendout CO 2 pipeline for enhanced oil recove ry use. A process flow diagra m 

of a single compressor is shown on drawing 042152-1801-P1001. CO2 will be produced 

from two trains of Rectisol and supplied to 2 x 50 percent electric motor driven integrally 

geared compressors CO2 compressors at a total rate of approximately 237 MMSCFD. 

The compressor units are comprised of a low speed gear an d multiple high speed 

pinions which are contained within the com pressor body. T he impellers are mounted on 

the high speed pinions which allow selection of impellers operating at different speeds 

and diameters which allow for a m ore optimum aerodynamic selection. Eight im pellers 

(stages) are required for the sta ted pressure ratio with intercooling as required. The 

compressor package will also consis t of all re quisite intercoolers and suction scrubbers. 

There will be suction scrubbers after the 5t h and 6th stages of com pression to protect 

against liquid for mation at those conditions. All intercoo lers use cooling water as the 

cooling medium. 

The com pressors are completely packaged by the vendor and includes m otor, 

coupling, compressor, lube oil system, intercoolers, aftercooler and interstage piping. 

CO2 is produced at three different pressure levels in Rectis ol®: ~23 psia (LP3), 

~40 psia (LP2), and ~60.7 psia (LP3). Each stream is supplied to each of the first 3 

stages of compression as shown on drawing 042152-1801-P1001. 

The CO2 compression will requ ire roughly 42.9 MW of power to deliv er the 237 

MMSCFD of CO 2 to custody transfer m etering at a pressure of 2,165 psia. The 

compressed CO2 gas is cooled to 100o F in the HP CO 2 Aftercooler (18-E-0107) using 

cooling water prior to leaving the compressor package battery limits. The combined CO2

stream purity will be greater than 99 percent by volume. 

The high pressure CO 2 enters a custody transfer m etering station (described 

below) before leaving the plant battery limit and going into the CO2 pipeline. 

Topical 43
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-7

2.3.1 CO2 Custody Metering 

The CO2 will flow through a two-tube custody m eter system as it leaves the plan t 

site. This system shall qualify for custody transfer (volu me flow rate accuracy not 

exceeding +/- 1.0%), consisting of the following components: 

 2 ea. 12" 2500# m eter runs each with sw itching valves; flow, pressure, an d 

temperature transm itters, and analyzer probes . The 2 meter runs s hall b e 

configured in a 1 + 1 configuration, with the second stream used as a spare m eter 

stream. 

 2 ea Multi-path Ultrasonic flow meters, 1 in each run. 

 2 Flow computers (in the Meter house) wi th s erial communication to th e DCS. 

The flow computers correct th e flow with pressure and temperature values, and 

using the gas com position from the chro matograph, calculate volum e, mass, and 

energy flows. 

 2 metering panels (in the Meter house). 

 Gas Chromatograph (in the Meter house) with sample probes for each m eter run, 

and sample system and serial communication to the DCS. 

 Meter house approved for the Electrical H azardous Area Classification, including 

an HVAC and purge system with fresh air intake stack if required. 

Periodically one of the ultrasonic flow meters will be sent for re-calibration and 

validation. 

Topical 44
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-8

Topical 45
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-9

Topical 46
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-10

Topical 47
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-11

Topical 48
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-12

Topical 49
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-13

Topical 50
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-14

Topical 51
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-15

Topical 52
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-16

2.4 CO2 Capture Mass and Energy Balance 

A m ass and energy balance for th e Lake Charles CCS Project’s CO 2 captu re 

system is provided in Table 2-1 for reference steams shown on the process flow diagrams 

042152-0601-P1001 though 042152-0601-P1007. 

2.5 CO2 Compression Mass and Energy Balance 

A mass and energy balance for the Lake Charles CCS Project’s CO2 compression 

system is provided in T able 2-2 for reference steams shown on the process flow diagra m 

042152-1801-P1001. 

Topical 53
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-17

Table 2-1 

CO2 Capture Mass and Energy Balance 

Plant: Lake Charles CCS Project Material Balance B&V Project: 042152

Location: Sulfur, LA Expected Figures Date: April 13, 2010

Case: GE Gasification, Target Values

Gas Streams

Stream: 0601 0602 0603 0604 0605 0606

Medium: SOUR SYNGAS SWEET SYNGAS LP1CO2 LP2CO2 LP3CO2 ACID GAS

From: SYNGAS COOLING AGR AGR AGR AGR AGR

To: AGR METHANOL CO2 COMPRESSION CO2 COMPRESSION CO2 COMPRESSION WET SULFURIC ACID

Mole-flow lbmol/hr 87,744 58,968 6,042 1,400 15,752 2,721

Mass-flow Mlb/hr 1,873.47 627.35 263.02 59.69 693.10 107.56

Mass-flow st/hr 936.74 313.67 131.51 29.84 346.55 53.78

Vol.-flow, gas MMSCFD 799.15 537.06 55.03 12.75 143.46 24.78

Pressure psia 875 843 60.7 40.0 23 28.7

Temperature °F 111 86 34 60 70 84

LHV, gas BTU/scf 197.77 281.11 6.16 16.75 0.23 276.95

LHV, gas BTU/lb 3,515.01 10,027.27 53.68 149.04 2.01 2,658.43

HHV, gas BTU/lb 3,939.33 11,256.85 56.86 157.91 2.17 2,880.96

LHV, stream MMBTU/h 6,585.28 6,290.59 14.12 8.90 1.39 285.95

HHV, stream MMBTU/h 7,380.22 7,061.96 14.95 9.43 1.51 309.88

H2 %mole 45.7950 68.0070 0.6459 1.8866 0.0044 0.2187

CO %mole 19.7386 29.1177 1.2718 3.4941 0.0279 0.1278

CO2 %mole 32.2455 1.8383 98.0367 94.5496 99.9506 52.7325

CH4 %mole 0.0470 0.0666 0.0095 0.0236 0.0006 0.0319

H2S %mole 1.4148 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 45.6273

COS %mole 0.0363 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 1.1672

NH3 %mole 0.0449 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HCN %mole 0.0006 0.0008 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010

HCL %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

AR %mole 0.0869 0.1287 0.0022 0.0079 0.0000 0.0016

O2 %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

N2 %mole 0.4804 0.7138 0.0043 0.0160 0.0000 0.0030

H2O %mole 0.1100 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

SO2 %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Methanol %mole 0.0000 0.1270 0.0292 0.0220 0.0162 0.0889

Total %mole 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000

MW

H2 lbmol/h 40,182.23 40,102.14 39.03 26.41 0.69 5.95

CO lbmol/h 17,319.39 17,170.01 76.85 48.90 4.39 3.48

CO2 lbmol/h 28,293.38 1,084.00 5,923.86 1,323.33 15,743.98 1,434.68

CH4 lbmol/h 41.25 39.27 0.57 0.33 0.09 0.87

H2S lbmol/h 1,241.41 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 1,241.37

COS lbmol/h 31.83 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.03 31.75

NH3 lbmol/h 39.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCN lbmol/h 0.53 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

HCl lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AR lbmol/h 76.21 75.89 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.04

O2 lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2 lbmol/h 421.53 420.91 0.26 0.22 0.00 0.08

H2O lbmol/h 96.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SO2 lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Methanol lbmol/h 0.00 74.89 1.76 0.31 2.55 2.42

Total lbmol/h 87,743.70 58,967.64 6,042.49 1,399.61 15,751.77 2,720.68

H2 klb/hr 81.0033 80.84 0.08 0.05 0.00 0.01

CO klb/hr 485.1162 480.93 2.15 1.37 0.12 0.10

CO2 klb/hr 1245.1916 47.71 260.71 58.24 692.89 63.14

CH4 klb/hr 0.6618 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01

H2S klb/hr 42.3098 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 42.31

COS klb/hr 1.9120 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.91

NH3 klb/hr 0.6714 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCN klb/hr 0.0142 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCl klb/hr 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AR klb/hr 3.0444 3.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

O2 klb/hr 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2 klb/hr 11.8084 11.79 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

H2O klb/hr 1.7388 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SO2 klb/hr 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Methanol klb/hr 0.0000 2.40 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.08

Total klb/hr 1873.47 627.35 263.02 59.69 693.10 107.56

Composition

Molar Flow

Mass Flow

Topical 54
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 2.0 CO2 Capture and Compression 

Equipment Preliminary Engineering

B&V Project Number: 042152 2-18

Table 2-2 

CO2 Compression Mass and Energy Balance 

Plant: Lake Charles CCS Project Material Balance B&V Project: 042152

Location: Sulfur, LA Expected Figures Date: April 13, 2010

Case: GE Gasification, Target Values

Gas Streams

Stream: 0603 0604 0605 1801

Medium: LP1CO2 LP2CO2 LP3CO2 HPCO2

From: AGR AGR AGR CO2 COMPRESSION

To: CO2 COMPRESSION CO2 COMPRESSION CO2 COMPRESSION CO2 PIPELINE

Mole-flow lbmol/hr 6,774 1,569 17,659 26,002

Mass-flow Mlb/hr 295 67 777 1,139

Mass-flow st/hr 147 33 389 569.40

Vol.-flow, gas MMSCFD 62 14 161 237

Pressure psia 60.7 40.0 23 2165

Temperature °F 34 60 70 100

LHV, gas BTU/scf 6.16 16.75 0.23 2.77

LHV, gas BTU/lb 53.68 149.04 2.01 24.03

HHV, gas BTU/lb 56.86 157.91 2.17 25.48

LHV, stream MMBTU/h 15.83 9.97 1.56 27.36

HHV, stream MMBTU/h 16.77 10.57 1.69 29.02

H2 %mole 0.6459 1.8866 0.0044 0.2851

CO %mole 1.2718 3.4941 0.0279 0.5611

CO2 %mole 98.0367 94.5496 99.9506 99.1261

CH4 %mole 0.0095 0.0236 0.0006 0.0043

H2S %mole 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

COS %mole 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002

NH3 %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HCN %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

HCL %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

AR %mole 0.0022 0.0079 0.0000 0.0010

O2 %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

N2 %mole 0.0043 0.0160 0.0000 0.0021

H2O %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

SO2 %mole 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

Methanol %mole 0.0292 0.0220 0.0162 0.0199

Total %mole 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000 100.0000

MW

H2 lbmol/h 43.75 29.60 0.78 74.13

CO lbmol/h 86.15 54.82 4.93 145.90

CO2 lbmol/h 6,641.06 1,483.54 17,650.10 25,774.69

CH4 lbmol/h 0.64 0.37 0.11 1.12

H2S lbmol/h 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.03

COS lbmol/h 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.06

NH3 lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCN lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCl lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AR lbmol/h 0.15 0.12 0.00 0.27

O2 lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2 lbmol/h 0.29 0.25 0.00 0.54

H2O lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SO2 lbmol/h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Methanol lbmol/h 1.98 0.35 2.86 5.18

Total lbmol/h 6774.05 1569.06 17658.82 26001.93

H2 klb/hr 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.15

CO klb/hr 2.41 1.54 0.14 4.09

CO2 klb/hr 292.27 65.29 776.78 1134.34

CH4 klb/hr 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02

H2S klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

COS klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NH3 klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCN klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

HCl klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

AR klb/hr 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01

O2 klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

N2 klb/hr 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02

H2O klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

SO2 klb/hr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Methanol klb/hr 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.17

Total klb/hr 294.86 66.92 777.02 1138.79

Composition

Molar Flow

Mass Flow

Topical 55
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 3 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.2 

Preliminary Transmission Interconnection Assessment 

Topical 56
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 3.0 Preliminary Transmission 

Interconnection Assessment 

B&V Project Number: 042152 3-1

APPENDIX 3.0 PRELIMINARY TRANSMISSION 

INTERCONNECTION ASSESSMENT 

The integrated LLC Gasification and Lake Charles CCS Projects will require a net 

import of electrical capacity in the estimated a mount of 75.5 M W. A summary 

breakdown of the electrical capacities for both projects is provided in Table 3-1 below. 

Table 3-1 

LLC Gasification and Lake Charles CCS Electrical Load Summary 

LLC Gasification Project Value 

 Power Generated by Steam Turbine, MW 216.05 [A] 

 Balance of Plant Auxiliary Load, MW 206.35 [B] 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

 CO 2 Capture Load (Rectisol), MW 42.3 [C] 

 CO 2 Compression Load, MW 42.9 [D] 

Load Summary 

 Net Electrical Power Import from Grid with 

CO2 Capture Only, MW 

32.6 [B] + [C] – [A] 

 Net Electrical Power Import from Grid with 

CO2 Capture + Compression, MW 

75.5 [B] + [C] + [D] - [A] 

To support the project’s electrical demands, power will need to be sourced though 

a grid interconnect. 

Key parameters for a preliminary assessment of grid interconnect options include: 

 Load flows from and into the grid. 

 High voltage level for the interconnect. 

 Distance between plant substation/switchyard and the interconnection point. 

 Start-up transients for large motors. 

The transmission lines in proxim ity to th e sites were r eviewed for their capa city 

and use status. Load flow information is not available in the public domain post 9-11 due 

to security reasons. A form al request for an interconnection study has to be m ade to the 

utility who will put th e request in a queue per FERC regulation and who will perf orm 

load flow analyses. A short analysis of potential interconnects are as follows: 

 Transmission lines could possibly be connected to the Bayou D' Indie 

substation, located approximately 3 miles from the project site. 

Topical 57
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 3.0 Preliminary Transmission 

Interconnection Assessment 

B&V Project Number: 042152 3-2

 Electrical interconn ect c ould potentially be achieved by tapping into the 

following transmission lines: 

o A 138 kV line connecting Bayou D' Indie substation and Mossville has 

a rating of 282 MW. This transmission line is approximately 1.8 miles 

from the site. 

o A 138 kV line connecti ng between Bayou D'Indie substation and 

Polycit has a rating of 288 MW . This transm ission line is located 

approximately 2 miles from the site. 

o A 230 kV line connecting Lake Ch arles and Gillis which is rated for 

462 MW and is approximately 0.25 miles from the site. 

Based on this preliminary assessment, it is expected that the electrical g rid within 

the surrounding vicinity of the site will support the 75.5 MW load requirement. Since the 

cost of inter connection is substantial at a ny high voltage level, the LLC Gasification and 

Lake Charles CCS Projects would likely have a si ngle high voltage connection through a 

switchyard/substation and multiple secondary unit substations that would feed aux iliary 

loads at 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV and 480 V via transfor mers, sw itchgear and m otor control 

centers. 

The switchyard/substation will be a design consideration for the LLC Gasification 

Project. 

A 13.8 kV auxiliary system has been assumed for the Lake Charles CCS Project. 

Topical 58
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 4 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.2.3 

Optimization of the CO2 Compression Equipment Selection 

Topical 59
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 4.0 Optimization of the CO2

Compression Equipment Selection

B&V Project Number: 042152 4-1

APPENDIX 4.0 OPTIMIZATION OF THE CO2

COMPRESSION EQUIPMENT SELECTION 

This appendix provides the background information to support the com pressor 

configuration and technology selected for the Lake Charles CCS Project. 

4.1 Background 

CO2 stream s captu red from the Lake Char les CCS Project’s Rectisol units will 

require the CO2 to be compressed to 2,165 psia and cooled to 100 o F. Both reciprocating 

and centrifugal compressors are commercially available and capable providing the abovementioned CO 2 stream requirem ents. The fo llowing provides general com pressor 

configuration and technology com parisons that were used to determ ine the com pressor 

configuration and technology used for the Lake Charles CCS CO2 compression system. 

4.2 Compressor Configuration 

To determ ine the optimum compressor configuration to be used for CO 2

compression, order of magnitude capital cost estimates for 2 x 50% (two 50% capacity 

trains), and 3 x 33% configur ations were developed for ce ntrifugal compressors. The 

order of m agnitude installed costs, estim ated in first quarter 2010 dollars, are provide d 

below: 

Configuration 

2 x 50% Trains 3 x 33% Trains 

Total Installed Cost Estimate, 2010$ million 81.9 104.0 

 

A 2 x 50% configuration was selected as the preferred arrangem ent for the Lake 

Charles CCS Project compressors because of the expected capital cos t savings compared 

to a 3 x 33% configuration. This configuration also corresponds to each compressor train 

compressing CO2 from an associated Rectisol unit train; allowing one Rectisol unit train 

to be shut down for maintenance while another one remains in operation. 

A 1 x 100 % com pressor train con figuration was not co nsidered sin ce such a 

configuration would require CO 2 recirculation in the ev ent of a Rectiso l train shutd own 

(e.g. for m aintenance); conceding to wast ed com pression energy and associated 

compression costs. In addition, CO 2 com pression system ava ilability for a 1 x 100% 

compressor unit tr ain c onfiguration will be les s than a 2 x 50% compressor un it train 

configuration. 

Topical 60
Leucadia Energy, LLC 

Lake Charles CCS Project 

Appendix 4.0 Optimization of the CO2

Compression Equipment Selection

B&V Project Number: 042152 4-2

4.3 Compressor Technology 

Pressure requirements for screw compresso rs will be too dem anding; as a result, 

screw compressors are not considered a viable option for the CO2 compression system. 

Because of capacity lim itations, the use of recipro cating com pressors would 

require multiple compressor units operating in parallel; hence, based on past experience, 

capital and operations and m aintenance costs for reciprocating compressors are expected 

to be prohibitiv ely exp ensive. For these r easons, recip rocating com pressors wer e not 

considered a viable option for this project. 

Centrifugal compressors are considered to be the most viable type of compressor 

for t he CO 2 com pression requirem ents for this pr oject. Two types of centrifugal 

compressors are comm ercially av ailable for th is service; n amely between bearings and 

integrally geared m ultistage centrifugal com pressors. Dresser, E lliot, GE-N uovo 

Pignone, MHI, and Siem ens offer between the bearings m ultistage centrifugal 

compressors, either on one shaft driven by a single motor or with separate motors for the 

low-pressure and high-pressure casings. Thes e compressors have four stages with three 

stages of intercooling. MAN offers integ rally geared multistage centrifugal compressors 

with eight stages of compression and six stages of intercooling. MAN integrally gea red 

centrifugal compressors have been op erating for 10 years in a sim ilar CO2 compression 

service at the Great Plains Synfuels Plant. 

Black & Veatch recently ob tained CO 2 com pressor budget pricing and 

performance data from Dresser, GE-Nuovo Pignone, MAN, MHI, and Siem ens for 

several p rojects. The polytrop ic s tage effi ciencies for th e Dresser, Ellio t, GE-Nuovo 

Pignone, MHI, and Siem ens compressors ranged from 84 to 64 percent. The polytropic 

stage efficiencies for the MAN compressors were all 85 percent, which makes it the most 

efficient machine. 

To support a centrifugal compressor selection for the Lake Charles CCS Project’s 

CO2 com pression system, data sheets (attached to this appendix) were sent to MAN, 

Dresser-Rand and Elliot for budgetary prici ng. The following table summarizes the 

pricing that was obtained. 

Vendor MANN-TURBO DRESSER-RAND ELLIOT 

Price $21,570,000 $30,000,000 $28,600,000 

Based on expected efficiencies and costs presented above, MAN integrally geared 

multistage c entrifugal c ompressors with eigh t s tages of co mpression a nd six stage s of 

intercooling were sele cted as a basis for the Lake Charles CCS Project’s CO 2

compression system. 

Topical 61
 JOB NO. ITEM NO. 18-C-0101 / 0201

 PURCHASE ORDER NO.

 INQUIRY NO.

CENTRIFUGAL AND AXIAL COMPRESSOR REVISION NO. A DATE

DATA SHEET (API 617-7TH Chapter 2) PAGE 1 OF 7 BY

U.S. CUSTOMARY UNITS (1-1.6.5) 

1 APPLICABLE TO: PROPOSAL PURCHASE AS BUILT STUDY 

2 FOR UNIT

3 SITE SERIAL NO.

4 SERVICE NO. REQUIRED TWO COMPRESSOR TRAINS

5 MANUFACTURER DRIVER TYPE (1-3.1.1) ELECTRIC MOTOR

6 MODEL DRIVER ITEM NO.

7

8 INFORMATION TO BE COMPLETED: BY PURCHASER BY MANUFACTURER MUTUAL AGREEMENT (PRIOR TO PURCHASE)

9 OPERATING CONDITIONS

10

11

12

13 GAS HANDLED (ALSO SEE PAGE 2 )

14 GAS PROPERTIES (1-2.1.1.4)

15 MMSCFD/SCFM (14.7 PSIA & 60 °F DRY)

16 WEIGHT FLOW, LBM/MIN (WET) 

17 INLET CONDITIONS

18 PRESSURE (PSIA)

19 TEMPERATURE (°F)

20 RELATIVE HUMIDITY %

21 MOLECULAR WEIGHT

22 Cp/Cv (KAVG ) 

23 COMPRESSIBILITY (Z1 ) 

24 INLET VOLUME, (CFM) (WET / DRY)

25 DISCHARGE CONDITIONS

26 PRESSURE (PSIA)

27 TEMPERATURE (°F)

28 Cp/Cv (KAVG ) (NOTE 1)

29 COMPRESSIBILITY (Z2 ) 

30 GHP REQUIRED

31 TRAIN BHP REQUIRED

32 BHP REQUIRED AT DRIVER INCL. EXT. LOSSES (GEAR, ETC.)

33 SPEED (RPM)

34 TURNDOWN (%)

35 POLYTROPHIC HEAD (FT-LB / LB)

36 POLYTROPHIC EFFICIENCY (%)

37 CERTIFIED POINT

38 EXPECTED OPERATION AT EACH CONDITION (%)

39 PERFORMANCE CURVE NUMBER

40 PROCESS CONTROL (1-3.4.2.1)

41 METHOD SUCTION THROTTLING VARIABLE INLET SPEED VARIATION DISCHARGE COOLED BYPASS

42 FROM PSIA GUIDE VANES FROM % BLOWOFF FROM

43 TO PSIA (2-2.4.1) TO % TO TO

44 SIGNAL SOURCE (1-3.4.2.1)

45 TYPE ELECTRONIC PNEUMATIC OTHER

46 RANGE MA PSIG

47 REMARKS: (1) There are three separate inlet streams each containing dry CO2 gas. 

48 (2) The discharge pressure given is for the total combined flow out of the compressor package. 

49 (3) The number of compressor sections and casing nozzles shall be determined by Supplier based on compression process resulting in balance of 

50 lowest installed cost and most efficient compressor operation.

51 (4) The Supplier shall advise pressure and temperature between the sections. Process intercoolers and, if required, liquid knock-out drums, shall be provided by Purch. 

52 (5) Pressure drop between sections shall be kept to minimum (2-3 psi between low pressure sections, not to exceed 15 psi between any section). 

53 (6) Process gas between sections will be cooled to 100°F.

54

03/03 SHT 1 OF 7 API617.XLS REV 0

BLACK & VEATCH

166376

67.9373

44.00

6,588

22.5

70

19-Feb-10

LAKE CHARLES COGENERATION INC

(ALL DATA ON PER UNIT BASIS)

LAKE CHARLES, LOUISIANA

CO2 COMPRESSOR

 

CO2 CO2 CO2

STREAM 1 STREAM 2 STREAM 3

568 2,500

39.5 60.2

60 34

42.65 43.53

 2165

 

CWG 

CO2 COMPRESSION

Topical 62
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 5 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.3 

CO2 Injection Site Confirmation 

Topical 63
Report to Bureau of Economic Geology on EOR/Geologic

Sequestration/Injection at West Hasting Field Unit

Fault Block B and C for FOA 15

Report Type: Report and documentation of milestone completion 

Report Number: C1.5.3 

Report Title: Preliminary CO2 injection site confirmation 

Completion Date: February 26, 2010 

 

Report Issue Date: April 13, 2010 

Submitting Organization: Steve Upp, Darrell Davis & Trevor Richards 

Denbury Resources Inc. 

Plano, Texas

Topical 64
Phase 1 Task C1.5.3 

Preliminary CO2 injection site confirmation – West Hastings 

Field Unit Fault Block B and C 

Prepared for: 

Susan Hovorka of Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

Report by Denbury Resources 

April 11, 2010 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

 

Topical 65
Hastings DOE Proposal 

The Hastings field is a planned CO2 EOR project in the Frio formation. CO2 injection is 

scheduled to begin during December, 2010 into the northernmost Fault Block A (see 

Figure 4) using naturally occurring CO2 from Denbury’s Jackson Dome CO2 supply 

(Norphlet and Smackover reservoirs). To supplement this naturally occurring CO2 

supply, Denbury will utilize anthropogenic CO2 (ACO2) supplies to meet its rising CO2 

purchase requirements. It is anticipated that ACO2 will be available for development of 

Fault Blocks B & C at Hastings beginning 2013, therefore a preliminary design has been 

made and estimates of the CO2 storage capacity for the reservoir determined. 

Information gained from actual injection into Fault Block A will be utilized to finalize the 

Fault Blocks B & C design during 2011-2012, however this will not dramatically impact 

the pore volume available for CO2 storage. 

Injectivity - The injectivity of CO2 can be estimated from current water injection rates on 

existing Frio injectors. Water injection into the Frio of ~180,000 BWPD is being 

accomplished with 20 wells, an average of 9000 BWPD per well. Based on a CO2

formation volume factor of 2 MCF/bbl, this would equate to 18 MMCFD (~1050 tons per 

day) CO2 per well. This rate is also consistent with the maximum erosional velocity limit 

of CO2 down 2-7/8” tubing, thus establishing a target injection per injector. Insuring high 

injection rates into each pattern maximizes the rate at which oil is recovered, therefore 

improving project economics. 

Storage Capacity - The storage capacity for reservoirs to be flooded in Fault Blocks 

B&C is shown in Table 3.1. The original oil-in-place was approximately 237 million 

barrels and maximum CO2 storage capacity is estimated at 568 BCF. The 237 million 

barrels oil occupied 284 million reservoir barrels (1.2 RB/STB) and based upon 2 MCF 

CO2 per reservoir barrel at 160 degrees F and 3000 psi, the CO2 volume to completely 

displace the original hydrocarbon pore volume will be 568 BCF (33,000 tons). Areal and 

vertical sweep efficiency will reduce this number, as will the residual oil saturation to 

CO2 injection. 

The Hastings Development team recently cored a well in Fault Block A (WHU-3706) to 

determine reservoir properties for the five (5) major sands (A1-A5) of the Upper Frio 

reservoir. Smaller plugs are currently being cut from the core and measurements will 

soon be made to determine porosity and permeability of each plug. Additional tests will 

also be performed to determine connate water and residual oil saturation endpoints on 

approximately 5 plugs, along with oil/water and gas/oil relative permeability curves. This 

information will be used to guide in the selection of perforated intervals and to better 

understand the vertical sweep efficiency expected during the CO2 flooding process. 

In general, the Frio sands of Hastings are typical of most sandstones along the Texas 

and Louisiana Gulf Coast, where porosities are in the 28-32% range and permeabilities 

are high, in the 200-2000 md range. With initial oil saturation of approximately 80%, this 

suggests high storage capacity for the reservoir rock. The Hastings Frio reservoir is an 

excellent reservoir for CO2-EOR recovery as well as CO2 storage. High primary (water 

drive) recoveries indicate that the areal and vertical sweep efficiencies should be 

excellent. 

Topical 66
Upper Frio Sand Area Thickness Net-to-Gross Porosity Swi Boi OOIP CO2 Capacity

(acres) (feet) (decimal) (decimal) (decimal) (RB/STB) (bbls) (MMCF)

A1 700 20 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 13,350,940 32,042 

A2 675 30 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 19,311,181 46,347 

A3 650 50 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 30,993,253 74,384 

A4 625 40 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 23,840,964 57,218 

A5 600 20 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 11,443,663 27,465 

A - Total 160 98,940,000 237,456 

Lower Frio Sand Acres Thickness Net-to-Gross Porosity Swi Boi OOIP CO2 Capacity

(acres) (feet) (decimal) (decimal) (decimal) (RB/STB) (bbls) (MMCF)

B1 360 5 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,642,128 3,941 

B2 360 30 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 9,852,768 23,647 

B3 360 5 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,642,128 3,941 

B - Total 31,529 13,137,024 

C1 300 5 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 2,016,919 4,841 

C2 300 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,067,675 19,362 

C3 300 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,067,675 19,362 

C - Total 43,565 18,152,269 

D1 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D2 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D3 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D4 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D - Total 64,541 26,892,251 

E1 200 25 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 7,758,000 18,619 

E2 200 25 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 7,758,000 18,619 

E - Total 37,238 15,516,000 

F1 175 30 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,145,900 19,550 

F2 175 35 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 9,503,550 22,809 

F3 175 30 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,145,900 19,550 

F4 175 11 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 3,095,442 7,429 

F - Total 69,338 28,890,792 

G1 150 30 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,389,545 15,335 

G2 150 20 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 4,259,696 10,223 

G3 150 30 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,389,545 15,335 

G4 150 10 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 2,129,848 5,112 

G - Total 19,168,634 46,005

H1 92 40 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 5,283,563 12,681

H2 92 15 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,981,336 4,755

H3 92 15 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,981,336 4,755

H4 92 50 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,604,454 15,851

H - Total 15,850,689 38,042

Total 137,607,659 330,258

Grand Total 236,547,659 567,714

Table 3.1 

Field Storage Capacity (Fault Blocks B & C) 

Pattern Selection - Upper Frio 

The pattern design selected for Fault Blocks B & C is different than the one used for 

Fault Block A, as the existing well configuration in B & C indicated that smaller patterns 

(~40 acres each) with larger completion intervals (~100-150 feet) would make most 

efficient use of existing wellbores, limiting the number of new wells which would have to 

be drilled. Fault Block A, on the other hand, is planning to use larger patterns (~140 

acres) with smaller completion intervals (~50-75 feet). The Fault Block A pattern 

Topical 67
required that one set of patterns be used for the A1 & A2 sand, and another set for the 

A3, A4, and A5 sands. If this approach was utilized in Fault Blocks B & C, it is likely that 

over 20 wells would have to be drilled to accommodate the multiple pattern scenario. 

The current design requires that less than 5 wells be drilled. 

Below is the pattern design for the Upper Frio. In addition to the 14 CO2 injectors and 

61 producers, downdip water injection will be required to create a high pressure barrier 

between the residual oil zone and the large aquifer downdip. Reservoir modeling 

indicates that the high permeability sands will not pressure up easily due to leakoff of the 

CO2 (or water) into the aquifer. By utilizing the 4 most downdip CO2 injection wells as 

water injectors initially, pressure can be raised from 2200 psi to 3100 psi in the updip 

patterns when CO2 injection begins. As a result, expenditures on water injection is 

required during 2013 prior to CO2 injection.

UPPER FRIO – FAULT BLOCKS B & C DEVELOPMENT 

Topical 68
Pattern Selection - Lower Frio 

Unlike Fault Block A which only required two patterns in the Lower Frio to develop a 

majority of the reserves, Fault Block C requires a minimum of 5 patterns to recovery the 

CO2 target oil. As was shown in Table 3.1, the Lower Frio contained 138 million barrels 

original oil-in-place versus 99 million barrels in the Upper Frio, a 39% increase. Since 

the patterns are relatively small due to the oil-water contact being close in to the major 

growth fault, downdip CO2 injection is shown as the preferred design. The plan 

currently calls for patterns in the (1) B/C, (2) D, (3) E, (4) F/G, and (5) H, with 3 CO2 

injectors downdip for each pattern. In addition to the 15 CO2 injectors and 18 producers 

shown for development, downdip water injection will also be required for the Lower Frio 

development. Strategically placed wells downdip of the B sand original oil-water contact 

should allow for all of the Lower Frio sands to be pressured up.

LOWER FRIO – FAULT BLOCKS B & C DEVELOPMENT 

Topical 69
Hastings EOR Dimensionless Curves

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%

HCPV CO2 INJECTED (%)

OIL REC, % OOI

P

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

350%

400%

450%

500%

HCPV CO2 PRODUCED 

(%)

OIL REC CO2 PROD

Production Forecast

Since a geologic model and compositional reservoir simulation model is not available for 

Fault Blocks B & C, CO2 purchase and recycle volumes were forecasted using 

dimensionless curves obtained from an analogous field and verified by modeling work 

performed for Fault Block A. We therefore have confidence that they can be applied to 

Fault Blocks B & C. 

Figure 3.4 – EOR Dimensionless Curves. 

The dimensionless curves are used by converting the cumulative CO2 injected into a 

percent HCPV (hydrocarbon pore volume) injected and reading off the oil recovery (% 

OOIP) and CO2 produced (% HCPV) values. This provides the amount of oil which is 

produced with each increment, and also determines the incremental produced gas 

(CO2) volume. Spreadsheets are used to convert acres and reservoir thickness into 

HCPV percentages. A summary of the assumptions for Fault Blocks B & C are shown in 

Table 3.2 

Topical 70
Pattern Sands Pattern FB Thickness Acreage Start Date CO2 Inj Swi Porosity Boi OOIP (MBO) Inj/Yr (% HCPV/yr)

1 Upper 9 B & C 100 63 7/1/2013 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 9,719 28.2%

2 Upper 8 B & C 100 51 9/1/2013 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 7,926 34.5%

3 Lower H B & C 120 74 9/1/2013 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 13,778 19.9%

4 Upper 6 B & C 100 61 11/1/2013 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 9,407 29.1%

5 Lower F/G B & C 175 127 11/1/2013 54,000 20% 30% 1.2 34,484 23.8%

6 Upper 10 B & C 100 57 7/1/2014 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 8,852 30.9%

7 Lower E B & C 50 115 7/1/2014 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 8,922 30.7%

8 Upper 7 B & C 100 31 9/1/2014 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 4,770 57.4%

9 Lower D B & C 80 120 9/1/2014 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 14,895 18.4%

10 Upper 11 B & C 100 38 11/1/2014 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 5,933 46.1%

11 Lower B/C B & C 85 216 11/1/2014 36,000 20% 30% 1.2 28,487 19.2%

12 Upper 14 B & C 100 35 7/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 5,468 50.1%

13 Upper 1 B & C 100 47 8/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 7,336 37.3%

14 Upper 2 B & C 100 53 9/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 8,206 33.4%

15 Upper 3 B & C 100 43 10/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 6,714 40.8%

16 Upper 4 B & C 100 40 10/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 6,180 44.3%

17 Upper 5 B & C 100 43 11/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 6,641 41.2%

18 Upper 12 B & C 100 72 11/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 11,158 24.5%

19 Upper 13 B & C 100 75 12/1/2015 18,000 20% 30% 1.2 11,592 23.6%

TOTAL 396,000 210,468

Table 3.2 

CO2 Flood Pattern Size (Fault Blocks B & C) 

Since the F/G sand combination is so thick, a portion of it will likely be combined with the 

E and/or H sands to allow for more uniform distribution. Another option is that the F & G 

sands may be flooded separately. Given that each of the Lower Frio sands have 3 

injectors, a maximum of 54 MMCFD is achievable, so the 36 MMCFD shown for B/C and 

54 MMCFD for F/G does not exceed the design limits. 

The table shows that 210 million barrels OOIP (89%) will be CO2 flooded out of the total 

237 million. The additional 11% of the volume is on the edges near the original oil water 

contact and in areas of the Lower Frio where the current configuration does not sweep. 

As we get closer to executing the project, slight adjustments may be made to maximize 

sweep. 

Using this information, the CO2 purchase, recycle (produced), and injection volumes are 

shown in Figure 3.5. The 396 MMCFD CO2 injection is shown, with peak CO2 purchase 

of 211 MMCFD occurring during December, 2015. 

Topical 71
Figure 3.5 

On the following page is a month by month estimate of CO2 purchase volumes, 

including the estimate of number of CO2 injectors and patterns developed in Fault 

Blocks B & C. These estimates are impacted by capital expenditure levels available for 

prior years, yet is felt to be a reasonable forecast. If the anthropogenic CO2 is not ready 

by January, 2014, CO2 from Denbury’s Jackson Dome may be utilized. 

The table indicates that peak purchases will be around 200 MMCFPD by month 30. A 

total of 145 BCF (or 8.4 million tons) will be injected over the first 3 year period. 

Topical 72
Topical 73
Descriptions of the n umber, type, and cha racteristics of wells a nd equipm ent 

necessary for the sequestration effort. For information not available , the approach 

to obtaining necessary information. 

CO2 will be injected in the Frio Formation. Currently 29 CO2 Class II injection wells are 

planned for Fault Block B & C development. The CO2 EOR project will utilize a 

combination of inverted 9-spots and downdip injection patterns. This phase of the 

project will require approximately 200 MMCFD CO2 purchases and peak CO2 injection 

of 400 MMCFD. Target reservoir pressure is around 3100 psi. A target injection rate of 

18 MMCFD per well is planned. 

All wells will be permitted as Class II injectors. A typical injection well schematic is 

shown in Figure 5. 

Topical 74
 Figure 1 – Stratigraphic Column for Texas and Louisiana Deposits 

Topical 75
Figure 2 – Location of Hastings Field, Brazoria County, Texas 

Topical 76
Figure 3 – Type Log for Hastings Upper Frio Reservoir 

Topical 77
Figure 4 – Top of Structure Map – Hastings Frio Reservoir 

Topical 78
Surface Csg

8-5/8" casing set at 1800 ft

2-7/8" Tubing

5-1/2" x 2-7/8" Injection packer

Perforations in Frio reservoir

Production Csg

5-1/2" casing set at 6000 ft

TD

Typical Injection Well

West Hastings Field

Brazoria Co.,Texas

6000

Figure 5 – Typical injection well Schematic 

Topical 79
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 6 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.1 

Draft Risk Assessment and MVA Plan

Topical 80
Gulf Coast Carbon Center – Report to Denbury on MVA

Planning for FOA 15

Report Type: Report and documentation of milestone completion 

Report number : C1.5.4.1 

Report title: Draft Risk Assessment and MVA plan 

Completion Date: December 15, 2009 

 

Report Issue Date: April 11, 2010 

Submitting Organization: Susan D. Hovorka, Principle Investigator, 

 Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Comment: Draft risk assessment and MVA plan noting site-specific data needs prepared by 

GCCC based on previous experience and available site-specific data. 

Topical 81
2

Phase I Task C1.5.4.1 

Draft risk assessment and MVA plan 

 

Prepared for: 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

Report by Susan D. Hovorka 

April 11, 2010 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

Topical 82
3

Tables 

Table 1. Proposed monitoring program options....................................................... 7 

Table 2 Sources of expertise within the project showing highlights......................... 8 

Table 3. Scoping spreadsheet for field selection and MVA program development ...12 

Topical 83
4

Introduction 

This report documents the status of planning and progresses for Task C1.5.4.1, Draft risk 

assessment and MVA plan. GCCC has prepared a list of site-specific data needs based on 

previous experience and available site-specific data. This data table describes the data needs 

needed to design an MVA plan, and requests information from Denbury on data availability for 

several field in consideration. It also solicits information on how the MVA needs will be 

evaluated, and discusses how the data will be used for achieving storage goals. 

Goals of a Monitoring, Verification and Accounting Plan (MVA) 

A Monitoring, Verification and Accounting (MVA) plan for each sequestration site will focus on 

demonstrating that identified risks are not occurring. This assurance program includes: 

(1) demonstrating that the CO2 is contained in the designated trap (no spill out of reservoir); 

(2) demonstrating that well completions have integrity to retain CO2 over the 1000 year time 

frame; 

(3) demonstrating that the seal and the faults and fracture systems that cut it retain 

confining capacity after pressure depletion during production and pressure increase 

during the flood; 

(4) and additional observations and activities above and beyond the normal CO2 EOR 

operations that will allow interpretations to be made of confinement of the CO2 beyond 

the operational period. 

Process for preparing MVA plan 

In order to prepare a detailed plan a number of activities will be performed in Phase I of the 

project. An effective and efficient MVA plan has to be based on the actual field and reservoir in 

which the sequestration will take place. 

Prior to injection, Denbury will construct a geologic model of the reservoir using available 

wireline logs, core, seismic, and past production data, and simulate the interaction of injected 

CO2 with reservoir fluids. Reservoir characterization is undertaken to guide the flood design; 

this provides essential data to demonstrate that the CO2 is effectively and efficiently contained 

within the reservoir (in production terms maximize sweep efficiency and oil contact area). 

Well bore integrity is a major reservoir management activity. Denbury has began a 

comprehensive review to determine the condition of active, idle, and plugged and abandoned 

(P&A) wells in the area to be flooded. Scout tickets and RRC W-3A P&A records are evaluated 

to make sure that this process has been properly completed. Denbury will develop a plan to 

reenter about half of the P&A wells, that will provide an opportunity to evaluate 3⁄4 of the 

penetrations using a combination of cement bond, temperature, TNT or other wireline tools to 

determine and remediate, if needed, casing – borehole annular cement integrity prior to or 

during the flood. The integrity of P&A wells will be determined by (1) comparing the P&A 

records for wells that were re-entered with the actual condition of the wells, to determine if 

records are accurate; and (2) a site specific surveillance program using migration indicators in 

soil and groundwater using both ambient (oil, methane, salinity) and introduced (CO2, stable 

isotopic, perfluorocarbon tracers) to assure that individual wells are performing correctly. The 

operational period for individual wells is >15 years. At the end of useful life Denbury will P&A 

producers and injectors in accordance with applicable regulations. 

Topical 84
5

As the flood starts, Denbury will track CO2 via daily to weekly monitoring of well head pressure, 

monthly measurement of produced fluids from each well using the production test facility, and 

collection of additional data that are then input into reservoir models to optimize the flood. 

Denbury will track CO2 for flood optimization via routine monitoring of bottom hole pressures 

during the initiation of the flood and routine monitoring of well head pressure to determine when 

to open and begin to produce the wells into the facility. Once production begins, monthly 

volumetric balances of produced fluids in conjunction with reservoir pressure measurements 

and other wireline measurements will be utilized to monitor the flood and location of the CO2. 

Surveillance methods may include, flowing and shut-in bottom hole pressure measurements, 

TNT (neutron) logs, thermal/spinner production logging and other tools that may be developed. 

A review of literature and recommendations for MVA activities will be conducted to evaluate 

what is recommended for each field. There are several existing publications of potential 

recommended MVA activities such as; IPPC Special Report on Geologic Sequestration, World 

Resources International CCS guidelines, CCPII’s Results from the CO2 Capture Projects Vol. 

III, and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/carbon_seq/core_rd/mva.html), Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission report “Carbon Capture and Storage: A regulatory framework for states. 

The Bureau of Economic Geology Gulf Coast Carbon Center (GCCC) will work with Denbury 

and a number of service companies and research organizations to develop a site specific 

research MVA plan to augment normal commercial best practices. The MVA plan will include 

the extent to which normal best practices can provide this confirmation, the extent (if any) to 

which they need to be augmented and to recommend monitoring systems that are fit- forpurpose. 

Criteria that define fit-for-purpose include 

(1) definitive data that retention for storage has occurred 

(2) predictive data that storage is permanent (<1% migration over 1000 years) 

(3) cost effective 

(4) compatible with CO2-EOR practices 

(5) durable and robust for monitoring over multi-decade time frame in active CO2 field 

environment 

(6) quantitative and reportable 

Some of the ranges of possibilities that will be considered for the MVA plan are shown in Table 

1. 

Topical 85
6

Table 1. Proposed monitoring program options 

Goal MVA techniques to be considered* 

Demonstrating that the CO2 is 

contained in the designated 

trap (no spill out of reservoir) 

Collection of injection data, pressure data and fluid 

production. History matching production data using 

reservoir simulator to document mass balance, 

pressure conformance, and maximum extent of 

plume. Additional data collection, such as as PFT 

Geochemical Tracers to show injector-producer 

flow and plume thickness, additional permanently 

installed, wireline or slickline instruments (e.g. 

thermal, acoustic, pulsed neutron), surfacedeployed geophysical techniques including VSP 

azimuthal and walkaway surveys and time lapse 3-

D; conformance control via CO2 foams or other 

advanced reservoir management engineering 

Demonstrating that well 

completions and P&A wells 

have integrity post-closure to 

retain CO2 over the 1000 year 

time frame. 

Assessment of historical well completion and P&A 

reports; reentry of selected wells to test accuracy 

of historical reports, cement bond and casing 

integrity logs; deconstruction and analysis of well 

materials (as done by Schlumberger and CCP); 

well surveillance during flood (noise, temperature, 

pressure, fluid migration); above-zone pressure, 

temperature, geochemical monitoring; emplaced 

PFT to tag CO2 to detect above zone or at surface; 

time lapse 3-D survey looking for change above 

zone, up-gradient-down gradient groundwater 

monitoring, soil gas monitoring. 

Demonstrating that the seal 

and faults and fracture 

systems that cut it retain 

confining capacity after 

pressure depletion during 

production and pressure 

increase during the flood. 

Collection of seal and geomechanical testing and 

modeling to determine if either pressure drop 

during production or pressure increase during 

injection could damage seal, emplaced PFT to tag 

CO2 to detect cross-fault, above zone or at surface; 

geochemical stability with CO2-water-interation; 

evaluation of geologic and historical performance 

of seal and faults during charge and production; 

cross-faults and above-zone pressure, 

temperature, or geochemical monitoring; time 

lapse 3-D survey looking for change above zone; 

up-gradient-down gradient groundwater monitoring, 

soil gas monitoring. 

* Site specific cost/value/feasibility assessment will be conducted and only a selection of 

techniques named above will be proposed for the final MVA plan. 

As the geologic assessment, modeling, and engineering design advances, it will highlight 

additional uncertainties or remove potentially eliminate uncertainties that may affect storage 

assurance. We will use several risk assessment methods, consulting Denbury’s in-house 

expertise, Quintessa FEPS data base (http://www.quintessa.org/CO2fepdb/PHP/frames.php), 

Topical 86
7

LBNL-UT certification framework, literature review, interview other current projects doing 

monitoring (e.g. Otway, Victoria, Australia, Ketzin, Potsdam, Germany, project at ADM plant 

Dekatur,Il, BP’s Insalah Project in Algeria), and expert interviews to formally list all the factors 

and uncertainties that could lead to failure to attain the expected level of long-term storage. Any 

significant additions to the list in the table above and a list of monitoring options will be added. 

GCCC will invest significant effort into evaluation of the value based on the cost versus benefit 

of each monitoring tool. Value includes the ability of the tools to make the needed 

measurements to reach project goals, sensitivity at relevant conditions, durability and cost of 

maintenance/replacement, frequency of repeat, density of data collection, cost of each 

repetition, value of information in context of history matching a model or confirming non-detect. 

This evaluation will make substantive use of GCCC past field monitoring experience (Frio I, Frio 

II, SECARB Stacked Storage at Cranfield, SECARB Early at Cranfield, and SWP Phase II at 

SACROC). Each of these test projects has made significant advances in monitoring and 

provides lessons learned that will be used to meet this project’s applied objectives. In addition, 

the GCCC team has been involved as reviewers and collaborators in many other projects, and 

will continue aggressive co-ordination with other groups within the Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnerships (RCSP), the US, and worldwide to bring new results to the project. 

Table 2 shows some of the resources and connections that have been drawn upon to develop 

the MVA plan. Denbury will review the recommendations of the GCCC evaluation and during 

working meetings the project team will determine best value tools will be selected for proposal in 

the final MVA plan. 

Topical 87
8

Table 2. Sources of expertise within the project showing highlights 

Expertise Source Nature of link 

 

Reservoir characterization Denbury Provided to project as in-kind 

contribution 

Storage efficiency –best 

practice 

Denbury Provided to project as in-kind 

contribution 

Storage efficiency – 

extended as needed for 

CCS 

GCCC/Denbury In-zone monitoring experience 

from Frio test, Phase I Cranfield 

enhanced reservoir surveillance 

program, Phase III Cranfield Field 

test underway. Numerous other 

CCS specific as well as service 

company approaches available, 

contacts through IEA GHGR&D 

program monitoring working 

group; RCSP MVA Working Group 

Well-bore integrity – best 

practice 

Denbury Provided to project as in-kind 

contribution 

Well-bore integrityadvanced GCCC-Sandia 

Technologies 

Expertise via Carbon capture 

Project (CCP) 

http://www.CO2captureproject.org/; 

contacts through IEA GHGR&D 

program well-bore integrity 

working group 

Above –zone Monitoring GCCC/Sandia 

Technologies 

Chemical monitoring –Frio, 

Pressure Monitoring SECARB II 

and III at Cranfield 

Ground water monitoring GCCC Experience through recently 

completed SWP SACROC 

program, test at Cranfield 

underway. 

Soil gas monitoring Denbury, GCCC Baseline underway at Oyster 

Bayou; GCCC method 

improvement at Brackenridge field 

station; Cranfield Phase III. 

Connection to ZERT, RCSP 

monitoring working group, 

numerous vendors 

Topical 88
9

Worksheet for field and MVA selection 

The mechanism for accomplishing the site selection and site specific risks will be via an inperson meeting, at which Denbury and GCCC staff will evaluate the candidate field to determine 

the lowest risk and highest chance of success. The evaluation table is shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3. Scoping spreadsheet for field selection and MVA program development 

 

TX 

Fields 

Characteristics Details 

importance 

to success 

of project 

5= very 

important 

to 1= not at 

all 

important 

Oyster Bayou 

Hastings 

Match of injection area to injection volume

Number of patterns needed for 

planned CO2 A volumes 

Timing/volumes of CO2A available 

Temporal match of CO2 available 

patterns 

 Will 

CO2 be 

injected 

in a new 

area? 

(no 

previous 

CO2) 

CO2 accounting 

Quantify and report CO2 injected, 

recycled 

Who is 

handing 

this part 

of 

MVA? 

 

 Quantify water, oil, gas volumes 

extracted 

 

Handing CO2 – separator efficacy, 

line leakage, venting during 

handing 

 

Frequency, density, quality of data 

for CO2 accounting 

 

Potential to improve accounting 

data beyond current practices 

 

NEPA risks 

Topical 89
10

Minimum contentious or litigious 

public 

Wetlands 

No endangered species habitat 

No historical features, parks, 

residential area problems 

Model reservoir block to account for CO

2 distribution 

3-D seismic 

Cores and core analysis 

Historical production data 

Good PVT data 

Detailed geologic model 

Detailed flow model 

Available MVA data to history match

Pressure data during flood 

Good access and support for 

surface monitoring – roads, power, 

cell coverage 

Can collect repeat 3-D/VSP 

Good well integrity – avoid fields 

with the most bad well 

conditions/bad well records 

Good confidence in predicting 

preflood fluid composition, 

saturation, pressure 

Minimum complexities of past 

production – multiple zones 

produced? Water flood? Past CO

2

flood, other tertiary recovery. 

Multiple operators in field (e.g. 

shallower production by another 

company might raise issues of 

contamination by CO

2 – not good 

to monitor and raise these issues 

minimum surface conditions that 

may limit monitoring options - 

cropped, uncooperative surface 

owners, wet or inaccessible, highly 

complex surface uses (past oil 

field contamination) 

 Suitable probable flood geometry 

– area to be monitored. reservoir 

compartmentalization. complexity, 

number of faults 

Topical 90
11

Some additional questions and key points to consider as we 

plan MVA strategy:

Develop MVA approach - Collect data to reduce perception of risk (by 

CO2 supplier & DOE) 

What are the biggest unknowns? CO2 use per pattern? 

Compartmentalization? Miscibility? Pressure? In DOE –speak these 

would be described as capacity and trapping mechanism 

What shall we do to show well integrity? 

How do we show faults are sealing especially over geologic time? 

Monitoring should be used to confirm a model - who will do this 

model? 

Risk Assessment approach? 

How to coordinate monitoring with field development – possible dual 

use (future injectors/producers used as monitoring wells) to limit cost. 

Dual use of water make-up wells? 

Who are stakeholders and what is process by which they will provide 

feedback for Phase II proposal? 

In Phase II budget -Who will do the monitoring field work – how much 

done by Denbury or other contractors? 

 

Topical 91
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 7 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.2 

Site-Specific MVA Options Evaluation 

Topical 92
Gulf Coast Carbon Center – Report to Denbury on MVA

Planning for FOA 15

Report Type: Report and documentation of milestone completion 

Report number : C1.5.4.2 

Report title: C1.5.4.2 Site-specific MVA options evaluation 

Completion Date: February 22, 2010 

 

Report Issue Date: April 11, 2010 

Submitting Organization: Susan D. Hovorka, Principle Investigator, 

 Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Topical 93
2

Phase I Task C1.5.4.2 

Site-specific MVA options evaluation 

Prepared for: 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

Report by Susan D. Hovorka 

April 11, 2010 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

Topical 94
3

Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 

Field Selection – West Hasting Fault Block B - C ................................................1 

MVA program........................................................................................................2 

Non sealing well completions ............................................................................3 

Vertical migration up faults ................................................................................4 

Next actions ..........................................................................................................5 

NEPA activities .....................................................................................................5 

Table 1. Commercial MVA program used for reservoir management 3 

Topical 95
Introduction 

This report documents the planning and progresses for Task C1.5.4.2, evaluation if sitespecific MVA options. On December 15, 2009, a review team composed of Susan 

Hovorka, University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) and sixteen Denbury 

staff refined the plan for development of the Phase I Storage MVA plan for the four 

capture projects linked to two storage projects proposed under DOE FOA 15. This report 

recounts the evaluation completed at that meeting, and identifies the field and MVA 

options selected for further evaluation. This prepares the way for development of 

detailed proposals that will be judged competitively for major funding in Phase II 

The review team completed a formal review of two fields nominated in the initial proposal 

and selected one that seemed to be most competitive in the context of the next round of 

proposal preparation: West Hasting fault block B and/or C. We discussed the separation 

of monitoring activities into (1) those conducted commercially as part of best practices 

for an effective EOR flood and/or to meet current regulatory requirements (these are not 

subject to NEPA) and (2) those geographically and topically limited research-oriented 

monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) activities that will be conducted to further 

demonstrate the effectiveness of storage. Research MVA will be federally funded and 

will be subject to NEPA. This report proposes a draft research MVA program. It is 

intended that this draft discuss a broad scope of all the activities that might be selected 

for the phase II proposal. This broad scope will help us focus further 

cost/feasibility/optimization discussion as well as allow preparation of the EIV. For 

purposes of this MVA study, “best practices” means typical oilfield drilling and 

completion practices in accordance with state regulatory requirements and industryaccepted standards utilizing a well injection pattern for CO2 intended to extract additional 

oil and gas from the reservoir based upon Denbury’s geological (and where appropriate, 

possibly seismic) and operational studies. 

Field Selection – West Hasting Fault Block B - C 

Two fields were proposed in the initial proposal from which one was to be selected: 

Oyster Bayou or Hastings. A list of competitive advantages/possible risks to consider 

was prepared and jointly reviewed. Issues that were judged to be significant were: 

temporal and volumetric match between field development and availability of captured 

CO2 and possible negative implications of the public aspects of using federal funding, in 

particular the public information associated with NEPA. 

The review team felt that a stronger proposal would result if the field expansion 

(additional patterns) was approximately matched to the captured CO2 (assumed to be 1 

million tons per site per year during 2014-15). Make-up CO2 is purchased throughout the 

life of a field even when recycling dominates, however the possible reviewer confusion 

about “room for CO2 when the field is already full” might weaken a competitive proposal. 

Also in fields which will be relatively mature and into recycle, the purchase volumes 

needed during the 2014-15 period could not be stated with high confidence in the Phase 

II proposal. In addition, the possibility of collecting baseline data prior to completion of 

the development of the flood will allow the MVA program to mirror what the DOE 

Topical 96
2

program expects, which will improve its acceptability. The field in which expansions are 

planned in 2014 timeframe is Hastings fault block B and C (fault block A will be 

becoming mature). 

The other factor considered a significant selection parameter is the public comment 

period triggered by NEPA. Public comment related to NEPA will apply only to federally 

funded research MVA activities, as Denbury’s commercial field operations will be part of 

the EOR flood whether or not federal funds are applied. Rationally, research MVA 

activities should provide additional comfort for residents and communities, however 

where anxiety or hostility are involved, residents may not separate the commercial flood 

of Denbury from the research MVA of GCCC. Local interest could have possible 

negative consequences resulting in unnecessary delays for either commercial or 

research program, or both. We therefore ultimately recommend avoiding locations where 

the CO2 enhanced recovery project may impact a larger population. 

The consensus is that a strong proposal can be written for Hastings. 

MVA program 

The MVA program proposed will include two components: a commercial operations 

program and an added value research program. The commercial MVA program will be 

conducted as part of the EOR Operator’s normal best practices, in conformance with 

applicable regulations. These commercial operations are not subject to NEPA review as 

they are independent operations which will be conducted whether or not federal funding 

and anthropogenic CO2 is acquired for the EOR project. The research program is 

designed to test with additional rigor and available technology the extent to which a 

commercial operations monitoring program is adequate to assure that storage is of 

quality desired to obtain lasting benefit to the atmosphere. In particular the research 

program will test for conditions where retention of CO2 is adequate for commercial 

operations benefit and duration but may not be of standards desirable for long-term 

sequestration. The standards desired for sequestration are not codified at this time, 

however the IPCC target that a well selected site should retain 99% CO2 in the reservoir 

over 1000 years meets the DOE’s expectations. The research portion of the MVA 

program will be federally funded and subject to NEPA review. 

Commercial operations EOR field monitoring provides assurance to the Operator that 

the CO2 flood is performing correctly via reservoir management and its oilfield 

development pattern. In order to create a credible MVA program, Denbury will document 

that these commercial activities are conducted in a manner to lend credence to the MVA 

research project. In some cases the applicable data are reported to the appropriate state 

oil and gas regulatory board, however, in other cases data is proprietary to the operator 

and BEG will work with Denbury to disclose that data needed for documentation to 

demonstrate permanent sequestration. Reservoir management goals and activities are 

shown in table 1. 

Topical 97
3

Table 1. Commercial MVA program used for reservoir management 

Goal Methods Remedial action if needed 

achieve goal 

Demonstrate no migration 

through existing and P&A 

wells for protection of 

USDW 

Examine well completion 

records, P&A records prior 

to flood, run cement bond 

logs, conduct mechanical 

integrity tests, during flood 

daily record of casing 

pressure at each well (a 

truly abandoned well may 

not have pressure 

recording capablility) 

Re-entry and workover to 

repair wells if needed, 

includes, cement squeezes, 

installation of casing liners, 

P&A and redrill if needed. 

Surveillance of the flood to 

demonstrate that injection 

is balanced (CO2 is going 

into the selected area of the 

selected zone and driving 

production at selected 

producers, pressure is not 

above fracture gradient). 

Daily record of tubing 

pressure on injectors and 

producers, minimum 

monthly inventory of fluid 

volumes produced at each 

well at test facility, 

intermittent bottom hole 

shut-in or flowing well 

pressures, intermittent 

production/injection logs. 

Shut in wells that do not 

contribute, 

increase/decrease injection 

or production rates, modify 

perforated interval. 

Conformance treatments to 

alter injection and/or 

production zones. 

Predict future performance 

of reservoir 

History match surveillance 

data to predictions in 

reservoir model. 

Correct model as needed to 

match history and gain 

confidence in future 

predictions 

 

The research MVA program will focus on areas of uncertainty in retention of fluids in the 

injection zone. As these oil fields have retained oil and gas for geologic time, we 

consider that it is documented the natural seal is adequate to support a significant CO2

column with migration occurring possibly only at diffusion rates. Risk assessment and 

experience indicates that the most probable migration paths are (1) non-sealing well 

completions; (2) vertical migration up fault when reservoir pressure exceeds original 

pressure (3) off-structure or out of compartment migration of CO2 or brine as a result of 

elevated pressure into areas not controlled as part of the flood. An MVA program is 

outlined for each of these risk areas and is linked to a mitigation or management process 

that can be implemented to result in adequate assurance that the CO2 injected is 

permanently stored. 

Non sealing well completions 

Wells that penetrate the seal are potential weak points, especially during injection. This 

occurs because older wells have been completed under older regulatory schemes. 

Wells that perform adequately during extraction, when they are pressure sinks, have the 

Topical 98
4

possibility of becoming upwardly transmissive during injection when pressure of the 

reservoir is increased. Wells that are actively producing can be inspected via a logging 

program, however wells that have been plugged and abandoned (P&A) are prohibitively 

expensive to reenter to inspect and therefore do not provide viable candidates for 

monitoring. The research MVA program is intended to extend the commercial operations 

well integrity program, and test the effectiveness of the commercial operations program. 

 Activities that will be considered for possible inclusion in the research MVA 

proposal: 

 (1) Additional logging program (e.g. temperature, radioactive tracers, high end 

wireline tools) 

(2) Above zone pressure monitoring – ambient and introduced fluids 

(3) Well deconstruction – possibly associated with workover. 

(4) Soil gas, groundwater, or other near-surface monitoring. 

In Hastings, water disposal into the Miocene overlying the Frio CO2 injection zone has 

elevated pressure and perturbed geochemistry. In the short term, this elevated pressure 

provides a barrier to upward flow. It will be interesting to assess how long this pressure 

barrier will be sustained with respect to long term storage goals. (it should be noted that 

we are making efforts to restrict or eliminate Miocene water injection as it is creating 

several adverse problems in the field re-development, will be interesting to monitor how 

quickly the Miocene “bleeds” off if any with time once injection has been curtailed). It 

may add difficulties to above-zone detection methods. 

Possible methods for looking for flawed wellbore migration are: 

 Thermal anomalies (hot fluids expelled from depth, or cold areas in shallow 

zones where CO2 flashes to gas). Can be done though casing 

 Noise anomalies - Can be done though casing 

 Pressure anomalies - requires perforations 

 Geochemical anomalies - requires perforations. 

 Soil gas methods near surface (methane, CO2) 

 Augmented soil gas/aquifer surveillance methods (noble gases/isotopes, 

tracers) 

Vertical Migration up faults 

Faults related to salt structure are ubiquitous in the Gulf coast. Some faults are clearly 

vertically transmissive; others trap thick oil and gas columns and are therefore not 

transmissive at rates relevant to CO2 storage. It is sometimes not clear how faults will 

perform when pressure is increased, and this uncertainty can be a block to use/storage 

of anthropogenic CO2 in faulted settings. Technique development is needed to 

determine effective methods to document that faults are sealed to vertical flow. 

Hastings has a main growth fault that extends to surface as well as several cross faults. 

Production history suggest that cross faults maybe somewhat cross-fault transmissive, 

however the vertical performance has not been assessed. 

Activities that will be considered for possible inclusion in the proposal: 

(1) Natural fault performance - any near surface soil gas anomalies - methane , 

noble gasses 

(2) Soil gas, groundwater, or other near-surface monitoring, same as above but 

focused on fault. Location - where master fault approaches surface. 

Topical 99
5

(3) Logging program for wells that cut the fault (e.g. temperature, radioactive 

tracers, high end wireline tools) looking for changes (need before and after 

injection in wells that cut faults as CO2 is injected). 

(4) Above zone pressure and geochemical monitoring - any changes as CO2 is 

introduced? may be impossible with water disposal in Miocene. Need to 

perforate one or more wells where they cut fault. Sample for PFT. 

(5) Geophysical methods – design VSP or cross well acoustic array to look for 

changes along fault plane. Consider passive acoustic methods to determine if 

there is any viability in ductile rocks in Gulf Coast. Consider gravity methods. 

Next actions 

(1) BEG estimate sensitivity of these methods for reservoirs in question against the 99% 

retained over 1000 years standard. Work on concept of proving the container prior to 

addition of anthropogenic CO2 – using current perturbation to assess for current 

migration. Feasiblity assessment for which we need basic groundwater, including depth 

to water and soil data. 

(2) Discuss with Denbury field staff what wells could be used for above zone assessment -

near reservoir depth both during early stages of development and during flood, 

groundwater wells. Hastings should have a significant number of wells that could be 

used. 

(3) Resolve perspective on the soil gas in these fields. 

(4) Develop a detailed “shopping list” request for Sandia to collect needed cost/vendor 

data 

(5) Finalize plan for proposal 

(6) Finalize budget for proposal 

NEPA activities 

 This review is provided as the bounding conditions to be considered in NEPA review. 

These activities are possible, and not firmly selected. 

Access 1 to 10 existing wells, run various types of wireline wellbore integrity logs 

(temperature, noise, CBL, USIT, RAT). Select one or more wells not planned for 

production for plug back/set bridge plug to above-reservoir zone and perforate above 

zone (presumably in a permeable, “producable” oil, gas or water zone) with a workover 

rig, produce well with N2 lift to clean formation fluids (several hundred barrels). 

Completion must allow current geochemical samples and high frequency static fluid 

pressure. (Surface readout least expensive, downhole certainly possible, but more 

expensive) Consider simple (pressure transducer to measure fluctuation in static fluid 

column) and complex, for example Westbay sampler 

(http://www.slb.com/content/services/additional/water/monitoring/multilevel/westbay_mul

tilevel_well.asp) or Ella G Lees 7 type completions. Record data via data loggers, real 

time phone system or satellite uplink. 

Soil gas monitoring - numerous (100?) shallow (20 ft deep) boreholes below active soil 

zone. Install PVC pipes for soil gas wells, install weather station. Define depth the water, 

Topical 100
6

may preclude this approach at Hastings. Location inside lease footprint as defined by 

active and P&A wells. Hastings – Add PFT’s to injected CO2, detect at surface near 

producers and in soil gas and groundwater wells. This would require several 

mobilizations because of uncertainty about transport speed. 

Ground water surveillance – access to about 20 existing or new drill (100-200 ft deep) 

groundwater wells, cemented in PVC casing with surface protection box. Develop wells 

so that they can produce groundwater (100 barrels). Location inside footprint plus 

several up-gradient and several down gradient (off pattern) wells. Noble gas, isotope 

labs. 

We will need to identify labs and do NEPA forms of them also. 

 

Next actions 

(1) Examine available data on wells that cut faults or could be used for cross-well 

geometries. Discuss with Denbury availability of well access for monitoring 

activities. 

(2) Consider feasibility of geophysical methods. 

(3) Add area where fault approaches surface to soil gas/groundwater sampling area. 

same techniques. 

(4) Need data on Miocene water disposal and conceptual modeling. 

(5) Refine approaches. 

(6) Look for cost estimates. 

(7) Final proposed elements. 

(8) Final costs for budget. 

NEPA activities 

Similar to above, however add well-based geophysics to list of possible techniques. 

Might need kill fluids, or to plug back existing well as monitoring well (if one is available) 

above reservoir 

Off-structure or out of compartment migration of CO2 or brine as a result of 

elevated pressure into areas not controlled as part of the flood 

In EOR, injection is mostly balanced by extraction, so that the area of elevated pressure 

is of limited size, which has not in the past been of much concern. However, the 

prospect of areas where injection will now be for EOR, or after EOR has ceased, 

(disposal only) has elevated concern within DOE and EPA about management of the 

size of the CO2 plume and the size of the area of elevated pressure. It would therefore 

be wise in a competitive proposal to document the pressure elevation in the reservoir but 

outside of the flood and the maximum expected extent of CO2 migration. 

Several techniques are possible to document the two areas (elevated pressure and 

extent of CO2): 

(1) Direct measurement though wells. Repeat measurement of bottom hole pressure 

under shut in conditions and measurement of fluid saturations via sampling or (in 

new wells with good open hole logs) logging. This could be done by drilling one 

Topical 101
7

or more future injectors early, and using them as observation wells for most of 

2014-15 period before conversion to injection. (these are off structure or away 

from initial patterns?) 

(2) Model –matching, assuring that the ultimate fate of CO2 over 1000 years is 

constrained depends on good model-match during early stages of flood. Improve 

model – collect any needed data such as PVT, end point residual saturation, cap 

pressure, core porosity and permeability. (Do tar mats, ROZ areas or original 

water legs have a material impact on the real perm data? BEG needs to define 

these as part of the model when investigating plume growth beyond the original 

oil/gas zones) Add data needed to improve history match especially with regard 

to DOE expectation of tracking injected CO2 – injection and production profiles, 

logging program. Update model as needed with observations during flood. (flow 

model only as good as the static geo model) 

(3) Indirect geophysical measurements - surface deformation via, tilt, GPS and 

InSAR, downhole tilt, repeat VSP or surface 2-D or 3-D though transects of the 

plume, to document maximum lateral extent. The choices at Hastings will be 

limited because of previous activities. (some historical subsidence issues in 

Hastings as evidenced by casing collapse in its history) 

Next actions 

(1) Discuss with Denbury drilling short-term observation wells (future injectors drilled 

ahead of schedule) Possible? Need to make sure these hit the 2011 or 12 

budget ahead of the planned work in 2013 or 2014, best argument is that they 

are accelerated wells that will be needed anyway. 

(2) Discuss model situation with Denbury – What exists? Who will do this work? 

Ongoing deterministic model in Hastings, simplified, being developed by 

Denbury’s Reservoir Simulation group, all in FB-A so far. 

(3) Sensitivity/feasibility of using focused geophysics for plume and pressure 

tracking. 

(4) Refine approaches 

(5) Look for cost estimates 

(6) Final proposed elements 

(7) Final costs for budget 

Topical 102
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 8 

Phase 1 SOPO Task 1.5.4.3 

Final MVA Plan and Detailed Budget 

Topical 103
- 2 - 

Gulf Coast Carbon Center – Report to Denbury on MVA

Planning for FOA 15

Report Type: Report and documentation of milestone completion 

Report number : C1.5.4.3 

Report title: Final MVA plan and detailed budget 

Completion Date: March 22, 2010 

 

Report Issue Date: April 11, 2010 

Submitting Organization: Susan D. Hovorka, Principle Investigator, 

 Gulf Coast Carbon Center 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Comment: Report presented here is after Denbury review and revision 

as of April4, 2010. 

Topical 104
- 3 - 

Phase 1 Task C1.5.4.3 

Final MVA Plan and Detailed Budget 

Prepared for: 

Denbury Resources 

Report by Susan D. Hovorka 

April 11, 2010 

Bureau of Economic Geology 

John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences 

The University of Texas at Austin 

Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

Topical 105
- 4 - 

Table of contents 

Phase 1 Task C1.5.4.3......................................................................................... 3 

Final MVA plan and detailed budget .................................................................... 3 

Introduction to MVA plan...................................................................................... 5 

Schedule of Phase 2 activities ............................................................................. 7 

2A Design Phase....................................................................................... 8 

2B Construction Phase.............................................................................. 9 

2C Demonstration...................................................................................... 9 

Initial characterization and capacity assessment ................................................. 9 

Characteristics of the West Hastings Frio injection reservoir................... 10 

Injectivity.................................................................................................. 14 

Storage Capacity..................................................................................... 14 

Well distribution ....................................................................................... 17 

Initial risk assessment linked to monitoring plans............................................... 19 

Performance of wells ............................................................................... 20 

Performance of faults .............................................................................. 20 

Monitoring activities............................................................................................ 23 

Scope of Work.................................................................................................... 24 

Figures 

Figure 1. Stratigraphic section............................................................................6 

Figure 2. West Hastings Fault Block B and C Frio type log showing multiple injection 

zones..................................................................................................................8 

Figure 3. Compartmentalization of the West Hastings reservoir by the main fault on the 

east side of the field and a series of cross faults................................................9 

Figure 4. Development plan of CO2 flood in West Hastings field .....................10 

Figure 5. Upper Frio patterns in fault blocks B and C.......................................13 

Figure 6. Estimated CO2 purchase and recycle volumes .................................14 

Tables 

Table 1. Documents considered in preparation of the research monitoring, verification 

and accounting (MVA) program 1 

Table 2. MVA plan responsibilities 2 

Topical 106
- 5 - 

Table 3. MVA project phases aligned with capture facility phases. 4 

Table 3. MVA project phases aligned with capture facility phases. 4 

Table 4. Field Storage Capacity (Fault block B and C) based on volume-for volume 

replacement of original oil-in-place by CO2. 12 

Table 5. Results of core-based permeability from fault block A. 13 

Table 6. Data for modeling and likely data source 20 

Table 7 Budget in Excel 

I. Introduction to MVA plan 

 CO2 injected for EOR is the best known and therefore the lowest risk process available 

for geologic sequestration. The effectiveness of the seal and trapping structure in 

confining the fluids (oil and gas) over geologic time has been demonstrated directly by 

hydrocarbon accumulation. Injectivity and effective capacity have been documented by 

previous fluid handling during production and water injection. Permitting and negotiation 

of land and pore space access follow well known processes with low risk. Injection of 

natural CO2 into West Hastings field will be underway in fault block A several years prior 

to beginning injection of anthropogenic CO2 (CO2-A) injection into West Hastings fault 

block B and C; this will provide a strong experience base on which to rely to document 

CO2 retention. Previous studies focused on sequestration in an EOR context provide 

precedents for MVA design. These include the Weyburn project conducted at EnCana’s 

flood in Saskatchewan, the BEG-led study as part of the Southwest Regional Carbon 

Sequestration Partnership (SWP) of the results of more than 30 years of CO2 injection 

from EOR at Kinder Morgan’s SACROC Field in Scurry County Texas, and the currently 

underway BEG led multi-institutional study of large volume (>1 Million ton/year) injection 

at Denbury’s Cranfield Field, Adams-Franklin Counties, Mississippi. 

Currently, CO2 from any source injected for CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR) is 

regulated under UIC class II. In Texas, the Railroad Commission has primacy and 

requires a number of monitoring, accounting, and reporting activities to bring the field 

under flood and that are required periodically during the flood. Protection of 

groundwater resources (underground sources of drinking water [USDW]) is the main 

focus of the class II regulations. In addition, Denbury has developed, through a decade 

of experience with EOR in the Gulf Coast, a number of commercial best practices that 

are used to control the subsurface movement of CO2 and manage elevated pressure in 

order to optimize the performance of the flood and minimize cost and risks. It is unclear 

if additional monitoring and reporting activities will be required for EOR in the future, or 

to what the extent of these activities would be. The goals of the research monitoring, 

verification and accounting (MVA) program proposed here are, therefore, based on 

uniting elements of the existing regulatory monitoring requirements and existing best 

practices with a number of proposed and suggested processes that are being 

considered for future application to CO2 injected under various possible future 

regulatory or credit trading conditions. Table 1 shows documents with proposed and 

suggested future MVA processes reviewed during compilation of this research MVA 

plan. 

Topical 107
- 6 - 

Table 1. Documents considered in preparation of the research monitoring, verification 

and accounting (MVA) program 

Document Source Status 

TX RRC rules for EOR Fluid injection into productive reservoirs 

TAC Title16 part1 Chapter3 Rule 3.46 

in effect 

Denbury Commercial Best 

Practices 

Denbury in effect 

EPA Draft Rules http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_s

equestration.html

Comment period closed. 

Proposed 

2008 

TX RRC draft rules for injection 

for the purpose of geological 

storage in productive formations 

and in formation directly above 

and below productive formations 

TAC Chapter 16 Chapter 5 Draft Rules 

Released March 26, 2010 

Out for comment. 

Proposed 

2010 

World Resources Institute CCS 

Guidelines Report 

http://www.wri.org/project/carbon-capturesequestration NGO 

overview 

documen

t 

The current requirements for Class II injection and commercial best practices in 

managing a CO2 flood are the foundations of an MVA plan. No federal regulatory 

agency has proposed a change in rules for CO2 EOR, so the current regulations that 

govern injection of anthropogenic CO2 for EOR (Fluid injection into productive reservoirs 

under TAC Title16 part 1 Chapter3 Rule 3.46) are presumed to be those regulating the 

project injection. In fact, the Texas proposed rules anticipate the continued use of Class 

II for CO2 EOR. It is however, possible under some scenarios that future rules for 

handling CO2 could result in a change of standards for MVA applied to EOR, for 

example to avoid EOR counting as a source of emissions. The research goals set for 

this plan are (1) to test the extent to which current commercial practices (as required by 

regulations for fluid injection into productive reservoirs under TAC Title16 part 1 Chapter 

3 Rule 3.46 plus commercial best practices) can meet possible future MVA 

expectations; (2) to test novel MVA approaches to see if they increase confidence and 

otherwise add value to an EOR + sequestration project; and (3) provide adequate 

budget and flexibility in case regulatory requirements change prior to the end of the 

project period. 

A team comprised of three named groups (Table 2) will conduct the research MVA plan. 

Each named group will have subcontractors working for them; these subcontractors are 

not named in the proposal, however costs are based on quotes and extensive past 

experience with contracting similar services in similar settings. Costs include normal 

percentage of field work related costs beyond the minimum costs, and also reflect cost 

uncertainties in labor, fuel, commodities over the project time period. 

Table 2. MVA plan responsibilities 

Group Responsibility Reporting Budget 

Denbury Conduct commercial 

MVA activities, 

remediation in 

Report results to 

document the 

effectiveness of these 

Commercial and 

remediation activities 

are done as part of 

Topical 108
- 7 - 

response to any 

evidence of noncontainment 

activities commercial project, 

not in proposal budget 

Denbury Support research 

MVA activities where 

these activities fit in 

with Denbury’s core 

competency, for 

example contract 

geophysical activities, 

review BEG results 

prior to submission 

Report results though 

BEG research team 

20% Denbury cost 

80% Federal cost. 

Characterization data 

for reservoir and fault 

modeling studies is 

provided as in kind 

(no cash) cost share. 

Sandia Technologies 

LLC 

Support research 

MVA activities where 

these activities require 

extensive supervision 

(e.g. specialized MVA 

surveys and 

equipment 

installation) 

Contribute results to 

research plan through 

BEG team 

20% Denbury cost 

80% Federal cost 

Bureau of Economic 

Geology 

Develop reservoir and 

area of elevated 

pressure for prediction 

of pressure and fluid 

evolution during and 

1000 years beyond 

project period, risk 

assessment, MVA 

research design, 

oversight of research 

data collection, 

conduct near surface 

data collection, 

integration of research 

results 

Report results of 

modeling and risk 

assessment, submit 

updated MVA plans 

and costs at each 

phase, report interim 

results, and at project 

conclusion report 

integrated MVA. 

Results to be 

reviewed by Denbury 

and submitted by 

DOE 

20% Denbury cost 

80% Federal cost 

In the following sections, we define: (1) the schedule of activities, (2) the current state of 

site characterization and capacity assessment, (3) the current assessment of 

uncertainties that lead to assessment of risks and guide the research MVA plan, (4) the 

commercial monitoring activities that provides the standard for the research MVA plan, 

and (5) the research MVA plan that tests the effectiveness of the commercial plan and 

several novel approaches that may extend the level of confidence beyond the 

commercial activities. This is followed by a scope of work detail in the tasks divided by 

project phase and task number with a reporting plan, a cost justification, experience of 

key participants, and budget. 

II. Schedule of Phase 2 activities 

MVA activities are coordinated to match the stages of development of the capture 

facility as shown in Table 3. 

Topical 109
- 8 - 

Table 3. MVA project phases aligned with capture facility phases. 

Phase 

Capture 

Facility Phase MVA phase 

2A Design* Site characterization including initial field measurements, 

predictive fluid flow and pressure modeling, risk 

assessment, tool down-selection, experience increase as a 

result of ongoing injection in fault block A and early 

measurements in fault blocks B and C, learning from other 

projects elsewhere 

2A Decision Go/No Go 

decision 

Revised MVA conceptualization and reallocation of funds as 

needed to coordinate with revised build out plan 

2B Capture facility 

construction 

Fault blocks B and C injection, production, monitoring well 

permitting, site preparation (roads, separation facility 

expansion), well workover and new drills in patterns 

including selected advanced patterns, baseline data on soil 

gas, groundwater, and subsurface pressure, fluid 

composition and rock property data collected, baseline 

geophysics and well logging, input data into predictive 

model, revised risk assessment. 

2B Decision Go/No Go 

decision 

Revised MVA conceptualization and reallocation of funds as 

needed to coordinate with revised build out plan 

2C Demonstration 

CO2 production 

from capture 

facility 

Anthropogenic CO2 injection, time-laps MVA data collection 

2C Overview Evaluation of results of MVA program, revised model runs 

showing model match, comparing the effectiveness of the 

commercial program to the research program in 

documenting effectiveness and permanence of storage, and 

recommendations for future MVA at CO2 EOR settings. 

*Commercial proprietary non-funded data utilized to refine fluid flow and pressure modeling may 

be withheld from public information. 

2A Design Phase 

The lead tasks of the design phase are integration of commercial site characterization 

data followed by predictive fluid flow and pressure modeling, and improved description 

of stress conditions on faults, leading to an improved assessment of risk of nonretention. Denbury is already well along on commercial development of Hastings Field 

for CO2 EOR flood into the northern fault block of West Hastings Field, fault block A. 

Prior to anthropogenic CO2 availability, injection using natural CO2 from Jackson Dome 

will be used to develop the flood into West Hastings Field fault block A. This experience 

will greatly decrease uncertainties in developing fault blocks B and C, which 

development is scheduled to begin flood at the about the same time as anthropogenic 

CO2 (CO2-A) is available. Therefore, prior to CO2-A injection, we expect improvements 

in knowledge of effective ways to manage the numerous wells, pressure, and flow in the 

field. As part of this effort, Denbury may start brine injection into fault block B and C, 

allowing collection of some early measurements of connection or isolation of fault block 

A from fault blocks B and C. Because the West Hastings Field is an ongoing EOR 

operation, it is expected that a NEPA CX or a waiver will be obtained to begin tests to 

determine sensitivity and feasibility of proposed soil gas, groundwater, and well-bore 

integrity methods. BEG has planned several monitoring wells to determine the current 

Topical 110
- 9 - 

pressure distribution during this phase. Any adjustments needed to match commercial 

field development to the CO2-A injection plan(s) will be accommodated. 

 In addition, learning from other projects conducted elsewhere as part of DOE’s and 

international programs, as well as reliance on Denbury’s experience in other fields will 

be part of the design phase. At the end of the phase, BEG, in consultation with 

Denbury, will prepare a report containing an updated risk assessment, modifications 

recommended in MVA system, and corresponding adjustments in cost. 

 

2B Construction Phase 

In this phase, preparation for injection of CO2-A into fault blocks B and C will be 

completed as part of Denbury’s commercial field development operations. Injection, 

production, and monitoring wells will be permitted through the TX RRC. Site 

preparation; well workovers and new drills in patterns, including selected wells in the 

above zone monitoring interval (AZMI) will be used as access points to monitor ahead 

of the active injection. Baseline data on soil gas, groundwater, and subsurface pressure, 

fluid composition and rock properties will be collected and input into a predictive model, 

allowing a revised risk assessment. Baseline geophysics and baseline well logging will 

be completed prior to initiation of the flood. At the end of the phase, BEG in 

consultation with Denbury will prepare a report containing a revised MVA 

conceptualization and reallocation of funds as needed to coordinate with the revised 

build out plan. 

A. 2C Demonstration 

During this phase, it is anticipated that CO2-A will be available from the capture facility. 

The availability of natural CO2 will allow flexible staging, as any source of CO2 can be 

used to demonstrate containment. As injection starts, the commercial monitoring 

program will track the CO2 injected, the CO2 recycled, and the performance of the 

reservoir and wells in retaining CO2. The research program will collect time-lapse data 

testing alternative and possibly high-resolution techniques for documenting that the CO2

is retained in the injection zone and in the predicted flood area, and that pressure is 

below that determined to be safe. At the end of this phase, BEG, in consultation with 

Denbury, will prepare a report evaluating the results of the research MVA program, 

revised model runs showing model match, comparing the effectiveness of the 

commercial program to the research program in documenting effectiveness and 

permanence of storage. Recommendations for future MVA at EOR settings will be 

prepared. 

The research monitoring program will end at the end of the demonstration phase. The 

objective of the research MVA program is to increase confidence in commercial 

monitoring programs and in the permanence of CO2-A storage. 

 

III. Initial characterization and capacity assessment 

 In this section we review the current state of site characterization and capacity 

assessment, emphasizing the current assessment of uncertainties that lead to 

assessment of risks and guide the research MVA plan. 

Topical 111
- 10 - 

A. Characteristics of the West Hastings Frio injection reservoir 

The Frio Formation of West Hastings Field is well characterized as an injection zone, 

and sufficient data are currently available to confirm confinement, injectivity, and 

storage capacity. The Anahuac Formation provides confinement at the top of the 

reservoir (Figure 1). This unit is a regionally extensive transgressive dark mudstone > 

500 ft thick. The seal properties of the Anahuac were studied as part of the Frio Brine 

pilot, and show that this formation is an excellent seal. Miocene strata provide 

redundant seals above the reservoir, which is the proposed location for the above-zone 

monitoring interval (AZMI). The base of the Frio Formation is defined by additional 

shale-sandstone sequences. Multiple sands in both the upper and lower Frio formation 

will be flooded as part of the Fault Block B and C development plan. 

Regionally fluvial, strandplain, and deltaic sandstones of the Oligocene Frio Formation 

extend across the Gulf Coast Basin from the Texas–Mexico border to just west of the 

Texas-Louisiana border. Two sandstones of the upper Frio Formation were tested and 

found favorable for monitoring and for sequestration by the Bureau’s Frio brine pilot test 

east of Houston. The Frio Formation at West Hastings field is composed of a number of 

sandstones separated by shales (Figure 2). Multiple sandstones are productive within 

the field and will serve as the injection reservoir. A major fault serves as the updip limit 

of the reservoir. Differences in the historic oil water-contact provide evidence that this 

fault is sealing. In addition, the reservoir is partly compartmentalized by cross faults 

(Figure 3). Fluvial sandstones of the Frio Formation, and salt deformation causing 

faulted structural closures are abundant along the Gulf Coast; knowledge about 

reservoir performance is high as is confidence in trapping. In addition to the natural 

trapping of large amounts of hydrocarbon beneath the Anahuac Formation, further 

confidence is provided by the widespread permitting of this unit as a confining system 

for Class I hazardous and non-hazardous permits (Kreitler, et al, 1990). 

Figure 1. Stratigraphic section 

Topical 112
- 11 - 

Topical 113
- 12 - 

Topical 114
- 13 - 

Figure 3. Compartmentalization of the West Hastings reservoir by the main fault on the 

east side of the field and a series of cross faults 

Denbury plans to develop the field in several stages (Figure 4), starting in 2010 with 

block A at the north end of the field. Injection of CO2-A is planned to be into productive 

intervals of the Frio Formation into the B and C fault blocks of the reservoir because that 

area of the field will be first undergoing injection at the time when capture is underway. 

Topical 115
- 14 - 

Figure 4. Development plan of CO2 flood in West Hastings field 

To supplement this naturally occurring CO2 supply, Denbury will utilize anthropogenic CO2 (CO2-

A) supplies to meet its rising CO2 requirements. It is anticipated that CO2-A will be available for 

development of blocks B & C at West Hastings beginning in late 2013, therefore a commercial 

preliminary design has been made and estimates of the CO2 storage capacity for the reservoir 

determined. Information gained from actual injection into fault block A will be utilized to finalize 

the fault block B and C design during 2011and 2012; however, this injection will not dramatically 

impact the pore volume available for CO2 storage. 

B. Injectivity 

The injectivity of CO2 can be estimated from current water injection rates on existing Frio 

injectors. Water injection into the Frio of ~180,000 BWPD is being accomplished with 20 wells, 

an average of 9000 BWPD per well. Based on a CO2 formation volume factor of 2 MCF/bbl, this 

would equate to 18 MMCFD (~947 metric tons per day or 0.345 million metric tons/year ) CO2

per well. This rate is also consistent with the maximum erosional velocity limit of CO2 down 2-

7/8” tubing, thus establishing a target injection per injector. The seven planned injection wells 

during the initial pattern development for blocks B and C will therefore demonstrate that the 

formation can accept the planned CO2-A. Insuring high injection rates into each pattern 

maximizes the rate at which oil is recovered, therefore improving project economics. 

C. Storage Capacity 

The storage capacity for reservoirs to be flooded in fault blocks B and C is shown in Table 4. A 

simple estimate can be made by assuming the volume of original oil-in-place can be replaced 

on a volume per volume basis by CO2, as done in the NATCARB atlas. The 237 million barrels 

oil produced occupied 284 million reservoir barrels (1.2 RB/STB) and based upon 2 MCF CO2 

per reservoir barrel at 160 degrees F and 3000 psi, the CO2 volume to completely displace the 

original hydrocarbon pore volume will be 568 BCF (31 million metric tons). Inefficiencies in 

aerial and vertical sweep efficiency and relative permeability to CO2 because of remaining oil 

will reduce this number, dissolution of CO2 into brine and sequestration in non-productive 

intervals will increase this number. Because the reservoir is complex both stratigraphically, with 

Topical 116
- 15 - 

lateral changes in sandbody properties typical of fluvial-deltaic systems, and structurally, 

because of cross faulting, significant uncertainty remains in exactly how the CO2 will spread 

from injection wells. Significant monitoring effort will be provided in both the commercial and 

research program to track the CO2 distribution aerially and stratigraphically to reduce this 

uncertainty (flood conformance). Improving quantification of the storage via monitoring is one of 

the goals of this project. 

The West Hastings Development team recently cored a well in fault block A (WHU-3706) to 

determine reservoir properties for the ten major sands of the upper and lower Frio reservoirs. 

Plugs have been cut from the core and measurements of permeability are reported in Table 5. 

Additional tests will also be performed to determine connate water and residual oil saturation 

endpoints on approximately 5 plugs, along with oil/water and gas/oil relative permeability 

curves. This information will be used to guide in the selection of perforated intervals and to 

better understand the vertical sweep efficiency expected during the CO2 flooding process. Good 

water drive during production indicates that pressure increase during injection will not limit 

injection rates, in contrast it is expected that water injection prior to and down-dip of CO2

injection will be required to augment CO2 so that injection pressure can be raised from 2200 psi 

to 3100 psi desired for EOR. 

Table 4. Field Storage Capacity (Fault block B and C) based on volume-for volume 

replacement of original oil-in-place by CO2. 

Topical 117
- 16 - 

Upper Frio Sand Area Thickness Net-to-Gross Porosity Swi Boi OOIP CO2 Capacity

(acres) (feet) (decimal) (decimal) (decimal) (RB/STB) (bbls) (MMCF)

A1 700 20 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 13,350,940 32,042 

A2 675 30 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 19,311,181 46,347 

A3 650 50 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 30,993,253 74,384 

A4 625 40 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 23,840,964 57,218 

A5 600 20 0.61 0.3 0.8 1.2 11,443,663 27,465 

A - Total 160 98,940,000 237,456 

Lower Frio Sand Acres Thickness Net-to-Gross Porosity Swi Boi OOIP CO2 Capacity

(acres) (feet) (decimal) (decimal) (decimal) (RB/STB) (bbls) (MMCF)

B1 360 5 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,642,128 3,941 

B2 360 30 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 9,852,768 23,647 

B3 360 5 0.59 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,642,128 3,941 

B - Total 31,529 13,137,024 

C1 300 5 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 2,016,919 4,841 

C2 300 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,067,675 19,362 

C3 300 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,067,675 19,362 

C - Total 43,565 18,152,269 

D1 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D2 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D3 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D4 250 20 0.87 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,723,063 16,135 

D - Total 64,541 26,892,251 

E1 200 25 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 7,758,000 18,619 

E2 200 25 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 7,758,000 18,619 

E - Total 37,238 15,516,000 

F1 175 30 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,145,900 19,550

F2 175 35 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 9,503,550 22,809

F3 175 30 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 8,145,900 19,550

F4 175 11 1.00 0.3 0.8 1.2 3,095,442 7,429

F - Total 28,890,792 69,338

G1 150 30 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,389,545 15,335

G2 150 20 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 4,259,696 10,223

G3 150 30 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,389,545 15,335

G4 150 10 0.92 0.3 0.8 1.2 2,129,848 5,112

G - Total 19,168,634 46,005

H1 92 40 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 5,283,563 12,681

H2 92 15 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,981,336 4,755

H3 92 15 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 1,981,336 4,755

H4 92 50 0.93 0.3 0.8 1.2 6,604,454 15,851

H - Total 15,850,689 38,042

Total 137,607,659 330,258

Grand Total 236,547,659 567,714

D. 

Topical 118
- 17 - 

Table 5. Results of core-based permeability from fault block A. 

Sand Horizontal 

Permeability 

(md) 

Sand Horizontal 

Permeability 

(md) 

A1 238 D1 812 

A2 199 D2 718 

A3 1282 E1 60 

A4 950 E2 665 

A4-L 1363 F1 1160 

A5 1240 F2 272 

A6 7 F3 317 

B1 513 F4 8 

C2 515 G1 162 

C3 304 G2 108 

 G3 117 

G4 244 

In general, the Frio sands of West Hastings Field are typical of most sandstones along the 

Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast, where porosities are in the 28-32% range and permeabilities 

are high, in the 200-2000 md range. With initial oil saturation of approximately 80%, this 

suggests high storage capacity for the reservoir rock. The West Hastings Frio reservoir is an 

excellent reservoir for CO2 EOR recovery as well as CO2 storage. High primary (water drive) 

recoveries indicate that the aerial and vertical sweep efficiencies should be excellent. 

E. Well distribution 

An inventory of the distribution of wells in fault blocks B and C shows 72 active 

wells, 113 inactive but accessible wells, 9 temporarily abandoned wells, and 110 

plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells. Prior to beginning the flood, Denbury will expend 

significant effort as part of the commercial project (non-federal funds) reviewing well 

data and remediating wells as required to determine that wells are ready for pressure 

increase associated with injection. Denbury preliminarily plans to reenter selected wells 

and develop inverted 9- spot patterns(one injector surrounded by 9 producers). Initial 

plans are for seven (7) patterns to be developed in 2013 and seven (7) more in 2014. 

The pattern design selected for fault blocks B and C requires 14 CO2 injectors and 61 

producers, shown in figure 5. Numerous unused wells are therefore available for 

conversion into monitoring wells, where cost effective. In most cases the placement of 

cement is not sufficient to provide certainty of zonal isolation for wells to be completed 

in the AZMI. 

Topical 119
- 18 - 

Figure 5. Upper Frio patterns in fault blocks B and C. 

As part of the field development plan, the monthly CO2 purchase and recycle volumes 

were forecasted (Figure 6) using dimensionless curves obtained from an analogous 

field and verified by commercial modeling work performed for fault block A. If the 

anthropogenic CO2 is not ready by July 2013, CO2 from Denbury’s Jackson Dome will 

be utilized. Peak purchases will be around 200 MMCFPD by November 2015. A total of 

145 BCF (or 7.6 million metric tons) will be injected over the 3 year period.

Topical 120
- 19 - 

Figure 6. Estimated CO2 purchase and recycle volumes 

Hastings CO2 Project - Fault Blocks B & C

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Jul-13

Sep-13

Nov-13

Jan-14

Mar-14

May-14

Jul-14

Sep-14

Nov-14

Jan-15

Mar-15

May-15

Jul-15

Sep-15

Nov-15

Jan-16

Mar-16

May-16

Jul-16

Sep-16

Nov-16

Jan-17

Mar-17

May-17

CO2 RATE (MCFPD)

CO2 INJ CO2 PROD CO2 PURCH

IV. Initial risk assessment linked to monitoring plans 

Over the past 30 years EOR projects have been conducted in the US with essentially no 

adverse environmental effects. Injection into known traps with well known reservoir properties 

greatly reduces uncertainties and resulting risk. Active management of pressure via production 

and operator oversight to optimize the flood also are large risk-reduction measures. CO2

injected as part of EOR projects is not released to the atmosphere except in instances of 

equipment upsets or well upsets. Based on review of the data available at this time, there 

remain areas of uncertainty. For the purposes of this plan, BEG consider the following 

possible elements of future MVA expectations that might differ from or exceed the 

expectations of current Class II and commercial best practices:

(1) Document through characterization the geologic conditions that are expected to 

retain injected CO2 for periods long enough to benefit the atmosphere. The 

standards desired for sequestration are not codified, however, the IPCC target 

that a well selected site should retain 99% CO2 in the reservoir over 1000 years 

meets or exceeds DOE’s expectations. The atmospheric benefit is not a 

requirement of the proposed rules of the Texas Railroad Commission. 

(2) Execute a formal assessment of areas of uncertainty through a process such as 

Risk Assessment. This write up reviews the results of the initial risk assessment. 

 

The research MVA program will focus on areas of uncertainty in retention of fluids in the 

injection zone. As this oil field has retained oil and gas for geologic time, BEG considers 

that it documents that the natural seal is adequate to support a significant CO2 column 

with migration only at diffusion rates. Risk Assessment and experience indicates that 

the most probable migration paths are (1) non-sealing well completions because of 

undetected construction flaws or damage; (2) unexpected vertical migration up the main 

fault when reservoir pressure exceeds original pressure, and (3) off-structure or out of 

Topical 121
- 20 - 

compartment migration of CO2 or brine as a result of elevated pressure into areas not 

controlled as part of the flood. An MVA program is outlined for each of these risk areas 

and is linked to a mitigation or management process that will document that the CO2

injected is permanently stored. 

A. Performance of wells 

As part of Denbury’s commercial operations, prior to the start of the flood, every active, 

inactive and plugged and abandoned well will have its mechanical status defined prior 

to the start of the flood. Wells deemed as unable to contain the injected CO2 in the 

reservoir will be remediated by Denbury prior to initiating CO2 injection. 

After CO2 injection starts, both the commercial and research activities defined in the 

MVA program will be used to monitor the mechanical integrity of each well. The 

commercial activities of the MVA program include monitoring the surface pressures of 

injectors and producers frequently, as well as, each inactive well. Wells that have 

significant changes in surface pressures, will have bottom-hole pressure surveys taken. 

If the pressure data suggests that a well may have a mechanical integrity problem, a 

profile survey will be run in the well. A tracer survey and temperature log will be run in 

an injector. A temperature log, spinner survey and capacitance log will be run in a 

producer. These surveys will be run in each active well every 6 months regardless of 

the pressure data to confirm that there is no migration of CO2 from the reservoir via the 

wellbore. Surveys will be run in the inactive wells less often. However, as mentioned 

above, surface pressures will be monitored frequently in these wells. 

Injection and production rates will also be monitored as part of commercial activities. 

Daily rates will be measured for each injector and test rates will be taken for each 

producer at least once a month. A significant change in rates may indicate a wellbore 

integrity issue. Logs, as defined above, will be run in a potential problem well. If a 

problem is identified, then the well will be remediated. 

Each pattern will also have IWR’s (injection to withdrawal ratios on a reservoir barrel 

basis) calculated monthly to help define a problem well which requires remediation. The 

targeted IWR for every pattern is a 1:1 ratio. If a pattern has had such a ratio of several 

months and the ratio suddenly changes to 2:1 or 3:1 for example, then one of the wells 

in the pattern has a mechanical integrity issue. The problem well will be identified using 

the commercial activities described above and remediated. 

 

 The task for the research program is to independently test the performance of wells to 

determine if the commercial approaches are adequate for purposes of storage. The 

research plan includes surveillance of all wells via monitoring for changes in pressure or 

chemistry in the above zone monitoring interval (AZMI), monitoring for changes in 

underground sources of drinking water (USDW – defined as above 1650’ per the Texas 

Railroad Commission in the West Hastings Field), and monitoring for changes in soil 

gas above plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells. 

B. Performance of faults 

Topical 122
- 21 - 

Faults can serve either as conduits that focus and enhance flow or as barriers that limit 

flow. The major fault at West Hasting clearly falls into the later category, as large 

volumes of buoyant fluids (oil) have been trapped against it. This is a typical response in 

large throw faults of the Gulf Coast, in which ductile shale is smeared along the fault 

zone, providing a seal. Faults with smaller throw, such as parts of the cross-faults, may 

not completely seal. 

Understanding and predicting the behavior of preexisting faults in settings being 

considered for large scale CO2 storage is critical for operational success. Undesired 

migration of CO2 away from the intended interval may be facilitated by permeable faults 

(if present). Accurate determination of fault behavior typically involves a graphical (i.e. 

Mohr circle) or analytical approach, both of which are faster than complex numerical 

(finite-difference) models, but both retain some level of simplification. However, these 

more simplified approaches are considered adequate for understanding the level of risk 

that a large injection project has with regard to fault reactivation and increased hydraulic 

conductivity. It has been demonstrated that fracture sets in granitic formations show 

preferential fluid flow for the fracture orientations that are near the critical stress in the 

given stress field. The critical stress is achieved for a feature with a known orientation 

when the shear stresses resolved on that surface exceed the stresses normal to 

(perpendicular to) that surface. An increase in fluid pore pressure (as with CO2 injection) 

can lead to reduced normal stresses and an increased likelihood for achieving critical 

stress conditions. 

In order to adequately determine the risk of fault criticality, the magnitude and 

orientation of the fault within the ambient principal stress field must be known. BEG will 

endeavor to constrain these conditions for the field of interest during the design phase. 

However, the anticipated elevation of pressure (400 psi) for West Hastings field is not 

considered high enough to bring even a favorably oriented fault structure into criticality. 

Thus, the research MVA program will focus on monitoring of the fault to determine if any 

flow can be identified along the fault using existing well penetrations. Localized 

temperature and or pressure perturbations in the vicinity of the fault may be indicative of 

preferential fluid migration within the fault zone. The simulation of the effects of 

transmissive faults will need to be undertaken in order to evaluate the conditions that 

may lead to unintended migration. 

 

We place emphasis on “proving the container” prior to injection to anthropogenic CO2. 

Because a field slated for EOR has undergone a variety of previous and preparatory 

activities, a number of opportunities are presented to demonstrate that storage of CO2-A 

will be permanent prior to the start of injection. Although the program will run only over 

the 2 years of demonstration funded by the project, it is our goal to increase confidence 

that the injected CO2 will be permanently stored (1000 year time frame). This is another 

advantage to proving the container, in that not only the area right around the injection 

wells will be assessed, but also the ultimate updip trap. 

Non sealing well completions 

Topical 123
- 22 - 

Wells that penetrate the seal are potential weak points, especially during injection. Wells 

that perform adequately during extraction, when they are pressure sinks, can become 

upwardly transmissive during injection when pressure is increased. Wells that are open 

can be inspected via a logging program, however wells that have been plugged and 

abandoned (P&A) are prohibitively expensive to reenter to inspect. The research MVA 

program will extend the commercial well integrity program, and test its effectiveness. 

 Activities that have been included in the MVA plan: 

 (1) Additional logging program (e.g. temperature, tracers, high end wireline tools) 

(2) Above zone-pressure monitoring – ambient and introduced fluids 

(3) Near-surface soil gas and groundwater monitoring. 

In West Hastings, water disposal into parts of the Miocene prior to CO2 injection has 

elevated pressure and perturbed geochemistry. In addition, prior to CO2 injection, water 

injection may be done in the Frio. If data are collected with care, water flood can serve 

as a pre- CO2 injection proof of containment. In the short term, this elevated pressure is 

a barrier to upward flow. It will be interesting to assess how long this pressure barrier 

will be sustained with respect to long term storage goals. 

Methods for assessing well integrity planned are: 

1) Thermal anomalies though casing (hot fluids expelled from depth, or cold areas 

in shallow zones where CO2 flashes to gas), noise anomalies though casing 

2) Pressure and geochemical anomalies that require perforations 

3) Augmented soil gas/aquifer surveillance methods (methane, CO2, noble 

gases/isotopes, tracers) 

Up fault migration 

In a productive reservoir, faults are adequate seals with respect to the 1000 year 

retention standard, as accumulation even at slow rates greatly exceeds any migration. 

Uncertainly is produced however by injection at pressures above initial pressure. Three 

methods of documenting storage adequacy with respect to faults are (1) calculated, (2) 

measured via microseismic, (3) measured via up-fault fluid migration. 

Calculated fault opening stress is based on fault geometries and considers ambient 

stress plus induced stress. Initial calculation shows that injection pressure planned lies 

well below critical pressure on the fault. However, uncertainties remain because of 

assumptions about the strength of the fault materials. Direct measurements are 

therefore desirable to document that the characterization assumptions are correct. In 

brittle rocks, the stress distribution along a fault may be measured by collection of 

microseismic data, from well bore or in some cases surface installations. However, Frio 

rocks are weak, and we expect that might be able to open without seismicity. We 

propose to directly measure indicators of fluid migration. These measurements are 

mostly well based, because of sensitivity and availability of idle wells, and include 

thermal changes, pressure changes, and fluid composition changes including tracers. 

The later two methods require wells be perforated and completed across a fault zone. 

Topical 124
- 23 - 

Out of pattern migration 

In EOR, pressure gradients from injectors to producers generally control most of the 

flow. Production history, starting with monthly injection/withdrawal ratios (IWR) is a 

relatively simple method of confirming the correctness of this assumption. For the 

research program, BEG will collect monitoring data to determine if CO2 migrates outside 

the pattern to confirm the relevance of this simple method. A combination of geophysics 

(VSP array and gravity) will be used to map the location of the plume edge. This 

technique will be further validated for this site by preparing injectors ahead of schedule, 

and using them early in the flood as monitoring points. After assumption are validated, 

these wells will be used for injection into additional patterns. 

V. Monitoring activities 

Denbury will conduct current commercial practices and provide nonproprietary results to 

the research MVA project at no cost to the project. The results of commercial practices 

provide the standard for the research MVA program. Denbury will provide 

documentation of the commercial activities described in the Scope of Work throughout 

the two year MVA monitoring period. 

Denbury’s typical EOR operation takes 100% of the produced well stream back to the 

recycle facility where the oil, water and gas are separated and measured. The produced 

volumes are allocated to each producer based on a monthly test. A sufficient number of 

test sites are constructed throughout each field to test each producer at least once a 

month. CO2 injection is measured by meters located at each injector. 

Tubing and casing pressures are measured continuously on the production and 

injection wells using radio transmitters that communicate back to the SCADA system. 

The daily CO2 injection volumes to each injector is also measured using this system, 

along with wellhead and upstream pressures to the choke. The wellhead and 

downstream pressures to the choke will also be measured on the producing wells, thus 

allowing for continuous monitoring of well performance. If downstream pressure builds 

to high levels, relief valves will be activated to allow for bleed off of line pressure. 

 

Tracer surveys and/or temperature logs will be run be run periodically in injectors to 

determine where the CO2 is being injected. Temperature logs, spinner surveys and 

capacitance logs will be run in producers periodically to define from which zone(s) the 

production is originating from. This data will be used to update the model during the two 

year research monitoring period. Profile surveys in the injectors and producers are 

expected to be conducted a minimum of twice per year. If injection and production rates 

do not change significantly, it can be assumed that the profiles are not changing and the 

frequency of these surveys can be reduced. 

Once reservoir pressure has been raised to the desired operating pressure, injection 

and production will be balanced so that an injection to voidage ratio of approximately 

1:1 is maintained. As described in the “Performance of wells” section above, these 

calculations will be performed on a monthly basis to show whether the pattern is over or 

Topical 125
- 24 - 

under injecting. Remedial operations such as acidizing, re-perforating and/or other 

repairs will be performed on wells, if required, to maintain balanced patterns. 

Research based monitoring augments the commercial monitoring through an 

interlocked system of collection of characterization data, modeling and risk assessment. 

As data is obtained, revisions will be made to our monitoring techniques and reservoir 

model. By the end of the two year research MVA program, the performance of the 

container is expected to be proven, greatly increasing confidence in storage 

permanence. 

Scope of Work 

Phase 2A, Task 1- Administrative task and subcontracting 

Prior to initiation of Phase 2 activities, a number of subtasks will be completed. These 

are not assigned costs but past experience suggests that they may consume time. 

Phase 2A, Task 2- Reservoir Modeling-Initial characterization and modeling 

Denbury will provide data (as in-kind cost share) refined for input into the reservoir 

model to be constructed by BEG. This data will be input into task 2 reservoir modeling 

and used to document that the flood conforms to expected plume area and pressure 

elevation. Letter report will include data files as improved characterization data are 

collected. BEG will undertake reservoir modeling using the initial available data to 

predict range of plume sizes and the magnitude and distribution of pressure elevation. 

Table 6 shows the data that will be sought and the source. Reservoir modeling for 

research MVA differs from commercial monitoring done by Denbury as it (1) approaches 

from a migration of risk perspective, to identify uncertainties in the characterization that 

might lead to risk of CO2 migrating from the intended injection area, such as unmapped 

heterogeneities in the reservoir, and (2) although oil is represented in the model as an 

important part of the system, predicted oil production will not be reported as such results 

are outside the scope of the study. 

Table 6. Data for modeling and likely data source 

Data Source 

Field history including historical 

production drive mechanism, water 

flood, historical pressures, etc 

 Denbury and literature search 

Reservoir geometry / static model BEG from task 1 

Initial conditions (pressures, 

saturations, o/w contact...) 

 Denbury 

Boundary conditions BEG from task 1 

Production tests / field tests results Denbury 

Permeability / porosity 

measurements 

 Denbury* 

Relative permeability end points Denbury* 

Topical 126
- 25 - 

Relative permeability and capillary 

pressure curves 

 Denbury* and literature 

Oil and gas composition Denbury* 

PVT (viscosity, density) data for oil Denbury* 

Brine composition or at least TDS Denbury, sampling program 

Well locations Denbury 

Perforated intervals for injection and 

production wells 

 Denbury 

Current injection and production 

schedule and rates 

 Denbury 

Historical production/injection rates if 

available 

 Files, to be allocated 

Temperature data Denbury 

Proximity of other oil/gas fields Denbury + literature search 

*Commercial proprietary non-funded data utilized to refine fluid flow and pressure modeling may 

be withheld from public information. 

. BEG, in consultation with Denbury, will prepare a formal report describing model 

assumptions and outputs, as well as uncertainties that should be considered in a 

monitoring program. Commercial proprietary data used for input in the model may be 

withheld by Denbury from the report. 

Phase 2A, Task 3- Characterization and geomechanical description of fault(s) 

BEG will undertake compilation of additional characterization data and further model the 

effect of a range of possible stress changes on faults, with focus on the main sealing 

fault at the east edge of the field. To the extent legally available, Denbury will provide 

the data and review the results as in-kind cost share. BEG will prepare a letter report, 

which will predict conditions at which critical stress on fault will occur and recommend 

improvements to the fault monitoring plan. 

Phase 2A, Task 4- Soil Gas-Feasibility test of surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will undertake an initial assessment of soil gas conditions near representative P&A 

wells, in consultation with Denbury, to consider complexities that should be considered 

for soil gas assessment to reduce uncertainties about well integrity in P&A wells. BEG 

will also include learning from other soil gas tests now underway, for example work at 

Cranfield, by Denbury at Oyster Bayou, and international projects. This activity will 

occur after this part of the project has received a CX or under a NEPA waiver. BEG will 

prepare a letter report recommending future monitoring strategies. 

Phase 2A, Task 5- Groundwater monitoring-Feasibility test of surveillance of P&A 

wells 

BEG will sample available wells and review Texas Water Development Board historic 

records to obtain information about the range of water chemistries and how to best test 

for rock-CO2-water interaction in the aquifer should unintended CO2 migration occur. It 

will also include learning from other projects underway at BEG and elsewhere to identify 

criteria that may signal migration. Denbury will review with regard to placement of 

Topical 127
- 26 - 

monitoring wells for next stage of study. Field work will occur after CX or NEPA waiver 

is obtained. BEG will prepare a letter report recommending future monitoring strategies. 

Phase 2A, Task 6-AZMI-Establish current pressure profile via Repeat Formation 

Test (RFT) on new drill wells 

The pressure environment at West Hastings has been highly perturbed by salt water 

disposal, oil and brine production, and fresh water production. This test plan will be 

used to characterize the pressure field and select above zone monitoring interval 

(AZMI). Denbury will design the drilling program to collect good quality pressure data 

and will discuss the plan and results with BEG. Wells will then be completed by Denbury 

as AZMI wells in task 16. BEG expects the target for completion is the Miocene, 

provided that pressure is stable. The Miocene is currently significantly above original 

reservoir pressure since it has been used for the disposal of the water produced from 

the Frio reservoirs. Workovers were costed out, because remediating the lack of cement 

behind casing was more expensive than new drills. This activity will occur after CX or 

NEPA waiver is received. Denbury will prepare a report with as-build construction and 

RFT results. 

Phase 2A, Task 7- Logging-Feasibility test of surveillance of idle wells and fault

Sandia will subcontract and guide development of a new tool for active temperature 

stimulation of the reservoir to identify fluid changes and fluid flow. Zones with 

permeability recover faster from a thermal pulse, and it is hoped that this tool will 

provide permeability information relevant to migration on faults and fluid changes in 

AZMI though casing. Denbury will provide initial assess points for testing this tool in up 

to three wells that are in operation prior to the B and C flood. Novel tool development is 

seen as an important part of this project. Sandia will prepare a letter report with as-built 

tool design and operation, test results and recommendation for further use. 

 

Phase 2A, Task 8- Decision Point, Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and 

cost distribution 

BEG, in consultation with Denbury, will update the risk assessment and research MVA 

plan and cost distribution based on the results of previous data collection efforts, and 

will make adjustments to the research MVA program to supplement commercial 

operations. BEG will prepare a formal report containing phase 2B recommendations. 

 

Phase 2B, Task 9- Commercial Flood Monitoring - Well Review and Remediation

Denbury will define the mechanical status of every wellbore within the possible plume 

area of the injected CO2. Wells with mechanical problems, that won’t allow isolation of 

the CO2 within the targeted reservoir being flooded, will be re-plugged or remediated 

prior to the start of injection. This work will be done as part of the commercial field 

development project, at no cost to the research MVA project. Denbury will prepare a 

letter report of well status showing compliance with RRC regulations. 

Phase 2B, Task 10- Logging-Baseline Surveillance of idle wells and fault 

Sandia will conduct a survey beyond that conducted by Denbury in task 9 using an 

array of tools to critically evaluate condition of wells, especially with regard to potential 

Topical 128
- 27 - 

for natural or anthropogenic fluid migration behind casing. This data will provide a 

baseline to show any changes that occur as the field is flooded. Sandia, in conjunction 

with Denbury will select, a sample of 20 representative wells that can be accessed. 

Many wells penetrate the major fault and can be used to assess if any change in fluids 

or fluid movement from injection is occurring in this zone. Sandia will prepare a letter 

report with methods and results. 

 

Phase 2B, Task 11- Soil Gas-Site & Borehole preparation for surveillance of P&A 

wells 

BEG, in consultation with Denbury, will select 20 P&A wells to assess using the 

methods recommended in Phase 2A, Task 4 and develop characterization data such as 

samples and access tubes, shallow wells or other infrastructure needed. BEG will 

prepare a letter report with as built construction and field notes. 

Phase 2B, Task 12- Soil Gas-Baseline surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will conduct, in consultation with Denbury, data collection on soil gas sites that 

were developed in Task 11. Results will be critically assessed to provide information on 

the value of this approach to documenting well integrity. BEG will prepare a letter report 

of methods and data table. 

Phase 2B, Task 13- Ground Water Monitoring -Well preparation 

Denbury and BEG will select four wells that will be completed in the USDW interval and 

monitored for CO2 migration following the methods developed in Phase 2A, Task 5. 

Denbury plans to recomplete existing wells. Thirteen wells with suitable cemented-in 

surface casing below 1650 ft have been identified by the Denbury Field team. BEG will 

prepare a letter report showing as-built construction and field notes 

Phase 2B, Task 14- Ground Water Monitoring -Baseline surveillance 

BEG will purchase a pump, sample and than analyze the groundwater wells installed in 

Task 13. Four sets of samples will be collected to establish a baseline before CO2

injection starts. BEG will prepare a letter report including methods, field notes and data 

table. 

Phase 2B, Task 15- Reservoir Modeling-Upgraded 

BEG will incorporate data from Tasks 2A to predict range of plume sizes and magnitude 

and areas of pressure elevation and provide to Denbury for review. This result will be 

used to modify and adjust the risk assessment and monitoring strategy as needed. BEG 

will prepare a letter report showing changes in model parameters, revised predictions 

on area of CO2 plume and distribution and magnitude of pressure change 

 

Phase 2B, Task 16- AZMI-Well Completions 

Denbury will complete the AZMI wells from Phase 2A, Task 6 in the above zone with 

screens that will protect the poorly consolidated Miocene from sanding over the 

perforations, and install any constructed-in temperature monitoring equipment. Denbury 

will prepare a letter report containing field notes and as-built construction 

 

Topical 129
- 28 - 

Phase 2B, Task 17- AZMI-Instrument Monitoring Wells 

Sandia will install and maintain pressure gauges on monitoring wells completed in Task 

16 in AZMI and fault zones. Completions are designed to be simple, without tubing and 

packer, and pressure gage hung in the water column. Pressure data will be available via 

cell phone or data logger. Sandia will prepare a letter report containing field notes. 

 

Phase 2B, Task 18- AZMI- Hydrologic testing and Baseline geochemical sampling 

Sandia, in consultation with Denbury, will conduct pressure interference test to show 

hydrologic communication and the area over which the AZMI provides evidence of 

containment. BEG will collect and analyze pre injection fluids and gases for 

geochemical samples. Sandia and BEG will prepare a letter report providing methods 

and field notes. 

 

Phase 2B, Task 19- VSP-Baseline 

Denbury, in coordination BEG, will plan and conduct a baseline VSP survey as an 

augmented measure of flood conformance. Each proposed 4D-VSP will illuminate an 

area approximately 1 sqmi. We should plan for 5 3DVSP’s in fault block B/C to image 

CO2 fillup through the reservoir and above/below the reservoir and along faults. With 

high resolution 3D-VSP seismic data we hope to resolve sand units as thin as 10ft. 

When these 3D-VSP's are repeated we will map where the reservoir changes based on 

density and pressure changes in the seismic response. Costs for surveys include the 

surveys, well operations, permitting for seismic sourcing on the surface, and processing. 

The seismic will require a baseline plus 4 repeats in Phase 2C and done in coordination 

with the gravity logging. Denbury will prepare a letter report providing the details of the 

field deployment. 

 

Phase 2B, Task 20- Gravity-Baseline 

Denbury may conduct gravity survey as an augmented measure of conformance. John 

Ferguson at UT Dallas was successful in monitoring water migration during the Delhi 

Field water flood and is studying a model for Hastings. The density variance between 

CO2 and reservoir fluids in Hastings should be more significant than the density 

variance of the injected water and oil in the reservoir during the Delhi water flood, so 

gravity monitoring of the Hastings CO2 flood is expected to be successful in defining the 

location of the CO2 plume. Gravity logging will quantify CO2 saturations in the boreholes 

where porosity is well constrained. Denbury may monitor above/below the reservoir and 

through the reservoir. The baseline is planned to be followed by 4 repeats in Phase 2C. 

Denbury will prepare a letter report documenting field notes and data tables. 

Phase 2B, Task 21- Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration (Completion of downdip 

wells)

As the first year of the flood is being developed, two wells outside that phase will be 

completed by Denbury and used to monitor the possible migration of the CO2 and 

elevation of pressure outside the completed patterns. In the case of Hastings blocks 

B&C, the phases of development will be from the top of structure downdip. These wells 

will become active wells in future phases of development. Denbury will prepare a letter 

report including well completion diagrams and daily records of well-head pressure. 

Topical 130
- 29 - 

 

 

Phase 2B, Task 22- Decision Point, Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and 

cost distribution 

BEG, in consultation with Denbury, will update the risk assessment and MVA plan and 

cost distribution in consideration of the results of previous data collection efforts, and 

will make adjustments to the research MVA program to supplement Denbury’s 

commercial operations. BEG will prepare a formal report containing Phase 2C 

recommendations. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 23- Commercial Flood Monitoring-Injection and Production 

Volumes 

Denbury will report to the research MVA project the results of commercial flood 

monitoring quantifying all injected and produced fluids (including recycle),wellhead 

pressure, and intermittent injection profiles. This commercial monitoring program will 

account for purchase and recycle volumes giving the volume of CO2 in the reservoir and 

the amount methane produced and recycled with the CO2. 

 This work will be done as part of the commercial project but is the most essential 

monitoring data. BEG will prepare a monthly report providing details on the distribution 

of the stored CO2. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 24- Commercial Flood Monitoring-Best Practice Mitigation 

Denbury will provide to the research MVA project information about mitigation for poor 

well performance to document how conformance is attained commercially. For example 

if a well will not accept the planned injection rate at field pressure, Denbury may acidize, 

reperforate, or inject at a higher rate in other parts of pattern. This work will be done as 

part of the commercial field development project. 

Phase 2C, Task 25- Commercial Flood Monitoring-Pressure Maintenance 

Denbury will perform normal well surveillance including monitoring casing pressures in 

both producers and injectors. Denbury will use remediation procedures to repair wells 

with compromised integrity. Denbury will provide the results of this work done as part of 

the commercial project. 

Phase 2C, Task, 26- Commercial Flood Monitoring-IWR Calculation 

Denbury will calculate material balance from data in Task 23 for each pattern on a 

monthly basis to define changes in reservoir performance. Significant changes in IWR 

identify potential problem wells within the pattern (i.e. mechanical problems with 

injectors or inactive wells that are causing the loss of CO2 out of the pattern, or a 

mechanical problem with the producer(s) within that pattern). The problem wells will be 

identified and repaired (re-plugged or remediated). This work will be done as part of the 

commercial field development project. 

Phase 2C, Task 27- Logging-Time lapse surveillance of idle wells and fault 

Sandia will conduct a logging and surveillance program on 20 idle wells for which 

baseline data was collected in Phase 2B, Task 10. This data will be compared to the 

Topical 131
- 30 - 

baseline to show any changes that occur as the field is flooded. Sandia will prepare a 

letter report with methods and results. 

Phase 2C, Task 28- Soil Gas Time lapse surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will collect time lapse data over two years for soil gas sites in which baseline data 

was collected in Phase 2B, Task 12. Results will be critically assessed to provide 

information on the value of this approach to documenting well integrity. BEG will prepae 

a letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

Phase 2C, Task 29- Groundwater Monitoring-Time lapse surveillance 

BEG will sample and then analyze the groundwater wells for which baseline was 

collected in Phase 2B, Task 14. Samples will be collected to look for changes as CO2

injection starts. BEG will prepare a letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

Phase 2C, Task 30- VSP-Time lapse surveys 

Denbury will conduct 4 repeat VSP surveys over the two-year period following the 

baseline run in Phase 2B Task 19. This data will be used to show that the flood is 

conforming to the expected patterns, including providing data about out-of zone 

migration. Denbury will prepare a formal report including methods and results of surveys 

on annual basis 

 

Phase 2C, Task 31- Gravity Time lapse surveys 

Denbury will conduct 4 repeat gravity surveys over the two-year period following the 

baseline run in Phase 2B Task 20. This data will be used to show that the flood is 

conforming to the expected patterns and to quantify the volume distribution. Denbury 

will prepare a formal report including methods and results of surveys on annual basis. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 32- Real Time BHP-Well Preparation 

Sandia will deploy bottom hole pressure gage(s) on a real time read out in one well in 

the injection interval(s). This type of data has proven valuable at Cranfield to assess the 

nature of the flood, and given the complexity at West Hastings is expected to be even 

more valuable. The detailed plan for the well will be designed in 23. Letter report will 

show as-built well schematics. 

Phase 2C, Task 33- Real Time BHP-Sandia 

Sandia will maintain and back up data collected in the deployment described in Phase 

2C Task 35. Sandia will prepare a letter report containing a data tables and field notes. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 34- Logging-Time lapse Surveillance 

Denbury will augment measures of conformance to provide data for match to the model 

by logging about half the injectors and producers in the fault block B and C patterns 

every half year after the flood starts. Combination temperature and tracer surveys will 

be run on injection wells twice per year per well. Producers will have spinner, 

temperature, and capacitance tools run twice a year per well, assuming a 6 month delay 

in start up in producing the wells, while each of the injectors would have a series of four 

Topical 132
- 31 - 

logs run. This program will run on about 1/2 wells and testing of additional log types is 

possible. Denbury will prepare a letter report containing a data tables and field notes. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 35- Natural geochemical tracers-Collected at wellhead 

BEG will, with the assistance of Denbury, collect at wellhead fluid samples from 

producers that serve as augmented measures of conformance, for example evidence of 

dissolution and rock-water interaction. BEG will prepare a letter report containing data 

tables and field notes. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 36- AZMI-Time lapse geochemical sampling & hydrologic testing 

Sandia will conduct time-lapse hydrologic sampling of AZMI wells via pumping for BEG 

to sample to look for any geochemical evidence of out of zone migration of CO2 as part 

of the above -zone and fault monitoring program. BEG will conduct analysis of samples 

and prepare a letter report containing data table and field notes. 

Phase 2C, Task 37- Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration 

In this task Denbury will report observation of the wells prepared in Task 21, including 

first year of fault block B and C flood pressure change at well heads. This should 

provide one year of data before beginning of flood near these wells. Denbury will 

prepare a letter report of pressure data and provide it to BEG for including Phase 2C 

Task 38 history match of well head pressure. 

Phase 2C, Task 38- Reservoir Modeling-Updated 

BEG will aggregate data from Phase 2C activities to history match plume size and 

pressure elevation and test if flood conformance to model expectation was achieved. 

This will focus on CO2 and pressure quantification, not oil production. Denbury will 

review the formal report prepared. 

 

Phase 2C, Task 39- Overview and Evaluation report 

BEG will prepare and Denbury will review a report of the results of this study. BEG and 

Denbury will determine what, if any, added value the research program added to the 

commercial program in terms of confidence in the long-term permanence of storage. 

BEG will recommend any actions that may be informative to future regulations or 

policies related to storage monitoring at EOR sites. This will be a formal report. 

 

Topical 133
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 9 

Project Management Plan 

Topical 134
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AND STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES 

The Lake Charles CCS Project

1. Executive Summary 

This Project Management Plan provides Leucadia’s organizational and management 

capabilities. It also establishes the baseline for scope, schedule, and budget for the Lake 

Charles CCS Project and describes the change control process. 

Objectives 

The overall objective of this large-scale industrial carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS) project is to demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester carbon 

dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources into underground formations. 

Specifically the Lake Charles CCS Project will accelerate commercialization of largescale CO2 storage from industrial sources by leveraging synergy between a proposed 

petcoke to methanol plant (the LCC Gasification Project) and the largest integrated 

anthropogenic CO2 capture, transport, and monitored sequestration program in the U.S. 

Gulf Coast Region. The Lake Charles CCS Project will promote the expansion of EOR 

in the Gulf region and supply greater energy security by expanding domestic energy 

supplies. The compression, pipeline, injection, and monitoring infrastructure will 

continue to sequester CO2 for many years after the completion of the term of the DOE 

agreement. 

The objectives of this project are expected to be fulfilled by working through two distinct 

phases. The overall objective of Phase 1 was to develop a fully definitive project basis for 

a competitive Renewal Application process to proceed into Phase 2 - Design, 

Construction and Operations. Phase 1 included several studies that established: 

1) The engineering design basis for the capture, compression and transportation of 

CO2 from the LCC Gasification Project; and 

2) The criteria and specifications for a monitoring, verification and accounting 

(MVA) plan at the West Hastings oil field. 

The overall objective of Phase 2 is to take the results of the above mentioned studies and 

execute design, construction and operations of three capital projects: 

1) The CO2 capture and compression equipment; 

2) The Lateral from the LCC Gasification Project to Denbury’s Green Pipeline; and 

3) A comprehensive MVA system at the West Hasting oil field. 

Scope of the Project 

The overall project includes integration of CO2 capture, transportation/delivery and 

sequestration with comprehensive monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA). The 

several CO2 streams at 23, 40, and 60 psia from the Rectisol® units will be compressed 

Topical 135
into a combined stream to 2,165 psia for injection into the proposed Lateral. The Lateral 

will transport the CO2 to the Green Pipeline and then on to the oil fields in Texas and 

Louisiana on the Gulf Coast where it will be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). The 

West Hestings CO2 injection site will utilize the required equipment to demonstrate the 

safe and effective storage of CO2 in the oil bearing geological formations with the 

additional benefit of enhancing oil recovery in existing oil fields. 

Phase 1 of the project included preliminary engineering studies to optimize the combined 

cost and energy consumption for Rectisol® and CO2 compression. It also included a 

preliminary engineering investigation into the MVA specifications for two oil fields. 

Phase 2 of this project includes program and project management, detailed engineering, 

procurement, construction, and operation of the Rectisol® unit and CO2 compression 

equipment, the Lateral, and the MVA facilities. 

2. Risk Management 

The purpose of the Risk Management Plan is to describe the methodology for identifying, 

tracking, mitigating, and ultimately retiring items we believe are potentially significant 

risks associated with the Lake Charles CCS Project. This plan will be maintained during 

the entire life of this project. The plan will be reviewed monthly and updated as needed. 

Whenever changes occur, the document’s revision history log will be updated to reflect 

the date, the person updating, and information about the change. 

The Senior Project Manager is responsible for monthly review of the Risk Plan. This will 

be done as part of the monthly project progress reporting to the Executive Committee. 

Any risks already identified will be reviewed and assessed. If any new risks are 

identified as significant to the project, the Senior Project Manager will take the lead to 

identify and recommend to the Executive Committee a course of action. The project 

team member most knowledgeable in the subject area will be designated as the lead 

analyst in quantifying the risk and determining potential mitigation strategies. The analyst 

will provide the team with an assessment of the risk severity and probability of occurring. 

As the analysis process proceeds, the team will gain valuable insight into how the 

identified risk may impact project costs, schedules, scope, or quality. The Senior Project 

Manager, analyst, and key stakeholders will meet to plan, document, and implement the 

best mitigation strategy. 

Topical 136
The diagram below (figure 1) summarizes this Risk Management Process: 

 Step 1 – Identify 

 Step 2 – Analyze 

 Step 3 – Plan 

 Step 4 – Implement 

 Step 5 – Track and Control 

 Step 1 through 5 – Communicate 

That is, the cost of responding to unanticipated problems is always much larger than the 

cost of risk responses planned well in advance. 

Figure 1 

Communication is an essential part of the Risk Management process and is needed every 

step of the way through this process. The Project Manager will ensure team members are 

kept informed by utilizing the team’s web based project management system called 

Simon (See Section 11 below on Communications). 

The Risk Management program for this project will include the following documented 

risks, accountabilities, and training for appropriate team members (Table 1). The 

responsible Team Member has been identified for each risk by functional title in the Risk 

Matrix as the Accountable Person (AP). They will be responsible for monitoring 

activities related to this risk and ensuring the team is immediately alerted, should that be 

necessary. Per DOE Phase-2 guidance, we have focused on risks the project team 

believes pose “significant technical, resource, or management risks that have the potential 

to impede project progress”: 

Identify

Analyze

Plan

Im

ple

m

e

nt

Tra ck /

C ontrol

Com m unicate

Identify

S e a rc h a n d lo c a te ris k s BEFORE th e y

m aterialize

Analyze

P ro c e s s ris k d a ta in to d e cis io n -m a k in g

inform ation

Plan

T ra n s la te ris k in fo rm a tio n in to d e c is io n s a n d

actions (m itigations)

Com m unicate

In fo rm a tio n a n d fe e d b a c k th ro u g h o u t a ll ris k

m anagem ent functions and project organizations

Im plem ent

E xe c u te d e c is io n s a n d

m itig a tio n a c tio n p la n s

Track/Control

M o n ito r ris k in d ic a to rs a n d

m itig a tio n a c tio n s

C o rre ct fo r d e via tio n s fro m

p la n n e d risk a c tio n s

Topical 137
Risk Description Potential 

Impact 

Probability / 

Severity 

Time-Frame 

Mitigation Strategy 

And The 

Accountable Person (AP) 

Changing Regulatory Conditions: 

Current policy shifts at the 

federal level, relative to energy 

efficiencies related to 

construction and EPA 

environmental regulation. 

Cost, 

Schedule 

Medium/ 

Medium 

Design and 

Construction 

Period and 

Long Term 

Negotiate with regulatory 

agencies to apply current 

regulations for the entire life of 

the implementation of the 

project. 

AP = Bus Dev & Gov Affairs 

Procurement Risk: Inability to 

obtain key components in a 

timely manner could delay the 

project. 

Cost, 

Schedule 

Low / 

Medium 

Throughout all 

phases 

Monitor supplier and industry 

lead times on critical 

components to ensure they are 

ordered and received in a timely 

manner. Project team will 

maintain a file of vendor bids 

and alternate suppliers in the 

event the Leucadia supplier’s 

lead time becomes 

unacceptable. 

AP = Engineering & 

Construction companies 

Quality of Construction Issues: 

Failure to properly execute the 

work. 

Schedule, 

Cost 

Low/ 

Medium 

Construction 

Period 

Mandate quality assurance and 

control programs for all 

Leucadia vendors. Implement 

robust inspection and quality 

program oversight. 

AP = Site Project Manager + 

Project Analyst 

Insufficient Construction 

Production: Failure to plan or 

recognize risk of timely 

completion due to lack of 

sufficient production of work 

activities. 

Schedule Design and 

Construction 

Period 

Design and 

Construction 

Period 

Implement production charting 

and reporting system that 

recognize all potential impacts 

and include pre-established 

mitigation strategies. Include 

time contingencies for design 

issues and potential regulatory 

delays. 

AP = Site Project Manager + 

LEC 

Worker Safety Issues Related to 

Pressurized CO2: Workforce may 

not be fully trained for risk and 

conditions relative to working 

with pressurized CO2 systems 

and facilities. 

Safety, 

Schedule 

Medium/ 

High 

Design and 

Construction 

Period and 

Long Term 

Implement comprehensive CO2 

training program and mandate 

participation by individuals 

associated with this area of the 

project. 

Topical 138
AP = Site Project Mgr 

Adverse Publicity Risk: The 

project may receive adverse 

publicity due to a safety or 

environmental accident or a 

vendor / personnel issue. 

Cost, 

Schedule 

Low / 

Low 

Design and 

Construction 

periods 

Field supervisors will be 

instructed to report any safety or 

environmental accident or 

vendor / personnel issue to the 

LC Site Project Manager. The 

LC Site Project Manager will 

assess the situation and 

immediately report it to the 

Program Manager and Senior 

Project manager who will 

inform the Executive 

Committee. Any serious 

incidents will be immediately 

reported to NETL. 

 

AP = Site Project Mgr + 

Bus Dev & Public Relations 

Delays may cause could result in 

insufficient time for MVA. : 

Like any large complex project, 

the potential exists for slippages 

that could impact the ability to 

conduct MVA activities. . 

Schedule Low 

Medium 

MVA Early identification of 

scheduling challenges and 

mitigation measures. If, 

however, delays arise, the 

project can use existing 

Denbury capabilities to validate 

transmission, injection, and 

MVA 

AP = Executive Committee 

Pipeline ROW delays: Schedule Medium 

Low 

Transportation Denbury has rights of eminent 

domain which can be exercised 

in necessary 

Failure in the reservoir seal or in 

PA wells: The integrity of the 

designated injection zone may 

prove insufficient to maintain the 

CO2 due to either not detected 

construction flaws/damage or 

elevated pressures resulting in 

migration to areas not controlled 

by the flood 

Cost 

Schedule 

and Scope 

Low 

Medium 

MVA Review of wells prior to flood 

coupled with regular and 

frequent evaluations of the 

amount of CO2 being injected 

versus production would 

identify any such issues early 

and allow for appropriate 

corrective actions. 

AP =Site Program Manager 

Table 1 

Topical 139
The Accountable Person designated in the Risk Management Plan will provide an update 

on his assigned risks each month unless the risk is to a level that requires immediate 

action. This written update will be provided to the Senior Project Manager for inclusion 

in the Monthly Status Report to the Executive Committee. 

This Risk Management Plan is a living document. Additional risks may be added and 

currently identified risks may be closed-out as the project progresses. 

3. Project Milestones 

Tasks To Be Performed and Associated Deliverables 

The expected time line for the Lake Charles CCS Project is illustrated below (Figure 2). 

In addition, we have developed a detailed Microsoft Project Schedule at the work 

breakdown structure (WBS) level 6. The timeline shows that pipeline route selection and 

obtaining the Rectisol technology license occurred in 2009. The MVA plan is laid out in 

early 2010 as is the optimization of the capture and CO2 compressor. Later in that year, 

permitting and surveying for the pipeline is initiated, as are pipeline right-of-way, and 

pipeline design and engineering. Design and engineering for the capture and compressor 

is initiated at the beginning of 2011. Pipe purchase is performed in 2012 with pipeline 

construction initiated later that year. The beginning of 2013 the Rectisol installation is 

initiated, with initial installation of the compressors following later that year. The CCS 

project becomes operational early in 2014. 

Figure 2 

Topical 140
Significant Phase 2 Milestones: 

The following figure provides a level 4 schedule. 

Figure 3 

As identified in the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) and the resource loaded 

schedules, below are some of the significant technical and management milestones for 

Phase 2. These tasks show the methodology to be used in accomplishing our goals and 

they will be monitored closely. As new information becomes available, the project team 

will make any needed adjustments to ensure the specific needs of the project are 

achieved. 

Significant Project 

Milestone Title 

Planned 

Completion 

Method used to verify 

completion 

Rectisol CO2 Capture 

Design 01/03/2011 

Design documents signed by licensed 

engineer and accepted by Leucadia 

Compression Design 01/03/2011 

Design documents signed by licensed 

engineer and accepted by Leucadia 

Topical 141
Pipeline Design and 

Environmental Permitting 01/03/2011 

Design documents signed by licensed 

engineer and accepted by Leucadia 

MVA Design 01/03/2011 

Design documents signed by licensed 

engineer and accepted by Leucadia 

 

Rectisol CO2 Capture 09/02/2013 Engineering report of test run 

Compression Energized 02/27/2013 

Compressors run and lines brought up 

to full pressure 

Pipeline Construction 06/30/2013 Pipeline brought up to full pressure 

MVA Construction 06/30/2013 Engineering report of test run 

 

Rectisol CO2 Capture 01/01/2014 

Engineering report of test run accepted 

by Leucadia 

Compression Operation 01/01/2014 

Engineering report of test run accepted 

by Leucadia 

Pipeline Operation 01/01/2014 

Engineering report of test run accepted 

by Leucadia 

MVA Operation 01/01/2014 

Engineering report of test run accepted 

by Leucadia 

Table 2 

4. Funding and Costing Profile 

Total Funding by Source 

Total Funding Government 

Cost Share 

Percentage 

Government 

Funding 

Leucadia 

Cost Share 

Percentage 

Leucadia 

Funding 

$432,448,517 60% $259,469,110 40% $172,979,407 

Table 3 

The total funding required for the Lake Charles CCS project is $432.5 million. Leucadia 

proposes a 60% government cost share, with Leucadia providing the remaining 40%. 

Total Funding by Task 

 

Design (2A) Construction 

(2B) 

Operation 

(2C) 

Total 

$13,648,647 $410,026,869 $8,773,001 $432,448,517 

Table 4 

Topical 142
Most of the required funding is required in subtask 2B, Construction. The funding profile 

anticipates the potential for an Environmental Impact Statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act, should NETL make such a determination in the future. 

Total Funding by System 

CO2 Capture CO2

Compression 

CO2

Transport 

MVA Program 

Management 

EIS/EA Total 

$296,087,670 $90,353,112 $26,170,991 $14,580,354 $4,656,390 $600,000 $432,448,517

Table 5 

The CO2 capture and compression units account for nearly 90% of the total funding 

requirement by component system. 

Monthly Spend Plan 

Month 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

January $85,522 $102,785,312 $14,445,384 $589,194 $364,746

February $285,123 $16,929,060 $11,125,261 $527,781 $339,1 89

March $735,330 $2,095,613 $9,295,774 $513,506 $364,746

April $2,119,092 $33,819,498 $3,561,374 $533,977 $364,746

May $4,374,225 $17,188,571 $1,765,830 $533,977 $351,968

June $732,549 $11,374,074 $4,159,387 $513,506 $364,746

July $3,891,1 32 $982,654 $16,371,872 $1,880,889 $385,217 $379,0 26

August $1,319,9 79 $2,879,701 $106,137,619 $64,310 $351,968 $353,3 39

September $1,782,2 10 $9,772,494 $8,926,261 $720,873 $364,746 $364,0 46

October $1,844,4 59 $1,338,567 $4,948,542 $64,310 $377,525 $35,16 0

November $1,941,2 72 $2,937,649 $8,950,160 $64,310 $339,189 $41,21 0

December $2,869,5 97 $916,707 $6,128,659 $64,309 $377,525 $41,96 5

Total $13,64 8,647 $27,159,612 $335,655,242 $47,212,013 $5,408,112 $3,364,8 89

Table 6 

An important component of the Renewal Application in response to Solicitation Number: 

DE-FOA-0000015, is the identification of a financial management system to coordinate with 

the other critical component, the project management system. Of essential importance is that 

the financial management system be acceptable to the Defense Contract Audit Agency 

(DCAA). Equally important is that the chosen system be scalable for use by Leucadia Energy 

as the project transitions from inception to construction to full operation. 

In general, the following selection criteria were used for Project Management technology 

evaluation: 

 Help project managers easily manage status, resources, revenue, and expenses 

for the various components of this complex projects. 

 Ability to operate online to allow project managers to do their job effectively 

outside of the office. 

 Scalable to meet future needs of a growing business. 

Topical 143
 Provide project specific and enterprise-level reporting, flexible decisionmaking support, and timely, relevant business insight with significantly high 

usability and flexibility. 

 Consolidate project information into one repository, for example, work plans, 

progress, issues, changes, documents, cost information, budgets, actuals and 

forecasts, performance, and status reports. 

 Plan the work, assign resources, forecast to completion, and communicates to 

stakeholders, while streamlining the collaborative execution of project work. 

 Centralizes accounting including track time for billing purposes and/or job 

cost allocation as well as establish budgets, for both projects and business 

units 

 Enables reporting that allows expenses to be tracked, easily creates top level 

financial reports. Additionally it complies with assorted regulations, such as 

IRS, DOE, OMB and GAO standards and, specifically, Federal Financial 

Reports SF- 424A, SF-425, and the Reporting and Registration Requirements 

under Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Specifically as part of the Lake Charles CCS project, the following requirements will also be 

met: 

Funding and Costing Profile – Showing: (a) for Phase 2, th e total amount of funding and the 

government funding going to each m ember and cost-share provided by m embers, including 

totals and cost-sharing percentages; (b) budget by ta sk and subtask for Ph ase 2; (c) budget by 

component system and subsystem; and, (d) pr oject spend plan, by m onth, for the expenditure 

of Government funds in Phase 2. The sys tem will a lso c ontribute to the cr eation and 

monitoring of the plan to obtain the funding for the entire non-DOE share of the total project 

cost. This f unding plan will identify all sources of project funds and, specifically, the nonDOE share of the first sub-phase (i.e., Phase 2a, Design) prior to the Phase 2 award, and the 

plan to obtain the funding for the non-DOE shar e of future project su b-phases (i.e., Phase 2b 

and 2c). 

Budget Details – The system will be capable of maintaining budget details for Phase 2, by task 

and system, including the following budget elements: 

(a) Labor (direct) by labor category in terms of number of hours and percent of effort; 

(b) Labor rates and costs; 

(c) Travel; 

(d) Equipment; 

(e) Materials and supplies; 

(f) Contracts (sub-awards); 

(g) Other direct costs; 

(h) Indirect costs; 

Spend Plan – The financial management system will maintain the spend plan 

incorporated into the Project Management Plan for Phase 2. The spend plan will include 

tables of the following information: 

Topical 144
(a) By sub-phase and reporting quarter, the amount of government funding going to 

each team member and cost-share provided by members. The table shall also 

calculate totals and cost-sharing percentages. 

(b) For Phase 2 monthly the projected expenditure of the government funds. 

Project Milestones – They system will handle the significant technical and management 

milestones associated with the Phase 2 efforts of the project, including title, planned 

completion date and a description of the method/process/ measure used to verify 

completion. . 

Resource-Loaded Schedule – The system is able to handle a schedule timeline of the 

project broken down by phase/sub-phase and which incorporates the work breakdown 

structure, and funding and costing profile. The system will have to provide quarterly 

electronic updates in a format compatible with Primavera. 

Work Breakdown Structure – The system is able to manage and report on the technical 

scope, budget and schedule basis at Levels 5 and 6. Additionally, the system will include 

and maintain the project resource-loaded schedule consistent with this work breakdown 

structure. 

Project Monitoring, Change Control and Process Improvement – The system will support 

the project’s formal change control process. 

5. Resource-Loaded Schedule 

The Lake Charles CCS Project resource loaded schedule, found in Attachment 1 below, 

has been prepared in Microsoft Office Project 2007. Per NETL guidance, the project 

schedule will be managed based upon a minimum Level-5 product-oriented work 

breakdown structure (WBS). For CO2 capture and CO2 transport, the project schedule 

will be managed at the Level-6. For MVA, the project schedule will be managed at 

Level-5. Section 9 of this Project Management Plan (PMP) describes the project’s WBS. 

The resource estimates included in this resource loaded schedule were used to develop 

the Funding and costing profile included in section 4 of this PMP. 

The overall objective of Phase 1 was to develop a fully definitive project basis for a 

competitive Renewal Application process to proceed into Phase 2 - Design, Construction 

and Operations. During Phase 1, the Leucadia team completed several studies that 

established: 

1) The engineering design basis for the capture, compression and transportation of 

CO2 from the LCC Gasification Project; and 

2) The criteria and specifications for a monitoring, verification and accounting 

(MVA) plan at the West Hastings oil fields. 

Topical 145
This phase was initiated on November 2009 and is scheduled to be completed in June 

2010. 

Phase 2 is projected to be initiated in September 2010. The objective of Phase 2 is to 

take the results of the two above mentioned studies and execute design, construction and 

operations of three capital projects: 

1) The CO2 capture and compression equipment; 

2) The Lateral from the LCC Gasification Project to Denbury’s Green Pipeline; and 

3) An MVA system. 

Phase 2 is broken into three subphases; Design (2A), Construction (2B), and Operation 

(2C). 

Subphase 2A is projected to be completed in January 2011. Leucadia will notify NETL of 

its intent to progress to Subphase 2B in October 2010. The overall cost of this Subphase 

is $12,221,820. The major activities conducted in this subphase include the design of the 

Rectisol® and compression equipment, the design and permitting of Lateral, and the 

design of the MVA. During this subphase, the major milestones associated with CO2

capture include the signing by a licensed engineer and the acceptance by Leucadia of 

design documents for the Rectisol® unit (01/02/2012) and the compression facility 

(11/29/2011). The major milestones associated with CO2 transport is also the signing by 

a licensed engineer and the acceptance by Leucadia of the design documents for the 

pipeline (02/02/2012) and for the MVA (04/04/2011). Section 3 of this PMP includes a 

complete set of milestones. 

Subphase 2B is projected to start on January 2011 and be completed in January 2014. 

Leucadia will notify NETL of its intent to progress to Subphase 2B in October 2013. The 

overall cost of this Subphase is $412,155,769. The major activities of this subphase are 

construction of the Rectisol® and compression units, as well as the pipeline and MVA. 

During this subphase, the major milestones associated with CO2 capture activities include 

the engineering report of the test run of the Rectisol® unit (07/13/2013) and the running 

of the compressors at full pressure (09/15/2013). The major milestone associated with 

CO2 transport activities is bringing the pipeline up to full pressure (07/01/2013). The 

major milestone associated with the MVA is the engineering report of the test run 

(07/01/2013). 

Subphase 2C is projected to start on January 2014 and be completed in September 2015. 

The overall cost of this Subphase is $8,070,927. The major activities of this subphase are 

the operation of the Rectisol® and compression equipment, pipeline, and MVA. The 

major milestones for this subphase are the acceptance by Leucadia of the engineering 

report of test run for the Rectisol® (01/01/2014), the compression equipment 

(01/01/2014), the pipeline (07/01/2013), and the MVA (01/01/2014). 

 

Topical 146
Leucadia Energy

VP D. Maley 

Leucadia CCS Executive Committee

L. Miller, D. Cathro, H. Johnston 

M. Walker, D. Barba, D. Cook 

Lake Charles CCS

Denbury

Project Management

Black & Veatch

Project Management 

Turner Construction

Sandia ENGlobal 

Technologies, LLC

Bureau of Economic 

Geology 

Program 

Management 

Staff 

Vetting of Changes to Schedules 

and Costs 

And 

Approval of All Reports to NETL 

6. Project Management Organization 

The Integrated Project Team for Lake Charles CCS includes Leucadia, Denbury, Black 

and Veatch, University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, Sandia Technologies, 

Turner Construction, and ENGlobal. Leucadia, as the Recipient, will coordinate 

resources to ensure the timely and successful completion of all Phase 2 Tasks. The 

Leucadia Executive Committee will be the overall project governing body. Figure 4 

below is an overview of the project management reporting structure: 

Figure 4 

Final Authority on 

Finance and Schedules 

Topical 147
Leucadia plans to execute a consulting agreement with Black & Veatch (“B&V”) upon 

selection for a Phase-2 Award to provide Program Management and Project Management 

services, and with Kroll to provide Financial Management Services. These services will 

include, but are not limited to: 

 Coordinate project schedules between multiple entities 

 Provide consolidated progress reporting for all project participants 

 Coordinate project earned value reporting 

 Help perform risk management assessments and identify mitigation strategies 

 Provide financial systems support for project cost tracking 

 Support Leucadia in complying with NETL and local, state, and federal reporting 

requirements 

 Support the Leucadia Executive Committee 

Leucadia will execute a contract with Denbury Onshore, LLC (“Denbury”) to design, 

construct, and operate both the Lateral and the MVA for the Hastings field. Denbury has 

provided cost and schedule estimates via the Resource-Loaded Schedule for engineering 

and construction services related to the CO2 pipeline and MVA activities. Denbury has 

extensive experience in planning and implementing pipelines. 

Denbury plans to execute a contract with the University Texas Bureau of Economic 

Geology (“BEG”) to undertake the tasks related to sequestration MVA. Specifically these 

tasks include the sequestration risk assessment and MVA plan, the site-specific options 

evaluation, and the final MVA plan and detailed budget. The University of Texas would 

in turn contract for specific assignments which require extensive supervision such as 

specialized MVA surveys and equipment installation to the Sandia Technologies. The 

specific assignments are spelled out in the MVA discussions and are included in the 

overall project schedule. Both BEG and Sandia Technologies were actively involved in 

similar efforts during Phase 1. Denbury plans to contract with ENGlobal to construct the 

Lateral. ENGlobal is an internationally recognized energy engineering and professional 

services company. 

Leucadia plans to also execute a consulting agreement with B&V upon selection for a 

Phase-2 award for engineering services. B&V has designed, performed feasibility 

studies, and performed independent project assessments for numerous gasification and 

IGCC projects using various gasification technologies. B&V has provided cost and 

schedule estimates via the Resource-Loaded Schedule for engineering and construction 

services related to CO2 capture and compression activities. 

Leucadia will execute a contract with Turner Construction for the construction of the 

carbon capture facilities including both the Rectisol® unit and the compression facility. 

Turner is a world-class industrial contractor and an industry leader in construction and 

pipe fabrication, maintenance and turnarounds, and equipment. 

The persons responsible for coordinating responses to NETL for this project (including 

consultants or retained counsel) from the Leucadia team are as follows: 

Topical 148
 Business Development & Government Affairs: Hunter Johnston 

(hjohnston@steptoe.com) 

 Financial Management: Jim Check (jcheck@kroll.com) 

 Business Representative: Doug Cathro (dcathro@enerventech.com) and Bruce 

Smith ( bruce.smith@denbury.com) 

 Legal Representative: Environmental Counsel: Cynthia Taub 

(ctaub@steptoe.com) and Government Contracts Counsel: Andy Irwin 

(airwin@steptoe.com) (Steptoe & Johnson, LLC) 

 Financial Representative: Linda Miller (lindaamiller@hotmail.com) and Alan 

Rhoades (alan.rhoades@denbury.com) 

In addition to the above personnel, as provided in the application, Leucadia will also 

draw upon the expertise of Donald W. Maley, Jr., Cliff L. Kerr, Lawrence R. Leib, Scott 

K. Pierce, Robby Collums, and Jay F. Nagori to complete the tasks identified in section B 

above. Likewise Denbury will draw upon the expertise of Connell R. Rader, Barry 

Schneider, and Charles E. Gibson. 

The program management function for the Leucadia CCS grant program is centered on 

the Leucadia CCS Executive Committee. This committee reports directly to the Leucadia 

Vice President. This committee will be responsible for complete oversight of the project, 

management of the integrated project team, submitting all required reports to NETL, and 

recommending action on major financial and scheduling decisions to Leucadia. 

The committee is supported in carrying out these responsibilities by a Program 

Management team. The team will be led by a Program Manager with extensive 

experience working with DOE and NETL and familiar with the goals and objectives of 

the CCS projects. Under the Program Manager is a senior level of specialists focusing on 

financial, project management, and project technical. This level will be responsible for 

developing the reports, maintaining the schedules, managing the change control process, 

developing and implementing the financial management system, and providing other 

support as required by the Executive Committee. Figure 5 portrays the organization of 

the Leucadia Program Management function. 

 

Figure 5 

Leucadia CCS 

Executive Committee 

Senior / Deputy 

Program Manager 

Senior / Deputy 

Project Manager 

Senior / Deputy 

Financial Manager 

Topical 149
7. Roles and Responsibilities 

The roles and responsibilities of the members of the integrated team are discussed below. 

Government – NETL is responsible monitoring the progress of Leucadia’s CCS project, 

providing technical direction, and recommending alternative approaches where 

appropriate. Leucadia will collaborate with NETL on all aspects of the project plan. 

NETL will conduct semiannual review meetings, act as a liaison with other programs and 

industry staff, and facilitate technology transfer efforts. In furthering their 

responsibilities on the project, NETL may evaluate any or all of the work being 

performed within the project. NETL is responsible for reviewing technical performance 

and approving the project to progress to subsequent subphases. 

Leucadia - Leucadia has overall responsibility for working with NETL and managing the 

planning and implementation of the Lake Charles CCS Project and overseeing the 

conduct of all project participants. Leucadia is also responsible for working with NETL 

and all required reporting on the project, including ARRA required reporting. 

Denbury – Denbury’s responsibilities are focused on the CO2 transport and sequestration. 

Within those areas, Denbury has responsibility the planning and implementation of the 

pipeline and MVA within the guidelines provided by Leucadia and NETL. 

University of Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology – BEG is responsible for 

implementing portions of the MVA within Denbury’s guidance. BEG’s responsibilities 

include the sequestration risk assessment and MVA plan, the site-specific options 

evaluation, and the final MVA plan and detailed budget. 

Sandia Technologies – Sandia is responsible for supporting BEG’s MVA activities by 

conducting specialized MVA surveys and equipment installation. 

Black & Veatch – B&V is responsible for providing to Leucadia the design and 

engineering of the facilities and equipment necessary for the carbon capture and 

compression processes, within the guidelines provided by Leucadia and NETL, and for 

provision of project management services. 

ENGlobal – ENGlobal is responsible for the construction of the CO2 pipeline following 

the design and guidance provided by Denbury. 

8. Key Personnel 

Table 7 provides the people who are considered essential to the project. Should the need 

arise to replace one or more of these individuals, Leucadia will notify NETL and receive 

NETL approval for the replacement. Leucadia will make this notification as soon as the 

change becomes known to minimize impact on the project. 

Topical 150
Name Title (Leucadia unless specified)

Don Maley Vice President 

Cliff Kerr Construction Team Lead 

Larry Lieb Construction Team Lead 

Jay Nagori Project Engineering Manager 

Scott Pierce Operations Manager 

Robby Collins Operations Manager 

Tracy Evans Denbury – President and CEO 

Connell Rader Denbury - Manager Pipelines 

Barry Sneider Denbury - VP East Region Operations 

Charles Gibson Denbury VP West Region Operations 

Table 7 

9. Work Breakdown Structure 

 

The Lake Charles CCS Project will be managed to the WBS level 5 or 6. CO2 capture 

and transport are managed to level 6, while MVA is managed to level 5. The general 

description of the WBS structure is displayed in Figure 6. The details and definitions of 

the WBS are included in the Statement of Program Objectives. 

Topical 151
 Leucadia Energy Phase-2: WBS Level-1 thru 6 

Phase-1

* Complete *

Level-2

SOPO Task 1, 2, 3

Transportatio

n & Injection

Level-4

Task 6.3

Compressi

on Level-4

Task 6.2

Phase-2B

Construction 

Level-3

SOPO Task 5

MVA

Level-4

Task 4.4

MVA

Level-4

Task 6.4

Phase-2

Level-2

Phase-2C

Operation 

Level-3

SOPO Task 6

Transportatio

n & Injection

Level-4

Task 5.3

Compressi

on Level-4

Task 4.2

CCS 

Lake Charles

(WBS Level-1)

MicroSoft Project

Level-5

Right of 

way

MVA

Level-4

Task 5.4

Program 

Management

Phase-2A

Design 

Level-3

SOPO Task 4

Compressio

n Level-4

Task 5.2

Transport & 

Injection

Level-4

Task 4.3

Level-6

Landowner 

List

Level-5

Piping

Level-6

Drawungs

Level-5

Soil Gas 

feasibility

Level-5

Piping

Level-6

Stress 

analysis

Level-5

Pipeline

Level-5

AZMI -

Instrument 

monitoring 

wells

Level-6

Welding

Level-5

Compress

or

Level-5

Pipeline

Level-5

Measure 

out of 

pattern 

migration

Level-6

Monitor

Level-6

Monitor 

Pressure

NOTE:

The Level-5 and Level-6 tasks shown above

are intended to be a notional task or

disciplines and are not a complete list. 

Rectisol 

Capture

Level-4

Task 4.1

Level-5

Electri

Level-6

Drawings

Rectisol 

Capture 

Level-4

Task 5.1

Level-5

Electric

Level-6

switching

Rectisol 

Capture 

Level-4

Task 6.1

Level-5

Compress

or

Level-6

Monitor

Figure 6 

The specific levels in the work breakdown structure are as follows: 

 WBS Level 1 – The Lake Charles CCS Project is the top level of the WBS. 

 WBS Level 2 – The two phases of the Lake Charles Project, Phase 1 and Phase 2 

constitute the second level of the WBS. Program management is identified as 1.1 in 

the Phase I plan. WBS 1.1 continues to be the program management for phase 2. In 

addition, there are separate program management elements within other layers of the 

WBS, demonstrating our view that proper program management requires involvement 

at all levels of the project. 

 WBS Level 3 - Three subphases, Design (Phases 2A), Construction (Phase 2B), and 

Operation / Demonstration (Phase 2C), represent the third level of the WBS. 

 WBS Level 4 - The three elements desired by the solicitation, CO2 Capture, CO2

Transport, and MVA constitute the fourth level of the WBS. 

 WBS Level 5 – This level of WBS differs for the three Level 4 activities to better 

tailor the WBS to the management challenge. For CO2 capture, this level is by 

discipline. For CO2 transport, this level is by major activity (e.g., right of way, 

Topical 152
environmental). For MVA, this level is the specific work packages at which the 

project will be managed (e.g., groundwater monitoring, reservoir modeling). 

 WBS Level 6 – For CO2 capture and CO2 transport, this level constitutes the specific 

work packages at which the project will be managed. 

The complete list of level 5 and 6 packages can be found in the appropriate Statement of 

Program Objectives. 

10. Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) 

The statement of project objectives for all aspects and phases of the project is contained 

in Attachment 2 to the PMP. 

11. Communications 

Project Communication Tool: 

The Leucadia Project Team will utilizes a web-based, project management system, 

SIMON, to control unique and shared program activities, generate customized project 

reports, store supporting materials and serve as an online communication and 

collaboration platform for all project stakeholders. SIMON is a secure, web-based, 

collaborative project management tool used to govern and communicate with all primary 

internal and external stakeholders on a daily basis. Access by project team members can 

be customized so individuals have access to all the information they need do perform 

their function while keeping any proprietary information access restricted and secure. 

This will ensure adherence to necessary project procedures and guidelines, in addition to 

providing the necessary transparency and long term governance for the project. 

Topical 153
Of unique value is the ability of our team to provide secure and applicable 

communications and reporting between all program participants and sub-contractors. 

System configuration is customized so that we can fully control all aspects of the 

program in a coordinated fashion, thereby reducing management costs, providing ready 

access to all associated documents and the flexibility to modify system operations and 

meet requirements as project team and NETL needs are modified. The project 

management system Leucadia will be using is designed to maintain all data suitable for 

the purposes as project progress reports, risk management reporting, and NETL 

communications in electronic file format for ready access and audit. 

Regarding an External Communication Plan the Leucadia Team will work closely with 

the NETL’s Office of Public Affairs to help answer any inquires from the public. Our 

team has thoroughly reviewed the resources available at the NETL online Reference 

Shelf. These will also be important tools in helping inform the public on the benefits and 

facts about Carbon Sequestration Program. These publications, reports, facts sheet and 

the other materials will be referenced should Leucadia get general requests from the 

public. At the same time, we will work closely with NETL as we recognize it is critical 

to manage a project of this magnitude effectively especially in the ever-changing 

business, political, and economic environments. Leucadia is committed to working 

closely with the NETL’s Office of Public Affairs as the project moves from inception to 

construction to full operation. 

The Leucadia communications support team will provide crosscutting services 

throughout the CCS project. This will include support for development and execution of 

NETL reporting and general communications as well as any outreach strategy with all of 

our stakeholders. The Leucadia Team will commit to keep its stakeholders, including 

NTEL, DOE and to some extent public officials, well informed on the project’s progress. 

We anticipate keeping the NETL informed not only through required reporting 

documentation, but also through regular progress reports, status meetings, financial 

updates and project status reports. As required we will anticipate regularly scheduled 

conference calls, periodic face-to- face meetings and electronic reports. 

Below are the project conference calls, team meetings, and reporting that are anticipated: 

Weekly Project Status Conference Calls: 

 Weekly construction site meetings 

 Weekly team member status 

 Weekly progress and issues assessment 

Monthly Reporting: 

 Executive Committee Meeting 

 Leucadia Monthly Financial Reporting 

 Monthly internal Project Team Progress and Issues Reporting 

Quarterly Reporting: 

 NETL Progress Report 

Topical 154
 Federal Financial Reports 

 ARRA Reporting 

As Requested or Needed: 

 Support ad-hoc informational requests from NETL and project team members 

 Site inspections from 3rd party inspectors as needed 

 Site inspection by Executive Committee Members and NETL staff 

Table 8 below is a list of reports that will be provided. 

Report Purpose / Name Audience Schedule Description

**Internal Reporting

Lake Charles Schedule & Issues Executive Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Lake Charles Change Control & Risk Mgmt Executive Team Monthly update as needed

Lake Charles Project Financial Reports Executive Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Lake Charles Communications & Public Relations Executive Team Monthly

Status - Capture & Compression Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Transportation & Injection Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - MVA Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Change Control Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Status - Risk Mgmt Review Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Project Financial Reports Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Legal, Communications & Public Relations Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly

A. Gov Management Reporting

Progress Report NETL Quarterly

 Special Status Report NETL As required

B. Gov Scientific/Technical Reporting

Technical Reports NETL As required need to define w/NETL

Technical Reports NETL Final need to define w/NETL

C. Gov FINANCIAL REPORTING

SF-425, Federal Financial Report NETL Qtrly & Final

ARRA DOE Quarterly

D. Gov CLOSEOUT REPORTING

 Patent Certification NETL Final

 Property Certificate NETL Final

 Other NETL Final

E. Gov OTHER REPORTING

 Annual Indirect Cost Proposal NETL As required

 Annual Inventory Report of Federally 

 Owned Property, if any NETL As required

 Other NETL As required

Table 8 

12. Project Monitoring, Change Control and Process Improvement: 

This section describes the project management system for monitoring and controlling 

scope, schedule, and cost and a project communication protocol that will be utilized for 

the Phase 2 of the project. 

Topical 155
Leucadia Team is committed to managing the project to ensure full compliance to all 

NETL policies and to the specific guidelines within the grant agreement. As part of this 

project, we have hired Kroll to assist the Leucadia Team and provide financial and 

technical subject matter experts to help ensure comprehensive project monitoring and 

change control management. They will also help implement change control and process 

improvement procedures. These procedures will be revised and updated on a regular 

basis should any changes be required within project management policies, processes, 

technical scope, budget and/or schedule. 

The Leucadia CCS Executive Committee will report directly to a Leucadia Vice 

President. The Leucadia CCS Executive Committee will monitor and manage any 

change controls, specifically related to scope, budget and schedule, including any change 

that may affect the project management plan or the financial management plan. The 

controls include specific steps that will be taken to immediately mitigate issues or 

changes to the project. 

Should issues, changes or procedure modifications be required, the solution to the risk 

situation will be documented and reported. These specific steps will taken to mitigate an 

issue: 1. Identify and Report; 2. Assess Issue; 3. Prepare Mitigation Plan; 4. Execute on 

Plan. Additionally, issues will be managed based on the financial and/or project impact 

of the associated change. 

A project execution plan, project instructions manual, project construction plan, and 

various procedures manuals will be prepared and maintained by the contractor to guide 

administrative or procedural aspects of the work, including project execution planning, 

construction planning, procurement planning, team organization, document distribution, 

communications, and administration. 

Copies of these documents or cited sections of the documents may be provided to the 

Owner as determined to be appropriate by the contractor for information and use after the 

notice to proceed is accepted by the contractor. The contractor will periodically provide 

the Owner with an updated and current copy of such documents. 

At the onset of the project, the project management team help prepares the Authorization 

for Expenditure (AFE) which is presented for authorization to executive management or 

the Board of Directors, depending upon the magnitude of the AFE amount. The AFE is 

the project budget which outlines all project related costs, such as engineering costs, 

materials, subcontractors, equipment and other anticipated costs. This budget is 

maintained within production access of the project management system. 

Project Manager, with the support of the Financial Manager, makes monthly estimates of 

costs based upon the project’s activity. At a minimum, on a monthly basis, management 

reviews the incurred to date program costs, remaining estimates, scope, and remaining 

schedule to ensure any necessary adjustments to the project’s scope, schedule, and budget 

are identified, communicated and incorporated into the program plan and budget. In 

addition, on a quarterly basis, project management prepares the development schedule 

Topical 156
results report (DSRR) to present program budget and plan status to the Board of 

Directors. 

A formal change control process will be put in place to accommodate required changes to 

cost, schedule, and scope from the project plan identified elsewhere in this Project 

Management Plan. The change control process will be handled at four levels: 

1. Changes at the WBS Level-6 or lower that do not impact a WBS Level-5 project 

schedule, cost, functionality / utility, or quality (field changes) are to be reviewed by 

the Project Management team and approved by the WBS Level-5 Manager. All 

appropriate documentation will be updated to reflect the change and impacted Level6 parties must be notified. 

2. If the change in #1 above impacts multiple WBS Level-5 tasks, then the WBS Level4 Manager and Senior Project Manager also need to approve the changes. 

3. Changes that do impact the WBS Level-5 project schedule, cost, functionality / 

utility, or quality (field changes) and do not impact WBS Level-4, will be reviewed 

by the Project Manager and obtain a first level of authorizing from the WBS Level-5 

Manager, WBS Level-4 Manager, and the Project Manager. The Project Manager will 

provide the Program Manager with a change notification to present to the Executive 

Committee. This does not require any Executive Committee action unless the 

Committee believes it is necessary. All appropriate documentation will be updated to 

reflect the change and impacted parties will be notified. 

4. Changes that will impact the WBS Level-4 project schedule or cost will be reviewed 

by the Project Manager and authorized by the WBS Level-4 Manager and the Project 

Manager. The Project Manager will review with the Program Manager and they will 

provide the Executive Committee with a recommendation. If the change is approved 

by the Executive Committee, all appropriate documentation will be updated to reflect 

the change and impacted parties will be notified. 

Figure 7 below is an approval matrix to help explain this: 

Change Centered Approval 

Grid:

Change Description WBS 

Level-5 

Mgr 

Project 

Analyst 

PM WBS 

Level-4 

Mgr 

SR-PM Program 

Mgr 

Executive 

Committee 

Change to one Level 5 

task w/o Level-5 Schd 

or cost impact 

A R A 

Change to multiple 

Level-5 tasks w/o any 

schd or cost impact 

A R A A A 

Change to Level-5 

Task(s) with Level-5 

schd or cost impact 

A R A A A A I 

Change to Level-4 Task 

with Level 4 schd or 

cost impact 

n/a R A A A A A 

Note: R=Review, A=Approval, I=informational 

Figure 7

Topical 157
The Project Manager will keep a record or log of all changes that impact schedule, cost, 

or quality and the reasons behind these changes. Existing procedures will be reviewed to 

determine if a procedure modification would have prevented or anticipated the event 

sooner. This repository will serve as a history of events as well as a source for on-going 

process improvement. 

The following is a listing of the reports that will be provided to assure that all project and 

financial plans are properly executed: 

Report Purpose / Name Audience Schedule Description

**Internal Reporting

Lake Charles Schedule & Issues Executive Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Lake Charles Change Control & Risk Mgmt Executive Team Monthly update as needed

Lake Charles Project Financial Reports Executive Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Lake Charles Communications & Public Relations Executive Team Monthly

Status - Capture & Compression Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Transportation & Injection Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - MVA Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Change Control Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Status - Risk Mgmt Review Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Project Financial Reports Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Legal, Communications & Public Relations Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly

A. Gov Management Reporting

Progress Report NETL Quarterly

 Special Status Report NETL As required

B. Gov Scientific/Technical Reporting

Technical Reports NETL As required need to define w/NETL

Technical Reports NETL Final need to define w/NETL

C. Gov FINANCIAL REPORTING

SF-425, Federal Financial Report NETL Qtrly & Final

ARRA DOE Quarterly

D. Gov CLOSEOUT REPORTING

 Patent Certification NETL Final

 Property Certificate NETL Final

 Other NETL Final

E. Gov OTHER REPORTING

 Annual Indirect Cost Proposal NETL As required

 Annual Inventory Report of Federally 

 Owned Property, if any NETL As required

 Other NETL As required

Topical 158
Report Purpose / Name Audience Schedule Description

**Internal Reporting

Lake Charles Schedule & Issues Executive Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Lake Charles Change Control & Risk Mgmt Executive Team Monthly update as needed

Lake Charles Project Financial Reports Executive Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Lake Charles Communications & Public Relations Executive Team Monthly

Status - Capture & Compression Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Transportation & Injection Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - MVA Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly progress, issues, changes

Status - Change Control Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Status - Risk Mgmt Review Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly update as needed

Project Financial Reports Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly accounting & financial reports

Legal, Communications & Public Relations Lake Charles Mgmt Team Monthly

A. Gov Management Reporting

Progress Report NETL Quarterly

 Special Status Report NETL As required

B. Gov Scientific/Technical Reporting

Technical Reports NETL As required need to define w/NETL

Technical Reports NETL Final need to define w/NETL

C. Gov FINANCIAL REPORTING

SF-425, Federal Financial Report NETL Qtrly & Final

ARRA DOE Quarterly

D. Gov CLOSEOUT REPORTING

 Patent Certification NETL Final

 Property Certificate NETL Final

 Other NETL Final

E. Gov OTHER REPORTING

 Annual Indirect Cost Proposal NETL As required

 Annual Inventory Report of Federally 

 Owned Property, if any NETL As required

 Other NETL As required

Topical 159
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

1 Leucadia LAKE CHARLES CCS (wbs level-1) 1437 days Wed 6/30/10 Thu 12/31/15 $432,448,516.792 Leucadia CCS PHASE 2 Task 1 (wbs level-2) 1437 days Wed 6/30/10 Thu 12/31/15 $5,256,390.00

3 1.0 Program and Project Management (wbs level-3) 1437 days Wed 6/30/10 Thu 12/31/15 $5,256,390.004 1.2 Phase-2 Program & Project Management 1437 days Wed 6/30/10 Thu 12/31/15 $5,256,390.005 1.2.1 NETL Award Announcement 0 days Wed 6/30/10 Wed 6/30/10 $0.00

6 1.2.2 Executive Committee 1437 days Wed 6/30/10 Thu 12/31/15 $1,266,382.00

7 1.2.2.1 Executive Committee - Phase 2A 133 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/31/10 $422,127.00

8 1.2.2.2 Executive Committee - Phase 2B 782 days Mon 1/3/11 Tue 12/31/13 $527,659.009 1.2.2.3 Executive Committee - Phase 2C 522 days Wed 1/1/14 Thu 12/31/15 $316,596.00

10 1.2.3 LEC 915 days Wed 6/30/10 Tue 12/31/13 $1,500,000.00

11 1.2.3.1 LEC Phase 2A 133 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/31/10 $500,000.00

12 1.2.3.2 LEC Phase 2B 782 days Mon 1/3/11 Tue 12/31/13 $1,000,000.00

13 1.2.4 Prog Mgmt - FMS & PMS systems Phase 2A 133 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/31/10 $315,001.50

14 1.2.5 Financial Mgmt Implementation Phase 2A 133 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/31/10 $315,001.5015 1.2.6 Program Management Project Reporting & Monitori 1304 days Mon 1/3/11 Thu 12/31/15 $630,002.50

16 1.2.6.1 PM Reporting Phase 2B 782 days Mon 1/3/11 Tue 12/31/13 $393,751.50

17 1.2.6.2 PM Reporting Phase 2C 522 days Wed 1/1/14 Thu 12/31/15 $236,251.0018 1.2.7 Financial Management Project Reporting & Monitor 1304 days Mon 1/3/11 Thu 12/31/15 $630,002.50

19 1.2.7.1 Financial Reporting Phase 2B 782 days Mon 1/3/11 Tue 12/31/13 $393,751.50

20 1.2.7.2 Financial Reporting Phase 2C 522 days Wed 1/1/14 Thu 12/31/15 $236,251.0021 1.2.8 NEPA 393 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/30/11 $600,000.00

22 1.2.8.1 NEPA EIV Phase 2A 133 days Wed 6/30/10 Fri 12/31/10 $600,000.00

23 1.2.8.2 NEPA EIS? Phase 2B 260 days Mon 1/3/11 Fri 12/30/11 $0.00

24 Leucadia CCS Phase-2 Tasks 4 - 6 (wbs level-2) 1436 days Thu 7/1/10 Thu 12/31/15 $427,192,126.79

25 4.0 Sub-Phase-2A Design (wbs level-3) 257 days Thu 7/1/10 Fri 6/24/11 $11,496,517.11

26 4.1 Rectisol CO2 Capture Design 129 days Tue 7/6/10 Fri 12/31/10 $4,692,706.66

27 4.1.1 Rectisol CO2 Capture Design 30 days Tue 7/6/10 Mon 8/16/10 $3,078,196.7028 4.1.1.1 CONTRACT AWARD 0 days Tue 7/6/10 Tue 7/6/10 $0.00

29 4.1.1.3 RECEIVE CLIENT DOCUMENTS 10 days Tue 7/6/10 Mon 7/19/10 $16,730.67

30 4.1.1.2 CONTRACT LICENSE AND AWARD 0 days Mon 7/19/10 Mon 7/19/10 $3,028,004.68

31 4.1.1.4 RECEIVE LICENSOR DOCUMENTS 20 days Tue 7/20/10 Mon 8/16/10 $33,461.35

32 4.1.3 SYSTEM 75 days Tue 8/17/10 Mon 11/29/10 $995,475.06

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 1

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 160
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

33 4.1.3.1 REVIEW DESIGN BASIS & DEVELOP BEDD 5 days Tue 8/17/10 Mon 8/23/10 $83,653.37

34 4.1.3.2 ISSUE/REVIEW/BALANCE - PFD 10 days Tue 8/24/10 Mon 9/6/10 $66,922.6935 4.1.3.3 ISSUE MATERIAL SELECTION DIAGRAMS 5 days Tue 9/7/10 Mon 9/13/10 $33,461.3536 4.1.3.4 DEVELOP/REVIEW/ISSUE - P&ID 40 days Tue 9/7/10 Mon 11/1/10 $167,306.73

37 4.1.3.6 PREPARE EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS 10 days Tue 9/14/10 Mon 9/27/10 $66,922.69

38 4.1.3.8 ISSUE EQUIPMENT LIST 10 days Tue 9/28/10 Mon 10/11/10 $25,096.0139 4.1.3.13 RELIEF SCENARIO (PRELIM. RELIEF VALVE 5 days Tue 11/9/10 Mon 11/15/10 $33,461.3540 4.1.3.9 ISSUE CONTROL LOGIC DESCRIPTION 10 days Tue 10/5/10 Mon 10/18/10 $50,192.0241 4.1.3.10 DESIGN HYDRAULICS 20 days Tue 10/5/10 Mon 11/1/10 $33,461.3542 4.1.3.14 P&ID TRANSFER TO (3D) MODEL 5 days Tue 11/16/10 Mon 11/22/10 $66,922.6943 4.1.3.5 PRELIMINARY LINE SIZING 15 days Tue 9/7/10 Mon 9/27/10 $83,653.3744 4.1.3.15 ISSUE LINE SCHEDULE 10 days Tue 11/16/10 Mon 11/29/10 $66,922.6945 4.1.3.11 ISSUE INSTRUMENT DATA SHEETS 10 days Tue 10/19/10 Mon 11/1/10 $66,922.6946 4.1.3.12 RELIEF VALVE DATA SHEETS 5 days Tue 11/2/10 Mon 11/8/10 $83,653.3747 4.1.3.7 ISSUE UTILITY SUMMARY 10 days Tue 9/14/10 Mon 9/27/10 $66,922.6948 4.1.6 PIPING (DESIGN) 70 days Tue 9/7/10 Mon 12/13/10 $267,690.77

49 4.1.6.2 DESIGN/ISSUE/REVIEW - U.G. PIPING 10 days Tue 11/16/10 Mon 11/29/10 $100,384.04

50 4.1.6.1 DEVELOP PIPING CLASSES & SPECIFICATIO 20 days Tue 9/7/10 Mon 10/4/10 $100,384.0451 4.1.6.3 PIPING PLAN INDEX 10 days Tue 11/30/10 Mon 12/13/10 $66,922.69

52 4.1.7 ELECTRICAL (DESIGN) 129 days Tue 7/6/10 Fri 12/31/10 $351,344.14

53 4.1.7.1 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE ELECTRIC ONE-LIN 15 days Tue 11/16/10 Mon 12/6/10 $33,461.35

54 4.1.7.2 CONCEPTUAL UG ELECTRICAL DRWGS 10 days Tue 11/30/10 Mon 12/13/10 $33,461.3555 4.1.7.5 CONCEPTUAL CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE 9 days Tue 12/21/10 Fri 12/31/10 $33,461.3556 4.1.7.3 CONCEPTUAL TRAY LAYOUT 15 days Tue 11/30/10 Mon 12/20/10 $33,461.3557 4.1.7.4 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE AREA CLASSIFICA 15 days Tue 11/30/10 Mon 12/20/10 $50,192.0258 4.2.10 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 40 days Tue 7/6/10 Mon 8/30/10 $167,306.73

59 4.2 Compression Design 129 days Tue 7/6/10 Fri 12/31/10 $684,938.04

60 4.2.1 DESIGN-CO2 COMPRESSION 1 day Tue 7/6/10 Tue 7/6/10 $2,851.09

61 4.2.1.1 CONTRACT AWARD 0 days Tue 7/6/10 Tue 7/6/10 $0.00

62 4.2.1.2 RECEIVE CLIENT DOCUMENTS 1 day Tue 7/6/10 Tue 7/6/10 $2,851.09

63 4.2.3 SYSTEM 85 days Wed 7/7/10 Tue 11/2/10 $417,855.43

64 4.2.3.1 REVIEW DESIGN BASIS & DEVELOP BEDD 5 days Wed 7/7/10 Tue 7/13/10 $11,994.57

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 2

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 161
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

65 4.2.3.2 ISSUE/REVIEW/BALANCE - PFD 10 days Wed 7/14/10 Tue 7/27/10 $24,016.30

66 4.2.3.3 ISSUE MATERIAL SELECTION DIAGRAMS 5 days Wed 7/28/10 Tue 8/3/10 $12,021.7467 4.2.3.4 DEVELOP/REVIEW/ISSUE - P&ID 40 days Wed 7/28/10 Tue 9/21/10 $96,432.6168 4.2.3.6 PREPARE EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS 10 days Wed 8/4/10 Tue 8/17/10 $24,071.7469 4.2.3.8 ISSUE EQUIPMENT LIST 10 days Wed 8/18/10 Tue 8/31/10 $24,107.6170 4.2.3.13 RELIEF SCENARIO (PRELIM. RELIEF VALVE 5 days Wed 9/29/10 Tue 10/5/10 $9,770.65

71 4.2.3.9 ISSUE CONTROL LOGIC DESCRIPTION 10 days Wed 8/25/10 Tue 9/7/10 $24,126.09

72 4.2.3.10 DESIGN HYDRAULICS 20 days Wed 8/25/10 Tue 9/21/10 $48,290.2273 4.2.3.14 P&ID TRANSFER TO (3D) MODEL 5 days Wed 10/6/10 Tue 10/12/10 $9,778.26

74 4.2.3.5 PRELIMINARY LINE SIZING 15 days Wed 7/28/10 Tue 8/17/10 $36,094.57

75 4.2.3.15 ISSUE LINE SCHEDULE 10 days Wed 10/6/10 Tue 10/19/10 $19,561.9676 4.2.3.11 ISSUE INSTRUMENT DATA SHEETS 10 days Wed 9/8/10 Tue 9/21/10 $24,163.0477 4.2.3.12 RELIEF VALVE DATA SHEETS 5 days Wed 9/22/10 Tue 9/28/10 $9,763.04

78 4.2.3.7 ISSUE UTILITY SUMMARY 10 days Wed 8/4/10 Tue 8/17/10 $24,071.74

79 4.2.3.16 PIPING PLAN INDEX 10 days Wed 10/20/10 Tue 11/2/10 $19,591.3080 4.2.6 PIPING (DESIGN) 60 days Wed 7/28/10 Tue 10/19/10 $58,421.74

81 4.2.6.2 DESIGN/ISSUE/REVIEW - U.G. PIPING 10 days Wed 10/6/10 Tue 10/19/10 $19,561.96

82 4.2.6.1 DEVELOP PIPING CLASSES & SPECIFICATIO 20 days Wed 7/28/10 Tue 8/24/10 $38,859.7883 4.2.7 ELECTRICAL (DESIGN) 35 days Wed 10/6/10 Tue 11/23/10 $127,382.61

84 4.2.7.1 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE ELECTRIC ONE-LIN 15 days Wed 10/6/10 Tue 10/26/10 $29,355.43

85 4.2.7.2 CONCEPTUAL UG ELECTRICAL DRWGS 10 days Wed 10/20/10 Tue 11/2/10 $19,591.3086 4.2.7.5 CONCEPTUAL CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE 10 days Wed 11/10/10 Tue 11/23/10 $19,635.8787 4.2.7.3 CONCEPTUAL TRAY LAYOUT 15 days Wed 10/20/10 Tue 11/9/10 $29,400.0088 4.2.7.4 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE AREA CLASSIFICA 15 days Wed 10/20/10 Tue 11/9/10 $29,400.0089 4.2.10 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 60 days Mon 10/11/10 Fri 12/31/10 $78,427.1790 4.3 Pipeline Design and Environmental Permitting 257 days Thu 7/1/10 Fri 6/24/11 $2,385,102.40

91 4.3.1 Project Kickoff 5 days Thu 7/1/10 Wed 7/7/10 $18,792.00

92 4.3.1.1 Establish Project Criteria 5 days Thu 7/1/10 Wed 7/7/10 $18,792.00

93 4.3.2 Engineering and Design 121 days Thu 7/8/10 Thu 12/23/10 $1,374,557.60

94 4.3.2.1 Route Finalization 15 days Thu 7/8/10 Wed 7/28/10 $140,941.80

95 4.3.2.2 Preliminary Civil and Easement Survey 36 days Fri 10/1/10 Fri 11/19/10 $100,908.0096 4.3.2.3 Hydraulic Calculations 5 days Mon 7/19/10 Fri 7/23/10 $18,792.00

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 3

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 162
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

97 4.3.2.4 Prepare System PFD and P&IDs 10 days Mon 7/26/10 Fri 8/6/10 $93,962.00

98 4.3.2.5 Determine Crossing Permit Requirements 1 day Mon 8/9/10 Mon 8/9/10 $46,981.0099 4.3.2.6 Development Material and Equipment Specifcati 28 days Tue 8/10/10 Thu 9/16/10 $46,981.20

100 4.3.2.7 Prepare Alignment Drawings 20 days Fri 10/29/10 Thu 11/25/10 $46,980.80101 4.3.2.8 Prepare Landowner Plat Maps 20 days Thu 9/16/10 Wed 10/13/10 $300,446.40

102 4.3.2.9 Prepare Permit Exhibits 30 days Wed 10/13/10 Tue 11/23/10 $56,377.00

103 4.3.2.10 Prepare Pipeline Construction Details 40 days Fri 10/29/10 Thu 12/23/10 $300,677.00

104 4.3.2.11 Design and Drawing Preparation for Facilities 60 days Mon 8/23/10 Fri 11/12/10 $172,084.80105 4.3.2.12 Cathodic Protection Design and Details 20 days Fri 11/26/10 Thu 12/23/10 $49,425.60

106 4.3.3 Right of Way/Land 64 days Thu 7/29/10 Tue 10/26/10 $133,958.40

107 4.3.3.1 Update Landowner Line List 14 days Thu 7/29/10 Tue 8/17/10 $18,084.00

108 4.3.3.2 Obtain Access Permission for Preliminary Survey 40 days Thu 8/5/10 Wed 9/29/10 $51,574.40109 4.3.3.3 Perform Title Work and Market Study Appraisal 50 days Wed 8/18/10 Tue 10/26/10 $64,300.00110 4.3.4 Environmental 227 days Thu 8/12/10 Fri 6/24/11 $810,554.00

111 4.3.4.1 Update Permit & NEPA Requirements 10 days Thu 9/9/10 Wed 9/22/10 $4,874.40

112 4.3.4.2 Perform Environmental Field Surveys for Permitt 40 days Thu 8/12/10 Wed 10/6/10 $29,373.00

113 4.3.4.3 Prepare and Submit Permit Applications 44 days Thu 9/23/10 Tue 11/23/10 $11,372.00114 4.3.4.4 Perform Cultural and Ecological Surveys, if requ 40 days Thu 8/19/10 Wed 10/13/10 $43,139.80115 4.3.4.5 Submit Cutural and Ecological Reports to COE, 30 days Thu 9/23/10 Wed 11/3/10 $718,354.00

116 4.3.4.6 Prepare NEPA, FONSI, and COE Application 6 days Fri 12/24/10 Fri 12/31/10 $3,440.80

117 4.3.4.7 Obtain NEPA, FONSI, and COE Permits 125 days Mon 1/3/11 Fri 6/24/11 $0.00

118 4.3.5 Develop Construction Bid Packages 3 days Wed 12/29/10 Fri 12/31/10 $47,240.40

119 4.4 MVA Design 129 days Tue 7/6/10 Fri 12/31/10 $3,733,770.00

120 4.4.1 Administrative Tasks & Subcontracting 43 days Tue 7/6/10 Thu 9/2/10 $0.00

121 4.4.2 Reservoir Modeling -Initial characterization and modelin 6 mons Tue 7/13/10 Mon 12/27/10 $260,328.60

122 4.4.3 Characterization & Geochemical desc of faults 43 days Thu 9/2/10 Mon 11/1/10 $25,694.60

123 4.4.4 Soil Gas -FeasibilityTest of Surveillance of P&A wells 87 days Thu 9/2/10 Fri 12/31/10 $52,933.60124 4.4.5 Ground Water Monitoring -Feasibility test of surveillanc 22 days Thu 9/2/10 Fri 10/1/10 $23,554.60125 4.4.6 AZMI (Above-zone monitoring interval) -Establish curre 128 days Tue 7/6/10 Thu 12/30/10 $3,000,000.00

126 4.4.7 Logging - Feasibility test of surveillance of idle wells an 80 days Thu 9/9/10 Wed 12/29/10 $300,000.00

127 4.4.8 Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and cost distrib 65 days Mon 9/20/10 Fri 12/17/10 $71,258.60

128 Prepare DOE Design Report 22 days Wed 9/1/10 Thu 9/30/10 $0.00

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 4

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 163
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

129 DECISION POINT 1 - End of Subphase 2A (DOE 90-day Rev 66 days Fri 10/1/10 Fri 12/31/10 $0.00

130

131 5.0 Sub-Phase-2B Construction (wbs level-3) 782 days Mon 1/3/11 Tue 12/31/13 $407,711,706.08

132 5.1 Rectisol CO2 Capture Construction 696 days Mon 1/3/11 Mon 9/2/13 $290,714,953.18133 5.1.1 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW - EQUIPMENT LAYOU 40 days Tue 5/31/11 Mon 7/25/11 $158,282.00

134 5.1.2 ENGINEERING 95% COMPLETE 0 days Mon 6/4/12 Mon 6/4/12 $164,140.83135 5.1.3 SYSTEM 364 days Tue 4/19/11 Fri 9/7/12 $1,477,267.43

136 5.1.3.1 P&ID INSTRUMENT EXTRACT 5 days Tue 4/19/11 Mon 4/25/11 $656,563.30

137 5.1.3.2 P.H.A. (HAZOP) 15 days Tue 4/26/11 Mon 5/16/11 $656,563.30138 5.1.3.3 OPERATION MANUALS 20 days Mon 8/13/12 Fri 9/7/12 $164,140.83139 5.1.5 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL 270 days Tue 8/16/11 Mon 8/27/12 $15,660,386.39

140 5.1.5.17 DESIGN/REVIEW/ISSUE - PIPERACK FOUND 10 days Tue 2/28/12 Mon 3/12/12 $164,140.83

141 5.1.5.7 CIVIL UG DRWGS (SEWER) 20 days Tue 1/24/12 Mon 2/20/12 $164,140.83142 5.1.5.14 INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE UNDERGROUND PIPI 30 days Tue 9/20/11 Mon 10/31/11 $164,140.83143 5.1.5.2 ISSUE AND REVIEW BUILDING LAYOUT & RE 20 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 12/26/11 $164,140.83144 5.1.5.11 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PLATF 20 days Tue 2/28/12 Mon 3/26/12 $164,140.83145 5.1.5.12 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/IS - MISC PLTF 20 days Tue 4/24/12 Mon 5/21/12 $164,140.83146 5.1.5.8 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE-PIPE/ELE 20 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 2/27/12 $164,140.83147 5.1.5.9 SCOPE WRITE-UP FOR CIVIL/STRUCTURAL 5 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 2/6/12 $115,656.33148 5.1.5.4 ENG DESIGN/REVIEW/ISSUE - PILING 25 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 2/13/12 $164,140.83149 5.1.5.5 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW - BUILDING 10 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 1/23/12 $164,140.83150 5.1.5.6 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - TOWER 15 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 1/30/12 $164,140.83151 5.1.5.13 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PIPE/E 10 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 4/9/12 $164,140.83152 5.1.5.1 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - ELECT 35 days Tue 8/16/11 Mon 10/3/11 $164,140.83153 5.1.5.3 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - MJR EQ 20 days Tue 12/27/11 Mon 1/23/12 $164,140.83154 5.1.5.15 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - BUILDI 30 days Tue 1/24/12 Mon 3/5/12 $164,140.83155 5.1.5.10 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - STR. S 40 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 3/26/12 $164,140.83156 5.1.5.16 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - BUILDINGS 110 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 8/27/12 $13,082,617.67

157 5.1.6 PIPING 451 days Mon 2/28/11 Mon 11/19/12 $47,679,533.62

158 5.1.6.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TAGGED 40 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 7/4/11 $328,281.65

159 5.1.6.2 VESSEL PLATFORM & NOZZLE ORIENTATION 30 days Mon 2/28/11 Fri 4/8/11 $656,563.30160 5.1.6.14 ISSUE ISOMETRICS 10 days Tue 5/22/12 Mon 6/4/12 $1,313,126.61

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 5

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 164
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

161 5.1.6.10 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 30 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 1/9/12 $656,563.30

162 5.1.6.4 TIE-IN DWGS 30 days Tue 7/12/11 Mon 8/22/11 $656,563.30163 5.1.6.15 MES RUN - MTO 10 days Tue 6/5/12 Mon 6/18/12 $656,563.30164 5.1.6.11 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - MECHANICAL 10 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 4/9/12 $164,140.83165 5.1.6.12 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - INSULATION 5 days Tue 4/10/12 Mon 4/16/12 $164,140.83166 5.1.6.13 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - PAINTING 5 days Tue 4/17/12 Mon 4/23/12 $164,140.83167 5.1.6.3 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TAGGED VALVES 130 days Tue 7/5/11 Mon 1/2/12 $5,413,978.33

168 5.1.6.16 PREPARE REQ/IFB/BID/TAB - PIPE SPECIAL 25 days Tue 6/19/12 Mon 7/23/12 $164,140.83

169 5.1.6.17 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS 110 days Tue 6/19/12 Mon 11/19/12 $5,413,978.33

170 5.1.6.18 FINAL REQUISITION - BULK PIPE 5 days Tue 6/19/12 Mon 6/25/12 $184,140.83

171 5.1.6.6 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP F 40 days Tue 8/23/11 Mon 10/17/11 $164,140.83172 5.1.6.9 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PIPE 135 days Tue 10/18/11 Mon 4/23/12 $26,807,266.35

173 5.1.6.5 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - PVF AND 30 days Tue 7/12/11 Mon 8/22/11 $164,140.83

174 5.1.6.7 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PVF AND MISC PIPE 100 days Tue 8/23/11 Mon 1/9/12 $4,607,663.34

175 5.1.8 INSTRUMENTATION 300 days Tue 4/26/11 Mon 6/18/12 $8,158,322.04

176 5.1.8.1 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - INSTRUMENT INDEX 20 days Tue 4/26/11 Mon 5/23/11 $164,140.83

177 5.1.8.3 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - I/O LIST 30 days Tue 7/26/11 Mon 9/5/11 $164,140.83178 5.1.3.2 PREPARE & REVIEW - LOGIC DIAGRAMS 30 days Tue 4/26/11 Mon 6/6/11 $164,140.83179 5.1.8.4 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG-FLOW EL 40 days Tue 8/9/11 Mon 10/3/11 $164,140.83180 5.1.8.5 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FLOW ELEMENTS 135 days Tue 10/4/11 Mon 4/9/12 $3,860,524.94

181 5.1.8.6 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB - INSTRUMENTS 45 days Tue 10/4/11 Mon 12/5/11 $164,140.83

182 5.1.8.7 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - INSTRUMENTS 140 days Tue 12/6/11 Mon 6/18/12 $3,477,092.97

183 5.1.7 ELECTRICAL 360 days Tue 10/4/11 Mon 2/18/13 $20,506,880.33

184 5.1.7.12 PRELIM. ELECT LAYOUT (PANELS / RECEPT 10 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 2/13/12 $164,140.83

185 5.1.7.8 PRELIM/REVIEW/ISSUE U.G.ELECT DRAWING 10 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 1/23/12 $164,140.83186 5.1.7.16 PREP/REVIEW/INSTR/ISSUE GROUNDING D 5 days Tue 2/14/12 Mon 2/20/12 $164,140.83187 5.1.7.4 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE PANEL & CABINET DRA 25 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 1/2/12 $164,140.83188 5.1.7.13 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE POWER PLANS 10 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 2/13/12 $164,140.83189 5.1.7.17 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I/E INSTRUMENT PLA 10 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 4/9/12 $164,140.83190 5.1.7.18 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I / E INSTALLATION DE 10 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 4/9/12 $164,140.83191 5.1.7.9 3D MODEL/PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE TRAY PLAN 15 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 1/30/12 $164,140.83192 5.1.7.3 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE LOOP DIAGRAMS 30 days Tue 10/18/11 Mon 11/28/11 $164,140.83

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 6

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 165
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

193 5.1.7.14 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE MOTOR SCHEMATIC D 30 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 3/12/12 $164,140.83

194 5.1.7.15 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE WIRING DIAGRAMS 10 days Tue 1/31/12 Mon 2/13/12 $164,140.83195 5.1.7.20 CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE - (PWR/CNTL 5 days Tue 5/22/12 Mon 5/28/12 $164,140.83196 5.1.7.19 ELECTRICAL MATERIAL TAKE-OFF 10 days Tue 3/27/12 Mon 4/9/12 $164,140.83197 5.1.7.11 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE INSTRUMENT WIRING 10 days Tue 2/28/12 Mon 3/12/12 $164,140.83198 5.1.7.5 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC BU 30 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 1/9/12 $164,140.83199 5.1.7.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC BULKS 35 days Tue 1/10/12 Mon 2/27/12 $13,043,166.61

200 5.1.7.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TRANSF 40 days Tue 10/4/11 Mon 11/28/11 $164,140.83

201 5.1.7.6 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TRANSFORMERS 320 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 2/18/13 $1,579,658.67

202 5.1.7.2 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC SW 40 days Tue 10/4/11 Mon 11/28/11 $164,140.83

203 5.1.7.7AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 300 days Tue 11/29/11 Mon 1/21/13 $3,093,661.01

204 5.1.9 MODELING 336 days Mon 4/11/11 Mon 7/23/12 $4,924,224.78

205 5.1.9.4 INITIAL EQUIPMENT MODELING IN (3D) MOD 25 days Tue 7/12/11 Mon 8/15/11 $656,563.30

206 5.1.9.5 DEVELOP MODEL TO 3RD STAGE 20 days Tue 5/22/12 Mon 6/18/12 $1,313,126.61

207 5.1.9.2 CLIENT MODEL REVIEW 5 days Tue 6/19/12 Mon 6/25/12 $164,140.83

208 5.1.9.6 DEVELOP MODEL TO FINAL STAGE 20 days Tue 6/26/12 Mon 7/23/12 $656,563.30209 5.1.9.1 MODEL AUTOROUTER 50 days Tue 5/3/11 Mon 7/11/11 $164,140.83210 5.1.9.3 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 35 days Mon 4/11/11 Fri 5/27/11 $1,313,126.61

211 5.1.9.7 PIPERACK STUDY (PIPING & ELECTRICAL) 10 days Tue 7/26/11 Mon 8/8/11 $656,563.30

212 5.1.4 EQUIPMENT 420 days Mon 1/3/11 Fri 8/10/12 $119,040,292.42

213 5.1.4.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - COMPR 40 days Mon 1/3/11 Fri 2/25/11 $164,140.83

214 5.1.4.2 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - COMPRESSORS & PLC 380 days Mon 2/28/11 Fri 8/10/12 $22,775,691.40

215 5.1.4.5 PREP REQ/ISB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - VESSEL 40 days Tue 3/15/11 Mon 5/9/11 $164,140.83

216 5.1.4.6 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - VESSEL INTERNALS 180 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 1/16/12 $15,205,679.71

217 5.1.4.7 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - PUMPS 40 days Tue 3/15/11 Mon 5/9/11 $164,140.83

218 5.1.4.8 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PUMPS 180 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 1/16/12 $15,205,679.71

219 5.1.4.9 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP F 40 days Tue 3/15/11 Mon 5/9/11 $164,140.83

220 5.1.4.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PRESSURE V 180 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 1/16/12 $45,485,726.47

221 5.1.4.12 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - FIELD 40 days Tue 3/15/11 Mon 5/9/11 $656,563.30

222 5.1.4.13 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FIELD ERECTED TANKS 100 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 9/26/11 $8,226,574.99

223 5.1.4.14 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - HEAT E 40 days Tue 3/15/11 Mon 5/9/11 $164,140.83

224 5.1.4.15 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - HEAT EXCHANGERS 180 days Tue 5/10/11 Mon 1/16/12 $10,663,672.70

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 7

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 166
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

225 5.1.11 SUBCONTRACT PACKAGES 40 days Tue 6/5/12 Mon 7/30/12 $165,656.33

226 5.1.11.2 INQUIRE/QUOTE/BID TAB/AWARD - GENERA 40 days Tue 6/5/12 Mon 7/30/12 $165,656.33

227 5.1.12 CONSTRUCTION 400 days Tue 2/21/12 Mon 9/2/13 $72,779,967.01

228 5.1.19.1 CONSTR - MOBILIZE & SITEWORK 30 days Tue 2/21/12 Mon 4/2/12 $1,504,842.59

229 5.1.12.1 CONSTR - UNDERGROUND 60 days Tue 3/6/12 Mon 5/28/12 $2,765,439.12230 5.1.18.1 CONSTR - INSULATE & PAINT 75 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 3/25/13 $547,572.79

231 5.1.21.1 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST TRAIN 1 30 days Tue 2/26/13 Mon 4/8/13 $355,856.81232 5.1.21.2 MECHANICAL COMPLETION TRAIN 1 0 days Mon 7/22/13 Mon 7/22/13 $1,575,751.93

233 5.1.12.2 SITE FOUNDATION PILING 35 days Tue 4/3/12 Mon 5/21/12 $2,846,854.47234 5.1.13.1 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION COMPRESSORS 50 days Tue 5/29/12 Mon 8/6/12 $2,846,854.47235 5.1.14.5 SET COMPRESSORS TRAIN 1 60 days Mon 8/13/12 Fri 11/2/12 $656,563.30

236 5.1.13.19 COMPRESSORS STEEL ERECTION TRAIN 25 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 12/7/12 $739,288.78237 5.1.13.20 COMPRESSORS GROUNDING TRAIN 1 10 days Mon 8/13/12 Fri 8/24/12 $164,140.83238 5.1.15.11 COMPRESSORS PIPING TRAIN 1 45 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 1/4/13 $164,140.83239 5.1.16.16 COMPRESSORS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 1 10 days Mon 12/10/12 Fri 12/21/12 $164,140.83240 5.1.17.6 COMPRESSORS INSTRUMENTATION TRAIN 25 days Mon 12/24/12 Fri 1/25/13 $164,140.83241 5.1.15.12 HYDRO TEST COMPRESSORS TRAIN 1 20 days Mon 1/28/13 Fri 2/22/13 $32,828.17

242 5.1.13.21 EXC, F/R/P FDN VESSEL INTERNALS TRAIN 45 days Tue 6/12/12 Mon 8/13/12 $931,004.76

243 5.1.14.3 SET VESSEL INTERNALS TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $656,563.30244 5.1.13.9 VESSEL INTERNALS FIELD DRESS TRAIN 1 15 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/10/12 $164,140.83245 5.1.13.22 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION SHOP FAB PRES 40 days Tue 6/19/12 Mon 8/13/12 $3,175,136.13

246 5.1.14.4 SET EQUIPMENT SHOP FAB PRESSURE VE 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $656,563.30

247 5.1.13.10 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS STEEL ER 15 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/10/12 $931,004.76248 5.1.15.1 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS PIPING TR 25 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/24/12 $164,140.83249 5.1.16.9 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS ELECTRCI 20 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/17/12 $1,697,868.69

250 5.1.17.1 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS INSTRUME 25 days Tue 9/18/12 Mon 10/22/12 $164,140.83

251 5.1.15.6 HYDRO TEST SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSE 20 days Tue 10/23/12 Mon 11/19/12 $32,828.17

252 5.1.13.23 EXC, F/R/P FND HEAT EXCHANGERS TRAI 30 days Tue 10/23/12 Mon 12/3/12 $164,140.83

253 5.1.16.4 SET HEAT EXCHANGERS TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 12/4/12 Mon 12/10/12 $656,563.30254 5.1.13.15 HEAT EXCHANGERS STEEL & PLATFORMS 25 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 1/14/13 $164,140.83255 5.1.13.11 HEAT EXCHANGERS GROUNDING TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 12/4/12 Mon 12/10/12 $164,140.83256 5.1.15.2 HEAT EXCHANGERS PIPING TRAIN 1 25 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 1/14/13 $164,140.83

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 8

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 167
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

257 5.1.16.10 HEAT EXCHANGERS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 1 15 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 12/31/12 $164,140.83

258 5.1.17.2 HEAT EXCHANGERS INSTRUMENTATION T 20 days Tue 1/1/13 Mon 1/28/13 $164,140.83259 5.1.15.7 HYDRO TEST HEAT EXCHANGERS TRAIN 1 20 days Tue 1/29/13 Mon 2/25/13 $32,828.17

260 5.1.13.4 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATIONS FOR ELECTRICA 25 days Tue 6/26/12 Mon 7/30/12 $1,905,081.68

261 5.1.14.1 SET TRANSFORMERS 10 days Tue 2/19/13 Mon 3/4/13 $733,249.70

262 5.1.16.2 DRESS TRANSFORMERS 35 days Tue 3/5/13 Mon 4/22/13 $240,827.22263 5.1.16.14 INSTALL ISOPHASE BUSS 20 days Tue 4/23/13 Mon 5/20/13 $240,827.22264 5.1.14.2 SET SWITCHGEAR 10 days Tue 1/22/13 Mon 2/4/13 $733,249.70265 5.1.16.3 INSTALL CABLE TRAY 25 days Tue 3/5/13 Mon 4/8/13 $240,827.22266 5.1.16.8 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TRAIN 1 30 days Tue 4/9/13 Mon 5/20/13 $569,108.87267 5.1.16.15 PULL AND TERMINATE TRAIN 1 45 days Tue 5/21/13 Mon 7/22/13 $240,827.22268 5.1.16.1 SWITCHYARD CONTRACTOR 80 days Tue 7/31/12 Mon 11/19/12 $207,999.05269 5.1.22.1 START UP TRAIN 1 30 days Tue 7/23/13 Mon 9/2/13 $656,563.30270 5.1.20.1 CONSTR - BUILDING 20 days Tue 8/28/12 Mon 9/24/12 $164,140.83271 5.1.13.6 EXC, F/R/P FND PUMPS TRAINS 1 & 2 30 days Tue 5/29/12 Mon 7/9/12 $164,140.83272 5.1.13.12 PUMPS GROUNDING TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $164,140.83273 5.1.13.16 PUMPS STEEL & PLATFORMS TRAIN 1 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83274 5.1.15.3 PUMPS PIPING TRAIN 1 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83275 5.1.15.8 HYDRO TEST PUMPS TRAIN 1 20 days Tue 9/4/12 Mon 10/1/12 $32,828.17

276 5.1.16.5 SET PUMPS TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $656,563.30

277 5.1.16.11 PUMPS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 1 15 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/6/12 $164,140.83278 5.1.17.3 PUMPS INSTRUMENTATION TRAIN 1 20 days Tue 8/7/12 Mon 9/3/12 $164,140.83279 5.1.13.7 EXC, F/R/P FND FIELD ERECTED TANKS TR 30 days Tue 5/29/12 Mon 7/9/12 $1,423,427.24

280 5.1.13.13 FIELD ERECTED TANKS GROUNDING TRA 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $656,563.30

281 5.1.13.17 FIELD ERECTED TANKS STEEL & PLATFOR 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $1,423,427.24

282 5.1.15.4 FIELD ERECTED TANKS PIPING TRAIN 1 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $1,423,427.24283 5.1.15.9 HYDRO TEST FIELD ERECTED TANKS TRAI 20 days Tue 9/4/12 Mon 10/1/12 $1,423,427.24284 5.1.16.6 SET FIELD ERECTED TANKS TRAIN 1 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $1,423,427.24285 5.1.16.12 FIELD ERECTED TANKS ELECTRICAL TRA 15 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/6/12 $1,423,427.24286 5.1.17.4 FIELD ERECTED TANKS INSTRUMENTATION 20 days Tue 8/7/12 Mon 9/3/12 $1,423,427.24287 5.1.13.13 EXC, F/R/P - FOUNDATION PIPERACK 30 days Tue 5/29/12 Mon 7/9/12 $2,518,572.82288 5.1.13.14 STEEL ERECTION PIPERACK 30 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 8/20/12 $1,697,868.69

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 9

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 168
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

289 5.1.13.15 LB PIPE FOR PIPERACK 30 days Tue 10/23/12 Mon 12/3/12 $984,844.96

290 5.1.13.16 INSTRUMENTATION PIPERACK 20 days Tue 12/4/12 Mon 12/31/12 $164,140.83291 5.1.13.17 SB PIPE FOR PIPERACK 30 days Tue 9/11/12 Mon 10/22/12 $492,422.48292 5.1.16.4 5 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 12/17/12 $656,563.30293 5.1.13.11HEAT EXCHANGERS GROUNDING TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 12/17/12 $164,140.83294 5.1.13.15 HEAT EXCHANGERS STEEL & PLATFORMS 15 days Tue 12/18/12 Mon 1/7/13 $164,140.83295 5.1.15.2 HEAT EXCHANGERS PIPING TRAIN 2 15 days Tue 12/18/12 Mon 1/7/13 $164,140.83296 5.1.16.10 HEAT EXCHANGERS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 1/8/13 Mon 1/14/13 $164,140.83297 5.1.17.2 HEAT EXCHANGERS INSTRUMENTATION T 10 days Tue 1/15/13 Mon 1/28/13 $164,140.83298 5.1.15.7 HYDRO TEST HEAT EXCHANGERS TRAIN 2 10 days Tue 1/29/13 Mon 2/11/13 $164,140.83299 5.1.14.5 SET COMPRESSORS TRAIN 2 60 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 1/25/13 $656,563.30300 5.1.13.20 COMPRESSORS GROUNDING TRAIN 2 10 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 11/16/12 $164,140.83301 5.1.13.19 COMPRESSORS STEEL ERECTION TRAIN 25 days Mon 1/28/13 Fri 3/1/13 $1,423,427.24

302 5.1.15.11 COMPRESSORS PIPING TRAIN 2 45 days Mon 1/28/13 Fri 3/29/13 $164,140.83

303 5.1.16.16 COMPRESSORS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 2 10 days Mon 1/28/13 Fri 2/8/13 $164,140.83304 5.1.17.6 COMPRESSORS INSTRUMENTATION TRAIN 25 days Mon 2/11/13 Fri 3/15/13 $164,140.83305 5.1.15.12 HYDRO TEST COMPRESSORS TRAIN 2 20 days Mon 4/1/13 Fri 4/26/13 $164,140.83306 5.1.20.1 PULL AND TERMINATE TRAIN 2 35 days Tue 4/9/13 Mon 5/27/13 $164,140.83307 5.1.20.2 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT TRAIN 2 20 days Tue 3/5/13 Mon 4/1/13 $164,140.83308 5.1.20.3 INSULATE & PAINT TRAIN 2 50 days Mon 1/28/13 Fri 4/5/13 $164,140.83309 5.1.13.13 FIELD ERECTED TANKS GROUNDING TRA 5 days Tue 12/11/12 Mon 12/17/12 $1,423,427.24

310 5.1.16.6 SET FIELD ERECTED TANKS TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $1,423,427.24311 5.1.13.17 FIELD ERECTED TANKS STEEL & PLATFOR 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $1,423,427.24312 5.1.15.4 FIELD ERECTED TANKS PIPING TRAIN 2 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $1,423,427.24313 5.1.16.12 FIELD ERECTED TANKS ELECTRICAL TRA 15 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/6/12 $1,423,427.24314 5.1.17.4 FIELD ERECTED TANKS INSTRUMENTATION 20 days Tue 8/7/12 Mon 9/3/12 $1,423,427.24315 5.1.15.9 HYDRO TEST FIELD ERECTED TANKS TRAI 20 days Tue 9/4/12 Mon 10/1/12 $1,423,427.24316 5.1.14.4 SET EQUIPMENT SHOP FAB PRESSURE VE 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $656,563.30

317 5.1.13.10 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS STEEL ER 15 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/10/12 $1,423,427.24

318 5.1.15.1 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS PIPING TR 25 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/24/12 $164,140.83

319 5.1.16.9 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS ELECTRCI 20 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/17/12 $164,140.83320 5.1.17.1 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS INSTRUME 25 days Tue 9/18/12 Mon 10/22/12 $164,140.83

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 10

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 169
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

321 5.1.15.6 HYDRO TEST SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSE 20 days Tue 10/23/12 Mon 11/19/12 $164,140.83

322 5.1.13.23 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS GROUND 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83323 5.1.13.12 PUMPS GROUNDING TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $164,140.83324 5.1.16.5 SET PUMPS TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 7/10/12 Mon 7/16/12 $656,563.30325 5.1.13.16 PUMPS STEEL & PLATFORMS TRAIN 2 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83326 5.1.15.3 PUMPS PIPING TRAIN 2 25 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83327 5.1.16.11 PUMPS ELECTRICAL TRAIN 2 15 days Tue 7/17/12 Mon 8/6/12 $164,140.83328 5.1.17.3 PUMPS INSTRUMENTATION TRAIN 2 20 days Tue 8/7/12 Mon 9/3/12 $164,140.83329 5.1.15.8 HYDRO TEST PUMPS TRAIN 2 20 days Tue 9/4/12 Mon 10/1/12 $328,281.65330 5.1.14.3 SET VESSEL INTERNALS TRAIN 2 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $656,563.30331 5.1.13.9 VESSEL INTERNALS FIELD DRESS TRAIN 2 15 days Tue 8/21/12 Mon 9/10/12 $164,140.83332 5.1.13.25 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS GROUND 5 days Tue 8/14/12 Mon 8/20/12 $164,140.83333 5.1.21.1 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST TRAIN 2 30 days Mon 4/29/13 Fri 6/7/13 $1,423,427.24

334 5.1.21.2 MECHANICAL COMPLETION TRAIN 2 0 days Fri 6/7/13 Fri 6/7/13 $656,563.30

335 5.1.22.2 START UP TRAIN 2 30 days Mon 4/29/13 Fri 6/7/13 $1,148,985.78

336 5.2 Compression Construction 560 days Thu 1/6/11 Wed 2/27/13 $89,282,716.30

337 5.2.1 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW - EQUIPMENT LAYOU 40 days Wed 2/23/11 Tue 4/19/11 $113,933.70

338 5.2.2 ENGINEERING 95% COMPLETE 0 days Tue 2/28/12 Tue 2/28/12 $0.00

339 5.2.3 SYSTEM 436 days Wed 1/12/11 Wed 9/12/12 $175,592.39

340 5.2.3.1 P&ID INSTRUMENT EXTRACT 5 days Wed 1/12/11 Tue 1/18/11 $21,211.96

341 5.2.3.2 P.H.A. (HAZOP) 15 days Thu 4/14/11 Wed 5/4/11 $64,254.35342 5.2.3.3 OPERATION MANUALS 20 days Thu 8/16/12 Wed 9/12/12 $90,126.09343 5.2.5 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL 270 days Wed 5/11/11 Tue 5/22/12 $3,863,601.09

344 5.2.5.8 CIVIL UG DRWGS (SEWER) 20 days Wed 10/19/11 Tue 11/15/11 $87,471.74

345 5.2.5.4 INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE UNDERGROUND PIPIN 30 days Thu 7/7/11 Wed 8/17/11 $129,788.04

346 5.2.5.2 ISSUE AND REVIEW BUILDING LAYOUT & RE 20 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 9/20/11 $86,966.30

347 5.2.5.12 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PLATF 20 days Wed 11/23/11 Tue 12/20/11 $87,788.04348 5.2.5.13 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/IS - MISC PLTF 20 days Wed 1/18/12 Tue 2/14/12 $88,293.48349 5.2.5.9 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE-PIPE/ELE 20 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 11/22/11 $87,534.78350 5.2.5.10 SCOPE WRITE-UP FOR CIVIL/STRUCTURAL 5 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 11/1/11 $21,859.78351 5.2.5.5 ENG DESIGN/REVIEW/ISSUE - PILING 25 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 11/8/11 $109,220.65

352 5.2.5.6 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW - BUILDING 10 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 10/18/11 $43,642.39

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 11

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 170
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

353 5.2.5.7 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - TOWER 15 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 10/25/11 $65,485.87

354 5.2.5.14 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PIPE/E 10 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 1/3/12 $43,990.22355 5.2.5.1 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - ELECT 35 days Wed 5/11/11 Tue 6/28/11 $150,698.91

356 5.2.5.3 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - MJR EQ 20 days Wed 9/21/11 Tue 10/18/11 $87,219.57

357 5.2.5.15 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - BUILDI 1 day Wed 10/19/11 Wed 10/19/11 $4,366.30

358 5.2.5.11 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - STR. S 40 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 12/20/11 $175,322.83

359 5.2.5.16 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - BUILDINGS 110 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 5/22/12 $2,593,952.17

360 5.2.6 PIPING 400 days Wed 2/2/11 Tue 8/14/12 $6,340,054.35

361 5.2.6.2 VESSEL PLATFORM & NOZZLE ORIENTATION 30 days Thu 3/3/11 Wed 4/13/11 $128,081.52

362 5.2.6.14 ISSUE ISOMETRICS 10 days Wed 2/15/12 Tue 2/28/12 $44,242.39

363 5.2.6.10 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 30 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 10/4/11 $130,545.65

364 5.2.6.4 TIE-IN DWGS 30 days Wed 4/6/11 Tue 5/17/11 $128,650.00365 5.2.6.15 MES RUN - MTO 10 days Wed 2/29/12 Tue 3/13/12 $44,305.43

366 5.2.6.11 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - MECHANICAL 10 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 1/3/12 $43,990.22367 5.2.6.12 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - INSULATION 5 days Wed 1/4/12 Tue 1/10/12 $22,017.39368 5.2.6.13 SCOPE WRITE-UPS - PAINTING 5 days Wed 1/11/12 Tue 1/17/12 $22,033.70369 5.2.6.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TAGGED 40 days Wed 2/2/11 Tue 3/29/11 $170,521.74

370 5.2.6.3 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TAGGED VALVES 130 days Wed 3/30/11 Tue 9/27/11 $1,058,245.65

371 5.2.6.16 PREPARE REQ/IFB/BID/TAB - PIPE SPECIAL 25 days Wed 3/14/12 Tue 4/17/12 $111,036.96

372 5.2.6.17 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS 110 days Wed 3/14/12 Tue 8/14/12 $269,900.00373 5.2.6.18 FINAL REQUISITION - BULK PIPE 5 days Wed 3/14/12 Tue 3/20/12 $22,175.00

374 5.2.6.6 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP F 40 days Wed 5/18/11 Tue 7/12/11 $172,416.30

375 5.2.6.9 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PIPE 135 days Wed 7/13/11 Tue 1/17/12 $3,799,947.83

376 5.2.6.5 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - PVF AND 30 days Wed 4/6/11 Tue 5/17/11 $128,650.00

377 5.2.6.7 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PVF AND MISC PIPE 100 days Wed 5/18/11 Tue 10/4/11 $43,294.57

378 5.2.8 INSTRUMENTATION 300 days Wed 1/19/11 Tue 3/13/12 $1,518,560.87

379 5.2.8.1 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - INSTRUMENT INDEX 20 days Wed 1/19/11 Tue 2/15/11 $56,671.74

380 5.2.8.3 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - I/O LIST 30 days Wed 4/20/11 Tue 5/31/11 $85,892.39381 5.2.8.2 PREPARE & REVIEW - LOGIC DIAGRAMS 30 days Wed 1/19/11 Tue 3/1/11 $85,070.65382 5.2.8.4 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG-FLOW EL 40 days Wed 5/4/11 Tue 6/28/11 $114,776.09

383 5.2.8.5 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FLOW ELEMENTS 135 days Wed 6/29/11 Tue 1/3/12 $230,215.22384 5.2.8.6 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB - INSTRUMENTS 45 days Wed 6/29/11 Tue 8/30/11 $129,929.35

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 12

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 171
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

385 5.2.8.7 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - INSTRUMENTS 140 days Wed 8/31/11 Tue 3/13/12 $816,005.43

386 5.2.7 ELECTRICAL 360 days Wed 6/29/11 Tue 11/13/12 $3,846,516.30

387 5.2.7.12 PRELIM. ELECT LAYOUT (PANELS / RECEPT 10 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 11/8/11 $29,157.61

388 5.2.7.8 PRELIM/REVIEW/ISSUE U.G.ELECT DRAWING 10 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 10/18/11 $29,094.57389 5.2.7.16 PREP/REVIEW/INSTR/ISSUE GROUNDING D 5 days Wed 11/9/11 Tue 11/15/11 $14,594.57390 5.2.7.4 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE PANEL & CABINET DRA 25 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 9/27/11 $72,498.91391 5.2.7.13 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE POWER PLANS 10 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 11/8/11 $29,157.61392 5.2.7.17 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I/E INSTRUMENT PLA 10 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 1/3/12 $29,326.09393 5.2.7.18 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I / E INSTALLATION DE 10 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 1/3/12 $29,326.09394 5.2.7.9 3D MODEL/PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE TRAY PLAN 15 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 10/25/11 $43,656.52395 5.2.7.3 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE LOOP DIAGRAMS 30 days Wed 7/13/11 Tue 8/23/11 $86,651.09396 5.2.7.14 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE MOTOR SCHEMATIC D 30 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 12/6/11 $87,597.83397 5.2.7.15 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE WIRING DIAGRAMS 10 days Wed 10/26/11 Tue 11/8/11 $29,157.61398 5.2.7.20 CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE - (PWR/CNTL 5 days Wed 2/15/12 Tue 2/21/12 $14,742.39399 5.2.7.19 ELECTRICAL MATERIAL TAKE-OFF 10 days Wed 12/21/11 Tue 1/3/12 $29,326.09400 5.2.7.11 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE INSTRUMENT WIRING 10 days Wed 11/23/11 Tue 12/6/11 $29,135.87401 5.2.7.5 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC BU 30 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 10/4/11 $87,029.35402 5.2.7.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC BULKS 35 days Wed 10/5/11 Tue 11/22/11 $1,887,505.43

403 5.2.7.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TRANSF 40 days Wed 6/29/11 Tue 8/23/11 $115,450.00

404 5.2.7.6 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TRANSFORMERS 320 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 11/13/12 $694,666.30405 5.2.7.2 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC SW 40 days Wed 6/29/11 Tue 8/23/11 $115,450.00406 5.2.7.7 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 300 days Wed 8/24/11 Tue 10/16/12 $392,992.39407 5.2.9 MODELING 320 days Wed 1/26/11 Tue 4/17/12 $454,090.22

408 5.2.9.4 INITIAL EQUIPMENT MODELING IN (3D) MOD 25 days Wed 4/6/11 Tue 5/10/11 $71,445.65

409 5.2.9.5 DEVELOP MODEL TO 3RD STAGE 20 days Wed 2/15/12 Tue 3/13/12 $59,030.43410 5.2.9.2 CLIENT MODEL REVIEW 5 days Wed 3/14/12 Tue 3/20/12 $22,175.00411 5.2.9.6 DEVELOP MODEL TO FINAL STAGE 20 days Wed 3/21/12 Tue 4/17/12 $59,241.30412 5.2.9.1 MODEL AUTOROUTER 50 days Wed 1/26/11 Tue 4/5/11 $142,101.09

413 5.2.9.3 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 35 days Thu 4/14/11 Wed 6/1/11 $100,096.74414 5.2.4 EQUIPMENT 420 days Thu 1/6/11 Wed 8/15/12 $47,967,557.61

415 5.2.4.1 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - CO2 GA 40 days Thu 1/6/11 Wed 3/2/11 $169,889.13

416 5.2.4.4 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - CO2 GAS COMP & PLC 380 days Thu 3/3/11 Wed 8/15/12 $47,797,668.48

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 13

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 172
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

417 5.2.11 SUBCONTRACT PACKAGES 40 days Wed 2/29/12 Tue 4/24/12 $116,181.52

418 5.2.11.3 INQUIRE/QUOTE/BID TAB/AWARD - GENERA 40 days Wed 2/29/12 Tue 4/24/12 $116,181.52

419 5.2.12 CONSTRUCTION 336 days Wed 11/16/11 Wed 2/27/13 $24,886,628.26

420 5.2.19.1 CONSTR - MOBILIZE & SITEWORK 30 days Wed 11/16/11 Tue 12/27/11 $59,014.13

421 5.2.12.1 CONSTR - UNDERGROUND 60 days Wed 11/30/11 Tue 2/21/12 $1,542,618.48

422 5.2.18.1 CONSTR - INSULATE & PAINT 75 days Wed 2/15/12 Tue 5/29/12 $3,414,134.78423 5.2.21.1 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST 30 days Wed 11/14/12 Tue 12/25/12 $421,869.57

424 MECHANICAL COMPLETION 0 days Tue 12/25/12 Tue 12/25/12 $0.00

425 5.2.12.2 SITE FOUNDATION PILING 35 days Wed 12/28/11 Tue 2/14/12 $788,040.22

426 5.2.13.1 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION CO2 GAS COMPR 50 days Wed 2/22/12 Tue 5/1/12 $4,028,429.35

427 5.2.14.5 SET CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR 60 days Thu 8/16/12 Wed 11/7/12 $1,305,142.39428 5.2.13.12 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR STEEL ERECTION 25 days Thu 11/8/12 Wed 12/12/12 $18,409.78

429 5.2.13.13 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR GROUNDING 10 days Thu 11/8/12 Wed 11/21/12 $114,671.74

430 5.2.15.7 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR PIPING 45 days Thu 11/8/12 Wed 1/9/13 $2,209,527.17

431 5.2.16.11 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR ELECTRICAL 10 days Thu 1/10/13 Wed 1/23/13 $1,265,057.61432 5.2.17.4 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR INSTRUMENTATIO 25 days Thu 1/24/13 Wed 2/27/13 $680,566.30

433 5.2.15.8 HYDRO TEST CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR PIPI 20 days Thu 1/10/13 Wed 2/6/13 $113,820.65434 5.2.13.2 EXC, F/R/P FDN COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE 45 days Wed 3/7/12 Tue 5/8/12 $137,489.13435 5.2.14.3 SET COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS 5 days Wed 5/9/12 Tue 5/15/12 $75,780.43

436 5.2.13.8 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS STE 15 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 6/5/12 $247,231.52

437 5.2.15.1 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS PIPI 25 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 6/19/12 $83,447.83

438 5.2.16.6 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS ELE 20 days Wed 6/20/12 Tue 7/17/12 $59,990.22439 5.2.17.1 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS INST 20 days Wed 7/18/12 Tue 8/14/12 $41,757.61440 5.2.15.4 HYDRO TEST COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE C 20 days Wed 6/20/12 Tue 7/17/12 $55,809.78441 5.2.13.3 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION SUCTION KO DRU 40 days Wed 3/14/12 Tue 5/8/12 $137,538.04

442 5.2.14.4 SET EQUIPMENT SUCTION KO DRUMS 5 days Wed 5/9/12 Tue 5/15/12 $75,780.43

443 5.2.13.9 SUCTION KO DRUMS STEEL ERECTION 15 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 6/5/12 $18,090.22444 5.2.15.2 SUCTION KO DRUMS PIPING 25 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 6/19/12 $83,447.83445 5.2.16.7 SUCTION KO DRUMS ELECTRCIAL 20 days Wed 6/20/12 Tue 7/17/12 $59,990.22446 5.2.17.2 SUCTION KO DRUMS INSTRUMENTATION 25 days Wed 7/18/12 Tue 8/21/12 $41,771.74447 5.2.15.5 HYDRO TEST SUCTION KO DRUM PIPING 20 days Wed 6/20/12 Tue 7/17/12 $55,809.78448 5.2.13.5 EXC, F/R/P FND CUSTODY TRANSFER MET 30 days Wed 4/4/12 Tue 5/15/12 $137,733.70

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 14

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 173
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

449 5.2.16.4 SET CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID 5 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 5/22/12 $75,833.70

450 5.2.13.11 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID ST 25 days Wed 5/23/12 Tue 6/26/12 $18,115.22451 5.2.13.10 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID GR 5 days Wed 5/16/12 Tue 5/22/12 $12,525.00452 5.2.15.3 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID PIPI 25 days Wed 5/23/12 Tue 6/26/12 $83,507.61453 5.2.16.8 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID ELE 15 days Wed 6/27/12 Tue 7/17/12 $60,010.87454 5.2.17.3 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID INST 20 days Wed 7/18/12 Tue 8/14/12 $41,757.61455 5.2.15.6 HYDRO TEST CUSTODY TRANSFER METER 20 days Wed 6/27/12 Tue 7/24/12 $55,848.91456 5.2.13.4 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATIONS FOR ELECTRICA 25 days Wed 3/21/12 Tue 4/24/12 $137,489.13

457 5.2.14.1 SET TRANSFORMERS 10 days Wed 4/25/12 Tue 5/8/12 $96,319.57

458 5.2.16.2 DRESS TRANSFORMERS 35 days Wed 5/9/12 Tue 6/26/12 $321,294.57

459 5.2.16.9 INSTALL ISOPHASE BUSS 20 days Wed 6/27/12 Tue 7/24/12 $379,569.57460 5.2.14.2 SET SWITCHGEAR 10 days Wed 4/25/12 Tue 5/8/12 $29,272.83

461 5.2.16.3 INSTALL CABLE TRAY 25 days Wed 5/9/12 Tue 6/12/12 $59,757.61462 5.2.16.5 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 30 days Wed 6/13/12 Tue 7/24/12 $3,069,519.57

463 5.2.16.10 PULL AND TERMINATE 45 days Wed 7/25/12 Tue 9/25/12 $60,307.61

464 5.2.16.1 SWITCHYARD CONTRACTOR 80 days Wed 4/25/12 Tue 8/14/12 $341,838.04

465 5.2.20.1 CONSTR - BUILDING 20 days Wed 5/23/12 Tue 6/19/12 $2,770,690.22

466 5.3 Pipeline Construction 303 days Wed 5/2/12 Fri 6/28/13 $23,785,888.59

467 5.3.1 Procurement 296 days Wed 5/2/12 Wed 6/19/13 $2,641,031.44

468 5.3.1.1 Procure Pipe and Long Lead Material/Equipmen 70 days Tue 10/2/12 Mon 1/7/13 $51,828.60

469 5.3.1.2 Procure Miscellaneous Materials 28 days Thu 11/29/12 Mon 1/7/13 $88,849.60470 5.3.1.3 Procure Cathodic Protection Materials 20 days Tue 10/2/12 Mon 10/29/12 $7,404.24

471 5.3.1.4 Right-of-Way and Site Acquistion 133 days Wed 5/2/12 Fri 11/2/12 $2,189,425.00

472 5.3.1.5 Conduct Landowner Condemnation(s) 100 days Tue 10/2/12 Mon 2/18/13 $243,269.00

473 5.3.1.6 Travel - Monitor Construction and Post Construc 122 days Tue 1/1/13 Wed 6/19/13 $60,255.00

474 5.3.2 Bid & Award Construction 25 days Mon 11/5/12 Fri 12/7/12 $20,246.20475 5.3.3 Receive Material and Equipment 60 days Tue 1/8/13 Mon 4/1/13 $6,066,460.16

476 5.3.4 Inspection 71 days Tue 12/25/12 Tue 4/2/13 $464,703.53

477 5.3.5 Pipeline Construction 70 days Tue 1/1/13 Mon 4/8/13 $12,712,188.44

486 5.3.6 Facility Construction 40 days Thu 2/7/13 Wed 4/3/13 $738,470.36

493 5.3.7 Complete Pipeline As-Built Survey 37 days Tue 4/9/13 Wed 5/29/13 $293,413.00

494 5.3.8 Pipeline and Equipment Commissioning 15 days Tue 4/9/13 Mon 4/29/13 $553,723.40

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 15

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 174
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

495 5.3.9 Complete Pipeline and Facility As-Built Drawings/Alignm 28 days Fri 5/17/13 Tue 6/25/13 $37,584.96

496 5.3.10 ROW Damage Settlement, Road Repairs 55 days Fri 4/12/13 Thu 6/27/13 $173,710.30

497 5.3.11 Complete Job Books and Final Pipeline Technical Rep 10 days Fri 6/14/13 Thu 6/27/13 $84,356.80

498 5.3.12 END OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION - OPERATIONS 1 day Fri 6/28/13 Fri 6/28/13 $0.00

499 5.4 MVA Construction 605 days Mon 3/7/11 Fri 6/28/13 $3,928,148.00

500 5.4.1 Commercial Flood Monitoring Well Review & Remedia 440 days Mon 10/24/11 Fri 6/28/13 $0.00

501 5.4.2 Logging -Baseline Surveillance of Idle wells 65 days Mon 3/7/11 Fri 6/3/11 $840,000.00

502 5.4.3 Soil Gas -Site & Borehole preparation for surveillance o 195 days Tue 4/5/11 Mon 1/2/12 $43,187.25

503 5.4.4 Soil Gas -Baseline Surveillance of P&A wells 260 days Tue 1/3/12 Mon 12/31/12 $28,150.25504 5.4.5 Ground Water Monitoring -Well preparation 260 days Tue 4/5/11 Mon 4/2/12 $500,000.00

505 5.4.6 Ground Water Monitoring -Baseline Surveillance 45 days Mon 12/31/12 Fri 3/1/13 $105,277.00506 5.4.7 Reservoir Modeling - Upated 6.6 mons Tue 4/5/11 Wed 10/5/11 $87,001.00

507 5.4.8 AZMI -Well Completions 260 days Tue 4/5/11 Mon 4/2/12 $450,000.00

508 5.4.9 AZMI-Instrument Monitoring Wells 260 days Tue 4/3/12 Mon 4/1/13 $48,000.00

509 5.4.10 AZMI-Baseline geochemical sampling and hydrologic 60 days Tue 4/2/13 Mon 6/24/13 $40,000.25510 5.4.11 VSP -Baseline 30 days Tue 4/2/13 Mon 5/13/13 $564,080.00

511 5.4.12 Gravity-Baseline 20 days Tue 5/14/13 Mon 6/10/13 $512,863.00512 5.4.13 Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration 58 days Tue 4/2/13 Thu 6/20/13 $700,000.00513 5.4.14 Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and cost distri 65 days Mon 1/14/13 Fri 4/12/13 $9,589.25

514 Prepare DOE Construction Report 21 days Mon 9/2/13 Mon 9/30/13 $0.00

515 DECISION POINT 2 - End of Subphase 2B (DOE 90-day Review) 66 days Tue 10/1/13 Tue 12/31/13 $0.00516

517 6.0 Sub-Phase-2C Operation (wbs level-3) 654 days Mon 7/1/13 Thu 12/31/15 $7,983,903.61

518 6.1 Rectisol CO2 Capture Operation 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $680,010.00

519 6.1.1 OPERATION-CO2 Rectisol 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $680,010.00520 6.1.1.1 START UP 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $680,010.00

521 6.2 Compression Operation 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $385,457.61

522 6.2.1 OPERATION-CO2 COMPRESSION 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $385,457.61523 6.2.1.1 START UP 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $385,457.61

524 6.3 Pipeline Operation 588 days Mon 7/1/13 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00

525 6.3.1.1 Start-up 588 days Mon 7/1/13 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00

526 6.4 MVA Operation 522 days Wed 1/1/14 Thu 12/31/15 $6,918,436.00

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 16

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 175
ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Total Cost

527 6.4.1 Commercial Flood Monitoring - Injection & Production V 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00

528 6.4.2 Commercial Flood Monitoring - Best Practice Mitigation 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00529 6.4.3 Commercial Flood Monitoring - Pressure Maintenance 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00530 6.4.4 Commercial Flood Monitoring -IWR Calculation 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $0.00531 6.4.5 Logging - Time lapse Surveillance of idle wells and faul 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $300,000.00

532 6.4.6 Soil Gas - Time lapse Surveillance of P&A wells 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $70,050.00

533 6.4.7 Ground Water Monitoring -Time lapse Surveillance 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $97,614.00534 6.4.8 VSP - Time lapse surveys 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $2,256,320.00

535 6.4.9 Gravity - Augmented measures 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $2,051,450.00536 6.4.10 Real Time BHP -Well Preparation 130 days Wed 1/1/14 Tue 7/1/14 $1,000,000.00537 6.4.11 Real Time BHP -Sandia 521 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 12/30/15 $20,000.00

538 6.4.12 Logging - Time lapse Surveillance 455 days Wed 1/1/14 Tue 9/29/15 $972,000.00

539 6.4.13 Natural Geochemical Tracers - Collected at wellhead 2 mons Mon 1/6/14 Fri 2/28/14 $69,491.00

540 6.4.14 AZMI-Time lapse Geochemical sampling & hydrologic 456 days Wed 1/1/14 Wed 9/30/15 $60,000.00541 6.4.15 Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration 194 days Wed 1/1/14 Mon 9/29/14 $0.00

542 6.4.16 Reservoir Modeling -Updated 44 days Mon 11/2/15 Thu 12/31/15 $12,895.00

543 6.4.17 Overview & Evaluation Report 132 days Wed 7/1/15 Thu 12/31/15 $8,616.00

Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q

2010 2011 

TaskProgress

MilestoneSummary

Rolled Up TaskRolled Up Milestone

Rolled Up ProgressSplit

Lake Charles CCS Project

Page 17

Project: Leucadia LCC CO2 Schedule Date: Thu 5/6/103:25 PM 

Topical 176
Attachment 2 

Statement of Project Objectives 

1.2 Phase-2 Program & Project Management 

1.2.1 NETL Award Announcement 

NETL announces award, Leucadia Energy commences project implementation plan to 

launch project. 

1.2.2 Executive Committee 

Leucadia Energy CCS Executive Committee will monitor and manage all change 

controls, specifically related to scope, budget and schedule, including any change 

controls, specifically related to scope, budget and schedule including any changes that 

may affect the project management plan or the financial management plan. The Leucadia 

Energy CCS Executive Committee will report directly to the Leucadia Energy Vice 

President. 

1.2.3 LEC 

Leucadia Engineer Company will engage in the management of technical efforts by 

Monitoring project plans as appropriate to meet changing needs and requirements. In 

addition LEC will be responsible for defining, communicating and enforcing coding 

standards as well as monitoring the quality of deliverables and services. LEC will also 

over project construction reporting, as required including IRS, DOE, OMB and GAO 

standards and, specifically, Federal Financial Reports SF- 424A, SF-425, and the 

Reporting and Registration. 

1.2.4 Program Mgmt - FMS & PMS systems + start-up 

Program Management will include the Financial and Project management activities will 

commence and including all implementing all program protocols, including establishing 

reporting data points. 

1.2.5 Financial Management Implementation 

Commence Financial Management initiative including acquiring Deltek Vision, the 

financial management system to be used for the project along with MS SQL and MS 

Project Server 

1.2.6 Program Management Project Reporting & monitoring 

Reporting and Monitoring will include ensure all reporting be tracked and complies with 

assorted regulations, such as IRS, DOE, OMB and GAO standards and, specifically, 

Federal Financial Reports SF- 424A, SF-425, and the Reporting and Registration 

Requirements under Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

1.2.7 Financial Management Project Reporting & monitoring 

Topical 177
Reporting and Monitoring consolidated project financial information into one repository 

including work plans, progress, issues, changes, documents, cost information, budgets, 

actuals and forecasts, performance, and status reports. This reporting will include 

managing the data from a financial basis, assign resources, forecast to completion, and 

communicates financial data to stakeholders and ensure centralized accounting including 

track time for billing purposes and/or job cost allocation as well as establish budgets, for 

both projects and business units 

1.2.8 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

An environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act, will be conducted and used for decision making, describing the positive and 

negative environmental effects of proposed agency action - and will cites alternative 

actions. The EIS process in completed in the following ordered steps: Notice of Intent 

(NOI), draft EIS, final EIS, and record of decision (ROD). 

Topical 178
4.1 RECTISOL DESIGN 

4.1.01 DESIGN-RECTISOL 

4.1.01.01 CONTRACT AWARD 

This task is the contract award milestone. 

4.1.01.03 RECEIVE CLIENT DOCUMENTS 

Following contract award, the engineering firm will request data and information from 

the Client and commence engineering activities described below. 

4.1.01.02 CONTRACT LICENSE AND AWARD 

4.1.01.04 RECEIVE LICENSOR DOCUMENTS 

4.1.03 SYSTEM 

4.1.03.01 REVIEW DESIGN BASIS & DEVELOP BEDD 

Upon receipt of the Client documents, engineering firm will develop and issue a Basic 

Engineering Design Document (BEDD) for review. The BEDD will be used to govern 

engineering design activities for the Lake Charles CCS Project. 

4.1.03.02 ISSUE/REVIEW/BALANCE -– PFD 

Based on information received/updated in the BEDD, the engineering firm will update 

the process flow diagrams (PFDs) and associated material balances. This information 

will be used as a basis for developing material selection diagrams (MSDs) and piping and 

instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs). 

4.1.03.03 ISSUE MATERIAL SELECTION DIAGRAMS 

The engineering firm will develop material selection diagrams (MSDs) for the CO2 

compression equipment in accordance with applicable codes and standards. The MSDs 

will form the basis for developing P&IDs, equipment data sheets, and the definitive cost 

estimate. 

4.1.03.04 DEVELOP/REVIEW/ISSUE - P&ID 

The engineering firm will develop P&IDs for the CO2 compression system. The P&IDs 

will also be used for development of the 3-dimensional (3D) CO2 capture system model, 

piping and fabrication drawings, as well as electrical and instrumentation installation 

drawings. 

4.1.03.06 PREPARE EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare equipment data sheets for the CO2 capture equipment. 

These equipment data sheets will be issued to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) 

to obtain budgetary quotes to support a definitive cost estimate. 

Topical 179
4.1.03.08 ISSUE EQUIPMENT LIST 

An equipment list will be developed for the CO2 capture system. The equipment tag 

numbering for the equipment list will also be included in the P&IDs. Equipment will be 

listed in such a manner to support the work breakdown structure (WBS) of the definitive 

cost estimate. 

4.1.03.13 RELIEF SCENARIO (PRELIM. RELIEF VALVE SIZES) 

The engineering firm will perform an overpressure protection review to determine 

required relief locations, capacity, and design conditions. 

4.1.03.09 ISSUE CONTROL LOGIC DESCRIPTION 

The engineering firm will provide a description for the control logic of the CO2 capture 

system. This description will be supplemented with control logic diagrams. 

4.1.03.10 DESIGN HYDRAULICS 

The engineering firm will provide a description for the control logic of the CO2 capture 

system. This description will be supplemented with control logic diagrams. 

4.1.03.14 P&ID TRANSFER TO (3D) MODEL 

The engineering firm will develop a 3D model of the CO2 capture system based on the 

P&IDs developed. The 3D model will confirm appropriate equipment layout and pipe 

and cable tray routing. 

4.1.03.05 PRELIMINARY LINE SIZING 

The engineering firm will conduct calculations to determine preliminary line sizes for the 

CO2 capture system. The line sizes will be included in the P&IDs. 

4.1.03.15 ISSUE LINE SCHEDULE 

The engineering firm will prepare and issue a line schedule for the CO2 capture system. 

4.1.03.11 ISSUE INSTRUMENT DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare instrument data sheets for the CO2 capture system. 

These instrument data sheets will be issued to OEMs to obtain budgetary quotes to 

support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.1.03.12 RELIEF VALVE DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare relief valve data sheets for the CO2 capture system. 

These instrument data sheets will be issued to OEMs to obtain budgetary quotes to 

support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.1.03.07 ISSUE UTILITY SUMMARY 

A utility summary will be prepared for the CO2 capture system which will include 

electrical, water, and chemical requirements. 

4.1.06 PIPING (DESIGN) 

Topical 180
4.1.06.02 DESIGN/ISSUE/REVIEW - U.G. PIPING 

The engineering firm will develop a conceptual design for the underground piping 

required to support the CO2 capture system. 

4.1.06.01 DEVELOP PIPING CLASSES & SPECIFICATIONS 

Piping classes and specifications will be determined by the engineering firm based on the 

material balances developed. These piping classes and specifications will be included in 

the P&IDs. 

4.1.06.03 PIPING PLAN INDEX 

4.1.07 ELECTRICAL (DESIGN) 

4.1.07.01 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE ELECTRIC ONE-LINES 

The engineering firm will develop electrical one-line diagrams for the CO2 capture 

system. 

4.1.07.02 CONCEPTUAL UG ELECTRICAL DRWGS 

Conceptual underground electrical drawings will be developed by the engineering firm. 

4.1.07.05 CONCEPTUAL CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE 

Conceptual conduit and cable schedules will be developed by the engineering firm. 

4.1.07.03 CONCEPTUAL TRAY LAYOUT 

The engineering firm will provide conceptual electrical tray layouts for the CO2 capture 

system. These tray layouts will also be included in the 3D model of the CO2 capture 

system. 

4.1.07.04 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE AREA CLASSIFICATION 

The engineering firm will provide descriptions for, and develop a site layout with area 

classifications. 

4.2.10 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 

4.2.10.01 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 

Based on the engineering design activities carried out, the engineering firm will prepare 

an AACEI Class 1, definitive capital cost estimate. 

4.2 COMPRESSION DESIGN 

 

4.2.01 DESIGN-CO2 COMPRESSION 

4.2.01.01 CONTRACT AWARD 

This task is the contract award milestone. 

Topical 181
4.2.01.02 RECEIVE CLIENT DOCUMENTS 

Following contract award, the engineering firm will request data and information from 

the Client and commence engineering activities described below. 

4.2.03 SYSTEM 

4.2.03.01 REVIEW DESIGN BASIS & DEVELOP BEDD 

Upon receipt of the Client documents, engineering firm will develop and issue a Basic 

Engineering Design Document (BEDD) for review. The BEDD will be used to govern 

engineering design activities for the CCS Project. 

4.2.03.02 ISSUE/REVIEW/BALANCE – PFD 

Based on information received/updated in the BEDD, the engineering firm will update 

the process flow diagrams (PFDs) and associated material balances. This information 

will be used as a basis for developing material selection diagrams (MSDs) and piping and 

instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs). 

4.2.03.03 ISSUE MATERIAL SELECTION DIAGRAMS 

The engineering firm will develop material selection diagrams (MSDs) for the CO2 

compression equipment in accordance with applicable codes and standards. The MSDs 

will form the basis for developing P&IDs, equipment data sheets, and the definitive cost 

estimate. 

4.2.03.04 DEVELOP/REVIEW/ISSUE - P&ID 

The engineering firm will develop P&IDs for the CO2 compression system. The P&IDs 

will also be used for development of the 3-dimensional (3D) CO2 compressions system 

model, piping and fabrication drawings, as well as electrical and instrumentation 

installation drawings. 

4.2.03.06 PREPARE EQUIPMENT DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare equipment data sheets for the CO2 compression 

equipment. These equipment data sheets will be issued to original equipment 

manufacturers (OEMs) to obtain budgetary quotes to support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.2.03.08 ISSUE EQUIPMENT LIST 

An equipment list will be developed for the CO2 compression system. The equipment 

tag numbering for the equipment list will also be included in the P&IDs. Equipment will 

be listed in such a manner to support the work breakdown structure (WBS) of the 

definitive cost estimate. 

4.2.03.13 RELIEF SCENARIO (PRELIM. RELIEF VALVE SIZES) 

The engineering firm will perform an overpressure protection review to determine 

required relief locations, capacity, and design conditions. 

4.2.03.09 ISSUE CONTROL LOGIC DESCRIPTION 

Topical 182
The engineering firm will provide a description for the control logic of the CO2 

compression system. This description will be supplemented with control logic diagrams. 

4.2.03.10 DESIGN HYDRAULICS 

Upon receipt of CO2 pipeline hydraulic calculations, the engineering firm will confirm 

hydraulic calculations for the CO2 compression system. 

4.2.03.14 P&ID TRANSFER TO (3D) MODEL 

The engineering firm will develop a 3D model of the CO2 compression system based on 

the P&IDs developed. The 3D model will confirm appropriate equipment layout and 

pipe and cable tray routing. 

4.2.03.05 PRELIMINARY LINE SIZING 

The engineering firm will conduct calculations to determine preliminary line sizes for the 

CO2 compression system. The line sizes will be included in the P&IDs. 

4.2.03.15 ISSUE LINE SCHEDULE 

The engineering firm will prepare a pipeline list for the CO2 compression system which 

will include preliminary line sizes, lengths, and material type. This list will be used to 

support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.2.03.11 ISSUE INSTRUMENT DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare instrument data sheets for the CO2 compression 

system. These instrument data sheets will be issued to OEMs to obtain budgetary quotes 

to support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.2.03.12 RELIEF VALVE DATA SHEETS 

The engineering firm will prepare relief valve data sheets for the CO2 compression 

system. These instrument data sheets will be issued to OEMs to obtain budgetary quotes 

to support a definitive cost estimate. 

4.2.03.07 ISSUE UTILITY SUMMARY 

A utility summary will be prepared for the CO2 compression system which will include 

electrical, water, and chemical reagent requirements. 

4.2.06 PIPING (DESIGN) 

4.2.06.03 PIPING PLAN INDEX 

A preliminary aboveground piping plan will be developed to determine a conceptual 

arrangement with line lengths and determine underground piping needs. 

4.2.06.02 DESIGN/ISSUE/REVIEW - U.G. PIPING 

The engineering firm will develop a conceptual design for the underground piping 

required to support the CO2 compression system. 

4.2.06.01 DEVELOP PIPING CLASSES & SPECIFICATIONS 

Topical 183
Piping classes and specifications will be determined by the engineering firm based on the 

material balances developed. These piping classes and specifications will be included in 

the P&IDs. 

4.2.07 ELECTRICAL (DESIGN) 

4.2.07.01 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE ELECTRIC ONE-LINES 

The engineering firm will develop electrical one-line diagrams for the CO2 compression 

system. 

4.2.07.02 CONCEPTUAL UG ELECTRICAL DRWGS 

Conceptual underground electrical drawings will be developed by the engineering firm. 

4.2.07.05 CONCEPTUAL CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE 

A conceptual conduit and cable schedule will be developed by the engineering firm. The 

schedule will include preliminary sizes, types, and ratings to support a definitive cost 

estimate. 

4.2.07.03 CONCEPTUAL TRAY LAYOUT 

The engineering firm will provide conceptual electrical tray layouts for the CO2 

compression system. These tray layouts will also be included in the 3D model of the 

CO2 compression system. 

4.2.07.04 PREPARE/REVIEW/ISSUE AREA CLASSIFICATION 

The engineering firm will provide descriptions for, and develop a site layout with area 

classifications. 

4.2.10 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 

4.2.10.01 DEFINITIVE ESTIMATE 

Based on the engineering design activities carried out, the engineering firm will prepare 

an AACEI Class 1, definitive capital cost estimate. 

Topical 184
4.3 SUBPHASE: Pipeline Design 

4.3.1 Project Kickoff 

4.3.1.1Establish Project Criteria 

The sub-rec ipient and its engine ering f irm will conf irm the projec t r equirements and 

evaluate any changes that may have occurred since project funding was obtained. 

4.3.2 Engineering and Design 

4.3.2.1 Route Finalization 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will conduct a review of the proposed pipeline 

centerline to evalua te potential causes for route deviati on. This will be perform ed prior 

to completion of the pr eliminary route survey by survey crews. A “final” p reliminary 

route will then be issu ed to the R OW/Land and survey represen tatives for reference in 

their respective design tasks. 

4.3.2.2 Preliminary Civil and Easement Survey 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm or subcontracted survey company will perform 

a preliminary route survey once landowner access has been obtained. This survey will be 

used as the backbone of the route for discussions with landowners and development of all 

route docum entation, includi ng route alignm ent sheets, wetland and stream crossing 

permits, road and highway crossing permits, levee and railroad crossing applications, etc. 

The survey will include GPS coordinates and preliminary pipeline stationing in additio n 

to surveying of key benchmarks, property meets and bounds, and appurtenances. 

4.3.2.3 Hydraulic Calculations 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will use the pre liminary survey data to r efine 

the hydraulic calculations for the pipeline ba sed off of distances and elevations. The 

hydraulic model will confirm the operating lim its for delivery pressure and be m ade 

available to the recipient for use in compressor design conditions. 

4.3.2.4 Prepare System PFD and P&IDS 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will develop the system process flow diagram 

(PFD) and the m ore detailed process and instrum entation diagrams for the m easurement 

and overpr essure p rotection f acilities. Th is inf ormation will also be use d f or 

development of piping and fabrication drawings, as well as electrical and instrumentation 

installation drawings. 

4.3.2.5 Determine Crossing Permit Requirements 

The sub-re cipient and its engine ering f irm will use th e prelim inary route su rvey 

information to confirm the proposed crossing construction methods and specifications for 

environmental, road, highway, levee, and railroad permit preparation. 

Topical 185
4.3.2.6 Develop Material and Equipment Specifications 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will confirm design and operating conditions 

and perform calculations to make pipe material selections. The engineering firm will also 

develop material and equipm ent specifications that will be used to support the m aterial 

and equipm ent bid docum ents. The speci fications will include the Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act requirement of American-sourced steel for all project materials. 

4.3.2.7 Prepare Alignment Drawings 

The sub-recipien t and its eng ineering fi rm will create pipe line route align ment 

information using survey data and infor mation that has been collected in the project GIS 

database. The alignm ents include inform ation such as roads, rivers, pipe and coating 

specifications, method of construction, tem porary work space, easem ent width, cathodic 

protection station locations, pipeline elevation, etc. 

4.3.2.8 Prepare Landowner Plat Maps 

The sub-recipient, its engineering firm and/or its contract ROW/Land agents will prepare 

property p lats for land parcels alon g the rout e. The plats will be used for landowner 

negotiation and ultim ately filed with local court houses once negotiations are final and 

the easement has been purchased. 

4.3.2.9 Prepare Permit Exhibits 

The sub-rec ipient and its engine ering f irm will design an d prepare d ocumentation to 

support perm it applications for the various pipeline crossings along the route. This 

documentation will be used to help def ine the scope of the environm ental field surveys 

required in below, as well as support perm it applications for road, highway, and rail road 

crossings. 

4.3.2.10 Prepare Pipeline Construction Details 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will design and pr epare detailed drawings for 

engineered item s, such as pipe overbends fo r ditches or distinct elevation changes, 

horizontal directional drills under canals, trenching and construction m ethods for 

wetlands, etc. 

4.3.2.11 Design and Drawing Preparation for Facilities 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will design and pr epare detailed drawings for 

installation of m easurement, overpressure prot ection and control, pi peline interconnect, 

and pipeline pigging facilities. The detailed drawings will address all civil, electrical, 

mechanical, and instrumentation required for the successful installation of the facilities. 

4.3.2.12 Cathodic Protection Design and Details 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will design and pr epare detailed drawings for 

installation of the ca thodic pro tection sys tem, which he lps to ensur e the m echanical 

integrity of the pipeline against external corrosion. 

4.3.3 Right-of-Way/Land 

Topical 186
4.3.3.1 Update Landowner Line List 

The sub-recipient ROW/Land group, engineering firm and i ts contract land agents will 

update the landowner line list for th e pipeline route. Th is list will be used to initiate title 

search for current landowner and property title infor mation, as well as to obtain survey 

permission once ownership of each property is confirmed. 

 

4.3.3.2 Obtain Access Permission for Preliminary Survey 

The sub-recipient ROW/Land group and its contract agents will obtain survey and access 

permission from landowners along the proposed pi peline route and for potential facility 

locations. 

4.3.3.3 Perform Title Work and Market Study Appraisal 

The sub-re cipient ROW /Land group and its con tract agen ts will pe rform property and 

landowner title searches online through county/parish tax aut horities and in local court 

houses. The sub-recipient ROW /Land group will hire ind ependent third party appraisers 

to value p roperties by area, tract size, best use and proxim ity to other improvem ents in 

oder to estimate property values for use in right of way negotiations and acquisition. 

4.3.4 Environmental 

4.3.4.1 Update Permit & NEPA Requirements 

The sub-recipien t and its engineerin g firm will conduct prelim inary meetings with the 

DOE and permitting agencies to discuss the sub-recipient’s project to determine the need 

for an Environm ental Assessm ent (EA) or Environmental Im pact Statem ent (EIS) and 

crossing perm its. Inform ation obtained at these m eetings or sub sequent ca lls with 

permitting agencie s or authorities will be used to def ine specif ic a reas to con duct 

environmental field surveys below. The s ub-recipient an d its engin eering firm or 

environmental subcontractor will also re view Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWP3) and National Pollutant Discharge E limination System (NPDES) requirements to 

confirm design requirem ents for stormwater retention, secondary containm ent, and site 

grading for water runoff management. 

4.3.4.2 Perform Environmental Field Surveys for Permitting and NEPA Requirements 

The sub-recipient and its engineer ing firm or environm ental subcontractor will perf orm 

surveys of predetermined areas along the route to obtain dimensions of the sensitive area 

and determine the need f or additional construction controls or m itigation ef forts. This 

information will be used to com plete the NEPA study and finalize the crossing perm it 

applications, as well as the Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW P3) and Natio nal 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit(s). 

4.3.4.3 Prepare and Submit Permit Applications 

The sub-recipient and its environm ental s ubcontractor will finalize the crossing and 

hydrotest water discharge permit applications for submittal to the corresponding agencies 

and perm itting author ities. The su b-recipient and its env ironmental s ubcontractor will 

also prepare the NPDES permit applications, if required. Submittal of the permit will be 

completed by the sub-recipient just prior to system start-up. Th e sub-recipient, its 

Topical 187
engineering f irm, and its environm ental subcontractor will monitor the agency rev iews 

and approv als, repor t perm itting progress no ting any p otential delays, and ad dress 

requests for additional inform ation. The engineering firm will update the project 

schedule, if required. 

4.3.4.4 Perform Cultural and Ecological Surveys, if required 

The sub-recipient m ay be required to inve stigate poten tial cultu rally or ecologically 

sensitive areas along the route. The sub-recipi ent will retain an environmental contractor 

to perform physical surveys to catalogue variou s items, such as flora, endangered f auna, 

and Native Am erican and Civil War rem nants. The environm ental contractor will 

perform the survey and generate reports that will be submitted by the sub-recipient to the 

requesting agencies for review and approval. 

 

4.3.4.5 Submit Cultural and Ecological Reports to COE, SHPO, DOE 

The sub-recipient will submit any reports generated in Task 2a.4.4 above to the 

requesting agency. 

4.3.4.6 Obtain NEPA Finding of No Significant Impact ( and Corps of Engineers Approval 

The sub-recipient and its environmental s ubcontractor will conduc t any m eetings and 

conference calls and/or address any data calls from the requesting agencies such that the 

required permits for construction are obtained and all NEPA requirements have been met. 

4.3.5 Develop Construction Bid Packages 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will develop construction bid packages for the 

pipeline an d f acility c onstruction. The bi d package( s) will cons ist of pipeline route 

alignment sheets, construction standards, m aterial and equipm ent data, project schedule 

and in-service date, bid specifications and inst ructions, safety/training requirements, and 

financial bonding and contrac t requirements. The contrac t requirements will be written 

to observe and comply with the requirements of the Davis Bacon Act. 

Topical 188
4.4 MVA Design 

4.4.1 Administrative task and subcontracting 

Prior to initiation of Phase 2 activities, a number of subtasks will be completed. These are 

not assigned costs but past experience suggests that they may consume time. 

4.4.2 Reservoir Modeling-Initial characterization and modeling 

Denbury will provide data refined for input into the reservoir model to be constructed by 

BEG. This data will be used to document that the flood conforms to expected plume area 

and pressure elevation. Table 7 shows the data that will be sought and the source. 

Reservoir modeling for research MVA differs from commercial monitoring done by 

Denbury as it (1) approaches from a migration of risk perspective, to identify are 

uncertainties in the characterization that might lead to risk of CO2 migrating from the 

intended injection area, such as unmapped heterogeneities in the reservoir, and (2) 

although oil is represented in the model as an important part of the system, predicted oil 

production will not be reported as such results are outside the scope of the study. 

Table 7. Data for modeling and likely data source 

Data Source 

Field history including historical 

production drive mechanism, water 

flood, historical pressures, etc 

 Denbury + literature search 

Reservoir geometry / static model BEG from task 1 

Initial conditions (pressures, saturations, 

o/w contact...) 

 Denbury 

Boundary conditions BEG from task 1 

Production tests / field tests results Denbury* 

Permeability / porosity measurements Denbury* 

Relative permeability end points Denbury* 

Relative permeability and capillary 

pressure curves 

 Denbury* and literature 

Oil and gas composition Denbury* 

PVT (viscosity, density) data for oil Denbury* 

Brine composition or at least TDS Denbury, sampling program 

Well locations Denbury 

Perforated intervals for injection and 

production wells 

 Denbury 

Current injection and production 

schedule and rates 

 Denbury 

Historical production/injection rates if 

available 

 Files, to be allocated 

Temperature data Denbury 

Proximity of other oil/gas fields Denbury + literature search 

Topical 189
*Commercial proprietary non-funded data utilized to refine fluid flow and pressure modeling 

may be withheld from public information. 

BEG, in consultation with Denbury, will prepare a formal report describing model 

assumptions and outputs, as well as uncertainties that should be considered in the 

monitoring program. Commercial proprietary data used for input in the model may be 

withheld by Denbury from the report. 

4.4.3 Characterization and geomechanical description of fault(s) 

BEG will undertake compilation of additional characterization data and further model the 

effect of a range of possible stress changes on faults, with focus on the main sealing fault 

at the east edge of the field. To the extent legally available, Denbury will provide the data 

and review the results as in-kind cost share. BEG will prepare a letter report, which will 

predict conditions at which critical stress on fault will occur and recommend 

improvements to the fault monitoring plan. 

4.4.4 Soil Gas-Feasibility test of surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will undertake an initial assessment of soil gas conditions near representative Soso 

P&A wells, in consultation with Denbury, to consider complexities that should be 

considered for soil gas assessment to reduce uncertainties about well integrity in P&A 

wells. BEG will also include learning from other soil gas tests now underway. This 

activity will occur after this part of the project has received a CX or under a NEPA 

waiver. BEG will prepare a letter report recommending future monitoring strategies. 

4.4.5 Groundwater monitoring-Feasibility test of surveillance of P&A wells

BEG will sample existing available domestic and other water wells and review historic 

water well records of aquifer properties to obtain information about the range of ground 

water chemistries and how to best test for rock-CO2-water interaction in the aquifer 

should unintended CO2 migration occur. It will also include learning from other projects 

underway at BEG and elsewhere to identify criteria that may signal migration. Denbury 

will review with regard to placement of monitoring wells for next stage of study. Field 

work will occur after CX or NEPA waiver is obtained. BEG will prepare a letter report 

recommending future monitoring strategies. 

4.4.6 AZMI-Establish current pressure profile via Repeat Formation Test (RFT) on new 

drill wells 

BEG assumes that the simple structure can be properly monitored using two wells. This 

test plan will used to characterize the pressure field and if the plan has value, select above 

zone monitoring interval (AZMI), and wells will then be completed as AZMI wells. 

Several choices will be assessed for best value. Field staff estimate $400,000 each to 

workover and prepare for AZMI completion, which might save considerable cost 

compared to new drills. However, cement condition may require costly and possibly 

unsuccessful remediation. In this budget we planned new drills, which have the 

advantage of allowing more than one interval to be pressure tested using repeat formation 

tester (RFT). If workover is selected, additional funds will be transferred to verify good 

cement and well conditions, and install tubing and packers to maintain casing integrity. 

Topical 190
This activity will occur after CX or NEPA waiver is received. Denbury will prepare a 

report with as-build construction and RFT results. 

4.4.7 Logging-Feasibility test of surveillance of idle wells

Sandia will subcontract and guide development of a new tool for active temperature 

stimulation of the reservoir to identify fluid changes and fluid flow. Zones with 

permeability recover faster from a thermal pulse, and it is hoped that this tool will 

provide permeability information relevant to migration on faults and fluid changes in 

AZMI through casing. Denbury will provide initial assess points for testing this tool in up 

to three wells that are in operation prior to the expansion area flood. Novel tool 

development is seen as an important part of this project. Sandia will prepare a letter 

report with as-built tool design and operation, test results and recommendation for further 

use. 

 

4.4.8 Decision Point, Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and cost distribution 

BEG in consultation with Denbury, will update the risk assessment and research MVA 

plan and cost distribution based on the results of previous data collection efforts, and will 

make adjustments to the research MVA program to supplement commercial operations. 

BEG will prepare a formal report containing Phase 2B recommendations. 

 

Topical 191
TASK 5.1 CAPTURE CONSTRUCTION 

5.1.01 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW - EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 

The engineering firm will conduct a constructability review to determine equipment 

layout for the CO2 capture system. 

5.1.02 ENGINEERING 95% COMPLETE 

This task is the 95% engineering complete milestone. 

5.1.03 SYSTEM 

5.1.03.01 P&ID INSTRUMENT EXTRACT 

5.1.03.02 P.H.A. (HAZOP) 

The engineering firm will conduct a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study for the CO2 

capture system. Meetings will be held with the Client to discuss this study. 

5.1.03.03 OPERATION MANUALS 

To ensure safe operation of the CO2 system, the engineering firm will develop and issue 

operation manuals to the Client. 

5.1.05 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL 

5.1.05.07 CIVIL UG DRWGS (SEWER) 

The engineering firm will develop drawings for underground civil structures. The 

underground civil drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.14 INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE UNDERGROUND PIPING 

The engineering firm will develop, review, and issue underground piping drawings for 

the CO2 capture system based on information received from Client, process technology 

licensor and other sources. 

5.1.05.02 ISSUE AND REVIEW BUILDING LAYOUT & REQ (PRE-FAB) 

The engineering firm will develop the CO2 capture building layout with associated prefabricated buildings. The layout will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.11 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PLATFORM STEEL 

The engineering firm will develop the design for CO2 capture system platform steel. The 

platform steel design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.12 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/IS - MISC PLTFRM & SUPT STL 

The engineering firm will develop the design for miscellaneous platform and support 

steel for the CO2 capture system. The miscellaneous platform and support steel will be 

issued for Client review. 

Topical 192
5.1.05.08 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE-PIPE/ELECT SUPT FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop the foundation design for pipe and electrical supports. 

The pipe and electrical support foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.09 SCOPE WRITE-UP FOR CIVIL/STRUCTURAL 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the civil/structural scope of the CO2 

capture system. 

5.1.05.04 ENG DESIGN/REVIEW/ISSUE – PILING 

The engineering firm will develop piling design to support the CO2 capture equipment. 

The piling design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.05 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW – BUILDING 

Engineering design for the CO2 capture building will be developed with input from the 

selected building vendor. Building design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.06 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - TOWER / VESSEL FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop foundation design for towers and vessels. The tower 

and vessel foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.13 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PIPE/ELECT SPRTS 

The engineering firm will develop the design for pipe and electrical supports for the CO2 

capture system. The miscellaneous pipe and electrical support design will be issued for 

Client review. 

5.1.05.01 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - ELECT EQUIP FDTNS 

The engineering firm will develop the design for the all electrical equipment foundations 

for the CO2 capture system. The design will subsequently be sent to the Client for 

review. 

5.1.05.03 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - MJR EQUIP FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop the major equipment foundation design based on OEM 

bids received. The major equipment foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.05.15 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG – BUILDINGS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the CO2 capture 

building. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM 

bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.05.10 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - STR. STEEL 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the structural steel 

required for the CO2 capture system. These documents will be sent to OEMs for 

bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the 

bids. 

Topical 193
5.1.05.16 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – BUILDINGS 

Following bid evaluation, the CO2 compressor building will be awarded to the selected 

OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.06 PIPING 

5.1.06.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TAGGED VALVES 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for tagged valves. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.06.02 VESSEL PLATFORM & NOZZLE ORIENTATION 

The engineering firm will determine vessel platform and nozzle orientation to support the 

CO2 capture system. 

5.1.06.14 ISSUE ISOMETRICS 

Following pipe stress calculations, the engineering firm will issue isometrics for Client 

review. 

5.1.06.10 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 

The engineering firm will conduct pipe stress analyses. 

5.1.06.04 TIE-IN DWGS 

The engineering firm will develop tie-in drawings for the CO2 capture equipment. 

5.1.06.15 MES RUN – MTO 

5.1.06.11 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – MECHANICAL 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the mechanical scope of the CO2 

capture system. 

5.1.06.12 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – INSULATION 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the insulation scope of the CO2 capture 

system. 

5.1.06.13 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – PAINTING 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the painting scope of the CO2 capture 

system. 

5.1.06.03 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TAGGED VALVES 

Following bid evaluation for the tagged valves, the tagged valves will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

Topical 194
5.1.06.16 PREPARE REQ/IFB/BID/TAB - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS ETC.) 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for pipe specials such as 

strainers and traps. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of 

OEM bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.06.17 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS ETC.) 

Following bid evaluation, the pipe specials will be awarded to the selected OEM(s) for 

fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.06.18 FINAL REQUISITION - BULK PIPE 

The engineering firm will issue the final requisition for bulk pipe. 

5.1.06.06 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP FAB PIPE 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for shop fabricated pipe. 

These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.06.09 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PIPE 

Following bid evaluation for the shop fabricated pipe, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.06.05 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - PVF AND MISC PIPE 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for PVF and miscellaneous 

pipe. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, 

the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.06.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PVF AND MISC PIPE 

Following bid evaluation for the PVF and miscellaneous pipes, bids will be awarded to 

the selected OEM for fabrication and shipment 

5.1.08 INSTRUMENTATION 

5.1.08.01 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - INSTRUMENT INDEX 

5.1.08.03 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - I/O LIST 

The engineering firm will develop an input/output (I/O) list for the CO2 capture system. 

This list will be issued to the Client for review 

5.1.08.02 PREPARE & REVIEW - LOGIC DIAGRAMS 

The engineer will develop logic diagrams for the CO2 capture system. 

5.1.08.04 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG-FLOW ELEMENTS 

Topical 195
The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for flow elements. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.08.05 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FLOW ELEMENTS 

Following bid evaluation for the flow elements, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.08.06 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB – INSTRUMENTS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for instruments. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.08.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – INSTRUMENTS 

Following bid evaluation for the instruments, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.07 ELECTRICAL 

5.1.07.12 PRELIM. ELECT LAYOUT (PANELS / RECEPT ETC.) 

An electrical layout drawing, detailing the general layout of electrical panels, receptacles, 

transformers, etc. will be prepared by the engineering firm and issued for Client review. 

5.1.07.08 PRELIM/REVIEW/ISSUE U.G.ELECT DRAWINGS 

The engineering firm will revise and issue the underground electrical drawings for Client 

review. 

5.1.07.16 PREP/REVIEW/INSTR/ISSUE GROUNDING DWGS 

The engineering firm will develop grounding drawings for the CO2 capture system for 

Client review. 

5.1.07.04 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE PANEL & CABINET DRAWINGS 

Electrical panel and cabinet drawings will be developed for the CO2 capture system. 

These drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.07.13 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE POWER PLANS 

5.1.07.17 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I/E INSTRUMENT PLANS 

5.1.07.18 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I / E INSTALLATION DETAILS 

5.1.07.09 3D MODEL/PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE TRAY PLANS 

Topical 196
The 3D model for electrical trays will be revised and issued for Client review based on 

information received from selected OEMs. 

5.1.07.03 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE LOOP DIAGRAMS 

Control loop diagrams will be developed for the CO2 capture system. These drawings 

will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.07.14 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE MOTOR SCHEMATIC DRWGS 

The engineering form will prepare motor schematic drawings for the CO2 capture system 

for Client review and comment. 

5.1.07.15 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE WIRING DIAGRAMS 

The engineering firm will develop revise electrical wiring diagrams based on information 

received from electrical equipment OEMs. These electrical wiring diagrams will be 

issued for Client review. 

5.1.07.20 CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE - (PWR/CNTL) 

5.1.07.19 ELECTRICAL MATERIAL TAKE-OFF 

The engineering firm will develop MTOs for the electrical equipment of the CO2 capture 

system. 

5.1.07.11 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE INSTRUMENT WIRING DIA 

Instrumentation wiring diagrams will be prepared by the engineering form based on 

instrumentation equipment data received from OEMs. These instrument wiring diagrams 

will be issued for Client review. 

5.1.07.05 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC BULKS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for other bulk electrical 

equipment. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM 

bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.07.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC BULKS 

Following bid evaluation for the electrical bulk equipment, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.07.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG – TRANSFORMERS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for transformers. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.07.06 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – TRANSFORMERS 

Following bid evaluation for the transformers, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

Topical 197
5.1.07.02 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the electrical switchgear. 

These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.07.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 

Following bid evaluation for the electrical switchgear, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.09 MODELING 

5.1.09.04 INITIAL EQUIPMENT MODELING IN (3D) MODEL 

Based on the bids received from OEMs, the engineering firm will develop a 3D model for 

the CO2 capture equipment. 

5.1.09.05 DEVELOP MODEL TO 3RD STAGE 

5.1.09.02 CLIENT MODEL REVIEW 

5.1.09.06 DEVELOP MODEL TO FINAL STAGE 

The engineering firm will finalize the 3D model of the CO2 capture system. 

5.1.09.01 MODEL AUTOROUTER 

5.1.09.03 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 

The engineering firm will update pipe stress analysis calculations. 

5.1.04 EQUIPMENT 

5.1.04.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - COMPRESSORS & PLC 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for air compressors. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.04.02 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - COMPRESSORS & PLC 

Following bid evaluation for the vessel air comprewsors, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.04.05 PREP REQ/ISB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - VESSEL INTERNALS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for Rectisol vessel internals. 

These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

Topical 198
5.1.04.06 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - VESSEL INTERNALS 

Following bid evaluation for the vessel internals, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.04.07 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG – PUMPS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for pumps. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.04.08 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – PUMPS 

Following bid evaluation for the pumps, bids will be awarded to the selected OEM(s) for 

fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.04.09 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for shop fabricated pressure 

vessels. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, 

the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.04.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS 

Following bid evaluation for the shop fabricated pressure vessels, bids will be awarded to 

the selected OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.04.12 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for shop field erected tanks. 

These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.04.13 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

Following bid evaluation for the field erected tanks; bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.04.14 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - HEAT EXCHANGERS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for heat exchangers. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.1.04.15 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - HEAT EXCHANGERS 

Following bid evaluation for the heat exchangers, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.1.11 SUBCONTRACT PACKAGES 

Topical 199
5.1.11.02 INQUIRE/QUOTE/BID TAB/AWARD - GENERAL CONTRACTOR 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for general construction 

contractors. These documents will be sent to general construction contractors for 

bidding. Upon receipt of contractor bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate 

the bids. Based on the bids received from general construction contractors, the general 

contractor scope for the CO2 capture system will be awarded to the selected contractor. 

5.1.12 CONSTRUCTION 

5.1.19.01 CONSTR - MOBILIZE & SITEWORK 

The selected contractor will mobilize, stage equipment, and prepare to commence the 

construction of underground civil works. 

5.1.12.01 CONSTR – UNDERGROUND 

The selected contractor will commence the construction of underground civil works. 

5.1.18.01 CONSTR - INSULATE & PAINT 

Upon completion of aboveground piping erection, the selected contractor will finish 

painting of piping and equipment as required and insulate. 

5.1.21.01 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST 

The selected contractor will conduct final checks and conduct piping hydro tests for 

design compliance. 

5.1.21.02 MECHANICAL COMPLETION 

This task defines the mechanical completion of the Rectisol unit. 

5.1.12.02 SITE FOUNDATION PILING 

The selected contractor will cast pilings to support the CO2 capture equipment. 

5.1.13.01 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION COMPRESSORS TRAINS 1 & 2 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the air compressor 

foundations for the Rectisol Trans 1 & 2. The selected contractor will be responsible for 

this task. 

5.1.13.04 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATIONS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the electrical equipment 

foundations for the CO2 capture system. The selected contractor will be responsible for 

this task. 

5.1.14.01 SET TRANSFORMERS 

The CO2 capture system’s transformers will be set (placed, bolted, etc.) on their 

respective foundations by the selected contractor. 

5.1.16.02 DRESS TRANSFORMERS 

Topical 200
Following transformer setting, the transformers for the CO2 capture system will be 

dressed by the selected contractor. 

5.1.16.14 INSTALL ISOPHASE BUSS 

The isophase bus ducts will be installed by the selected contractor in preparation for 

switchgear connection. 

5.1.14.02 SET SWITCHGEAR 

The switchgear for the CO2 capture system will be set by the selected contractor. 

5.1.16.03 INSTALL CABLE TRAY 

This task will include the installation of the cable trays for the CO2 capture system. The 

selected contractor will be responsible for this task. 

5.1.16.08 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 

This task includes the installation of the electrical conduit the Rectisol unit. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.15 PULL AND TERMINATE 

Electrical wire and cabling will be pulled and terminated for the Rectisol unit systems 

and subsequently connected to the associated electrical equipment. 

5.1.16.01 SWITCHYARD CONTRACTOR 

The switchyard contractor will prepare the space required for switchyard installation and 

erect the switchyard. The CO2 capture system loads will be connected to the switchyard. 

5.1.20.01 CONSTR – BUILDING 

5.1.13.06 EXC, F/R/P FND PUMPS TRAINS 1 & 2 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the foundations for the 

pumps for Rectisol Trains 1&2. The selected contractor will be responsible for this task. 

5.1.13.12 PUMPS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit pumps. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.16 PUMPS STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for Rectisol unit 

pumps. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.03 PUMPS PIPING 

This task includes the piping installation for the Rectisol unit pumps. The piping 

installation for these pumps will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.15.08 HYDRO TEST PUMPS 

Topical 201
This task includes hydro testing for the Rectisol unit pumps. The testing will be 

conducted by the selected testing contractor. 

5.1.16.05 SET PUMPS 

This task includes the setting (placement, bolt, etc.) of the Rectisol unit pumps. The 

selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.11 PUMPS ELECTRICAL 

This task includes the installation of electrical equipment for the Rectisol unit pumps. 

The electrical equipment installation for these pumps will be conducted by the selected 

contractor. 

5.1.17.03 PUMPS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes the installation of instrumentation equipment for the Rectisol unit 

pumps. The instrument installation will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.13.07 EXC, F/R/P FND FIELD ERECTED TANKS TRAINS 1 & 2 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the foundations for the 

field erected tanks for Rectisol Trains 1&2. The selected contractor will be responsible 

for this task. 

5.1.13.13 FIELD ERECTED TANKS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. The 

selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.17 FIELD ERECTED TANKS STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for Rectisol field 

erected tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.04 FIELD ERECTED TANKS PIPING 

This task includes installation of piping associated to the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.09 HYDRO TEST FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

This task includes hydro testing the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. The selected testing 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.06 SET FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

This task includes setting (placement, bolting, etc.) of the Rectisol unit field erected 

tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.12 FIELD ERECTED TANKS ELECTRICAL 

This task includes installation of electrical equipment associated to the Rectisol unit field 

erected tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.13 EXC, F/R/P - FOUNDATION PIPERACK 

Topical 202
The task is for constructing the complete foundation system for the piperack, to include 

excavation, forming, rebar and embed placement, pouring concrete, curing and form 

stripping of the various foundation elements. 

5.1.13.14 STEEL ERECTION PIPERACK 

The task is for constructing the complete structural steel system for the piperack, to 

include erection, alignment, bolt up and/or welding of the structural elements of the 

system. 

5.1.13.15 LB PIPE FOR PIPERACK 

The task is for erecting of large bore piping in the piperack, including spool piece and 

fitting placement, support and hanging, fit-up and completing all threaded and welded 

joints for each large bore line routed in the piperack. 

5.1.13.16 INSTRUMENTATION PIPERACK 

The task is for installation of all in-line instrumentation in the pipe lines routed in the 

piperack including field installed thermalwells. 

5.1.13.17 SB PIPE FOR PIPERACK 

The task is for erecting of small bore piping in the piperack, including spool piece and 

fitting placement, support and hanging, fit-up and completing all threaded and welded 

joints for each small bore line routed in the piperack. 

5.1.17.04 FIELD ERECTED TANKS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes instrumentation installation associated to the Rectisol unit field erected 

tanks. The selected testing contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.04 SET HEAT EXCHANGERS 

This task includes setting (placement, bolting, etc.) of the Rectisol unit heat exchangers. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.11 HEAT EXCHANGERS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol heat exchangers. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.15 HEAT EXCHANGERS STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for Rectisol heat 

exchangers. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.02 HEAT EXCHANGERS PIPING 

This task includes installation of piping associated to the Rectisol unit heat exchangers. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.10 HEAT EXCHANGERS ELECTRICAL 

Topical 203
This task includes the installation of electrical equipment for the Rectisol unit heat 

exchangers. The electrical equipment installation for these heat exchangers will be 

conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.17.02 HEAT EXCHANGERS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes instrumentation installation associated to the Rectisol unit heat 

exchangers. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.07 HYDRO TEST HEAT EXCHANGERS 

This task includes hydro testing the Rectisol unit air compressors. The selected testing 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.14.05 SET COMPRESSORS 

This task includes setting (placement, bolting, etc.) of the Rectisol unit air compressors. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.20 COMPRESSORS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit air compressors. The 

selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.19 COMPRESSORS STEEL ERECTION 

This task includes erection of the Rectisol unit steel for the air compressors. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.11 COMPRESSORS PIPING 

This task includes the piping installation for the Rectisol unit air compressors. The 

piping installation for these air compressors will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.16.16 COMPRESSORS ELECTRICAL 

This task includes the installation of electrical equipment for the Rectisol unit air 

compressors. The electrical equipment installation for these compressors will be 

conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.17.06 COMPRESSORS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes instrumentation installation associated to the Rectisol unit air 

compressors. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.12 HYDRO TEST COMPRESSORS 

This task includes hydro testing the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. The selected testing 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.20.1 PULL AND TERMINATE 

Electrical wire and cabling will be pulled and terminated for the Rectisol unit systems 

and subsequently connected to the associated electrical equipment. 

5.1.20.2 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 

Topical 204
This task includes the installation of the electrical conduit the Rectisol unit. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.20.3 INSULATE & PAINT 

This task includes the insulation and painting of the Rectisol unit. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.13 FIELD ERECTED TANKS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. The 

selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.06 SET FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

This task includes setting (placement, bolting, etc.) of the Rectisol unit field erected 

tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.17 FIELD ERECTED TANKS STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for Rectisol field 

erected tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.04 FIELD ERECTED TANKS PIPING 

This task includes installation of piping associated to the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.12 FIELD ERECTED TANKS ELECTRICAL 

This task includes installation of electrical equipment associated to the Rectisol unit field 

erected tanks. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.17.04 FIELD ERECTED TANKS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes instrumentation installation associated to the Rectisol unit field erected 

tanks. The selected testing contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.09 HYDRO TEST FIELD ERECTED TANKS 

This task includes hydro testing the Rectisol unit field erected tanks. The selected testing 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.25 SET EQUIPMENT SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS 

This task includes setting (placement, bolting, etc.) of the Rectisol unit shop fabricated 

pressure vessels. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this 

task. 

5.1.13.10 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS STEEL ERECTION 

This task includes erection of the Rectisol unit steel for the shop fabricated pressure 

vessels. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.01 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS PIPING 

Topical 205
This task includes installation of piping associated to the Rectisol unit shop fabricated 

pressure vessels. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this 

task. 

5.1.16.09 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS ELECTRCIAL 

This task includes installation of electrical equipment associated to the Rectisol unit shop 

fabricated pressure vessels. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution 

of this task. 

5.1.17.01 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes the hydro testing of the Rectisol unit shop fabricated pressure vessels. 

The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.06 HYDRO TEST SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS 

This task includes the hydro testing of the Rectisol unit shop fabricated pressure vessels. 

The selected testing contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.25 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit shop fabricated pressure 

vessels. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.12 PUMPS GROUNDING 

This task includes the electrical grounding of the Rectisol unit pumps. The selected 

contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.16.05 SET PUMPS 

This task includes the setting (placement, bolt, etc.) of the Rectisol unit pumps. The 

selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.13.16 PUMPS STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for Rectisol unit 

pumps. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.1.15.03 PUMPS PIPING 

This task includes the piping installation for the Rectisol unit pumps. The piping 

installation for these pumps will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.16.11 PUMPS ELECTRICAL 

This task includes the installation of electrical equipment for the Rectisol unit pumps. 

The electrical equipment installation for these pumps will be conducted by the selected 

contractor. 

5.1.17.03 PUMPS INSTRUMENTATION 

This task includes the installation of instrumentation equipment for the Rectisol unit 

pumps. The instrument installation will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

Topical 206
5.1.15.08 HYDRO TEST PUMPS 

This task includes hydro testing for the Rectisol unit pumps. The testing will be 

conducted by the selected testing contractor. 

5.1.14.03 SET VESSEL INTERNALS 

This task includes the setting of the internals (packing etc.) for the Rectisol unit. The 

setting of the internals will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.13.09 VESSEL INTERNALS FIELD DRESS 

This task includes the installation of the internals (packing etc.) for the Rectisol unit. The 

installation of the internals will be conducted by the selected contractor 

. 

5.1.13.25 SHOP FAB PRESSURE VESSELS GROUNDING 

This task includes grounding of the shop fabricated vessels for the Rectisol unit. The 

grounding will be conducted by the selected contractor. 

5.1.21.01 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST 

This task includes the final mechanical testing for Rectisol. The testing will be 

conducted by the selected testing contractor. 

5.1.21.02 MECHANICAL COMPLETION 

This task defines mechanical completion for the Rectisol. 

 TASK 5.2 COMPRESSION CONSTRUCTION 

5.2.01 CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW - EQUIPMENT LAYOUT 

The engineering firm will conduct a constructability review to determine equipment 

layout for the CO2 compression system. 

5.2.02 ENGINEERING 95% COMPLETE 

This task is the 95% engineering complete milestone. 

5.2.03 SYSTEM 

5.2.03.01 P&ID INSTRUMENT EXTRACT 

5.2.03.02 P.H.A. (HAZOP) 

The engineering firm will conduct a hazard and operability (HAZOP) study for the CO2 

compression system. Meetings will be held with the Client to discuss this study 

5.2.03.03 OPERATION MANUALS 

To ensure safe operation of the CO2 system, the engineering firm will develop and issue 

operation manuals to the Client. 

5.2.05 CIVIL & STRUCTURAL 

Topical 207
5.2.05.08 CIVIL UG DRWGS (SEWER) 

The engineering firm will develop drawings for underground civil structures. The 

underground civil drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.04 INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE UNDERGROUND PIPING 

The engineering firm will develop underground piping arrangement drawings. The 

underground piping drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.02 ISSUE AND REVIEW BUILDING LAYOUT & REQ (PRE-FAB) 

The engineering firm will develop the CO2 compressor building layout with associated 

pre-fabricated buildings. The layout will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.12 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PLATFORM STEEL 

The engineering firm will develop the design for CO2 compression system platform steel. 

The platform steel design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.13 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/IS - MISC PLTFRM & SUPT STL 

The engineering firm will develop the design for miscellaneous platform and support 

steel for the CO2 compression system. The miscellaneous platform and support steel will 

be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.09 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE-PIPE/ELECT SUPT FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop the foundation design for pipe and electrical supports. 

The pipe and electrical support foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.10 SCOPE WRITE-UP FOR CIVIL/STRUCTURAL 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the civil/structural scope of the CO2 

compression system. 

5.2.05.05 ENG DESIGN/REVIEW/ISSUE – PILING 

The engineering firm will develop piling design to support the CO2 compression 

buildings and equipment. The piling design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.06 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW – BUILDING 

Engineering design for the CO2 compressor building will be developed with input from 

the selected building vendor. Building design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.07 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - TOWER / VESSEL FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop foundation design for towers and vessels. The tower 

and vessel foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.14 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - PIPE/ELECT SPRTS 

The engineering firm will develop the design for pipe and electrical supports for the CO2 

compression system. The miscellaneous pipe and electrical support design will be issued 

for Client review. 

Topical 208
5.2.05.01 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - ELECT EQUIP FDTNS 

The engineering firm will develop the design for the all electrical equipment foundations 

for the CO2 compression system. The design will subsequently be sent to the Client for 

review. 

5.2.05.03 ENG DESIGN/INPUT/REVIEW/ISSUE - MJR EQUIP FDNS 

The engineering firm will develop the major equipment foundation design based on OEM 

bids received. The major equipment foundation design will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.05.15 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG – BUILDINGS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the CO2 compressor 

building. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM 

bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.05.11 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - STR. STEEL 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the structural steel 

required for the CO2 compression system. These documents will be sent to OEMs for 

bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the 

bids. 

5.2.05.16 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – BUILDINGS 

Following bid evaluation, the CO2 compressor building will be awarded to the selected 

OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.06 PIPING 

5.2.06.02 VESSEL PLATFORM & NOZZLE ORIENTATION 

The engineering firm will determine vessel platform and nozzle orientation to support the 

CO2 compression system. 

5.2.06.14 ISSUE ISOMETRICS 

Following pipe stress calculations, the engineering firm will issue isometrics for Client 

review. 

5.2.06.10 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 

The engineering firm will conduct pipe stress analyses. 

5.2.06.04 TIE-IN DWGS 

The engineering firm will develop tie-in drawings for the CO2 compression equipment. 

5.2.05.15 MES RUN – MTO 

5.2.06.11 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – MECHANICAL 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the mechanical scope of the CO2 

compression system. 

Topical 209
5.2.06.12 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – INSULATION 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the insulation scope of the CO2 

compression system. 

5.2.06.13 SCOPE WRITE-UPS – PAINTING 

The engineering firm will develop a write-up for the painting scope of the CO2 

compression system. 

5.2.06.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - TAGGED VALVES 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for tagged valves. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.06.03 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - TAGGED VALVES 

Following bid evaluation for the tagged valves, the tagged valves will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.06.16 PREPARE REQ/IFB/BID/TAB - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS ETC.) 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for pipe specials such as 

strainers and traps. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of 

OEM bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.06.17 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PIPE SPECIALS (TRAPS ETC.) 

Following bid evaluation, the pipe specials will be awarded to the selected OEM(s) for 

fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.06.18 FINAL REQUISITION - BULK PIPE 

5.2.06.06 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - SHOP FAB PIPE 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for shop fabricated pipe. 

These documents will be set to the OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.06.09 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - SHOP FAB PIPE 

Following bid evaluation for the shop fabricated pipe, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.06.05 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - PVF AND MISC PIPE 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for PVF and miscellaneous 

pipe. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, 

the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.06.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - PVF AND MISC PIPE 

Following bid evaluation for the PVF and miscellaneous pipes, bids will be awarded to 

the selected OEM for fabrication and shipment 

Topical 210
5.2.08 INSTRUMENTATION 

5.2.08.01 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - INSTRUMENT INDEX 

The engineering firm will develop an instrument index for the CO2 compression system. 

This list will be issued to the Client for review. 

5.2.08.03 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE - I/O LIST 

The engineering firm will develop an input/output (I/O) list for the CO2 compression 

system. This list will be issued to the Client for review 

5.2.08.02 PREPARE & REVIEW - LOGIC DIAGRAMS 

The engineer will develop logic diagrams for the CO2 compression system. 

5.2.08.04 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG-FLOW ELEMENTS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for flow elements. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.08.05 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - FLOW ELEMENTS 

Following bid evaluation for the flow elements, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.08.06 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB – INSTRUMENTS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for instruments. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.08.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – INSTRUMENTS 

Following bid evaluation for the instruments, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.07 ELECTRICAL 

5.2.07.12 PRELIM. ELECT LAYOUT (PANELS / RECEPT ETC.) 

An electrical layout drawing, detailing the general layout of electrical panels, receptacles, 

transformers, etc. will be prepared by the engineering firm and issued for Client review. 

 

5.2.07.08 PRELIM/REVIEW/ISSUE U.G.ELECT DRAWINGS 

The engineering firm will revise and issue the underground electrical drawings for Client 

review. 

5.2.07.16 PREP/REVIEW/INSTR/ISSUE GROUNDING DWGS 

The engineering firm will develop grounding drawings for the CO2 compression system 

for Client review. 

Topical 211
5.2.07.04 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE PANEL & CABINET DRAWINGS 

Electrical panel and cabinet drawings will be developed for the CO2 compression system. 

These drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.07.13 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE POWER PLANS 

The engineering firm will develop power plans for the CO2 compression system. These 

plans will be issued for the Client review. 

5.2.07.17 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I/E INSTRUMENT PLANS 

The engineering firm will develop instrument and wiring plans for the CO2 compression 

system. These plans will be issued for the Client review. 

5.2.07.18 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE I / E INSTALLATION DETAILS 

The engineering firm will develop details for the CO2 compression system electrical and 

instrument installation. These details will be issued for the Client review. 

5.2.07.09 3D MODEL/PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE TRAY PLANS 

The 3D model for electrical trays will be revised and issued for Client review based on 

information received from selected OEMs. 

5.2.07.03 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE LOOP DIAGRAMS 

Control loop diagrams will be developed for the CO2 compression system. These 

drawings will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.07.14 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE MOTOR SCHEMATIC DRWGS 

The engineering form will prepare motor schematic drawings for the CO2 compression 

system for Client review and comment. 

5.2.07.15 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE WIRING DIAGRAMS 

The engineering firm will develop revise electrical wiring diagrams based on information 

received from electrical equipment OEMs. These electrical wiring diagrams will be 

issued for Client review. 

5.2.07.20 CONDUIT & CABLE SCHEDULE - (PWR/CNTL) 

The engineering firm will develop a revised conduit and cable schedule. This schedule 

will be issued for Client review. 

5.2.07.19 ELECTRICAL MATERIAL TAKE-OFF 

The engineering firm will develop MTOs for the electrical equipment of the CO2 

compression system. 

5.2.07.11 PREP/REVIEW/ISSUE INSTRUMENT WIRING DIA 

Instrumentation wiring diagrams will be prepared by the engineering form based on 

instrumentation equipment data received from OEMs. These instrument wiring diagrams 

will be issued for Client review. 

Topical 212
5.2.07.05 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC BULKS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for other bulk electrical 

equipment. These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM 

bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.07.10 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC BULKS 

Following bid evaluation for the electrical bulk equipment, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.07.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG – TRANSFORMERS 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for transformers. These 

documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering 

firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.07.06 AWARD/FAB/SHIP – TRANSFORMERS 

Following bid evaluation for the transformers, bids will be awarded to the selected 

OEM(s) for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.07.02 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for the electrical switchgear. 

These documents will be sent to OEMs for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the 

engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate the bids. 

5.2.07.07 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - ELEC SWITCHGEAR 

Following bid evaluation for the electrical switchgear, bids will be awarded to the 

selected OEM for fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.09 MODELING 

5.2.09.04 INITIAL EQUIPMENT MODELING IN (3D) MODEL 

Based on the bids received from OEMs, the engineering firm will develop a 3D model for 

the CO2 compression equipment. 

5.2.09.05 DEVELOP MODEL TO 3RD STAGE 

Complete the 3D model with all design information. 

5.2.09.02 CLIENT MODEL REVIEW 

The 3D model will be issued for Client Review. 

5.2.09.06 DEVELOP MODEL TO FINAL STAGE 

The engineering firm will finalize the 3D model of the CO2 compression system. 

5.2.09.01 MODEL AUTOROUTER 

5.2.09.03 PIPE STRESS ANALYSIS 

The engineering firm will update pipe stress analysis calculations. 

Topical 213
5.2.04 EQUIPMENT 

5.2.04.01 PREP REQ/IFB/BID TAB/VNDR ENG - CO2 GAS COMP & PLC 

The engineering firm will develop requests for quotation (REQ) and invitation for bid 

(IFB) documents for the CO2 gas compressors. These documents will be sent to OEMs 

for bidding. Upon receipt of OEM bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate 

the bids. 

5.2.04.04 AWARD/FAB/SHIP - CO2 GAS COMP & PLC 

Following bid evaluation, the CO2 compressors will be awarded to the selected OEM for 

fabrication and shipment. 

5.2.11 SUBCONTRACT PACKAGES 

5.2.11.03 INQUIRE/QUOTE/BID TAB/AWARD - GENERAL CONTRACTOR 

The engineering firm will develop REQ and IFB documents for general construction 

contractors. These documents will be sent to general construction contractors for 

bidding. Upon receipt of contractor bids, the engineering firm will tabulate and evaluate 

the bids. Based on the bids received from general construction contractors, the general 

contractor scope for the CO2 compression system will be awarded to the selected 

contractor. 

5.2.19 CONSTRUCTION 

5.2.19.01 CONSTR - MOBILIZE & SITEWORK 

The selected contractor will mobilize, stage equipment, and prepare to commence the 

construction of underground civil works. 

5.2.12.01 CONSTR – UNDERGROUND 

The selected contractor will commence the construction of underground civil works. 

5.2.18.01 CONSTR - INSULATE & PAINT 

Upon completion of aboveground piping erection, the selected contractor will finish 

painting of piping and equipment as required and insulate. 

5.2.21.01 CONSTR - FINAL MECH / TEST 

The selected contractor will conduct final checks and conduct piping hydro tests for 

design compliance. 

5.2.12.02 SITE FOUNDATION PILING 

The selected contractor will cast pilings to support the CO2 compression equipment. 

5.2.13.01 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR 

The selected contractor will excavate and form the site, install rebar, and pour concrete 

for the CO2 Gas Compressor foundation. 

Topical 214
5.2.14.05 SET CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR 

This task includes the setting of the CO2 Gas Compressor (placement, bolting, etc.) for 

the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will be responsible for the 

execution of this task. 

5.2.13.12 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR STEEL ERECTION 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for the CO2 Gas 

Compressor. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this task. 

5.2.13.13 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR GROUNDING 

Upon setting the CO2 Gas Compressor, the selected contractor will fit up with the 

grounding grid. 

5.2.15.07 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR PIPING 

The selected contractor will fit up the CO2 Gas Compressor with the surrounding erected 

piping and complete all other miscellaneous compressor piping. 

5.2.16.11 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR ELECTRICAL 

The selected contractor will tie in the CO2 Gas Compressor to the electrical system. 

5.2.17.04 CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR INSTRUMENTATION 

The selected contractor will complete the CO2 Gas Compressor instrumentation 

installation and wiring. 

5.2.15.08 HYDRO TEST CO2 GAS COMPRESSOR PIPING 

The selected contractor will perform a hydro test of the CO2 Gas Compressor erected 

piping. 

5.2.13.02 EXC, F/R/P FDN COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS 

The selected contractor will excavate and form the site, install rebar, and pour the 

Compressor Discharge Cooler’s foundation. 

5.2.14.03 SET COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS 

This task includes the setting of the Compressor Discharge Coolers (placement, bolting, 

etc.) for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will be responsible for the 

execution of this task. 

5.2.13.08 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS STEEL ERECTION 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for the Compressor 

Discharge Coolers. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this 

task. 

5.2.15.01 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS PIPING 

The selected contractor will fit up the Compressor Discharge Coolers with the 

surrounding erected piping and complete all other miscellaneous piping. 

Topical 215
 

5.2.16.06 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS ELECTRICAL 

The selected contractor will tie in the Compressor Discharge Coolers to the electrical 

system. 

5.2.17.01 COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLERS INSTRUMENTATION 

The selected contractor will complete the Compressor Discharge Coolers instrumentation 

installation and wiring. 

5.2.15.04 HYDRO TEST COMPRESSOR DISCHARGE COOLER PIPING 

The selected contractor will perform a hydro test of the Compressor Discharge Cooler 

erected piping. 

5.2.13.03 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATION SUCTION KO DRUMS 

The selected contractor will excavate and form the site, install rebar, and pour the Suction 

Knockoff Drum’s foundation. 

5.2.14.04 SET EQUIPMENT SUCTION KO DRUMS 

This task includes the setting of the Suction Knockoff Drums (placement, bolting, etc.) 

for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will be responsible for the 

execution of this task. 

5.2.13.09 SUCTION KO DRUMS STEEL ERECTION 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for the Suction 

Knockoff Drums. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of this 

task. 

5.2.15.02 SUCTION KO DRUMS PIPING 

The selected contractor will fit up the Suction Knockoff Drums with the surrounding 

erected piping and complete all other miscellaneous piping. 

5.2.16.07 SUCTION KO DRUMS ELECTRCIAL 

The selected contractor will tie in the Suction Knockoff Drums to the electrical system. 

5.2.17.02 SUCTION KO DRUMS INSTRUMENTATION 

The selected contractor will complete the Suction Knockoff Drums instrumentation 

installation and wiring. 

5.2.15.05 HYDRO TEST SUCTION KO DRUM PIPING 

The selected contractor will perform a hydro test of the Suction Knockoff Drums erected 

piping. 

5.2.13.05 EXC, F/R/P FND CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the custody transfer 

metering skid foundations for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will 

be responsible for this task. 

Topical 216
5.2.16.04 SET CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID 

This task includes the setting of the custody transfer metering skid (placement, bolting, 

etc.) for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will be responsible for the 

execution of this task. 

5.2.13.11 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID STEEL & PLATFORMS 

This task includes the installation and erection of steel and platforms for the custody 

transfer metering skid. The selected contractor shall be responsible for the execution of 

this task. 

5.2.13.10 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID GROUNDING 

The custody transfer metering skid for the CO2 compression system will be grounded by 

the selected contractor. 

5.2.15.03 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID PIPING 

This task includes the piping installation for the CO2 compression custody transfer 

metering skid. 

5.2.16.08 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID ELECTRICAL 

This task will include the installation of electrical equipment and wiring associated to the 

custody transfer metering skid for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor 

will provide the electrical installation. 

5.2.17.03 CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID INSTRUMENTATION 

This task will include the installation of instrumentation equipment and wiring associated 

to the custody transfer metering skid for the CO2 compression system. The selected 

contractor will provide the instrumentation installation. 

5.2.15.06 HYDRO TEST CUSTODY TRANSFER METERING SKID 

This task includes hydro testing for the custody transfer metering skid. The selected 

testing contractor will be responsible for this task. 

5.2.13.04 EXC, F/R/P FOUNDATIONS FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT 

This task includes the excavation, forming, rebaring, pouring of the electrical equipment 

foundations for the CO2 compression system. The selected contractor will be responsible 

for this task. 

5.2.14.01 SET TRANSFORMERS 

The CO2 compression system’s transformers will be set (placed, bolted, etc.) on their 

respective foundations by the selected contractor. 

5.2.16.02 DRESS TRANSFORMERS 

Following transformer setting, the transformers for the CO2 compression system will be 

dressed by the selected contractor. 

Topical 217
5.2.16.09 INSTALL ISOPHASE BUSS 

The isophase bus ducts will be installed by the selected contractor in preparation for 

switchgear connection. 

5.2.14.02 SET SWITCHGEAR 

The switchgear for the CO2 compression system will be set by the selected contractor. 

5.2.16.03 INSTALL CABLE TRAY 

Cable trays for the CO2 compression system will be installed by the selected contractor. 

5.2.16.05 ELECTRICAL CONDUIT 

Electrical conduit will be installed by the selected contractor. 

5.2.16.10 PULL AND TERMINATE 

Electrical wire and cabling will be pulled and terminated for the CO2 compression’s 

electrical systems and subsequently connected to the CO2 system’s electrical equipment. 

5.2.16.01 SWITCHYARD CONTRACTOR 

The switchyard contractor will prepare the space required for switchyard installation and 

erect the switchyard. The CO2 compression system loads will be connected to the 

switchyard. 

5.2.20.01 CONSTR - BUILDING 

This task includes the construction of the buildings for the CO2 compression system. 

The selected contractor will construct the buildings. 

5.3 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION 

5.3.1 Procurement 

5.3.1.1 Procure Pipe and Long Lead Material/Equipment 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will competitively bid the p ipe and long-lead 

material an d equipm ent to m anufacturers and pipe m ills. The bids will be rev iewed, 

summarized and docum ented. The bids will be compared against the original es timated 

pricing for each major component. Significant price differences will be comm unicated to 

the sub-recipient and evaluated for project cost impact. 

5.3.1.2 Procure Miscellaneous Materials 

The sub-rec ipient and its enginee ring f irm will procure m iscellaneous pipe, f ittings, 

valves, tran smitters, measurem ent and communication eq uipment, etc. These items 

typically have an 8-wee k delivery or less and will be procured at the latter pa rt of Subphase 2a. 

5.3.1.3 Procure Cathodic Protection Materials 

Topical 218
The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will procure a ll materials associated with the 

installation of the cathodic protection system on the pipeline. 

5.3.1.4 Right-of-Way and Site Acquisition 

The sub-recipient ROW/Land group and its contract agents (or ROW agents within the 

engineering firm ) will extend good faith offers to landown ers for the purchase of the 

pipeline easement and a boveground appurtenances, advance property dam age payments, 

temporary construction work space and per manent person nel access to aboveground 

appurtenances, etc. Negotiations will also a ddress any landowner restrictions concerning 

construction activ ities, such as m ovement of vehicles, restorati on of property to preexisting condition, and move ment of equipment on private farm roads. The ROW /Land 

group will also particip ate in securing possible m aterial laydown areas unless a third 

party logistics firm is retained for m anaging of m aterial transpor tation and handling. 

Further, the ROW /Land group is also charged w ith acquiring perm its from all railroads, 

as well as all jurisdictional govern ment and quasi-govern ment entities, to allow for 

construction across public roads, creeks, rivers, and canals. 

5.3.1.5 Conduct Landowner Condemnation(s) 

In the event good faith negotia tions with a landowner fails on any tract of land and no 

easement has been acquired, the sub-recipien t ROW /Land group and its attorneys will 

file petitions with county or parish authorities to begin condemnation proceedings for that 

tract. 

5.3.1.6 Travel – Monitor Construction and Post Construction 

The sub-recipient ROW /Land group will m onitor the construction of th e pipeline across 

public and private lands, and act as liaison between the co nstruction contractor and the 

landowners in m onitoring construction clean -up of the perm anent and tem porary work 

areas to ens ure all contractu al obligations have been m et, and if necessary, negotiate 

damage settlem ents and obtain Releases on all tracts. The ROW /Land group will also 

contact all landowners to notif y them of final survey for as built plats and alignm ent 

sheets. 

5.3.2 Bid & Award Construction 

The sub-recipient will select multiple qualified contractors for inclusion in a competitive 

bid process for the pipeline and facility c onstruction. The sub-recipien t will host a prebid m eeting typically on or near the cons truction location and address contractor 

questions and clarify project scope. Bidders are typically provided with two weeks to 

provide the requested cost da ta in writing. The sub-recipi ent will then evaluate and 

summarize the bid, sub-contractor and safety information for each company and m ake a 

final m ainline contractor selection. The sub -recipient and the select ed contractor will 

execute the required contract and discuss addi tional project infor mation in a subsequent 

kick-off meeting. 

5.3.3 Receive Material and Equipment 

The sub-recipient and its mainline contractor(s) will r eceive the m aterial and equipm ent 

at predeterm ined laydown yards along the pipe line route and the purchased facility 

Topical 219
location(s). The laydown yards w ill include contract personnel to off-load, receive, 

inventory, inspect and handle the pipe, equipment and various materials. 

5.3.4 Inspection 

The sub-re cipient will retain a third pa rty inspec tion com pany to m onitor daily 

construction activities along the route. The representatives of the inspection com pany 

will review and correct non-compliant environmental controls, trenching and excavation, 

wetland crossings, pipe handling and coating is sues, safety procedures, utility crossings, 

etc. The inspectors keep daily logs of all activities and report issues to the sub-recipient’s 

project manager and mainline contractor superintendent. These tasks are concurrent with 

the pipeline construction tasks below. 

5.3.5 Pipeline Construction 

5.3.5.1 Final Route Survey and Staking 

The sub-recipient and its engineering and su rvey firms will conduct a final route su rvey 

prior to the start of construc tion. A construction survey consists of m easurements made 

prior to or concurrent with the several constr uction phases of a pipeline project to control 

the horizontal and vertical position, dim ension and configuration of the pipeline, its 

stations, sites and appurtenances. 

5.3.5.2 ROW Clearing 

The sub-recipien t’s m ainline con tractor and/or subcontractor will begin clearing 

vegetation along the proposed route. The bounda ries of clearing operations are specified 

by the cons truction sur vey and sta king perf ormed prior to construc tion m obilization. 

Clearing op erations are also dictated by various environm ental perm it restrictions and 

requirements, as well as negotiated rest rictions by landowners along the route. 

Vegetation rem oved f rom the route will b e handled ac cording the state and local 

requirements, which generally lim it treatm ent of the rem oved tree branches and 

vegetation to use of chipping machines and timber sales where appropriate. 

5.3.5.3 Trenching and Horizontal Directional Drills (HDDs) 

The sub-recipient’s m ainline contractor w ill mobilize its c onstruction equipm ent and 

begin excavating a trench on the pipeline route centerline. T he dimensions of the trench 

are dictated by soil conditions, pipe diam eter, and pipe depth of cover requirem ents. A 

subcontractor will also perform the horizon tal bores and HDDs required for crossing of 

highways, roads, rivers and large water bodies. 

5.3.5.4 Pipe Stringing 

The sub-recipien t’s m ainline con tractor will ar range for transport of the pipe m aterials 

from the pipe m ill or projec t laydown yards to the pipelin e route and of fload the pipe 

adjacent to the open trench. The pipe will be identified, in ventoried and inspected for 

possible damage. 

5.3.5.5 Welding and Tie-ins 

Topical 220
The sub-recipient’s contractor will perform all welding activities required to join the pipe 

segments and tie in mainline valves stations, bored crossings, and HDDs sections. 

5.3.5.6 X-ray and Inspection 

The sub-recipient’s contractors will conduct non-destructive te sting of the pipeline welds 

using radiographic X-ray and inform the m ainline contractor of any weld locations that 

must be rep aired o r cut out and re -welded. T he pipe and weld coatings will be reinspected prior to backfilling of the excavated trench. 

5.3.5.7 Backfill and ROW Clean-up 

The sub-recipient’s mainline contractor will begin backfilling the excavated trench once 

sections of the pipeline have been successfully welded, inspected, X-rayed, and surveyed. 

The mainline contractor will also perform clean-up activities along the route to minimize 

impacts to landowners. 

5.3.5.8 Perform Mainline Hydrostatic Test(s) 

The sub-recipient’s m ainline contractor will pe rform the hydrostatic or pressure tests to 

comply with 39 CFR Part 195 requirem ents fo r establishing safe operating pressures. 

The mainline contractor will no tify the sub-recipient in ad vance of each hydrostatic or 

pressure test event during construction to allow for water supply, discharge perm its and 

sample acquisition, as well as to p rovide ROW/Land adequate tim e t o notify adjacent 

landowners of the pressuring of the line segments. 

5.3.6 Facility Construction 

5.3.6.1 Site Clearing 

The sub-recipient and its contrac tor will rem ove the vegeta tion from the f acilities sites 

and dispose of any rock and tim ber materials in a m anner that com plies with sta te and 

local disposal requirements. 

5.3.6.2 Civil and Foundation Work 

The sub-recipient and its facility contractor (or its civil subc ontractor) will com plete the 

grading and compaction work required for permanent access to the site and installation of 

equipment. The grading plan will com ply with any a pplicable F EMA and EPA 

stormwater m anagement requirem ents. The fa cility contra ctor will th en insta ll a ny 

foundations or supports required for pigging and m easurement equipm ent, valves and 

piping, and communications buildings. 

5.3.6.3 Site Fence Installation 

The sub-rec ipient and its f acility co ntractor (or its f encing s ubcontractor) will insta ll a 

chainlink fence and locking gate around the faci lity site to secure all m aterials during 

construction. 

5.3.6.4 Fabrication, Welding and Installation 

The sub-recipient and its facility contractor will com plete all fa brication, welding, and 

installation of equipm ent, piping, valves, a nd m easurement devices. For m easurement 

Topical 221
facilities located within the operatin g boundaries of the industrial com plex, the facility 

contractor will coordin ate all cons truction an d hot work ac tivities with the saf ety and 

operating personnel of the host industrial complex. 

5.3.6.5 Instrumentation and Electrical Install 

The sub-rec ipient and its f acility c ontractor will insta ll the instrum entation f or and 

electrical power to the measurement facilities. The instrumentation includes, but it is not 

limited to, pressure and tem perature tran smitters, CO2 moisture analyzer, hydrogen 

sulfide analyzer, gas chrom atograph, flow computer, m otor control center (MCC ) for 

actuated valves, and co mmunications equipment. Power will be supp lied to many of the 

instrumentation listed above. 

5.3.6.6 X-ray, Inspection, and Painting 

The sub-recipient and its inspection subcontractor will complete all nondestructive testing 

required to assess th e integrity of fabricated welds, as well as inspec t the installation of 

the equipment, orientation of valves, pipe support placement and adjustm ent, etc. The 

facility contracto r or a qualif ied su bcontractor will also pa int all pipin g and valve s to 

protect against external corrosion. 

5.3.7 Complete Pipeline As-built Survey 

The sub-recipient’s engineering firm and/or a subcontracted survey firm will complete an 

as-built surv ey of the installed pipe line. An as-built surv ey consists of horizonta l and 

vertical measurements to determ ine the con structed and final location of the pipeline to 

obtain the essential dim ensions and to invent ory the as-built or as -constructed pipeline, 

its stations, sites and appurtenances. 

5.3.8 Pipeline and Equipment Commissioning 

The sub-rec ipient and its m ainline contrac tor will com plete a s tart-up checklis t of 

inspection activities prior to the start-up of the pipeline and equipm ent. These activities 

include, but are not lim ited to, checking each mainline valve station for an open valve 

position, activation of all electric valve actuators, calibrating all measurement equipment, 

checking all flange connections for proper bolting and closure, transferring flow from the 

industrial source into the pipeline in multiple pressure stages to check the line for leaks, 

etc. 

5.3.9 Complete Pipeline and Facility As-built Drawings/Alignments 

The sub-re cipient’s eng ineering f irm will finalize all f acility d rawings and pip eline 

alignment s heets with d ata co llected in earl ier tasks above. The eng ineering firm will 

also transfer all survey, ROW /Land, and as-b uilt information into a Sequel database for 

integration into the sub-recipient’s existing GIS system. 

 

5.3.10 ROW Damage Settlement, Road Repairs 

The sub-recipient ROW/Land grou p and its contract agents will neg otiate s ettlement 

payments with landowners who have enc ountered property dam age beyond what ma y 

have been p reviously ex pected and agreed to. Negotiations and paym ent m ay include 

Topical 222
repairing fence gaps, reseeding due to cons truction during wet conditions, and repairing 

driveway damage, etc. 

5.3.11 Complete Project Job Books and Final Pipeline Technical Report 

The sub-recipient and its engineering firm will prepare the final project reports, including 

a final cost and labor account ing, pipe and m aterial in ventory, and overall project 

narrative. The engine ering f irm will a lso c ompile all calcu lations, equipm ent data , 

installation specif ications, drawings, bills of materials, etc. f or inclusion in the f inal 

project job books, which are retained for the life of the pipeline asset. 

Topical 223
 

5.4 MVA Construction 

5.4.1 Commercial Flood Monitoring - Well Review and Remediation

Denbury will define the mechanical status of every wellbore within the possible plume 

area of the injected CO2. Wells with mechanical problems, which won’t allow isolation 

of the CO2 within the targeted reservoir being flooded, will be re-plugged or remediated 

prior to the start of injection. This work will be done as part of commercial field 

development project, at no cost to the research MVA project. Denbury will prepare a 

letter report of well status showing compliance with regulations. 

5.4.2 Logging-Baseline Surveillance of idle wells 

Sandia will conduct a survey beyond that conducted by Denbury using an array of tools 

to critically evaluate condition of wells, especially with regard to potential for natural or 

anthropogenic fluid migration behind casing. This data will provide a baseline to show 

any changes that occur as the field is flooded. Sandia, in conjunction with Denbury will 

select, a sample of representative wells that can be accessed. BEG estimates that 8 may 

be found in or near the research project area. Sandia will prepare a letter report with 

methods and results. 

 

5.4.3 Soil Gas-Site & Borehole preparation for surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG in consultation with Denbury, will select P&A wells to assess using the methods 

recommended above and develop characterization data such as samples and access tubes, 

shallow wells or other infrastructure needed. BEG will prepare a letter report with as built 

construction and field notes. 

5.4.4 Soil Gas-Baseline surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will conduct, in consultation with Denbury, data collection on soil gas sites that 

were developed. Results will be critically assessed to provide information on the value of 

this approach to documenting well integrity. BEG will prepare a letter report of methods 

and data. 

5.4.5 Ground Water Monitoring -Well preparation 

Denbury and BEG will select four wells that will be completed in the USDW interval and 

monitored for CO2 migration. Denbury plans to recomplete existing wells. BEG will 

prepare a letter report showing as-built construction and field notes. 

5.4.6 Ground Water Monitoring -Baseline 

BEG will purchase a pump and sample and than analyze the groundwater wells installed 

in Task 13. Four sets of samples will be collected to established a baseline before CO2 

injection starts. BEG will prepare a letter report including methods, field notes and data 

table. 

5.4.7 Reservoir Modeling-Upgraded 

Topical 224
BEG will incorporate the data to predict range of plume sizes and magnitude and areas of 

pressure elevation and provide to Denbury for review. This result will be used to modify 

and adjust the risk assessment and monitoring strategy as needed. BEG will prepare a 

letter report showing changes in model parameters, revised predictions on area of CO2 

plume and distribution and magnitude of pressure change. 

 

5.4.8 AZ MI-Well Completions 

Denbury will complete the two AZMI wells from in the above zone to keep the 

perforations open during testing, and install any constructed-in temperature monitoring 

equipment. Denbury will prepare a letter report containing field notes and as-built 

construction. 

 

5.4.9 AZMI-Instrument Monitoring Wells 

Sandia will install and maintain pressure gauges on monitoring wells completed in Task 

15 in AZMI. Completions are designed to be simple, without tubing and packer, and 

pressure gage hung in the water column. Pressure data will be available via cell phone or 

data logger. If workover are used, some of the funds saved from well drilling will be used 

in this task to install tubing and packer, so that well integrity can be monitored. Sandia 

will prepare a letter report containing field notes. 

 

5.4.10 Hydrologic testing and Baseline geochemical sampling 

Sandia, in consultation with Denbury, will conduct pressure interference test to show 

hydrologic communication and the area over which the AZMI provides evidence of 

containment. BEG will collect and analyze pre injection fluids and gases for geochemical 

samples. Sandia and BEG will prepare a letter Report providing methods and field notes. 

5.4.11 VSP - Baseline 

Denbury, in coordination BEG, will plan and conduct a baseline VSP survey as an 

augmented measure of flood conformance. Each proposed 4D-VSP will illuminate an 

area approximately 1 sqmi. We should plan for five 3DVSP’s in the project area to image 

CO2 fillup through the reservoir and above/below the reservoir and along faults. With 

high resolution 3D-VSP seismic data we hope to resolve sand units as thin as 10ft. When 

these 3D-VSP's are repeated we will map where the reservoir changes based on density 

and pressure changes in the seismic response. Costs for surveys include the surveys, well 

operations, permitting for seismic sourcing on the surface, and processing. The seismic 

will require a baseline plus 4 repeats in Phase 2C. Denbury will prepare a letter report 

providing the details of the field deployment. 

5.4.12 Gravity-Baseline 

Denbury may conduct gravity survey as an augmented measure of conformance. John 

Ferguson at UT Dallas was successful in monitoring water migration during the Delhi 

Field water flood and is studying a model for Hastings. The density variance between 

CO2 and reservoir fluids in Hastings should be more significant than the density variance 

of the injected water and oil in the reservoir during the Delhi water flood, so gravity 

monitoring of the Hastings CO2 flood is expected to be successful in defining the 

Topical 225
location of the CO2 plume. Gravity logging will quantify CO2 saturations in the 

boreholes where porosity is well constrained. Denbury may monitor above/below the 

reservoir and through the reservoir. The baseline is planned to be followed by 4 repeats in 

Phase 2C. Denbury will prepare a letter report documenting field notes and data tables. 

5.4.13 Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration (Completion of downdip wells)

As the flood is being developed, two wells outside that phase will be completed by 

Denbury and used to monitor the possible migration of the CO2 and elevation of pressure 

outside the completed patterns. Denbury will prepare a letter report including well 

completion diagrams and daily records of well-head pressure. 

5.4.14 Decision Point, Risk Assessment & Updated MVA plan and cost distribution

BEG in consultation with Denbury will update the risk assessment and research MVA 

plan and cost distribution in consideration of the results of previous data collection 

efforts, and will make adjustments to the research MVA program to supplement 

Denbury’s commercial field development program. BEG will prepare a formal report 

containing Phase 2C recommendations. 

Topical 226
6.1.01 OPERATION-CO2 CAPTURE 

6.1.01.01 START UP 

Following construction completion, the engineering firm will provide start up support to 

the Client. 

6.2.01 OPERATION-CO2 COMPRESSION 

6.2.01.01 START UP 

Following construction completion, the engineering firm will provide start up support to 

the Client. 

6.4 MVA Operation 

6.4.1 Commercial Flood Monitoring-Injection and Production Volumes 

Denbury will report to the research MVA project the results of commercial flood 

monitoring, quantifying all injected and produced fluids (including recycle), wellhead 

pressure, and intermittent injection profiles. This commercial monitoring program will 

account of purchase and recycle volumes giving the volume of CO2 in the reservoir and 

the amount of methane produced and recycled with the CO2. This work will be done as 

part of commercial project but is the most essential monitoring data. BEG will prepare a 

monthly report providing details on the distribution of the stored CO2. 

 

6.4.2 Commercial Flood Monitoring-Best Practice Mitigation 

Denbury will provide to the research MVA project information about mitigation for poor 

well performance to document how conformance is attained commercially. For example 

if a well will not accept the planned injection rate at field pressure, Denbury may acidize, 

reperforate, or inject at a higher rate in other parts of pattern. This work will be done as 

part of the commercial field development project. 

6.4.3 Commercial Flood Monitoring-Pressure Maintenance 

Denbury will perform normal well surveillance including monitoring casing pressures in 

both producers and injectors. Denbury will use remediation procedures to repair wells 

with compromised integrity. Denbury will provide the results of this work done as part of 

the commercial project. 

6.4.4 Commercial Flood Monitoring-IWR Calculation 

Denbury will calculate material balance from data for each pattern on a monthly basis to 

define changes in reservoir performance. Significant changes in IWR identify potential 

problem wells within the pattern (i.e. mechanical problems with injectors or inactive 

wells which are causing the loss of CO2 out of the pattern, or a mechanical problem with 

the producer(s) within that pattern). The problem wells will be identified and repaired (replugged or remediated). This work will be done as part of commercial project., 

6.4.5 Logging-Time lapse surveillance of idle wells 

Topical 227
Sandia will conduct a logging and surveillance program on 8 idle wells for which 

baseline data was collected. This data will be compared to the baseline to show any 

changes that occur as the field is flooded.. Sandia will prepare a letter report with 

methods and results will be prepared. 

6.4.6 Soil Gas Time lapse surveillance of P&A wells 

BEG will follow baseline data collected with repeat data collection over two years on soil 

gas sites that were developed. Results will be critically assessed to provide information 

on the value of this approach to documenting well integrity. BEG will prepare a letter 

report containing data tables and field notes. 

6.4.7 Groundwater Monitoring-Time lapse surveillance 

BEG will sample and then analyze the groundwater wells for which baseline was 

collected. Samples will be collected to look for changes as CO2 injection starts. BEG will 

prepare a letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

6.4.8 VSP-Time lapse surveys 

Denbury will conduct 4 repeat VSP surveys over the two-year period following the 

baseline run. This data will be used to show that the flood is conforming to the expected 

patterns, including providing data about out-of zone migration. Denbury will prepare a 

formal report including methods and results of surveys on annual basis 

6.4.9 Gravity Time lapse surveys 

Denbury will conduct 4 repeat gravity surveys over the two-year period following the 

baseline run in Phase 2B. This data will be used to show that the flood is conforming to 

the expected patterns and to quantify the volume distribution. Denbury will prepare a 

formal report including methods and results of surveys on annual basis. 

6.4.10 Real Time BHP-Well Preparation 

Sandia will deploy bottom hole pressure gage(s) on a real time read out in one well in the 

injection interval(s). This type of data has proven valuable to assess the nature of the 

flood. We have budgeted for an elaborate well-based monitoring array. The detailed plan 

for the well will be designed in M19. Sandia will prepare a letter report showing as-built 

well schematics. 

6.4.11 Real Time BHP-Sandia 

Sandia will maintain and back up data collected in the deployment. Sandia will prepare a 

letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

6.4.12 Logging-Time lapse Surveillance 

Denbury will augmented measures of conformance to provide data for match to the 

model by logging about half the injectors and producers in the patterns every half year 

focusing on the 31 wells in the expansion area but including 10 wells from other parts of 

the field. Combination temperature and tracer surveys will be run on injection wells twice 

per year per well. Producers will have spinner, temperature, and capacitance tools run 

twice a year per well, assuming a 6 month delay in start up in producing the wells, while 

Topical 228
each of the injectors would have a series of four logs run. Testing of additional log types 

is possible. Denbury will prepare a letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

6.4.13 Natural geochemical tracers-Collected at wellhead 

BEG will, with the assistance of Denbury, collect wellhead fluid samples from producers 

that serve as augmented measures of conformance. For example, the fluid chemistry will 

be evaluated for evidence of dissolution and rock-water interaction. BEG will prepare a 

letter report containing data tables and field notes. 

 

6.4.14 Time lapse geochemical sampling & hydrologic testing 

Sandia will conduct a time-lapse hydrologic sampling program of the AZMI wells via 

pumping. The BEG will collect and analyze fluid samples to look for any geochemical 

evidence of out of zone migration of CO2 as part of the above -zone monitoring program. 

The BEG will prepare a letter report containing data table and field notes. 

6.4.15 Measure Out-Of-Pattern Migration 

In this task, Denbury will report observation of the wells, including first year of pressure 

change at well heads. This should provide one year of data before beginning of flood near 

these wells. Denbury will prepare a letter report of pressure data and provide it to BEG 

for including history match of well head pressure. 

6.4.16 Reservoir Modeling-Updated 

BEG will aggregate data from 2C activities to history match plume size and pressure 

elevation and test if flood conformance to model expectation was achieved. This will 

focus on CO2 and pressure quantification, not oil production. Denbury will review the 

formal report prepared by the BEG. 

 

6.4.17 Overview and Evaluation report 

BEG will prepare and Denbury review a report of the results of this study. BEG and 

Denbury will determine what, if any, added value the research program added to the 

commercial program in terms of confidence in the long-term permanence of storage. 

BEG will recommend any actions that may be informative to future regulations or 

policies related to storage monitoring at EOR sites. This will be a formal report. 

Topical 229
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 10

 Environmental Information Volume 

Topical 230
INTRODUCTION 

Leucadia E nergy, LLC (“Leucadia”) and Denbury Onshore, LLC (“Denbury”) are 

submitting this Environmental Information Volume (EIV) as part of the Phase 2 Renewal 

Application for the Lake Charles CCS Project. This EIV has been prepared to assist DOE 

in the evaluation of the potential environm ental im pacts of the proposed Lake Charles 

CCS Project. The Lake Charles CC S Project will involve the cap ture and compression of 

over 85% of the carbon dioxide (C O2) produced at the LC C Gasification Project. The 

compressed CO2 will be transported via an 11.6-mile pipeline (the “Connector Pipeline”) 

from the fenceline of the LCC Gasification Project to the Green Pipeline, which is owned 

by Denbury and an affiliate of Denbury. The Lake Charles CCS Project CO2 will be used 

in independent comm ercial enhanced oil recovery (EOR) at Denbury’s Gulf Coast 

oilfields. Denbury will i mplement a resear ch monitoring, verification , and accounting 

(MVA) program at the Hastings Field in Texa s to demonstrate the effectiveness of longterm geologic storage of the CO2. This EIV is divided into three parts to cover each of the 

project components for which DOE fundi ng is sought: Part I covers the CO 2 capture and 

compression facilities at the LCC Gasificatio n Project; Part II covers the 11.6-m ile 

Connector Pipeline; and Part III covers the MVA activities at the Hastings Field in Texas. 

Part I. Capture and Compression Facilities 

The Lake Charles CCS Projec t will include th e capture and compression of over 85% of 

the CO 2 produced from the Leucadia subsidiary Lake C harles Cogeneration LL C’s 

(“LCC’s”) petroleum coke to chemicals (“LCC Gasification Project”) industrial source to 

be located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, near the city of Lake Charles, Louisiana. The 

CO2 capture facilities p roposed for NETL fund ing as part of the Lake Charles CCS 

project consist of the two Lurgi Rectisol Selective Acid Gas Removal (AGR) units where 

CO2 is separated from the process syngas. The CO 2 compression facilities include two 

CO2 compressors, the building in which the com pressors are housed (approximately 80 x 

140 ft), and a m eter station to monitor the vo lume of CO2 exported. In this EIV, these 

facilities will be collectively referred to as the “Capture and Compression Facilities”. The 

Lake Charles CCS Project will co-locate state-of-the-art capture, compression and control 

equipment on the LCC Gasification Project site to capture more than 4.4 m illion tons of 

compressed CO2 annually. Part I of this EIV descri bes the environmental impacts of the 

CO2 Capture and Compression facilities at the LCC Gasification Project. 

Part II. Transportation 

The Lake Charles CCS Project will build an 11.6-m ile CO 2 pipeline (the “Connector 

Pipeline”) from the f enceline of the LCC Gasification Project to the Green Pipelin e in 

Louisiana. The Connector P ipeline will enable the transp ortation of the Lake Charles 

CCS Project CO2 to the Green Pipeline owned by Denbury and an affiliate of Denbury so 

that it can be used for enhanced oil rec overy (EOR) on the Gulf Coast. Denbury and an 

affiliate of Denbury are in the process of c onstructing the Green Pipeline from Louisiana 

to the Hastings Field in Brazoria C ounty, sout h of Houston, Texas. Pa rt II of this EIV 

Topical 231
describes the environm ental impacts of the construction and operation of the Connector 

Pipeline. 

Part III. Sequestration and Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting (MVA) 

The Lake Charles CC S Project C O2 will be used for E OR at the Hastings F ield in 

Brazoria County, Texas . A research MVA program will b e conducted for at leas t 2 

million tons of CO 2 per year at a site within Denbury’ s Hastings Field. The research 

MVA activities will supplem ent privatel y-funded, on-going m onitoring activities 

conducted in conjunction with Denbury’s commercial EOR operations. Only the research 

MVA activities will be consider ed in this EIV. The f ollowing MVA activ ities will be 

conducted: 

 Well Integrity Testing – Logging of existing idle production wells and testing of 

plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells to detect CO2 leakage through non-sealing 

well bores. 

 Flood Conformance Testing – Augmentation of measurements to observe and 

model movement of CO2 in subsurface formations during the EOR flood 

operations. 

 Above-Zone Monitoring – Monitoring of pressures and geochemical parameters 

in the formations above the confining layer to detect CO2 leakage beyond the 

injection zone. 

Research MVA activities will be conducted on a periodic or continual basis during active 

commercial EOR flood operation s from 2012 through 2015. Part III of th is EIV 

describes the environmental impacts of Denbury’s MVA activities at the Hastings Field. 

Topical 232
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 1 

LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION VOLUME 

PART I - CO2 CAPTURE AND COMPRESSION FACILITIES AT 

THE LAKE CHARLES GASIFICATION PROJECT

A. ENVIRON MENTAL INFORMATION DESCRIBING THE PROJECT AND TH E 

PROJECT SITE(S). 

This section of the E nvironmental Volume shall contain a detailed, self-con tained description that 

summarizes the proposed action, its alternatives, and, most importantly, the existing environment. 

1. Summary 

This se ction shal l c ontain a suc cinct s ummary of t he pr oposed proj ect and its pote ntial 

environmental, safety, health, and socioeconomic impacts. A brief description of any construction 

and o peration activities, including the duration and schedule shall also be provided. Th e 

summary shall focus on both beneficial and detrimental impacts, as well as any major risks associated 

with constructing, operating, maintaining, and dismantling/disposing of the proposed test facility, if 

applicable. 

This Part I of the Environmental Information Volume (EIV) provides information regarding the 

CO2 capture and compression components of the Lake Charles Cogeneration, LLC (LCC) Carbon 

Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Project. The CO 2 capture and compression facilities are part of a 

larger in dustrial f acility, th e L CC petroleum coke to chem icals project (“LCC Gasification 

Project”). Ho wever, o nly the cap ture and co mpression facilities are bei ng proposed for NETL 

funding as part of the LCC CCS Pr oject. This EIV Part I will pro vide environmental information 

regarding the capture and compression facilities that comprise part of the Lake Charles CCS Project. 

This Part will als o provide info rmation on the larger LC C Gasification P roject to provide context 

and background, although th e LCC Gasif ication Project is not part of the LCC CCS Project 

proposed for NETL funding. 

The CO2 capture facilities proposed fo r NETL funding as part of the L ake Charles CCS project 

consists of the two Lur gi Rectiso l Select ive Acid Gas Removal (AGR) units where CO 2 is 

separated f rom the process syngas. The CO 2 com pression f acilities in clude two CO 2

compressors, the building in which the com pressors are housed ( approximately 80 x 140 ft), and 

a m eter sta tion to m onitor th e volu me of CO 2 exported. In this E IV, these facilities will be 

collectively ref erred to as the “Capture a nd Com pression Facilities ”. Addition al ancilla ry 

equipment and system s supporting the Capture and Com pression Facil ities include load 

commutated inverters (LCI) for starting the co mpressors, switchgear and substation, cooling 

water system including supply and return piping, rem ote controls, external fire protection 

system, instrum ent air system , CO2 piping between units, and underground CO 2 piping to the 

battery lim its. All ancillary systems are prov ided by the LCC Gasifi cation Project through 

capacity expansion or infrastructure modification prepared in advance of installation of the CO 2

Capture and Compression Facilities. Foundation and civil works necessary to support the AGR 

Topical 233
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 2 

and CO2 compressors and building are also m anaged within the LCC Gasification Project design 

and constru ction to f acilitate ins tallation with in the over all pro ject c onstruction plan. As 

ancillary services and civil infrastructure are provided by the LCC Gasification Project, the LCC 

CCS project’s on-site scope is lim ited to the de sign, procurement and installation and testing of 

the AGR units and CO2 compressors, building and metering station. 

The Capture and Com pression Facilities will be contained within the larger LCC Gasification 

Project, a petroleum coke gasification plant to be constructed on the Calcasieu River in Calcasieu 

Parish adjacent to the P ort of Lake Charles in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The LCC Gasification 

Project is located in a highly industrialized area at the end of Bayou D’Inde Road. Figure 1: Site 

Location Map , illus trates the loca tion of the plant with r espect to th e Calcasieu River and 

immediate surroundings. Figure 2, Plot Plan, shows the general arrangement of the units within 

the gasification facility including the Capture and Compression Facilities. 

The LCC Gasif ication Project will u tilize a s tate-of-the-art process wherein petroleum coke is 

gasified to produce syngas that will be converted into m ethanol (MeOH). The LCC Gasification 

Project is p rojected to gasify 2.6 m illion (M M) tons per year (TPY) of petroleum coke to 

produce over 2 m illion metric tons of methanol. The LCC Gasif ication Project will consist of 

five General Electric (GE) Quen ch Gasifiers and two trains of syngas processing, including sour 

shift conversion, two Lurgi Rectisol Selective Acid Gas Rem oval units, a m ethanol unit, and 

Haldor Topsoe wet sulfuric acid production. At design plant capacity, four GE Quench Gasifiers 

will be operating at their design rate which allows one gasifier to be on hot standby or shut down 

for m aintenance. See Figure 3, Block Flow Diagram for a block diagram of the gasification 

facility, inclusive of the AGR and CO2 compression areas. 

A portion of the raw syngas flows through two shif t conversion trains where alm ost all of the 

carbon monoxide is reacted with water vapor over a catalyst converting carbon m onoxide and 

water into hydrogen and carbon di oxide. Hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon dioxide 

will be selectively removed from t he syngas in the AGR units. The CO 2 rem oved f rom th e 

syngas will be com pressed on-site and then tran sported via pipeline for use in enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR). If e ither CO2 compressor is not operating (i.e., during maintenance cycles), its 

CO2 stream will be redirected to one of two regenerative thermal oxidizers which will thermally 

destruct 99+% of the carbon m onoxide, hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulf ide, and m ethanol 

contained in the CO2. The facility is currently permitted for continuous operation of the thermal 

oxidizers. 

The Port of Lake Charles infrastructure will be used for petroleum coke storage and handling and 

bulk transport needs and the petroleum coke will be transf erred to the LCC Gasif ication Project 

via a conveyor system. Steam generated by energy recovery within the processes will be utilized 

to generate power via steam turbines to provide a significant portion of the energy needs of the 

LCC Gasification Project for plan t operations. There are no gas turbine generators. The MeOH 

will be delivered to industrial customers. 

The proposed LCC Gasif ication Project is a state-of -the-art facility for which signif icant pollution 

prevention a nd re duction has bee n i ncorporated on the ba sis of rigorous engi neering desi gn and 

environmental evaluation, and at significant increased costs to the project. The facility is able to 

Topical 234
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 3 

make use of the coke feed stocks that are pres ent in the area and convert them into high-value 

products. Purchases of petroleum coke from local refineries will help support othe r industries and 

create additional value-added to locally made products rather than having these products exported to 

other areas of the count ry or th e world. In a ddition, gulf coast petroleum coke which is prese ntly 

being 

Topical 235
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 4 

exported wi ll now be us ed by CC for maki ng clean e nergy for dome stic use t hereby reducing 

energy imports from many unstable areas of the world. The proposed facility will provide m any 

short-term and long-term socio-economic benefits for the local area, including jobs. 

Topical 236
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 5 

Topical 237
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 6 

Topical 238
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 7 

2. Proposed Project and Its Alternatives 

a. Propo sed Project 

This section shall discuss the objectives of the proposed project, and shall describe the proposed site, system, 

and/or process. It shall also describe the work to be p erformed, the schedule, associated requirements (e.g., 

land, natural resources), and any changes that will be necessary to the existing site, system, or process. 

The description shall inclu de a project site plan and topographic map of the a rea. Any off- site facility 

requirements shall also be identified in this section. 

Site Description

The petroleum coke gasification plant is to be constructed on the Calc asieu River in Calcas ieu 

Parish adja cent to th e Port of Lake Charles in Lake Char les, Louis iana (s ee F igure 1 : Site 

Location Map). Figure 2, Plot Plan, is the general arrangement for the overall project, including 

the Capture and Com pression Facilities. The ex isting s ite topograph y will be modified by 

raising the elevation to an approxim ate elevation of 14 feet m ean sea le vel (MSL) and the s ite 

design will enable drainage of upstream areas around the site. Figure 3, Block Flow Diagram, is 

a block diagram showing the va rious processes for the overall project including the AGR units 

and CO2 compression. 

Process/Systems Description

The Capture and Com pression Facilities include two 50% AGR units an d two 50% multi-s tage 

compressors discharging at approxim ately 2,200 psig. CO 2 exits the AGR at m ultiple pressures 

and is fed to the CO2 compressor, exiting as a supercritical fluid. The compressed fluid is cooled 

to 100-120°F, combined, piped to th e facility fence-line, then m etered prior to introduction into 

the CO2 transportation pipeline owned and operate d by Denbury Onshore, LLC. The off-site 

CO2 pipeline is discussed in Part II of this EIV. The AGR units and CO 2 compressors a re 

designed for continuous full load operation, with export capacity reduced during process or 

compressor m aintenance cycles. The com pressors a re driv en b y ele ctric motors, ea ch 

approximately 30,000 Hp. 

The AGR units and compressors are intercooled via heat exchange with cooling w ater from the 

auxiliary cooling water loop. As describ ed above, additio nal ancillary equipment and system s 

supporting the AGR and com pression include load commutated inverters (LCI) for starting the 

compressors, switchgear and substation, cooli ng water system including supply and return 

piping, rem ote controls, external fire protection system , instru ment air system , CO 2 piping 

between units, and underground C O2 piping to the batter y lim its. All ancilla ry s ystems are 

provided by the LCC Gasification Project th rough capacity expansion or infrastructure 

modification prepared in advance of installation of the AGR and CO 2 com pression system. 

Foundation and civil works necessary to support the AGR and CO2 compressors and building are 

also m anaged within the LCC Gasif ication Projec t design and construc tion to f acilitate 

installation within th e overall pro ject cons truction p lan. As ancillary services and civ il 

infrastructure are prov ided by the LCC Gasifica tion Project, the CCS proj ect’s on-site scope is 

limited to the design, procurem ent and installation of the AGR units and CO 2 com pressors, 

building and metering station. 

Topical 239
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 8 

Project Schedule

The projected date for initiating construction of the LCC Gasification Project is the 4th Quarter of 

2010, and the start of operations is scheduled for 2014. 

b. Alternatives to Proposed Project 

A complet e description of li kely alternatives t o the project, includ ing a “n o actio n” alternative, shall be 

provided. The description shall address technology-spec ific aspects of the action, such as process design 

configurations, and site-specific considerations, such as alternative waste disposal sites, etc. 

This project proposes to separate CO 2 from the process syngas in the AGR and com press the 

CO2 stream from the LCC Gasif ication Project Rectisol Unit via two electr ic-driven multistage 

compressors. As described in Parts II and III of this EIV, th e compressed CO2 will be transported 

via pipeline for off-site EOR use by Denbury Onshore, LLC. 

Under a “no action” alternative, the Com pression Facilities would not be constructed or 

operated. Under the no action alte rnative, LCC would route the CO 2 stream to the Regenerative 

Thermal Oxidizers (RTO) to thermally destruct 99+% of the carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, 

carbonyl sulfide, and methanol contained in the CO2 stream prior to discharge to the atmosphere. 

The LCC Gasification Project is currently perm itted for continuous o peration of the therm al 

oxidizers and release of the CO2 stream to atmosphere. 

The no action alternative would result in the following: 

1. approximately 5 million tons/yr CO2 vented to atmosphere; 

2. lower capital cost related to negating compression, power, electronics, cooling, controls, and 

piping; 

3. lower operating costs (approximately 48MW compressor load); 

4. lower operating and maintenance costs; 

5. approximately 5% less makeup water use (cooling water); 

6. approximately 6% lower wastewater discharge quantity (cooling tower blowdown); 

7. slightly lower cooling water tower particulate emissions; and 

8. potentially lower noise levels. 

3. Ex isting Environment 

This section shall discuss the existing environment at the project location(s). The principal proposer and all 

proposed subcontractors shall discuss the following: 

a. L a n d U s e 

This section shall provide a description of the affected land area and its dimensions; a discussion of current 

land usage (e.g., farming, industrial, etc.); characterization of any existing landforms (i.e., waterfalls, runoff 

areas, etc.); and descriptions of nearby pipelines and transmission lines, as well as transportation access (by 

rail, road, barge, etc.). 

Topical 240
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 9 

The proposed Lake Charle s Gasification Facility is located on an approximately 70-acre parcel of 

land in Calcasieu Parish, Louisi ana owned by and adjacent to the L ake Charles Harbor and 

Terminal District (“Po rt of Lake Charles” ) on the right-descending bank of the Calcasieu River 

in the region known as Rose Bluff. The site is primarily undeveloped land originally covered by 

pine forest on the higher elevations and cypre ss-tupelo and em ergent freshwater m arsh in the 

lower elevations at the center and eastern portions of the property. 

The Capture and Com pression Facilities will be located within the battery limits o f the LCC 

Gasification Project. No additional land wi ll be disturbed or used for the Capture and 

Compression Facilities. Each AGR unit area is approximately 500 x 300 ft. The aggregate size 

of the compressor building is approximately 80 x 140 ft. Ancillary systems required for support 

of the AGR and compressors are provided by the LCC Gasification Project as an expansion of 

the cooling tower or electrical systems or pipi ng infrastructure within the LCC Gasification 

Project battery limits, with the comp ressed CO2 delivery system ter minating at a me ter station 

located at the project fenceline. Part II of this EIV addresses De nbury Onshore, LLC’s off-site 

CO2 pipeline to which the facility interconnects. 

The LCC Gasification P roject property is located in a heavy indus trial area at the end of Bayou 

D’Inde Road. Adjoining and surrounding propert ies are occupied by the City of Sulphur 

Wastewater Treatment Plant, Halliburton, Louisiana Pigment Company, Basell USA, the Port of 

Lake Charles, ConocoPhillips and CITGO Petr oleum Corporation. Other i ndustries i n t he 

immediate area are the Cit- Con Lube Plant , Fi restone Synt hetic Rubbe r and Latex, Westla ke 

Polymers, Westlake Petrochemicals, Warren Petroleum, Conoco and Grace Davison. 

The nearest residential zoned area is appr oximately one mile to the east ac ross the Calcasieu River 

and Prien Lake. H owever, there are a few residents located approximately 0.75 miles north of the 

proposed site and north of the Louisiana Pigment plant. 

Most raw materials for t he LCC Ga sification Project wi ll be received at t he Port of Lake Charles 

either by truck or bar ge and tra nsported to the LCC Gasification Project site via conveyor . LCC 

Gasification Project products will be transported off -site via pipeline, barge or truck. C O2 will be 

transported off-site via the CO2 pipeline discussed in Part II of this EIV. 

The LCC Gasification Project site can be accessed via: 

 Roads – Bayou D’Inde road is adjacent to the site; 

 Barge – the Port of Lake Charles has facilities adjacent to the site for barge access; 

 Rail – existing rail spurs are also located adjacent to the property for transporting materials to 

the Port facility. Should facility plans dictate, a spur can easily be routed into the project site for 

shipment of certain products. 

The physical address of the property has not been established, but will be in the 3500 num bering 

for Bayou D’Inde Road, Westlake, Louisiana 70669. 

Topical 241
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 10 

b. Atmospheric Conditions/Air Quality 

This section shall ident ify the air quality control regions where the project is locat ed; and d escribe the local 

climate and existing air quality conditions in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 

Calcasieu Parish is designated as “attainm ent” fo r all PSD pollutants. The pollu tant of m ain 

concern in the past is ozone as monitoring re sults app roach closely to the NAAQS curren t 

standard 8-hour standard (80 ppb). 

The monitoring sites in Calcasieu Parish (EPA AQS code 22 019 0002, 0008, and 0009) have 

been in ope ration since Octo ber 1983, Se ptember 1992 and October 1992 res pectively and 

have operated in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 58 and the EPA- approved 

Quality Assurance Program Plan. 

The NAAQS for 8-hour ozone is ba sed on the three-year average of the fo urth- highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone conc entrations measured at each monitor within an area. An 

8-hour monitor reading of 85 ppb is considered an exceedance of the 8-hour ozone standard 

and a reading of 84 ppb is consider ed as meeti ng t he st andard. T he area has m onitored 

attainment f or the latest six complete thr ee-year p eriods f or Carlyss and W estlake, and has 

monitored attainment for the latest four complete three-year periods for Vinton. 

To dem onstrate con tinued com pliance w ith th e ozone standard, the state h as requested a 

maintenance pl an. The ma intenance pl an must demonstrate that the ar ea will remain in 

compliance with the 8- hour ozone standard for the ten (10) year period fol lowing the 

effective date of designation. The end projection year for the maintenance plan is ten (10) 

years from the effective date of the attainment designation. The maintenance demonstration 

is satisfied if the state dem onstrates that fu ture em issions inventories are les s than the 

attainment or baseline inventory. Calcasieu Parish has an effective date of designation of 

June 15, 2004, which means that maintenance must be demonstrated through 2014. 

The State has identified the level of precursor emissions in Calcasieu Parish that is sufficient 

to a ttain the N AAQS, i. e. th e 20 02 a ttainment i nventory, a nd esta blished inte rim 

emission projections of ozone precursors for the years 2008, 2011 a nd 2014 to dem onstrate 

maintenance. A comparison of e mission growth projections for VOC and NOx through 

2014 to the 2002 attainment inventory for the parish indicates a downward trend in VOC 

while NOx emissions are projected to increase. 

The State has also implemented enforceable emission control regulations to ensure continued 

maintenance of the ozone standa rd. Control m easures also have been developed, prom ulgated 

and implemented at the federal level to reduce ozone-forming emissions of VOC and 

NOx. Development and subsequent implementation of other federal measures will result in 

additional e mission reductions of VOC and NOx during the 10-year m aintenance period. 

Federal measures which have been im plemented or are currently in som e phase of 

implementation include, but are not limited to: 

 National V OC Em ission Standards for Auto mobile R efinish Coatings (63 FR 

Topical 242
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 11 

48806) 

 National VOC Emission Standards for Consumer Products (63 FR 48819) 

 National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings (63 FR 48848) 

 Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Em ission Standards an d Gasoline S ulfur Con trol Requ irements 

(65 FR 6697) 

 Heavy-Duty Eng ine and V ehicle Stan dards an d Hig hway D iesel F uel Su lfur 

Control Requirements (66 FR 5002) 

 Control of Emissions from Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuels (69 FR 38958) 

 Clean Air Interstate Rule (70 FR 25162) 

EPA has proposed new 1-hr NAAQS for SO 2 and NOx, antic ipated to becom e f inal in the 

summer of 2010. These new standards will be more stringent than existing standards. 

In acco rdance with Section 107(d ) of the Cl ean Air Act Am endments of 1990, designation 

recommendations for the 2008 8-hr Ozone NAAQS (0.075 pp m) were published on March 

27,2008 (73 FR 16436). These LDEQ designation recommendations are based on a review of

the quality-assured ozone monitoring data for the period 2006-2008. 

EPA is also considering a new 8-hr standa rd for ozone (less than the current 0.075 ppm 

standard). It is possible that an increased number of parishes may be classified as non-attainment 

for ozone in Louisiana. 

c. Hydrologic Conditions/Water Quality 

This s ection s hall i dentify any watersheds and d ownstream drainage, s urface and g roundwater quality 

(nearby aquifers and the depth of groundwater) in the project area, existing floodplains, unique aquatic habitats, 

recreational areas, public water supplies; describe any constraints on water availa bility imposed by treaties, 

court dec ree, st ate an d Federal wa ter laws; and identify existin g w astewater tr eatment a nd/or disposal 

facilities. 

The subject property is a 70 acre parcel on the ri ght descending bank of t he Calcasieu River that 

was occupied by mixed pine forest on the higher elevations with 26 aces of cypress-tupelo fresh 

emergent freshwater m arsh in the lower elevat ions at the center and eastern portions of the 

property. The site w as prim arily undeveloped land that has approxim ately 2,200 feet of 

shoreline along the Calcasieu River Ship Channel. 

There are currently no wastewater treatment or disposal activities on the site. LCC has received 

a LPDES permit to discharge future industrial wastewater at the proposed site. The existing LCC 

Gasification Project wastewater dis charge perm it as received includes provisions for cooling 

water discharges associated with operation of the CO2 compression system. 

The following describ es hydrolo gy, watersheds, grou ndwater/surface water quality and 

availability, aquatic habitats, recreational areas, and public water supplies in the project area. 

Public Water Supplies

Topical 243
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 12 

There are no public water supplies located on this site. The northern b oundary of the subject 

property is partially occupied by the publicly-own ed treatment works ( POTW) serving the City 

of Sulphur, City of W estlake, Calcasieu Sewer Di strict No. 8 and Calcasieu Sewer District No. 

12. Louisiana Department of Environm ental Quality (LDEQ) permits for the facility have been 

issued to the Public W orks Department for the City of Sulphur. The discharge from the POTW 

is identified as the dra inage ditch o n the northe ast and eastern side of the subject property that 

allows the effluent to reach the Calcasieu Ship Channel. The POTW was origin ally constructed 

in the early 1980s. 

Watershed/Recreational Areas

There are no recreational areas located on this site. The Lake Charles Cogeneratio n petroleum 

coke gasification plant will be located on the Calcasieu River in Calcasieu Parish adjacent to the 

Port of Lake Charles as shown on Figure 1, Site Locatio n Map . The out falls for t he LC C 

Gasification Project’s discharge will be to s ubsegment 030301 of the Calcasieu River and Ship 

Channel, for which the designated uses are primary contact recreation, secondary contact 

recreation, and fish and wildlife propagation. T he Calcasieu Rive r is not a source of drinking 

water. 

There are n o state or federal parks , wildlife re fuges, scenic stream s, or W ildlife Managem ent 

Areas at or near the proposed project site. 

Hydrology

The subject property is located west of Prien Lake and the Calcasieu Ship Cha nnel. The 

stratigraphic sequence in the area consists of unconsolidated deltaic a nd near-shore m arine 

sediments ranging in age from Holocene to Miocene. The site is situated on Pleisto cene deposits 

possibly overlain by a thin veneer of Holocene deposits. At relatively shallow depths these 

deposits consist of clayey silts, sandy silts, silty clays, and silty sands. 

The surface hydrology o f the area w as modified when the Calcasieu Ship Channel was dredged 

to straighten the Calcasieu River in the area of the subject prope rty. Along the shoreline of the 

Calcasieu Ship Channel and in the area of wetla nds (in center of the pr operty) the elevation is 

approximately sea level. The surrounding elevations rise to height of approximately 13 to 15 feet 

above sea level on the north, and west. The soils in the wet areas are iden tified as a frequently 

flooded Basile-Guyton silt loam and Kinder-Messer silt loam on the higher elevations. Surface 

water hydrology is directed to the east and to th e Calcasieu River via several drainage ditche s 

and through the wetlands area in the center of the site. 

Surface waters from north and west of the site drain through the site to the shipping channel. Site 

development plans will raise th e elevation of the site p roperty. Off-site flows currently 

following the natural topography of the site will be diverted to either the drainage easement on 

the north side of the site or to a perimeter conveyance system on the west side of the site and into 

the ship cha nnel via outlet in th e vicinity of the southeast and southwest corners of the project 

site. 

Topical 244
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 13 

Wetland Delineation

A jurisdictional wetland delineation was previ ously conducted by the U.S. Ar my Corps of 

Engineers (COE) and, based on this delineation, the Port of Lake Charles mitigated 26.2 acres of 

the wetlands through an agreem ent with the COE and Str eam Wetland Services, LLC. 

Permitting through the COE to develop the s ite ha s been com pleted and the latest perm it was 

issued on August 18, 2008. 

Groundwater

Groundwater in the area typically includes upper sandy / silty strata that are separated from the 

much deeper drink ing water aqu ifers by clay laye rs and by a significant distance as described 

below. The shallow water-bear ing zones encountered above the C hicot aquifer are not 

considered potential sources of w ater supply, either potable or non-potable, given the 

shallowness of these zones, and the presen ce of proven supplies of good quality groundwater 

from the Chicot aqu ifer. Accord ing to the Louisiana Departm ent of Transportation and 

Development, water wells in these u pper sands are not being utilized, and are not planned to be 

utilized, as drinking water sources. All water supply wells are screened in the deeper sands (200-

800 feet) of the Chicot aquifer. There are no w ells screened in the upper sands other than for 

groundwater m onitoring, dewateri ng or recovery purposes. This is also supported by 

information presen ted in the d ocument “ Quality of Wate r in Freshwate r Aquifers in 

Southwestern Louisiana” (USGS 1989). The USGS conf irms that the shallow san ds in this area 

and in the vicinity of the Lake Charles Gasification Facility site (i.e., such as the upper sands, the 

most shallo w water-b earing un its) are no t curr ently being utilized , and are not planned to be 

utilized, as drinking water sources. 

Groundwater for potable purposes in the Lake Ch arles area is obtained from the Chicot Aquifer 

System. The Chicot Aquifer System has been subdivided into the “200 -foot,” “500-foot,” and 

“700-foot” sands. The strata above the “200-foot” sand are primarily composed of relatively low 

permeability sediments. 

The "200-F oot" Sand is thick and extensive th roughout the region, and it deepens toward the 

south. In the vicinity of the Lake Charles Ga sification Facility site , the "200-Foot" Sand is 

encountered approximately 175 ft below land surface (bls) and the sand varies from about 75 to 

150 feet in thickness. 

The "500-Foot" Sand is the m ost prolific sand of the Chicot Aquifer and serves as the principal 

source of fresh water f or industries and agriculture throughout m ost of Calcasieu Parish. The 

"500-Foot" Sand is encountered approximately 400 feet bls in the vicinity of the site and the sand 

averages about 100 to 125 feet in thickness. 

The "700-Foot" Sand supplies the City of Lake Ch arles with drinking water, as well as some 

farms and industrial plants in southern and central Calcasieu Parish. In the vicinity of the site, the 

"700-Foot" Sand is encountered approximately 625 feet bls. Locally, the sand is divided into two 

zones, with a total thickness of about 225 feet. 

Topical 245
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 14 

Unique Habitats

Based upon inform ation reviewed from the Loui siana Departm ent of W ildlife and Fisheries 

(LDWF, May 2009), no rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated 

for this proposed project. LDEQ’ s February 2010 list of threatened and endangered species 

includes only the red cockaded woodpecker as endangered in Calcasieu Parish; no aquatic 

species are listed. According to LDEQ’s 2009-2010 Im plementation Strategy for the 

Memorandum of Understanding between LDEQ and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 

no federally listed threatened or endangered species on the Calcasieu River that are dependent on 

aquatic habitat. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species or cri tical habitat is known to 

exist at the project site or within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed site. In addition, there are 

no state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or W ildlife Management Areas at o r 

near the proposed project site. 

Raw Water Supply

Raw water will be supplied by pipeline from the Sabine River. LCC has contracted for an annual 

average m aximum of 8,500 GPM of Sabine River water. The water from the Sabine River 

Authority (SRA) will be provided through the existing SRA intake s tructure on the Sabine River 

Diversion Canal. The existing pum p house contains th ree bays of which two are utilized, each 

sized for approximately 300 percent of the capacity LCC will take from the canal. All three bays 

are connected to a common intake structure. LCC will install a pump house and interconnect its 

sump to the exis ting un-utilized bay in th e SRA pump house. In this m anner LCC will us e the 

existing intake structure yet still not increase flow through the structure above its original design 

capacity. It is designed and capable of providing the quantity of water needed by LCC. The 

project will not increase flow through the structure above its original design capacity. Thus, the 

provisions of 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart I (Clean W ater Act Section 316b requirements for new 

intake structures) are not applicable. The L CC Gasification Project will supply water to the CO2

Capture and Compression Facilities’ cooling system as part of the ancillar y services, therefore, 

this activity is not par t of the CO2 capture and compression project. The water co nsumed in the 

AGR and C O2 cooling system is approxim ately 10% of the project raw water consum ption and 

13% of the cooling tower capacity. 

d. Geo logic/Soil Conditions 

This section shall describe the topographic stability (e.g ., formations and/or faulting), the p roductivity of soil, 

any unique soil species, and the soil’s susceptibility to erosion. 

Site geology

A number of borings primarily near the river shore taken for an investigation of the new sea-wall 

indicate a layer of organic clay overlying high plasticity clay inter-layered with sand. An 

investigation encom passing areas throughout the si te will be perform ed to provide data to 

accurately describe the overall site geology. There are no unique soil species present at this site.

Topical 246
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 15 

The following is a discussion of the geologic setting in the vicinity of the site down to a depth of 

approximately 10,000 feet below ground surface ( bgs) and specific geologic investig ations 

performed at the site. 

The upper approximately 175 feet of the subsurface is composed of Holocene to Pleistocene Age 

sediments. These sed iments are characterized by clay s and silty clays intersected by 

discontinuous layers of silts and sands. They are alluvial in nature, probably fluvial and deltaic. 

The upper 75 feet of the subsurf ace typically includes both Holocene to Pleistocene Ag e 

sediments. These sed iments are characterized by clays and silty clays intersected by layers and 

lenses of silt and sand, som e more continuous than others. Between approximately 75 and 175 

feet bgs, the Pleis tocene age sed iments encountered are co mposed predominantly of clays and 

sandy clays with sporadic occurrences of thin, discontinuous lenses of silt and sand. 

The Pleistocene strata encountered between ap proximately 175 and 800 feet bgs are com posed 

predominantly of thick sand and gravel deposits, with individua l sand and gravel for mations 

separated by thick clay interval s. These formations are latera lly continuous in the region. In 

southwestern Louisiana, including the Lake Charle s area, this sequence of sediments is referred 

to as the Chicot Aquif er System. In the Lake Ch arles area, the Chicot Aquifer System contains 

three major water producing zones, known as the "200-Foot Sand”, the "500-Foot Sand”, and the 

"700-Foot Sand”, based on their general depth of o ccurrence. In the vicinity of the site, the 200-

Foot Sand (the Montgom ery fo rmation) is encountered appr oximately 175 feet bgs and the 

thickness varies from about 75 to 150 feet. The 500-Foot Sand is the most prolific sand of the 

Chicot Aquifer. The 500-Foot Sand (the Bentley formation) serves as th e principal source of 

fresh water for industries and ag riculture throughout m ost of Ca lcasieu Parish. The 500-Foot 

Sand is encountered approximately 400 feet bgs and averages about 100 to 125 feet in thickness. 

The 700-Foot Sand supplies the City of Lake Charles with drinking water, as well as some farms 

and industrial plants in southern an d central Calcasieu Parish. The 700-Foot Sand (the W illiana 

formation) is encountered at approximately 625 feet bgs. 

Natural groundwater flow within the sands of the Chicot Aquifer is to the south, toward the Gulf 

of Mexico. However, substantial pumpage of groundwater from these sands over the last several 

decades has significantly altered the local flow direction, forming cones of depression within the 

Lake Charles Industrial Area. 

Below the Pleisto cene age sedim ents (to dept hs exceedin g 10,000 feet bgs) are sedim ents, in 

descending order, of Pliocene, Miocene, and Oligocene age. The Pliocene age deposits generally 

consist of a series of fine to medium grained sand, silt, and clay of gray to blue-black color, often 

containing lignite. The Pliocene deposits dip to the south, i.e., toward the Gulf of M exico. The 

base of the Pliocene deposits is approxim ately 2,500 feet bgs in the vicinity of the project site. 

The deposits of Pliocene age are generally referred to as the Evangeline Aquifer. Miocene ag e 

deposits consist of interf ingering beds of sand, si lt, and clay. The base of the Miocene deposits 

is approximately 7,500 feet bgs in the vicinity of the project site. Oligocene age deposits consist 

of thicke r interva ls of clay o r sh ale with in terfingering beds of sand a nd silt. T he Oligocene 

extends to depths below 10,000 feet bgs in the area of the project site. Regional dip of these two 

deposits is consistent with the upper units. 

Topical 247
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 16 

Groundwater within the Pliocene and Miocene stra ta, commonly referred to as the Evangeline 

Aquifer in the vicinity of the project site, genera lly exhibits total dissolved solids concentrations 

in excess of 10,000 m g/L, thus m aking it unsuitabl e for hum an consumption. No water supply 

wells are known to penetrate the Evangeline Aquifer in Calcasieu Parish. 

Soil conditions at the proposed site were investigated by perfor ming soil borings and 

geotechnical laboratory testing of recovered sam ples. Thirteen soil borings were advanced in the 

vicinity of the eastern boundary of the site, dow n to an appr oximate elevation of 100 feet MSL 

(See Figure 4, Boring Layout). As shown on cr oss-sections developed using these soil boring 

data (See Figures 5 and 6), the stratigraphy consists of very soft to soft organic clays extending 

to approximately -13 feet MSL, underlain by loose to very dense sands and stiff to very stiff 

Pleistocene clays. 

Shallow sedim ent conditions were investigated in the interior wetlands area where sm all 

channels direct stormwater to the river. The investigations included the collection of 18 sediment 

samples from these areas of the property (See Figure 7, Phase II Sampling Locations). Sediment 

samples collected varied from a black silty muck in upper reaches of the channels, to stiff clays 

in the lower reaches as the channels converge prio r to confluence with the Calcasieu River. The 

extent of loose sediment overlaying stiffer clay soils appeared to be influenced by the velocity of 

water in the channels. Thicker sed iments were observed on the point bar and less sedim ent was 

observed in the cut bank. Howe ver, when flow decreased in m ore linear stretches, the 

sedimentation was generally uniform. 

e. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources 

This s ection shall d escribe a ny indigenous flor a a nd fauna, s tate an d Federally lis ted endangered or 

threatened specie s and t heir habitats, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, f loodplains, o r o ther 

ecologically sensitive terrain. 

The proposed Lake Charle s Gasification Facility is located on an approximately 70-acre parcel of 

land on the right-descending bank of the Calcasieu River in the region known as Rose Bluff. The 

site is prim arily undeveloped land that is cove red by pine forest on the higher elevations and 

cypress-tupelo and em ergent freshwater marsh in the lowe r elevations at the cen ter and eastern 

portions of the property. 

A jurisdictional wetland delineat ion was previously conducted by the U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE) and, based on this delineation, the Port of Lake Charles mitigated 26.2 acres of 

the wetlands through an agreem ent with the COE and Str eam Wetland Services, LLC. 

Permitting through the COE to develop the s ite ha s been com pleted and the latest perm it was 

issued on August 18, 2008. 

Based upon inform ation reviewed from the Loui siana Departm ent of W ildlife and Fisheries 

(LDWF, May 2009), no rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated 

for this proposed project. LDEQ’ s February 2010 list of threatened and endangered species 

includes only the red cockaded woodpecker as endangered in Calcasieu Parish; no aquatic 

species are listed. According to LDEQ’s 2009-2010 Im plementation Strategy for the 

Memorandum of Understanding between LDEQ and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 

Topical 248
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 17 

no federally listed threatened or endangered species on the Calcasieu River that are dependent on 

aquatic habitat. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species or cri tical habitat is known to 

exist at the project site or within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed site. In addition, there are 

no state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or W ildlife Management Areas at o r 

near the proposed project site.

Topical 249
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 18 

Topical 250
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 19 

Topical 251
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 20 

Topical 252
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 21 

f. Socioeconomic Conditions 

This section shall discuss the population in the project area, and shall describe the employment and labor mix. 

Population

Sulphur, Louisiana is located entir ely within Calcasieu n the southwestern part of the 

state. Sulphur boasts a population of 20,512 peopl e (2000 US Census population estim ate). The 

population data is broken down into various categories in the following sections. 

Ethnicity 

Sulphur is a comm unity that is m ainly white in population at 93.4 percent. The second highest 

bloc group is Black or African Am erican at 4.4 percent with Hi spanic and Two or More Race 

groups comprising the final 2.6 percent. The breakdown is presented in the table below. 

Table – Races in Sulphur, Louisiana 

Races in Sulphur, Louisiana 

Race Number Percentage of Population 

White Non-Hispanic 19165 93.4

Black 905 4.4

Hispanic 305 1.5

Two or More Races 217 1.1

2000 Estimates – US Census 

Topical 253
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 22 

Socioeconomics

Economic characteristics show a labor force in Sulphur as 62.3 percent of the population. The 

estimated median incomes are represented in the table below. 

Table – Estimated Median Household Income 

Estimated Median Income 

Median Income 

Household $38,247 

Family $45,455 

2000 Estimates – US Census 

Social Demographic Data

The following sections contain social demographic data relating to: 

 Percent of population 25 years old and over without a high school diploma; 

 Percent of population over 65 years of age; 

 Percent of population under 5 years of age; and 

 Percent of population under the poverty level. 

Education Attainment 

According to the 2000 US Census approximately 80.3 percent of the population aged 25 years or 

more graduated High School or attained higher levels of education. These data are presented in 

the table below. 

Table – Education 

Educational Attainment of Population Aged 25+ 

 Number Percentage 

Total Aged 25+ Years 13031

High School Graduate (incl. equiv.) 10459 80.3 

Bachelor's Degree or Higher 2426 18.6 

2000 Estimates – US Census 

Percent of Population Over 65 and Under 5 Years of Age

According to the 2000 US Census, persons over 65 years of age comprise 13.4 percent of the 

Sulphur Population while persons under 5 years of age comprise 7.4 percent. These data are 

presented in the table below. 

Topical 254
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 23 

Table – Population Over 65 and Under 5 Years of Age 

Population over 65 and Under 5 Years of Age 

Age Num ber Percentage of Population 

Over 65 2754 13.4 

Under 5 1511 7.4 

2000 Estimates – US Census 

Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level

According to the 2000 US Census t he 13.3 percent of the population in Sulphur, LA lives under 

the poverty level. Compared to the State leve l of 18.5 percent it rem ains ahead of the state 

poverty level. These data are presented in the table below. 

Table – Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level 

Percent of Population Below the Poverty Level 

 Percentage of Population 

Sulphur, LA 13.3 

State of Louisiana 18.5 

2000 Estimates – US Census 

g. Historic/C ultural Resources 

The section shall describe any historic and/or cultural places in the project area, as well 

as archeological sites. 

The LCC Gasification P roject has prepared a cu ltural resources study as required by the State 

Department of Cultural, Recreation & Tourism , Office of Cultural Developm ent. A prior study 

by Earth Search, Inc. in 2001 identified a Rangia shell midden associated with Site 16CU29 tha t 

potentially extended into the s outhwest corner of the proposed project site. A Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey was performed for this site and a report was issued to Louisiana State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO reviewed this updated information and issued a letter 

noting that field investigations resulted in th e delineation of expanded boundaries for this site 

and the assessment concluded that the site was not eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places due to a lack of depositional integrity and limited research potential. The SHPO 

concurred with the assessm ents conducted and c oncluded that additional assessments are not 

warranted. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report and 

the letter from the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer. 

h. Visual Resources 

This section shall describe any scenic vistas or existing aesthetic landscaping in the project area. 

There are n o scenic riv ers, vistas or existing ae sthetic landscaping that will be af fected by the 

Lake Charles Gasification Facility. The land that is being u tilized for this facility is owned by 

the Port of Lake Charles and has been under their ownership for many years. The project site is 

Topical 255
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 24 

located in a heavy industrial sett ing and the visual landscape of the area is already m arked with 

industrial structures of various types. 

i. Health and Safety Factors 

This section shall discuss current emissions (toxic and non-toxic), effluents, and noise levels at the project 

area. 

There are no current facility em issions (toxic or non-toxic) or effluents, as the proposed Lake 

Charles Gasification Facility has not been constructed. 

During construction of the proposed facilities , noise would be generated by construction 

equipment such as bulldozers, trucks, backhoes, cranes, pumps, air compressors, and front-end 

loaders. Noise levels during construction would be typical of industria l plant construction. 

Steam blowdown / clearing of piping and equipm ent toward the end of the cons truction phase 

will result in a few brief noise peaks that would attenuate to acceptable levels at greater distances 

from the site. 

There are exhaust em issions from site clearing equipment and transport of debris. There will 

also be dus t em issions associated with debris rem oval. Best management practices for site 

construction are also being utilized to minimize impacts from these activities. 

The current activities are under the jurisdiction of OSHA requirements, as well as the health and 

safety requ irements of LCC and their con tractor(s) f or th e saf ety an d protec tion of the site 

workers. 

B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED. 

This section of the Environmental Volume shall describe the anticipated environmental impacts from the 

project. It shall describe all impacts and consequences of the project (at the selected site[s] and the 

alternative site[s], if appropriate). The existing environment (described in Section A.3) shall be evaluated 

in terms of the potential impacts from any const ruction, op eration/testing, an d disposition activities. An y 

mitigative measures that will address these impacts shall also be identified. 

The descr iption shall a ddress the en vironmental ca tegories li sted be low. Pl ease ensure that all direct, 

indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts resulting from project activities are identified clearly. 

1. La nd Use 

This section shall describe land use impacts from any construction and operation activities; waste d isposal 

problems (fo r non- toxic, toxic, and/or hazardous subs tances); and effluent dis charges requiring th e 

development of settling ponds. 

It is not anticipated that the LCC Gasification Project or the Capture and Compression Facilities 

will have any impacts on land use at the site or on surrounding land uses. 

The proposed Lake Charles Gasification Facility will be located within the existing property owned 

by the Port of Lake Charles and will be constructed on approximately 70 acres. The area is zoned 

Topical 256
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 25 

I-2 (heavy industrial) and proposed operations are compliant with this designation. The proposed 

site is surr ounded by l and primarily used for he avy industrial operations. The si te is not loc ated 

near schools, hospitals, residential areas, or public buildings. The property has not been developed 

previously with the exception of an area that was built up with fill material. 

A jurisdictional wetland delineation was previ ously conducted by the U. S. Ar my COE and, 

based on this delineatio n, the Port o f Lake Charles m itigated 26.2 acres of the wetlands throug h 

an agreement with the COE and Stream Wetland Services, LLC. Permitting through the COE to 

develop the site has been completed and the latest permit was issued on August 18, 2008. 

Surface water from north and west of the site, drain through the site to the shipping channel. Site 

development plans will raise the elevation of the site property; however, o ff-site flows currently 

following the natural topography of the site will be diverted to either the drainage easement on 

the north side of the site or to a perimeter conveyance system on the west side of the site and into 

the ship channel via an outlet in the vicinity of the southeast and southwest corners of the project 

site. 

There will b e no settling ponds constructed for th is project. The LCC Ga sification Project has 

already obtained required effluent discharge permits from the LDEQ . No disposal of solid or 

hazardous waste will b e conducted at this site. Any wastes gene rated from operations will be 

properly managed and disposed of off-site at an appropriately permitted facility. Thus, no wastes 

will remain permanently on-site. General office wastes are expect ed to be les s than 100 cubic 

yards per year and will be dis posed in a permitted municipal or sanitary landfill by a licens ed 

transporter. 

The Capture and Compression Facilities will be intern al to the LCC Gasif ication Project’s 

developed area. There will be no additional land use required for this part of the overall project. 

2. At mospheric Conditions/Air Quality 

This secti on shall di scuss projections in ai r quality changes; estimat ed process emissions (e.g., s tack 

emissions); construction emissions fro m land disturbance or the operation of machinery equipment, solid waste 

disposal operations, coal handling, etc.; and the source, emission rate, duration, and frequency of all emissions. 

The Capture and Compression Facil ities will not im pact air qua lity, as the units’ pum ps and 

compressors are electric driven and generate no emissions to the atmosphere. The impacts on air 

quality that m ay be caused by an cillary systems supporting the CO 2 cap ture and co mpression 

were included and incorporated within the LCC Gasification Project air permits described below. 

The LCC Gasif ication Project has obtained Title V and Prevention of S ignificant Deterioration 

(PSD) Air Perm its, as required under the Clean Air Act. The perm its are for em issions 

associated with the production of substitute natural gas (SNG). Subsequent to the perm its’ 

issuance, LCC has determ ined that the LCC Gasi fication Project will p roduce methanol instead 

of or in addition to SNG. Further design work is required to com plete characterization of the 

methanol process, but the f acility’s em issions are not exp ected to var y signif icantly with the 

production of m ethanol. Any e mission changes a ssociated with the methanol pro cess will be 

incorporated with other design clarifications in the permit modification process. 

Topical 257
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 26 

The overall project total facili ty emissions from the production of SNG are presented in Table 

B2-1 below. These overall emissions represent the Title V and PSD permitted emissions. 

Table B2-1 

 Total Facility Emissions

Pollutant 

Proposed Emissions 

(TPY) 

PSD Significance 

Thresholds (TPY) 

Particulate Matter (PM10) .38 15 

Sulfur Dioxides (SO2) 2.27 40 

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 8.76 40 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 701.00 100 

Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOC) 24.69 40 

Hydrogen Sulfide (TAP) 0.86 10 

Sulfuric Acid (TAP) 55.83 7 

To dem onstrate com pliance with LAC 33:III. Chapter 51 Louisiana s tate regu lations, an Air 

Toxics Analysis was performed for all toxic air pollutants (TAPs) over their respective Minimum 

Emission Rates (MER). The overall project tota l facility emissions with the production of SNG 

resulted in a classificatio n as a m ajor source of toxic air pollutants (TAP s), as the em ission rate 

of sulfuric acid exceeded the 10 TPY major source threshold. The LCC Gasification Project will 

emit only Class III TAPs. With the production of methanol, the methanol emissions may exceed 

the respective MER. The LCC Gasification Project will comply with applicable provisions of the 

Louisiana Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions Control Program (LAC 33:III.Chapter 51). 

3. Hydrologic Conditions/Water Quality 

This section s hall describe any changes in groundwater/surface water quality and quantity, stream diversion 

resulting fro m construction, runoff from storage pile s (source, d ischarge rate, discharge f requency and 

duration), leachates from waste disposal sites; and wastewater treatment and discharges. 

Construction and operation activities at the LCC Gasification Proj ect, including the Capture and 

Compression Facilities, are no t anticipated to have any significant impa cts on the quality or 

quantity of groundwater or surface water in the area. 

The LCC Gasification P roject will not utilize groundwater as a raw wa ter source. Groundwater 

in this area typically includes upper sandy / s ilty strata that are separated from the much deeper 

drinking water aquifers by clay layers and by a significant dist ance as describ ed b elow. The 

shallow water-bearing zones encountered above the Chicot aquifer are not considered potential 

sources of groundwater, either pot able or non-potable, given the sh allowness of these zones, and 

the presence of proven supplies of good quality gr oundwater from the Chicot aquifer. According 

to the Louisiana Departm ent of Tr ansportation and Developm ent, water wells in these upper 

sands are not being utilized, and are not planne d to be utilized, as drinking water sources. All 

water supply wells are scr eened in the deeper sands (200-800 feet) of the Chicot aquifer. There 

Topical 258
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 27 

are no wells screened in the upper sands other than for groundwater m onitoring, dewatering or 

recovery purposes. This is also supported by information presented in the document “Quality of 

Water in Freshwater Aq uifers in Southwestern Louisiana ” (USGS 1989). The USGS confir ms 

that the sha llow sands in this area and in the vicinity of the Lake Charles Gasification Facility 

site (i.e., such as the upper sands, the m ost shallow water-bearing units) are not currently being 

utilized, and are not planned to be utilized, as drinking water sources. 

Best m anagement practices dur ing construc tion will be im plemented to prevent tu rbidity and 

sedimentation associated with surface water runoff that could influence water quality. 

There will be no storage piles or waste disposal sites at the faci lity, hence no storage pile runoff 

or leachate. 

Raw water will be sup plied by p ipeline from the Sabine R iver. Dur ing operation, all p rocess 

wastewater will be recy cled to achieve zero liq uid discharge (ZLD). Discharg e of non-proces s 

wastewater and storm water will be to the Calcasieu River via permitted outfalls (the permit has 

been receiv ed from the LDEQ). The following gives further de tails r egarding wa ter quality, 

water use, and wastewater treatment and discharges. 

Source (Intake) Water (Sabine River Water)

The LCC Gasification P roject has contracted for an annual av erage maximum of 8,500 GPM of 

Sabine River water. The water from the Sabine River Authority (SRA) w ill be ro uted to the 

project site via pipeline. The water will be provided through the existing SRA intake structure on 

the Sabine River Diversion Canal. Water required for cooling the CO 2 compression system will 

be provided as an ancillary system by the LCC Gasification Project. Water supply system s are 

not part of the CO 2 compression p roject. The water consum ed in the CO 2 compression cooling 

system is approximately 5% of the project raw water consumption and 6.5% of the cooling tower 

capacity. 

Sabine River water will be treated for plant us e. Secondary containm ent will be p rovided for 

water treatm ent chem icals. Equip ment lube oil l eaks will be contained and routed to the oily 

water sewer. 

Wastewater Treatment, Flow, and Discharge

The LCC Gasification Project proposes to imp lement zero liquid discharge (ZLD) for the 

gasification process wastewater through utilization of filtration, steam stripping, evaporation, and 

crystallization. The wastewater gene rated in the gasification process will be treated / recycled to 

achieve ZLD. Filte red solids and dewater ed salts will b e disposed of off -site at pe rmitted 

facilities. T he following are perm itted to be disc harged to the Calcasieu River at the southern 

plant property line: non-contact cooling water blowdown, water treatment reject and regeneration 

water, oil/water sep arator water (plant and e quipment drains) and low-contam ination potential 

storm water runoff. 

Topical 259
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 28 

Outfall 001 - Non-Contact Utility Water

Outfall 001 discharge will cons ist of non-cont act u tility water, in cluding coo ling water 

blowdown, boiler blowdown, and RO/d emineralizer re ject water. Non-conta ct co oling towe r 

blowdown and boiler blowdown will be tre ated f or re duction of chlor ine r esidual and 

RO/demineralization reject wate r may require neutralization prio r to discharge through Outfall 

001. 

Outfall 002 - Oil/Water Separator Water

Wastewater f rom equipm ent drains will b e trea ted in a n oil/wa ter separa tor and then b e 

discharged through Outfall 002. Scavenged oil w ill be collected and properly d isposed of offsite by a licensed contractor. 

Storm Water Management

Prior to construction, off-site flows currently following the natural topography of the site will be 

diverted to either the drainage easement on the north side of the site or to a perimeter conveyance 

system on the west side and into the ship channel via outlets in the vicini ty of the Southeast and 

Southwest corners of the property. 

Storm water that will contact the LCC Gasification Project facility is categorized as follows: 

 Storm water from Gasification Process Area (no discharge); 

 Storm water in excess of the f irst one inch from process areas with low potential to 

become contaminated; 

 Storm water from non-contact (uncontaminated) areas; and 

 Storm water from secondary containment areas. 

Storm water f alling in the gasif ication proces s ar ea will co llected in th e concr ete gasif ication 

storm water tank. All flow into this tank will be recycled and reused within the process. 

Secondary containm ent areas will be located throughout the site to isolate spills and any 

contaminated runoff from its surrounding area. Those serving to contain oil will ro ute spills and 

storm water runoff to the oily water separator for treatment prior to dis charging off-site. Storm 

water falling into isola ted chemical containment areas will be m anaged in accordan ce with the 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be developed for the facility. 

Low Contamination Potential Storm Water

Process areas with a potentia l for contamination will have dedicated drains. Storm water falling 

in these process areas will be routed to a co llection sump. When the m easured cumulative flow 

into the collection sump exceeds the first flush th e water will overflow the collectio n sump into 

an open channel for discharge from the site alo ng with the clean non-cont act area runoff. The 

water collected in the process area storm water tank will be used as plant makeup water. 

Topical 260
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 29 

Storm Water from Non-Contact Areas 

The CO2 compression unit area and other areas that do not have exposed liquid or solid materials 

that can contact storm water will have secondary containment of any potential contam inants. 

Chemical storage tanks will have co ntainment dikes. Equipm ent containing oil will be within 

curbed areas that d rain to the oily water sewe r. Storm water falling on these areas and all 

remaining non-process areas (parking lots, open areas, adm inistration buildings, etc.) of the 

facility is considered non-contact storm water a nd will be conveyed dire ctly to the Calcasieu 

River. 

Sanitary Wastewater

Sanitary wastewater will be ro uted to the City of Sulphur municipal treatm ent system for 

treatment and disposal. 

4. G eologic/Soil Conditions 

This section shall describe any subsidence that might be caused by construction; any possible erosion, stream 

diversion, floodplain and wetland intrusion, and any increases or decreases in soil permeability and filtration. 

Sections of the Lake Charles Ga sification Facility site are within th e 100-year or 500-year flood 

plains (Reference Figu re 8, Boundary Survey ). However, construction of the Lake Charles 

Gasification Facility will include installation of a sheet pile bulkhead along the southern border 

of the property at the C alcasieu River that is approximately 2,180 feet long and an elevation of 

between 11 and 12 ft. The existi ng site elevation is approximately 7 feet; however, the existing 

elevation adjacent to the ship chann el varies fro m approximately -2 to -13 feet MS L. The site 

construction will in clude the add ition of fill material resulting in f inal site elevations that will 

vary from 10 feet near the bulkhead to 16 feet at the high est elevation. These elevation s are 

significantly above the lo cal 100-year and 500-year base flood el evations. The sh eet pile wall 

located along the eastern site boundary will retain the proposed fill. 

Subsidence of coastal L ouisiana is well docum ented. Regional data suggests movements on the 

order of 2 to 3 cm pe r year. Geotechnical bo rings and testing of obtained soils is being 

conducted and evaluated to determ ine appropriate engineeri ng and construction for the site. 

Construction of this project is not anticipated to significantly alter th e subsidence characteristics 

of the project site, nor influence the larger surrounding area. 

The site fill material will in clude clay soils, an d on-site soils will also be utilized from certain 

areas. The s oil permeability and cha racteristics of these sources ar e anticipated to be sim ilar to 

the clay soils currently present, and will be superior in character to some of the soils in the marsh 

areas. Due to the amount of fill that will be present after construction, as well as the presence of 

low permeability structures that are part of the facility, infiltration rates would be antic ipated to 

be reduced over m uch of the project area. This reduction will not hav e an adverse effect on the 

shallow groundwater and will not influence the much deeper aquifers in the area that are used for 

industrial and potable purposes. 

Topical 261
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 30 

Surface water from nor th and west of the site, dr ain throu gh the ex isting site to the shipping 

channel. Site development plans will rais e the elevation of the site property; however, off-site 

flows currently following the natural topography of the site will be diverted to either the drainage 

easement on the north side of the site or to a perimeter conveyance system on the west side of the 

site and into the ship channel via an outlet in the vicinity of the southeast and southwest corners 

of the project site. 

Topical 262
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 31 

Wetlands are discussed below. 

Topical 263
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 32 

5. Vegetation and Wildlife Resources 

This section shall describe any impacts to indigenous flora and fauna , state and Federally listed endangered 

species and their ha bitats, and sens itive hab itats su ch as w etlands, flo odplains, or o ther ec ologically 

sensitive terrain. 

Based upon inform ation reviewed from the Loui siana Departm ent of W ildlife and Fisheries 

(LDWF, May 2009), no rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated 

for this proposed project. LDEQ’ s February 2010 list of threatened and endangered species 

includes only the red cockaded woodpecker as endangered in Calcasieu Parish; no aquatic 

species are listed. According to LDEQ’s 2009-2010 Im plementation Strategy for the 

Memorandum of Understanding between LDEQ and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 

no federally listed threatened or endangered species on the Calcasieu River that are dependent on 

aquatic habitat. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species or cri tical habitat is known to 

exist at the project site or within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed site. In addition, there are 

no state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or W ildlife Management Areas at o r 

near the proposed project site. 

A jurisdictional wetland delineat ion was previously conducted by the U. S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (COE), and the Port of Lake Char les m itigated 26.2 acres o f the wetlan ds th rough 

agreement with the C OE and Stream W etland Services, LLC. Perm itting throug h the COE to 

develop the site has been com pleted and th e latest perm it was issued on August 18, 2008. No 

other wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. 

6. Socioeconomic Conditions 

This section shall describe any increases/decreases in labor requirements or changes in labor mix. 

The proposed Lake Charle s Gasification Facility is a state-of-the-art facility that will represent a 

significant capital investme nt for the region. The construction phase of the project will result in a 

large number of local and in-sta te expenditures and w ill create a large number of employmen t 

opportunities. Co nstruction of the LCC Gasif ication Project will occur ov er an approximate f our 

year period. The C O2 Capture and Compression Facilities will be constructed simultaneously with 

the LCC Gasification Project. 

Operation of the LCC Gasification Project will result in approximately 180 jobs, most of which will 

be high-quality, high-paying positions. 

Purchases of petroleum coke f rom local ref ineries will help supp ort other industries and create 

additional value-added to locally made products rather than having these products exported to other 

areas of the country or the world. In addition, gulf coast petroleum coke which is presently being 

exported will now be us ed by t he LCC Gasi fication Project for maki ng clean energy for dome stic 

use thereby reducing energy imports from many unstable areas of the world. 

Overall, the LCC Gasification Proj ect will generate over $1.3 billion in capital expenditures and 

over 12,000 direct an d indirect jobs duri ng construction. Th is results in annual average of $340 

million and 3,000 jobs. Some 30 percent of the total expenditure impacts ar e expected to occur in 

Topical 264
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 33 

the greater Lake Charl es area, w ith a large portion of the rema inder occurring in ot her portions of 

the state. 

Economic Impacts During Construction 

Output (million $) Employment 

Lake Rest of Total Lake Rest of Total 

Impacts Charles Louisiana Louisiana Charles Louisiana Louisiana 

Direct $362.0 $543.0 $ 905.0 1,335 5,787 7,123 

Indirect $ 17.8 $203.2 $ 221.0 203 1,905 2,108 

Induced $ 25.6 $203.6 $ 229.2 374 2,622 2,996 

Total $405.4 $949.8 $1,35 5.3 1,912 10,314 12,226 

Economic Impacts (Annual Operations and Maintenance) 

Output (million $) Employment 

Lake Rest of Total Lake Rest of Total 

Impacts Charles Louisiana Louisiana Charles Louisiana Louisiana 

Direct $ 67.0 $ 1.0 $ 68.0 150 -- 150 

Indirect $ 32.6 $ 14.0 $ 46.6 127 87 214 

Induced $ 8.4 $ 7.0 $ 15.4 123 79 202 

Total $108.0 $ 22.1 $130.1 400 166 566 

Property Value Impacts / Economic Development of the Area

The Lake Charles Gasi fication Pr oject is not ant icipated to have an a dverse a ffect on pr operty 

values in the surrounding area, or to hinder economic development of the area by ot her industries, 

as the area is zoned for heavy industrial purposes. 

7. Hist oric/Cultural Resources 

This sectio n shall describe any dist urbance to hist orical or archeological site s cau sed by co nstruction, 

interference with Native American tribal or other religious practices or sites; impacts on local community 

character. 

The LCC Gasification P roject has prepared a cu ltural resources study as required by the State 

Department of Cultural, Recreation & Tourism , Office of Cultural Developm ent. A prior study 

by Earth Search, Inc. in 2001 identified a Rangia shell midden associated with Site 16CU29 tha t 

potentially extended into the s outhwest corner of the proposed project site. A Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey was performed for this site and a report was issued to Louisiana State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO). The SHPO reviewed this updated information and issued a letter 

noting that field investigations resulted in th e delineation of expanded boundaries for this site 

and the assessment concluded that the site was not eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places due to a lack of depositional integrity and limited research potential. The SHPO 

concurred with the assessm ents conducted and c oncluded that additional assessments are not 

warranted. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey Report and 

the letter from the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer. 

Topical 265
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 34 

8. Visual Resources 

This section shall describe any impacts to scenic vistas or existing aesthetic landscaping. 

There are n o scenic riv ers, vistas or existing ae sthetic landscaping that will be af fected by the 

Lake Charles Gasification Facility. The land that is being u tilized for this facility is owned by 

the Port of Lake Charles and has been under their ownership for many years. The project site is 

located in a heavy industrial sett ing and the visual landscape of the area is already m arked with 

industrial structures of various types. 

9. Health and Safety Factors 

This section shall discuss occupational hazards of project activities; exposure to toxic/hazardous substances; and 

increases in ambient noise, odor, and heat. 

Materials Storage/Handling 

The LCC Gasification P roject will receive petro leum coke as the p rimary feedstock to produce 

methanol, steam and electr icity (i. e., f or balanc ing the en ergy needs f or this f acility). The 

materials h andling operations (i.e. , petro leum coke and fluxant) will be co nducted with 

significant controls to minimize particulate emissions. Petro leum coke will b e received off-site 

at the Port of Lake Charles. The coke will be transported via covered conveyor to the LC C 

Gasification Project site and stored in f eed bi ns. The f luxant (bottom ash and sand) will be 

transported by enclosed truck and pneumatically conveyed to separate silos. 

There are some ancillary fuels, feed m aterials, and facility products han dled or stored on-site in 

order to maintain operations. These materials include the following: 

 diesel fuel for firewater pumps and emergency generators; 

 gasoline for plant vehicles; 

 aqueous ammonia storage for the SCR in the Sulfuric Acid Plant; 

 sulfuric acid product storage; 

 glycol storage for gas dehydration; and 

 methanol storage associated with the Rectisol unit. 

All of these materials will be stored and managed in accordance with all applicable requirements 

and BMPs to prevent i mpacts to the enviro nment. This includes appropriate containm ent, 

curbing, routine spill in spections, and com pliance, where a pplicable, w ith SPCC requirem ents 

and a stormwater pollution prevention program . N one of these m aterials will be handled or 

stored at the Capture and Compression Facilities. 

Topical 266
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 35 

Noise 

Operational Noise -- The CO 2 Capture and Compression Facil ities will hav e m inimal noise 

impacts as they are inside the larger propos ed LCC Gasification Pr oject. The com pressor 

building is designed to minimize the impact on ambient noise. Workers will be required to wear 

hearing protection when inside the com pressor building. All applicable OSHA standards and 

requirements will also be im plemented for si te workers entering the com pressor area and 

building. 

During operation of the proposed LCC Gasificati on Project, the principal sound sources would 

include eq uipment such as the steam turbine/ generator, heat re covery system s, steam 

blowdowns, cooling tower, petcoke crusher, petcoke mill, pumps, fans, and compressors, as well 

as noise from piping flow and flared gas. Most of these sound sources would be at least partially 

enclosed an d acoustically insulated. Noise leve ls within so me areas of the plan t will requ ire 

worker hearing protection, but the m agnitude of the noise will attenuate to m inor levels beyond 

the facility boundaries. 

Noise during proposed facility ope rations, with proper m itigating measures, is anticipated to 

represent only a sm all a ddition to noise levels in the areas surrounding the site. T he facility 

noise will be similar in character to existing noise from other nearby industrial facilities. 

Increased truck traffic coming to and leaving f rom the facility would create increased frequency 

of traffic noise. 

Construction Noise -- During construction of the LCC Gasification Project and CO2 Capture and 

Compression Facilities, noise would be generated by construction equipment such as cranes, a ir 

compressors, and front-end loaders. Noise leve ls during construction would be typical of 

industrial plant construction. 

Emergency Response Procedures 

Emergency response procedures wi ll also be developed for the f acility in accordance with the 

requirements of OSHA, Emergency Planning and community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and 

CAA provisions. Such procedures will includ e plant eva cuation pro cedures, pr ocedures f or 

notification to loca l fire and law en forcement agencies, p rocedures for notification to sta te and 

local officials and US EPA. Emergency respon se procedures will identify individuals/positions 

responsible for decision-making and notification and will include provisions for periodic training 

for plant management and employees. 

10. Solid and Hazardous Wastes 

This section shall des cribe an y an d a ll was te material that is g enerated fro m project ac tivities. This 

description shall include the source/type of any and all wastes produced (e.g., fly ash, bottom ash, scrubber 

sludge, etc. ), a nd the a pproximate we ight, den sity, and volume of the w aste, an d i ts m ethod of disposal, 

location, and any permitting requirements necessary. 

The CO 2 Capture and Com pression Facilities will not pro duce signif icant quantities of solid 

waste. The wastes prod uced by the Capture an d Compression Facilities will include lubricating 

oils and filters comm only utili zed in operation of sophisticated rotating equipm ent. Typical 

Topical 267
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 36 

waste would consis t o f one or two large c anister o il f ilters chan ged once p er yea r and 

replacement of 500 to 1000 gallons of console oil every turnaround (3 years). 

No soli d or hazar dous waste will be disposed of at the LCC Ga sification Pr oject. Any wast es 

generated from operations or mai ntenance will be pr operly managed and disposed of off-site at an 

appropriately permitted facility. 

The wastes generated by the LCC Gasification Project are summarized in the table below. 

Lake Charles Cogeneration Project Solid Waste Characteristics 

7,400 STPD Petroleum Coke Gasification to SNG

Description 

Estimated 

Quantities 

Frequency 

Produced Hazardous 

Air Filters for ASU < 4,000 ft3/yr Yearly No 

Spent ASU molecular sieve and 

activated alumina <1000 ft3/yr 5-10 years No 

Spent catalyst 

(Shift, Methanation, WSA) <10,000 ft3/yr 2-9 years Yes, will be 

reclaimed 

Water Treatment Clarifier Sludge 

Filter Cake (from treating river 

water) 

<2,000 tpy continuous No 

Water Treatment spent media < 5 tpy Weekly No 

Description 

Estimated 

Quantities 

Frequency 

Produced Hazardous 

Heavy Metals Precipitate 

8 tpd continuous 

Yes, will go 

to off-site 

hazardous 

waste 

landfill 

Salts from evaporation and 

crystallization of process 

wastewater 

2 tpd continuous No 

In addition, slag, the vitrified (glassy) solid product of gasifica tion, m ay be disposed of as a 

waste. Slag is formed in the gasifier due to operation at temperatures above the melting point of 

the mineral matter associated with the feed m aterials. Approximately 420 tons per day of slag 

will be pro duced by th e LCC Gasif ication Pr oject. The slag c an be disposed o f as a non -

hazardous by-product or sold to va rious commercial markets. Analysis of the slag material from 

various gasification processes has consistently shown the slag to be a non-hazardous m aterial 

(U.S. DOE 2000). 

Topical 268
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 37 

11. Impacts on Regional or Local Plans 

This section shall describe any impacts to regional or local plans for fuel, water resources, solid waste, land, 

air quality, and labor forc e; commitmen t of re sources and opportunities to reuse and r ecycle resources 

(wastes, water). 

Located within the LCC Gasificatio n Project, th e CO2 Capture and Compression Facilities will 

not materially affect the overall regional or local plans. 

The development of the LCC Gasification Project is directly related to the energy development and 

technology goals of t he state’s ec onomic development blueprint: Vision 2020 and the most rece nt 

2004 Acti on Plan. Under Vi sion 2020’s goal of creatin g a “Cult ure of Inov ation,” Secti on 2. 1 

specifically seeks to “retain, modernize and grow Lo uisiana’s exi sting in dustries and grow 

emerging technology-based buinesses through cluster-based development practices.” 

The proposed state-of-the-art facility is able to make use of the coke feed stocks that are p resent 

in the area and convert them into high-value products. P urchases of petroleum coke from local 

refineries wi ll hel p s upport other industr ies a nd creat e addi tional value- added t o l ocally made 

products rather than having these pr oducts exported to other areas of the co untry or t he world. I n 

addition, gulf coast petroleum coke which is presently being exported will now be used by the LCC 

Gasification Proj ect for making clean energy for domestic use thereby r educing ene rgy i mports 

from many unstable areas of the world. 

As noted in prior sec tions, solid a nd hazardo us m aterials genera ted by this facility will b e 

transported and dispos ed off-site at permitted facilities. The quantities of these was tes will no t 

place a burden on the capacities of these facilities nor restrict the needs for disposal of the region. 

Air quality of the area and region has been rigorously evaluated and appropriate PSD and Title V 

permits have been issued by the LDEQ. 

Similarly, water resources of the area and region will be protected. The LCC Gasification Project 

has contracted with the Sabine River Authority to receive an annual average maximum of 8,500 

GPM of Sabine River water. The water from the Sabine River Authority (SRA) will be routed to 

the proje ct site via pip eline. The SRA is a river water source auth ority tha t m anages the 

resources from this supply. 

The design of the facility inco rporates zero liquid discharge ( ZLD) for the gasification process 

wastewater through utilization of filtration, steam stripping, evaporation, and crystallization. The 

process was tewater gen erated in th e gasificatio n process w ill be tre ated / recyc led to a chieve 

ZLD. Filtered solids and dewatered salts will be disposed of off-site at permitted facilities. 

Overall, the project represents a considerable capital investm ent for the region, and over its four 

year development period, will provide thousands of local and state employment opportunities. 

The project has the opportunity to support an emerging market for carbon sequestration primarily 

through enhanced oil recovery. 

Topical 269
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 38 

C. POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO DOE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE(S). 

This section shall discuss any potential conditions for exposing the DOE to previous liability. It should 

detail an y p revious research, develo pment, construc tion, and/or demonstr ation testing that cou ld 

potentially have impacts on the existing project site(s) and therefore, the proposed project. 

The site is not anticipated to involve any exposure for DOE due to existing conditions. As detailed 

below, there is some limited co ntamination at t he sit e. Howeve r, any required remediation or 

response will be the respons ibility of the site owner, the Port of Lake Charles , and will be 

performed, if necessary, prior to construction of the LCC Gasification Project. 

In Novem ber 2007, U RS Corporation perform ed a Phase I Environm ental Site Assessm ent 

(ESA) of the 70 acre property currently owned by the Port of Lake Charles in W estlake, 

Louisiana (Subject Pro perty) (see Figure 1). The Phase I ESA identified his torical sampling 

activities on the property which revealed elevated le vels of constituents that are suspected not to 

be naturally-occurring. Releases from the Sul phur Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) noted 

in the records of the L DEQ may have m igrated along the northern bounda ry ditch between the 

Subject Property and the Sulphur WWTP property and in the ditch that flow s to the Calcasieu 

Ship Channel on the eastern boundary of the S ubject Property. Additionall y, a larger channel, 

known as the Hi mont ditch, constructed in the la te 1950s, has discharged wastewater effluent 

from the Basell facility to the west of the subject property, al ong with possible discharges from 

the LA Pigment facility on the northern side of the subject property. The topographic features of 

the areas route flow from the west and north through the existing wetlands areas to the Calcasieu 

River. It was noted that these discharges from upgradient industrial facilities may have impacted 

bottom sediments of the water bodies on the subject property. 

Further investigation and evalua tion of the previously reported sedim ent impacts was conducted 

by URS in accordance with the Louisiana Risk Evaluation/Corrective Action Program (RECAP) 

document, dated October 20, 2003. Sedim ent samples were collected in an attem pt to confirm 

the results of a 1989 i nvestigation perform ed by others. Groundwater sam ple collection was 

proposed on the subject property once access to the more inaccessible areas is available. 

URS collected 18 sedim ent sa mples from the meandering channels and/or open ponded areas 

throughout the wetlands areas of th e Subject Property. URS also collected sediment samples in 

the two ditches which have been indicated to carry the discharge effluent from t he Sulphur 

WWTP to the Calcasieu Ship Channel. 

Sediment samples in th e upper six inches of the bottom surface of channels o r ponds were 

collected for analys is. Analytical testing of each sedim ent sam ple included th e following 

analyses: 

 Metals (13 Priority Pollutant metals plus aluminum, vanadium and titanium) 

 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 

 Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) 

 Petroleum Hydrocarbons Fractions (VPH & EPH) 

Topical 270
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 39 

The results of the analy ses of the s ediment samples indicate the pres ence of sev eral o rganic 

compounds and metals in the se diment on the subject property The site owner, the P ort of Lake 

Charles, w ill w ork w ith LDEQ to de termine wh ether any further s ampling, monitoring or 

remediation is necessary. Additional follow-up activities will be perform ed, if necess ary, prior to 

construction of the LCC Gasification Project. 

D. ABILITY TO MEET COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AT THE SITE(S). 

This section shall identify all of the environmental laws and regulations (Federal, state, and local) 

for which compliance would be necessary. It should include, but s hould not be limited to the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act , Toxic Substance Cont rol Act, Wa ter Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and 

Occupational Safety and Health Act. Any necessary permits, manifest, etc., shall be discussed. 

The proposer’s strategy for meeting all compli ance requirements shall be discussed in detail. 

Identify the best available control technology and feasible practices for compliance with Federal 

air, land use, a nd water quality statutes. In addition, whether the proposed site is in attainment or 

non-attainment with current standards shall be discussed. 

RCRA/Hazardous Materials Regulations 

The CO2 Capture and Compression Facilities will not produce hazardous wastes. 

The LCC Gasification Project will not require a RCRA Per mit, as there will be no storage or 

treatment of hazardous wastes on site. LCC doe s not anticipate that any TSCA or CERCLA 

requirements will be applicable to the LCC Gasification Project. 

Clean Air Act Permits 

The Capture and Com pression Facilities will ha ve no air em issions, as the AGR units and CO 2

stream compressors are electric driven. 

As discusse d in ear lier sections, the LCC Gasification Projec t has obtained Title V an d 

Prevention of Significant Deterior ation (PSD) Air Perm its for em issions associated with the 

production of substitute natural gas. The e missions are expected to be similar for the production 

of methanol. 

Clean Water Act 

As described above, the ancillary systems required to support the CO2 Capture and Compression 

Facilities are provided through the LCC Gasification Project. All provisions required to comply 

with the Clean W ater Act are inco rporated within the LCC Gasifi cation Project, without further 

modification upon incorporation of the CO2 Capture and Compression Facilities. 

The LCC Gasif ication Projec t is p ermitted to implement zero liquid discharg e ( ZLD) f or the 

gasification process wast ewater. Th e wastewater generated in the gasification process will be 

treated / recycled to achieve ZLD. Filtered solids and dewatered salts will be disposed of off-site 

Topical 271
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 40 

at permitted facilities. The f ollowing will be discharg ed to the Calcasieu River at the southern 

plant property line: non-contact cooling water blowdown, water treatment reject and regeneration 

water, oil/water sep arator water (plant and e quipment drains) and low-contam ination potential 

storm water runoff. 

Discharge o f storm water dur ing construc tion activities will requ ire subm ittal of a Large 

Construction Notice of Intent (LCNOI) 30 days pr ior to start of construction. The LCNOI m ust 

include an SWPPP and a USGS quad map showing the site location. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (US COE) 

All provisions for com pliance with US COE regulations including com pliance with Section 404 

of the Clean W ater Act of 1972, are incorporated within the design and perm itting process for 

the LCC Gasification Project project. The C O2 Capture and Com pression Facilities do not 

require modification of the permit. 

A Section 404 perm it was issued by the US COE in August 2008 supported by a 401 W ater 

Quality Certification (WQC) issued by the LDEQ . The US COE determ ined that a Section 10 

permit was not required. 

A jurisdictional wetland delineation was previously conducted by the US COE and, based on this 

delineation, the Port of Lake Charles m itigated 26.2 acres o f the wetlands through an agreement 

with the U S COE and Stream W etland Servic es, LLC. Perm itting th rough the US COE to 

develop the site has been completed and the latest permit was issued on August 18, 2008. 

Coast Guard Review 

Due to th e fact that the Calcasieu S hip Channel is a federally m aintained channel, any activity 

within the c hannel, may need to undergo Coast Guard review. Du ring the planning and design 

process, a d escription and map of the f acility, including a lette r of intent, would be sent to this 

agency for its approval and clearance. The COE permit notes that: 

 You m ust install and m aintain, at your expe nse, any safety lights, signs, and signals 

prescribed by the U.S. Coast Guard, through re gulations or otherwise, on your authorized 

facilities, and 

 If the proposed project, or future maintenance work, involves the use of floating construction 

equipment (barge m ounted cranes, barge m ounted pile driving equipm ent, floating dredge 

equipment, dredge discharge pipelines, etc.,) in the waterway, you are advised to notify the 

U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Safety Office, Waterways Management Section so that a Notice to 

Mariners, if required, may be prepared. 

Coordination with the Coast Guard regarding the construction of the planned structures 

(bulkhead) in accord ance with th e above will b e implemented for this p roject to en sure that all 

requirements are satisfied. 

Endangered Species Act 

Topical 272
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 41 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (7USC 136; 16 USC 460 et seq.), as amended, provides for 

the USFWS to m anage rare plants and wildlife to prevent furthe r declines in their populations 

and to protect their habitat. The USFW S maintains lists of rare plants and wildlife known to be 

potentially present in each county of the United States. This li st is based on historical site 

records and existing habitat on and near the site that corresponds with preferred habitats of these 

species. Th e Endangered Species Act also s tates that coordination with the United States Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required to ensure that “actions do not jeopardize listed species 

or destroy or adversely m odify critical habitat”. The USFWS shares responsibility with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), when m arine or e stuarine species are involved, for 

implementing the ESA. 

Based upon inform ation reviewed from the Loui siana Departm ent of W ildlife and Fisheries 

(LDWF, May 2009), no rare, threatened or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated 

for this proposed project. LDEQ’ s February 2010 list of threatened and endangered species 

includes only the red cockaded woodpecker as endangered in Calcasieu Parish; no aquatic 

species are listed. According to LDEQ’s 2009-2010 Im plementation Strategy for the 

Memorandum of Understanding between LDEQ and the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, there are 

no federally listed threatened or endangered species on the Calcasieu River that are dependent on 

aquatic habitat. No other rare, threatened, or endangered species or cri tical habitat is known to 

exist at the project site or within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed site. In addition, there are 

no state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or W ildlife Management Areas at o r 

near the proposed project site. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Under Section 106 of t he National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the lead federal 

agency with jurisdiction over a fe deral undertaking must consider impacts to historic properties. 

This requirement is applicable to program s such as the Project, which receive federal funding or 

that require a f ederal permit, license, or approval. A historic prope rty is defined as any district, 

archeological site, building, structure, or object that is either listed, or is eligible for listing, in the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The intent of Section 106 is for federal agencies to 

take into account adverse effects on any histor ic properties situated within the APE of the 

proposed undertaking; and to afford the Advi sory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 

State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), recognized Native American tribal offices, and any 

other interested parties an opportunity to comm ent on the proposed action. 36 CFR Part 800 

specifies th at certain p arties m ust be consulte d during the cultural resource review process. 

These parties include each SHPO whose state physically includes any portion of the APE. 

The project has prepared a cultural resources study as required by the State Departm ent of 

Cultural, Recrea tion & Tourism , Off ice of Cultur al Dev elopment. A prior s tudy by Earth 

Search, Inc. in 2001 identified a Rangia shell m idden associat ed with Site 16CU29 that 

potentially extended into the s outhwest corner of the proposed project site. A Phase I Cultural 

Resources Survey was performed for this site an d a report was issued to the SHPO. The SHPO 

reviewed this updated infor mation and issued a lett er noting that field investigations resulted in 

the delineation of expanded boundaries for this site and the assessm ent concluded that the site 

was not eligible for listing on the National Regist er of Historic Places due to a lack of 

depositional integrity and limited research potential. The SHPO concurred with the assessm ents 

conducted and additional assessments are not warranted. Refer to Appendix A for a copy of the 

Topical 273
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 42 

Phase I Cultural Resou rces Su rvey Report an d the le tter f rom the Louisiana S tate Histo ric 

Preservation Officer. 

Emergency Management Requirements 

The facility m ay also be subj ect to certain em ergency m anagement requirem ents under the 

Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and Spill Prevention Control 

and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements (40 CFR 112). 

Emergency response procedures will be developed for th e faci lity in accord ance with the 

requirements of Occupational Safety and H ealth Adm inistration (OSHA), EPCRA, and CAA 

provisions. Such procedures will cover plan t evacu ation notif ication to lo cal f ire and law 

enforcement agencies, notification to state and local officials and US E PA. Emergency response 

procedures will iden tify individuals /positions responsible fo r decis ion-making and notification 

and will include provisions for periodic training for plant management and employees. 

Local Permits 

The Project is anticipated to require building permits and a fl ood zone management permit from 

local regulators. Coordination on these requirements is being implemented. 

E. EXPERIENCE AND APPROACH TO TH E IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION OF 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. 

This section of the Environmental Volume shall consist of a discussion of the following areas: 

1. All directly related educat ion/experience of key projec t members in each of the 

following areas: 

 Air quality management

 Surface water and ground water management

 Solid and liquid waste management and disposal practices

 Noise, land use, ecological resources, archaeological, cultural, and historical 

resources Management

 Environmental permit applications, amendments, and renewals

LCC e mploys several individuals who are responsi ble for prepa ring the Ope rations and Maintenance 

procedures and selecting staff suita ble for the L CC Gasification Project. LCC O&M pe rsonnel have 

managed and operated the only U.S. ba sed gasification facility pr oducing ammonia and UAN utilizing 

GE’s gasi fication technol ogy, the gasification facil ity in Coffe yville, Kansa s. Thei r work included 

participating in development of the construction and operating environmental permits f or the f acility 

which started up in early 2000. This e xperience includes management of all environmental compliance 

and reporting related to the gasif ication and related downstream facilities. The LCC Gasif ication Project 

staffing plan includes the position of an Environmental/PSM Coordinator who is charged with training 

the plant staff on all local, state, and federal environmental requirements. The on-site technical staff will 

also be charged with auditing compliance with all permits. 

Topical 274
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 43 

2. The offeror’s experience in addressing and resolving environmental concerns during the 

performance of past projects of similar size and complexity including the obtaining of 

necessary permits. 

The LCC team includes the followi ng key me mbers with experience i n envi ronmental issue s a t 

similar projects: 

Scott Pierce 

Mr. Pierce has been involved in chemical plant operations and maintenance for over 30 years. He 

has held position s as Operation/Maintenanc e Manager on two Greenf ield projec ts an d 

participated in acqu iring and com plying with construction and PSD perm its for both. From 

1999-2009, Mr. Pierce was Operations Manag er of the C offeyville Resources Gasification 

facility in Coffeyville Kansas . During this period he had been involved in alm ost every 

environmental aspect of an operating chemical facility. 

Robby Collums 

Mr. Collums was the O perations Coordinator a nd a m ember of operations m anagement at the 

Coffeyville Resources Gasif ication facility for nearly 20 y ears. During this pe riod Mr. Collum s 

was involved in almost every environmental aspect of an operating chemical facility. 

Mr. Pierc e and Mr. Collum s’ resp onsibilities in management of the facilities and e mployees 

included: 

 writing compliance procedures 

 training employees on written environmental air, water, and process procedure 

 training employees on procedures for reportin g releas es to CERCLA/SARA, State and 

LEPC officials 

 writing procedures to minimize and prevent releases and spills 

 oversight towards m aintaining a nd com plying with the OSHA/Process Sa fety 

Management Program and the EPA/Risk Management Program including participation in 

several internal and external (OSHA/EPA) environmental audits. 

Other responsibilities in these facilities included 

 training and oversight of e mployees in tes ting and m onitoring wate r qualities o f the 

process water, wastewater, cooling water, boiler water, intake and discharge waters 

 Preparation of reports for compliance with the facilities water permits. 

Under the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response S tandard (H AZWOPER), 

each member of the operations team was required to complete th e initial training level of the 

OSHA hazardous waste operato r course. Mr. Pierce p articipated on the hazm at team at 3 

different facilities for over 15 ye ars. Mr. Collu ms was a mem ber of the facilities h azmat team 

for several years and c ompleted th e level 1 c ourse in industrial fire fighting and a mmonia 

suppression at LSU and fire fighter 1 course from OSU. 

Topical 275
URS Project No. 10003563 

April 2010 44 

Lawrence Leib, P.E. 

Mr. Leib ha s been resp onsible for design of multiple cogeneration and process f acilities, both 

domestic and overseas. As process design m anager at an engineerin g design firm with EPC 

responsibility, Mr. Leib coordinated design and perform ance characteristics to guarantee 

compliance with enviro nmental permits obtained by the fac ility Owner for 12 dom estic power 

projects. This responsibil ity included developm ent of e missions testing protocols and 

demonstration of compliance. 

As Chief Engineer for project developm ent en tities, Mr. Leib has been responsible f or 

determination of project design characteris tics and preparation of environm ental perm it 

applications for air and water discharges. This work included coordination with design 

engineering and environm ental consulting firms and state and federal re gulatory agencies for 

several do mestic and intern ational projects. For Leucadia In ternational, M r. Leib has 

coordinated preparation of the PSD/Title V and LPDES permit applications for the Lake Charles 

Cogeneration facility in Lake Charles, LA. These permits were obtained in 2009. 

In addition to the above key pr oject members, LCC will utilize URS and other environmental 

consultants during the construction and operation of the site. 

URS is one of the nation’s leading Environm ental Sciences and Engineering consulting firms. In 

the area of water resources, UR S provides a broad range of se rvices for water quality, flood 

control, wetlands and watershed management projects. The URS New Orleans EH&S Group has 

provided environm ental engineering services for the Lake Charles Cogeneration project 

PSD/Title V and LPDES permits. For over 30 years it has provided full service permitting and 

compliance assistance to the private and public sectors 

3. Any of the offeror’s existing wr itten environmental policies, procedures, or plans currently in 

place and considered essential to the conduct of the offeror’s commercial business operation. 

LCC has not yet developed the written policies, procedures and plans that will be implemented at 

the LCC Gasification Project. 

Topical 276
Re p or t

Environmental Information

Volume

Pipeline Lateral

Lake Charles, Louisiana

Prepared for

Denbury Onshore, Inc.

5100 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 1200

Plano, Texas 75024

March 2010

Topical 277
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX II

Contents

Section Page

Contents.........................................................................................................................................ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................vii

Executive Summary............................................................................................................... ES-1

Proposed Action and Historical Overview.............................................................ES-1

Alternatives to Proposed Action ..............................................................................ES-2

Summary of Effects ....................................................................................................ES-2

Mitigation ....................................................................................................................ES-5

1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action............................................................. 1-8

1.1 Project Description .......................................................................................... 1-8

1.2 Purpose and Need......................................................................................... 1-11

1.3 Project Schedule............................................................................................. 1-11

1.4 Resource Requirements and Technical Data ............................................. 1-11

1.4.1 Land Requirements.......................................................................... 1-11

1.5 Interagency Cooperation.............................................................................. 1-23

2 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ........................................................... 2-1

2.1 Proposed Action (assuming DOE funding)................................................. 2-1

2.2 Alternative Action (assuming no DOE funding)........................................ 2-3

2.3 No Action Alternative..................................................................................... 2-3

3 Affected Environment.................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Project Area and Topography........................................................................ 3-1

3.2 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality ....................................................... 3-1

3.2.1 Climate................................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.2 Meteorology ........................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.3 Air Quality........................................................................................... 3-7

3.3 Water ................................................................................................................. 3-9

3.3.1 Surface Water...................................................................................... 3-9

3.3.2 Groundwater..................................................................................... 3-11

3.3.3 Floodplains........................................................................................ 3-11

3.3.4 Wetlands............................................................................................ 3-14

3.4 Ecology............................................................................................................ 3-16

3.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................... 3-16

3.4.2 Aquatic Ecology................................................................................ 3-17

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................ 3-18

3.5 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................... 3-19

3.5.1 General Waste................................................................................... 3-19

3.5.2 Known Hazardous Waste Sites ...................................................... 3-19

3.6 Land Use......................................................................................................... 3-19

3.7 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................... 3-22

3.7.1 Geology.............................................................................................. 3-22

3.7.2 Soils..................................................................................................... 3-24

3.8 Cultural and Archaeological Resources..................................................... 3-27

Topical 278
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX III

3.8.1 Native American Tribal and Religious Practices ......................... 3-27

3.8.2 Historic Areas ................................................................................... 3-27

3.9 Noise................................................................................................................ 3-28

3.9.1 Affected Environment ..................................................................... 3-28

3.10 Socioeconomics.............................................................................................. 3-28

3.10.1 Population and Race ........................................................................ 3-29

3.10.2 Employment...................................................................................... 3-29

3.10.3 Housing.............................................................................................. 3-31

3.10.4 Environmental Justice...................................................................... 3-31

3.11 Public Resources............................................................................................ 3-33

3.12 Transportation ............................................................................................... 3-33

3.13 Visual............................................................................................................... 3-35

3.14 Occupational Safety and Health.................................................................. 3-35

3.14.1 Construction...................................................................................... 3-35

3.14.2 Operations ......................................................................................... 3-36

4 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Project Area and Topography........................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Impacts................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.2 Mitigative Measures........................................................................... 4-1

4.2 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality ....................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Existing Source Emissions................................................................. 4-2

4.2.2 Future Air Emission Sources ............................................................ 4-2

4.2.3 Air Permitting and Compliance ....................................................... 4-2

4.2.4 Impacts................................................................................................. 4-4

4.2.5 Mitigative Measures........................................................................... 4-6

4.3 Water Quality................................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.1 Surface Water...................................................................................... 4-6

4.3.2 Groundwater..................................................................................... 4-10

4.3.3 Floodplains........................................................................................ 4-11

4.3.4 Wetlands............................................................................................ 4-12

4.4 Ecology............................................................................................................ 4-15

4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology ........................................................................... 4-15

4.4.2 Aquatic Ecology................................................................................ 4-17

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................ 4-18

4.5 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................... 4-18

4.5.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-19

4.5.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-19

4.6 Land Use......................................................................................................... 4-20

4.6.1 Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 4-20

4.6.2 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-20

4.6.3 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-22

4.7 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................... 4-23

4.7.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-23

4.7.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-23

4.8 Cultural and Archaeological Resources..................................................... 4-24

4.8.1 Native American Tribal and Religious Practices ......................... 4-24

4.8.2 Historic Areas ................................................................................... 4-24

Topical 279
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX IV

4.9 Noise Environmental Consequences.......................................................... 4-25

4.10 Socioeconomics.............................................................................................. 4-25

4.10.1 Population and Race .......................................................................... 4-25

4.10.2 Employment...................................................................................... 4-26

4.10.3 Housing.............................................................................................. 4-26

4.10.4 Environmental Justice...................................................................... 4-26

4.11 Public Resources............................................................................................ 4-27

4.11.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-27

4.11.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-27

4.12 Transportation ............................................................................................... 4-28

4.12.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-28

4.12.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-28

4.13 Visual............................................................................................................... 4-29

4.13.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-29

4.13.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-29

4.14 Occupational Safety and Health.................................................................. 4-29

4.14.1 Impacts............................................................................................... 4-29

4.14.2 Mitigative Measures......................................................................... 4-30

4.15 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................... 4-31

4.16 Summary of Impacts..................................................................................... 4-33

5 Potential Liability to DOE of Existing Conditions at the Site......................... 5-15-1

6 Ability to Meet Compliance Requirements at the Site.......................................... 6-1

6.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Coordination .......................... 6-1

6.1.1 Federal Statutes................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.2 Regulations.......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1.3 Executive Orders ................................................................................ 6-2

6.1.4 DOE Policies, Orders and Guidance................................................ 6-2

6.1.5 Applicable Permits Required for Proposed Action....................... 6-3

7 Experience and Approach to the Identification and Resolution of

Environmental Issues................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Education/Experience of Key Project Members......................................... 7-1

7.2 Denbury’s Permitting Experience................................................................. 7-1

7.3 Denbury’s Environmental Policies ............................................................... 7-2

8 References....................................................................................................................... 8-1

List of Agencies Contacted

Tables

ES-1 Comparison of Impacts of Considered Alternatives...............................................ES-3

1-1 Summary of Land Requirements for Pipeline Facilities......................................... 1-13

1-2 ROW Summary ............................................................................................................ 1-13

3-1 2009 Annual Weather Information for Jefferson County, Texas ............................. 3-3

3-2 30-Year Annual Average Weather Information for Jefferson County, Texas........ 3-3

3-3 Pollutants Contributing to Reduced Visibility in Class I Areas .............................. 3-7

3-4 Active Ambient Air Quality Monitors Nearest the Project Site .............................. 3-7

3-5 2009 Ambient Air Quality Data for Calcasieu Parish ............................................... 3-8

3-6 USGS-Mapped Waterways Crossed by the Proposed Project................................. 3-9

Topical 280
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX V

3-7 305(b) Water Quality Assessment of Project Area Waterways.............................. 3-12

3-8 Common Flora in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Ecoregion ........... 3-16

3-9 Common Fauna in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Ecoregion ......... 3-17

3-10 Fish Species Potentially Occurring in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies

Ecoregion....................................................................................................................... 3-18

3-11 Federal and State Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Calcasieu Parish....... 3-18

3-12 Soil Series Properties ................................................................................................... 3-25

3-13 Population Statistics in the ROI and Reference Areas ............................................ 3-29

3-14 Population by Race in the ROI and Referenced Areas (2008)................................ 3-29

3-15 Total Employment in the ROI and Reference Areas ............................................... 3-30

3-16 Unemployment Status for the ROI and Reference Areas....................................... 3-30

3-17 Per Capital Income for ROI and Reference Areas ................................................... 3-31

3-18 Housing for the ROI and References Areas.............................................................. 3-31

3-19 Populations Living Below the Poverty Level by Race within the

Referenced Areas ......................................................................................................... 3-32

3-20 Percentage of Population Under age 18 in Referenced Area................................. 3-33

3-21 Major Roadways and Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the

Pipeline Lateral............................................................................................................. 3-33

4-1 2008 Calcasieu Parich Point Source Facility Emissions ............................................ 4-2

4-2 Uncontrolled Estimated Project Air Emissions.......................................................... 4-5

4-3 Land Use and Potential Habitat Impacts Associated with the

Pipeline Lateral............................................................................................................. 4-16

4-4 Land Use Impacts Associated with the Pipeline Lateral........................................ 4-22

4-5 Cumulative Impact Summary.................................................................................... 4-32

4-6 Summary of Impacts.................................................................................................... 4-33

6-1 Applicable Permits for the Proposed Action.............................................................. 6-3

Figures

1-1 Project Location/Greenline Location.......................................................................... 1-9

1-2 Valve and Meter Station Locations............................................................................ 1-10

1-3 Project Schedule ........................................................................................................... 1-12

2-1 Site Location Map........................................................................................................... 2-2

3-1 Project Topographic Map.............................................................................................. 3-2

3-2 Windrose Chart .............................................................................................................. 3-5

3-3 IMPROVE Aerosol Network Location Map............................................................... 3-6

3-4 NHD Stream Map ........................................................................................................ 3-10

3-5 Publicly Listed Water Wells ....................................................................................... 3-13

3-6 FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map ............................................................................... 3-15

3-7 Existing Land Use Map ............................................................................................... 3-20

3-8 General Geology Map.................................................................................................. 3-21

3-9 Soils Map....................................................................................................................... 3-23

3-10 Public Resources........................................................................................................... 3-26

3-11 Recreation Areas Map ................................................................................................. 3-34

3-12 Denbury’s Total Recordable Incident Rate Compared to Oil and

Gas Extraction Sector Industry Average................................................................... 3-37

Topical 281
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX VI

Appendixes

A Typical Construction ROWs

B Route Maps

C Landowner Lists

E Meteorological Data

F Resume

G Denbury Experience

Topical 282
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX VII

Acronyms and Abbreviations

%g percent peak acceleration

AADT annual average daily traffic

AMSL above mean sea level

APE Area of Potential Effect

API American Petroleum Institute

ATWS Additional temporary workspace

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BMPs best management practices

CAIR Clean Air Interstate Rule

CCS carbon capture and sequestration

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act of 1980

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

dBA A-weighted decibel scale

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

ECP Environmental Construction Plan

EIV Environmental Information Volume

EJ Environmental Justice

EO Executive Order

EOR enhanced oil recovery

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

Topical 283
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX VIII

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HDD horizontal directional drill

HGB Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

HRVOC Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound

HSE Health, Safety and Environmental

HUC Hydrologic Unit Code

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

km kilometers

KPI Key Performance Indicators”

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code

LA DOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LDGF Louisiana Department of Game and Fisheries

LDHH Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals

LDOE Louisiana Department of Education

LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

LDSS Louisiana Department of Social Services

Leucadia Leucadia Energy, LLC

LGS Louisiana Geologic Survey

LNHP Louisiana Natural Heritage Program

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology

MCL maximum contaminant level

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

MER minimum emission rate

MLRA Major Land Resource Area

Topical 284
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX IX

MMSCF million standard cubic feet

MVA Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NCSL National Conference of State Legislatures

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NHD National Hydrography Dataset

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NOx nitrogen oxide

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSPS New Source Performance Standards

NSR New Source Review

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

O&M operation and maintenance

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBR Permit by Rule

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PM10 particulate matter

PPC Preparedness, Prevention and Contingency

psig pounds per square inch gauge

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROI Region of Influence

ROW right-of-way

scf/d standard cubic feet per day

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SO2 sulfur dioxide

Topical 285
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX X

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Offices

TNC The Nature Conservancy

tpy tons per year

TSP total suspended particulate

TRI Toxics Release Inventory

TRIR Total Recordable Incident Rate

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USCB United States Census Bureau

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation

VOC volatile organic compounds

WMP Waste Management Plan

WSRC Wild and Scenic Rivers Council

Topical 286
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-1

Executive Summary

This Environmental Information Volume (EIV) has been prepared to provide information

regarding existing environmental conditions, potential environmental impacts, and

mitigative measures associated with an 11.6-mile CO2 pipeline and associated ancillary

equipment (hereafter Pipeline Lateral) that is being proposed as part of a larger carbon

capture project.

This EIV was developed using readily available data as part of a desktop analysis. Field

verifications were not conducted; nor were outside agencies consulted. The data provided

herein is intended for use by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). As part of this analysis, the preferred

CO2 pipeline corridor is presented in this EIV.

Sections 1 and 2 of the EIV contain a discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed

action and the project alternatives, respectively. Sections 3 and 4 of this EIV contain

information on the affected environment, environmental consequences, and measures

proposed to mitigate potential impacts from the proposed action.

Proposed Action and Historical Overview

Leucadia Energy, LLC (Leucadia) in conjunction with Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) will

demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 4 million tons of

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at the Lake Charles cogeneration petroleum coke-tochemicals (methanol) project (hereafter Project) to be located near Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Assuming DOE funds the Project, compressed CO2 will be transported through new and

existing pipeline systems so that it can be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the

Hastings oilfield in Texas.

As part of the Project, and as detailed in this EIV, Denbury is proposing to construct, own

and operate an 11.6 mile 20-inch CO2 pipeline and associated ancillary equipment (hereafter

Pipeline Lateral) to Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline for CO2 transport to the Hastings

oilfield in Texas (Figure 1-1). The Pipeline Lateral will include a 20-inch outside diameter CO2 pipeline

(with a maximum allowable operating pressure of 2,200 pounds per square inch gauge), one

valve and one meter station (Figure 1-2). The pipeline route will parallel existing ROW

(transmission lines, roads, pipelines, railroads, and other linear features) to the extent

practicable. The meter station will be located at the terminus of the Pipeline Lateral at the

Green Pipeline, and the valve will be located about mid-way between the Leucadia Plant

and the Green Pipeline, within the pipeline corridor.

Leucadia, teamed with Denbury, was one of the projects selected by the Department of

Energy (DOE) to receive federal funding1 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment

Act for carbon capture and storage research and development. As part of Phase I of the

Project, an EIV must be prepared and submitted to DOE in order for DOE to fulfill its

1 The projects are cost-shared collaborations between the DOE and industry to increase investment in

clean industrial technologies and sequestration projects.

Topical 287
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-2

responsibilities under the NEPA. DOE is required to conform to the Council on

Environmental Quality’s regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the

National Environmental Policy Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500

through 1508, and DOE Regulations for Implementation of NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).

The proposed action will include approximately 11.6 miles of 50-foot-wide permanent

pipeline right-of-way (ROW). In addition, up to 45-feet of temporary or construction ROW

will be required for pipeline installation. Temporary access roads will be constructed along

the proposed pipeline ROW as necessary, although Denbury will seek to utilize the existing

road network for access as available. The estimated overall project time frame for the

design, permitting and construction of the Pipeline Lateral is approximately 1.5 years.

Construction of the Pipeline Lateral is expected to be completed by September 2012, with

delivery of CO2 from the Project source to commence by the 3rd quarter of 2013. Once the

Project’s CO2 is flowing, it will supplement and/or replace naturally occurring CO2 taken

from the Jackson Dome in Mississippi and used for CO2 flooding.

Alternatives to Proposed Action

It may not be economically feasible and environmentally beneficial for Leucadia and

Denbury to continue with the proposed Project without DOE providing funding.

Alternative actions to the pipeline mode of CO2 transport could potentially include “CO2

road transport” and “CO2 rail transport” scenarios.

In the CO2 road transport alternative, a truck could hold 20 tons of CO2 (0.349 million

standard cubic feet [MMSCF]) each run, making it possible to have 135 trucks ship CO2 from

the point of origin to the terminus daily. In the rail transport alternative, a rail car holds

approximately 60 tons (1.048 MMSCF) of CO2 each run and would require 45 railcars per

day to carry CO2 to Hastings Field. While removed from the environment at a lower rate,

CO2 would still be sequestered. CO2, regardless of the mode (pipeline, road, or rail) by

which it arrives at Hastings Field, could still be sequestered and used for EOR at that field,

or transferred to other fields via Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline, a 24-inch CO2 pipeline

capable of transporting up to 800 million standard cubic feet of CO2 per day between Donaldsonville,

Louisiana, and Alvin, Texas. A more detailed, quantitative analysis of these sequestration

options and the associated impacts would need to be conducted should DOE funding

become unavailable and Denbury still wishes to pursue sequestration.

Without DOE cost-sharing funding for the Project, it is unlikely that the Project would be

implemented. Consequently with the No Action Alternative, the lack of sequestration

would increase the CO2 in the environment and oil production would decrease at Hastings

Field.

Summary of Effects

A summary of potential environmental impacts associated with an 11.6-mile Pipeline

Lateral is provided below. Detailed descriptions of the affected environment and

environmental consequences are provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this EIV. Table ES-1

summarizes the consequences of the proposed action, the alternative action, and the no

action alternative, all of which are discussed below.

Topical 288
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-3

TABLE ES-1

Comparison of Impacts of Considered Alternatives

Denbury Onshore, LLC Lake Charles, LA EIV

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative Action No Action Alternative

Air Quality Temporary impacts during construction

include increased dust and combustion

equipment operations. No permanent

impacts are anticipated.

Temporary impacts associated with

construction of additional road or

rail lines (if necessary) to

accommodate increased traffic

volume. Permanent impacts

associated with increased truck or

rail related emissions.

Permanent impacts associated with

increased CO2due to lack of sequestration.

Water Quality/Quantity Temporary, localized impacts during

construction stream crossings; Potential

releases to streams during HDD operations;

Surface water withdraws for hydrostatic

testing.

Temporary impacts associated with

construction of additional roads or

rail lines (if necessary) to

accommodate increased traffic

volume.

No Impacts.

Solid Waste Disposal Temporary construction impacts associated

with land clearing, construction supply

packing materials, and general refuge;

Negligible solid waste generated during

operations and maintenance activities.

Temporary impacts during

construction of additional roads or

rail lines (if necessary) to

accommodate increased traffic

volume. Minimal permanent

impacts associated with general

refuge from truck or rail staff.

No Impacts.

Land Use Temporary impacts to 95 foot wide ROW

during construction; Permanent conversion

of land to 50 foot wide ROW for operations

and maintenance activities; ROW collocates

with existing utility ROWs for approximately

90% of route.

Potential permanent conversion of

land to additional road or rail lines

to accommodate increased traffic

volume and access to CO2 delivery

point.

No Impacts.

Noise Temporary noise impacts during

construction; Negligible permanent impacts

during operations and maintenance.

Temporary impacts associated with

construction of additional road or

rail lines (if necessary) to

accommodate increased traffic

volume. Permanent noise impacts

associated with increased truck or

rail traffic volume.

No Impacts.

Topical 289
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-4

TABLE ES-1

Comparison of Impacts of Considered Alternatives

Denbury Onshore, LLC Lake Charles, LA EIV

Resource Area Proposed Action Alternative Action No Action Alternative

Floodplains and Wetlands Temporary, localized impacts to floodplain

and during construction stream and wetland

crossings. Permanent conversion of forested

wetlands to herbaceous wetlands within

permanent 50-foot-wide ROW.

Permanent impacts associated with

construction of additional roads or

rail lines that may be necessary to

accommodate increased traffic and

access to CO2 delivery point.

No Impacts.

Native American Tribal and

Religious Practices

No impacts. No impacts. No Impacts.

Historic No impacts. No impacts. No Impacts.

Ecological Temporary impacts to vegetation and

displacement of wildlife during construction;

50 foot wide permanent ROW will be

maintained for operations and maintenance

activities; Permanent impacts to wildlife are

anticipated to be minimal.

Temporary impacts during

construction of additional roads or

rail lines (if necessary) to

accommodate increased traffic

volume. Permanent impacts

associated with increased traffic

volume and permanent conversion

of land to roads and rail lines (if

necessary).

No Impacts.

Socioeconomics No impacts. No impacts. No Impacts.

Topical 290
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-5

Mitigation

A summary of potential mitigative measures associated with an 11.6-mile Pipeline Lateral is

provided below. Detailed discussion of these mitigative measures can be found in Section 4

of this EIV.

 To mitigate for temporary topographical, land use, water body, wetland, ecological, and

visual impacts, the Pipeline Lateral ROW will be re-contoured and re-vegetated as near

to pre-construction conditions as is practicable following construction to allow for

operational activities. Adjacent elevations and topography will be referenced to ensure

that the ROW contours are consistent with the surrounding area.

 Temporary impacts to air quality from dust and combustion emissions during

construction will be mitigated by implementing typical control techniques such as

watering, chemical stabilization, use of windbreaks, and performing proper vehicle

maintenance in compliance with 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Chapter 114

Control of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles. Potential construction impacts to surface

water quality and quantity will be mitigated by obtaining and complying with all

applicable water quality and quantity permits, such as National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System permits for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction

Activities and for Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges and developing a project-specific

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan

and a Site-Specific Crossing Plan.

 Wetland impacts will be mitigated following the General and Regional Conditions set

forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for all temporary construction

impacts. Loss of forested wetland habitat will be mitigated by the purchase of wetland

credits from an approved bank, as required by conditions in the Section 404/401 permit

to be obtained for the Pipeline Lateral.

 Impacts to terrestrial wildlife will be mitigated by minimizing the duration of

construction and scheduling construction within any critical habitat identified during

ecological field surveys to avoid nesting periods to the greatest extent practicable.

Migratory bird populations in the Project area would be expected to peak during the

winter months. Project construction could be scheduled to avoid disturbing preferred

habitats during winter months, which would minimize the potential for impacts.

 To mitigate solid waste disposal and handling impacts, all contractors associated with

the Pipeline Lateral will be required to develop a project-specific Waste Management

Plan, which will include specifications for handling, containment, and disposal of all

wastes (non-hazardous and hazardous) generated during construction.

 Soil erosion, compaction, and top soil disturbances through agricultural and wetland

areas will be mitigated through temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures,

plowing or tilling severely compacted soils, and top soil segregation during construction

and implementation of permanent measures, such as revegetation, following

construction.

Topical 291
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-6

 If field reconnaissance discovers historical sites that may be culturally significant,

impacts will be mitigated by localized re-routes to avoid impacts to the greatest extent

practicable. If avoidance is not possible through design, Phase II archaeological

evaluation will be undertaken to assess whether the site(s) qualify as historic properties

as defined by 36 CFR 800.

 Transportation impacts will be limited to temporary increase in construction equipment

transportation and construction worker transport. Mitigation measures will include

notifying affected landowners of project schedule and potential traffic delays,

implementation of safety measures and traffic controls during heavy equipment

operations near roadways, and promoting carpooling and safe driving for construction

staff.

 Denbury would mitigate the safety and health risks associated with construction

activities through compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) standards including 29 CFR 1926, Safety and Health Standards for

Construction, applicable state and local labor laws, and through good business practices.

 No mitigation measures are proposed or required for population, employment, housing,

or environmental justice.

Operation and Maintenance

Denbury will operate and maintain the Pipeline Lateral components in accordance with

applicable federal and state requirements. The DOT, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration (PHMSA) maintains the authority to regulate interstate carbon

dioxide pipelines under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979, and PHMSA regulates

the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and spill response planning for regulated

pipelines. All line pipe will be manufactured and mill tested in compliance with American

Petroleum Institute (API) Specifications for Line Pipe.

Pipeline

Maintenance of the pipeline will include periodic visual inspections. Denbury will conduct

routine pedestrian surveys, as necessary, in accordance with applicable regulatory

requirements and Denbury’s Operation and Maintenance Manual. Post-construction

surveys will identify erosion areas, exposed pipe, possible leaks, damaged or non-functional

permanent erosion control measures, and other concerns that could potentially affect the

environment and operation of the facilities. To reduce the potential for metallurgical and

corrosion of the pipeline, a project-specific plan will be developed.

Leak inspections and cathodic protection maintenance will be conducted in accordance with

DOT requirements and Denbury’s internal requirements. Pipeline markers and signs will be

inspected and maintained or replaced, as necessary, to assure that the pipeline location at

critical points is clearly identified.

Maintenance of the pipelines will include periodic vegetation mowing, as necessary and in

accordance with the Denbury’s policies, to allow for visual pipeline inspections. Active

cropland will be allowed to revert to pre-construction use for the full width of the ROW. In

non-cultivated uplands, the 50-foot-wide permanent ROW will be maintained in an

Topical 292
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX ES-7

herbaceous or similar state to allow for visual inspection. In unsaturated wetlands, a 10-footwide corridor centered over the pipeline may be maintained in an herbaceous state, and

trees within 15 feet of the pipelines that are greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively

cut and removed from the ROW.

ROW maintenance activities are normally performed in late summer or early fall during the

driest seasonal times of the year.

Topical 293
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-8

SECTION 1.0

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Project Description

Leucadia Energy, LLC (Leucadia), teamed with Denbury Onshore, LLC (Denbury) will

demonstrate advanced technologies that capture and sequester more than 1 million tons of

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at the Lake Charles cogeneration petroleum coke-tochemicals (methanol) project (hereafter referred to as the Project) to be located near

Lake Charles, Louisiana. Assuming the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funds the Project,

compressed CO2 will be transported through new and existing pipeline systems so that it

can be used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) in the Hastings oilfields in Texas.

As part of the Project, Denbury is proposing to construct, own, and operate an 11.6-mile CO2

pipeline and associated ancillary equipment (hereafter Pipeline Lateral) to Denbury’s and an affiliate's

Green Pipeline for CO2 transport to the Hastings oilfields in Texas (Figure 1-1). Denbury’s and an

affiliate's 24-inch Green Pipeline, to be completed in 2010, will be capable of transporting up to 800

million standard cubic feet per day (mmscf/d) of CO2 between Donaldsonville, Louisiana and

Alvin, Texas. The Pipeline Lateral will include a 20-inch outside diameter CO2 pipeline

(with a maximum allowable operating pressure of 2,200 pounds per square inch gauge

[psig]), one valve, and one meter station (Figure 1-2). The pipeline route will parallel

existing rights-of-way (ROWs) (transmission lines, roads, pipelines, railroads, and other

linear features) to the extent practicable. The meter station will be located at the terminus of

the Pipeline Lateral at the Green Pipeline, and the valve will be located about mid-way

between the Leucadia Plant and the Green Pipeline, within the pipeline corridor.

Construction activities for the proposed Pipeline Lateral will require a temporary office and

construction and pipeline storage yard of approximately 5 acres. The yard is anticipated to

be located along a road strategic to the pipeline ROW. The initial scouting of potential

project yards will be of previously developed commercial sites and other utilized nonresidential locations.

Leucadia, teamed with Denbury, was one of the projects selected by the DOE to receive

federal funding2 under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for carbon capture

and storage research and development. As part of Phase I of the Project, an Environmental

Information Volume (EIV) must be prepared and submitted to DOE in order for DOE to

fulfill its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). DOE

is required to conform to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for

Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 through 1508, and DOE Regulations for

Implementation of NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).

2 The projects are cost-shared collaborations between the DOE and industry to increase investment in

clean industrial technologies and sequestration projects.

Topical 294
Houston

Pasadena

Beaumont

Lafayette

Baton Rouge

Texas

Louisiana

Mississippi

Figure 1-1

Project Location/Green Line Location

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\SITE_LOCATION_GREENLINE.MXD EKLEIN 3/1/2010 12:12:54

Site Location

Project Alignment

Green Line General Route

Topical 295
Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

Proposed Contractor Yard

1 Mile Buffer

Figure 1-2

Valve and Meter Station Locations

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

012 0.5 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\VALVE_METER.MXD EKLEIN 2/26/2010 15:01:31

Topical 296
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-11

This EIV is for the proposed Pipeline Lateral that will be constructed, owned, and operated

by Denbury. This EIV is conceptual in scope with the effects and impacts of the proposed

Pipeline Lateral on the environment and mitigation for those impacts. No field

characterization was conducted for this effort.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The proposed Project involves an integrated carbon capture, transport, injection, and

monitored sequestration program that will accelerate commercialization of large-scale CO2

storage from industrial sources. The Project includes: 1) the capture of more than 1 million

tons/year of CO2 emissions generated at the Lake Charles cogeneration petroleum coke-tochemicals (methanol) plant to be located near Lake Charles, Louisiana; 2) the transport of

CO2 through a new 11.6-mile CO2 Pipeline Lateral to Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline for

transport to the Hastings Field in Texas for injection into a depleted oil field for enhanced oil recovery;

and 3) implementation of a comprehensive monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA)

program to confirm the sequestration of the injected CO2 in Hastings Field south of

Houston, Texas.

1.3 Project Schedule

A general schedule of the Pipeline Lateral is provided in Figure 1-3. The estimated overall

project time frame for the design, permitting, and construction of the Pipeline Lateral is

approximately 1.5 years. Construction of the Pipeline Lateral is expected to be completed by

first quarter of 2013, with delivery of CO2 from the Project source to commence by third

quarter 2013. Once CO2 is flowing, it will supplement and/or replace naturally occurring

CO2 taken from the Jackson Dome in Mississippi and used for CO2 flooding.

Further evaluation of impacts to the environment, health, safety, and socioeconomics

(including field studies and verifications) for the Pipeline Lateral will be evaluated in

greater depth once funding is secured.

1.4 Resource Requirements and Technical Data

This section discusses the resource requirements and technical data on how the Pipeline

Lateral would be constructed and operated.

1.4.1 Land Requirements

Construction of the Pipeline Lateral will affect a 62 landowners and 113 parcels of land

(Appendix C) totaling approximately 192.4 acres of land, including the pipeline construction

ROW, pipe and storage yards, and the metering and valve facilities (Table 1-1). (Additional

temporary workspaces have not been identified at this time.) Both temporary and

permanent land disturbance will occur during construction and operation of the Pipeline

Lateral. Following construction, approximately 77.4 acres of land consisting of the

temporary pipeline construction ROW and pipe and storage yards will be restored and

allowed to revert to previous conditions and use. The temporary and permanent land

requirements for the project components are described in the following sections.

Topical 297
ID ID Task Name

1 1 PHASE 12 2 1.1 Project Kickoff3 3 1.1.1 Establish Project Criteria4 4 PHASE 25 5 SUBPHASE 2a: Design6 6 2a.1 Engineering7 7 2a.1.1 Route Finalization8 8 2a.1.2 Hydraulic Calculations9 9 2a.1.3 Prepare System PFD and P&ID's

10 10 2a.1.4 Determine Crossing permit Requirements11 11 2a.1.5 Development Material & Equipment Specifcations12 12 2a.1.6 Prepare Alignment Drawings13 13 2a.1.7 Prepare Landowner Plat Maps14 14 2a.1.8 Prepare Permit Exhibits15 15 2a.1.9 Prepare PipelineConstruction Details16 16 2a.1.10 Design & Drawings for Facilities17 17 2a.1.11 Confirm/Develop Construction Specifications18 18 2a.1.12 Cathodic Protection Design and Details19 19 2a.2 Survey20 20 2a.2.1 Civil and Easement Survey21 21 2a.2.2 Pre-Construction Staking22 22 2a.3 Environmental23 23 2a.3.1 Update Permit Requirements24 24 2a.3.2 Agency Meetings and Consultations25 25 2a.3.3 Perform Ecological and Cultural Resources Field Surveys26 26 2a.3.4 Prepare Permit Applications27 27 2a.3.5 Mitigation Plan Development28 28 2a.3.6 Permit Acquisition29 29 2a.4 Right of Way - Land30 30 2a.4.1 Update Landowner Line List31 31 2a.4.2 Obtain Access Permission32 32 2a.4.3 Perform Title Work33 33 2a.4.4 Right of Way & Site Acquistion34 34 2a.4.5 Conduct Landowner Condemnation(s)35 35 2a.4.6 Travel36 36 2a.5 Procurement37 37 2a.5.1 Procure Pipe & Long Lead Material Items38 38 2a.5.2 Procure Misc. Materials 39 39 2a.5.3 Receive Material & Equipment40 40 2a.5.4 Cathodic Protection Materials - Subcontract41 41 2a.6 Inspection45 45 2a.7 Construction46 46 2a.7.1 Develop Bid Packages47 47 2a.7.2 Bid & Award Construction48 48 SUBPHASE 2b: Construction49 49 2b.1 Procurement50 50 2b.1.1 Procure Misc. Materials, Continued from 2a.451 51 2b.1.2 Receive Material & Equipment, Continued from 2a.452 52 2b.2 Survey53 53 2b.2.1 Complete Pipeline As-Built Survey54 54 2b.3 Inspection66 66 2b.4 Pipeline Construction67 67 2b.4.1 ROW Clearing68 68 2b.4.2 Trenching & HDDs69 69 2b.4.3 Pipe Stringing70 70 2b.4.4 Welding & Tie-ins71 71 2b.4.5 Lower In72 72 2b.4.6 X-ray and Inspection73 73 2b.4.7 Backfill74 74 2b.4.8 Fill and clean-up75 75 2b.4.9 Hydrotest76 76 2b.4.10 Cathodic Protection System Installation - Subcontract77 77 2b.5 Facility Construction78 78 2b.5.1 Site Clearing79 79 2b.5.2 Civil & Foundation Work80 80 2b.5.3 Site fence installation81 81 2b.5.4 Fabrication, welding, installation82 82 2b.5.5 Instrumentation & Electrical install83 83 2b.5.6 X-ray and Inspection84 84 SUBPHASE 2c: Operation85 85 2c.1 Inspection89 89 2c.1 ROW Damage Settlement90 90 2c.2 Complete As-Built Drawings91 91 2c.3 PPL & Equip Start Up & Commissioning92 92 2c.4 Complete Job Books

25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 

Jan '12 Feb '12 Mar '12 Apr '12 May '12 Jun '12 Jul '12 Aug '12 Sep '12 Oct '12 Nov '12012 

FIGURE 1-3: 

DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC

LAKE CHARLES CO2 PIPELINE FROM THE LEUCADIA PLANT TO THE GREEN PIPELINE

Topical 298
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-13

TABLE 1-1

Summary of Land Requirements for Pipeline Facilities

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Project Component Parish, State

Length (miles)/

Number of Sites

Temporary

Construction

ROW and

Staging Sites

(acres)a

Permanent

ROW (acres)b

Right-of-way for 20-inch

diameter CO2 pipeline

Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana 11.6 72.3 114.9

Additional Temporary

Workspace

Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana

Not yet

determined

Not yet

determined

Not yet

determined

Valve and Meter Station Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana -- 0.1 0.1

Pipe Storage Yards and

Contractor Yardsc

Calcasieu Parish,

Louisiana -- 5 0

TOTAL 77.4 115.0

a Construction ROW is based on temporary ROW width of 95 feet and includes permanent ROW.

b

Permanent ROW is based on new permanent ROW width of 50 feet.

c

Assumes existing previously used commercial/industrial sites.

1.4.1.1 Pipeline Facilities

The land requirements associated with the Pipeline Lateral are summarized in Table 1-1 and

described in the following sections. Appendix B provides route maps for the proposed

11.6-mile lateral.

Right-of-Way

Construction of the 20-inch CO2 Pipeline Lateral will generally require a 95-foot-wide

construction ROW. Denbury proposes to parallel existing pipeline or utility corridors for

over 90% of the length of the pipeline. This collocation will be adjacent to existing pipelines,

transmission lines, railroads, roads, and canals (Table 1-2).

TABLE 1-2

ROW Summary

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

ROW Type

Length Paralleled

(feet)

Percentage of

Total Route

Pipeline 11,690 19%

Power 5,950 10%

Canal 15,790 26%

RR 7,310 12%

Road 11,740 19%

Other 3,490 6%

55,970 91%

Topical 299
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-14

For the portion of the Pipeline Lateral paralleling existing foreign pipelines or utility ROWs,

Denbury’s new permanent ROW will be 50 feet wide abutting the adjacent existing ROW.

The additional 45 feet of temporary construction ROW will be located on the opposite side

from the existing utility corridor. A figure presenting a typical cross section of the pipeline

construction ROW for this collocated portion of the proposed pipeline route is provided in

Appendix A.

For the portion of the pipeline ROW that will not be adjacent to an existing foreign pipeline

or utility corridor, the temporary construction ROW will be 95 feet wide and the new

permanent ROW will be 50 feet wide. A figure presenting a typical cross section of the

pipeline construction ROW for the non-collocated portions of the proposed pipeline route is

provided in Appendix A.

The total acreage of land that will be affected by pipeline construction (not including

additional temporary workspace and off ROW contractor work sites) is 187.2 acres, of which

114.9 acres are new permanent ROW and 72.3 acres are temporary ROW.

Additional Temporary Workspace

Additional temporary workspace (ATWS) outside the 95-foot-wide temporary pipeline

construction corridor will typically be required at the following locations:

 Wetland and water body crossing staging areas

 Public road crossings

 Railroad crossings

 Areas where special construction techniques (e.g., horizontal directional drill [HDD]) will

be used

 Tie-ins with existing pipeline facilities

 Pipeline crossings

 Areas where storage of stripped topsoil is needed

ATWS needed for the Pipeline Lateral have not been identified at this time; however, they

will be identified during the project design phase. ATWS will be restored and allowed to

revert to pre-existing conditions following construction activities, so there will be no

permanent impacts to these areas. The specific location of temporary workspaces will be

depicted on alignment sheets once available for the Lateral Pipeline.

1.4.1.2 Pipe Storage Yards and Contractor Yards

Denbury will require additional space for pipe storage and contractor staging activities.

Pipe storage and contractor yards needed for the Pipeline Lateral will total approximately

5 acres, all of which will be temporarily impacted by construction. Table 1-1 details the land

requirements for the proposed pipe storage and contractor yards.

Topical 300
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-15

1.4.1.3 Aboveground Facilities

The land requirements associated with the Pipeline Lateral aboveground facilities are

summarized in Table 1-1. Denbury will construct, own, and operate a meter station adjacent

to the tie-in of the Lateral Project with Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline. The meter station

will require an approximate 75-foot by 50-foot permanent site adjacent to the Lateral Project.

Denbury will construct, own and operate a valve as part of the Lateral Project. The valve

will be located about mid-way along the Pipeline Lateral corridor, within the permanent

ROW boundaries.

1.4.1.4 Construction Access

Access to the temporary and permanent pipeline ROW and associated facilities will be

through existing public and private roads to the extent practical. Some of the existing access

roads may require modifications or improvements to accommodate the weight and

dimensions of construction equipment and materials. Denbury would construct new access

roads for permanent access to facilities, as necessary, where an existing road does not exist;

a formal Road Use Agreement will be entered into between Denbury and the affected

landowner. The specific location of access roads will be determined as Denbury continues to

refine the details of the Lateral Project.

1.4.1.5 Construction

Pipeline

Standard pipeline construction proceeds in the manner of an outdoor assembly line

composed of specific activities that make up the linear construction sequence. These

operations collectively include survey and staking of the ROW, clearing and grading,

trenching, pipeline stringing and bending, welding and coating, lowering-in and backfilling,

hydrostatic testing, and cleanup and restoration.

Construction of the pipeline would generally be as follows. Clearing and grading would be

conducted in a single pass for the pipeline within a given spread. Next, the pipeline would

be constructed from stringing through backfill and rough cleanup. Final cleanup and

restoration would then occur.

Survey and Staking

Before construction, survey crews would survey and stake the centerline and exterior

boundaries of the construction ROW. Drainage centerlines and elevations, highway and

railroad crossings, and any temporary extra work spaces (e.g., laydown areas or at stream

crossings) would also be staked. The exterior boundary stakes would define the limit of

approved disturbance areas and would be maintained throughout the construction period.

Utility lines would be located and marked to prevent accidental damage during pipeline

construction. The Louisiana “One Call” system would be used to identify utility locations. If

there is a question about utility locations, other methods, such as field instrumentation and

test pits would be used to verify their locations.

Clearing and Grading

Clearing crews would clear the ROW of obstacles such as trees, brush, and logs. Trees to be

saved would be marked before clearing begins. Timber would be stacked along the edges of

the ROW or disposed of in accordance with landowner agreements or as specified by

Topical 301
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-16

Denbury’s construction inspectors. Brush maybe piled at the edge of the ROW to provide

filter strips or wildlife habitat. Trees and brush not used for other purposes would be

disposed of in accordance with applicable state and local regulations and landowner

agreements by chipping, burning, or transported to an approved landfill. Where necessary,

fences would be cut and braced along the ROW and temporary gates would be installed to

control livestock and limit public access. The ROW would then be graded where necessary

to allow access and safe operation of construction equipment. Where applicable (e.g.,

residential and agricultural lands), conserved topsoil would be stockpiled along one side of

the ROW, allowing the other side to be used for access, material transport, and pipe

assembly. Construction crews would install temporary erosion control measures

immediately after initial disturbance of the soil.

Trenching

A rotary trenching machine, track-mounted backhoe, or similar equipment would be used

to excavate trenches to sufficient depths to provide a minimum 3-foot depth of cover over

the pipeline. Depending on soil conditions, the top of the trenches for the pipeline would

typically be 12 to 14 feet wide and the bottom of the trenches would be typically be

approximately 5 to 6 feet wide. In unstable and saturated soils, the trenches could be wider.

Spoil material excavated during trenching operations would be temporarily piled to one

side of the ROW adjacent to the trench. In agricultural areas, where topsoil stripping is

required, the topsoil and subsoil would be stored in separate windrows or piles on the

construction ROW and would not be allowed to mix. Where the pipeline route is adjacent to

an existing pipeline, the subsoil spoil would be placed on the same side of the trench as, but

not directly over the existing pipeline, to keep working equipment off the operating

pipeline. Written consent of the adjacent pipeline owner/operator will be obtained for use

of its easement during construction.

Stringing and Bending

Individual joints or double joints of pipe would be strung along the ROW either prior to

trenching or adjacent to the excavated trench and arranged so that they would be accessible

to construction personnel. This operation typically involves specially designed stringing

trucks to deliver pipe from the pipe yard to the ROW. Small portable cranes and/or sideboom tractors would be used to unload the stringing trucks and place the pipe along the

trench line. A mechanical pipe-bending machine would bend individual joints of pipe to the

desired angle to accommodate changes in the natural ground contour or pipeline alignment.

In certain areas, prefabricated fittings would be used where field bending is not practicable.

Welding and Coating

After stringing and bending are complete, pipe sections would be placed on temporary

supports and the ends would be aligned and welded together. To ensure that the assembled

pipe meets or exceeds the design strength requirements, inspection crews would inspect all

welds, both visually and radiographically (i.e., x-ray), and would make any necessary

repairs. Pipe is typically delivered with a factory coating of fusion-bonded epoxy or similar

material. Following weld inspection, the previously uncoated ends of the pipe at the welds

would be epoxy coated. The coating on the completed pipe section would be inspected and

any damaged areas repaired.

Topical 302
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-17

Lowering-in and Backfilling

After welding and coating are completed, the pipe would be lowered into the trench by

side-boom tractors. Bladed equipment or a specially designed backfilling machine would be

used to backfill the trench.

Hydrostatic Testing

After backfilling, construction personnel would hydrostatically test the pipelines in

accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations to ensure that the

system is capable of operating at the designed pressure. The testing process involves filling

a segment of the pipeline with water and maintaining a prescribed pressure for a specified

amount of time. If a leak or break in the line were to occur during the testing, the pipe

would be repaired and retested to ensure that section of the pipe meets DOT specifications.

Construction crews would also conduct hydrostatic “pre-tests” on HDD sections prior to

installing them. Hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn from readily available water

sources along the pipeline route or from municipal sources and would be discharged onsite in

a vegetated upland area or offsite at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. Test water will

be transferred for re-use between test sections whenever feasible. Hydrostatic test water

withdrawals and discharges would be conducted in accordance with the applicable permit

conditions and procedures.

Cleanup

After the pipeline has been installed, backfilled, and successfully tested, the ROW,

temporary extra workspaces, and other disturbed areas would be re-graded and restored as

nearly as practicable to the original contour of the land. Topsoil would be re-spread over

areas from which it was originally removed and permanent soil stabilization (e.g.,

installation of permanent erosion controls) efforts begin.

Construction debris would be disposed of and fences, gates, driveways, and roads disturbed

by the pipeline construction would be restored. The restored construction ROW would be

revegetated in accordance with plans and procedures, other permit requirements and sitespecific landowner requests.

Special Pipeline Construction Techniques

Wetland Crossings

Denbury would construct its pipelines across wetlands in accordance with plans and

procedures, which would include measures designed to minimize construction-related

impacts.

At certain locations, wetlands would be crossed by the HDD method in conjunction with

associated water body crossings. For the remaining wetlands, Denbury proposes to use

three types of wetland crossing methods as described below.

Wetland Method 1 would be used in unsaturated wetlands where soils are dry enough at

the time of construction to support equipment. Construction would be similar to the upland

construction method described above but would require segregation of topsoil over the

trench line. Stumps would be removed only from the trench line unless additional stump

removal is required to provide safe working conditions.

Wetland Method 2 is consistent with conventional wetland construction techniques used to

cross wetlands with saturated soils or soils otherwise unable to support construction

Topical 303
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-18

equipment. In such areas, it would be necessary to stabilize the ROW or use widetracked/low ground weight equipment. During clearing, construction crews would stabilize

the ROW using timber riprap (corduroy roads) or fabricated timber mats. Construction

would attempt to use no more than two layers of timber for this purpose. Dirt, pulled tree

stumps or brush riprap would not be used to stabilize the travel lane.

Wetland Method 3 would involve push-pull construction. This method would be used in

large wetland areas where sufficient water is present for floating the pipeline in the trench,

and grade elevations over the length of the push-pull area would not require damming to

maintain adequate water levels for floatation of the pipe.

When using the push-pull construction technique, clearing within the wetlands would be

limited to only that necessary to install the pipeline. Trees and brush would be cut at

ground level by hand with low ground-weight equipment or with equipment supported by

timber mats. Grading in inundated wetlands would be held to a minimum. Amphibious

excavators (pontoon-mounted backhoes) or tracked backhoes (supported by fabricated

timber work mats of floats) would be used for trenching.

Water Body Crossings

Typically, water body crossings will be made using one of the following methods:

Crossing Method 1 (Wet Crossing – typically less than 50 feet). This method is applicable to

small perennial streams (less than 50 feet wide), field and roadside ditches, and intermittent

streams. The stream should be small enough to enable the equipment to be worked from the

banks. A backhoe will open a temporary trench within the flowing stream; the pipe will be

placed and the trench will be backfilled as quickly as possible to minimize impacts.

Crossing Method 2 (Dry Crossing – typically less than 30 feet). This method is applicable to

perennial streams (with flow) less than 30 feet in width with downstream water users or

with listed species present in the stream. Stream flow may be channeled into one or multiple

flume pipes to convey water across the trench and maintain downstream flow, or

alternatively, a dam-and-pump arrangement may be used to convey the stream water

around the construction area. The trench will be excavated from under the flume pipe, the

pipeline will be threaded under the flume, the trench will be backfilled, and the flume pipe

will be removed to restore natural downstream flow.

Crossing Method 3 (Wet Crossing – typically greater than 50 feet). This method is

applicable to perennial streams greater than 50 feet in width that have not been designated

to be directionally drilled. The trench will be opened within the flowing stream using a

backhoe or dragline, and the pipe will be pulled or floated into place. Flow in these streams

will most likely be sufficient to inundate the trench and allow for a natural downstream

flow. Sufficient downstream flow should be maintained during construction. Following

installation of the pipe, the trench will be backfilled.

Crossing Method 4 (HDD). HDD methodology will be used in specially designated stream

crossings. HDD involves using specialized equipment to install pipelines beneath wetlands

or waterways, which potentially minimizes environmental impacts. However, a potential

exists for environmental impacts, such as turbidity and deposition of dredged material,

which can occur from the discharge of drilling muds in the unlikely event of a drilling

failure or interruption in construction. These potential risks are typically mitigated fully

Topical 304
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-19

with an HDD failure contingency plan and/or drilling mud disposal plan. The applicability

of this method is subject to a variety of site-specific physical and engineering factors.

Therefore, this method is applicable to water bodies with conditions determined to be

suitable and after extensive assessment for both environmental and engineering

considerations. The potential risks are significantly minimized when compared to the

benefits associated with a successful HDD. These benefits are discussed in Section 4.

Horizontal Directional Drill

Denbury proposes to install the pipeline at selected water bodies using the HDD method.

All stages of HDD involve circulating drilling fluid (bentonite slurry, or drilling muds) from

equipment on the surface, through a drill pipe to a downhole bit or reamer, and back to the

surface through the annular space between the pipe and the wall of the hole. Drilling fluid

returns collected at the entry and exit points are stored in a steel tank and processed through a

solids control system that removes spoil from the drilling fluid, allowing the fluid to be reused.

The basic method used by the solids control system is mechanical separation using shakers,

desanders, and desilters. Excess spoil and drilling fluid are transported to, and disposed of, at

an approved disposal site.

Under ideal circumstances, drilling fluid exhausted at the bit or reamer will flow back to the

entry or exit point through the drilled annulus. Under actual conditions, this happens

inconsistently. Drilling fluid expended downhole will flow in the path of least resistance. In

the drilled annulus, this path may be an existing fracture or fissure in the soil. This can result in

dispersal of drilling fluid into the surrounding soils (lost circulation) or discharge to the surface

at some random location (inadvertent returns). Lost circulation and inadvertent returns are

common occurrences in pipeline installation by HDD and do not prevent completion.

However, if drilling fluid inadvertently returns to the surface at a location on a waterway’s

banks or within a waterway, adverse environmental impacts would occur. Drilling parameters

may be adjusted to maximize circulation and minimize the risk of inadvertent returns.

However, the possibility of lost circulation and inadvertent returns cannot be eliminated.

The major component of drilling fluid used in HDD pipeline installation is fresh water

obtained at the crossing location. In order for water to perform the required functions, it is

generally necessary to modify its properties by adding a viscosifier. The viscosifier used almost

exclusively in HDD drilling fluids is naturally occurring bentonite clay typically mined by

“open pit” methods from locations in Wyoming and South Dakota. Bentonite is soft clay,

formed by the weathering of volcanic ash, with the unique characteristic of swelling to several

times its original volume when in contact with water. It is not a hazardous material as defined

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity,

reactivity, or commercial chemicals. It is also used to seal earth structures such as ponds or

dams and as a suspending component in livestock feeds.

Environmental impacts associated with HDD can often be minimized most effectively by

completing HDD operations in the shortest possible amount of time. Specific steps may be

taken by the contractor to maintain or restore circulation of drilling fluids; specifically, by

maintaining the size of the hole and utilizing the correct pressure and drill rates, along with

keeping the drill path clean and unobstructed.

If inadvertent surface returns occur on dry land, it will be the responsibility of the HDD

contractor to contain, collect, and restore the disturbed area in accordance with the

Topical 305
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-20

requirements of Denbury’s construction specifications. Should inadvertent returns occur

within a waterway, Denbury will notify appropriate parties and evaluate the potential impact

of the release on a site-specific basis in order to determine an appropriate course of action. In

general, Denbury does not believe that it is environmentally beneficial to try to contain and

collect drilling fluid returns in a waterway. HDD drilling fluids are nontoxic and discharge of

the amounts normally associated with inadvertent returns does not pose a threat to public

health and safety. Placement of containment structures and attempts to collect drilling fluid

within a waterway often result in greater environmental impact than simply allowing the

drilling fluid returns to dissipate naturally.

Roads and Railroads

Road and railroad crossings would be constructed in accordance with applicable state and

local regulations and permits, which will be obtained from the appropriate entities, or in the

case of private land, approval of the landowner. Denbury would use construction

techniques designed to minimize disruptions to traffic flow patterns, and construction

across existing highways and railroads would not significantly disrupt traffic flow.

With the exception of road crossings that would occur within the HDD paths for water body

crossings, Denbury would install the pipeline under paved roads and some unpaved roads

by boring beneath them. The bore method requires the excavation of a bore pit on either

side of the road or railroad to accommodate the boring equipment and the pipe to be

installed. A large-diameter auger would be used to excavate a hole between the two bore

pits. Once the hole is complete, a section of the pipe would be pulled back to complete the

crossing. Subject to agency/landowner approval, the majority of unpaved roads would be

crossed using the traditional open-cut method. Steel plates would be available onsite to

cover the open area to allow passage by emergency vehicles. Access would be maintained

except for the limited periods required for installing the pipeline. Open-cut road crossings

would be construction in one day. Steel plates would be used until fill is properly

compacted.

Foreign Pipeline and Electric Transmission Line Crossings

In addition to excavation and boring equipment, crossing other pipelines would require

some hand digging beneath the foreign pipeline(s) to ensure no damage to the pipe.

Additional temporary workspaces would be used at these crossings to accommodate

storage of the increased amounts of spoil resulting from the need to excavate a deeper

trench, and to prevent spoil and construction equipment from being placed over the existing

pipelines. The general practice would be to install the new pipeline under the existing

foreign pipeline(s) with an agreed upon separation distance that would meet or exceed

applicable DOT requirements.

Where the proposed pipelines would cross electric transmission lines, Denbury would

adhere to specific criteria regarding minimum clearances between the transmission line and

pipeline construction equipment. Also, pipelines being constructed parallel to, crossing, or

in proximity of electric power transmission lines would be subject to electrostatic and

electromagnetic induced voltages and currents. Therefore, additional protection would need

to be used to prevent damage due to fault currents and induced voltages. Accordingly, all

equipment operating near transmission lines would be properly grounded and insulated.

Topical 306
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-21

Agricultural Areas

In actively cultivated agricultural areas, up to 12 inches of topsoil would be stripped from

the trench line and spoil storage area, or as based on landowner agreements. The topsoil

would be temporarily stockpiled separate from the excavated subsoil within the

construction ROW. Denbury would work with landowners prior to construction to identify

irrigation pipelines or drain tiles within the construction ROW and would develop

irrigation crossing standards that are satisfactory to the affected landowners. Any irrigation

pipeline systems or drain tiles damaged during construction would be repaired to the

landowner’s specifications or to pre-construction conditions.

Residential and Commercial Areas

Denbury would implement the measures described below when working in residential

areas and would coordinate with the appropriate landowners for the required site-specific

mitigation measures.

Homeowners or business owners would be notified in advance of construction activities

and any scheduled disruptions of utilities. To minimize impacts on residences, residential

areas, and commercial properties, Denbury may use specialized construction methods such

as stovepipe and/or drag section construction.

Disruptions would be minimized to the extent practicable. If project-related work activity in

a residential or commercial area would disrupt ingress and egress to the affected property,

Denbury would attempt to provide alternative access to the property. Attempts would be

made to leave any mature trees and landscaping intact within the construction work areas

unless the trees and landscaping interfere with installation techniques or present unsafe

working conditions. Topsoil segregation would be performed over the trench line only.

Cleanup would occur quickly following construction activities. Sidewalks, driveways, and

roads would be restored as soon as practicable, and fences, mailboxes, and other structures

that were removed would be restored. After cleanup, a Denbury representative would

contact landowners to ensure that conditions of all landowner agreements have been met.

1.4.1.6 Aboveground Facilities

During installation of aboveground facilities, construction activities and storage of

construction materials and equipment would be confined to the pipeline construction ROW

or approved temporary workspace areas. Denbury would implement plans and procedures

and would construct the aboveground facilities in accordance with applicable permit

conditions, regulations, and landowner agreements.

Workforce

Construction of the new facilities will be accomplished using one pipeline spread with a

work force of approximately 450 to 500 people. The prime contractor may select secondary

contractors for specialty installation of the pipeline, such as boring and directional drilling.

Once construction of the proposed components is completed, Denbury anticipates that it

may hire one new employee who would be responsible for operation and maintenance of

the new facilities. Additional information regarding construction and permanent workforce

requirements is included in Section 3.10 Socioeconomics.

Topical 307
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-22

Operation and Maintenance

Denbury will operate and maintain the Pipeline Lateral components in accordance with

applicable federal and state requirements. The DOT, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration (PHMSA) maintains the authority to regulate interstate carbon

dioxide pipelines under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979, and PHMSA regulates

the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and spill response planning for regulated

pipelines. All line pipe will be manufactured and mill tested in compliance with American

Petroleum Institute (API) Specifications for Line Pipe.

Pipeline

Maintenance of the pipeline will include periodic visual inspections. Denbury will conduct

routine pedestrian surveys, as necessary, in accordance with applicable regulatory

requirements and Denbury’s Operation and Maintenance Manual. Post-construction

surveys will identify erosion areas, exposed pipe, possible leaks, damaged or non-functional

permanent erosion control measures, and other concerns that could potentially affect the

environment and operation of the facilities.

Leak inspections and cathodic protection maintenance will be conducted in accordance with

DOT requirements and Denbury’s internal requirements. Pipeline markers and signs will be

inspected and maintained or replaced, as necessary, to assure that the pipeline location at

critical points is clearly identified.

Maintenance of the pipelines will include periodic vegetation mowing, as necessary and in

accordance with the Denbury’s policies, to allow for visual pipeline inspections. Active

cropland will be allowed to revert to pre-construction use for the full width of the ROW. In

non-cultivated uplands, the 50-foot-wide permanent ROW will be maintained in an

herbaceous or similar state to allow for visual inspection. In unsaturated wetlands, a 10-footwide corridor centered over the pipeline may be maintained in an herbaceous state, and

trees within 15 feet of the pipelines that are greater than 15 feet in height may be selectively

cut and removed from the ROW.

ROW maintenance activities are normally performed in late summer or early fall during the

driest seasonal times of the year.

Aboveground Facilities

Denbury will perform operation and maintenance activities (including calibration,

inspection, and scheduled and routine maintenance) on the new meter station and

scraper/receiver equipment regularly. Operational testing will be performed on safety

equipment to ensure proper function, and problems will be corrected immediately.

1.4.1.7 Construction Environmental Inspection and Compliance

Denbury is committed to constructing and operating the proposed Pipeline Lateral in a

manner that will minimize environmental impacts in compliance with applicable permits

and approvals. Denbury will develop project specific environmental plans and procedures

that describe the environmental requirements and/or permit conditions that will be

incorporated into specifications and drawings issued with the construction bid documents.

This will assist prospective contractors in being aware of the environmental requirements

that apply to the Pipeline Lateral. The construction contractor will be provided with copies

of each of these environmental plans, procedures, permits and documents.

Topical 308
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 1-23

Prior to construction, Denbury will conduct environmental training for company and

contractor supervisory personnel to familiarize them with the environmental requirements

pertaining to the Pipeline Lateral. The training will cover environmental documents such as

the Pipeline Lateral Plan and Procedures, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)/

Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, Unanticipated Discoveries

Plan, Contaminated Sediments Plan, other project-specific conditions contained in

applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals, and any other project-specific

mitigation plans, if applicable. In addition, Denbury will also provide group training to all

construction personnel prior to beginning construction activities to make them aware of

environmental requirements. Once construction is underway, Denbury’s Environmental

Inspectors (see below) will provide periodic follow-up training as necessary and for all

newly-assigned personnel.

Denbury will assign full-time Environmental Inspectors to the project to monitor

environmental compliance. The Environmental Inspector will have peer status with other

inspectors and will report directly to Denbury’s Environmental Project Manager. The

Environmental Inspectors will be present throughout construction and restoration of

pipeline and aboveground facilities and will have the authority to enforce permit

conditions. The Environmental Inspector’s roles and responsibilities will be described in

Denbury’s Implementation Plan. Briefly, he or she will be responsible for monitoring and

documenting compliance with the Project plans and mitigation measures required by

permits, certificates, and other environmental approvals as outlined above. The

Environmental Inspectors will be authorized to issue stop-activity orders and to require

corrective actions to maintain environmental compliance. In addition, the Environmental

Inspectors will act as a liaison between Denbury and field representatives of environmental

regulatory agencies that may visit the project during construction.

Denbury will be responsible for the implementation of environmental requirements during

construction of the proposed facilities. If, notwithstanding Denbury’s best intentions and

efforts, a contractor does not comply with environmental requirements during construction,

Denbury will, upon discovery, direct the contractor to comply. If necessary, Denbury will

issue a stop-work order for that activity until the non-compliance is corrected. Where

applicable, permitting agencies will be notified as required and remedial measures

implemented. Where warranted, Denbury will take appropriate disciplinary action.

1.5 Interagency Cooperation

All interagency cooperation will be conducted with DOE acting as the lead agency. Scoping

letters will be mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; tribal organizations; and residents

in the immediate vicinity of the proposed pipeline lateral. The scoping letters will describe

the Proposed Action and requested assistance in identifying potential issues that should be

a part of the NEPA review. Comments received as part of the interagency cooperation will

be incorporated into future NEPA review documentation.

Topical 309
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 2-1

SECTION 2.0

Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

This section discusses the proposed action and the alternatives to the proposed action that

may be considered for the transport and sequestration of CO2 in the Lake Charles, Louisiana

area. This EIV is conceptual in scope in determining the effects and impacts of the proposed

action on the environment and mitigation of those impacts. No field characterization was

conducted for this effort.

Further evaluation of impacts to the environment, health, safety, and socioeconomics

(including field studies and verifications) for the Pipeline Lateral will be evaluated in

greater depth once funding is secured.

2.1 Proposed Action (assuming DOE funding)

Leucadia, teamed with Denbury will demonstrate advanced technologies that capture

more than 1 million tons/year of CO2 emissions at the Lake Charles cogeneration petroleum

coke-to-chemicals (methanol) project (hereafter Project) to be located near Lake Charles,

Louisiana. Assuming DOE funds the Project, compressed CO2 will be transported through

new and existing pipeline systems so that it can be used for EOR in the Hastings oilfields in

Texas.

As part of the Project, Denbury is proposing to construct, own, and operate an 11.6-mile CO2

pipeline and associated ancillary equipment that will transport the CO2 from Leucadia’s

Plant to Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline for transport to the Hastings Field in Texas

(Figure 2-1). The Pipeline Lateral will include a 20-inch outside diameter CO2 pipeline, one valve,

and one meter station. The Pipeline Lateral would be located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, near

the city of Lake Charles.

The proposed action would include approximately 11.6miles of 50-foot wide permanent

pipeline ROW. In addition, up to 45 feet of temporary or construction ROW would be

required for pipeline installation. Temporary access roads and ATWS would be constructed

along the proposed pipeline ROW as required. Construction of the Pipeline Lateral is

expected to be completed by September 2012, with delivery of CO2 from the Lake Charles

carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) project industrial source to commence by third

quarter 2013.

Much of the Pipeline Lateral route will follow established utility corridors and other linear

easements. Assuming the proposed action is the preferred alternative, Sections 3 and 4 of

this EIV present the current environmental conditions and environmental consequences of

the proposed action as determined through a conceptual design desktop study.

Topical 310
Figure 2-1

Site Location Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

0 10 20 5

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\SITE_LOCATION.MXD JMINIX 2/15/2010 10:53:52

Site Location

Topical 311
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 2-3

2.2 Alternative Action (assuming no DOE funding)

It may be economically feasible and environmentally beneficial for Leucadia and Denbury

to continue with the proposed Project without DOE providing funding. Alternative actions

to the pipeline mode of CO2 transport could potentially include “CO2 road transport” and

“CO2 rail transport” scenarios.

In the CO2 road transport alternative, a truck could hold 20 tons of CO2 (0.349 MMSCF) each

run, making it possible to have 135 trucks ship CO2 from the point of origin to the terminus

daily. In the rail transport alternative, a rail car holds approximately 60 tons (1.048 MMSCF)

of CO2 each run and would require 45 rail cars per day to carry CO2 to Hastings Field. While

removed from the environment at a lower rate, CO2 would still be sequestered. CO2,

regardless of the mode (pipeline, road, or rail) by which it arrives at Hastings Field, could

still be sequestered and used for EOR at that field, or transferred to other fields via

Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline, a 24-inch CO2 pipeline capable of transporting up to

800 million standard cubic feet of CO2 per day between Donaldson, Louisiana and Hastings, Texas.

A more detailed, quantitative analysis of these sequestration options and the associated

impacts would need to be conducted should DOE funding become unavailable and

Denbury still wishes to pursue sequestration.

2.3 No Action Alternative

Without DOE cost-sharing funding for the Project, it is unlikely that the Project would be

implemented. Consequently, with the No Action Alternative, the lack of sequestration

would increase the CO2 in the environment and oil production would decrease in Hastings

Field.

Topical 312
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-1

SECTION 3.0

Affected Environment

3.1 Project Area and Topography

The proposed Pipeline Lateral is located entirely within Calcasieu Parish in the

southwestern portion of Louisiana. Specifically, the Pipeline Lateral lies southwest of

Sulphur City, extending from the Calcasieu River Shipping Channel generally northnortheast across Interstate 10 to the interconnect with Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline north

of the intersection of WPA Road and State Highway 90. The Pipeline Lateral begins (MP 0.0)

approximately 4.4 miles southwest of Lake Charles; 8.0 miles north of Lake Calcasieu; and

approximately 30 miles north of the Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coast. An overview map of

the Project area is provided as Figure 2-1.

The Pipeline Lateral’s permanent ROW encompasses 72.32 contiguous acres of land

collocated primarily along existing ROW corridors (e.g., pipeline, railroad, and transmission

line) for most of the route. Surrounding land use is primarily comprised of developed

industrial and residential areas, forested upland and wetlands, and pasture or agriculture.

Topography along the Pipeline Lateral is generally flat with low relief and elevations

generally ranging from sea level to approximately 15 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

Low circular mounds and occasional low coastal ridges and indistinct relict fluvial channels

are present throughout the area of the Pipeline Lateral. A Site Location Map with U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map background is provided as Figure 3-1.

3.2 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality

The climate, meteorology, ambient air quality, in the vicinity of Lake Charles, Louisiana,

and surrounding areas are presented below.

3.2.1 Climate

Annual maximum and arithmetic mean weather information for Jefferson County, Texas,

which is located near the Lake Charles project site, was obtained from the EPA AirData

monitoring station. Data are based on year 2009 information and is provided in Table 3-1.

Topical 313
Figure 3-1

Project topographic Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

0 0.5 1 0.25 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\TOPO.MXD EKLEIN 2/26/2010 15:13:00

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

Proposed Contractor Yard

Topical 314
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-3

TABLE 3-1

2009 Annual Weather Information for Jefferson County, Texas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Weather Parameter Maximum Average

Barometric Pressure, mbar 1041 1017.5

Dew Point, F 79 60.9

Temperature, F 105 71

Relative Humidity, % 99 73.7

Peak Wind Gust, Knots 43 11.76

Wind Speed, Knots 22.4 6.23

Resultant Direction, degrees compass NA 172

Resultant Speed, Knots 21.9 5.89

Solar Radiation, Langleys/minute 1.5 0.27

UV Radiation, Langleys/minute 0.05 0.012

Source: http://oaspub.epa.gov/aqspub1/AQS_Annsum.AnnualSummary

The Beaumont, Texas, wind rose (Figure 3-2) indicates the wind most frequently comes from

the south.

Between 1974 through 2003, the highest temperature recorded was 105 degrees Fahrenheit

in August 2000 and the lowest temperature recorded was 12 degrees Fahrenheit in

December 1989. Additional annual average data for Jefferson County for a 30-year period,

between 1974 through 2003, can be found in Table 3-2.

TABLE 3-2

30-Year Annual Average Weather Information for Jefferson County, Texas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Weather Parameter Annual

Rainfall, inches 59.89

Normal Annual Snowfall, inches 0.2

Source: (TCEQ, 2010a)

3.2.1.1 Severe Weather

The Lake Charles National Weather Service Office reviewed documented storms from 1886

through 1997 for a 150-mile radius around Lake Charles and provided findings in a 1998

report. The report included Houston and Beaumont, Texas and Lake Charles, Lafayette,

Alexandria, Baton Rouge, and Shreveport, Louisiana. During the 112 seasons studied,

71 tropical storms passed within the area, 34 of which were hurricanes. Of the 34 hurricanes,

eight were considered major (Category 3 to 5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale). This gives a

frequency of one tropical storm through the area every 1.6 years and one hurricane every

3.3 years with a major hurricane every 14 years.

Topical 315
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-4

 According to National Climactic Data Center data (NCDC, 2010), there were 635 severe

weather events in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, between January 1, 1950 and

November 30, 2009. These events include the following: Drought – 7 events

 Hail –144 events

 Ice Storm – 3 events

 Storm Surge/Tide – 1 event

 Hurricanes – 4 hurricanes including Hurricane Earl (9/1/1998), Hurricane Lila

(10/3/2002), Hurricane Rita (9/23/2005), and Hurricane Humberto (9/13/2007)

 Tropical Storm – 4 events including Hurricane Ike (9/12/2008) that caused tropical

storm conditions in the area

 Tornadoes – 76 events. On February 12, 1971, a Category 3 (maximum wind speeds of

158 to 206 mph) tornado occurred 0.6 mile from the city center and caused

approximately $2.5 million dollars in damages. On April 17, 1973, a Category 3 tornado

occurred 3.4 miles from the city center and caused between $5,000 and $50,000 in

damages

 Flood – 57 events

 Winds – 19 events greater than 60 knots

 Lightning Strike –5 events causing personal injury or death

Lake Charles-area historical tornado activity is slightly above the state average and it is

117 percent greater than the overall U.S. average (City-Data.com, 2010).

Figure 3-2 is a wind rose chart for Beaumont, Texas, from 1988 to 1992, found on the TCEQ

Web site (2010b).

Topical 316
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-5

FIGURE 3-2

Beaumont Wind Rose

Source: TCEQ, 2010b

3.2.2 Meteorology

Detailed 2008 meteorology data for the State of Louisiana can be found in Appendix E.

3.2.2.1 Class I Areas

The term visibility, when used in the context of scenic vistas at mandatory Federal Class I

areas, refers to the clarity with which distant objects are perceived. Visibility is affected by

pollutant concentrations, the viewing angle, relative humidity, cloud characteristics, and

other physical factors such as color contrast between objects. Without the effects of

manmade air pollution, a natural visual range would be nearly 140 miles (225 kilometers

[km]) in western areas and 90 miles (145 km) in eastern areas.

Five key contributors to manmade visibility impairment are:

 Sulfates, predominately from utility and industrial boilers

 Nitrate, predominantly from automobiles and utility and industrial boilers

 Organic carbon, from sources such as automobiles, trucks, and other industrial processes

 Elemental carbon (i.e., soot) from diesel, wood, and other combustion

Topical 317
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-6

 Crustal material (soil dust) from roads, construction, and agricultural activities

The concentration of these five species are measured regularly in many mandatory Federal

Class I areas, and the light extinction coefficients and deciview visibility indices are

calculated from these concentrations and are used as metrics to describe visibility.

There are no Federal Class I areas within a 200 mile radius of the Pipeline Lateral. The

nearest Federal Class I area is the Breton National Wildlife Refuge (BRET1 Site), which is

more than 220 miles from the Pipeline Lateral near Plaquemine Parish in southeast

Louisiana. Caney Creek Wilderness Area in Arkansas (CACR1 Site) is located more than

380 miles from the Pipeline Lateral, and Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma

(WIMO Site) is more than 570 miles from the Pipeline Lateral. These sites are shown in

Figure 3-3 below.

The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program was

initiated in 1985 to monitor visibility conditions. Figure 3-4 shows monitoring sites, some of

which are Federal Class I areas. Table 3-3 provides monitoring data from 2000 to 2004 for

the three Federal Class I areas nearest to the Pipeline Lateral, as well as a Houston urban

monitor.

FIGURE 3-3

IMPROVE Aerosol Network Location Map

Topical 318
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-7

TABLE 3-3

Pollutants Contributing to Reduced Visibility in Class I Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Location IMPROVE

Monitor

Class I

Area

Distance

to

Project

Site

Sulfates Nitrates Organic

Carbon

Particles

Elemental

Carbon

Crustal

Material

Aerosol

Extinction

Coefficient

Annual

Visibility

Yes/No miles % % % % % Mm-1 Deciview

Breton

Wildlife

Refuge

Monitor,

Louisiana

BRET1 Yes >220 48-

54%

4-8% 4-8% 30-36% 4-8% 54.9-64.0 18.5-20.9

Caney

Creek

Wilderness

Area,

Arkansas

CACR1 Yes >380 42-

48%

8-12% 0-4% 30-36% 8-12% 64.0-73.1 18.5-20.9

Wichita

Mountains

Wilderness

Area,

Oklahoma

WIMO1 Yes >570 36-

42%

12-

16%

0-4% 30-36% 8-12% 45.7-54.9 16.2-18.5

Houston

Monitor,

Texas

HOUS1 No >140 42-

48%

8-12% 0-4% 30-36% 8-12% 45.4-54.9 16.2-18.5

Data from 2000 – 2004

Source: IMPROVE Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its Constituents in the

United States, Report IV; ISSN:0737-5352-74, Colorado State University CIRA Cooperative Institute for

Research in the Atmosphere, November 2006.

3.2.3 Air Quality

The proposed project area is located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Large population areas

within the 50-mile (80- km) region of influence (ROI) include the cities of Lake Charles and

Lafayette, Louisiana, and Beaumont and Port Arthur, Texas. Smaller cities immediately

surrounding the project site include Sulphur, Prien, and Iowa, Louisiana.

3.2.3.1 General Air Quality and Classification

Several air monitoring sites are located near the proposed Pipeline Lateral. Table 3-4

provides information on the nearest monitoring sites located in Lake Charles.

TABLE 3-4

Active Ambient Air Quality Monitors Nearest the Project Site

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Monitor Site Location Coordinates

Pollutants

Monitored

Carlyss

22-019-0002

Hwy 28 & Hwy 108 Latitude: 30.14

Longitude: -93.37

O3

Lake Charles McNeese University

22-019-0010

Common & E. McNeese Lat = 30.18

Long = -93.21

PM2.5

Vinton

22-019-0009

2284 Paul Bellow Rd. Lat = 30.2383

Long = -93.58

PM2.5, O3

Topical 319
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-8

TABLE 3-4

Active Ambient Air Quality Monitors Nearest the Project Site

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Monitor Site Location Coordinates

Pollutants

Monitored

Westlake

22-019-0008

2646 John Stine Rd. Lat = 30.26

Long = -93.28

PM2.5, O3,

SO2, NOx,

VOC

Lake Charles

Lighthouse Lane

SPECIAL3

Lighthouse Lane &

Bayou D’Inde Pass

Lat = 30.22

Long = -93.31

VOC

Source: 2009 Louisiana Annual Network Assessment, LDEQ AQ Assessment Division, May 30, 2009

Detailed ambient air quality data within the ROI can be found on the EPA Web site for the

monitoring network data, provided in the EPA AirData database. Data for CO, PM10, and

HAPs was not available for Calcasieu Parish. Data from the next closest monitor was used.

All pollutant concentrations are within the standard limit with the exception of the eighthour ozone value.

TABLE 3-5

2009 Ambient Air Quality Data for Calcasieu Parish

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Pollutants 2009 Maximum Concentration NAAQS Standard Limit

CO (8-hour) 1.2 ppm 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

CO (1-hour) 2.03 ppm 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

NO2 (Annual) 0.0065 ppm (Arithmetic Mean) 0.053 ppm

(100 μg/m3)

NO2 (1-hour) 0.051 ppm 0.100 ppm

Ozone (1-hr) 0.114 ppm 0.12 ppm

Ozone (8-hr) 0.096 ppm

0.0427 ppm (Arithmetic Mean)

0.075 ppm

SO2 (Annual) 0.0026 ppm (Arithmetic Mean) 0.03 ppm

SO2 (24-hr) 0.019 ppm 0.14 ppm

PM10 (24-hr) 89 μg /m3150 ug/m3

PM2.5 (Annual) 8.6296 ug/m3 (Arithmetic Mean) 15 ug/m3

PM2.5 (24-hr) 23 μg /m335 ug/m3

HAPs (1) 0.0769 ppm

0.0011481 ppm

(Arithmetic Mean)

—

Source: EPA, 2010a

Data for CO, PM10, and HAPs not available for Calcasieu Parish. The next closest monitor location was used

(East Baton Rouge County for CO, West Baton Rouge County for PM10, and city of Lafayette for HAPs).

Topical 320
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-9

According to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), Louisiana is in

attainment for all federal National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) pollutants,

with the exception of ozone, in the five parish area that includes the city of Baton Rouge.

3.3 Water

3.3.1 Surface Water

The Pipeline Lateral is located in southwest Louisiana within the Coastal Marsh region of

the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The Pipeline Lateral area is characterized by

relatively flat topography transected by slow-moving bayous within an estuarine aquatic

environment. The Project lies within the Lower Calcasieu River Basin, USGS Hydrologic

Unit Code (HUC) 08080206 (EPA, 2010b), approximately 30 aerial miles from the Gulf of

Mexico.

Topographic quadrangle maps and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) from the

USGS were reviewed to identify surface water bodies crossed by the proposed Pipeline

Lateral route. Fifteen mapped USGS streams will be crossed by the Pipeline Lateral as

illustrated in Table 3-6 and Figure 3-4. Wetland and water body delineation surveys will be

undertaken during project implementation to confirm the locations of jurisdictional waters

of the United States. Crossings of surface water bodies would be permitted under

Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act, as applicable.

There are no designated or proposed federal or state Wild and Scenic Rivers crossed by the

Pipeline Lateral.

TABLE 3-6

USGS-Mapped Waterways Crossed by the Proposed Project

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

County Name of Water Body Possible HDD Crossing

Calcasieu Bayou Choupique No

Unnamed Man-Made Canal Yes

Little Bayou D’Inde Yes

Unnamed Tributary to Little Bayou D’Inde No

Multiple (11) Unnamed Tributaries to Bayou

D’Inde

No

Source: USGS, 2010

LDEQ manages the state’s surface water quality assessment program under CWA

Sections 303(d) and 305(b) (LDEQ, 2010). CWA Section 303(d) requires all states to submit a

list reporting all impaired waters in or bordering the state that have not met water quality

standards and those with pollutants that can be measured with maximum daily load

metrics. All states also report a water quality inventory of state waters to the EPA based on

CWA Section 305(b) requirements.

Topical 321
Little Bayou d’Inde

Bayou

Choupique

Bayou Choupique

Wing Gully

Bayou

d’Inde

Maple Fork

Calcasieu

River

Bayou d’Inde

Bayou d’Inde

Figure 3-44

NHD Stream Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

0 0.5 1 0.25 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\STREAMS.MXD EKLEIN 2/18/2010 14:45:08

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Proposed Contractor Yard

USGS Mapped Stream

Source:

National Hydrography Dataset Wetlands - USGS, 2010

Topical 322
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-11

Two LDEQ-assessed stream segments would be crossed by the Pipeline Lateral. These

segments include Bayou D’Inde (Stream Subsegment Number LA031001_00) and Bayou

Choupique (Stream Subsegment Number LA031001_00) (LDEQ, 2008). As shown in

Table 3-7, Bayou D’Inde is fully attaining the designated use for secondary contact

recreation but is not supporting the designated use for primary contact recreation or fish

and wildlife propagation. Bayou Choupique is fully attaining its designated use for primary

and secondary contact recreation and fish and wildlife propagation.

Field surveys will be performed during project implementation to delineate jurisdictional

water bodies, in accordance with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidelines and

standard practice. Permitting activities would be based on data gathered by these

environmental professionals.

3.3.2 Groundwater

The Pipeline Lateral area is situated within the Chicot aquifer system. The Chicot Aquifer is

designated by the EPA as a Sole Source Aquifer. A sole source aquifer is one that supplies at

least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer (EPA,

2010b). These areas may have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically,

legally, and economically supply all those who depend on the aquifer for drinking water.

The Chicot aquifer system consists of Pleistocene deposits with fining upward

sequences of materials from clay to gravel. In the Lake Charles area, the Chicot is

divided into the shallow alluvial sands, the “200-foot” sand, the “500-foot” sand, and

the “700-foot” sand (LDEQ, 2005).

Aquifer recharge occurs primarily through direct infiltration from rainfall, and recharge

potential in the area is low (LDEQ, 1988). The range of thickness of fresh water in the Chicot

Aquifer is 50 to 1,050 feet, and maximum depths of occurrence of freshwater range from

100 feet above sea level to 1,000 feet below sea level. In 2005, LDEQ’s Baseline Monitoring

Program performed analysis on Chicot Aquifer wells that ranged in depth from 66 feet to

697 feet, and results demonstrate that no maximum contaminant level (MCL) of the federal

Primary Drinking Water Standards was exceeded. However, three Secondary Drinking

Water Standards that serve as non-enforceable guidelines were exceeded; these secondary

MCLs include color, pH, and total dissolved solids.

Approximately 112 registered water wells are situated within 0.25-mile of the Pipeline

Lateral (Figure 3-5).

3.3.3 Floodplains

Floodplains are the normally dry land areas adjoining surface waters that are inundated

during flood events (Mays, 2001). The 100-year floodplain includes that area subject to a one

percent chance of flooding in any given year. The 500-year floodplain is that area subject to

a 0.2 percent chance of flooding in any given year. Areas within the designated floodplains

may be subject to more frequent flooding.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), is a program that provides federally-backed flood insurance

to property owners. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the

NFIP are presented in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 CFR 60.3 (FEMA, 2010).

Topical 323
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-12

TABLE 3-7

305(b) Water Quality Assessment of Project Area Waterways

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Subsegment

Number

Subsegment

Description Type1

Size

(River

Miles) PCR SCR FWP

Suspected Cause(s) of

Impairment Suspected Source(s) of Impairment

LA030901_00 Bayou D’Inde –

From

Headwaters to

Calcasieu River

(Estuarine)

R 12 N F N Bromoform, hexachlorobenzene,

nitrate/nitrite, dissolved oxygen,

total phosphorus, polychlorinated

biphenyls

Industrial Point Source Discharge,

Discharges from Municipal Separate

Storm Sewer Systems, Municipal Point

Source Discharges

LA031001_00 Bayou

Choupique –

From

Headwaters to

Intercoastal

Waterway

(Estuarine)

R 20 F F F None None

1 R = River

2 PCR = Primary Contact Recreation; SCR = Secondary Contact Recreation; FWP = Fish and Wildlife Propagation; N = Non-supporting; and F =

Fully Supporting

Topical 324
Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

DOTD Listed Water Wells

Proposed Contractor Yard

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Figure 3-5

Publicly Listed Water Wells

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana 0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\WATER_WELLS.MXD EKLEIN 2/18/2010 14:06:32

Source:

Well Locations - Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, 2010

Topical 325
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-14

Regulations pertaining to floodplains are typically enacted at the local government level

when a community enters the NFIP. In Louisiana, the Louisiana Department of

Transportation and Development (LA DOTD) is the State Coordinating Agency for the

NFIP; in this role, the agency assists the local floodplain administrators in maintaining

compliance with the NFIP.

To determine whether the proposed Pipeline Lateral is potentially located with FEMAdesignated floodplains, Digital Q3 Flood Data maps, a digital representation of certain

features of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM), were obtained. Figure 3-6 presents the

FEMA designations for the area of the Pipeline Lateral as indicated in the Digital Q3 Flood

Data maps. While Q3 data provide a simplified and straightforward view of floodplain

boundaries, more detailed, accurate, and up-to-date floodplain information is presented in

FEMA’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps.

The Pipeline Lateral crosses approximately 3.5 miles of 100-year floodplain.

3.3.4 Wetlands

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) program is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and was established in the mid-1970s to inventory wetlands within the

United States and report on the status of these resources (USFWS, 2010). Electronic NWI map

coverage is not available for the area of the Pipeline Lateral.

The NHD consists of a comprehensive set of digital spatial data representing surface water

features of the United States (USGS, 2010a). The NHD is maintained by the USGS and is

intended to be used by scientists in general mapping and in the analysis of surface-water

systems using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The dataset can be used in modeling

applications to assess the downstream effects of an upstream action. The NHD is more

conservative in predicting the presence of wetlands than the NWI program.

NHD mapping was referenced for the area traversed by the Pipeline Lateral, but data was

insufficient to reflect wetland information indicated by other sources. Land use mapping for

the Pipeline Lateral area indicates significant wetland areas within the proposed pipeline

corridor. Soils information for the Pipeline Lateral area supports this assumption.

Hydric and partially hydric soils are present within the area of the Pipeline Lateral; detailed

information on soils within the Pipeline Lateral area can be found in Section 3.7.

Additionally, Section 3.6 discusses land use attributes present within the area of the Pipeline

Lateral. Characterization of land use in the area was based on Multi Resolution Land

Characteristics Consortium (2001) data. According to these data, woody wetlands occur

within the area of the Pipeline Lateral boundaries.

Field surveys will be performed during project implementation to delineate jurisdictional

wetlands, in accordance with USACE guidelines and standard practice. Permitting activities

would be based on data gathered by these environmental professionals.

Topical 326
Figure 3-6

FEMA 100-Year Floodplain Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

0 0.5 1 0.25 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\FLOODPLAIN.MXD JMINIX 2/15/2010 13:28:33

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

Proposed Contractor Yard

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

100 Year Floodplain

Source:

Q3 Floodplain Boundaries - FEMA, 1996

Topical 327
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-16

3.4 Ecology

Terrestrial and aquatic ecologies of the proposed Pipeline Lateral, as well as information

regarding threatened and endangered species are presented within this section.

3.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The proposed Pipeline Lateral is located within the Western Gulf Coastal Plain (Level III)

and Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies (Level IV) ecoregion (Daigle, et al. 2006). The

distinguishing characteristic of this ecoregion is the relatively flat topography and historic

presence of expansive coastal grasslands. Clay soils and frequent fire historically excluded

woody vegetation from becoming established in most areas except along stream floodplains

(TNC, 2010). Common historic grassland vegetation likely included little bluestem

(Andropogon scoparius), big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum

nutans), and brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum) among other herbaceous species.

Much of the natural grasslands that historically characterized the ecoregion have been

converted to rice and soybean cropland due primarily to the flat topography and presence

of relatively fertile soils. Woody shrub and tree coverage has increased with the exclusion of

naturally occurring fire regimes in many areas. Specific ecological field surveys will be

conducted to determine the species composition in the area of the Pipeline Lateral.

Common flora in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies ecoregion are summarized in

Table 3-8 based on general habitat descriptions provided in Daigle, et al. (2006).

TABLE 3-8

Common Flora in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Ecoregion

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Common Name Scientific Name Strata

Red maple Acer rubrum Tree / Canopy

Black hickory Cayra texana Tree / Canopy

Southern hackberry Celtis sp. Tree / Canopy

Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Tree / Canopy

Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Tree / Canopy

Short-leafed pine Pinus echinata Tree / Canopy

Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Tree / Canopy

Southern red oak Quercus falcata Tree / Canopy

Post oak Quercus stellata Tree / Canopy

Sumac Rhus sp. Shrub

Blackberry Rubus sp. Shrub

Longleaf uniola Uniola sp. Herbaceous

Broomsedge Andropogon virginicus Herbaceous

Many of the most common fauna occurring in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies

ecoregion are opportunistic and are capable of survival in a variety of habitats. The primary

habitat types crossed by the proposed Pipeline Lateral are pasture or agriculture, forested

upland and wetland areas, low-density residential, and industrial. Table 3-9 provides a

summary of the fauna in the ecoregion that may utilize these habitat types.

Topical 328
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-17

TABLE 3-9

Common Fauna in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Ecoregion

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Common Name Scientific Name Group

White-tailed deer Odicoileus virginianus Mammal

Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis Mammal

Raccoon Procyon lotor Mammal

Bobcat Lynx rufus Mammal

Skunk Spilogale sp. and Mephitis sp. Mammal

Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus Mammal

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Avian

Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Avian

Bobwhite quail Colinus virginianus Avian

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Avian

Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Avian

Green heron Butorides virescens Avian

Copperhead snake Agkistrodon sp. Reptile

Diamondback rattlesnake Crotalus sp. Reptile

Box turtle Terrapene sp. Reptile

Texas salamander Eurycea neotenes Amphibian

Great plains narrow-mouthed toad Gastrophryne olivacea Amphibian

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Amphibian

3.4.2 Aquatic Ecology

The primary aquatic features crossed by the proposed Pipeline Lateral are an unnamed

tributary to Choupique Bayou and Little Bayou d’Inde. The unnamed tributary to Choupique

Bayou is channelized through a pasture/agricultural area and likely provides limited habitat

value to aquatic species. Little Bayou d’Inde is a headwater of Bayou d’Inde that originates

west of Sulphur City near the Interstate 10 bridge. Little Bayou d’Inde flows primarily eastnortheast to Bayou d’Inde, then east to the Calcasieu River Ship Channel southwest of Coon

Island (LDEQ, 2010a). The Calcasieu River Ship Channel flows generally south to Calcasieu

Lake, which flows through a series of levees and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico.

Common fish species that are likely to occur in reservoirs, streams, and ponds within the

Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies ecoregion are summarized in Table 3-10.

Topical 329
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-18

TABLE 3-10

Fish Species Potentially Occurring in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies Ecoregion

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Common Name Scientific Name

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops

Red-eared sunfish Lepomis microlophus

3.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

Four species listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS are shown by the Louisiana

Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) as potentially occurring in Calcasieu Parish (LNHP,

2008; NatureServe, 2010). The four species, current listing status, preferred habitat

requirements, and potential for impacts to the species during construction and operation are

summarized in Table 3-11.

TABLE 3-11

Federal and State Listed Species Potentially Occurring in Calcasieu Parish

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Common

Name

Scientific

Name

State

Status (1)

Federal

Status (1) Preferred Habitat Potential ProjectImpacts

Red wolf Canis rufus -- Endangered

(Presumed

Extirpated in

Louisiana)

Upland and lowland

forests, shrublands,

and coastal prairies

and marshes; areas

with heavy

vegetative cover.

Suitable habitat is

likely not present along

the Pipeline Lateral

ROW.

Crested

caracara

Caracara

cheriway

-- Threatened Open country,

including

pastureland, and

cultivated areas.

Negligible to minor

impacts. Field

verification of pasture

and cultivated lands

along ROW needed to

determine suitability.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus

leucocephalus

Endangered -- Nests and winters

near rivers, lakes

and along coasts;

nests in tall trees or

on cliffs near large

bodies of water.

Suitable habitat is

likely not present along

the Pipeline Lateral

ROW.

Redcockaded

woodpecker

Picoides

borealis

Endangered Endangered Prefers old-growth,

fire-maintained pine

woodlands with little

to no mid-story.

Ground cover

typically contains

grasses and shrubs.

Suitable habitat is

likely not present along

the Pipeline Lateral

ROW.

Source: LNHP, 2008 and NatureServe, 2010

Topical 330
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-19

3.5 Solid Waste Disposal

A description of existing general waste as well as existing solid and hazardous waste sites in

the vicinity of the proposed Pipeline Lateral are presented below.

3.5.1 General Waste

Denbury is not aware of any solid waste or other debris along the Pipeline Lateral that

would require removal prior to construction activities. The construction of the proposed

Pipeline Lateral is anticipated to generate waste primarily consisting of non-hazardous

solids such as timber cleared from the ROW, construction mats and scrap, packaging

materials, and general refuse (e.g., trailer office materials and debris from employees).

3.5.2 Known Hazardous Waste Sites

A review of the LDEQ database was conducted to identify known hazardous waste sites

within a two mile area of the Pipeline Lateral. LDEQ regulates and manages solid waste

facilities, federal and state-listed superfund sites, and remediation sites in Louisiana (LDEQ,

2010b).

No municipal solid waste facilities are located within two miles of the proposed Denbury

Lake Charles Project area.

LDEQ documents sites in Louisiana that have been designated as state or federal Superfund

sites, including sites that have been removed from the cleanup list since designation. Four

EPA regulated sites are located within 2 miles of the Pipeline Lateral, all of which are Toxics

Release Inventory (TRI) sites. The TRI Program is administered by the EPA Emergency

Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) under Section 313 of EPCRA, which

requires EPA and individual states to annually collect data on releases and transfers of

certain toxic chemicals from industrial facilities, and make these data available to the public

in the TRI program (EPA, 2010c). The four regulated sites are: Basell USA Inc. Lake Charles

Plant, Equistar Chemicals Lake Charles Plant, and two separate sites within Millennium

Power facilities. All four sites are located in the Calcasieu River Ship Channel industrial area.

3.6 Land Use

Characterization of land use in the area of the Pipeline Lateral was based on Multi

Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001) data. The Pipeline Lateral extends along

existing ROW corridors for most of the route. Surrounding land use is primarily comprised

of developed industrial and residential areas (approximate MP 0.0 to MP 5.7), forested

upland and wetland areas (approximate MP 5.7 to MP 9.6), and pasture/agriculture areas

(approximate MP 9.6 to MP 12.2). No significant landforms (e.g., waterfalls or runoff areas),

public lands, or other protected natural areas are crossed by the Pipeline Lateral. Figure 3-7

depicts the areal extent of the land uses near the Pipeline Lateral.

Pipeline and energy infrastructure are abundant throughout the area of the Pipeline Lateral,

with crude oil, natural gas, refined products, and petrochemical pipelines traversing the

Lake Charles industrial area near the beginning of the proposed Pipeline Lateral. Existing

utility corridors in the vicinity of the Project are depicted as Figure 3-8.

Topical 331
Proposed Alignment

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Proposed Contractor Yard

Proposed Valve Site

Proposed Meter Site

NHD Wetland

Land Use

Open Water 

Developed, Open Space 

Developed, Low Intensity 

Developed, Medium Intensity

Developed, High Intensity 

Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) 

Deciduous Forest 

Evergreen Forest 

Mixed Forest 

Shrub/Scrub 

Grassland/Herbaceous 

Pasture/Hay 

Cultivated Crops 

Woody Wetlands 

Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands 

Figure 3-7

Existing Land Use Map

Proposed denbury CO2 Pipeline

0 0.5 1 0.25 Calcaseiu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\LANDUSE.MXD EKLEIN 2/25/2010 16:17:58

Source:

Land Use - Multi Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001

Topical 332
Qtp

Qal

Water

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Proposed Contractor Yard

Rock Unit Name

Qal - Alluvium

Qtp - Prairie Terraces

Wa - Water

Figure 3-8

General Geology Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

0 0.5 1 0.25 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\GEOLOGY.MXD EKLEIN 2/18/2010 13:43:44

Source:

General Geology - Louisiana Geological Survey, 1998

Topical 333
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-22

The Coushatta Reservation is the nearest of the four federally recognized Native American

tribes in Louisiana, located approximately 30 miles northeast of the Pipeline Lateral. No

historically significant resources have been previously documented within the area of

potential effect (APE) (National Register of Historic Places, 2010; Louisiana Cultural

Resources Map, 2010). A description of tribal lands and historical resources in the vicinity of

the Pipeline Lateral is provided in Section 3.8.

Four EPA listed hazardous waste sites are located within 0.25 mile of the Pipeline Lateral.

None of these four sites are crossed by the proposed Pipeline Lateral ROW. Section 3.5

provides a description of the EPA listed sites in the vicinity of the Pipeline Lateral (EPA,

2010b).

3.7 Geology and Soils

This section discusses the geology, seismology, and soils (including problem soils) located

in the area of the Pipeline Lateral.

3.7.1 Geology

The proposed Pipeline Lateral is located within the West Gulf Coastal Plain Section of the

Coastal Plain Physiographic Province (LGS, 2010). This region is comprised of a thin strip of

land along the Gulf of Mexico that developed through alluvial deposits over the last two

million years with a cap of mixed loess and alluvium derived from the flood plain along the

Mississippi River (USGS, 2010a).

The majority of the Pipeline Lateral is within the Prairie Terraces (Qtp) unit, which is the

youngest terrace in Southeast Louisiana and the first Pleistocene formation beneath the

Holocene deltaic plain (Autin et al., 1991). The Prairie Terrace unit has low relief with

elevations generally ranging from sea level to approximately 15 feet AMSL in the area of the

Pipeline Lateral. The eastern-most portion of the Pipeline Lateral is within the Alluvium

(Qal) unit associated with the Calcasieu River. Geologic mapping depicting the near-surface

geology in the area is included as Figure 3-9.

The Pipeline Lateral area is underlain by Quaternary (late Pleistocene) alluvial and deltaic

sand, silt, clay, and gravel that are generally not susceptible to dissolution associated with

karst development. The USGS Earthquake Hazards Program classifies seismic hazard levels

based on historical earthquake locations and recurrence rates of ground ruptures. The area

is located within a Seismic Zone 0, which is the least likely classification for seismic activity.

Calcasieu Parish is rated by the USGS as having a 1.483 percent peak acceleration (%g) with

a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (USGS, 2010b).

No rare geologic formations or protected aquifers are located in the vicinity of the Pipeline

Lateral.

Topical 334
Gy

Mt

Ju

Mt

Lt

Kd

Mt

Gy

Up

Mt

Cr

Mr

Kd

Lt

Mt

Kd

Lt

Lt

Lt

Gy

Kd

Mt

Mt

Mr

W

Mr

Kd

Cr

Lt

Gy

Cr

Gy

Kd

Cr

Kd

Cr

Kd

Ac

Kd

Mr

W

Cr

Lt

Mt

Mt

Mr

Lt

Mr

Mt

Cr

Cr

Dm

Mr

Gy

Mr

W

Cr

Ac

Mr

W

Mr

Lt

Kd

Gy

Cr

CO

Mt Gy

W

Pt

W

BB

Lt

Ac

Cr BB

Kd

Lt

Cr

BB

BB

CO

Cr

W

Mt

Mt

Lt

Cr

Kd

UA

Mt

Lt

Mn

Cr

Go

Mr

Kd

Mr

Cr

BB

Cr

BB

Cr

AN

BB

W

Ac

CO

W

Kd

Cr

Mr

Mr

BB

Cr

Mt Go

W

Vn

Mr

Lt

Mr

Ac

Cr

Mt

Cr

Mr

CO

W

Mt

Go

Cr

Kd

Cr

Mr

Cr

W

W

W

W

BB

Ac

W

W

W

Gy

W

W

Up W

W

W

W

Mt

W

W

W

Ac

W

W

W

W

W

BB

W

W W

W

W

W

W

CO

W

W

W

W

Mt

W

W

CO

W

W

Dm

W

Go

W

W

W

W

W

W

Gy

CO

W

W

W

W

W

BB

CO

W

Mr

W

W

CO

Cr

W

W

CO

W W

BB

W

CO

W

W

W

CO

W

W W

W

W

W

W

W

W

BB

W

W

W

W

Mr

W

W

BB

W

W

W

W

W

W

CO

W

W

W

W

CO

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

CO

W

CO

W

W

W

W

W

CO

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

CO

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

W

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Proposed Contractor Yard

Prime Farmland/Not Highly Erodible

Prime Farmland/Potentially Highly Erodible

Not Prime Farmland/Not Highly Erodible

Not Prime Farmland/Potentially Highly Erodible

 Figure 3-9

Soils Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

Calcaseiu Parish, Louisiana

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Source:

Soils -USDA/NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\SOILS.MXD DDICKMA1 2/18/2010

Topical 335
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-24

3.7.2 Soils

The Pipeline Lateral is located within the Gulf Coast Prairies Major Land Resource Area

(MLRA), as classified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS, 2009).

Dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Alfisols, Entisols, and Ultisols formed in alluvium

on flood plains, in depressions, and on terraces. They dominantly have a thermic soil

temperature regime, an aquic or udic soil moisture regime, and siliceous, mixed, or smectitic

mineralogy. A summary of soil series characteristics within the Pipeline Lateral construction

boundaries is provided in Table 3-12. Soil mapping depicting soil map units is provided as

Figure 3-10.

Approximately 176.6 acres within the boundaries of the Pipeline Lateral construction area

are classified as prime farmland soils by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Soils

classified as prime farmland have a combination of physical and chemical characteristics

that are highly suitable for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops (7 CFR §

657.5(a)). Soils classified as unique farmland by the USDA are those lands other than prime

farmland that are used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops (7 CFR

§ 657.5(b)). No soils within the Pipeline Lateral construction boundaries are classified by the

USDA as unique farmland. Soils of statewide importance, as classified by the USDA, are

those that are nearly prime farmland and economically produce high yields of crops when

treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods (7 CFR § 657.5(c)). No soils

within the Pipeline Lateral construction boundaries are classified by the USDA as soils of

statewide importance.

All of the soils within the Pipeline Lateral construction boundaries are rated as not highly

erodible by the NRCS following the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). A USLE rating for

a given soil is calculated based on average rainfall, general soil characteristics, and length

and steepness of slope for a given area (7 CFR § 610). The USLE is calculated without

consideration of conservation practices, which can significantly decrease the actual erosion

potential. Soils generally have increased erosion potential when exposed, excavated, or

stockpiled.

NRCS hydric soils lists are intended to identify soil series that have the potential to include

hydric soils based on estimated properties (e.g., permeability and estimated water table

depth). Field assessments, such as the documentation of contemporary soil redoximorphic

features or in situ oxidation-reduction monitoring, are necessary to verify the hydric status

of soils. Most of the soils within the Pipeline Lateral construction boundaries are classified

as having hydric or partial hydric soils. Hydric soil assessments would be conducted during

field surveys to confirm the presence or absence of hydric soils.

Topical 336
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-25

TABLE 3-12

Soil Series Properties

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Soil Series Taxonomic Class Drainage Hydric

Listing

Prime

Farmland

Erosion

Potential

Impact Acres

Construction Permanent TOTAL

Basile and Guyton silt

loams, frequently flooded Typic Glossaqualfs Poorly Drained / VeryPoorly Drained

Partially

Hydric No Not HighlyErodible 0.9 0.9 1.8

Crowley-Vidrine silt loams Typic Albaqualfs /

Aquic Glossudalfs

Somewhat Poorly

Drained / Moderately

Well Drained

Not

Hydric Yes Not HighlyErodible 9.2 50.5 59.6

Guyton-Messer silt loams Haplic Glossudalfs Moderately Well

Drained

Partially

Hydric Yes Not HighlyErodible 26.0 24.3 50.3

Judice silty clay loam Typic Epiaquerts Poorly Drained Hydric Yes Not Highly

Erodible 8.4 8.6 16.9

Kinder-Messer silt loams Typic Glossaqualfs /

Haplic Glossudalfs

Poorly Drained /

Moderately Well

Drained

Partially

Hydric Yes Not HighlyErodible 1.9 2.4 4.3

Morey loam Oxyaquic Argiudolls Somewhat Poorly

Drained

Not

Hydric Yes Not HighlyErodible 6.4 5.7 12.1

Mowata-Vidrine silt loams Typic Glossaqualfs /

Aquic Glossudalfs

Poorly Drained /

Moderately Well

Drained

Partially

Hydric Yes Not HighlyErodible 15.1 18.2 33.4

Urban land -- -- -- -- -- 4.2 4.1 8.4

(Water) -- -- -- -- -- 0.3 0.2 0.5

TOTAL 72.3 114.9 187.2

Topical 337
Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

1/4 Mile Buffer of Disturbance Limits

Proposed Contractor Yard

Day Care Facility

School

Hospital

Adult Care Facility

Child Care Facilities

Church

Figure 3-10

Public Resources

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

012 0.5 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\RECEPTORS.MXD EKLEIN 2/15/2010 12:20:39

Source:

Day Care Facilities - LA Department of Social Services, 2006

Child and Adult Care Facilities and Hospitals - LA Department of Health and Hospitals, 2006 and 2007

Schools - LA Department of Education, 2007

Churches - US Census Bureau, 2000

Topical 338
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-27

3.8 Cultural and Archaeological Resources

Cultural resources are structures, buildings, archaeological sites, districts (a collection of

related structures, buildings, and/or archaeological sites), cemeteries, objects, or religious

sites of importance to Native American cultures. Both federal and state laws require

consideration of cultural resources during project planning. At the federal level, the NEPA

of 1969, and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, among others, requires

federal agencies to consult with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and

interested Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPO) in order to identify potential

significant cultural resources.

Within this section, the terms “significant” and “significance” are used in the context of

NEPA and NHPA. When referring to structures, objects, or artifacts, the terms are used as

defined in 36 CFR Part 800 for NHPA. When referring to impacts, the terms are applied

relative to their meaning under NEPA.

Regulations implementing Section 106 of NHPA, 36 CFR Part 800.8, encourage the

coordination of two processes: (1) review of possible impacts to the environment under

NEPA and (2) assessment of effects of undertakings required under NHPA. It is the intent of

Denbury that this EIV support both of these independent reviews.

3.8.1 Native American Tribal and Religious Practices

The four federally recognized Native American tribes in Louisiana are the Chitimacha Tribe

of Louisiana, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, and TunicaBiloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana (National Conference of State Legislatures [NCSL], 2010).

Based upon readily available information, the Coushatta Reservation, approximately 30

miles northeast of the Pipeline Lateral, is the location of the nearest tribe. . Formal

consultation with the THPO will be required to determine if any tribal lands, religious or

ceremonial grounds exist near or adjacent to the Pipeline Lateral.

3.8.2 Historic Areas

Cultural resources that would be potentially impacted by the proposed action include

historical properties and archaeological resources. In order to determine potential effects, an

APE is delineated for purposes of compliance with Section 106 of NHPA and includes the

area of disturbance and all adjacent areas where direct effects of the construction might

affect archaeological resources. The APE also includes adjacent areas where the setting of

existing historic structures may be visually and structurally affected as a result of

construction. Consultation with the SHPO will be required to determine the APE for the

Pipeline Lateral; however, it is anticipated that the APE would cover the area to be affected

by construction which would be a 95-foot ROW width (50-foot permanent ROW and 45-foot

construction ROW) that would extend along the entire length of the proposed pipeline

corridor. Formal consultation with the SHPO will be required to determine if any cultural

resources exist near or adjacent to the Pipeline Lateral.

Topical 339
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-28

3.9 Noise

3.9.1 Affected Environment

For determination of impacts to human receptors, noise measurements are weighted to

increase the contribution of noises within the normal range of human hearing and decrease

the contribution of noises outside that range. Human hearing is best approximated by using

an A-weighted decibel scale (dBA). When sound pressure doubles, the dBA level increases

by 3 (The Engineering Toolbox, 2007). Psychologically, most humans perceive a doubling of

sound as an increase of 10 dBA (USEPA, 1974). Sound pressure decreases with distance

from the source. Typically, the sound measured from a point source decreases at a rate of

6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source and sound from a continuous source

decreases at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. However, factors such

as the ground type, atmospheric conditions, and shielding by vegetation and structures

further affect the amount of decrease in sound over distance (Federal Highway

Administration [FHWA], 2007). Construction areas typically act as continuous sources of

noise.

Noise levels are often expressed as Ldn, which is the dBA sound level over a 24-hour day

and night period. The Ldn also applies a 10-dBA penalty to nighttime sounds occurring

between 10 PM and 7 AM to account for the desirability of a quieter night than day in order

to avoid sleep interruption. A noise level considered low is less than 45 dBA, a moderate

noise level is 45 to 60 dBA, and a high noise level is above 60 dBA. In busy urban areas,

noise levels are typically near 75 dBA, and can reach 85 dBA near airports and major

freeways (California State Lands Commission, 2005). Sound levels in rural residential areas

typically average 40 dBA. In business and commercial areas, sound levels typically range

from 50 dBA to 60 dBA (The Engineering Toolbox, 2007).

Existing noise levels along the proposed route would be expected to range from

approximately 45 dBA in the undeveloped and agricultural portions of the route to

approximately 75 dBA when passing through heavily industrialized areas. The areas that

contain potential residential receptors would be expected to have existing noise levels of

approximately 60 dBA due to proximity to the industrial areas.

3.10 Socioeconomics

The proposed Pipeline Lateral is located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, which had an

estimated population of 184,431 in 2008 (United States Census Bureau [USCB], 2000a). The

urban areas within two miles of the proposed Pipeline Lateral corridor include Sulphur to

the northeast and Carlyss to the southeast. Both cities fall within the Lake Charles

metropolitan statistical area (MSA). An MSA is a core-based statistical area associated with

at least one urban cluster that has a population of more than 50,000 (BEA, 2010). The direct

ROI is defined as the Lake Charles MSA and Calcasieu Parish since those areas have the

potential to be directly impacted by construction. Louisiana and the United States are the

reference areas and are used as the basis of comparison. The socioeconomic indicators

summarized in this section of the EIV include population and race, employment, housing,

and environmental justice. The project from a construction, surveying and inspection point

of view, will infuse approximately $3,800,000 into the local economy.

Topical 340
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-29

3.10.1 Population and Race

The estimated population for Lake Charles and the State of Louisiana has decreased

between 2000 and 2008, while the estimated population of Calcasieu Parish and the United

States has increased. Construction personnel may become temporary residents in the ROI

and the reference areas. Table 3-13 summarizes recent and estimated populations for the

ROI (where available), State of Louisiana, and the United States.

TABLE 3-13

Population Statistics in the ROI and Reference Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographical Area 2000 Population Estimated 2008 Population

Lake Charles MSA 71,757 67,631

Calcasieu Parish 183,577 185,618

State of Louisiana 4,468,968 4,410,796

United States 281,424,602 304,059,724

Source: USCB 2000a, USCB 2000b, USCB 2008a, USCB 2008b, USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d, USCB 2000c

Table 3-14 summarizes the population by race for the ROI, state of Louisiana, and the

United States. Within the Lake Charles MSA, the majority of the population is of a “White

alone” race (73 percent), followed by “Black/African American alone” (23 percent). Other

races comprise the remaining population (4 percent).

TABLE 3-14

Population by Race in the ROI and Referenced Areas (2008)

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Race

Calcasieu

Parish Louisiana United States

White alone 133,677 2,794,194 223,965,009

Black/African American

alone

44,631 1,366,990 37,131,771

American Indian and Alaska

Native

783 24,951 2,419,985

Asian alone 1,399 62,295 13,164,169

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander alone

22 1,139 446,164

Some other race alone 1,311 42,925 17,538,990

Two or more races 2,608 50,088 6,571,705

Of Hispanic/Latino Origin 3,711 140,640 45,432,158

Total Population 185,618 4,410,796 304,059,724

USBC 2008a, USBC 2008b, USBC 2008c, USBC 2008d

3.10.2 Employment

Total employment for the Lake Charles MSA and reference areas are show in Table 3-15.

Employment numbers are based on estimates of the number of jobs, full-time plus part-time,

Topical 341
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-30

and by place of work. Full-time and part-time jobs are counted as equal weight. Unpaid

family workers and volunteers are not included in these totals. Total employment remained

the same between 2008 and 2009 in the MSA, but decreased in both the state of Louisiana

and the United States over that period of time.

TABLE 3-15

Total Employment in the ROI and Reference Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographic Area 2008 Employment Dec 2009 Employment

Lake Charles MSA 87,005 87,700

Calcasieu Parish 83,564 N/A

Louisiana 1,908,974 1,889,600

United States 143,195,793 130,912,000

Notes:

Source: USC 2008a, USCB 200b, USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d, BLS 2010

The labor force for the area consists of individuals 16 years of age or older who are either

employed or available for employment. The labor force is used to calculate the

unemployment rate or percentage of unemployment members of the labor force. From 2008

to December 2009, the labor force increased in the Lake Charles MSA as well as the nation,

but decreased in the state (Table 3-16). In December 2009, Lake Charles had an

unemployment rate of 6.9 percent, 7.5 percent for the state of Louisiana, and 10 percent for

the nation.

TABLE 3-16

Unemployment Status for the ROI and Reference Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographic Area 2000 Labor Force Dec. 2009 Labor Force

Dec. 2009 Unemployment

Rate

Lake Charles MSA 89,910 94,100 6.9%

Calcasieu Parish N/A N/A N/A

Louisiana 9,937,1250 2,049,800 7.5%

United States 138,820,935 153,989,802 10.0%

Source: USCB 2000a; USCB 2000b, USCB 2000d, BLS 2010.

Per capita income represents the total earnings of a given labor force divided by its number

of individuals over a year and can be used to compare areas economically. The Lake

Charles MSA, Calcasieu Parish and the State of Louisiana have lower per capita income than

the United States, but income in Lake Charles and Calcasieu Parish is slightly higher than

per capita income in the state of Louisiana (Table 3-17).

Topical 342
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-31

TABLE 3-17

Per Capital Income for ROI and Reference Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographical Area

2000 Per Capita Income

($)

2008 Per Capita Income

($)

Lake Charles MSA 17,922 23,970

Calcasieu Parish 17,710 23,777

Louisiana 16,912 22,488

United States 21,587 39,582

USCB 2000a, USCB 2000b, USCB 2000c, USCB 2000d, USCB 2008a, USCB 2008b, USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d

3.10.3 Housing

The city of Lake Charles is the nearest urban areas within a five-mile radius of the proposed

area of the Pipeline Lateral. The 2000 Census data was used for comparison of housing data

for the ROI (Table 3-18). There is a total vacancy rate of 16.4% in Lake Charles, compared to

11.6% in Calcasieu Parish.

TABLE 3-18

Housing for the ROI and References Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographical Area

Total Housing

Units

Total Housing Units

Available

Total Vacancy Rate

(%)

Lake Charles 33,296 5,448 16.4

Calcasieu Parish 82,032 9,541 11.6

Source: USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d

3.10.4 Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulation, and policies (Council

on Environmental Quality [CEQ], 1997). “Fair treatment” means that no group, including

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic groups, should bear a disproportionate share of the adverse

environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, or commercial operations

or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.

In 1994, Executive Order 12898 was issued to focus on environmental and human health

conditions in minority and low-income communities. This Order requires federal agencies

to achieve environmental justice “to the greatest extent practicable” by identifying and

addressing “disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental effects

of....activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” The CEQ has issued

guidance to federal agencies to assist them with their NEPA procedures so that EJ concerns

are effectively identified and addressed (CEQ, 1997).

For the purpose of this analysis, the Environmental Justice Study Area is defined as the

proposed Project area and its immediate vicinity including the Lake Charles MSA and

Topical 343
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-32

Calcasieu Parish. The state of Louisiana and the United States are the reference populations

and are used as the basis of comparison.

The percentage of the population living below the poverty level within the Pipeline Lateral

area ranges between 15.8 percent in the Lake Charles MSA and 15.9 percent in Calcasieu

Parish (Table 3-19). The percent of the population living in poverty in the State of Louisiana

and the United States is 18.5 percent and 13.2 percent, respectively.

TABLE 3-19

Populations Living Below the Poverty Level by Race within the Referenced Areas

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Race Lake Charles

MSA

Calcasieu

Parish

Louisiana United States

White alone 139,939 133,677 2,794,194 223,965,009

Black/African American

alone

44,677 44,631 1,366,990 37,131,771

American Indian and Alaska

Native

798 783 24,951 2,419,985

Asian alone 1,420 1,399 62,295 13,164,169

Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander alone

22 22 1,139 446,164

Some other race alone 1,311 1,311 42,925 17,538,990

Two or more races 2,654 2,608 50,088 6,571,705

Of Hispanic/Latino Origina3,764 3,711 140,640 45,432,158

Total Population 190,821 184,431 4,342,582 301,237,703

Percent Minority Population 26.9% 27.8% 35.8% 26.1%

Percent Hispanic Population 2% 2.0% 3.2% 15.1%

Income Below Poverty

Level

Percent of population below

poverty level

15.8% 15.9% 18.5% 13.2%

Source: USCB 2008a, USCB 2008b, USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks, which requires federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess

environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children and

ensure that policies, programs, and standards address disproportionate risks to children

that result from environmental health and safety risks.

Within the Pipeline Lateral area, the percent of the population below 18 years of age is

between 25.2 and 25.7 percent. This percentage is comparable with the state of Louisiana

and the United States (Table 3-20).

Topical 344
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-33

TABLE 3-20

Percentage of Population Under age 18 in Referenced Area

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Geographic Area Lake Charles MSA Calcasieu Parish Louisiana United States

Total Population 67,361 185,618 4,410,796 304,059,724

Percent of population under

the age of 18

25.2% 25.7% 25.1% 24.3%

Source: USCB 2008a, USCB 2008b, USCB 2008c, USCB 2008d

3.11 Public Resources

Figure 3-11 depicts the locations of public resources, including fire, police, schools, and

emergency services in the vicinity of the Pipeline Lateral.

The Sulphur Fire Department and Sulphur Police Department are located approximately

1.5 miles northeast of the Pipeline Lateral. The nearest emergency services provider is the

West Calcasieu Cameron Hospital, located approximately 1.9 miles east of the Pipeline

Lateral. Several schools, including W. T. Henning Elementary School, Frasch Elementary

School, W.W. Lewis Middle School, Sulphur High School, and Richard W. Vincent

Elementary School, are located between 1.5 and 2.0 miles from the proposed Pipeline

Lateral.

3.12 Transportation

The proposed Pipeline Lateral will be accessed primarily through the use of interstate, state,

county, and local roads, and existing ROW corridor access roads. Interstate 10, Highway 90,

State Road 27, and State Road 108 provide access to the area of the Pipeline Lateral. Local

roads and existing ROW access roads provide construction and operation access throughout

the length of the pipeline corridor. A tabular summary of the major roadways in the vicinity

of the Pipeline Lateral and annual average daily traffic (AADT) count stations maintained

by the LA DOTD is provided in Table 3-21. The AADT for the remaining roads in the area are

not available but are considered to be significantly less than the AADT for the major

roadways.

TABLE 3-21

Major Roadways and Average Daily Traffic in the Vicinity of the Pipeline Lateral

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Road Name Average Daily Traffic LDOTD Station ID / Count Year

Interstate 10 37,860 (Road Milepost 20.11) 240220 / 2007

Highway 90 West 6,744 (Road Milepost 20.73) 240320 / 2007

State Road 27 15,960 (Road Milepost 1.75) 240160 / 2007

State Road 108 12,981 (Road Milepost 28.22) 240200 / 2007

Source: LA DOTD, 2010

Topical 345
Frasch

Golf

Course

Bayou Oaks

Country Club

Proposed Alignment

Proposed Meter Site

Proposed Valve Site

Proposed Contractor Yard

1 Mile Buffer

Recreation Areas

Figure 3-11

Recreation Areas Map

Proposed Denbury CO2 Pipeline

012 0.5 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana

Miles

 \\GALILEO\PROJ\DENBURY_LAKE_CHARLES\MAPFILES\RECREATION.MXD JMINIX 2/15/2010 14:58:23

Source:

recreation Facilities - US Census Bureau, 2000

Basemap - ArcGIS Online, 2010

Topical 346
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-35

The proposed Pipeline Lateral crosses, then parallels Union Pacific railroad corridors from

approximate MP 1.7 to MP 2.7 and from approximate MP 8.1 to MP 10.2. Two additional

crossings of Union Pacific spurs through the Calcasieu River Ship Channel industrial area

occur at approximate MP 1.4 and MP 1.7.

The Pipeline Lateral is proposed to begin near the Calcasieu River Ship Channel. The ship

channel is approximately 40 feet deep by 400 feet wide (USACE, 2010), providing potential

barge access to the area as needed.

3.13 Visual

Land use in the area of the Pipeline Lateral consists primarily of industry, low density

development, agricultural/pasture lands, wooded lots and open spaces. The area is

traversed by several pipelines, transmission lines, canals, roadways, and rail lines. The

majority of the Pipeline Lateral route will be adjacent to existing linear ROW such as

railroads, canals, roadways, transmission lines and other pipelines.

There are no National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, publicly owned lands, recreational

areas, schools, hospitals, or churches are located within 1 mile of the proposed Pipeline

Lateral (LDSS, 2006; LDHH, 2006 and 2007; LDOE, 2007).

Major roads in the vicinity of the Pipeline Lateral include Interstate 10, Highway 90, County

Road 27, and County Road 108 - none of which are considered scenic highways in Calcasieu

Parish according to the National Scenic Byways Program (2010).

Of the 15 water bodies crossed by the proposed Pipeline Lateral, none are designated by the

Wild and Scenic Rivers Council (WSRC) as being a National Wild and Scenic River (WSRC,

2010).

3.14 Occupational Safety and Health

Denbury implements a company-wide Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE)

Management Program. These initiatives are communicated to employees through new

employee orientations, formal training programs, regularly scheduled safety meetings and

field visits by HSE staff. Routine audits are conducted to document compliance with federal,

state and local regulations and with company policies and procedures. Details of the HSE

program are provided in the following section.

3.14.1 Construction

Construction sites are classified as high-risk environments due to the health and safety risks

that are present onsite, including noise hazards; biological hazards; slip, trip, and fall

hazards; electrocution; construction equipment hazards; and potential exposure to

hazardous materials or extreme weather conditions. The construction activities of the

proposed Pipeline Lateral include, but are not limited to: clearing and grading, trenching,

welding, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, and cleanup. Equipment that may pose hazards

include: track hoes/back hoes, trench safety equipment, forklifts, dump trucks, water

tankers, compaction equipment, electrical equipment dozers, cranes, welding equipment,

and graders. Denbury would mitigate these risks through compliance with Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards including Title 29 of the Code of

Topical 347
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-36

Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1926, Safety and Health Standards for Construction),

applicable state and local labor laws, and through good business practices (OSHA, 2010).

3.14.2 Operations

The DOT, PHMSA maintains the authority to regulate interstate carbon dioxide pipelines

under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979, and PHMSA regulates the design,

construction, operation, maintenance, and spill response planning for regulated pipelines.

Denbury’s operational goals, as outlined below, include a strong commitment to health,

safety and environmental performance:

 Comply with all pertinent environmental and safety regulations and requirements;.

 Set HSE targets and goals annually to measure our performance, to achieve superior

results and continually improve.

 Monitor, revise and re-employ safety systems and environmental assessments on a

regular basis.

 Provide education and training to our employees in order for them to have the

knowledge, skills, and understanding to perform their responsibilities and duties at the

highest level.

Denbury measures and regularly communicates its progress towards these goals by tracking

four “Key Performance Indicators” (KPI)—safety, spill prevention, training, and regulatory

compliance. Performance towards these targets is also assessed annually as part of its

employee compensation package.

3.14.2.1 Safety

Safety is the first metric against which Denbury measures its operational HSE goals.

Through June 30, 2009, Denbury had a Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) of 1.43, the

lowest rate measured in the company’s last three years (Figure 3-12). The TRIR is the rate at

which the total number of OSHA recordable incidents occurs for every 200,000 hours

worked. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has provided the most recent data for

occupational injuries and illnesses in 2007. The oil and gas extraction sector had an average

TRIR of 1.7 in 2007 (BLS, 2007). Denbury exceeded this rate in 2007 but has lowered its TRIR

each year.

Of these incidents, there are cases that resulted in days away from work, restricted duty, or

job transfer. According to BLS, the oil and gas extraction sector had a rate of 1.2 for such

occupational injuries and illnesses (BLS, 2007). Denbury was significantly below this rate in

2007 with a rate of 0.28; furthermore, Denbury has maintained a rate lower than this

industry average through 2009.

Topical 348
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-37

FIGURE 3-12

Denbury’s Total Recordable Incident Rate as Compared to Oil and

Gas Extraction Sector Industry Average

Source: Denbury, 2010

3.14.2.2 Spill Prevention

Spill prevention is the second metric against which Denbury measures its operational HSE

goals. Denbury strives to reduce and prevent spills and releases in the fields in which they

operate. The spill prevention program incorporates employee training, management

supervision, improvements in operating procedures, and new investments in technology

and equipment. The implementation of this program has seen marked achievement in

reducing and preventing spills and releases from 2007. From 2007 to 2008 alone, Denbury

improved 84 percent in its release volume (barrels) to million barrels produced ratio.

Excluding two large well control events at Eucutta and Smithdale Fields, Denbury still

maintained an improvement of 32 percent. Denbury’s response to the well control event at

Smithdale Field has been utilized by both the EPA and the Mississippi Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) as a case study in lessons learned on effective response

procedures. Denbury briefed federal on-scene coordinators and emergency response

officials.

Denbury maintains a company-wide Emergency Response Plan to cover various emergency

events such as spill response, well control events, natural disasters, fire, and pandemics.

Field locations also maintain site-specific emergency response procedures for these events

such as Facility Response Plans. Additionally, SPCC Plans are prepared and updated at the

field locations as applicable.

3.14.2.3 Employee Training

Employee training is the third metric against which Denbury measures its operational HSE

goals. Denbury implements a company-wide comprehensive training program covering

HSE matters, including job-specific and productivity training. The HSE training comprises

Topical 349
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 3-38

computer-based, classroom and field training exercises. Some examples of required training

for field personnel are listed below:

 Accident Prevention

 Asbestos Awareness

 Confined Space Entry

 Electrical Safety

 Fire

 Forklift Safety

 Hazard Communications

 Hazwoper Awareness

 Hearing Conservation

 Lockout/Tagout Authorization

 Personal Protective

 Respiratory Protection

 Safety Overview

 Small Spills

 Workplace Emergencies

 Workplace Violence

3.14.2.4 Regulatory Compliance

Regulatory compliance is the fourth metric against which Denbury measures its operational

HSE goals. Denbury strives to achieve full regulatory compliance with applicable federal,

state, and local HSE regulations and to minimize its operational footprint on the

environment. A key component of success with this KPI is conducting routine audits to

identify and generate corrective actions. Denbury often acquires older properties during

expansion of operations, and therefore, is often in the situation of correcting existing

adverse environmental issues while also striving to minimize potential future impacts.

Topical 350
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-1

SECTION 4.0

Environmental Consequences

4.1 Project Area and Topography

The proposed Pipeline Lateral is located entirely within Calcasieu Parish in the

southwestern portion of Louisiana. Specifically, the Pipeline Lateral lies southwest of

Sulphur City, extending from the Calcasieu River Shipping Channel generally northnortheast across Interstate 10 to the interconnect with Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline north

of the intersection of WPA Road and State Highway 90. The Pipeline Lateral begins (MP 0.0)

approximately 4.4 miles southwest of Lake Charles; 8.0 miles north of Lake Calcasieu; and

approximately 30 miles north of the Louisiana Gulf of Mexico coast. An overview map of

the Project area is provided as Figure 2-1.

The Pipeline Lateral’s permanent ROW encompasses 72.32 contiguous acres of land

collocated primarily along existing ROW corridors (e.g., pipeline, railroad, and transmission

line) for most of the route. Surrounding land use is primarily comprised of developed

industrial and residential areas, forested upland and wetlands, and pasture or agriculture.

Topography along the Pipeline Lateral is generally flat with low relief and elevations

generally ranging from sea level to approximately 15 feet AMSL. Low circular mounds and

occasional low coastal ridges and indistinct relict fluvial channels are present throughout

the area of the Pipeline Lateral. A Site Location Map with USGS topographic map

background is provided as Figure 3-1.

4.1.1 Impacts

Potential impacts to topography may occur during construction of the proposed Pipeline

Lateral as a result of land clearing activities and pipeline trenching and installation

activities. Prior to the commencement of pipeline and trenching activities, existing trees and

woody vegetation within the ROW corridor would be removed to facilitate construction

access and safe construction operations. Removal of woody vegetation and root masses is

likely to result in minor and localized temporary disturbances to the land surface. Pipeline

trenching activities will have a direct temporary impact on the surrounding topography as a

trench, approximately five-feet deep, is excavated in preparation for pipeline installation.

Spoil removed from the trench will be stockpiled immediately adjacent to the trench within

the construction ROW then replaced into the trench following pipeline installation.

4.1.2 Mitigative Measures

The Pipeline Lateral ROW will be re-contoured and re-vegetated as near to pre-construction

conditions as is practicable following construction to allow for operational activities.

Adjacent elevations and topography will be referenced to ensure that the ROW contours are

consistent with the surrounding area. Site restoration activities are further discussed in

Section 4.3.1.2. Soil mitigation measures including top soil segregation and erosion and

sedimentation control are discussed in Section 4.6.2.

Topical 351
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-2

4.2 Climate, Meteorology, and Air Quality

4.2.1 Existing Source Emissions

Past air point source emissions from Calcasieu Parish are reported from information

provided by LDEQ. With the exception of ammonia, HAPs, and Urban HAPs which are

reported for 2002, the remaining pollutants in Table 4-1 are reported for 2008.

TABLE 4-1

2008 Calcasieu Parich Point Source Facility Emissions

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Pollutants Total Facility Emissions, tons

CO 9,306

NOx 24,281

Lead (Pb) 0.22

VOC 9,485

SO2 45,530

PM2.5 2,326

PM10 3,137

NH3 94

HAPs 6,763

Urban HAPs 727

Source: EPA, 2010d (from 79 Facilities for NH3, HAPs, and Urban HAPS for 2002)

Remaining pollutant emissions from LDEQ Emission Inventory Data Sets for 2008 from 42 unique facilities

(LEDC, 2010)

4.2.2 Future Air Emission Sources

A search of the TCEQ Web site (TCEQ, 2010c) for pending New Source Review (NSR)

construction permits in Jefferson County identified 10 unique projects at 10 separate

facilities. These projects have the potential to impact future emissions.

4.2.3 Air Permitting and Compliance

The site is located in an ozone attainment area but may become an ozone non-attainment

area with marginal classification in the near future. Most air emissions occur during the

construction phase of the project with only a very small amount, if any, of fugitive emissions

occurring during operation. The construction emissions will have short term, direct impacts

on air quality during periods of construction but are temporary and would cease after

construction ceases. The State of Louisiana has addressed temporary and minor emissions in

its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

The project will not generate routine emissions of air contaminants.

Topical 352
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-3

Preliminary analysis suggests there are no operating permit requirements for this project.

The project is expected to be exempt from permitting requirements through one of the

following:

 Facilities with potential emissions less than 5 tons per year (tpy) of any regulated air

pollutant as defined by the Federal Clean Air Act, less than 15 tpy of all such defined

pollutants combined, and less than the minimum emission rate (MER) for each toxic air

pollutant. See "Act 547" below for more information on this exclusion.

 Small Source Exemptions

If not exempt as described above, a source may still qualify for a small source exemption

under Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.501.B.4.

The owner or operator of any source which is not a major source may apply for an

exemption from permitting requirements provided each of the following criteria is met:

1. The source emits or has the potential to emit no more than 5 tpy of any regulated

pollutant.

2. The source emits or has the potential to emit less than the MER listed in

LAC 33:III.5112, table 51.1, for each Louisiana toxic air pollutant.

3. No enforceable permit conditions are necessary to ensure compliance with any

applicable requirement.

4. No public notice is required for any permitting or other activity at the source.

 Insignificant Activities

The LDEQ has also developed a list of insignificant activities (by size, type of pollutant,

and activity) which are exempt from permitting (LAC 33:III.501.B.5). Note: In order to

claim an activity is exempt pursuant to LAC 33:III.501.B.5.D, see Case By Case

Insignificant Activities. Some examples that could apply to this project:

 Surface-coating of equipment during miscellaneous maintenance and construction

activities, including spray painting, roll-coating and painting with aerosol spray

cans, provided no paint or coating exceeds a maximum 3.5 lb/gal organic toxic air

pollutant listed in LAC 33:III.5112, Table 51.1 or 51.3, and no paint or coating exceeds

any limitations listed in LAC 33:III.2123. This activity specifically does not include

any facility whose primary business activity is surface-coating or includes surfacecoating of products;

 Miscellaneous equipment maintenance or construction unless otherwise regulated

by state or federal regulation, which may include, but is not limited to, such

activities as: welding, steam cleaning, equipment used for hydraulic or hydrostatic

testing, miscellaneous solvent use 1, miscellaneous sandblasting, sweeping, nonasbestos insulation removal, acid washing, caustic washing, water blasting,

application of refractory and insulation, brazing, soldering, the use of adhesives,

grinding, and cutting

 Exhaust emissions or vehicle refueling emissions from cars, trucks, forklifts, courier

vehicles, front-loaders, graders, cranes, carts, maintenance trucks, locomotives,

helicopters, marine vessels, and other self-propelled on-road and non-road mobile

sources unless required to obtain a permit under Title V of the Clean Air Act. This

Topical 353
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-4

exemption does not include any transportable emissions units such as temporary

compressors or boilers, unless regulated by Title II of the Clean Air Act. This

exemption does not cover loading racks or fueling operations covered by

LAC 33:III.Chapter 21

 Miscellaneous additions or upgrades of instrumentation or control systems

 Emissions from oil and gas well and pipeline as defined in accordance with

LAC 33:III.502

Since the project will not generate routine emissions of air contaminants, preliminary

analysis suggests there are no additional regulatory requirements. Some regulations to

review to verify non-applicability are the following:

 The Highly Reactive Volatile Organic Compound (HRVOC, 30 TAC Chapter 115) Rules

apply to HRVOC emitting sources located in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB)

area.

 The CAA Title V Operation Permit (CAA, Title V, 40 CFR Part 70 and 30 TAC Chapter

122) applies to facilities that fall within 40 CFR 70.3 designations.

 Acid Rain Permits (CAA, Title VI, 40 CFR Part 72 and 30 TAC Chapter 122) are

submitted, issued, and monitored by the Title V permitting authority and apply to

combustion units generating SO2 emissions.

 The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) caps emissions of SO2 and NOx in the eastern

United States (including Louisiana). This rule will be replaced but remains active in the

interim.

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs, 40 CFR Part 61,

30 TAC Chapter 113).

 Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, 30 TAC

Chapter 113).

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CFR Part 60, 30 TAC Chapter 116).

These regulations should be reviewed for applicability.

4.2.4 Impacts

4.2.4.1 Project Air Emissions

The bulk of project air emissions will occur during the construction phase and will mostly

comprise PM emissions from dust and combustion emissions from heavy equipment usage.

PM emissions from dust during the construction phase can be estimated using EPA AP-42

emission factors for heavy construction operations (EPA AP-42 Chapter 13.2.3) and are

shown below assuming three months of construction activity across 187 acres (11.6 miles of

pipeline by 95 feet wide).

PM Emissions = (1.2 tons/acre/month) x (3 months activity) x (187 acres) = 673 tons PM

This estimate is conservatively high because it uses a total suspended particulate (TSP)

emission factor and therefore assumes all TSP is PM10, does not account for dust control

Topical 354
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-5

measures (which are typically used or implemented during construction), and assumes

construction activity occurs for the three entire months.

Emissions from combustion equipment were estimated using equipment ratings, quantity

and type of equipment, duration of usage, and are shown in Table 4-2.

An operation phase air emissions for the 11.6-mile pipeline will not be applicable because all

of the pipeline is expected to be underground. It is assumed that the pipeline does not

include flow pumps or compressors along the ROW because the CO2 source would provide

the pressure and flow rates necessary to deliver the CO2 from the source to the Green

Pipeline interconnect. For aboveground facilities (valve site and meter station), the

associated equipment may emit fugitive emissions, which would be the primary source of

greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions will be the same speciation as the content of the

pipeline and mostly CO2 (estimated 99.32 percent CO2, 0.67 percent CH4, and 0.01 percent

CO).

TABLE 4-2

Uncontrolled Estimated Project Air Emissions

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Activity Pollutant Emissions, Tons

PM Pb SOx NOx VOC CO CO2 CH4 N2O HAPs

Construction

Phase

Combustion

6.75 0.0004687 1.575 112.17 7.485 24.33 8,518 0.346 0.069 0.197

Construction

Phase Dust

522

Alternative

Emissions,

Railcar Transit

21 211,126 1,424

Alternative

Emissions,

Truck Transit

21 211,126 1,424

Criteria pollutant emissions for construction phase combustion provided by Denbury.

PM Emissions from Construction Phase Dust were estimated using AP-42 Chapter 13.2.4

GHG emissions estimated using methodologies provided in API Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Methodologies for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, August 2009.

HAP Emissions from Construction equipment combustion were Estimated using EPA AP-42 Chapter 3 For

Internal Combustion, Table 3.3-1 For Diesel Fuel

Lead (Pb) Emissions were estimated using emission factors from AP-42 Chapter 1 Table 1.3-10

Alternative Emissions were estimated using Rail/Truck Transit TOC emission factors from AP-42 Chapter

5.2.2.1.3 For gasoline and overestimated emissions assuming all of the TOC was CO2 product (99.32% CO2,

0.67%CH4, and 0.01%CO)

The project emissions for criteria pollutants (without consideration of dust from

construction activities) will be less than 1 percent of the total existing inventory for each

pollutant (e.g., NOx will be less than 0.8 percent of the total existing inventory and the

project emissions of CO will be less than 0.4 percent of the total existing inventory).

Therefore, any emissions associated with the pipeline operations will be minimal.

Overall, Greenhouse gas emissions will be greatly decreased as a result of this entire project.

The CO2 (with trace amounts of CO and CH4) that is proposed to be captured is currently

Topical 355
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-6

being directly released to the atmosphere. This point source will be captured and any

emissions from this source will be limited to pipeline fugitives.

4.2.5 Mitigative Measures

For dust emissions from construction activities, typical control techniques such as watering,

chemical stabilization, or reduction of surface wind speed with windbreaks or source

enclosures will be used. Additionally, preventative techniques such as elimination of

mud/dirt carryout on paved roads and mitigation measures such as cleanup of spillage on

paved and unpaved travel surfaces and clean-up of material spillage at transfer points will

also be employed.

For combustion emissions from construction equipment, proper maintenance of the

combustion equipment is the most effective method of preventing blue smoke emission

from all types of internal combustion (IC) engines. Reducing equipment idle run time and

use of lower emission fleet vehicles can also reduce emissions. The motor vehicles used for

the project will comply with 30 TAC Chapter 114 Control of Air Pollution from Motor

Vehicles which includes requirements for vehicle inspection and maintenance, accelerated

vehicle retirement, mobile emission reduction credits, low emission fuels, non-road large

spark-ignited engine emission specifications, operational controls, and mobile source

incentive programs.

For assessing pipeline fugitive emissions along a pipeline, if the pipeline is constructed

above ground an industry tool used is a vehicle-mounted CO2 monitoring system that

travels along the pipeline detecting CO2 leaks to the atmosphere. For this project the

pipeline will be buried and therefore, any monitoring and leak detection would be

associated with the Operations monitoring and compliance programs.

4.3 Water Quality

4.3.1 Surface Water

4.3.1.1 Impacts

Stream crossings by pipeline projects can have significant short-term effects on downstream

water quality and habitat. However, pipeline construction impacts on aquatic habitats have

been shown to be localized in extent and short term in duration. While environmental

effects of stream crossing activities are a primary factor in selecting a particular crossing

method, other factors, such as constructability, success, contractor safety, and cost, also are

considered when determining what stream crossing method to employ.

Construction and mitigation for water body crossings by the Pipeline Lateral will follow

procedures outlined in an Environmental Construction Plan (ECP). Typically, water body

crossings will be made using one of the following methods:

 Crossing Method 1 (Wet Crossing less than 50 feet). This method is applicable to small

perennial streams (less than 50 feet wide), field and roadside ditches, and intermittent

streams. The stream should be small enough to enable the equipment to work from the

banks. A backhoe will open a temporary trench within the flowing stream, the pipe will

be placed and the trench will be backfilled as quickly as possible to minimize impacts.

Topical 356
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-7

 Crossing Method 2 (Dry Crossing less than 30 feet). This method is applicable to

perennial streams (with flow) less than 30 feet in width with downstream water users, or

listed species present in the stream. Stream flow may be channeled into one or multiple

flume pipes to convey water across the trench and maintain downstream flow, or

alternatively, a dam-and-pump arrangement may be employed to convey the stream

water around the construction area. The trench will be excavated from under the flume

pipe, the pipeline will be threaded under the flume, the trench will be backfilled, and the

flume pipe will be removed to restore natural downstream flow.

 Crossing Method 3 (Wet Crossing greater than 50 feet). This method is applicable to

perennial streams greater than 50 feet in width that have not been designated to be

directionally drilled. The trench will be opened within the flowing stream using a

backhoe or dragline, and the pipe will be pulled or floated into place. Flow in these

streams will most likely be sufficient to inundate the trench and allow for a natural

downstream flow. Denbury will ensure that sufficient downstream flow is maintained

during construction. Following installation of the pipe, the trench will be backfilled.

 Crossing Method 4 (Horizontal Directional Drill). HDD involves using specialized

equipment to install pipelines beneath wetlands or waterways, which potentially

minimizes environmental impacts. However, environmental impacts such as turbidity

and deposition of dredged material can occur from the discharge of drilling muds. The

applicability of this method is subject to variety of site specific physical factors.

Therefore, this method is applicable to those water bodies with conditions determined to

be suitable.

HDD involves using specialized equipment to install pipelines beneath wetlands or

waterways, which potentially minimizes environmental impacts. However, environmental

impacts such as turbidity and deposition of dredged material can occur from the discharge of

drilling mud. The applicability of this method is subject to a variety of site-specific physical

factors that are investigated for each potential HDD crossing to determine if a potential HDD

would be feasible. Denbury is currently evaluating an HDD crossing of the Bayou D’Inde and

Unnamed Man-Made Canal to the west of Little Bayou D’Inde. The HDD would minimize instream construction activities and potential short-term turbidity impacts associated with the

other crossing methods. Section 1.4.1.5 describes the HDD method in more detail.

Prior to operation, the integrity of the pipeline is evaluated through hydrostatic testing.

Pipeline integrity is tested by capping pipeline segments with test manifolds, filling a capped

segment with water, subjecting the water to pressure, and monitoring the pressure.

Hydrostatic testing of the pipe would be performed in multiple segments and would address

the entire pipeline. Hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn from readily available water

sources along the pipeline route or from municipal sources and would be discharged onsite in

a vegetated upland area or offsite at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. The volume of

water required for hydrostatically testing the pipeline is approximately 14,000 barrels or

588,000 gallons. This is the quantity of water required to test the longest segment of the

pipeline that extends from the proposed intermediate block valve to the connection to

Denbury’s and an affiliate's Green Pipeline.

Topical 357
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-8

4.3.1.2 Mitigative Measures

Denbury would mitigate potential impacts to surface water quality and quantity by

obtaining and complying with all applicable water quality and quantity permits, such as

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for Stormwater Discharges

Associated with Construction Activities and for Hydrostatic Test Water Discharges.

Denbury has collocated the proposed Pipeline Lateral with existing ROW corridors and

cleared areas to the greatest extent practicable. This design technique minimizes new

crossings of water bodies and maintains intact riparian corridors, to the extent possible.

Intact riparian corridors minimize sedimentation and turbidity impacts in water bodies.

During restoration of the workspace, stream banks would be restored to pre-construction

contours, reducing or eliminating potential long-term effects of the pipeline crossing, such

as erosion or modification of stream flow conditions.

To the extent practical, Denbury would plan its construction window for major water bodies

during the time of year when low water flows are normally encountered. Construction

would be prioritized in major watersheds that are prone to longer term flood events,

provided that low water levels are present and normal construction methods can be

utilized. For localized, short duration flood events, construction would stop until the water

subsides. If flood conditions persist during this time, Denbury would wait until conditions

improve at least to a point where special techniques for saturated conditions can be

employed.

During project design, efforts would be made before, during, and after pipeline construction

to minimize the extent and duration of project-related disturbance to water resources.

Denbury would develop a Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan and a Site-Specific

Crossing Plan. The Horizontal Directional Drill Contingency Plan provides specific

procedures and steps to contain inadvertent releases of drilling mud during the construction

of various water bodies (and other type crossings, i.e., highways, etc.) using HDD

techniques. Elements of the plan include: Monitoring and Sampling Procedures, Notification

Procedures, Corrective Action and Cleanup, and Abandonment.

Appropriate construction techniques would be used to prevent turbidity resulting from

erosion of adjacent areas during and after construction, and erosion control measures would

be implemented to minimize siltation, sedimentation, and other impacts that may

temporarily affect surface water bodies in the construction area. Denbury would avoid and

minimize potential adverse impacts to streams by implementing the following:

 Expediting construction and limiting the amount of equipment and activities in water

bodies

 Reducing the disturbance to water body banks, bed, and vegetation to the extent

practical, and minimal clearing of trees and other plants in the temporary workspace to

enable leaving in place as much vegetation as possible on stream banks within the

temporary workspace

 Constructing water body crossings as perpendicular to the axis of the water body

channel as engineering, safety, and routing conditions allow

 Maintaining ambient downstream flow rates

Topical 358
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-9

 Removing all construction material and structures from the water body immediately

after construction

 Restoring stream channels and bottoms to their preconstruction contours or better

 Permanently stabilizing stream banks and adjacent upland areas after construction

 Inspecting ROWs periodically during and after construction and repairing any erosion

controls and/or performing restoration, as needed, in a timely manner

 Padding with blasting mats if any explosives are required within the water body; no

spoil material would be used for padding

Denbury would evaluate stream crossing methodologies based on field and engineering

studies and in response to agency and landowner concerns. Actual field conditions at the

time of construction would also affect the appropriate crossing method for a particular

stream. Denbury would employ project environmental inspectors, in consultation with

Denbury’s project manager and the construction contractor, to identify or approve the

appropriate crossing method for each location, based on site-specific conditions prior to and at

the time of construction. Selected crossing methods for water bodies would be in compliance

with applicable state and federal regulations and restrictions.

To minimize potential impacts to water bodies crossed by the proposed Pipeline Lateral,

equipment will be parked, maintained, or fueled away from any water body and the

contractor will implement procedures as described in its SWPPP to prevent spills and

provide prompt cleanup in the event of a spill. If there is no reasonable alternative to

maintaining the required buffer from water bodies during refueling, the contractor will have

secondary containment and other spill prevention and cleanup measures in place, and will

receive approval from the Environmental Inspector before proceeding.

Disposal of construction waste materials will follow local, state, and federal regulations and

will be properly transported to approved public or private waste disposal sites. In addition,

hazardous waste materials, chemicals, fuels, and lubricating oils will not be stored within

close proximity of any water body, wetland, or designated watershed area if possible.

During water intake for hydrostatic testing, Denbury would monitor intake to minimize

in-stream effects, such as entrainment of fish or aquatic species, and to ensure adequate

water flow for aquatic organisms and downstream users. Denbury would also reuse water

to test separate portions of the pipeline to reduce water withdrawals, to the greatest extent

practicable. Hydrostatic test water discharges would have a negligible effect on water

resources due to the high quality of the effluent and the energy dissipation and filtration

devices used during the discharge process. These techniques would capture the small

amount of solids released during discharge as well as decrease the impacts from erosion.

Return of the test water to the surrounding tributaries and streams would have negligible

impacts to downstream users because the discharge point would be within a well vegetated

upland area adjacent to the construction corridor and would avoid or minimize direct

surface runoff to water bodies. Because of the low volume of discharge, no change in flood

frequency or duration is expected.

Environmental impacts from the withdrawal and discharge of test water would be

minimized by utilizing the measures outlined in Denbury’s ECP, including:

Topical 359
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-10

 Locating hydrostatic test manifolds outside of wetlands and riparian areas as practical

 Withdrawing from and discharging to water sources in compliance with appropriate

agency requirements that consider the protection of fisheries and other resources on a

case-by-case basis

 Complying with all appropriate permit requirements

 Screening the water intake manifold to avoid entrainment of fish

 Suspending the water intake hose with a float to reduce the uptake of sediment from the

water body floor

 Maintaining adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life and provide for all water body

uses and downstream withdrawals of water by existing users

 Anchoring the discharge pipe for safety

 Discharging test water to a suitable receiving body of water, across a well-vegetated

upland area, or filtered through a filter bag or into erosion control barriers

 Discharging test water against a splash plate or other energy dissipating device

 Controlling the rate of discharge in order to prevent flooding or erosion

Following construction, water body crossings will be restored to preconstruction contours

and elevations; all construction material and structures will immediately be removed from

the water body; stream channels and bottoms will be restored to their preconstruction

contours or better; and stream banks and adjacent upland areas will be permanently

stabilized. Existing erosive conditions that may affect the operation of the proposed pipeline

facilities will be corrected.

4.3.2 Groundwater

4.3.2.1 Impacts

There are currently no plans to withdraw from or discharge directly to groundwater for the

construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral. Of the 112 registered wells within 0.25 mile of

the Project, one may be situated within the limits of disturbance; however, this well appears

to be located on a dirt road. During civil surveys of the pipeline route, Denbury would

document water wells within the study corridor, particularly within the limits of

disturbance. Denbury would assess the status of these wells (active or abandoned), and, if

active and if the well cannot safely remain in operation during and/or after construction,

Denbury would coordinate with the well owner to plug and abandon the well in accordance

with the Water Well Rules, Regulations and Standards as administered by the LA DOTD

(2010). Denbury would coordinate with the well user to relocate the water well outside of

the limits of disturbance or secure an alternate water source.

Because construction would be limited to surface ground layers and because the presence of

hazardous materials would be limited and, where present, would be restricted to certain

areas with appropriate secondary containment, impacts to groundwater are not anticipated.

Topical 360
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-11

4.3.2.2 Mitigative Measures

Impacts on groundwater resources would be minimized by implementing the construction

techniques detailed in Denbury’s ECP. The ECP would include guidance on such processes

as blasting, trench breakers, trench dewatering, equipment refueling, and hazardous

materials storage. As excavation depth typically would not exceed approximately six feet,

installation of the proposed pipeline would involve construction within only the surface

layers of soil.

If, during construction, areas are identified where blasting will be required, water wells,

springs, and wetlands in the blasting area will be identified. A blasting plan would be

developed to identify and address applicable regulatory requirements as well as outline safe

construction blasting techniques and safeguards to be employed. Wells within the blasting

area may be tested for water quality prior to blasting, and then again upon completion of

construction. In the unlikely event that construction activities temporarily impair well

water, alternative sources of water will be identified or Denbury will otherwise compensate

the owner. If permanent well damage is substantiated, Denbury will either compensate the

well owner for damages or arrange for a new well to be drilled.

Springs and wetlands within the proposed pipeline corridor will be documented and

characterized during environmental and civil surveys of the pipeline route. Upon

completion of pipeline construction, the pipeline corridor will be restored to its preconstruction contours and hydrological patterns. In the unlikely event that it is unable to

restore a spring or wetland to its pre-existing condition, Denbury will work with the

landowner and appropriate regulatory agencies to provide compensatory mitigation for the

loss of the affected feature.

4.3.3 Floodplains

4.3.3.1 Impacts

Efforts would be made before, during, and after pipeline construction to minimize the

extent and duration of project-related disturbance to floodplains.

A floodplain would be impacted by any activity that modifies the available flood storage

within the designated area. The proposed pipeline installation is expected to have minor,

short-term, direct impacts but no long-term, direct impacts to designated floodplains.

Short-term impacts may result from construction, underground installation, and open

cutting within a floodplain. These impacts may be adverse or beneficial depending on

whether they increase or decrease available flood storage. However, all disturbed areas

would be returned to pre-construction contours and grades, such that long-term flood

storage loss would not occur. Project design and construction will ensure that the floodcarrying capacity of each stream crossing is maintained and preserved as appropriate.

Construction at the site will comply with 28 CFR Part 63 and FEMA review procedures by

minimizing the amount of fill that would be placed in the flood hazard areas. No indirect

impacts to floodplains are anticipated.

Rules and regulations related to floodplain management and flood damage prevention will

be considered during the proposed pipeline installation. Approximately 3.5 miles of the

proposed pipeline alignment traverses areas designated as within the 100-year floodplain.

Topical 361
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-12

Approximately 16.7 acres of 100-year floodplain occur within the proposed permanent

ROW, and approximately 17.3 acres of 100-year floodplain occur within the temporary

ROW. If the proposed Pipeline Lateral will require the construction of permanent access

roads, Denbury will locate these roads outside of the 100-year floodplain, to the extent

practicable. Denbury will consult with appropriate local floodplain management agencies

prior to construction to verify compliance with requirements of NFIP regulations.

4.3.3.2 Mitigative Measures

Denbury intends to avoid, minimize, and if necessary, compensate for disturbances to

floodplains and wetlands associated with the construction and operation of the proposed

pipeline. All impacts to floodplains and wetlands are anticipated to be temporary, with no

net loss of wetlands from the Pipeline Lateral activities. Some forested wetland areas will

undergo a change in habitat type as a result of construction and operation. Mitigation will

occur onsite through restoration of the disturbed areas as emergent wetland habitat in

compliance with the General and Regional Conditions set forth by the USACE for all

temporary construction impacts. Loss of forested wetland habitat will be mitigated by the

purchase of wetland credits from an approved bank, as required by conditions in the

Section 404/401 permit to be obtained for the Pipeline Lateral.

Any approach to compensatory mitigation would follow the EPA and USACE Wetland

Compensatory Mitigation Rule (March, 2008) emphasizing a watershed-level approach to

compensation. Previous EPA and USACE guidance favored mitigation in proximity of

impacts, but the new Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Rule (March, 2008) lists this

hierarchy of mitigation preferences: 1) mitigation banks, 2) in-lieu fee programs, and

3) permittee-responsible mitigation, in the event neither of the previous two options are

practicable.

Denbury would mitigate for unavoidable impacts following USACE rules and guidance,

with the goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. This approach follows USACE

mitigation sequencing and, where compensation is required, uses a watershed approach to

select available resource replacement sites that offer the greatest functional benefits as

outlined in the compensatory mitigation guidelines.

Denbury proposes a two-pronged approach to compensatory mitigation for impacts:

1) rehabilitation of wetlands temporarily impacted by construction in-situ; and 2) purchase

of mitigation credits from approved wetland mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs. To

compensate for permanent conversions of forested wetlands or permanent impacts from

associated facilities due to construction of the Pipeline Lateral, Denbury proposes to

purchase credits from wetland mitigation banks in the affected watershed areas.

Compensatory mitigation requirements for the Pipeline Lateral will be satisfied prior to

construction.

4.3.4 Wetlands

4.3.4.1 Impacts

Wetland information for the Pipeline Lateral area was derived from readily available public

sources, which indicate that the proposed corridor would traverse several wetland areas.

Prior to construction, Denbury will conduct field surveys to delineate jurisdictional

wetlands, in accordance with USACE guidelines and standard practice. Denbury would

Topical 362
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-13

utilize these data during project design to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland

resources, to the extent practicable. Where avoidance is not achievable, Denbury would

compensate as necessary for disturbances to wetlands associated with the construction and

operation of the Pipeline Lateral. All impacts to wetlands are anticipated to be temporary,

with no net loss of wetlands from Pipeline Lateral activities. However, some wetland areas

would potentially undergo a change in habitat type as a result of construction and

operation, such as from forested wetland to herbaceous wetland.

Denbury would coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies prior to

initiating construction to ensure that all applicable permits and approvals have been

obtained. Denbury would reduce its construction ROW to 75 feet within wetland areas.

4.3.4.2 Mitigative Measures

Denbury will consult with the USACE and other applicable regulatory agencies in

developing appropriate wetland crossing methodologies, and will comply with permit

terms and conditions. Four general construction procedures typically will be used to

minimize impacts associated with construction of the proposed pipeline on wetlands, as

described below. Efforts will be made before, during, and after pipeline construction to

minimize the extent and duration of project-related disturbance to wetland resources.

 Crossing Method I-Standard Pipeline Construction. This method will be used in

seasonal wetlands that are sufficiently dry such that soils are stable enough to support

equipment without sinking (e.g., mineral hydric soils), or in wetlands that have already

been disturbed to provide sufficient traffic stability. A reduced construction ROW of

75 feet will be maintained and overland construction techniques will be used, unless

exceptions are required by site conditions. Vegetation will be cut just above ground

level, leaving the existing root systems in place. Grubbing will occur only at the ditch

line. All cut vegetation will be removed from the wetland and disposed of by an

approved method. Topsoil will be segregated, and no matting will be used if conditions

are dry. The length of time that topsoil is segregated and the trench left open will be

minimized to maintain seedbank viability.

 Crossing Method 2-Conventional Wetland Construction. This method will be utilized

in wetlands where the soils are too wet (e.g., permanently or semi-permanently

saturated and/or histic epipedon) to support mainline construction equipment. Timber

mats will be used as necessary to support the construction equipment. A reduced

construction ROW of 75 feet will be maintained. Vegetation will be cut just above

ground level, leaving the existing root systems in place. Grubbing will occur only at the

ditch line. All cut vegetation will be removed from the wetland and disposed of by an

approved method. Topsoil will not be segregated due to saturated conditions.

 Crossing Method 3- Push/Pull Wetland Construction. This method will be used in

wetlands with standing water (permanently or semi-permanently flooded) where it is

necessary to use push/pull construction techniques. A construction corridor wide

enough for only a single tractor to work on timber mats will be used. The trench will be

dug and the pipe will be positioned in the trench. There will be no passing or working

lanes, only room for spoil on each side of the trench with the digging/pulling tractor in

the middle. A reduced construction ROW of 75 feet will be maintained. Vegetation will

be cut just above ground level, leaving the existing root systems in place. Grubbing will

Topical 363
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-14

occur only at the ditch line. All cut vegetation will be removed from the wetland and

disposed of by an approved method. Topsoil will not be segregated due to saturated

conditions.

 Crossing Method 4- HDD - Horizontal Directional Drill. Directional-drilling methods

will be used for specialized crossings of large and/or sensitive water bodies and

wetland areas. In general, because an open-cut trench is not required, directional drilling

results in less adverse impacts and less turbidity than conventional excavation methods.

Directional drilling is limited in application and is dependent on critical wetland

characteristics, including subsurface lithology, crossing length, burial depth, sediment

composition, bank conditions, and access. Adverse environmental impacts that may

result from drilling operations on waterway crossings would be related to discharge and

transportation of drilling fluid; however, aside from turbidity effects, drilling fluid is a

relatively environmentally benign substance. Mitigation of any adverse impact from

drilling fluid would be by collection and cleanup of spilled material.

In general, Denbury will protect and minimize potential adverse impacts to wetlands by:

 Expediting construction in and around wetlands, and, to reduce disturbances of wetland

soils, limiting the amount of equipment and mainline construction activities within

wetlands

 Restoring wetlands to the original contours and flow regimes to the greatest extent

practical

 Segregating wetland topsoil and its associated seedbank and returning it to the top

when backfilling, where applicable

 Utilizing matting to protect the underlying soil and root stock, where applicable

 Removing stumps and root stock only along the trenchline; stumps and rootstock will be

left in place for the remainder of the construction ROW to facilitate regeneration of

natural revegetation

 Locating ATWS away from wetlands, where practical

 Reducing construction of ROW to 75 feet through wetland resources

 Permanently stabilizing upland areas near wetlands as soon as possible after backfilling

 Implementing appropriate erosion control procedures in and adjacent to wetlands

during construction

 Inspecting the ROW periodically during and after construction, and repairing any

erosion control or restoration features until permanent revegetation is successful

Restoration of wetland areas will occur by natural revegetation. Studies have shown that

natural revegetation of wetlands in the Southeast has a higher success rate than planting

wetlands due to inherent, regenerative capacities of seedbank and vegetative reproduction.

To facilitate periodic surveys for maintenance activities, the area centered over the pipeline

will be maintained in an herbaceous state. Wetland areas may be seeded with an annual rye

directly after the completion of construction to ensure protection of the wetland soil from

Topical 364
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-15

erosion until natural vegetation is successful. No fertilizers or mulch materials will be

introduced into wetland areas. Denbury will revegetate and restore adjacent upland areas

utilizing seed mix and fertilizer/lime applications specified in compliance with NRCS

standards for critical area plantings for Louisiana.

Denbury will mitigate for unavoidable impacts to wetlands in accordance with USACE

rules and guidance, with the goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. This

approach follows USACE mitigation sequencing and, where compensation is required, uses

a watershed approach (8-digit HUC code) to select available resource replacement sites that

offer the greatest functional benefits as outlined in the compensatory mitigation guidelines.

Denbury proposes a two-pronged approach to compensatory mitigation for impacts to

wetlands: 1) rehabilitation in-situ of wetlands temporarily impacted by construction; and

2) purchase of mitigation credits from approved wetland mitigation banks or in-lieu fee

programs. To compensate for permanent conversions of forested wetlands or permanent

impacts from associated facilities due to construction of the project, Denbury intends to

purchase mitigation credits, participate in an in-lieu fee program, or provide onsite or offsite

compensatory mitigation as required by the USACE permit conditions. Compensatory

mitigation requirements for the Pipeline Lateral will be satisfied prior to construction.

4.4 Ecology

Impacts to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, including threatened and endangered species,

and mitigation of those impacts are discussed below.

4.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology

4.4.1.1 Impacts

Potential ecological impacts may occur during construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral

as a result of land clearing activities, utilization of access roads by project vehicles and

equipment, pipeline trenching and installation activities, and the use of temporary

workspaces. Direct impacts to terrestrial ecology and natural habitats will be minimized by

the collocation of the Pipeline Lateral along existing ROW corridors and access roads to the

greatest extent practicable.

Construction activities will result in temporary and permanent impacts to existing

vegetation within the area of the Pipeline Lateral during site preparation, grading, and

excavation of the corridor and alterations to existing access roads and temporary

construction facilities as necessary. A summary of common vegetation in the Northern

Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies ecoregion is provided in Section 3.4.1.

Construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral would impact a total of 187.2 acres of land, of

which 72.3 acres would be permanently impacted. The remaining 114.9 acres would be

temporarily impacted during construction and allowed to revert back to the previous land

use once construction of the Pipeline Lateral was completed. The primary land uses along

the ROW are comprised of pasture/agriculture, forested upland and wetland areas, and

low-density residential and industrial uses. A summary of land use category acreage and

potential habitat impacts are summarized in Table 4-3.

Topical 365
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-16

TABLE 4-3

Land Use and Potential Habitat Impacts Associated with the Pipeline Lateral

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Land Use Category Construction

Acres

Permanent

Acres

Total

Acres

Potential Habitat Impacts

Open Water 0.1 0.0 0.1

Temporary impacts during construction.

Permanent ROW returned to preconstruction contours and conditions.

Developed, Open Space 3.8 22.4 26.1

Temporary impacts during construction.

Minor permanent impacts (e.g., no

landscape trees re-planted in ROW).

Developed, Low Intensity 20.7 25.6 46.2

Developed, Medium Intensity 3.3 3.6 6.9

Developed, High Intensity 1.0 0.9 1.9

Evergreen Forest 4.3 2.9 7.2 Temporary removal of forested area

during construction to revert back after

construction. Permanent ROW

maintained in herbaceous state to

facilitate pipeline maintenance.

Mixed Forest 0.8 1.3 2.2

Shrub/Scrub 2.2 1.5 3.6

Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.2 0.3

Temporary land disturbance during

construction. Permanent ROW returned

to pre-construction conditions.

Pasture/Hay 9.8 29.9 39.7 Temporary disruption of agricultural

operations during construction.

Permanent ROW returned to preconstruction conditions and agricultural

uses.

Cultivated Crops 0.7 1.6 2.3

Woody Wetlands 25.6 25.1 50.7

Temporary removal of forested area

during construction to revert back after

construction. Permanent ROW

maintained in herbaceous state to

facilitate pipeline maintenance.

TOTAL 72.3 114.9 187.2

Source: Multi Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium, 2001

A summary of common terrestrial wildlife in the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies

ecoregion is provided in Section 3.4.1. Direct impacts to terrestrial wildlife during

construction of the Pipeline Lateral are anticipated to be limited to temporary displacement

and potential incidental mortality of less mobile terrestrial species. The amount of wildlife

displaced by land disturbing activities and noise generation during project construction

would be minimal, as the majority of the land that would be disturbed by the Pipeline

Lateral has either been previously disturbed or is located immediately adjacent to existing

ROW corridors that are routinely maintained. Displaced wildlife would likely inhabit

similar adjacent habitats and return to the area following construction. Because sufficient

suitable habitats are available for assimilation of displaced animals, any secondary impacts

to animal populations in the area surrounding the Pipeline Lateral would likely be

negligible.

Potential suitable habitat for migratory birds is likely present along the Pipeline Lateral

corridor. Ecological field surveys will be conducted prior to construction that will assess

Topical 366
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-17

actual habitat suitability based on field conditions. Because of the similar habitat types in the

region that would remain undisturbed, direct impacts to migratory bird species as a result

of the proposed Pipeline Lateral are anticipated to be negligible.

Construction-related impacts to recreational areas, parks, wildlife areas, nature preserves, or

other conservation areas would not occur.

No agency consultations regarding terrestrial ecology have been conducted for the Pipeline

Lateral to date.

4.4.1.2 Mitigative Measures

Following construction, disturbed areas will be seeded in accordance with the seeding

recommendations of the local NRCS or the respective landowners. Trees and other woody

vegetation in upland and wetland areas will be allowed to re-establish naturally within the

temporary ROW and other temporary workspaces cleared for Project construction. Denbury

will maintain upland and wetland areas within the 50-foot permanent ROW in an

herbaceous state to facilitate periodic maintenance of the Project area.

Impacts to terrestrial wildlife will be mitigated by minimizing the duration of construction

and scheduling construction within any critical habitat identified during ecological field

surveys to avoid nesting periods to the greatest extent practicable. Migratory bird

populations in the Project area would be expected to peak during the winter months. Project

construction could be scheduled to avoid disturbing preferred habitats during winter

months, which would minimize the potential for impacts.

Project-specific consultations with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

(LDWF) will be conducted following ecological surveys to identify potential construction

mitigation measures necessary for wildlife species in the Project area. Wildlife protection

measures will comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

4.4.2 Aquatic Ecology

4.4.2.1 Impacts

Construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral across streams is likely to affect aquatic

resources through soil and sediment disturbances, temporary removal of vegetation,

potential incidental releases, and increased potential for turbidity and stream bank erosion.

Impacts to aquatic resources in the Project area are anticipated to be minimal. The majority

of the streams affected by the Project are small unnamed tributaries to Choupique Bayou

and Little Bayou d’Inde that likely do not serve as critical habitat for many fish species. The

fish species common to the Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies ecoregion are

summarized in Section 3.4.2. Ecological field surveys will assess the stream quality, aquatic

habitat, and fish species present within the Project area.

No agency consultations regarding aquatic ecology have been conducted for the Project to

date.

4.4.2.2 Mitigative Measures

To minimize long-term adverse impacts to aquatic organisms, all streams crossed by the

Pipeline Lateral will be restored to pre-construction conditions to the greatest extent

practicable.

Topical 367
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-18

During construction, specific stream crossing construction measures designated exclusively

to minimize impacts on aquatic resources will be implemented. Specific crossing methods

and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.2. Measures to prevent soil runoff and

sedimentation of streams include silt fencing, slope breakers on steep slopes, hay bales

across the ROW at critical points, plugs in trenches close to water crossings, and energy

dissipating devices and sediment filters for the outlet of hoses during dewatering of the

pipeline trench and at the point of discharge of hydrostatic test water.

Incidental spills may occur from storage containers, equipment working in or near streams,

and fuel transfers. Spillage of fuels or lubricants into streams would be detrimental to the

surrounding aquatic resources. A project-specific SPCC Plan will be developed and

implemented to prevent and contain, if necessary, accidental spills into streams. Key

components of the SPCC Plan will include limiting or prohibiting fuel storage, refueling,

and maintenance of construction equipment within 100 feet of streams.

Following trench backfilling, the pipeline will be hydrostatically tested to ensure it is

capable of operating at the design pressure. Water for the hydrostatic test will either be

obtained from local water bodies or trucked in from local water sources. If water is obtained

from a local water body (i.e., stream), the water will be pumped through screened intakes

from a stream(s) located along or near the pipeline route. Upon completion of the testing,

the water will generally be discharged back to the source through an energy-dissipating

device onto a well-vegetated upland area to ensure impacts to the aquatic resources and

water body itself are minimized. Alternatively, discharged water may be trucked offsite.

4.4.3 Threatened and Endangered Species

4.4.3.1 Impacts

No impacts to threatened or endangered species or critical habitat associated with

construction or operation of the Pipeline Lateral are anticipated. Section 3.4.3 provides a list

of the federal and state threatened or endangered species in Calcasieu Parish. The only

species for which potential habitat exists in the area of the Pipeline Lateral is the Crested

caracara (Caracara cheriway). Ecological field surveys will assess the suitability of habitat and

potential presence of Crested caracara prior to the commencement of construction activities.

There are no known occurrences of federal or state protected aquatic species in the vicinity

of the proposed Pipeline Lateral.

4.4.3.2 Mitigative Measures

Project-specific consultations with the USFWS and Louisiana Natural Heritage Program

section of LDGF will be conducted to identify mitigation measures to protect threatened and

endangered species and critical habitat in the area of the Pipeline Lateral. Mitigation

measures will comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations.

4.5 Solid Waste Disposal

Impacts related to waste generation during Pipeline Lateral construction, proposed

mitigation, and existing waste disposal areas within two miles of the pipeline corridor are

presented below.

Topical 368
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-19

4.5.1 Impacts

Construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral is anticipated to generate waste primarily

consisting of non-hazardous solids such as timber cleared from the ROW, construction mats

and scrap, packaging materials, and general refuse (e.g., trailer office materials and debris

from employees). The solid waste generated will be collected from work areas and recycled

or disposed of in temporary dumpsters maintained during construction. A private

contractor will then empty the dumpsters on an as-needed basis and dispose of the refuse at

a licensed solid waste disposal facility.

Project construction will require clearing or disturbance of approximately 29.3 acres of

forested vegetation. Large trees cleared from the construction area will be sold whole as

timber or cut, and either provided to the landowner or removed. Limbs and brush will be

buried, chipped, burned, or otherwise disposed of as directed by the landowner and as

required under federal, state, and local regulations.

Non-hazardous liquids associated with construction include fluids utilized during HDD

operations. The HDD construction method utilizes a drilling fluid comprised primarily of

water and bentonite, which is a naturally occurring, non-toxic, inert drilling fluid additive.

Following HDD operations, the bentonite slurry is typically spread in upland areas as a soil

supplement if permitted, or removed from the HDD site and disposed of in approved

landfills.

Potential solid and liquid hazardous wastes associated with construction include sandblast

abrasives (depending on use and type), paint thinner, and various solvents. Any hazardous

wastes generated during construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral will be disposed of at

an EPA approved disposal site(s).

Pipeline construction contractors will be required to develop a Waste Management Plan

(WMP), which will include specifications for handling, containment, and disposal of all

wastes generated during construction. The WMP must be submitted for approval before

construction begins. Construction contractors will characterize wastes and determine the

locations for hazardous materials storage areas (if needed) within designated areas. Any

such storage areas would be maintained in accordance with applicable federal, state, and

local regulations.

A negligible amount of general refuse will likely be generated during operation and

maintenance (O&M) of the ROW corridor. No permanent O&M facility will be constructed,

maintained, or staffed as part of the Pipeline Lateral following construction activities;

therefore, waste generation will be limited to periodic ROW O&M activities.

Known hazardous waste sites, as described in Section 3.5.2, will not be impacted by the

construction or operation of the Pipeline Lateral.

4.5.2 Mitigative Measures

As stated above, all contractors associated with the Pipeline Lateral will be required to

develop a project-specific WMP, which will include specifications for handling,

containment, and disposal of all wastes (non-hazardous and hazardous) generated during

construction. The WMP must be submitted to Denbury for approval before construction

begins. Construction contractors will characterize wastes and determine the locations for

Topical 369
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-20

hazardous materials storage areas (if needed), transportation, and disposal. Any storage

areas would be maintained in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local

regulations. Once Denbury awards work to contractors and the contractor WMP has been

approved, federal, state, and local waste management permits and regulations for the

storage, handling, and disposal of waste will be obtained and complied with.

4.6 Land Use

4.6.1 Environmental Consequences

Construction and operation of the Pipeline Lateral would result in short-term negligible

direct noise impacts to onsite workers and minor direct impacts to nearby residents and

wildlife. Operation of construction equipment would result in noise levels of approximately

95dBA within the immediate construction area. This work would be a short-term minor

impact to potentially sensitive receptors. Operation of the pipeline would not create noise

impacts to the area. Should the pipeline be inspected by aerial overflights, these would be

episodic events that would not adversely impact potentially sensitive receptors. Because the

noise impacts from the Pipeline Lateral would be of short duration and limited to the

construction phase, there would be minimal potential for interaction with other projects, so

no cumulative impacts from noise would occur.

During construction, noise levels would be elevated, but primarily during daytime hours.

Construction noise levels would be highest during clearing, trench excavation, final grading,

and at HDD sites. Peak noise levels would be expected to be approximately 95dBA during

these times and approximately 75 dBA at other times. Onsite persons at each location would

be aware of the operation of equipment during construction. Nearby receptors would

experience interference with outdoor conversations, depending on proximity to the

construction area. However, elevated noise levels would be temporary and site noise

conditions would revert to background levels after construction.

Wildlife in proximity to construction areas would be exposed to the elevated noise and

would be expected to temporarily relocate from the active construction area. Following

construction, any displaced animals would be expected to resume normal activity and

return to use of the temporarily abandoned areas. Any construction-related noise impacts to

wildlife would be temporary and minor. No noise impacts to wildlife would be expected

during operation of the pipeline.

4.6.2 Impacts

Impacts to land use would result from the new ROW corridor associated with the proposed

Pipeline Lateral. Construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral would impact a total of

187.2 acres of land, of which 72.3 acres would be permanently impacted. The remaining

114.9 acres would be temporarily impacted during construction and allowed to revert back

to the previous land use once construction of the Pipeline Lateral was completed.

Table 4-4 provides a tabulated summary of temporary and permanent impacts to land uses

within the construction boundaries of the Pipeline Lateral. Land use categories as defined

by the Multi Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001) are described below.

Topical 370
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-21

 Open Water - All areas of open water, generally with less than 25 percent cover of

vegetation or soil.

 Developed, Open Space - Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials,

but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less

than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot singlefamily housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings

for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.

 Developed, Low Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and

vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. These areas

most commonly include single-family housing units.

 Developed, Medium Intensity - Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials

and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50 to 79 percent of the total cover. These

areas most commonly include single-family housing units.

 Developed, High Intensity - Includes highly developed areas where people reside or

work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and

commercial/industrial uses. Impervious surfaces account for 80 to100 percent of the

total cover.

 Evergreen Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree species

maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.

 Mixed Forest - Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and

greater than 20 percent of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen

species are greater than 75 percent of total tree cover.

 Shrub/Scrub - Areas dominated by shrubs less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy

typically greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs,

young trees in an early successional stage, or trees stunted from environmental

conditions.

 Grassland/Herbaceous - Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation,

generally greater than 80 percent of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to

intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.

 Pasture/Hay - Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock

grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle.

Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.

 Cultivated Crops - Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn,

soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as

orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total

vegetation. This class also includes all land being actively tilled.

 Woody Wetlands - Areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than

20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or

covered with water.

Topical 371
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-22

TABLE 4-4

Land Use Impacts Associated with the Pipeline Lateral

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Land Use Category Construction

Acres

Permanent

Acres Total Acres

Open Water 0.1 0.0 0.1

Developed, Open Space 3.8 22.4 26.1

Developed, Low Intensity 20.7 25.6 46.2

Developed, Medium Intensity 3.3 3.6 6.9

Developed, High Intensity 1.0 0.9 1.9

Evergreen Forest 4.3 2.9 7.2

Mixed Forest 0.8 1.3 2.2

Shrub/Scrub 2.2 1.5 3.6

Grassland/Herbaceous 0.0 0.2 0.3

Pasture/Hay 9.8 29.9 39.7

Cultivated Crops 0.7 1.6 2.3

Woody Wetlands 25.6 25.1 50.7

TOTAL 72.3 114.9 187.2

Source: Multi Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (2001)

No special land uses such as recreational areas, publicly-owned lands, historical sites, or

protected water bodies would be impacted by the Pipeline Lateral. Approximately

176.6 acres of prime farmland would be impacted during construction (USDA, 2010).

Impacts to prime farmland will be limited to the temporary disturbance to soil and the loss

of crop production during construction. Agricultural practices would resume after the

completion of construction activities.

As shown in Table 4-4, construction of the Pipeline Lateral would result in the permanent

conversion of 29.3 acres of forested land. These areas would be revegetated with lower

growth herbaceous species.

4.6.3 Mitigative Measures

The proposed Pipeline Lateral was collocated along existing ROW corridors to the extent

possible so as to significantly reduce land use impacts to the surrounding area. The ROW

will be re-contoured and re-vegetated as near to pre-construction conditions as is practicable

following construction to allow for operational activities. The land use impact of the newly

created permanent ROW is likely to moderate over time as vegetation becomes reestablished. Site restoration activities are further discussed in Section 4.3.1.2. Soil mitigation

measures including topsoil segregation and erosion and sedimentation control are discussed

in Section 4.6.3.

Construction of the Pipeline Lateral is not anticipated to preclude future land uses in the

area. The primary limitation to landowners would be that no structures would be allowed to

be constructed within the 50-foot permanent ROW.

Topical 372
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-23

4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Impacts

Construction and operation of the Pipeline Lateral will be unlikely to affect the

physiography and geology of the area.

Land-disturbing activities will occur to approximately 187.2 acres during construction of the

Pipeline Lateral, which will increase the potential for temporary impacts to soils, including

erosion and sedimentation, compaction, and topsoil mixing. Construction will temporarily

impact approximately 176.6 acres classified by the NRCS as prime farmland soils.

4.7.2 Mitigative Measures

Best management practices (BMPs) to protect groundwater from incidental releases or spills

of materials would be implemented as necessary. Denbury will have operational policies

and procedures to manage such materials, so that an accidental spill should not occur.

However, if such a spill were to occur, Denbury’s SPCC plan will provide regulation on

how to contain, manage, and clean up the spill.

Each of the soil map units crossed by the Pipeline Lateral are classified as Not Highly

Erodible by the NRCS. All soils, regardless of erosion potential rating, generally have

increased erosion potential when exposed, excavated, or stockpiled. Soil erosion will be

mitigated through temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures during

construction and implementation of permanent measures, such as revegetation, following

construction.

Soil compaction will be mitigated by plowing or tilling severely compacted soils prior to

revegetation.

Topsoil segregation will be implemented in all active agricultural areas and wetlands.

Topsoil (down to six inches below ground surface) will be excavated and stockpiled

separately from the underlying subsoil. Once the pipeline is installed, the subsoil will be

placed in the trench first, followed by the topsoil. Denbury will ensure that appropriate

control measures (e.g., silt fence or hay bales) are used to prevent erosion and sedimentation

from these stockpiles along wetlands, water bodies, and roadways.

Congress passed the Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 containing the Farmland Protection

Policy Act (FPPA) (Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549). The FPPA is intended to

minimize the impact federal programs have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion

of farmland to nonagricultural uses. For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime

farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or local importance. No land within the

boundaries of the Pipeline Lateral is classified as unique farmland or land of statewide

importance by the NRCS. The Pipeline Lateral will impact approximately 176.6 acres of soils

mapped as prime farmland soils. The NRCS utilizes a standardized Farmland Conversion

Impact Rating Form (NRCS Form AD1006) to determine whether alternative sites for an

individual project should be considered if the potential adverse impacts to farmland soils

exceed a recommended allowable level. The primary variables in calculating the Farmland

Conversion Impact Rating are the current and projected surrounding land uses, the areal

extent of the impacted prime farmland soils compared to the average farm unit in the

Topical 373
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-24

respective county, the amount of on-farm investments, and current utilization of the

farmland soils for agriculture. An NRCS Form AD1006 will be completed for the Project

Lateral following CFR § 658.5 (b).

4.8 Cultural and Archaeological Resources

4.8.1 Native American Tribal and Religious Practices

No Native American lands or reservations are located within the proposed APE. Therefore,

no impacts to Native American tribes or Native American lands as a result of the Pipeline

Lateral are anticipated. Prior to construction, further consultation with Native American

tribes in the vicinity of the Pipeline Lateral will be initiated to verify that the Pipeline Lateral

will not impact any Native American tribes, their lands or historical interests in the affected

area.

4.8.2 Historic Areas

The Louisiana SHPO does not currently have a complete list of archaeology records

available for a desktop review of the area traversed by the Pipeline Lateral. It cannot be

determined at this time if there are any known archaeological resources within the APE, or

if the area been previously surveyed for archaeological resources. Prior to construction,

further consultation with the SHPO will be initiated to determine what records should be

reviewed and if an archaeology survey of the APE is needed.

A review of the NRHP and the Louisiana Cultural Resources Map indicated that no

historically significant resources have been previously documented within the anticipated

APE (National Register of Historic Places, 2010; Louisiana Cultural Resources Map, 2010).

However, the Louisiana Cultural Resources Mapping feature is not complete at this time.

Prior to construction, further consultation with SHPO will be initiated to conduct a

comprehensive records review and to determine if a historic resources survey of the APE is

needed.

4.8.2.1 Impacts

Denbury does not anticipate any impacts to known cultural resources as a result of the

Pipeline Lateral. There are no known cultural resources in the anticipated APE, and no

direct or indirect impacts to any known cultural resources associated with the construction

or operation of the Pipeline Lateral are anticipated.

4.8.2.2 Mitigative Measures

If field reconnaissance discovers sites within the APE that may be culturally significant,

Denbury will evaluate routing options to avoid any potentially significant sites.

If avoidance is not possible through design, Phase II archaeological evaluation will be

undertaken to assess whether the site(s) qualify as historic properties as defined by

36 CFR 800.

If unanticipated archaeological deposits or human remains are encountered during

construction, Denbury will follow its Unanticipated Discovery Plan and all activities would

be halted in that location. Appropriate authorities and SHPO archaeological staff would be

contacted to initiate post review discovery procedures.

Topical 374
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-25

Human remains must be treated with sensitivity and care when they are encountered or are

expected to be encountered on an archaeological project. In Louisiana, all unmarked burials

and abandoned cemeteries are the responsibility of the Division of Archaeology under

R.S. 8:671-681. This includes all Native American grave sites as well as many historic EuroAmerican, African-American, and other cemeteries.

4.9 Noise Environmental Consequences

There would be short-term negligible direct noise impacts to onsite workers and minor

direct impacts to nearby residents and wildlife from construction. Operation of construction

equipment would result in noise levels of approximately 95dBA within the construction

areas. This work would be a short-term minor impact to potentially sensitive receptors.

Operation of the pipeline would not create noise impacts to the area. Should the pipeline be

inspected by aerial overflights, these would be episodic events that would not adversely

impact potentially sensitive receptors. Because the noise impacts from the Pipeline Lateral

would be of short duration, limited to the construction phase, there would be minimal

potential for interaction with other projects, so no cumulative impacts from noise would

occur.

During construction, noise levels would be elevated, but primarily during daytime hours.

Construction noise levels would be highest during clearing, trench excavation, final grading,

and at HDD areas. Peak noise levels would be expected to be approximately 95 dBA during

these times and approximately 75 dBA at other times. Onsite persons at each location would

be aware of the operation of equipment during construction. Nearby receptors would

experience interference with outdoor conversations, depending on proximity to the

construction area. However, elevated noise levels would be of short duration and site noise

conditions would revert to background levels after construction.

Wildlife in proximity to construction areas would be exposed to the elevated noise and

would be expected to temporarily relocate from the active construction area. Following

construction, any displaced animals would be expected to resume normal activity and

return to use of the temporarily abandoned areas. Any construction-related noise impacts to

wildlife would be temporary and minor. No noise impacts to wildlife would be expected

during operation of the pipeline.

4.10 Socioeconomics

Impacts and mitigation measures of demographics, employment, housing, and populations

are addressed in the following subsections.

4.10.1 Population and Race

4.10.1.1 Impacts

Construction personnel that may be hired from outside of the proposed pipeline project are

could include supervisory personnel, inspectors, and repair workers. These individuals

could total 450 to 500 workers who may temporarily relocate to the project area during

construction. Impacts to the local population in the proposed project area from non-local

workers would be short term and negligible.

Topical 375
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-26

4.10.1.2 Mitigative Measures

No mitigation measures for population and race impacts are required.

4.10.2 Employment

4.10.2.1 Impacts

There would be short-term minor benefits to the local community from construction jobs as

a result of the proposed action along with any supporting structures such as access ways

and utilities lines. Personnel that do relocate to the proposed project area will have a longterm minor impact on the economy with the increase tax base from the new jobs.

4.10.2.2 Mitigative Measures

There should be no long-term impacts to employment as a result of implementation of the

preferred alternative, therefore no mitigation for employment impacts are anticipated

4.10.3 Housing

4.10.3.1 Impacts

Construction personnel may temporarily relocate to the project area for the construction of

the proposed pipeline project. These individuals would typically not relocate or require

housing for their families due to the relatively short duration of the project. If housing were

needed in the project area, housing for ownership and rental are available. Therefore, no

long-term population or housing impacts will result from the construction of the project.

4.10.3.2 Mitigative Measures

No significant short or long term impacts to housing are anticipated as a result of

implementation of the build alternative. No mitigative measures are anticipated for housing

impacts.

4.10.4 Environmental Justice

4.10.4.1 Impacts

The proposed pipeline lateral is located in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. Most of the land in

the vicinity of the construction is undeveloped forest or farmland, with small clusters of

residences at two locations along the route. Calcasieu Parish and the Lake Charles MSA has

a 27.8 percent and 26.9 percent minority population respectively. The reference population

of Louisiana and the United States have minority populations of 35.8 percent and

26.1percent. Because of small difference between the minority populations in the reference

area with the project area, the direct impacts associated with the proposed project would not

have the potential to cause disproportionately adverse impacts to the minority population.

The influx of construction personnel to the project area is expected to have a temporary and

negligible impact in the ROI and reference areas.

The percentage of low income population in Calcasieu Parish is 15.9 percent, 4 percentage

points below the 20 percent criterion for potential impacts to low-income populations in this

study. Based on this criterion, the proposed project will not occur in a low-income

population area. Therefore, the direct impacts associated with the proposed action would

not have the potential to cause proportionately adverse impacts to low-income population

Topical 376
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-27

Because the construction of the pipeline are located in a predominately undeveloped area,

outside of the immediate vicinity of concentrations of residences and other areas where

children would congregate, the construction and operation of the pipeline would not pose

significant environmental health and safety risks to children.

4.10.4.2 Mitigative Measures

No significant short or long-term impacts to low income or minority populations are

anticipated as a result of implementation of the build alternative; therefore, no mitigative

measures are anticipated for potential impacts to minority, low income or children

populations. No mitigative measures will be required for population impacts.

4.11 Public Resources

This section discusses impacts to local fire, police, schools and emergency services in the

area of the Pipeline Lateral.

4.11.1 Impacts

Potential adverse impacts on the ability of state local law enforcement agencies to provide

protection could occur if the construction of the Pipeline Lateral resulted in an increased

need for police services (e.g., from vandalism or other crime during construction or

operations). Based on the rural location of the proposed Pipeline Lateral, an increased

demand to local police forces is considered unlikely.

The utilization of heavy equipment, work vehicles, and electrical equipment, as well as

pipeline welding operations could increase the potential for accidental fires in the area of

the Pipeline Lateral during construction. Operation activities are not likely to create any

additional fire hazards.

Because construction of the Pipeline Lateral will be short term and temporary; no new

students associated with construction employees are anticipated. It is anticipated that

Denbury would employ, at most, one additional staff person for pipeline operations.

Therefore, there would not be an increased demand for school resources.

Impacts to local emergency services will be minimized to the greatest extent possible by

making the health and safety of all staff and the local community the highest priority during

construction and operations. A detailed discussion of the occupational health and safety

focus for the Pipeline Lateral is provided in Section 3.14.

4.11.2 Mitigative Measures

Mitigation measures to reduce impacts to local police and fire resources include the

implementation of BMPs and good housekeeping measures to protect Pipeline Lateral

equipment and staff during construction and operations. Adequate fencing and exclusion

devices will be utilized at construction equipment storage areas to prevent trespass

incidents that involve theft or vandalism, or that could lead to accidents or injury to the

greatest extent practicable. Fire protection measures will be implemented during

construction and operation to minimize the potential for accidental fires. Steps that will be

taken to prevent fires during construction include: maintaining access roads to keep vehicles

away from tall grasses and dry vegetation, using diesel vehicles whenever possible to

Topical 377
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-28

prevent potential ignition of vegetation by catalytic converters, avoiding idling vehicles, and

keeping cutting torches and similar equipment away from grasses and dry vegetation.

Burning of cleared vegetation on the ROW will be in consultation with local regulatory

agencies and will follow prescribed methodologies.

4.12 Transportation

4.12.1 Impacts

It is anticipated that local traffic will temporarily increase during Pipeline Lateral

construction. Heavy equipment transporters and supply vehicle traffic will be traveling to

the Pipeline Lateral area and will remain along the Pipeline Lateral ROW during

construction. The number of heavy equipment vehicles planned for Pipeline Lateral

construction is dependent on the construction strategy to be employed, which will be

determined when Denbury selects individual contractors. In addition to increased heavy

equipment traffic, smaller vehicles, such as pickups and automobiles utilized by

construction staff are expected to locally increase during construction. It is anticipated that

construction of the lateral would be in a single spread, with equipment and personnel

moving systematically along the ROW from one end of the corridor to the other.

4.12.2 Mitigative Measures

Adverse construction and operational impacts to traffic safety or travel times associated

with Pipeline Lateral construction are not anticipated. While construction-related traffic

may cause short-term traffic delays (because of large, slow-moving heavy equipment

transporters and delivery trucks), the delays would be temporary and mitigated through the

following measures:

 Providing notices to adjacent landowners when construction will take place to help

minimize access disruptions

 Providing proper road signage and warnings of “Equipment on Road,” “Truck Access,”

or “Road Crossings”

 Implementing traffic diversion equipment (such as advance signage and pilot cars)

whenever possible when slow or oversize loads are being hauled

 Encouraging carpooling for the construction workforce to reduce traffic volume

 Employing flaggers as necessary to direct traffic when large equipment is exiting or

entering public roads to minimize the risk of accidents

 Maintaining at least one travel lane at all times so that roadways will not be closed to

traffic due to construction vehicles entering or exiting public roads

Advance warning in the form of signage and notices to landowners may reduce the effect

construction vehicles have on the area roadways. By providing notices to landowners,

citizens would be aware of temporary access disruptions as well as potential delays and

may be able to adjust their travel accordingly. To further reduce the effect of construction

vehicles, flaggers would efficiently guide large or oversize vehicles as they enter or exit any

public roadway.

Topical 378
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-29

Although short-term delays may occur, traffic operations would be maintained by keeping

at least one travel lane of the transporter route open at all times. This would be important on

local roads because they are typically one to two lanes in each direction, and efficient detour

routes may not be available due to the nature of the area.

Flaggers may facilitate two-way traffic on one lane by alternately restricting travel

directions. This method would not require full lane closures, detours, or reroutes. Flaggers

would also monitor through traffic on public roadways as necessary so that they do not

conflict with construction vehicles.

Unlike large construction vehicles, the construction workforce would most likely travel

during the morning and afternoon peaks of a typical workday. By encouraging carpooling

among construction personnel, fewer vehicles can be anticipated on the roadway during this

time; therefore, reducing the effect of construction on typical commuters. Once construction

is completed, any damage to federal, state, or local roadways resulting from Pipeline Lateral

construction would be repaired under the guidance of the appropriate regulatory agency.

The construction of new roads or the expansion of the existing road and highway system in

Calcasieu Parish is not anticipated for construction or operation of the Pipeline Lateral.

4.13 Visual

4.13.1 Impacts

Construction of the proposed Pipeline Lateral would modify the visual quality of the area

by widening existing ROW corridors or creating new ROW corridors to accommodate the

pipeline. The proposed Pipeline Lateral will be placed below ground surface and will not be

visible to adjacent landowners. A meter station and valve will be aboveground and result in

minor visual impacts. Operation of the pipeline will require Denbury to keep a 50-foot

permanent pipeline corridor maintained with herbaceous or similar vegetation to allow for

visual inspection of the ground surface.

4.13.2 Mitigative Measures

The proposed Pipeline Lateral was collocated along existing linear corridors to the extent

possible to reduce new visual impacts to the surrounding area. To mitigate for visual

impacts, the pipeline ROW will be re-contoured and re-vegetated as near to preconstruction conditions as is practicable following construction to allow for operational

activities. The visual impact of the newly created permanent ROW is likely to moderate over

time as vegetation becomes re-established.

4.14 Occupational Safety and Health

4.14.1 Impacts

Construction sites are classified as high-risk environments due to the health and safety risks

that are present onsite, including noise hazards; slip, trip, and fall hazards; construction

equipment malfunction and injuries; and potential exposure to hazardous materials.

Denbury would mitigate these risks through compliance with OSHA standards including

29 CFR 1926, Safety and Health Standards for Construction, applicable state and local labor

laws, and through good business practices.

Topical 379
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-30

Potential impacts associated with construction activities also consist of unplanned spills or

minor releases of potentially hazardous materials or encountering unanticipated

contaminated materials or soils. Exposure to hazardous materials may be harmful to human

health, even in minimal exposure levels for some contaminants. Appropriate personal

protective equipment would be required to minimize health impacts from potential

exposure to hazardous materials.

Potential operational impacts to human health and safety include pipeline leaks. Fire and

explosion hazards are not generally factors in the pipeline transmission of CO2. Carbonic

acid corrosion is a potential risk in facilities that process or transport CO2. CO2 reacts with

water to form carbonic acid that corrodes steel. If corrosion becomes severe enough, a leak

may develop. CO2is denser than air and if the density of the gas is high enough, CO2will

settle in low areas, depressions, and basements of buildings, displacing breathing air. If

humans entered this space or area, these conditions would present an adverse physiological

response.

4.14.2 Mitigative Measures

Denbury would mitigate the safety and health risks associated with construction activities

through compliance with OSHA standards including 29 CFR 1926, Safety and Health

Standards for Construction, applicable state and local labor laws, and through good

business practices.

Denbury will require its contractor(s) to develop a WMP, which will include specifications

for handling, containment, and disposal of all wastes generated during the Pipeline Lateral

construction. The WMP must be submitted to Denbury for approval before the work begins.

Hazardous liquids will be situated off the ROW, within the boundaries of Denbury’s

construction and storage yards. This will minimize potential spills and releases by

keeping materials away from active construction and in a centralized, monitored

location. All containers used to accumulate hazardous waste, hazardous substances or toxic

substances (regardless of size or quantity) will be:

 Marked or labeled clearly with a hazardous waste label to identify their content in

accordance with the appropriate regulations

 Maintained in good condition to prevent leaks or spills

 Placed inside impervious secondary containment

 Placed at least 20 feet from the edge of the ROW

 Closed and secured at all times except when removing or adding materials

 Arranged so that there is sufficient aisle space between containers

 Placed in an area that is protected from the weather

 Placed inside portable containment when permanent containment is not feasible

 Inspected weekly at a minimum or at a frequency in accordance with the appropriate

regulations

Topical 380
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-31

Any hazardous wastes that may be generated during construction of the Pipeline Lateral

would be disposed of in EPA- and LDEQ-approved disposal sites. Appropriate personal

protective equipment would be required to minimize health impacts from potential

exposure to hazardous materials.

In order to minimize hazards to human health and/or the environment from any

unplanned sudden or non-sudden releases of oils, toxic, hazardous, or other polluting

materials to the air, soil, surface water or groundwater, an SPCC Plan and Preparedness,

Prevention and Contingency (PPC) Plan would be prepared prior to construction. The

SPCC/PPC Plan will be developed to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act

(TSCA), and CWA. This plan would address and identify the type and quantity of material

handled, measures taken for spill preparedness and prevention, company and contractor

emergency response procedures, spill incident reporting procedures, and arrangements

with local emergency response teams.

To minimize impacts to human health and safety during operation of the pipeline, Denbury

has selected a pipeline route that would avoid populated areas, to the greatest extent

practicable. Furthermore, and in conjunction with Denbury’s HSE program described in

Section 3. 14, Denbury would institute a leak detection program and would implement

operational HSE procedures such as lock-out/tag-out and operator testing for CO2 in lowlying areas or crawl spaces prior to entering a potentially harmful situation. In addition, to

reduce the potential for metallurgical and corrosion of the pipeline due to the interaction of

CO2 gas with pipeline materials, a project-specific plan will be developed.

4.15 Cumulative Impacts

Cumulative impacts are the sum of the incremental impacts from a proposed action and

impacts from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Based on the

information presented in the proposed Pipeline Lateral project EIV, the Cumulative impacts

for this project would be minor.

Indirect (secondary) effects are caused by an action (such as the construction and operation

of the proposed Pipeline Lateral) and occur later in time or farther removed in distance, but

occurring in the reasonably foreseeable future. Generally, these impacts are induced by the

proposed action but are not a direct effect. Indirect effects can occur within the full range of

impact types, such as changes in land use, economic vitality, neighborhood character, traffic

congestion, air quality, noise, vibration, and water and natural resources. Examples of

indirect effects can include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced

changes in land use patterns, population density, and growth rates, and related effects on

air and water and other natural systems.

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines a cumulative impact as:

"...the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative

Topical 381
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-32

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place

over a period of time.” (40 CFR § 1508.7)

For a cumulative impact to occur, the action must affect a given resource and must have the

potential to interact with other actions with regard to that resource, either directly or

collectively. Additionally, cumulative impacts must be assessed at the geographic scale at

which the project may impact given resources and the scope of the cumulative impacts

analysis may vary among resources (FHWA, 1992).

Cumulative impacts must be considered over a specified time period to assess the influence

of an action. Cumulative impacts may carry forward for decades and the actual time of

influence attributable to a single project generally diminishes through time (FHWA, 1992).

The temporal assessment of cumulative impacts is tailored to the resource.

In accordance with CEQ guidance, past actions are considered collectively in describing the

existing conditions within the spatial area and temporal scope of analysis for each resource.

The cumulative impact assessment also includes identification of reasonably foreseeable

future actions. In some cases, information regarding specific actions that have been recently

commenced is available. Local and regional planning agencies and documents were used as

available that contain information relating to future land use, growth, and traffic projections

and measures.

Table 4-5 identifies whether there is potential for interaction and provides a summary of

potential cumulative impacts that could result from construction and operation of the

proposed Pipeline Lateral.

TABLE 4-5

Cumulative Impact Summary

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Resource Area Potential Cumulative Impacts

Project Area and

Topography

No cumulative impacts are expected; impacts limited to temporary construction land

disturbances. Topography will be returned to pre-construction conditions to the greatest

extent practicable.

Climate,

Meteorology, and

Air Quality

No cumulative impacts are expected; impacts limited to temporary increased dust and

combustion equipment emissions during construction.

Water

Quality/Quantity;

Floodplains and

Wetlands

Impacts to surface and groundwater resources limited to temporary construction water

body, floodplain, and wetland crossings and water use for hydrostatic testing. Cumulative

effects of water body and wetland impacts in the region have the potential to impose

additional losses on wetlands ecosystems, but current Federal policies under Section 404

of the Clean Water Act should avoid or minimize these losses or establish measures for

mitigation to make these impacts less than significant.

Ecology Cumulative effects that have the potential to affect ecological resources vary with the

affected habitat. Regardless of the development of the Pipeline Lateral, natural resources

associated with land surface areas, including vegetation and wildlife, are likely to be

displaced or lost in areas where industrial or residential growth occurs at formerly natural

areas. However, State and Federal protections for unique habitats and species may be

expected to avoid, minimize, or mitigate these effects through current and future

enforcement programs.

Topical 382
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-33

TABLE 4-5

Cumulative Impact Summary

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Resource Area Potential Cumulative Impacts

Waste No cumulative impacts are expected. Impacts of the Pipeline Lateral would be limited to

the construction ROW and there would be limited potential for offsite impacts due to the

unlikely event of a spill or release from temporary waste storage areas on site. There is no

potential for interaction of the Pipeline Lateral project with other projects with regard to

hazardous materials that would result in cumulative effects.

Land Use The presence of the Pipeline Lateral project is not expected to have a negative impact on

land uses in Calcasieu Parish. The Pipeline Lateral is co-located with existing utility

corridors for most of the Pipeline Lateral corridor. The addition of a new utility corridor in

Calcasieu Parish is expected to add negligible cumulative impacts to an area where

several utility corridors are already present.

Geology and Soils No cumulative impacts are expected. Impacts of the Pipeline Lateral would be limited to

the Pipeline Lateral ROW and there would be no potential offsite impacts. There is no

potential for interaction of the Pipeline Lateral with other projects with regard to soils and

geology.

Cultural and

Archaeological

Resources

No cumulative impacts are expected. Impacts of the Pipeline Lateral would be limited to

the Pipeline Lateral ROW and there are no potential impacts to historic properties or

viewsheds of historic properties. There is no potential for interaction of the Pipeline Lateral

ROW with other projects with regard to cultural resources.

Noise No cumulative impacts are expected. Traffic and traffic-related noise and ambient noise

levels in the area would increase during Pipeline Lateral construction. Noise from

operation of the Pipeline Lateral ROW would be negligible.

Socioeconomics Increases in economic growth related to continued development in the region are

expected to be within existing projections. No effects on Environmental Justice issues.

Public Resources No cumulative impacts are expected. Impacts are minimal and limited to potential

temporary increase in policing and emergency services needs during construction.

Transportation No cumulative impacts are expected, with impacts limited primarily to the duration of

construction to temporary construction land disturbances. There is no potential for

interaction of the Pipeline Lateral ROW with other projects with regard to transportation.

Visual There would be limited potential for the Pipeline Lateral to interact with other projects with

regard to visual quality. Once the facility is constructed, the Pipeline Lateral would not

further alter visual quality.

4.16 Summary of Impacts

A summary of the potential environmental impacts are presented in Table 4-6.

TABLE 4-6

Summary of Impacts

Denbury Onshore, LLC Lake Charles, LA EIV

Resource Area Summary of Impacts

Project Area and

Topography

Temporary impacts during land clearing and pipeline trenching and installation

activities to 187.2 acres of land. No permanent impacts are anticipated.

Air Climate, Meteorology,

and Air Quality

Temporary impacts during construction include increased dust and combustion

equipment operations. No permanent impacts are anticipated.

Topical 383
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 4-34

TABLE 4-6

Summary of Impacts

Denbury Onshore, LLC Lake Charles, LA EIV

Resource Area Summary of Impacts

Water Quality/Quantity;

Floodplains and Wetlands

Temporary, localized impacts during construction stream crossings; Potential

releases to streams during HDD operations; Surface water withdraws for

hydrostatic testing; Temporary, localized impacts to floodplain and during

construction stream and wetland crossings; Permanent conversion of forested

wetlands to herbaceous wetlands within permanent 50 foot wide ROW.

Ecology Temporary impacts to vegetation and displacement of wildlife during construction;

50 foot wide permanent ROW will be maintained for operations and maintenance

activities; Permanent impacts to wildlife are anticipated to be minimal.

Solid Waste Disposal Temporary construction impacts associated with land clearing, construction

supply packing materials, and general refuse; Negligible solid waste generated

during operations and maintenance activities.

Land Use Temporary impacts to 95 foot wide ROW during construction; Permanent

conversion of land to 50 foot wide ROW for operations and maintenance

activities; ROW co-locates with existing utility ROWs for approximately 90% of

route.

Geology and Soil Construction activities will increase the potential for temporary erosion and

sedimentation, compaction, and topsoil mixing. Construction will temporarily

impact approximately 176.6 acres classified by the NRCS as prime farmland soils.

Native American Tribal and

Religious Practices

No impacts.

Noise Temporary noise impacts during construction; Negligible permanent impacts

during operations and maintenance.

Socioeconomics No impacts.

Public Resources Potential increased need for public services (e.g., police, fire, emergency

services) during construction. No permanent impacts are anticipated.

Transportation Local traffic increases during Pipeline Lateral construction; Movement of heavy

equipment during construction. No permanent impacts are anticipated.

Visual Modification of the visual quality of the area by widening existing ROW corridors

or creating new ROW corridors to accommodate the pipeline.

Occupational Safety and

Health

Increased potential for noise hazards; slip, trip, and fall hazards; construction

equipment malfunction and injuries; and potential exposure to hazardous

materials.

Topical 384
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 5-1

SECTION 5.0

Potential Liability to DOE of Existing Conditions

at the Site

Potential liabilities to which DOE may be exposed as part of the existing conditions of the

Proposed Project may include, but may not be limited to, the unexpected presence of solid

or hazardous waste sites along the ROW and encroachment of the ROW by future

population center expansion. Denbury has no knowledge, previous or current, of any

research or demonstration projects proposed or being conducted along the proposed Project

corridor that would conflict with development of the Pipeline Lateral.

The presence of solid or hazardous waste sites along the ROW that were not identified to

state or federally waste management agencies may be encountered once excavation begins.

In this event, work will be stopped, and DOE would be notified and appropriate agencies

contacted. The responsibility of any additional action with regard to the waste site

investigation is not DOE’s or any other entity involved (Denbury or Denbury’s contactors)

with the proposed Project. Liability in this event would be limited to the delay of the

proposed Project’s completion and additional environmental evaluation similar to this EIV

to re-route the pipeline ROW.

There is potential for hitting buried utilities during construction given that the proposed

line is piggy-backing on exiting ROW and there is likely a high volume of existing lines in

those areas. Both DOE and Denbury are both relying on the utility information provided by

others, and utility blueprints may contain errors, leading to difficulty with older utilities

lines. Since April 1982, operators have been required to participate in “One Call” public

utility programs in populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the

vicinity of pipelines. The One Call program is a service used by public utilities and some

private sector companies (for example, oil pipelines and cable television) to provide

preconstruction information to contractors or other maintenance workers on the

underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. Denbury is a participant in the One Call

program.

While current land use in the proposed Project ROW is characterized by pastures,

croplands, wetland areas, residential and commercial land use, future expansion of

population centers could possibly impinge upon the ROW as completed. Institution controls

such additional fencing and signage may be required to limit access to the completed ROW.

While the proposed Lake Charles lateral would be a new pipeline to transport captured

CO2, it will be connecting to existing pipelines with Denbury’s pipeline system. The Green

Pipeline is an approximately 320-mile pipeline designed to transport booth natural and

man-made CO2. The Green Pipeline will be one of the first pipelines designed to transport

anthropogenic CO2 in the Gulf Coast Area.

The Secretary of Transportation has primary authority to regulate interstate CO2 pipeline

safety under the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Act of 1979 as amended (49 United States Code

[USC] §601). Under the act, the DOT regulates the design, construction, operation and

Topical 385
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 5-2

maintenance, and spill response planning for CO2 pipelines (49 C.F.R. §190, 195-199). The

DOT administers pipeline regulations through the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the

PHMSA. Although CO2 is listed as a Class 2.2 (non-flammable gas) hazardous material

under DOT regulations (49 CFR §172.101), the agency applies nearly the same safety

requirements to CO2 pipelines as it does to pipelines carrying hazardous liquids such as

crude oil, gasoline, and anhydrous ammonia (49 CFR §195). To date, CO2 pipelines in the

United States have experienced few serious accidents. According to OPS statistics, there

were 12 leaks from CO2 pipelines reported from 1986 through 2006 — none resulting in

injuries to people. Based on the limited sample of CO2 incidents, analysts conclude that,

mile-for-mile, CO2 pipelines appear to be safer than the other types of pipeline regulated by

OPS (Parfomak and Folger, 2007).

Since the Pipeline Safety Act was signed into law in 1968, states have been very active in

assisting the U.S. DOT Secretary in carrying out the nation's pipeline safety program. State

pipeline safety personnel represent more than 80 percent of the state/federal inspection

workforce, and state inspectors are the "first line of defense" at the community level to

promote pipeline safety, underground utility damage prevention, and public education and

awareness regarding pipelines (National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,

2009).

According to data collected by DOT on pipeline incidents, the dominant cause for accidents

involving pipelines is outside forces. Outside forces incidents result from the encroachment

of mechanical equipment such as bulldozers and backhoes; or from earth movements due to

soil settlement, washouts, or geologic hazards; weather effects such as winds, storms, and

thermal strains; and willful damage.

Denbury will design, construct, test, operate, and maintain the proposed pipeline facilities

in accordance with the DOT Minimum Federal Pipeline Safety Standards in 49 CFR §195,

Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline. These regulations are intended to ensure

adequate protection for the public and to prevent accidents and failures. Part 195 specifies

material selection and qualification, minimum design requirements, and protection from

internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. The safety standards specified in Part 195

require each pipeline operator to:

 Develop an emergency plan prepared by the pipeline company, working with local fire

departments and other agencies to identify personnel to be contacted, equipment to be

mobilized, and procedures to be performed to respond to a hazardous condition caused

by the pipeline.

 Establish and maintain a liaison with the appropriate fire, police, and public officials in

order to coordinate mutual assistance when responding to emergencies.

 Establish a continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government

officials, and those engaged in excavation activities to recognize a pipeline emergency

and report it to appropriate public officials.

In addition, the standards in 49 CFR §195 define area classifications based on population

density. More stringent safety considerations are required in more populated areas, and

require higher safety factors in pipeline design, testing, and operation. Pipe wall thickness

and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, maximum allowable operating

Topical 386
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 5-3

pressure, inspection and testing of welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak

surveys must also conform to higher standards in more populated areas.

The Project is located primarily within low population density areas. If a subsequent

increase in population density adjacent to the ROW were ever to indicate a change in class

location for the pipeline, Denbury would modify its facilities or operations to comply with

the DOT code of regulations for the new class location.

Topical 387
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 6-1

SECTION 6.0

Ability to Meet Compliance Requirements at the

Site

6.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements and Coordination

NEPA is the environmental component of planning for federal projects and projects with

federal funding. NEPA is integrated with other planning activities to ensure that such

decisions consider environmental and socioeconomic factors in a systematic manner.

Requirements of applicable permits and regulations are also included in the evaluation

performed under the NEPA process.

Federal statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders (EOs) applicable to one or more

components of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative as described in this EIV

include, but are not necessarily limited to:

6.1.1 Federal Statutes

 National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321-4370)

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC 1531-1543)

 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661, et seq.)

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 701, et seq.)

 Clean Water Act of 1977 (CWA) and the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA) (33 USC 1251

et seq., as amended)

 Farmland Protection Act of 1981 (7 USC 4201 et. seq., as amended)

 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(CERCLA) (as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of

1986 [SARA])

 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 USC 6901)

 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 USC 2601 et seq., as amended)

 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (16 USC 470 et seq., as amended)

 Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470)

 Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC 7401 et seq., as amended)

 Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC 4901 - 4918)

6.1.2 Regulations

 CEQ Regulations for Implementing NEPA (Title 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508 (40 CFR 1500-

1508)

Topical 388
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 6-2

 Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800)

 DOE Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (10 CFR Part 1021)

 DOE Compliance with Floodplain and Wetland Environmental Review Requirements

(10 CFR Part 1022)

6.1.3 Executive Orders

 EO 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality (amended by

EO 11991)

 EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands

 EO 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs

 EO 11988, Floodplain Management

 EO 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards

 EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations

and Low Income Populations

 EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risk

 EO 13010, Critical Infrastructure

 EO 13025, Amendment to EO 13010, the President's Commission on Critical

Infrastructure Protection

 EO 13112, Invasive Species

 EO 13148, Greening the Government through Leadership in Environmental

Management

 EO 13186, Responsibility of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds

 EO 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use.

 EO 13287, Preserve America

 EO 13414, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance

6.1.4 DOE Policies, Orders and Guidance

 DOE O 451.1B, National Environmental Policy Act Compliance Program (Change 1,

September 28, 2001)

 Secretarial Policy on the National Environmental Policy Act (June 13, 1994)

 Questions and Answers on the Secretarial Policy Statement on the National

Environmental Policy Act (July 1994)

 DOE P 430.1, Land and Facility Use Planning (July 9, 1996) (with Secretary of Energy

Memorandum, December 21, 1994)

 DOE P 141.1, Management of Cultural Resources (May 2001)

Topical 389
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 6-3

 DOE Interim Guidance: Need to Consider Intentional Destructive Acts in NEPA

Documents (December 2006)

6.1.5 Applicable Permits Required for Proposed Action

Table 6-1 contains federal, state, and local permits applicable to one or more components of

the Proposed Action as described in this EIV. Additional permits and clearances may be

required if the project scope differs from what is described in this EIV.

TABLE 6-1

Applicable Permits for the Proposed Action

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Permit/Approval

Administering

Agency

Anticipated time

for

Permit/Clearance

Approval Comment

Section 404/10 Compliance

(Nationwide Permit [NWP]

12)

U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers

(USACE), New

Orleans District

3 months Assumes standard Nationwide

Program timelines will apply

30-Day review period to determine if

PCN application is complete and 45

days to review and issue permit

Allows for early submittal of U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and

U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) applications and their

clearances during the USACE review

period

Threatened and

Endangered Species

Consultation

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service,

Lafayette

Ecological

Services Field

Office

2 months Assumes 2 months for USFWS to

review and issue clearance as part of

the pre-survey NEPA agency

consultation. Does not include time if

formal Section 7 consultation is

required.

Approval for crossing

conservation easements,

Conservation Restoration

Program lands, Prime

Farmland, and Wetland

Restoration Program lands

(if necessary)

U.S. Department

of Agriculture,

Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service (NRCS)

2 months Assumes 2 months for NRCS to

review and issue clearance given the

pre-application/pre-survey

consultations

Threatened and

Endangered Species

Consultation

Louisiana

Department of

Wildlife and

Fisheries

(LDW&F)-Natural

Heritage Program

2 months Assumes 2 months for LDW&F to

review and issue clearance given the

pre-application/pre-survey

consultations

Section 401 Water Quality

Certification (joint

application through

USACE Section 404

permit)

Louisiana

Department of

Environmental

Quality (LDEQ)

3 months Assumes joint application with the

USACE Section 404 application and

timeline assumptions

Topical 390
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 6-4

TABLE 6-1

Applicable Permits for the Proposed Action

Denbury Lake Charles, Louisiana, EIV

Permit/Approval

Administering

Agency

Anticipated time

for

Permit/Clearance

Approval Comment

Hydrostatic Test Water

Discharge Permit (LAG

670000)

Louisiana

Department of

Environmental

Quality

1 month Notice of Intent to be filed prior to

project implementation.

Louisiana Pollutant

Discharge Elimination

System Stormwater

Permit due to Construction

and SWPPP

Louisiana

Department of

Environmental

Quality

1 month Notice of intent to be filed prior to

project implementation.

Archaeological and Historic

Structures

Consultation/Clearance

Louisiana

Department of

Culture,

Recreation, and

Tourism

1 month Assumes standard 30-day review

period and familiarity with the project

during pre-application and pre-survey

consultations

Topical 391
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 7-1

SECTION 7.0

Experience and Approach to the Identification

and Resolution of Environmental Issues

7.1 Education/Experience of Key Project Members

Randy Robichaux is the health, safety, and environmental manager for Denbury Onshore

and oversees all environmental activity for the company including permitting, mitigation

efforts, and corrective actions. Randy’s resume is provided in Appendix F. In addition to the

support staff at Denbury, Randy utilizes the services of qualified consultants to help deliver

key permitting strategies and environmental support.

7.2 Denbury’s Permitting Experience

The U.S. CO2 pipeline network is extremely small when compared to the U.S. oil and gas

pipeline system. Denbury and an affiliate are currently constructing the Green Pipeline to transport

CO2 from both natural and man-made sources to reenergize petroleum reservoirs. We have entered

into purchase contracts with owners of potential sources of man-made CO2 and are in

various stages of discussions with several other entities. Assuming these plants are

ultimately constructed, Denbury plans to use this CO2 to recover oil that would not

otherwise be produced. In addition to increased domestic oil production, our potential use

of man-made CO2 in our EOR operations, will help reduce the release of CO2, a greenhouse

gas, into the earth’s atmosphere.

Denbury and an affiliate are currently constructing a 24-inch pipeline from Donaldsonville, Louisiana

to Hastings Field, south of Houston, Texas (The Green Pipeline Project) and will transport up

to 800 million standard cubic feet per day of CO2. The approximately 320-mile pipeline,

estimated to cost a total of $825 million, is designed to transport both natural and man-made

CO2. The Green Pipeline will be one of the first pipelines designed to transport

anthropogenic CO2 in the Gulf Coast area. The pipeline has been designed to operate under

the rules and regulations of the DOT and is compliant with all local, state and federal

regulations including pre-pipeline construction approvals for wetland-delineation, habitat

evaluations and culture resource studies, along with other environmental and safety

statutes.

Denbury has always taken the opportunity to avoid adverse impacts to ecologically and

culturally sensitive areas. Construction methodologies and/or compensatory mitigation is

provided to offset all unavoidable impacts, including replacing wetland acreage. Pipeline

construction methods include alternative routing, reduction in construction width,

installation of mats, push methods and horizontal directional drilling.

Routing is paramount to avoid sensitive sites and creates opportunities to utilize other

ecologically sensitive construction methods. The reduction of ROW widths can be achieved

through proper planning and by chipping woody vegetation, reducing impacts by as much

Topical 392
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 7-2

as one third. The installation of mats within the working ROW reduces compaction and soil

disturbance which facilitates post construction rehabilitation.

When conditions dictate, the “push method” of construction provides for further reduction

of ROW width. This method of flooding the pipeline trench, fabricating the joints of pipe at

a single location and pushing the pipe down the flooded ditch on floats as more pipe is

attached, is capable of reducing impacts by over 50 percent.

The use of horizontal directional drilling can be used to completely avoid surface features

and is a great option for archeological sites, narrow wetlands or site specific habitat

concerns (i.e. denning or nesting areas). Additionally, properly installed erosion control

devices are strategically positioned along the ROW, and these devices are maintained until

the impacted area has fully recovered. Denbury works closely under the guidelines of the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal, state and local regulators to ensure that the

highest quality of compliance is achieved.

Denbury expects the pipeline to be fully operational by late 2013.

7.3 Denbury’s Environmental Policies

Denbury currently has several written environmental policies, procedures, or plans

currently in place and considered essential to the business operation and been implemented

with the construction of the Green Pipeline. These include a waste management plan, a

health safety and environmental policy, a health and safety guidelines for contractors, and

the Corporate Responsibility Guide presented in Appendix G. 

Topical 393
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-1

SECTION 8.0

References

Autin, W. J., A. T. Davison, B. J. Miller, and F.E. Lindfors-Kearns, 1985. Use of Mt. Pleasant

Bluff in correlation of the Prairie Formation, southeastern Louisiana: Geological Society of

America Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, p. 150.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Department of Labor. 2010. Civilian labor force and

Unemployment by state and metropolitan area. Available at:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/metro.t01.htm.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2007. News Release of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

from the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses. Available at:

http://www.bls.gov/iif/osh_nwrl.htm#industry. Web site accessed February 2010.

California State Lands Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and Aspen

Environmental Group. 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement. Available at:

http://www.montereybay.noaa.gov/new/2005/031505marseir.html.

California State Lands Commission, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and Aspen

Environmental Group. 2005. Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement. Available at:

http://www.montereybay.noaa.gov/new/2005/031505marseir.html.

City-Data.com. 2010. Available at: www.city-data.com. Web site accessed February 2010.

Colorado State University CIRA Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere. 2006.

IMPROVE Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and its

Constituents in the United States, Report IV; ISSN:0737-5352-74. November.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), 1997. Environmental Justice Guidance Under the

National Environmental Policy Act. Dec 1997. Available at:

http://www.ceq.hhs.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ej/justice.pdf.

Daigle, J.J., G.E Griffith, J.M. Omernik, P.L. Faulkner, R.P. McCulloh, L.R. Handley,

L.M. Smith, and S.S. Chapman. 2006. Ecoregions of Louisiana: Reston, Virginia, U.S.

Geological Survey.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. NEPA and Transportation Decision

Making: Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment in the Highway Project

Development Process. Federal Highway Administration Project Development Branch, HEP31. April 1992. Available at: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov. Web site accessed

February 2010.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Highway Traffic Noise. Available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/3.htm. Web site accessed May 31, 2007.

Topical 394
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-2

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Highway Traffic Noise. Available at:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/3.htm. Web site accessed May 31, 2007.

Louisiana Cultural Resources Map. Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office. Available

at: http://kronos.crt.state.la.us/website/lahpweb/viewer.htm. Web site accessed

February 16, 2010.

Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE). 2006. Geographic Dataset: Schools in the State

of Louisiana. Downloaded from the Louisiana Map 2.0, Available at: http://map.la.gov/.

Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Education. 2007.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ ). 1988. Recharge Potential of

Louisiana Aquifers. Available at:

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2588/Default.aspx. Web site accessed March

1, 2010.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2005. Aquifer Baseline

Monitoring Program – Fiscal Years 2004-2006: Chicot Aquifer Summary. Available at:

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/default.aspx?tabid=1717. Web site accessed March

1, 2010.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2009. Louisiana Annual Network

Assessment, LDEQ AQ Assessment Division, May 30.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2010a. Calcasieu Estuary Bayou

d'Inde. Available at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). 2010b. Remediation Services.

Available at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH). 2006. Geographic Dataset: Care

Facilities Licensed by LDHH. Downloaded from the Louisiana Map 2.0. Available at:

http://map.la.gov/. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH). 2007. Geographic Dataset:

Hospitals in the state of Louisiana. Downloaded from the Louisiana Map 2.0. Available at:

http://map.la.gov/. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Social Services (LDSS). 2006. Geographic Dataset: Care Facilities

Licensed by LDSS. Downloaded from the Louisiana Map 2.0. Available at:

http://map.la.gov/. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Social Services (LDSS). 2006. Geographic Dataset: Statewide Day

Cares. Downloaded from the Louisiana Map 2.0. Available at: http://map.la.gov/. Web site

accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LA DOTD). 2010. Estimated

Annual Average Daily Traffic Count Sites. http://www.dotd.la.gov/highways. Web site

accessed February 2010.

Topical 395
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-3

Louisiana Environmental Data Center (LEDC). 2010. Emission Inventory for Calcasieu

Parish. 2008. Available at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2729/Default.aspx.

Louisiana Geologic Survey (LGS). 2010. Geologic Review. Available at:

http://www.lgs.lsu.edu. Web site accessed February 2010.

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program. 2008. Rare, Threatened, & Endangered Species &

Natural Communities - Calcasieu Parish.

Meteorology Data for the State of Louisiana, Louisiana Environmental Data Center (LEDC).

Available at: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2729/Default.aspx.

Multi Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. 2001. National Land Cover Database.

United States Department of the Interior.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Lake Charles Historic Severe Weather Data.

Available at: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms www.citydata.com. Web site accessed February 2010.

National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2010. National Conference of State

Legislatures Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13278.Web. Web site accessed

February 18, 2010.

National Register of Historic Places. National Register of Historic Places website. Accessed

February 15, 2010. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm.

National Scenic Byways Program. 2010. Louisiana Scenic Byways. Available at:

http://www.byways.org. Web site accessed February 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture.

2010. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Web site accessed

February 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture.

2010. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Web site accessed

February 2010.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Major Land Resource Areas. Available at:

http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/mlra. Web site accessed July 9, 2009.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer Listed Species for Calcasieu Parish. Available at:

http://www.natureserve.org. Web site accessed February 2010.

Parfomak and Folger. 2007. “Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pipelines for Carbon Sequestration:

Emerging Policy Issues.” Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress. P. 21.

April 19.

Roth, David Mark, National Weather Service. 1998.“A Historical Study of Tropical Storms

and Hurricanes that have affected Southwest Louisiana and Southeast Texas,” Lake Charles,

Louisiana, SR/SSD 98-16, April 1.

Topical 396
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-4

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2010a. Climate Data for the State of

Texas. 1974 to 2003. Available at:

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/air/monops/tx_climate.html.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2010b. Windrose for Beaumont,

Texas 1988 to 1992. Available at:

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/compliance/monops/air/windroses/bptall.gif.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). 2010c. Available at:

http://www5.tceq.state.tx.us/airperm/index.cfm?fuseaction=airpermits.start.

The Engineering Toolbox. 2007. Sound levels Web sites. Available at:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/outdoor-noise-d_62.html and

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-level-d_719.html. Web site accessed May 25,

2007.

The Engineering Toolbox. 2007. Sound Levels Web sites. Available at:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox. com/outdoor-noise-d_62.html, and

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-level-d_719.html. Accessed May 25, 2007.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2010. Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes. Available at

http://www.nature.org. Web site accessed February 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Calcasieu River Basin. Available at:

www.mvn.usace.army.mil. Web site accessed February 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office of

Noise Abatement and Control, March 1974.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a.AirData Database for NAAQS

Monitoring. Available at:

http://oaspub.epa.gov/aqspub1/AQS_Annsum.AnnualSummary.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Region 6 Louisiana Site Status

Summaries. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6. Web site accessed February 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010c. Toxics Release Inventory Program.

Available at: www.epa.gov/TRI/. Web site accessed February 2010.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010d.AirData Database for NAAQS

Monitoring. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/repsco.html?co~48245~Jefferson%20Co%2C%20Texas.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).2010. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ Web site accessed March 1, 2010.

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2010a. Louisiana Geologic Map Data. Available at:

http://tin.er.usgs.gov/geology/state. Web site accessed February 2010.

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 2010b. Louisiana Seismic Hazard Map. Available at:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov. Website accessed February 2010.

Topical 397
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-5

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000a. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights -

United States. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=

01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGe

oDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2008_3Y

R_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry. Web site

accessed February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000b. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights -

Louisiana. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=04000US22&_geoContex

t=01000US%7C04000US22&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US22&_zip=&_l

ang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=040&_submenuId

=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3A

null&_keyword=&_industry=Accessed Web site accessed February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000c. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights -

Calcasieu Parish. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=04000US22&_geo

Context=01000US%7C04000US22&_street=&_county=calcasieu&_cityTown=calcasieu&_stat

e=04000US22&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&

pgsl=040&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=

null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry. Web site accessed February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2000d. Profile of General Demographic

Characteristics: 2000, Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000, Profile of Selected

Economic Characteristics: 2000, Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000 -Lake

Charles MSA, Louisiana.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2008a. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year

Estimates, Demographic Profile Highlights, Selected Economic Characteristics -United

States. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoCont

ext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Activ

eGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=null&_ci_

nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry. Web site accessed

February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2008b. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-

Year Estimates, Demographic Profile Highlights, Selected Economic Characteristics -

Louisiana. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=01000US&_g

eoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=04000US22&_zip=&_lang=e

n&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsh

eet_1&ds_name=ACS_2008_3YR_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_

keyword=&_industry. We site accessed February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2008c. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year

Estimates, Demographic Profile Highlights, Selected Economic Characteristics -Calcasieu

Topical 398
LAKE CHARLES_EIV APPLICATION_3_1_2010_RR_FINAL.DOCX 8-6

Parish, Louisiana. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=05000US22019&_ge

oContext=01000US%7C04000US22%7C05000US22019&_street=&_county=calcasieu&_cityT

own=calcasieu&_state=04000US22&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_

useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=050&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SAFF&_ci_

nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry. Web site accessed

February 2010.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2008d. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-

Year Estimates, Demographic Profile Highlights, Selected Economic Characteristics -Lake

Charles MSA, Louisiana. Available at:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=31000US29340&-

qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-

_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format. Web site accessed February 2010.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. 2010. National Wild and Scenic Rivers. Available at:

http://www.rivers.org. Website accessed February 2010.

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 2009. Resolution on DOT and

Congressional Appropriations, July 22. Available at: http://www.naruc.org.

.

Topical 399
List of Agencies Contacted

All interagency cooperation will be conducted with DOE acting as the lead agency. This EIV

was prepared based on desktop analysis only and available public information. No agency

consultation has been conducted to date.

Topical 400
APPENDIX A

Typical Construction ROWs

Topical 401
Topical 402
Topical 403
Topical 404
Topical 405
Topical 406
Topical 407
APPENDIX B

Route Maps

Topical 408
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 1 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

MP 1

1

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

1.2 1.3 1.4

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Meter_Site_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

LEUCADIA CONNECTION

HIGHWAY 108

Topical 409
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 2 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

MP 2

2

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Meter_Site_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

PIPE / CONTRACTOR YARD

Topical 410
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 3 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

MP 3

3

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

S.BEGLIS PKWY 

HIGHWAY 27

MARS ST.

WRIGHT RD.

Topical 411
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 4 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

0#

MP 4

MP 5

4

5

3.9

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5 4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.1

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

RUTH ST.

CARLYSS DR.

CURRIE DR.

VALVE SITE

Topical 412
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 5 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

MP 6

6

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

6.1

6.2

6.3

6.4

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

POWERLINE AREA

Topical 413
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 6 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

MP 7

7

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

6.9

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

I-10

Topical 414
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 7 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#

0#

MP 8

MP 9

8

9

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.9

9.1

9.2

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

W.NAPOLEON ST.

SOUTHERN RAILROAD

STEAGEL RD.

Topical 415
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 8 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#10MP 10

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

9.8

9.9

10.1

10.2

10.3

10.4

10.5

10.6

10.7

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

DIRT RD.

Topical 416
DENBURY 

ONSHORE,LLC.

 LEUCADIA PROPOSED CO2 PIPELINE

 ROUTE MAP

SCALE: AS SHOWN

FEBRUARY 2010

SHEET 9 OF 9

#0

#0

#0 #0

#0

#0

#0

#0 #0 #0 #0

MP 1 MP 4 MP 3 MP 2

MP 5

MP 6

MP 7

MP 8 MP 9

MP 10

MP 11

0#11MP 11

10.7

10.8

10.9

11.1

11.2

11.3

11.4

11.5

Legend

#0 Mile_Post_84

10th_Mile_Post_84

Proposed_Centerline_84

Existing_Pipeline_lines_84

Meter_Site_84

Pipe_Contractor_Yard_84

Valve_Site_84

Atws_Areas_84

Main_Route_Temp_Row_84

Main_Route_Perm_Row_84

.

0 3 6 9 12 1.5

Miles

.

GREEN PIPELINE

METER SITE

DIRT RD.

Topical 417
APPENDIX C

Land Owner Lists

Topical 418
Leucadia Energy 

Lake Charles Pipeline Line List 

Primary Route

Tract Owner Tax Map Parcel Number Address City State 

1 Basell USA Inc (Montell North America, Inc) 171009-0000-340-0002 P. O. Box 1687 Lake Charles LA 2 Basell USA Inc (Montell North America, Inc) 181009-0000-210-0003 P. O. Box 1687 Lake Charles LA 3 Basell USA Inc (Montell North America, Inc) 181009-0000-210-0002 P. O. Box 1687 Lake Charles LA 4 Basell USA Inc (Montell North America, Inc) 181009-0000-240-0002 P. O. Box 1687 Lake Charles LA 5 Citgo Petroleum Corporation 181009-0000-210-0001 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 6 Occidental Chemical Corporation (Equistar Chemicals LP) 181009-0000-240-0003 P. O. Box 3646 Houston TX 7 Cities Service Hwy8 Occidental Chemical Corporation (Equistar Chemicals LP) 181009-0000-310-0001 P. O. Box 3646 Houston TX 9 Defense Plant Corporate Railroad ROW

10 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 181009-0000-340-0001 P. O. Box 1316 Lake Charles LA 11 Occidental Chemical Corporation (Equistar Chemicals LP) 181009-0000-430-0001 P. O. Box 3646 Houston TX 12 Cit-Con Oil Corporation 131010-0000-120-0002 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 13 Citgo Petroleum Corporation 131010-0000-120-0001 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 14 Citgo Petroleum Corporation 131010-0000-110-0001 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 15 Citgo Petroleum Corporation 131010-0000-140-0001 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 16 Cit-Con Oil Corporation 131010-0000-140-0003 P. O. Box 3758 Tulsa OK 17 John Leroy Glover, Jr, et al 131010-0000-140-0002 P. O. Box 2471 Baton Rouge LA 18 John Leroy Glover, Jr, et al 131010-0000-410-0001 P. O. Box 2471 Baton Rouge LA 19 John Leroy Glover, Jr, et al 131010-0000-440-0001 P. O. Box 2471 Baton Rouge LA 20 James T. Quinn 141010-0000-110-0001 611 Ravia Road Sulphur LA 21 Trocar Inc. 141010-0000-140-0005-01 P. O. Box 1057 Suphur LA 

David Alexander Foster 4582 Kingwood Drive Suite E #227 Kingwood TX 

22 Sabine River Diversion System Canal23 Edward Tal McCain, et al 141010-0000-140-0005-03 611 Ravia Road Sulphur LA 24 Arizona Street/South Beglis Parkwa25 Edward Tal McCain, et al 141010-0000-140-0006 864 Hwy 384 Lake Charles LA 26 James T. Quinn 141010-0000-410-0001 611 Ravia Road Suphur LA 

Dennis Ray Sumpter, et ux 1003 S. Huntington Street Suphur LA Joe W. Fournet 3402 Stillwater Lane Sugarland TX William R. McDonald 200 Griffith Street Lake Charles LA 

27 Entergy Gulf States La./Entergy Texas, Inc 141010-0000-440-0006 639 Loyola Avenue New Orleans LA 28 Wright Road29 Palvest Inc 151010-0920-F-0005 2701 Maplewood Drive Sulphur LA 30 Mars Street31 Palvest Inc 151010-0920-C-0005-02 2701 Maplewood Drive Sulphur LA 

Palermo Land Company Inc. 2701 Maplewood Drive Suphur LA 

32 Sabine Diversion System Canal33 Mike Shetley Company/Palvest Inc 151010-0920-C-0004-02 2701 Maplewood Drive Sulphur LA 34 Gerald Glenn Pettefer, et ux 151010-0920-C-0001-03 660 Starlin Street Sulphur LA 35 Ruth Street/U.S. Hwy 2736 Big Three Industries, Inc (Air Liquide America Corp) 151010-0000-420-0001 P. O. Box 460149 Houston TX 37 Carlyss Drive38 NO INFO FOUND 161010-0000-120-000139 Carlton Eugene Lovett 161010-0000-110-0004-03 2355 Royal Oak Lane Sulphur LA 40 Sabine Diversion System Canal41 Willis Stanley Willson, et ux 161010-0000-110-0004-01 3806 Carlyss Drive Sulphur LA 42 Edward Buttikofer, Jr 161010-0000-110-0004-04 3802 Carlyss Drive Sulphur LA 43 Rene' Joseph and Lorraine Guidry 161010-0000-110-0001-07 309 Arnold Street Suphur LA 44 John Ahart Guidry 161010-0000-110-0001-06 555 Jay's Circle Sulphur LA 45 Arthur Rene Guidry 161010-0000-110-0001-05 589 Jay's Circle Sulphur LA 46 Agnes Yvette Trahan 161010-0000-110-0001-04 1601 Currie Drive Sulphur LA 

47 John David Westbrook, et al 161010-0000-110-0006-01 P. O. Box 2383 Suphur LA 

48 Georgina Rae Delossey Watson 161010-0000-110-0006-02 3642 Carlyss Drive Sulphur LA 49 Currie Road

50 Bel Commercial LTD 091010-0000-220-0001 P. O. Box 1447 Lake Charles LA 

51 Raleigh and Barbara Newman 091010-0000-230-0002 1830 Hodges Street Lake Charles LA 

1 

Topical 419
Leucadia Energy 

Lake Charles Pipeline Line List 

Primary Route

Tract Owner Tax Map Parcel Number Address City State 

52 Raleigh and Barbara Newman 091010-0000-210-0001 1830 Hodges Street Lake Charles LA 53 Raleigh and Barbara Newman 091010-0000-240-0002 1830 Hodges Street Lake Charles LA 54 Sabine River Diversion System Canal55 Christina Eve Duplechain 091010-0000-310-0002 280 Ray Duplechain Road DeRidder LA 56 William Logan Perkins, et al 091010-0000-420-0003 3336 Hwy 27 South Suphur LA 57 Perkins-Thomas LLC 091010-0000-420-0001 3044 Hwy 27 South Sulphur LA 58 William Mitchell Perkins 091010-0000-420-0002 5706 Alder Lake Charles LA 59 B H Timber, Inc. 091010-0000-430-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 60 B H Timber, Inc. 091010-0000-440-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 61 B H Timber, Inc. 081010-0000-110-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 62 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-220-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 63 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-230-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 64 I-1065 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-230-0002 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 66 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-240-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 67 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-310-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 68 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-420-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 69 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-410-0001 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 70 Curtis Edmond McCain, et ux 051010-0000-440-0002 2238 Pete Seay Drive Sulphur LA 71 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-440-0004 P. O. Box 788 Baton Rouge LA 72 Bryan David Crawford, et ux 051010-0000-440-0003 2174 Pete Seay Drive Sulphur LA 73 B H Timber, Inc. 051010-0000-440-0001 P. O. Box 788 Sulphur LA 74 A. J. Simmons, Jr., et ux 320910-2146-0007-03 2167 Hwy 90 West Sulphur LA 75 A. J. Simmons, Jr., et ux 320910-2146-0007-02 2167 Hwy 90 West Sulphur LA 76 U.S. Hwy 90/W. Napoleon78 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 320910-0000-330-0001 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 79 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 320910-0000-340-0001 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 80 Railroad ROW81 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 320910-0000-430-0001 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 82 Mark Gregory Merrick, et ux 320910-0000-430-0002 2308 W. Burton Street Sulphur LA 83 David Wayne Williamson, et ux 320910-0000-430-0003 2312 W. Burton Street Sulphur LA 84 City of Sulphur 320910-430-0004 P. O. Box 1309 Sulphur LA 85 City of Sulphur 310910-0000-120-0001 P. O. Box 1309 Sulphur LA 86 Carolyn J. Gifford, et ux 310910-0000-130-0001 P. O. Box 5676 Lake Charles LA 87 Steagel Road88 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 310910-0000-420-0002 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 89 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 310910-0000-430-0001 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 90 Sabine River Diversion System Canal91 Union Pacific Railroad Company-Main Line 360911-0000-120-0003 1400 Douglas Street Stop 1640 Omaha NE 92 Union Pacific Railroad Company-Main Line 360911-0000-110-0001 1400 Douglas Street Stop 1640 Omaha NE 93 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 360911-0000-110-0002 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 94 Stream Family Limited Partnership 250911-0000-230-0001 P. O. Box 40 Lake Charles LA 95 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 250911-0000-230-0002 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 96 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 250911-0000-320-0002 2597 WPA Road Suphur LA 97 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 250911-0000-310-0002 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 98 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 250911-0000-340-0002 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 99 Sabine Diversion System Canal

100 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 260911-0000-210-0001 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 101 Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co., LP 260911-0000-120-0001 411 S. Keeler #AB Bartlesville OK 102 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 260911-0000-130-0001 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 103 Gary Wayne Livengood, et ux 260911-0000-130-0002 1929 Honeysuckle Lane Sulphur LA 104 Gary Wayne Livengood, et ux 260911-0000-420-0002 1929 Honeysuckle Lane Sulphur LA 105 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 260911-0000-420-0001 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 

106 Gary Wayne Livengood, et ux 260911-0000-410-0003 1929 Honeysuckle Lane Sulphur LA 

107 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 260911-0000-430-0001 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 

108 Rhodes Veteranary Hospital Inc, Profit Sharing Trust 260911-0000-440-0005 2597 WPA Road Sulphur LA 

2 

Topical 420
Leucadia Energy 

Lake Charles Pipeline Line List 

Primary Route

Tract Owner Tax Map Parcel Number Address City State 

109 Gary Wayne Livengood, et ux 260911-0000-440-0003 1929 Honeysuckle Lane Sulphur LA 

3 

Topical 421


































APPENDIX E

Meteorological Data

Topical 456
BCOT 2008 BATON ROUGE/CAPITAL - TEMPERATURE UNIT - Fahr

DATE 012345

01/01/08 54 53 51 49 47 46

01/02/08 41 39 38 36 35 34

01/03/08 29 28 27 26 26 25

01/04/08 36 35 34 35 38 39

01/05/08 52 52 52 53 53 54

01/06/08 59 58 58 58 60 61

01/07/08 66 66 64 63 62 62

01/08/08 68 68 68 67 68 67

01/09/08 61 59 58 57 57 56

01/10/08 65 65 68 68 68 68

01/11/08 54 52 51 50 49 47

01/12/08 47 46 45 44 43 42

01/13/08 53 53 53 52 51 51

01/14/08 48 45 43 41 40 39

01/15/08 48 47 46 46 46 46

01/16/08 49 48 48 47 47 47

01/17/08 47 46 46 46 46 46

01/18/08 49 49 47 46 44 44

01/19/08 44 42 42 41 41 39

01/20/08 32 31 30 29 29 28

01/21/08 34 33 32 31 31 31

01/22/08 49 50 51 52 52 52

01/23/08 56 55 54 53 52 52

01/24/08 53 52 51 50 49 47

01/25/08 41 40 40 39 39 38

01/26/08 40 41 42 42 43 43

01/27/08 46 46 44 44 44 43

01/28/08 43 40 39 39 38 38

01/29/08 56 55 55 55 56 56

01/30/08 49 46 43 40 39 37

01/31/08 45 45 46 47 47 47

02/01/08 45 43 41 39 38 37

02/02/08 42 41 40 40 40 40

02/03/08 57 58 58 59 59 59

02/04/08 69 68 68 68 68 68

02/05/08 71 71 71 71 71 71

02/06/08 73 73 66 55 55 56

02/07/08 47 46 43 42 42 41

02/08/08 51 50 48 48 47 47

02/09/08 56 55 55 55 55 56

02/10/08 56 55 53 51 50 49

02/11/08 53 50 49 48 47 46

02/12/08 61 60 60 60 60 56

02/13/08 45 44 43 43 43 41

02/14/08 38 38 37 36 35 35

02/15/08 53 52 52 52 53 54

02/16/08 59 58 58 58 58 59

02/17/08 67 68 70 61 59 59

02/18/08 54 52 51 50 49 48

02/19/08 46 45 44 43 42 42

02/20/08 52 52 53 53 52 52

02/21/08 64 64 64 64 63 64

02/22/08 71 71 71 71 70 70

Topical 457
02/23/08 48 48 47 47 46 46

02/24/08 54 52 50 49 48 48

02/25/08 58 56 55 54 53 52

02/26/08 71 71 71 71 66 62

02/27/08 46 45 44 43 41 40

02/28/08 42 41 41 41 41 41

02/29/08 55 55 55 54 54 53

03/01/08 57 57 56 55 54 54

03/02/08 62 61 60 59 59 58

03/03/08 63 64 64 64 65 65

03/04/08 54 51 49 48 47 45

03/05/08 42 41 40 38 38 38

03/06/08 49 49 48 47 47 47

03/07/08 54 52 53 51 49 47

03/08/08 39 38 36 36 37 38

03/09/08 42 41 40 39 38 38

03/10/08 55 55 54 53 52 51

03/11/08 56 56 55 55 55 55

03/12/08 52 51 50 49 50 49

03/13/08 54 54 52 52 50 50

03/14/08 64 63 63 63 63 64

03/15/08 69 69 69 69 70 70

03/16/08 64 61 59 57 56 55

03/17/08 61 60 60 62 62 64

03/18/08 72 73 73 73 73 74

03/19/08 76 73 65 65 64 64

03/20/08 51 50 50 48 47 45

03/21/08 52 51 51 50 49 48

03/22/08 58 57 57 56 55 54

03/23/08 58 58 57 56 54 53

03/24/08 51 49 47 46 45 44

03/25/08 46 44 43 42 42 42

03/26/08 55 55 55 54 54 53

03/27/08 60 59 59 58 58 58

03/28/08 66 65 65 65 65 65

03/29/08 68 67 65 65 65 66

03/30/08 69 69 68 69 68 68

03/31/08 68 68 68 68 69 69

04/01/08 71 71 71 70 70 71

04/02/08 70 68 68 67 67 67

04/03/08 71 70 70 70 70 69

04/04/08 71 70 70 70 70 70

04/05/08 61 61 61 60 61 61

04/06/08 57 56 56 56 56 56

04/07/08 60 60 58 58 58 57

04/08/08 66 66 65 64 64 64

04/09/08 70 70 71 71 71 71

04/10/08 74 74 74 74 74 75

04/11/08 75 75 75 74 74 75

04/12/08 68 68 66 65 64 62

04/13/08 57 56 54 53 53 52

04/14/08 53 50 51 48 48 48

04/15/08 46 45 44 43 42 42

04/16/08 52 51 50 49 47 47

04/17/08 60 60 60 59 58 58

04/18/08 65 66 65 65 65 65

04/19/08 57 54 52 51 50 49

04/20/08 59 58 58 58 56 55

Topical 458
04/21/08 63 60 59 58 58 57

04/22/08 71 70 69 69 69 69

04/23/08 71 71 71 71 72 72

04/24/08 71 71 71 71 69 68

04/25/08 68 68 67 67 66 67

04/26/08 71 70 70 69 69 69

04/27/08 66 66 67 67 67 67

04/28/08 63 62 61 60 59 58

04/29/08 56 57 56 55 55 55

04/30/08 63 62 59 58 58 57

05/01/08 66 67 68 68 67 68

05/02/08 73 73 73 74 74 75

05/03/08 76 76 76 75 74 67

05/04/08 67 65 61 60 59 58

05/05/08 64 63 62 61 60 59

05/06/08 64 64 62 62 61 61

05/07/08 68 67 66 66 65 66

05/08/08 74 73 73 74 74 74

05/09/08 73 73 73 73 73 73

05/10/08 74 74 74 74 74 74

05/11/08 76 76 76 76 76 76

05/12/08 65 64 62 60 59 58

05/13/08 67 66 65 65 66 67

05/14/08 73 73 73 73 73 73

05/15/08 73 74 74 74 74 71

05/16/08 73 73 73 73 71 71

05/17/08 61 60 59 58 58 57

05/18/08 64 63 63 62 61 61

05/19/08 69 68 67 67 67 68

05/20/08 73 72 71 71 71 71

05/21/08 73 73 74 74 74 75

05/22/08 74 73 73 72 72 73

05/23/08 70 70 70 70 70 70

05/24/08 79 78 78 77 77 78

05/25/08 79 78 77 76 76 76

05/26/08 78 77 77 77 76 76

05/27/08 78 77 77 76 76 76

05/28/08 75 74 73 72 71 71

05/29/08 76 74 74 73 72 72

05/30/08 76 75 73 73 73 72

05/31/08 76 75 75 74 73 73

06/01/08 78 77 76 76 75 75

06/02/08 77 76 76 75 75 76

06/03/08 78 77 77 77 76 77

06/04/08 77 76 76 76 76 76

06/05/08 79 78 78 78 78 78

06/06/08 79 79 78 78 79 79

06/07/08 80 80 79 78 78 78

06/08/08 79 78 78 77 77 77

06/09/08 76 76 75 75 75 76

06/10/08 78 78 76 76 75 76

06/11/08 77 76 76 75 75 76

06/12/08 78 77 77 77 76 76

06/13/08 78 77 77 76 76 76

06/14/08 76 76 76 75 76 75

06/15/08 79 78 77 76 76 76

06/16/08 77 76 77 76 76 76

06/17/08 77 76 75 75 75 75

Topical 459
06/18/08 76 76 75 75 75 75

06/19/08 79 78 78 76 76 75

06/20/08 76 76 75 76 75 75

06/21/08 75 73 74 74 73 74

06/22/08 74 74 74 73 73 73

06/23/08 76 76 75 75 74 74

06/24/08 79 78 77 76 76 76

06/25/08 78 77 77 76 77 78

06/26/08 70 70 70 70 71 71

06/27/08 72 72 72 72 72 73

06/28/08 74 74 73 74 74 75

06/29/08 75 75 75 76 76 76

06/30/08 74 75 75 74 74 74

07/01/08 74 73 73 72 71 71

07/02/08 76 74 73 72 71 70

07/03/08 77 77 76 76 76 76

07/04/08 74 73 73 73 73 73

07/05/08 76 76 74 74 75 75

07/06/08 79 78 78 78 76 76

07/07/08 76 75 74 74 73 73

07/08/08 77 76 76 75 74 74

07/09/08 75 75 75 74 74 75

07/10/08 79 79 78 78 78 78

07/11/08 80 80 79 79 78 78

07/12/08 81 80 80 79 79 79

07/13/08 80 79 78 77 77 77

07/14/08 80 79 78 78 78 78

07/15/08 78 77 77 76 76 76

07/16/08 78 76 75 74 74 73

07/17/08 80 80 79 79 79 78

07/18/08 78 78 78 77 77 76

07/19/08 79 78 77 77 76 76

07/20/08 79 78 78 78 77 77

07/21/08 80 80 79 79 79 80

07/22/08 81 80 80 78 78 77

07/23/08 79 78 78 78 78 78

07/24/08 74 74 74 74 74 73

07/25/08 77 77 77 76 76 76

07/26/08 79 79 78 78 78 78

07/27/08 81 81 81 80 80 79

07/28/08 78 78 78 78 78 79

07/29/08 82 81 80 79 79 79

07/30/08 79 79 79 79 79 79

07/31/08 80 80 80 80 81 81

08/01/08 76 77 77 78 79 79

08/02/08 74 74 75 77 77 78

08/03/08 82 80 76 75 74 74

08/04/08 79 78 77 76 75 75

08/05/08 80 79 79 80 79 80

08/06/08 78 78 77 77 76 76

08/07/08 79 79 78 78 77 77

08/08/08 80 80 80 79 78 77

08/09/08 77 75 74 74 73 72

08/10/08 77 77 76 76 76 75

08/11/08 80 80 81 81 80 80

08/12/08 77 77 77 78 79 80

08/13/08 76 75 75 74 75 75

08/14/08 75 74 74 73 73 72

Topical 460
08/15/08 78 77 77 76 76 76

08/16/08 76 76 76 76 75 75

08/17/08 76 76 75 75 75 74

08/18/08 76 75 75 74 74 73

08/19/08 75 75 75 75 75 75

08/20/08 76 76 76 76 75 75

08/21/08 76 76 76 76 75 75

08/22/08 77 76 76 76 76 76

08/23/08 79 79 78 78 77 76

08/24/08 77 76 76 74 73 72

08/25/08 74 74 74 74 74 74

08/26/08 73 74 73 73 72 73

08/27/08 78 76 76 75 74 74

08/28/08 79 78 77 77 76 77

08/29/08 78 78 77 77 77 78

08/30/08 79 78 77 77 76 76

08/31/08 79 78 78 77 77 76

09/01/08 75 76 77 78 78 78

09/02/08

09/03/08

09/04/08

09/05/08

09/06/08

09/07/08

09/08/08 78 77 76 75 75 74

09/09/08 75 74 74 73 73 73

09/10/08 78 77 76 76 75 75

09/11/08 78 78 78 77 78 77

09/12/08 81 76 78 78 81 78

09/13/08 83 83 83 83 83 82

09/14/08 81 81 81 81 81 81

09/15/08 75 75 74 74 73 73

09/16/08 67 66 65 64 64 63

09/17/08 65 64 64 63 62 62

09/18/08 69 68 67 66 65 65

09/19/08 72 72 71 71 71 70

09/20/08 72 73 72 72 72 71

09/21/08 69 68 68 68 68 67

09/22/08 71 71 70 69 68 68

09/23/08 73 72 71 71 70 71

09/24/08 74 73 72 71 70 69

09/25/08 68 67 66 65 65 64

09/26/08 66 65 63 63 62 62

09/27/08 69 68 66 65 64 63

09/28/08 69 67 67 67 66 66

09/29/08 73 72 71 71 70 69

09/30/08 70 69 69 70 71 71

10/01/08 70 69 68 66 65 64

10/02/08 64 63 61 60 59 59

10/03/08 69 67 65 64 64 63

10/04/08 71 70 68 68 67 66

10/05/08 69 68 67 66 65 65

10/06/08 70 69 69 69 70 70

10/07/08 76 76 76 76 76 76

10/08/08 70 69 67 65 63 62

10/09/08 66 64 62 63 62 61

10/10/08 67 66 65 64 64 64

10/11/08 68 67 67 66 65 65

Topical 461
10/12/08 69 68 67 66 66 66

10/13/08 69 68 67 67 67 68

10/14/08 73 73 72 71 71 72

10/15/08 73 72 71 71 71 72

10/16/08 72 72 71 70 69 69

10/17/08 73 70 69 69 68 67

10/18/08 60 59 57 56 55 55

10/19/08 59 57 56 55 54 53

10/20/08 57 56 56 54 53 52

10/21/08 61 60 59 58 57 57

10/22/08 63 61 59 58 59 58

10/23/08 69 68 68 68 68 67

10/24/08 57 58 58 57 58 58

10/25/08 53 52 52 51 50 50

10/26/08 58 58 58 57 55 55

10/27/08 65 65 67 65 62 60

10/28/08 49 47 47 46 48 46

10/29/08 47 46 44 43 42 41

10/30/08 49 48 48 47 46 47

10/31/08 51 50 50 49 48 47

11/01/08 54 53 52 52 51 51

11/02/08 55 54 53 53 51 51

11/03/08 54 53 52 52 53 52

11/04/08 58 56 56 56 55 54

11/05/08 62 61 61 60 60 60

11/06/08 63 63 62 62 62 62

11/07/08 67 67 66 66 66 64

11/08/08 52 51 49 50 49 48

11/09/08 55 52 51 49 51 49

11/10/08 51 49 49 48 47 47

11/11/08 57 57 55 54 54 55

11/12/08 64 64 64 64 64 65

11/13/08 61 61 60 61 60 59

11/14/08 61 61 61 61 62 63

11/15/08 64 62 60 59 56 54

11/16/08 45 44 43 42 41 40

11/17/08 43 43 42 42 42 41

11/18/08 51 51 50 50 48 47

11/19/08 41 40 39 38 38 38

11/20/08 53 54 53 52 50 49

11/21/08 52 50 48 46 44 42

11/22/08 37 36 37 36 36 35

11/23/08 55 55 55 55 55 54

11/24/08 60 60 60 60 60 60

11/25/08 53 51 49 48 46 45

11/26/08 45 44 44 44 44 43

11/27/08 57 58 58 58 58 57

11/28/08 66 65 65 65 65 65

11/29/08 70 69 69 69 69 69

11/30/08 56 55 54 54 53 51

12/01/08 47 46 45 44 44 43

12/02/08 40 39 37 37 36 36

12/03/08 46 46 46 45 45 45

12/04/08 62 62 62 61 61 60

12/05/08 40 39 38 37 36 35

12/06/08 42 42 42 41 40 41

12/07/08 44 42 43 42 42 43

12/08/08 45 44 44 42 41 40

Topical 462
12/09/08 63 64 64 65 65 66

12/10/08 58 58 58 58 56 52

12/11/08 39 38 38 37 35 33

12/12/08 38 38 37 37 37 37

12/13/08 43 41 41 41 40 40

12/14/08 55 55 55 56 57 59

12/15/08 66 65 65 65 65 66

12/16/08 51 49 48 47 46 46

12/17/08 59 58 61 63 64 66

12/18/08 65 66 65 65 65 66

12/19/08 67 68 67 67 67 67

12/20/08 68 68 68 68 67 66

12/21/08 69 69 69 62 60 58

12/22/08 38 35 34 33 31 31

12/23/08 41 41 41 41 41 42

12/24/08 69 69 70 70 69 69

12/25/08 62 62 61 61 61 61

12/26/08 68 69 69 69 69 69

12/27/08 71 72 71 71 71 71

12/28/08 52 51 51 51 51 51

12/29/08 51 51 51 51 50 50

12/30/08 47 46 46 44 43 42

12/31/08 57 57 58 58 57 56

Annual Mean = 68.650 Maximum =

Standard Deviation = 13.808 Minimum =

Number of Observation = 8623 % of Obs.=

Monthly

 mean 51.349 58.681 62.501 69.006 76.329

# Obs 743 696 744 720 742

%obs 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.7

Topical 463
renheit

6 7 8 910 11 12

44 44 45 46 48 50 52

33 33 34 35 37 39 40

24 25 27 31 34 37 39

39 40 41 44 48 55 58

55 55 57 60 64 69 69

61 60 62 65 71 73 75

61 62 65 69 72 74 77

68 68 70 72 74 76 78

56 53 52 55 56 58 61

68 69 70 71 73 74 74

46 46 48 51 54 56 58

42 44 49 54 58 60 62

49 49 50 54 56 59 60

38 39 44 49 52 55 57

46 47 51 55 58 60 61

47 47 46 45 46 46 48

46 47 48 49 51 53 53

44 43 44 46 48 51

38 38 38 38 40 39 41

28 28 31 34 38 42 45

30 31 34 39 43 49 53

52 53 55 59 62 66 68

52 51 52 53 53 54 54

47 46 45 44 42 42 43

38 38 39 40 40 39 39

44 44 45 46 47 46 46

42 42 42 42 42 44 46

38 39 43 49 53 56 59

59 60 62 65 68 69 69

36 36 39 43 47 49 51

49 51 53 57 60 65 67

37 36 37 40 42 45 47

40 42 47 53 58 62 64

59 60 63 65 66 69 73

68 68 69 71 73 76 78

71 72 73 75 77 79 80

56 56 56 57 58 58 59

40 42 47 52 55 57 58

44 46 50 55 57 61 63

56 56 59 63 66 70 73

47 48 55 63 68 71 72

47 49 55 63 67 70 70

57 59 63 68 71 74 71

38 37 37 38 41 44 46

35 37 43 49 54 58 61

54 55 57 60 62 62 62

60 60 60 60 63 67 69

59 59 56 58 62 65 70

47 47 49 52 54 56 58

42 45 52 58 61 62 64

53 56 59 63 67 69 68

64 65 65 66 66 67 68

69 69 66 66 66 66 67

Topical 464
46 46 47 49 53 57 60

49 50 54 58 62 66 70

52 54 57 60 62 65 70

61 58 56 56 56 56 56

39 39 41 43 45 47 49

42 45 50 54 57 60 62

52 57 63 67 69 70 70

53 55 62 67 70 73 74

59 61 65 68 71 74 75

66 67 69 72 75 78 79

43 42 42 44 45 45 47

38 41 46 51 55 58 60

47 51 56 60 64 67 69

46 45 44 45 46 45 45

38 38 40 42 45 47 50

38 42 49 55 59 62 64

51 55 61 65 68 70 71

55 55 56 58 59 61 61

48 52 58 61 64 66 67

50 53 59 62 65 67 69

65 67 69 71 75 76 77

70 70 72 76 78 80 83

54 56 60 64 69 72 75

65 68 71 74 77 79 81

74 75 76 78 80 82 83

63 63 63 63 63 62 62

44 47 51 55 59 63 65

48 54 61 66 68 70 71

55 58 60 63 67 70 73

53 53 56 59 62 64 66

43 46 50 53 57 59 60

42 47 56 60 62 64 66

53 58 63 68 70 71 73

58 62 67 70 75 77 78

65 67 71 73 74 77 79

66 67 67 68 71 75 77

68 70 73 75 78 79 79

69 70 72 74 76 79 79

71 72 74 75 77 78 79

68 69 70 73 75 78 80

69 69 70 72 77 79 81

71 73 74 76 79 81 81

60 59 60 61 63 62 62

56 58 61 65 68 70 73

58 60 64 70 75 78 80

65 68 71 75 78 79 80

71 72 74 75 76 79 81

75 76 80 81 83 83 85

75 77 78 80 81 82 83

62 62 64 66 67 69 71

52 57 62 65 66 67 69

47 49 51 52 54 56 57

44 48 51 55 57 59 62

49 56 61 65 68 69 71

59 63 66 69 72 74 75

65 67 69 71 73 73 75

52 57 63 66 68 71 73

58 61 66 71 74 77 79

Topical 465
59 64 71 75 79 81 82

69 72 74 74 78 82 84

72 74 78 80 83 84 86

70 72 75 79 82 83 84

69 71 73 74 76 78 78

70 71 74 79 80 81 82

68 69 71 73 75 76 79

58 58 59 62 64 66 68

58 62 67 71 73 76 77

61 67 71 73 76 77 79

69 73 76 78 80 81 82

75 76 78 80 81 81 80

64 64 66 71 75 78 81

59 62 66 69 73 75 77

61 66 71 73 74 75 75

64 69 73 76 78 78 79

68 71 74 78 80 82 84

74 75 76 77 79 81 83

73 74 76 78 82 84 85

74 75 77 81 82 83 84

76 77 78 79 79 80 81

60 65 69 72 74 76 78

69 72 73 77 80 83 82

74 77 79 80 81 83 81

71 68 68 69 71 74 78

70 70 71 72 73 71 71

60 65 68 70 72 73 74

63 66 70 73 76 78 80

69 73 77 80 82 84 85

72 75 79 82 84 86 88

75 76 78 80 82 84 85

74 76 80 82 83 81 84

72 75 78 79 80 82 84

79 80 80 83 86 86 87

76 78 81 83 86 88 89

77 78 81 83 85 87 88

78 80 81 84 85 84 84

74 77 80 82 84 85 87

75 79 82 84 86 87 89

75 79 81 82 84 85 86

75 79 82 84 87 87 89

77 79 82 83 86 87 89

78 80 83 85 87 88 90

78 80 83 85 87 89 90

78 81 84 86 88 88 89

80 82 84 86 89 89 91

80 82 84 86 88 89 90

80 82 84 86 89 90 91

79 82 83 86 88 89 90

78 80 83 85 79 85 89

77 79 82 85 87 88 89

78 81 83 85 87 88 89

79 82 84 86 88 83 78

78 82 83 85 87 89 90

78 81 83 85 87 85 78

77 81 82 84 86 89 91

77 81 84 86 88 88 90

76 80 83 86 89 91 93

Topical 466
76 79 83 85 88 88 89

76 79 83 85 87 89 87

78 82 84 86 88 89 91

77 82 83 85 87 88 89

75 78 78 81 85 86 87

76 80 84 87 89 90 87

79 82 84 86 88 90 91

80 83 85 85 87 85 84

72 75 80 84 86 89 90

76 80 83 86 87 87 78

77 79 81 84 86 77 74

77 79 82 84 86 88 90

75 77 78 82 84 86 86

73 76 81 85 87 89 90

73 78 83 86 88 88 90

78 81 84 85 88 89 90

76 79 81 83 86 87 87

76 77 79 82 85 87 89

78 80 83 85 87 89 90

76 80 84 86 89 91 91

77 82 85 88 88 89 90

78 81 84 87 87 89 90

80 83 84 86 88 85 85

80 83 85 87 89 89 90

80 83 85 88 90 91 92

78 81 84 86 88 90 91

79 81 82 83 85 86 90

76 79 84 87 91 93

75 80 86 91 93 95 96

79 82 86 89 91 91 91

77 81 85 88 88 91 91

78 82 85 88 90 92 92

79 82 85 87 89 91 92

81 83 87 90 93 95 97

80 83 87 88 90 90 92

78 80 81 85 87 88 88

74 78 83 86 88 83 77

78 82 84 87 89 89 90

78 80 83 87 89 91 92

80 82 84 88 91 94 95

80 82 85 89 91 93 94

80 82 85 87 90 90 92

80 83 85 85 83 87 85

79 80 83 85 86 82 84

79 81 83 85 88 91 87

78 80 82 85 88 90 92

74 76 82 86 90 91 94

77 80 83 86 87 90 91

81 82 83 87 82 83 87

76 80 83 85 88 90 91

78 81 83 87 88 91 92

79 80 81 82 81 82 81

73 77 82 85 88 91 91

77 80 83 86 87 89 90

81 81 80 83 87 84 79

80 81 83 84 86 87 86

76 77 79 80 82 84 86

74 78 82 85 88 90 91

Topical 467
77 81 83 86 88 89 91

76 79 79 79 82 82 82

75 76 79 82 85 85 87

74 77 79 82 85 85 87

75 77 81 83 84 86 86

75 77 80 83 83 84 85

77 81 84 86 86 89 89

77 80 82 87 87 87 90

77 81 84 87 89 91 92

72 72 72 72 72 73 73

74 75 76 78 79 81 83

73 75 78 81 84 86 87

76 81 84 87 89 90 91

78 81 84 87 89 90 91

79 81 85 87 90 92 92

77 80 84 88 90 91 93

76 77 81 86 89 90 90

78 76 76 76 76

76 80 83 87 89 91 91

74 77 81 85 87 88 89

75 78 82 86 89 90 91

77 80 83 84 87 88 89

76 79 82 82 84 86 87

83 83 83 85 85 85 86

81 82 83 85 86 87 86

73 73 74

64 65 67 72 75 76 77

62 66 71 76 78 79 80

65 69 74 78 81 83 83

71 72 74 76 75 75 76

71 74 78 80 81 84 85

68 71 76 80 82 84 83

68 71 75 79 82 85 86

71 74 78 83 85 86 87

69 72 76 79 82 84 85

64 68 73 77 80 82 83

63 68 74 77 80 83 84

64 68 73 79 82 82 83

67 70 74 79 83 85 86

69 73 78 82 85 86 87

71 74 79 82 84 85 85

64 68 71 75 77 78 79

60 66 72 76 79 80 81

65 70 75 78 80 82 84

67 71 76 79 81 82 83

65 69 75 79 82 84 84

70 73 78 82 83 85 86

76 77 78 81 83 85 85

62 63 65 69 71 73 74

62 64 69 72 74 77 79

64 67 71 75 78 80 81

66 69 74 78 80 82 83

Topical 468
67 70 73 75 78 81 81

69 70 72 76 79 81 83

72 73 74 76 79 82 85

73 74 77 79 82 83 84

68 71 76 80 82 83 84

67 66 66 66 67 68 66

54 58 63 67 72 74 75

53 56 62 66 70 71 73

53 57 64 69 72 74 76

57 60 67 72 74 76 77

58 61 65 72 73 73 75

61 60 59 60 60 62 63

58 58 58 60 60 63 67

50 56 64 68 72 75 76

54 59 66 70 73 76 79

58 56 57 59 60 61 62

46 46 49 53 57 60

41 46 52 56 59 61 63

46 50 58 64 67 70 71

48 53 61 67 70 73 74

51 54 61 65 70 72 74

51 54 62 68 71 72 74

52 55 61 69 74 77 77

54 58 64 71 74 76 78

60 61 62 64 69 73 76

62 64 69 73 75 77 78

63 60 60 62 65 66 67

48 53 58 64 70 72 73

48 51 56 61 65 67 68

46 49 54 59 63 66 68

57 59 64 68 71 74 74

65 66 65 65 65 65 64

59 60 62 63 65 67 68

63 64 66 68 71 75 78

52 52 53 55 56 57 58

40 41 43 46 49 51 52

41 46 51 56 60 63 66

46 47 49 52 55 57 59

38 41 46 52 56 58 60

47 49 56 62 67 71 72

41 40 42 44 47 50 52

35 37 42 48 53 57 61

54 55 59 63 68 70 70

60 61 65 69 73 74 72

43 46 49 53 57 60 62

43 45 50 55 60 62 64

58 60 65 69 71 69 72

65 67 69 70 73 76 78

69 67 66 66 66 65 63

49 49 51 52 54 57 59

42 43 46 49 51 52 52

36 38 44 47 49 51 53

45 49 56 63 67 70 71

60 60 58 53 52 50 50

34 35 37 42 46 50 53

41 41 43 46 50 52 53

45 44 46 50 55 58 60

40 43 49 55 60 65 68

Topical 469
66 67 69 71 71 72 73

50 49 48 47 46 46 47

33 33 33 34 35 36 37

37 37 42 47 50 53 54

39 40 44 48 51 55 58

61 62 62 64 67 69 71

65 65 66 69 71 73 76

46 46 47 47 49 50 51

66 67 68 71 73 74 75

66 66 67 68 69 72 73

67 67 68 70 72 74 76

66 67 68 69 71 73 74

56 52 50 51 51 52 53

31 31 32 34 35 38 40

42 43 44 46 51 58 64

69 69 71 72 75 76 77

61 62 62 64 67 70 72

69 69 69 71 73 75 78

71 71 73 74 76 78 78

51 52 52 52 52 53 53

50 49 51 54 57 60 62

42 43 49 56 60 63 64

55 55 54 56 58 60 62

98

24

98.2

81.217 82.884 81.238 77.140 68.598 59.708 56.711

720 743 744 564 743 720 744

100.0 99.9 100.0 78.3 99.9 100.0 100.0

Topical 470
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

53 52 52 51 49 47 44

41 42 41 40 38 36 35

40 42 43 42 40 38 37

59 61 62 60 57 55 53

71 71 72 70 68 65 63

76 76 76 74 72 71 69

78 78 77 75 73 72 70

77 77 77 75 74 74 69

62 64 66 66 63 62 62

74 73 68 66 65 64 64

59 60 61 60 57 53 51

64 65 65 63 60 57 55

62 62 62 60 58 56 55

59 60 60 59 57 56 54

61 60 60 59 57 56 56

49 49 48 48 48 48 47

52 51 51 51 51 51 51

56 55 54 53 51 50 49

40 40 42 42 41 40 39

47 48 48 47 44 42 40

54 56 56 54 52 50 49

70 71 71 70 68 64 62

54 54 54 54 54 54 54

44 44 44 45 44 43 42

39 39 39 38 37 38 38

48 49 49 50 50 49 49

49 53 55 55 52 49 47

61 63 64 64 62 61 59

69 68 68 69 66 66 66

53 54 55 54 52 50 50

71 59 58 57 56 55 54

50 52 53 53 51 48 47

67 68 67 67 66 65 62

75 75 75 74 73 71 70

79 78 78 76 75 73 72

79 80 79 77 76 75 74

60 60 60 58 56 54 53

60 63 63 63 60 57 55

65 66 67 67 65 63 61

74 75 75 74 71 68 66

73 74 73 71 69 64 61

71 71 71 71 69 67 65

57 56 57 58 57 57 56

48 51 51 51 49 46 45

63 64 65 65 63 61 60

62 62 62 62 61 60 60

71 71 71 70 68 65 65

72 73 74 73 71 67 66

60 61 61 60 58 56 54

65 65 67 66 64 60 60

68 68 67 66 65 63 62

69 69 72 74 73 72 71

68 69 64 62 61 57 55

Topical 471
63 67 69 69 67 63 61

73 74 75 74 72 68 67

73 74 74 72 72 71 71

57 59 58 58 57 55 54

51 53 53 53 51 49 47

64 65 64 64 62 59 58

70 69 69 67 66 64 63

75 76 77 76 74 72 70

76 76 76 75 73 70 67

78 76 71 71 72 73 70

49 50 51 51 51 50 49

62 63 64 64 62 60 58

71 71 70 67 65 64 63

45 43 42 42 41 39 38

53 55 55 55 53 51 49

65 67 66 65 63 60 57

72 72 71 69 67 66 64

62 63 64 64 64 62 61

68 69 70 70 69 65 64

71 73 73 72 71 69 68

79 79 79 78 76 73 71

84 84 85 84 82 79 77

78 78 78 77 74 71 69

82 82 81 80 78 74 72

83 83 82 80 79 78 77

61 60 59 59 59 58 57

68 69 70 70 67 64 62

73 73 73 72 71 69 67

74 75 75 76 74 71 70

68 68 68 67 64 61 59

62 63 63 63 61 58 54

68 68 68 67 66 63 61

73 74 73 72 71 68 66

78 78 77 76 74 71 70

81 81 82 81 79 77 75

74 75 78 79 77 74 72

79 80 79 78 76 73 71

80 79 78 78 77 75 74

80 81 80 81 77 73 73

81 81 74 70 71 71 71

82 82 82 81 79 76 74

82 82 80 73 73 69 65

63 62 62 62 61 60 60

75 76 77 76 75 71 67

82 83 83 83 79 76 75

81 81 83 81 80 76 74

82 82 81 80 79 77 76

85 85 84 83 81 79 78

85 85 85 83 77 73 71

70 71 72 71 70 67 65

70 69 68 67 66 64 62

58 59 59 59 58 56 55

63 65 65 65 64 61 59

72 72 71 70 69 68 66

76 76 75 74 73 71 69

76 74 70 68 67 65 63

74 76 78 77 76 72 69

81 82 81 80 78 75 73

Topical 472
84 85 84 83 81 79 78

85 87 86 84 83 81 74

88 87 84 82 81 80 78

85 83 83 82 80 78 77

79 78 78 80 78 77 76

78 74 73 71 71 70 68

75 74 71 71 70 69 69

69 70 71 71 70 68 65

79 79 79 78 78 74 70

80 80 79 78 76 73 71

81 81 81 79 78 77 76

78 80 81 79 78 78 77

82 82 83 82 80 78 75

78 78 79 79 78 75 72

73 72 73 71 69 69 68

80 81 82 80 79 77 76

85 84 82 81 79 77 75

84 85 83 83 82 79 77

85 85 85 85 84 82 80

85 86 86 85 83 81 80

82 82 81 81 79 77 75

80 80 82 82 80 78 75

83 83 83 82 80 79 78

81 78 70 70 70

81 82 80 80 80 78 76

71 71 73 73 73 71 69

74 74 74 73 72 71 69

82 81 81 81 80 78 76

85 85 86 85 83 81 79

89 89 88 88 86 83 80

86 86 87 87 86 85 82

80 74 74 73 72 71 71

86 86 86 86 85 83 82

89 89 89 89 88 87 85

90 90 91 90 89 87 85

89 89 89 89 87 84 82

81 86 86 85 85 83 82

87 87 86 85 84 83 82

89 89 88 87 86 84 82

87 88 87 88 87 85 83

90 90 89 87 86 84 82

89 90 89 88 88 86 82

91 90 90 90 89 86 84

90 90 89 88 87 85 83

90 90 90 89 87 85 83

91 90 89 89 87 85 84

92 92 91 89 87 86 83

92 92 91 88 86 84 82

92 91 91 90 89 86 78

88 88 87 88 87 84 82

89 90 88 84 83 81 79

90 90 87 87 84 83 81

81 80 84 85 85 83 81

88 85 87 86 82 81 80

84 82 82 84 84 83 82

85 82 81 81 83 81 80

92 92 88 86 86 83 81

94 95 94 93 92 89 85

Topical 473
91 91 90 90 90 87 86

89 82 83 85 85 82 80

89 82 78 79 76 76 76

90 91 88 81 77 75 75

89 90 91 90 88 86 84

80 89 90 91 89 87 85

92 92 91 86 84 83 82

79 74 75 74 72 72 72

83 73 74 74 74 74 74

79 82 82 78 78 80 79

77 80 80 80 81 80 78

91 78 78 78 78 78 76

86 86 86 87 87 83 78

90 91 91 90 89 87 82

90 91 90 90 89 86 82

91 89 86 80 74 74 73

88 85 76 76 76 76 77

90 90 90 90 88 86 83

92 92 93 92 91 88 84

89 90 89 85 82 81 80

90 84 78 78 76 77 77

88 88 85 84 84 83 82

89 89 90 90 89 87 85

92 91 91 91 90 88 85

94 94 93 93 92 89 86

93 93 94 93 92 89 87

91 89 81 82 81 80 79

93 94 93 93 91 89 86

96 97 96 95 92 90 87

86 79 82 81 81 80 81

94 94 93 93 91 89 85

92 93 82 81 83 83 83

94 95 94 93 92 83 83

97 90 92 91 91 88 88

88 85 86 85 84 83 82

85 85 86 84 76 76 76

77 80 82 83 84 83 81

91 92 92 88 88 86 85

93 93 94 92 90 89 88

97 98 96 88 84 84 83

96 97 97 96 93 91 89

92 91 90 85 83 82 81

87 89 89 89 87 84 83

87 88 76 76 76 76 77

80 77 75 74 74 73 73

94 94 95 94 93 91 89

96 96 93 91 91 89 86

91 91 87 85 85 83 82

79 79 78 79 80 80 79

91 91 91 91 88 85 83

92 93 93 93 91 89 87

81 80 80 81 80 79 78

92 92 91 91 89 86 84

91 91 85 82 84 84 84

79 80 77 79 80 80 78

85 83 82 83 83 82 81

87 88 87 87 86 84 82

91 91 91 90 89 86 83

Topical 474
86 80 81 80 78 76 76

84 83 82 81 80 80 79

89 89 88 88 87 81 80

88 91 91 88 84 75 74

79 76 76 76 76 76 76

86 85 84 83 80 79 78

89 84 81 83 85 83 81

88 85 91 91 90 87 83

92 92 91 89 87 83 81

74 75 74 74 74 74 74

83 81 82 83 81 80 77

88 88 89 88 87 85 83

92 92 91 91 89 87 84

92 92 92 90 83 82 82

94 94 92 91 90 87 85

93 94 92 91 90 88 86

90 91 91 89 87 85 82

84

92 90 76 77 76 76 76

91 90 89 86 81 81 82

92 90 86 88 86 84 82

91 90 89 87 86 85 84

87 86 85 85 85 84 83

87 88 86 85 84 83 83

82 76 76 77 76 76 75

79 78 77 75 74 73 72

77 79 79 77 75 73 71

81 81 81 80 78 74 73

85 84 83 81 80 78 77

78 79 78 79 78 77 76

82 76 75 74 74 73 73

85 82 82 80 75 75 73

87 88 87 85 83 80 79

86 88 84 83 82 80 78

86 85 84 83 80 77 76

84 84 83 82 80 76 74

85 86 85 84 82 78 75

85 85 85 84 81 79 77

87 86 86 84 82 79 78

87 87 87 86 84 82 80

86 86 86 85 82 81 79

80 80 80 78 76 74 72

82 83 83 81 78 76 73

83 84 84 82 80 77 76

84 85 84 83 81 79 78

85 85 84 83 80 78 77

86 86 87 86 82 80 79

75 74 76 77 76 75 75

76 76 76 74 72 70 69

81 81 82 80 78 75 73

83 83 82 82 79 76 73

84 83 84 82 80 78 76

Topical 475
80 81 80 80 78 76 75

85 86 85 82 80 78 78

87 86 85 83 80 78 77

84 84 84 83 81 79 78

85 86 86 84 82 81 80

66 67 68 68 67 67 66

77 77 76 74 71 69 66

74 75 74 73 69 66 64

77 78 78 76 73 69 67

78 79 78 77 73 69 67

76 74 73 72 71 70 70

64 64 64 64 62 60 59

70 73 74 72 69 64 63

77 77 77 75 73 67 64

81 81 81 78 73 69 67

63 63 62 61 59 57 56

61 61 61 60 57 56 55

65 65 65 64 59 57 55

72 73 73 70 66 62 60

75 76 75 73 69 65 62

76 75 75 73 69 67 65

75 75 75 73 69 64 61

79 79 78 76 72 68 66

78 79 78 75 71 69 67

77 78 77 75 73 71 68

77 73 72 72 71 70 69

66 67 67 66 63 60 58

74 74 73 71 67 63 60

69 70 69 67 64 61 60

68 67 66 64 62 60 58

75 76 76 74 73 71 69

64 64 65 64 64 63 63

69 70 71 69 65 63 62

78 77 77 74 71 69 69

58 58 57 55 53 52 51

54 55 55 53 52 51 49

67 68 68 65 60 57 55

61 61 60 58 55 53 51

62 64 64 62 58 56 54

73 74 74 71 67 64 62

54 54 54 51 49 46 44

63 63 62 60 58 56 56

71 72 71 70 67 64 63

71 71 66 65 64 65 65

63 64 63 60 56 53 52

66 68 67 65 63 61 60

73 74 75 73 72 71 69

79 78 76 74 73 72 70

61 60 60 59 58 58 58

59 59 57 55 52 51 50

52 52 51 49 49 47 45

55 56 56 54 52 51 50

72 72 71 69 67 65 65

49 48 47 46 46 46 45

54 55 54 53 49 47 46

55 55 55 53 50 49 47

61 62 62 60 56 53 51

69 70 69 66 63 62 61

Topical 476
75 75 74 74 74 73 73

46 45 44 43 43 42 42

38 40 42 45 45 43 40

56 57 57 55 52 49 46

59 59 58 56 54 53 52

72 72 72 70 66 65 65

75 76 76 74 72 69 65

54 56 57 58 58 58 58

77 77 77 76 73 71 69

75 77 76 75 73 71 70

77 77 77 76 74 73 71

75 75 74 73 71 70 69

55 54 51 49 47 45 44

41 42 42 41 40 41 41

67 68 69 71 70 69 69

78 76 69 69 68 69 69

73 75 75 74 73 71 69

79 80 78 78 76 74 73

78 78 77 76 75 73 72

52 51 52 52 52 52 53

64 65 65 63 60 57 56

65 67 66 66 63 61 60

62 63 62 60 56 54 51

Topical 477
20 21 22 23 Daily max

44 44 43 42 54

34 32 31 30 42

36 35 35 36 43

52 52 53 53 62

62 61 60 59 72

69 68 67 66 76

69 69 68 68 78

67 62 63 62 78

62 63 64 65 66

63 62 61 57 74

51 50 48 48 61

55 53 53 52 65

54 53 50 50 62

53 51 50 49 60

55 53 51 50 61

47 47 47 47 49

51 50 50 50 53

47 47 46 45 56

39 38 36 34 44

39 38 36 35 48

48 48 48 48 56

60 60 59 58 71

54 54 54 53 56

42 42 42 41 53

38 39 40 40 41

49 48 47 46 50

45 45 44 44 55

57 56 56 56 64

64 58 54 52 69

49 49 47 46 55

52 51 49 47 71

46 44 45 43 53

60 58 57 57 68

70 70 70 70 75

71 71 71 71 79

74 73 73 73 80

52 51 51 48 73

54 53 53 51 63

60 58 58 57 67

63 61 59 58 75

58 60 58 55 74

64 63 63 62 71

56 53 48 47 74

44 42 41 39 51

59 58 56 55 65

60 60 60 59 62

64 64 65 66 71

63 63 61 58 74

51 50 49 49 61

58 55 53 52 67

62 62 63 63 69

71 72 71 71 74

53 51 50 49 71

Topical 478
61 58 57 56 69

65 63 61 58 75

71 70 70 70 74

52 50 48 47 71

46 45 44 44 53

57 56 55 55 65

62 61 58 57 70

68 67 65 63 77

66 65 64 64 76

65 62 60 58 79

48 46 44 43 54

56 54 52 50 64

62 61 61 57 71

38 39 39 39 54

47 45 43 43 55

56 55 54 55 67

62 59 57 56 72

59 58 56 53 64

61 59 57 55 70

67 66 66 64 73

68 68 69 69 79

75 75 72 67 85

67 65 65 62 78

71 70 70 71 82

77 77 76 76 83

56 55 54 53 76

62 60 56 54 70

65 64 63 60 73

68 65 62 60 76

57 56 54 52 68

53 51 49 48 63

59 58 57 56 68

64 63 62 61 74

69 68 67 66 78

73 72 71 70 82

70 70 70 69 79

70 69 69 68 80

73 72 71 71 80

72 72 71 70 81

71 71 71 71 81

73 72 72 71 82

62 62 62 61 82

60 60 59 58 63

65 64 63 62 77

73 71 69 67 83

74 73 72 71 83

75 74 74 74 82

77 76 76 76 85

70 70 69 68 85

64 62 61 60 72

60 58 57 56 70

52 51 49 47 59

57 56 54 54 65

64 62 61 60 72

68 67 65 65 76

61 60 59 58 76

66 63 62 60 78

72 69 66 64 82

Topical 479
77 76 74 72 85

71 71 70 71 87

76 74 73 73 88

75 73 71 69 85

75 73 73 72 80

67 66 66 66 82

68 67 65 64 79

62 61 59 58 71

68 67 65 64 79

69 68 67 66 80

76 75 74 73 82

76 76 75 76 81

72 71 70 69 83

70 69 68 66 79

67 67 66 64 75

74 72 70 69 82

74 73 73 73 85

76 75 74 73 85

78 76 75 74 85

78 78 77 77 86

73 71 70 68 82

73 71 70 68 82

77 75 75 74 83

70 71 72 73 83

76 74 74 73 82

67 65 64 62 73

68 67 66 65 74

75 72 71 69 82

76 74 73 73 86

77 76 74 73 89

79 77 76 74 87

71 71 71 71 84

82 81 80 80 86

84 83 81 80 89

85 82 80 78 91

82 80 79 78 89

81 79 78 76 86

80 78 77 76 87

81 79 77 76 89

81 80 78 77 88

81 80 79 78 90

81 81 79 78 90

82 81 80 79 91

82 80 79 78 90

82 81 80 80 90

83 82 81 80 91

83 82 81 80 92

83 82 81 80 92

78 78 77 77 92

81 80 79 78 89

78 78 78 77 90

81 80 79 79 90

80 79 79 78 88

79 79 78 77 90

81 81 81 80 87

79 79 79 78 91

81 79 78 78 92

81 78 77 77 95

Topical 480
85 83 81 81 91

80 78 78 77 89

76 76 76 76 91

75 76 76 74 91

82 80 79 77 91

82 81 80 80 91

81 81 80 78 92

71 71 71 71 87

73 73 73 73 90

77 76 75 75 87

77 76 75 75 86

75 75 75 75 91

76 76 76 75 87

80 79 77 76 91

81 80 79 78 91

74 74 74 74 91

77 77 77 77 88

81 80 80 79 90

77 75 76 76 93

79 79 78 78 91

76 77 76 75 90

81 80 80 79 90

83 83 82 81 90

84 83 82 82 92

84 83 82 81 94

85 84 82 80 94

79 78 78 78 91

85 83 81 79 94

85 83 81 80 97

81 79 78 78 91

83 81 80 80 94

82 82 81 80 93

83 82 81 80 95

86 84 83 82 97

80 80 79 80 92

75 75 75 74 88

81 80 78 78 88

84 83 82 80 92

87 83 81 81 94

82 80 80 80 98

88 86 84 83 97

81 81 80 80 92

82 81 80 80 89

77 76 76 76 88

73 74 74 73 91

87 85 83 82 95

84 83 82 80 96

81 80 80 80 91

78 78 78 78 87

82 81 80 80 91

86 83 82 82 93

77 77 76 78 82

82 81 79 78 92

83 82 82 80 91

78 77 77 77 87

80 80 80 80 87

80 78 77 77 88

82 81 80 79 91

Topical 481
76 76 76 77 91

78 78 78 77 84

78 78 77 76 89

74 75 75 75 91

76 76 76 76 86

78 77 76 76 86

80 79 78 78 89

82 81 81 80 91

80 79 78 77 92

74 74 74 74 77

76 75 74 74 83

82 80 80 79 89

83 81 81 80 92

81 80 80 79 92

83 83 81 80 94

85 83 82 81 94

74 72 74 75 91

78

83 82 80 80 84

76 76 76 75 92

82 81 80 79 91

81 80 80 79 92

83 81 81 81 91

84 84 83 83 87

82 82 82 82 88

76 76 76 76 87

71 70 69 68 79

70 69 67 67 79

72 71 70 69 81

75 74 73 73 85

76 75 74 73 79

72 71 70 70 85

73 72 71 71 85

77 76 75 74 88

77 75 75 74 88

74 73 71 70 86

73 71 69 67 84

72 71 70 69 86

76 73 73 70 85

77 76 75 74 87

78 77 75 73 87

77 75 74 73 86

71 70 68 66 80

72 71 70 69 83

74 72 71 71 84

76 75 72 71 85

76 75 73 72 85

78 76 76 76 87

74 74 73 72 85

69 68 67 67 76

72 70 69 68 82

72 71 71 69 83

75 73 71 70 84

Topical 482
74 73 71 70 81

77 76 74 73 86

76 76 75 74 87

76 75 75 73 84

78 77 77 76 86

65 64 62 61 73

64 62 62 61 77

62 60 58 57 75

65 64 63 62 78

66 64 63 63 79

69 69 70 69 76

58 58 57 57 69

60 58 55 54 74

62 61 60 59 77

67 67 66 66 81

55 52 50 49 67

53 51 51 49 61

54 52 51 50 65

57 56 54 52 73

60 58 56 55 76

64 62 60 56 76

59 57 56 55 75

64 62 60 59 79

65 63 63 62 79

67 66 65 64 78

68 68 68 67 78

56 54 53 52 67

58 57 61 60 74

58 56 54 52 70

58 57 56 56 68

66 66 65 64 76

63 63 63 62 66

62 61 61 61 71

68 67 67 65 78

50 48 47 46 64

47 46 44 43 55

54 53 53 53 68

48 46 44 43 61

54 54 54 53 64

62 62 58 54 74

43 41 40 38 54

55 55 55 55 63

62 61 60 60 72

63 60 57 55 74

50 49 47 46 64

59 58 58 58 68

68 66 66 66 75

70 69 69 69 79

57 57 57 57 70

50 49 48 48 59

43 43 43 42 52

49 48 47 47 56

64 63 63 62 72

45 43 41 41 62

46 44 44 43 55

45 44 44 44 55

51 49 49 47 62

61 61 61 61 70

Topical 483
72 71 65 58 75

41 40 40 40 58

41 39 38 37 45

44 43 43 43 57

53 53 54 55 59

65 65 65 66 72

60 56 54 53 76

58 59 60 60 60

67 65 66 65 77

69 67 68 68 77

69 69 68 68 77

69 69 69 69 75

43 42 41 40 69

41 41 41 41 42

69 68 68 69 71

67 64 63 62 78

69 69 68 67 75

73 71 71 71 80

72 69 55 53 78

51 51 51 51 53

54 53 51 49 65

61 60 59 58 67

49 47 45 43 63

Topical 484
APPENDIX F

Resume

Topical 485
February 27, 2010

Randy J. Robichaux 

10409 Cochron Drive 

McKinney, TX 75070 

(972) 673-2073 

randy.robichaux@denbury.com

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Education

Sep-93 to May-94 University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 

6 hours graduate credit for: 

Applied Statistics 

Regression Analysis

GPA (3.5) 

Sep-88 to May-92 Nicholls State University, Thibodaux, LA 

Degree: Bachelor of Science (May 22, 1992) 

Major: Marine Biology 

GPA (3.44) 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Training/Certifications

 Registered Environmental Manager (National Registry of Environmental Professionals)-

since 2004

 Certified Safety, Environmental and Emergency Manager (Office of Infrastructure 

Preparedness)-since 2008

 Level V Incident Command System 

 EPA Inspector Training Course 

 EPA Sewage Treatment Plant Diagnostic Course 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Job Experience

Jun-07 to present Denbury Resources Inc. 

 (HSE Manager) 

 Responsible for implementing company-wide HSE programs 

including corporate office and operations in four states (AL, LA, MS, 

TX). 

 Responsible for establishing and accomplishing DRI’s HSE goals 

through successful implementation of HSE programs and working 

relationships with all company departments. 

 Supervise a staff of 14 including HSE field operations, training and 

environmental regulatory departments. 

 Led team to develop and implement new corporate HSE policy. 

 Developed corporate training program. 

 Responsible for managing budget and expenditures related to HSE 

capital and operating projects. 

 Responsible for NEPA issues related to company projects. 

 Assist field and staff management in understanding OSHA/EPA 

regulations and standards, including guidance on handling 

OSHA/EPA compliance, inspections, and citations. 

Topical 486
2

 Act as ranking company representative in dealing with government 

agencies in environmental, safety, and health matters affecting the 

company. 

 Track and review incident statistics including Workers Compensation 

and make recommendations for correction of problem areas. 

 Verify compliance with health and safety regulations and ensure all 

necessary records are maintained and prepared according to 

established guidelines. 

 Assess new developments in the environmental, health, and safety 

field which may have application to the company’s operations. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Jan-06 to May-07 Denbury Resources Inc. 

 (Regulatory Manager) 

Primary duties: 

 Supervise Safety and Environmental staff in the LA and SWMS 

Operations Area.

 Participate in the development and implementation of strategies, 

policies and procedures to ensure a safe and healthy work 

environment, environmental compliance, and minimize safety & 

environmental risks.

 Interact and advise employees on environmental procedures 

and policies. 

 Communicate with federal, state and local regulatory agencies 

as a company representative concerning environmental 

compliance issues. 

 Evaluate new and existing facilities to identify HSE concerns.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Aug-99 to Dec-05 Denbury Resources Inc. 

 (Environmental Manager) 

Primary duties: 

 Identifying and developing solutions to potential safety & 

environmental hazards and noncompliance with DRI 

environmental policies and regulatory agency standards. 

 Conduct required environmental tests, analysis, and 

observations. 

 Plan and conduct evaluations of potentially hazardous conditions 

including exposure monitoring. 

 Prepare reports for submission to supervisors, primary 

investigators and/or managers, which identify the potential safety 

& environmental hazards and/or program discrepancies, and 

provide recommendations for control and compliance. 

 Interact and advise employees on environmental procedures 

and policies. 

 Communicate with federal, state and local regulatory agencies 

as a company representative concerning environmental 

compliance issues. 

 Respond to safety & environmental incidents, which may include 

emergency response to oil or hazardous substance releases, 

fires, injuries, and other mishaps. 

Topical 487
3

 Participate in and/or lead accident/incident investigations 

 Participate in the development and delivery of safety & 

environmental training for employees. 

 Participate in meetings, workshops and conferences to keep 

abreast of emerging HSE issues and conduct and coordinate 

technical and professional training sessions for staff. 

____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Oct-97 to Aug-99 Denbury Resources Inc. 

 (Environmental Specialist) 

Primary duties included: 

 Participation in the development and implementation of 

strategies, policies and procedures to ensure environmental 

compliance and minimize environmental risk

 Conducting regular field environmental audits and drills in order 

to satisfy compliance with regulatory agencies and corporate 

policies

 Communicating with federal, state and local regulatory agencies 

as a company representative concerning environmental 

compliance

 Responding to spill and emergency events

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Sep-95 to Oct-97 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality 

 (Environmental Quality Specialist II) 

Duties include compliance inspections of both permitted and unpermitted facilities, enforcement activities regarding non-compliance, 

investigation of spills, complaints & fish kills, and periodic water quality 

monitoring. Also involved in special projects in the Bayou Lafourche 

Region including public speaking engagements, Natural Resource 

Damage Assessment (NRDA), NOAA Shellfish Challenge Program, and 

various Global Information System (GIS) projects. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Jun-92 to Aug-95 Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium (LUMCON)

 (Research Assistant/Associate) 

Duties include phytoplankton identification and enumeration using 

epifluorescence microscopy, ordering supplies, collection and 

preparation of water samples, and preparing for and participating in 

oceanographic cruises. Supervisory responsibilities include helping and 

training students and employees. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Scientific Papers and Presentations

Dortch, Q., R. Robichaux, S. Pool, D. Milsted, G. Mire, N.N. Rabalais, T.M. Soniat, G.A. Fryxell, 

R.E. Turner, and M.L. Parsons. Abundance and Vertical Flux of Pseudo-nitzschia in the 

northern Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Submitted 10/3/96. 

Dortch, Q., R. Robichaux, M.L. Parsons, D. Gibson, W. Mendenhall, N.N. Rabalais, T.M. Soniat, 

R.E. Turner, G.A. Fryxell, and C. Scholin. Environmental Control of Pseudo-nitzschia

spp. Abundance in the Northern Gulf of Mexico. May 27, 1996. NATO Advanced Study 

Topical 488
4

Institute on the Physiological Ecology of Harmful Algal Blooms. Bermuda Biological 

Station. 

Duet, L.M., Q. Dortch, N.N. Rabalais, and R. Robichaux. Distribution of Beggiatoa spp. along the 

Louisiana Continental Shelf. Gulf Estuarine Research Society annual meeting, Lafayette, 

LA. March 23-25, 1995. 

Mire, G.A., R. Robichaux, T.M. Soniat, D. Gibson, and Q. Dortch. Temporal Variation in 

Phytoplankton and Environmental Variables Over Oyster Reefs in the Terrebonne 

Estuary. Gulf Estuarine Research Society annual meeting, Lafayette, LA March 23-25, 

1995. 

Robichaux, R. and Q. Dortch. Toxic and Noxious Algae in Louisiana and Texas Coastal Waters 

1990-1993. Invited, August 10-11, 1994. Mortality Workshop, Galveston, TX. 

Robichaux, R., Q. Dortch, G.A. Mire, N.N. Rabalais, T.M. Soniat, and M.R. Parsons. Occurrence 

of Toxic Algae in Louisiana Coastal Waters. Gulf Estuarine Research Society annual 

meeting, Beaumont, TX. April 7-9, 1994. 

Robichaux, R. and T.M. Soniat. A Water Quality and Shell Activity Monitor for Oyster Depuration 

Systems. Invited, February 25, 1993. Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium 

(LUMCON), Cocodrie, LA. 

Robichaux, R. and T.M. Soniat. A Water Quality and Shell Activity Monitor for Oyster Depuration 

Systems. January 7, 1993. Aquaculture Expo VI, New Orleans, LA. 

Robichaux, R. and Q. Dortch. Occurrence of Gymnodinium sanguineum in Louisiana and Texas 

Coastal Waters 1989-1994. Contributions In Marine Science. Submitted. 

Soniat, Thomas M., R. Robichaux, G.A. Mire, and Q. Dortch. Temporal Changes in 

Phytoplankton in a Louisiana Estuary: Trophic and Dystrophic Effects on the Eastern 

Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Aquaculture ‘95. San Diego, CA. February, 1995.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Topical 489
APPENDIX G

Denbury Experience

Topical 490
Denbury Resources Inc. Corporate Responsibility Report - June 30, 200

Topical 491
Corporate Responsibility 3

Company Overview 5

Corporate Governance 6

Commitment to Equal Employment 7

Technology and Planning 8

The Green Pipeline 9 

The Midwest Pipeline Feasibility Study 11

Health, Safety and Environment 12

Adding Environmental Value 16

Green Building Programs 18

Emissions Disclosure Estimations 19

Community Support 20

Research Programs 22

Table of Contents

Topical 492
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Corporate Responsibility 

There is a saying in Texas about being “All hat, no cattle”. In the 

world’s most regulated industry, what matters more than what you 

say, is what you do. At Denbury, our people are our most 

important resource – because it is people that adapt to the changing 

oil and natural gas environment and make the Company what we 

are today.

Our Corporate Responsibility report is more than a catalogue of 

what we do and how we do it. The report represents who we are 

and what we expect of one another as productive members of an 

organization. This report may be a first for our Company, but 

Denbury’s values and commitment to how we do business has been 

the same for many years.

Over time, we have evolved into one of the leading carbon dioxide 

(CO2) tertiary enhanced oil recovery (EOR) companies. What we 

have learned from our experiences in producing new reserves of 

American oil from old and depleted oil fields throughout the 

southern U.S. has been significant. Utilizing advanced technology, 

engineering ingenuity and geo-science to produce oil through the 

injection of CO2 is being recognized today as one of the best 

opportunities to make carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) a 

reality in the near term.

Today, Denbury is providing government policy makers, the 

academic and scientific communities, and national environmental 

advocates a greater understanding of the potential America’s old oil 

fields have for CCS of industrial CO2. Our objective is to grow our 

business by expanding our use of CO2, a significant portion of 

which we anticipate will be man-made. By doing so, this will allow 

us to produce additional volumes of domestic oil, contributing to 

greater American energy independence. Executing our business 

plan, while maintaining the highest level of environmental 

stewardship, is our long-held policy and our goal.

This report is a snapshot of Denbury’s objectives and achievements, 

and about how we are striving to improve in the areas of 

environmental stewardship, health and safety each and every year. 

We are committed to being good corporate citizens and recognize 

the important responsibility we have to our employees, 

shareholders, the environment and the communities in which we 

operate. We hope as you read our report you will see the character 

of the employees who are Denbury. 

As Trace Adkins put it best, “All hat and no cattle ain’t gonna get it 

done.” 

Phil Rykhoek

Chief Executive Officer

Ronald T. Evans

President & 

Chief Operating Officer

Topical 493
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Our Commitment to Excellence:

Protecting the Environment, 

Our Employees and Contractors 

Health & Safety, and the 

Communities in Which We Operate

Denbury Resources Inc. is unique among U.S. domestic oil and 

gas companies in that its corporate strategy and focus is aimed 

at developing significant stranded reserves of American oil from 

old fields utilizing a process known as tertiary or CO2 EOR. We 

currently use underground natural sources of CO2 from our 

Jackson Dome Facility. CO2 EOR operations not only increase 

domestic oil production, helping to reduce our nation’s need for 

imported oil, but also provide a promising method to sequester 

large volumes of industrial CO2 that would otherwise be vented 

into the atmosphere. 

How we do this is important. That is why our commitment to 

health, safety and the environment is critical to achieving our 

business objectives. Our employees, the natural environment 

and how we impact the communities in which we operate come 

first and foremost as we move ahead with our planning and 

execution. We strive to make these obligations a part of 

Denbury’s culture by focusing on training, preparedness and 

measuring our performance. Communication of our 

expectations and regular assessment of our performance targets 

are key tools to achieving results. In addition, we have sought to 

meet this goal by adding environmental value to numerous 

aspects of our operations. By improving the fields where we 

operate, the buildings we work in, undertaking recycling and 

renewable energy programs, community support and partnering 

in scientific research programs, we believe we build a better 

company and a higher standard for achievement.

Denbury recognizes that reduction of carbon emissions is an 

important issue, and we take the responsibility of protecting our 

environment seriously. An important step in addressing 

greenhouse gas (GHG) issues is developing procedures and 

methods to collect data critical for calculating emissions. Our 

Company is taking steps to measure and define our emissions by 

utilizing the API Compendium estimation tools to calculate 

GHG. We are also making progress by evaluating and 

implementing emissions reduction programs within the 

Company.

CO2 EOR has the potential to store billions of metric tons o

and produce 39-48 billion barrels of American oil that are n

recoverable today. This would partially offset oil supplies fr

foreign countries that represent over one-half of U.S. 

consumption. In the Gulf Coast, not including offshore basi

up to 7 billion barrels are recoverable with CO2 EOR. (Car

Neutral Oil Solution here). As policy makers search for wa

capture and sequester CO2 from industrial sources, it is clea

utilizing depleted American oil fields is the best proven 

opportunity to safely make carbon capture and sequestration 

(CCS) a reality in the near term. (NRDC report here). 

As recent federal government research quantifies the potent

for storing “CO2 utilizing EOR” (DOE/NETL 2/7/2008 stud

here; SECARB report here), Denbury is advancing its progr

of CO2 pipeline development to expand its CO2 transportati

network capability to reach targeted oil fields. Denbury’s 

business model is an excellent example of how to combine 

technology, economics, and science and take a proven and s

process to a new level. Next year’s completion of the Gree

Pipeline, our $825 million, 320 mile expansion through 

Louisiana to Southeast Texas (Green Pipeline facts here), w

allow us to transport natural and man made sources of CO2 

depleted oil fields. We believe our private energy sector mo

will be the leader in this arena for years to come.

To this end, Denbury has initiated an ambitious feasibility s

to build a 600-700 mile CO2 pipeline from the industrial 

Midwest and connect it to Denbury’s existing CO2 pipeline 

infrastructure. The “Midwest Pipeline”, preliminarily estim

at $1 billion or more, would allow the Company to expand 

operations and transport significant volumes of man-made C

to southern oil fields. With the federal government encoura

innovative coal gasification projects through federal loan 

guarantee and economic stimulus programs, Denbury has en

into agreements with several project developers to purchase 

from proposed gasification plants in the Midwest for transp

our southern U.S. operations. (Denbury press release here). 

become a reality, many factors must come together favorab

including cost, regulatory, legal and permitting requirement

the potential consequences of pending federal climate legisl

For more information and an introduction to our strategy se

corporate video (here).

Corporate Responsibility 

Topical 494
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report 

Company Overview

Our Company

Based in Plano, Texas, Denbury is the largest oil and natural 

gas operator in Mississippi and owns the largest natural 

reserves of CO2 used for tertiary oil recovery east of the 

Mississippi River. Denbury also operates properties in Texas, 

Louisiana and Alabama. The Company’s goal is to increase 

the value of acquired properties through a combination of 

exploitation, drilling and proven engineering extraction 

practices, with its most significant emphasis relating to 

tertiary recovery operations. 

Denbury Values

Hire the Best Staff

Our people are truly our most important asset. The past few 

years have reinforced how important our personnel are to o

success and how qualified personnel shortages can be a 

limiting factor to rapid growth. Recently, we have been abl

to selectively add key personnel, and we continue to improv

the training and experience of our valued operational staff. 

Ethics and Integrity are Our Most Important Valu

Company policy requires all employees to operate at the 

highest level of integrity. Our values are dependent upon th

expectation that all business relationships are conducted in 

this manner. We do not tolerate unethical or dishonest 

behavior within our Company.

We are Focused on Our Primary Purpose

Model After the Team Concept and be a Team Pla

Every decision at Denbury requires teamwork. It is at the 

team level where ideas are formed, decisions are discussed 

and solutions are presented. At Denbury, we pride ourselve

on being a team-driven company as we work to enhance 

effectiveness, and ultimately our performance, including th

way decisions are made at the top. We have an Investment 

Committee consisting of our four most senior executives. T

Investment Committee makes or reviews all significant 

corporate decisions.

Denbury is a publicly traded company, and we know that ou

primary goal is to increase shareholder value. Our focus on 

achievement is based on results through careful planning an

execution.

Denbury is included in the S&P 500 Index and trades on the 

New York Stock Exchange under the symbol DNR.

Since we acquired our first CO2 tertiary flood in Mississippi in 

1999, we have gradually increased our emphasis on these types 

of operations. During this time, we have learned a considerable 

amount about tertiary operations and working with CO2. 

Approximately 50% of our proved reserves as of December 31, 

2008 are proved tertiary oil reserves. Over 50% of our 

forecasted 2009 production is expected to come from tertiary oil 

operations (on a BOE basis), and almost all of our 2009 capital 

expenditures are related to our current or future tertiary 

operations. 

Generally, from East Texas to Florida, there are no known 

significant natural sources of CO2 except our own (Jackson 

Dome). While naturally produced CO2 drives our operations 

today, we are also pursuing anthropogenic (man-made) sources 

of CO2 to use in future tertiary operations. We believe this will 

not only help us recover additional oil, but will provide an 

economical way to sequester large volumes of man-made CO2. 

We own and operate 12 active CO2 EOR projects and have 

acquired several additional old oil fields in our areas of 

operations with potential for tertiary recovery. Our plan is to 

acquire additional fields as we continue to expand our CO2

pipeline infrastructure to transport CO2.

Denbury Operations

Be a Good Neighbor and Respect Our Environmen

Denbury believes that a good relationship with landowners 

and within the communities where we operate is good 

business. We strive to go the extra mile to establish a solid 

working relationship with those individuals and in the areas 

where we conduct our operations. More than simply "doing 

the right thing", we listen to our constituents, and seek to 

anticipate issues so that we may offer solutions and options 

resolve problems and minimize impacts.

Topical 495
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Corporate Governance

Corporate Governance

The business, property and affairs of the Company are managed 

by the Chief Executive Officer under the direction of the Board 

of Directors. The Board has responsibility for establishing broad 

corporate policies and for overall performance and direction of 

the Company, but is not involved in day-to-day operations. 

Members of the Board are kept informed of the Company's 

business by participating in Board and Committee meetings, by 

reviewing analyses and reports sent to them regularly, and 

through discussions with the Chief Executive Officer and other 

officers of the corporation (Corporate Governance link here). 

Guidelines

The Board has adopted corporate governance guidelines that 

address significant issues and set forth the procedures by which 

the Board carries out its responsibilities. Among the areas 

addressed by the guidelines are director qualifications and 

responsibilities, Board Committee responsibilities, selection and 

election of directors, director compensation and tenure, director 

orientation and continuing education, access to management and 

independent advisors, succession planning and management 

development, Board meetings, and Board and Committee 

performance evaluations. The Board's Nominating/Corporate 

Governance Committee is responsible for assessing and 

periodically reviewing the adequacy of these guidelines.

Code of Ethics

Denbury has established a Code of Ethics for its Chief 

Executive Officer and Senior Financial Officers (the "Cod

to ensure the continuing integrity of financial reporting and 

protect the interests of its shareholders and all those with 

which Denbury conducts business. The Code sets forth 

specific policies to guide the Company's Chief Executive 

Officer and Senior Financial Officers in the performance o

their duties. 

Denbury's Chief Executive Officer and Senior Financial 

Officers shall: 

1) Act with honesty and integrity, avoiding actual or appar

conflicts in personal and professional relationships. 

2) Provide full, fair, accurate, complete, objective, timely a

understandable financial disclosures in internal reports as w

as documents filed or submitted to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission, any other government agency or s

regulatory organization, or used in public communications

3) Comply with applicable rules and regulations of federal

state and local governments, the Securities and Exchange 

Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, and other 

appropriate private and public regulatory agencies.

4) Be accountable for adherence to this Code and promptly 

report violations of this Code to Denbury's audit committe

5) Maintain accurate financial record keeping.

6) Refrain from taking any action that fraudulently influen

coerces, manipulates, or misleads any independent public 

certified accountant engaged in the performance of an aud

the financial statements of the Company for the purpose of 

rendering such financial statements materially misleading. 

In addition, all Denbury employees must sign and comply 

a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. This sets forth the 

fundamental principles and key policies and procedures th

govern the conduct of all officers, employees and directors 

Denbury. 

Denbury Gathering & Marketing, Inc.

Genesis Energy, LLC

Denbury Operating Company 

Denbury Onshore, L.L.C.

Denbury Marine, L.L.C. 

Tuscaloosa Royalty Fund L.L.C.

Denbury New Frontiers, L.L.C.

Denbury Green Pipeline – Texas, LLC

Denbury Resources Inc.

Subsidiaries

Topical 496
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Commitment to Equal Employment

Equal Employment Opportunity and NonDiscrimination Policy

Equal employment opportunity benefits Denbury and its 

employees through the full utilization of all people. Denbury has 

and shall continue to recruit, hire, promote, train, transfer, 

discipline and make all personnel decisions without regard to 

race, color, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin, as well 

as any other category protected by applicable federal, state, or 

local laws. Discrimination based on any protected category is 

unlawful, and all persons involved in the operations of Denbury 

are prohibited from engaging in this type of conduct.

Company policy protects human dignity and will also protect the 

interests and safety of all employees and the organization. 

Harassment by anyone on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, 

national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental disability, 

membership in a uniformed service, or any other protected status 

is strictly prohibited. It is Denbury’s policy to provide its 

employees with a work environment that is free from all types of 

discrimination and harassment.

Denbury Employees

At Denbury, we know our true values are reflected in our 

people. We believe that our most important resource and o

biggest competitive advantage is our roster of highly skill

and knowledgeable employees.

Our employees are encouraged to use their skills and crea

in their areas of expertise and thrive in an atmosphere of 

cooperation and respect. Our entire staff works in the spir

teamwork and focus to develop innovative solutions that s

to exceed expectations.

We believe in the employees expectation of an appropriat

working environment, excellent work culture and competi

compensation. A culture of empowerment allows them th

opportunity to practice and develop ideas for tomorrow an

continue the success that is Denbury.

In short, our people work hard, enjoy their work and truly 

about every aspect of our business - a synergistic relations

at its best.

Employee Count

From 2006 to June 30, 2009, we experienced a 28% incre

employee count as a testament to our thriving operations 

our commitment to retaining and attracting key personnel

As of June 30, 2009, we had 826 employees, 506 of whom 

were employed in field operations or field offices.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Jun-09

380

460

596

686

797 826

Compliance Hotline

(800) 826-6762

Denbury upholds the highest standard of integrity as a company 

and has established an anonymous hotline for employees and 

business partners to report suspected unlawful, unethical conduct 

or criminal activity occurring within Denbury. The Company will 

not tolerate any form of retaliation for reports made in good faith 

to the hotline.

Topical 497
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Technology and Planning

For Denbury, The Future is Now

Denbury is Already Achieving “Next Generation” Results

● The DOE/NETL report (here) estimating current CO2

storage levels was based on projects using Water 

Alternating Gas (WAG) methods; Denbury uses 100% 

CO2 (no water), injecting and storing almost double the 

CO2 of WAG methods.

● Denbury’s current CO2 EOR projects inject from 0.52 to 

0.64 metric tons of CO2 for every recovered barrel of oil 

(which releases ~0.42 metric tons of CO2), storing between 

24% and up to 52% more CO2 than the recovered oil will 

release when consumed.

Advancing U.S. Energy Independence

● CO2 EOR can recover billions of barrels of identified oil 

from existing U.S. oilfields, and offers additional 

domestic production without additional exploration and 

development lead times.

● The environmental impact of every barrel of recovered 

U.S. oil could be offset by carbon capture and storage 

(CCS), versus no CO2 reduction for imported oil.

Infrastructure for Future CCS Solutions

● Denbury’s current and proposed CO2 pipeline network will 

enable commercial-scale CCS during enhanced oil 

recovery and potentially in post-production utilization of 

underlying saline formations.

● CO2 pipeline networks provide the basic infrastructure 

needed for development of carbon solutions for 

environmentally-sensitive industrial developments 

including innovative gasification projects that can produce 

transportation fuels, power, substitute natural gas, fertilizer 

and chemicals from plentiful U.S. natural resources.

A “Carbon Neutral” American Oil Solutio

In most U.S. oilfields, about 33% of the original oil in plac

recoverable through primary and secondary methods, incre

to 50-60% with CO2 EOR.

The Gulf Coast Area (AL, SE TX, MS, LA)

Does not include offshore basins

● Estimated 44.4 billion barrels original oil in place

● Estimated 27.5 billion barrels are “stranded”

● Estimated up to 7 billion barrels are recoverable wi

CO2 EOR

Source: National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Energy Facts – July 2008

“The country has a significant, untapped win-win-win 

opportunity to stimulate our economy and reduce our 

dependence on imported oil while actually helping to 

protect wild places and reduce global warming pollution: a 

process known as carbon dioxide enhanced oil recovery 

(CO2 EOR). 

“To date, no significant documented environmental impacts 

from CO2 injection, such as to groundwater sources, have 

been reported.” 

Oil Formation

(Lower Tuscaloosa) PRODUCTION WELLS

Produce oil, water and CO2

(CO2 is later recycled)

CO2 INJECTION 

Injects CO2 in den

CO2 moves 

formation 

with oil dr

expanding t

moving th

producing 

Oil Formation

(Lower Tuscaloosa)

CO2 Pipeline – from Jackson Dome

Model for Oil Recovery Using CO2 is +/- 17% 

of Original Oil in Place (Based on Little Creek)

Primary recovery = +/- 20%

Secondary recovery (waterfloods) = +/- 18%

Tertiary (CO2) = +/- 17%

Topical 498
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

The Green Pipeline

Denbury is currently constructing a 24” pipeline from 

Donaldsonville, Louisiana to Hastings Field, south of Houston, 

Texas. The approximately 320-mile pipeline, estimated to cost a 

total of $825 million, is designed to transport both natural and 

man-made CO2. The Green Pipeline will be one of the first 

pipelines designed to transport anthropogenic CO2 in the Gulf 

Coast area.

The U.S. CO2 pipeline network is extremely small when 

compared to the U.S. oil and gas pipeline system. Denbury 

currently constructing the Green Pipeline to transport CO2 

both natural and man-made sources to reenergize petroleu

reservoirs. We have entered into purchase contracts with 

owners of potential sources of man-made CO2 and are in 

various stages of discussions with several other entities. 

Assuming these plants are ultimately constructed, Denbury 

plans to use this CO2 to recover oil that would not otherwi

produced. In addition to increased domestic oil production

potential use of man-made CO2 in our EOR operations, wi

help reduce the release of CO2, a greenhouse gas, into the 

earth’s atmosphere.

Purpose of the Green Pipeline

Benefits of Denbury’s Strategy

● Our CO2 EOR operations increase domestic oil 

production

● Creates jobs and improves the local economies in 

which we operate

● Provides a promising method to safely sequester 

industrial CO2 emissions

● Helps reduce our nation’s need for imported oil

Facts About the Pipeline

● Size: 24” diameter pipeline

● Length: Approximately 320 miles 

● Volume: Designed to transport up to 800 million 

standard cubic feet per day of CO2

● Design and Operations: The pipeline has been des

to operate under the rules and regulations of the 

Department of Transportation (DOT)

● Regulatory: Compliant with local, state and federa

regulations; pre-pipeline construction involved 

approvals for wetland-delineation, habitat evaluati

and culture resource studies, along with other 

environmental and safety statutes

● Targeted Completion Date: Louisiana to Galveston 

in mid 2010; Galveston Bay to Hastings in late 20

A reclaimed section of the Green Pipeline adjacent to US Hwy 190 east of Livonia, LA (approximately

30 miles WNW of Baton Rouge, LA)

Construction of the Green Pipeline

The Green Pipeline Project

Topical 499
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report 

The Green Pipeline Project

Wetland Conservation

Denbury has always taken the opportunity to avoid adverse 

impacts to ecologically and culturally sensitive areas.

Construction methodologies and/or compensatory mitigation is 

provided to offset all unavoidable impacts, including replacing 

wetland acreage. Pipeline construction methods include 

alternative routing, reduction in construction width, installation 

of mats, push methods and horizontal directional drilling.

Routing is paramount to avoid sensitive sites and creates 

opportunities to utilize other ecologically sensitive construction 

methods. The reduction of right-of-way widths can be achieved 

through proper planning and by chipping woody vegetation, 

reducing impacts by as much as one third. The installation of 

mats within the working right-of-way reduces compaction and 

soil disturbance which facilitates post construction rehabilitation. 

When conditions dictate, the “push method” of construction 

provides for further reduction of right-of-way width. This 

method of flooding the pipeline trench, fabricating the joints of 

pipe at a single location and pushing the pipe down the flooded 

ditch on floats as more pipe is attached, is capable of reducing 

impacts by over fifty percent. 

The use of horizontal directional drilling can be used to 

completely avoid surface features and is a great option for 

archeological sites, narrow wetlands or site specific habitat 

concerns (i.e. denning or nesting areas). Additionally, properly 

installed erosion control devices are strategically positioned 

along the right-of-way, and these devices are maintained until the 

impacted area has fully recovered. 

Denbury works closely under the guidelines of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and other federal, state and local regulators to 

ensure that the highest quality of compliance is achieved.

Wetland Push

Installation of mats

Horizontal Directional Drilling

Topical 500
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

The Midwest Pipeline Feasibility Study

Denbury initiated a study in early 2009 to evaluate the feasibility 

of a pipeline to transport man-made CO2 from the Midwest U.S. 

south into Mississippi or Louisiana. If feasible, this project 

would involve 600 to 700 miles of pipeline to connect proposed 

gasification plants in the Midwest to Denbury’s existing CO2

pipeline network. This project alone would double the mileage 

of CO2 pipelines currently owned and operated by Denbury. 

The study represents another significant step in Denbury’s 

leading effort to establish the infrastructure necessary to capture 

man-made CO2 in the U.S. 

The Midwest Pipeline Feasibility Study Key Project Developments

● Two Midwest gasification facilities, one in Indiana an

one in Illinois, are advancing in the U.S. Department o

Energy Loan Guarantee Program; Denbury holds CO

purchase contracts with both facilities

● The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic 

Opportunity (DCEO) provided financial assistance to 

support portions of the feasibility study

● Multiple pipeline routes from the Midwest are being 

evaluated to ensure optimization of the environmental 

landowner aspects of the project

● The pipeline design will be capable of transporting 

volumes up to 800 million cubic feet per day of captur

man-made CO2

Green 

Pipeline

Little Rock

Jackson 

Dome

Springfield

Southern Industrial Tie-in Line

Proposed CO2 Source 

Facilities

Midwest Pipeline 

West Option

Midwest Pipeline 

East Option

Topical 501
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

2.24

0.28

1.81

0.77

1.43

0.48

2007 2008 2009

It is our policy to:

● Comply with all pertinent environmental and safety 

regulations and requirements;

● set HSE targets and goals annually to measure our 

performance, to achieve superior results and continually 

improve;

● monitor, revise and re-employ safety systems and 

environmental assessments on a regular basis;

● provide education and training to our employees in order 

for them to have the knowledge, skills, and 

understanding to perform their responsibilities and duties 

at the highest level

Health, Safety and Environment

Denbury is committed to continuously improving our Health, 

Safety and Environmental (HSE) performance by focusing on 

training, preparedness and has established a system of 

measurement to achieve superior results. Denbury has a longstanding HSE commitment to the highest standards for the health 

and safety of our employees, contractors, local communities, as 

well as the protection of the environment in which we live and 

work. To accomplish these goals, we believe Denbury must 

continuously improve the safety, well-being and development of 

our employees, implement the highest standards of 

environmental protection and ethical conduct, and work 

proactively to be a good corporate citizen by aligning our 

interests as a company with the interests in the communities in 

which we operate. 

Health, Safety, and the Environment

Through June 30, 2009, the Total Recordable Incident R

(TRIR) for Denbury employees was the lowest measured 

the last three years. This rate represents the number of 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

recordable incidents for every 200,000 hours worked. Th

most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics data (

for the oil & gas extraction sector indicated an average o

1.70. 

1. Safety

HSE Key Performance Indicators

Denbury tracks four Key Performance Indicators (KPI) 

designed to track progress towards our Health, Safety and 

Environment goals. The KPI represent:

1. Safety (TRIR)

2. Spill Prevention

3. Training

4. Regulatory Compliance

These metrics are monitored continuously and 

communicated on a regular basis. Denbury also assesses 

these performance targets annually as part of our employ

compensation package.

Operational Goals

“Denbury has been operating over here for a number of 

years as an oil and gas operator. They have a very 

good compliance history with our rules and regulations. 

As the main oil and gas regulator in the state, that’s 

what we look for in a company, a good corporate 

citizen. We believe they meet that definition.”

Jim Welsh

Commissioner of Conservation

State of Louisiana

July 2009

(3)

Total Recordable Incident Rate

(1) 2007 BLS Industry Average (1.70) for TRIR

(3) Through June, 2009

Of these incidents, those that resulted in lost time, restri

duty, or job transfer, Denbury’s rate was 0.48 compared 

the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (2007) industry 

average of 1.20.

(2) 2007 BLS Industry Average (1.20) for lost time, restricted duty or job transfer

Topical 502
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Denbury’s HSE policy is designed to reduce and prevent spills 

and releases in the fields in which we operate. As a direct result 

of new investments, improvements in our operating procedures, 

employee training and management supervision, Denbury’s 

record of achievement in this area improved by 84 percent from 

2007 to 2008 (32 percent excluding two large well control 

events at Eucutta and Smithdale Fields). We continue to see 

additional progress company-wide in 2009. In particular, 

Denbury’s acquisition of the Citronelle Field in Alabama led to 

significant operational improvements on a property that had 

experienced numerous problems. The Alabama Oil & Gas Board 

recognized these efforts by awarding Denbury a Stewardship 

Award, the first of its kind to an oil and gas company by the 

Agency since its inception in 1945.

Additionally, Denbury’s professional response to the wellcontrol event at Smithdale Field (noted above) was highlighted 

by EPA Region IV in a Regional Response Team meeting in 

February 2009. The Mississippi Department of Environmental 

Quality extended the invitation to Denbury to brief Federal OnScene Coordinators, as well as emergency response officials 

from Region IV member states to showcase Denbury’s response 

in this case study.

372

58 28

2007 2008 2009

2. Spill Prevention

Stewardship Award - February 4, 2009

● Upgrading gathering lines, equipment, and tank batt

facilities, plugging unneeded wellbores, removing 

unused gathering lines, testing and restoring mechan

integrity of wellbores, removing oil-contaminated so

cleaning up tank battery sites using best managemen

practices, remediating NORM materials, restoring 

inactive wells to a producing status, and maintaining 

regulatory compliance for inactive wells with future 

utility

“By making a major financial commitment over and above 

required for normal field operations, Denbury was able to 

accomplish this major undertaking by the end of 2008 whil

establishing itself as a responsible corporate citizen.

“The successful implementation of this project will 

undoubtedly extend the productive life of Alabama’s large

oil field while protecting the public’s health and safety, as 

as protecting the environment. The project also serves as a

excellent example of an effective partnership between a sta

regulatory agency and an operator that is dedicated to 

developing the State’s oil and gas resources in a safe and 

prudent manner. This level of dedication and commitment 

Denbury and its employees to ‘go the extra mile’ is greatly 

appreciated by the State Oil and Gas Board and its staff. T

Stewardship Award presented to Denbury reflects and 

acknowledges our appreciation.”

“In 2005, as operator of the Citronelle Field, Denbury 

developed a comprehensive plan to modernize and upgrade 

operations and facilities in Citronelle Field. Denbury’s pla

included:

(1) 2007 figure includes a large accidental spill at Eucutta Field and a well control 

event at Smithdale Field which combined accounted for 285 bbls/mmbls produced

(2) Through June, 2009

(1) (2)

Release Volume (barrels) / 

million barrels produced

Health, Safety and Environment

Topical 503
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

3. Employee Training

The success of any Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) program 

hinges upon an institutional commitment from our executive 

management and the awareness and the training of our employees. 

A comprehensive training program covering HSE, including job 

specific and productivity training, initiatives has recently been 

implemented company-wide. Training consists of computer-based, 

classroom, and field training to fully maximize technology to deliver 

the training program efficiently. The training program is designed to 

meet regulatory training requirements, provide job specific training, 

and enhance employee productivity and safety.

● Accident Prevention

● Asbestos Awareness

● Confined Space Entry

● Electrical Safety

● Fire

● Forklift Safety

● Hazard Communications

● Hazwoper Awareness

● Hearing Conservation

● Lockout/Tagout Authorization

● Personal Protective

● Respiratory Protection

● Safety Overview

● Small Spills

● Workplace Emergencies

● Workplace Violence

Required Training for Field Personnel

4. Regulatory Compliance

Denbury is subject to a variety of federal, state, and local 

HSE laws and regulations. We strive to achieve full 

compliance with regulatory requirements and minimize o

operational “footprint” on the environment. Given the 

nature of acquiring older properties, we are often faced w

the challenge of correcting existing adverse environment

issues while minimizing future impacts. In an effort to 

insure compliance, routine audits are conducted to identi

and generate corrective actions.

2

20

38

46

56

62

72

78

84

Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Goal

Intermediate Goal

2009 Denbury Required Training (%)

CPR Photo

Denbury employees undergoing CPR Training

Health, Safety and Environment

Topical 504
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Pearl River Wildlife Conservation

Ross Barnett Reservoir (Northeast of Jackson, MS)

Denbury contributed $350,000 to The Foundation for 

Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks in support of the 

Pearl River Wildlife Management Area’s (PRWMA) Turc

Wildlife Center. The donation will be used towards the 

construction of a training facility for State Wildlife officer

well as State provided hunting, fishing and general wildlif

education for youth, especially handicapped youth groups, 

visiting the Turcotte Center.

Denbury also contributed approximately $150,000 to cons

three handicap accessible cabins used for hunting. A 35-a

plot of scrub land surrounding the cabins was cleared and 

replanted with over 4,000 oak trees to enhance the wildlife 

habitat, and the access road leading to the cabins was grea

improved.

Heath, Safety, and Environmental Management

At Denbury, the Health, Safety, and Environmental Department 

is integrated into corporate and field operations. The HSE 

department’s primary task is to manage issues once they arise 

and train and educate employees to reduce HSE related risks to 

the Company. As part of this management philosophy, the HSE 

department conducts routine documented audits that focus on 

compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, as well as 

Company policies and procedures. HSE initiatives are 

communicated to employees through new employee orientations, 

formal training programs, regularly scheduled safety meetings, 

and field visits by HSE staff.

Individual Emergency Response Plans

Denbury has a company-wide Emergency Response Plan to cover 

various types of emergencies including spill response, well 

control events, natural disasters, fire, and pandemics. 

Additionally, each field location has site specific emergency 

procedures for these events. Emergency Response Plans, Facility 

Response Plans, and Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plans are employed at the field locations where 

applicable.

Wetland Mitigation

Denbury takes great effort to minimize impacts to the 

environment. When constructing new projects, the followi

mitigation sequence is followed:

Avoid...Minimize...Restore...Compensate

This process starts in the very early stages of planning a pro

Site selection, routing, and mitigation is included as an inte

part of any project’s alternative analysis. In some cases, 

compensatory mitigation is required. Over the last two year

Denbury has committed to preserving or restoring over 1,4

acres of wetland habitats related to various construction pro

Denbury has don

$10,000 to transf

an existing beav

pond into an 

extensive educat

nature retreat wi

the Pearl and Le

Rivers Rails-toTrails Recreation

District in 

Hattiesburg, MS

Denbury Beaver Pond

Louisiana Black Bear – Listed as a Threatened Species 

under the Endangered Species Act (1992)

Health, Safety and Environment

Protecting natural 

habitat requires 

proper planning and 

execution in our 

development 

plan. Denbury 

addresses wildlife 

protection, soil 

quality, plant 

species and other 

natural values as a 

part of our 

development, 

reclamation and 

remediation efforts.

Topical 505
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Environmental and Public Enhancements

The Lockhart Crossing CO2 EOR Facility is Denbury’s “Greenest” thus f

Denbury installed environmental controls including a Vapor Recovery Un

Denbury contributes to being a good neighbor by installing noise silencers 

sound barriers, building fences, improving irrigation, and planting trees at L

Crossing Field

Lockhart Crossing Field - Louisiana

Adding Environmental Value 

to U.S. Oil Fields

Older, depleted U.S. oil fields that we acquire often suffer from 

mechanical or environmental conditions that we remedy as part 

of our enhanced oil recovery operations. Denbury’s program to 

rejuvenate these fields and increase oil production from marginal 

oil fields begins by initiating a comprehensive environmental 

assessment and remediation program that addresses 

environmental issues, equips the field with updated technology, 

and results in a more environmentally benign operation that is 

cleaner and “greener” than what existed before.

Areas of improvement that typically receive attention include: 

mechanical review of wellbores and surface production facilities; 

pressure testing of existing casing and the replacement of old 

tubing; installation of new wellhead equipment; installation of 

emission reduction equipment; installation of sound barriers, 

silencers and landscaping; replacement of old production flow 

lines with new flow lines; in some cases adding remote telemetry 

technology for communication and data gathering thus reducing 

traffic; review and address all areas of state mandated regulatory 

compliance.

These actions, taken together, ensures identification of any agerelated problems associated with an older facility, while adding 

improvements through new equipment and technology to 

modernize the facility and prepare it for CO2 injection. 

Reactivating and increasing oil production in marginal oil fields 

results in increased revenue to the mineral owners, additional 

severance, ad valorem and sales tax revenues to state and local 

governments, and job growth that benefits local economies. CO2 

EOR is capital intensive and thus large sums of revenue are 

injected into the local and state economy.

Environmental Remediation Projects

Since 2006, Denbury has completed 31 remediation projects on 

various properties. Over $5 million has been spent on these 

projects, and Denbury dedicates part of its capital budget 

towards similar remediation projects each year. 

These projects include waste removal, soil remediation, tank 

battery removal and other remediation actions to improve the 

older oil field facilities we have acquired.

Adding Environmental Value

Topical 506
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

In a CO2 flood, it is necessary to compress the CO2 for reinjection into the formation. The compression process gen

a significant amount of heat. Denbury captures the heat fro

the compression process to assist in the seperation of CO2 

water and oil. Using this waste heat eliminates the need to 

purchase and use natural gas for our process heat requirem

thereby significantly reducing our carbon footprint. 

The compression process causes the CO2 to reach tempera

of 200 oF. After each stage of compression, the CO2 is run 

through heat exchangers to heat water to 160 oF. The heate

water is circulated through another heat exchanger to heat 

oil, water and CO2 to 90 oF coming from the field, which r

in improved separation of the CO2 from the oil and water f

recycling. The photos below show heat exchangers in use 

Denbury facilities. 

The Cranfield Facility was constructed on the same site where an 

old facility originally lay. Approximately 6,000 tons of concrete 

and 200 tons of steel rebar pipe was removed and then recycled at 

this location. The concrete was used for road stabilization and as 

surface material for the new facility.

Cranfield Field - Mississippi

Concrete Crusher

Original concrete mound

Cranfield Facility today

Rebar pipe being separated and recycled

Denbury’s Barnett Shale operations currently produce approximately 

12,300 barrels of salt water per day that is untreatable for human or 

agricultural use and requires multiple truck trips for hauling and 

disposal. The Company is in the process of drilling a salt water 

disposal well that would take 3,000 bbls saltwater/day and inject it 

into the Ellenberger formation, a deep salt aquifer that is over 7,000 

feet below the earth’s surface. The benefit of deep injection will 

eliminate 23 truck loads of water being hauled away each day and the 

associated exhaust and fuel use. Other similar deep salt water 

injection wells are being considered to further reduce hauling 

activity. 

Barnett Shale Salt Water Disposal Project

Waste Heat Recovery is currently in use at Soso, Martinv

Eucutta, Heidelberg, Tinsley, Lockhart Crossing and 

Cranfield Fields.

Waste Heat Recovery

Adding Environmental Value

Topical 507
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Green Building Programs

The expansion of our corporate offices in Plano, Texas, was 

completed in 2008. Our new building is LEED (Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design) certified, the national 

standard for an environmentally responsible and a healthy place to 

work.

Plano, Texas – Corporate Headquarters Heidelberg, Mississippi – Field Office

Heating and cooling of our Heidelberg Field office, locate

Jasper County, south central Mississippi, was designed an

engineered using a ground-source geothermal heat pump 

system. This system uses the earth as a source of heat in t

winter and a source of cooling in the summer. Ground-sou

heat pumps have high thermal efficiencies and produce ze

direct emissions. Many consider ground-source heat pump

most energy efficient, environmentally clean, and cost 

effective air conditioning systems available. All supply an

return air ducts are separately filtered, maintaining a highe

degree of indoor air quality.

Topical 508
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

2007 2008

Emissions Disclosure Estimations

Electricity Usage

2007 2008

Denbury’s Iberia Field has been selected as a trial site to 

test a new line of solar powered pumps built by Wellma

Company LLC. The pumps are used in a corrosion 

prevention process at the wellhead. This Solar System 

replaces natural gas fueled pumps thus reducing 

emissions (saving approximately 274 mcf/year per 

pump). The pump efficiency and overall effectiveness 

will be monitored during the trial period. This solar 

option provides an environmentally friendly benefit and 

operating cost reduction.

Solar Powered Injection Pumps

Summerland Field – Mississippi

Denbury Hosting Geothermal Technology Study

Denbury is participating in a study of the effectiveness o

generating electricity from geothermal heat supplied by 

produced hot water. Most U.S. domestic oil wells 

produce significant quantities of unusable water 

associated with oil production. In this test, Gulf Coast 

Green Energy will install demonstration technology on 

one of Denbury’s wells to produce 50 KW of electricity 

from 4,000 barrels of produced water per day that is 

approximately 200 oF when it reaches the surface. The 

machine works by using the geothermal heat from the 

water to drive a small generator via a turbo expander. If 

the idea is successful, it would save approximately $3,60

per month in electricity purchases and would pay for the 

installation and cost of the machine in three years. 

Natural Gas Used for Fuel

Iberia Field - Louisiana

2007 2008

CO2 Emissions from Fuel (1)

(1) The CO2 emissions from fuel is estimated based on fuel 

combustion. Denbury is currently conducting a more comprehensive 

greenhouse gas inventory following the API Compendium for estimating 

greenhouse gases. A more detailed summary of this emissions inventory 

will be forthcoming in the next report (June 30, 2010). 

14.94 14.78

0.24

0.22

31

37

kWh / Net BOE

Mcf / Net BOE

Metric Tons CO2 / Net MBOE

Topical 509
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Community Support

In addition to the 

mentioned 

contributions, Den

and its employees 

contributed more 

$385,000 to over 

charitable organiz

and educational 

institutions in 200

Mississippi Children’s Museum

The Mississippi Children’s Museum, operational in 2010

will be located in Jackson, MS. The Museum’s feature 

exhibit is the Mississippi climbing exhibit which include

underground exhibit with various interactive geological 

experiences including the underground volcano that is 

believed to be the source of CO2 at Jackson Dome. The 

Museum’s board has raised almost $22 million of the $2

million budget. Denbury has committed to match charit

donations on behalf of its interest owners, vendors and 

business partners in Mississippi up to $125,000 with a g

of generating $250,000 in donations to the Museum from 

efforts.

www.mississippichildrensmuseum.com

Illustration of Mississippi Children’s Museum

Denbury and its employees have recently participated in various 

fundraising programs such as donations to the Salvation Army 

Christmas Angels, North Texas Food Bank and Susan B. 

Anthony Golf Tournament.

Our employees are encouraged to give generously to charitable 

organizations and educational institutions of their choice with 

Denbury supporting their efforts through a matching gifts 

program.

Charitable Contributions

Topical 510
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Education

An educational assistance program is provided by Denbury 

help employees obtain additional education or training to inc

their competence in their present job and to prepare for 

advancement within Denbury. For regular, full-time employ

with one or more years of employment at Denbury, the Com

will reimburse 80% of the cost of tuition, enrollment fees, an

books for courses which employees take at a recognized col

or university. 

Denbury’s Delhi Field was selected as the next two-year 

research program for the Colorado School of Mines Rese

Characterization Project. The RCP is an independently 

sponsored research consortium which fosters industry and 

university interaction to provide cost effective, collaborat

research. This project will train students for employment 

oil and gas industry as well as help Denbury in optimizing 

managing CO2 floods for years to come.

Volunteer Activities

Denbury has been a sponsor of the MS150 Bike Tour in 

Mississippi for the past five years, two of which were as title 

sponsor. In 2008, Denbury, its employees and business partners, 

raised approximately $155,000 during the October MS Bike Tour 

in Mississippi. We had 25 Denbury employees join the ride and 

15 Denbury volunteers support the two day tour.

Mississippi Multiple Sclerosis (MS) Society Bike Tour

Internship Program

Colorado School of Mines Project

Each year, Denbury selects college students from various 

universities to participate in our CO2 EOR program. Our go

share CO2 EOR operational knowledge as well as our cultur

work environment with student interns with the objective of 

attracting and employing qualified candidates at Denbury up

graduation. This summer, Denbury assigned 13 interns (six 

which are international students) represented by five univers

projects relating to petroleum operations, reservoir engineer

geology, accounting, supply chain management and human 

resources. Each student was teamed with a mentor and give

opportunity to take a trip to the field to see CO2 EOR operat

first hand. Upon the completion of their assignment, the int

gave a presentation to their respective departments describin

details of their assignment, ultimate results and suggestions 

improvement. 

Community Support

In 2009, Denbury will continue its matching charitable grant 

program for employees who wish to give personal funds to the 

MS Society or through the MS 150 Bike tour. To further our 

commitment to support multiple sclerosis research activity, 

Denbury has made a $25,000 corporate contribution to the 

University of Mississippi Medical Center's "Multiple Sclerosis 

Endowment Fund". This fund provides research funding and 

support for doctors and students attending the University of 

Mississippi Medical Center.

Topical 511
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Research Programs

Using bacteria to produce more oil after traditional drilling 

methods have been exhausted is the subject of a research project 

involving Denbury and Mississippi State University. The $1.5 

million grant to test a technique called Microbial Permeability 

Profile Modification helps make existing bacteria grow which 

plug up flow channels thus re-directing CO2 to other areas of the 

reservoir to recover additional volumes of oil. This technique 

provides nutrients by alternating concentrated phosphate and 

nitrate injections with normal CO2 injections.

Little Creek Field - Mississippi

Louisiana State University and Denbury are involved in a DOE 

sponsored reservoir study to quantify bypassed oil in a CO2 flood 

using carbon-oxygen and pulsed neutron logs. The goal of the 

project is to determine true oil saturation in a CO2 flooded zone. 

Near wellbore oil saturation determination in a CO2 flood 

requires that the evaluation technique differentiate oil from CO2

in the reservoir especially when CO2 is miscible with the oil. 

This technique can be used on wells where no baseline cased-hole 

logs have been run.

Soso Field - Mississippi

DOE # DE-PS26-05NT15600-2B

DOE # DE-FC26-04NT15536

The University of Texas and the Bureau of Economic Geo

(BEG) are involved with Denbury in an 18 month project 

sustained injection of CO2 at a rate of 1 million metric ton

per year focusing on high volume injection into salt water 

intervals below the oil-water contact. The project intends 

measure sweep efficiency, quantify the relationship betwe

injection rate and pressure and document that the CO2 is 

retained within the target zone with no risk of leakage to 

groundwater or atmosphere. (BEG link here)

This work is being performed by the BEG Gulf Coast Carb

Center (GCCC) in conjunction with the Southeast Regiona

Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB) with suppor

from the DOE. In addition to the above, sponsoring 

organizations include Denbury Resources, Sandia 

Technologies LLC, Schlumberger Carbon Services, Lawre

Berkeley National Lab, Lawrence Livermore National Lab

and Promore, the University of Mississippi and Mississipp

State University.

Drilling rig in position at F-2, Cranfield Field, Mississippi. 

Source: Bureau of Economic Geology

Cranfield Field - Mississippi

DOE # DE-FC26-05NT42590

Department of Energy Projects

Topical 512
Denbury Resources Inc. 6/30/09 Corporate Responsibility Report

Department of Energy Projects

Citronelle Field - Alabama

Denbury is participating in the early planning stages of a pr

to inject CO2 into a saline formation and to monitor CO2

containment. The Southern Company will design, build and 

operate a carbon capture and separation unit at Alabama Po

Company's Plant Barry, near Bucks, Alabama, which is 

approximately 12 miles from the Southeast Citronelle Unit. 

The project will be capable of capturing approximately 125

metric tons of anthropogenic CO2 per year. A pipeline will 

constructed from Plant Barry to Denbury's Southeast 

Citronelle Unit, and the CO2 will be injected into saline Pal

sandstones at depths of approximately 10,000 feet. These 

sandstones are separated from the deeper Rodessa oil reserv

by the impermeable Ferry Lake Anhydrite. One new injecti

well and one new monitoring well are planned. Injection wi

continue for four years at a rate of 125,000 tons per year. A

cessation of injection, the sequestered CO2 will be monitore

an additional four years in order to determine how well the 

has been contained. 

The Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership 

(SECARB), The Southern Company, Denbury Resources, t

Alabama Geological Survey, Advanced Resources Internat

Inc, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the 

University of Alabama at Birmingham are potential partner

this proposed Phase III anthropogenic CO2 sequestration te

cooperation with the DOE National Energy Technology 

Laboratory.

Source: Southeast Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (SECARB)

Citronelle Field - Alabama

This project is a cooperative agreement with the DOE National 

Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) to evaluate the potential 

for CO2 EOR and CO2 sequestration in Citronelle Oil Field. The 

entire project consists of three stages, each lasting 20 months. 

Stage I (Jan 1, 2007 thru Aug 31, 2008) has been completed. It 

consisted of selection of the test site, a detailed geological study, 

determination of the oil/CO2 minimum miscibility pressure, a CO2

simulation, and establishment of background conditions at the site. 

Stage II (Sept 1, 2008 thru April 30, 2010) is in progress. It 

consists of the first CO2 injection of 7,500 tons, and associated 

measuring and monitoring. Stage III (May 1, 2010 thru Dec 31, 

2011) will consist of the second CO2 injection of 7,500 tons, and 

associated measuring and monitoring. 

Sponsoring organizations, in addition to the DOE, are Alabama 

A&M University, Denbury Resources, the Geological Survey of 

Alabama, Southern Company Services, Inc, the University of 

Alabama, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

DOE # DE-FC26-06NT43029

"CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery in the Rodessa Formation" Proposed “SECARB Phase III Anthropogenic Test”

“The oil and gas industry has over 35 years of 

continuously developing experience in transporting and 

injecting CO2 for enhanced oil recovery (EOR). While 

constantly evolving, the technology operating 

experience, and regulatory requirements that have been 

developed for EOR are extensive. In the United States 

alone, the oil and gas industry operates over 13,000 

CO2 EOR wells, over 3,500 miles of high pressure CO2

pipelines, has injected over 600 million tons of CO2 (11 

trillion standard cubic feet) and produces about 

245,000 barrels of oil per day from CO2 EOR projects.”

Prepared for the American Petroleum Institute (API)

Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2 EOR) Injection Well 

Technology

James P. Meyer PhD

September 2007

Research Programs

Topical 513
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION VOLUME 

For 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

CO2 Sequestration Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting 

Hastings Field, Texas 

By 

Steve Walden Consulting 

& 

RDB Environmental Consulting 

March 1, 2010 

Topical 514
Topical 515
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS ALTERNATIVES ....................................................... 2

2.1 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Alternatives to Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 13

2.2.1 “No Action” Alternative .............................................................................................. 13

2.2.2 Different MVA Site Alternatives................................................................................. 14

2.2.3 Alternate MVA Technologies...................................................................................... 14

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................. 14

3.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Atmospheric Conditions/Air Quality.................................................................................. 16

3.3 Hydrologic Conditions/Water Quality................................................................................ 17

3.4 Geologic/Soil Conditions.................................................................................................... 22

3.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Conditions ................................................................................... 23

3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................................. 26

3.7 Historic/Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 26

3.8 Visual Resources................................................................................................................. 28

3.9 Health and Safety Factors ................................................................................................... 28

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED................... 28

4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................................. 29

4.2 Air Quality Impacts............................................................................................................. 29

4.3 Hydrological Conditions/Water Quality............................................................................. 29

4.4 Geologic/Soil Conditions.................................................................................................... 30

4.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Resources .................................................................................... 30

4.6 Socioeconomic Conditions ................................................................................................. 31

4.7 Historic/Cultural Resources................................................................................................ 31

4.8 Visual Resources................................................................................................................. 31

4.9 Health and Safety Factors ................................................................................................... 31

4.10 Solid and Hazardous Wastes............................................................................................. 32

4.11 Impacts on Regional or Local Plans ................................................................................. 32

4.12 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................................... 33

5.0 POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO DOE OF EXISITNG CONDITIONS AT THE SITE(S).

...................................................................................................................................................... 33

6.0 ABILITY TO MEET COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AT THE SITE(S). ............. 33

7.0 EXPERIENCE AND APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES............................................................................................. 34

8.0 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 35

Topical 516
 Page iii 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ...................................................................................................... 39

Attachment 3.1.1 - Denbury Onshore, LLC Pipeline Distribution Maps

Attachment 3.2.1 - Air Quality Monitoring Data

Attachment 3.3.1- Listing of Public Water System Wells

Attachment 3.4.1- Detailed Soil Type Descriptions

Attachment 3.5.1- Listing of State and Federal Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

Attachment 7.1- Qualifications of Key Team Members

Topical 517
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION VOLUME 

March 1, 2010 

Denbury Onshore LLC 

CO2 Sequestration Monitoring, Verification, and Accounting 

Hastings Field, Texas 

1.0 SUMMARY 

This section shall contain a succinct summary of the proposed project and its potential 

environmental, safety, health, and socioeconomic impacts. A brief description of any construction 

and operation activities, including the duration and schedule shall also be provided. The summary 

shall focus on both beneficial and detrimental impacts, as well as any major risks associated with 

constructing, operating, maintaining, and dismantling/disposing of the proposed test facility, if 

applicable.

This Environmental Information Volume (EIV) has been prepared to compile information 

required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the potential for adverse 

environmental, ecological, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed Denbury 

monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) activities in the Hastings Field, Brazoria 

County, Texas. The proposed action is seeking U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding to 

conduct scientific research MVA activities to determine the effectiveness of enhanced oil 

recovery (EOR) for long-term geologic storage of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2). 

The research MVA activities will supplement privately-funded, on-going monitoring activities 

conducted in conjunction with Denbury’s commercial EOR operations. While the overall extent 

of the Hastings Oil Field is approximately 25 square miles, the research MVA activities will only 

be performed on a site that is less than 4 square miles located between Alvin and Pearland, Texas 

on State Highway 35. Only the research MVA activities are subject to NEPA review and will be 

considered in this EIV. The following MVA activities will be conducted: 

 Well Integrity Testing – Logging of existing idle production wells and testing of plugged 

and abandoned (P&A) well to detect CO2 migration through non-sealing well bores. 

 Flood Conformance Testing – Augmentation of measurements to observe and model 

movement of CO2 in subsurface formations during the EOR flood operations. 

 Above-Zone Monitoring – Monitoring of pressures and geochemical parameters in the 

formations above the confining layer to detect CO2 migration beyond the injection zone. 

Research MVA activities will be conducted on a periodic or continual basis during active 

commercial EOR flood operations from 2012 through 2015. 

In most cases, MVA activities will be conducted in or around existing Denbury idle or plugged 

and abandoned (P&A) wells. Any new wells drilled for groundwater monitoring or soil-gas 

testing will be shallow and require only temporary placement and use of drilling equipment. 

Seismic profiles will be conducted with minimal surface disturbance and/or downhole equipment 

in existing wells. Above-zone testing will be conducted in selected idle wells that will be 

plugged back to above the confining layer to minimize potential impacts. If new wells are 

required, drilling will be performed at existing well pads, if at all possible. As a result of these 

Topical 518
measures, potential environmental, ecological, and cultural impacts will be minimized or 

eliminated. Socioeconomic impacts of the MVA activities will be insignificant. However, 

significant benefits to the local economy may result from the increased production from the EOR 

activities at the Hasting Oil Field and its potential as a long-term anthropogenic CO2 storage 

repository. 

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Proposed Project

This section shall discuss the objectives of the proposed project, and shall describe the 

proposed site, system, and/or process. It shall also describe the work to be performed, the 

schedule, associated requirements (e.g., land, natural resources), and any changes that will 

be necessary to the existing site, system, or process. The description shall include a project 

site plan and topographic map of the area. Any offsite facility requirements shall also be 

identified in this section.

The concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere has increased 17.4 percent over the past 60 years 

(Keeling and W horf, 2002). Th e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) has 

concluded that these changes result principally from accumulation of anthropogenic CO2 emitted 

to the atmosphere as a result of changing land us e patterns and com bustion of fossil fuels, such 

as coal, o il, and natural gas, to pro duce ener gy. Predictions of global energy use in the nex t 

century suggest that anthropogeni c carbon emissions will continue to increase, resulting in 

continued rising atm ospheric concentrations of CO 2 unless m ajor changes are m ade in the way 

we produce and use energy (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, p 1-1). 

 

Uncertainty remains in predic ting the ef fects of this change in composition of the atmosphere. 

However, there is sign ificant risk th at continu ed increase in atm ospheric concentrations could 

force chang es in global clim ate, which m ay have a variety of serious consequences (see U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program / U.S. Global Change Research [2003] 

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/default.htm for reg ional summarie s or th e 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change http://www.ipcc.ch/ [2003]). 

DOE has pr epared several docum ents that consider U.S. energy policy and the options that can 

be evaluated in response to concerns over the impact of anthropogenic CO 2 releases on clim ate 

change. The National Energy Policy Development Group (2001) considered a broad spectrum of 

energy issues, and in chapter 3 (Protecting Am erica’s Environment) states that “Industry and the 

federal governm ent are researching various ne w technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions or seques ter those em issions, in ge ologic form ations, oceans, and elsewh ere.” The 

U.S. Departm ent of Energy (1999) docum ent “Carbon Sequestration” provides a detailed 

assessment of the role of carbon sequ estration in reduc ing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Three 

categories of technologically driven solutio ns are proposed: (1) energy conservation and 

efficiency; (2) substituting lower carbon or ca rbon-free energy sources f or current sources, for 

example switching to renewable energy sources, nuclear power, and low-carbon fuels; and (3) 

carbon sequestration, which rem oves CO 2 from com bustion em issions and stores it directly 

within a geological form ation or in the deep o cean or in directly by enhanced u ptake by soils, 

vegetation, and the oceans. 

Topical 519
The purpose of the proposed action is to test the application of carbon sequestration within a 

geologic formation concurrent with EOR. Specifically, additional research-oriented monitoring, 

verification, and accounting (MVA) activities will be conducted on CO2-based EOR operations 

by Denbury Onshore LLC at a site in the Hastings Oil Field to further demonstrate the safety and 

effectiveness of long-term geologic storage of anthropogenic CO2. While on-going monitoring 

will include both commercial and research monitoring activities, only the research MVA 

activities will be federally funded and subject to NEPA review. Commercial monitoring is 

linked to effective “best practices” procedures for an effective EOR CO2 flood and to meet 

current regulatory requirements. The commercial EOR flood and related monitoring will occur 

independent of federal funding and thus are not be considered in the impact analysis of this EIV. 

While the overall extent of the Hastings Oil Field consists of approximately 25 square miles of 

rural farmlands, suburban areas and residential neighborhoods, the proposed project area is less 

than 4 square miles located between Alvin and Pearland, Texas on State Highway 35. The 

Hastings Oil Field has been in production since 1934, thus reducing the likelihood that 

neighboring communities would see this proposed enhanced monitoring action as anything but 

helpful. Denbury is currently drilling and/or reworking a large number of wells in the Hastings 

Field that will be used for injection of CO2, production of oil and gas, testing, water production, 

and brine disposal. All activities related to the commercial operations at the Hastings project site 

will be permitted by the Texas Railroad Commission and implemented for Denbury’s EOR 

operations. Again, EOR activities and associated monitoring will be completed by Denbury 

regardless of the implementation of the research MVA activities. 

In addition to Denbury’s offer of data from their regulatory and best practices monitoring, they 

have also agreed to a) back plug selected wells for above-zone monitoring, b) the use of selected 

idle wells for supplemental logging and testing, and c) allow access to specific surface locations 

sites in the Hastings Field for drilling and testing of groundwater and soil-gas wells and seismic 

tests. Hence this MVA project offers a tremendous opportunity to highly leverage ongoing 

commercial activities.

The following figures are maps of the location and significant features in and around the project 

area: 

 Figure 2.1 - Topographic Map 

 Figure 2.2 - Aerial View (Google Map) 

 Figure 2.3 - Site Plan (with locations of existing active, inactive, plugged & abandoned, 

and temporarily abandoned wells) 

The research MVA program will focus on areas of uncertainty in retention of CO2 fluids in the 

injection zone. As these oil fields have retained oil and gas for geologic time, they have 

demonstrated that effective natural seals exist to support long-term retention of a significant CO2

column. 

The research MVA objectives will focus on potential migration pathways to reduce the 

uncertainties regarding the retention of fluids in the injection zone. Potential pathways include 

(1) non-sealing well completions; (2) vertical migration up faults when reservoir pressure 

exceeds original pressure; and 3) off-structure or out-of-compartment migration of CO2 or 

Topical 520
brine as a result of elevated pressure into areas not controlled as part of the flood. 

Topical 521
Figure 2.1 

Topographic Map of Hastings MVA Project Area 

Brazoria County, Texas 

 

Topical 522
Figure 2.2 

Aerial (Google Earth) Map of Hastings MVA Project Area 

Brazoria County, Texas 

Topical 523
Figure 2.3 

Site Plan of Hastings MVA Project Area 

Brazoria County, Texas 

Topical 524
The following MVA program has been designed to verify and assess the likelihood that the 

injected CO2 is permanently stored. 

Well Integrity Testing

The research MVA activities will supplement the commercial well integrity program and test the 

effectiveness of the commercial EOR activities in preventing CO2 migration through non-sealing 

active and plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells. Activities include: 

1) Logging of Idle Wells – A select number (2 – 10) idle wells within the project area will be 

subject to additional wireline wellbore integrity logs (temperature, noise, CBL, USIT, RAT) or 

other techniques to verify adequate performance. To be completed in 2014-2015. 

2) Soil Gas/Casing Head Gas Testing of P&A Wells – Soil gas monitoring using numerous 

shallow (20 ft) small diameter boreholes below the active soil zone will be conducted near a 

select number (2 – 10) of P&A wells within the project area. To be completed in 2012-2015. 

3) Groundwater Testing of P&A Wells – Groundwater monitoring will be conducted in existing 

or new shallow (100 ft depth) freshwater wells near a select number (3 – 10) of P&A wells 

within the project area and several in up-gradient and down-gradient (off pattern) locations. To 

be completed in 2012-2015. 

4) Tracer Testing of P&A Wells – Denbury is evaluating the possible use of Awardee’s 

proprietary technology in the area of tracer testing as method of tracking injected CO2. In the 

event that Denbury decides to include such tracer testing in the MVA, tracers may be added to 

the injected CO2 and monitored in soil gas and groundwater wells. To be completed in 2014-

2015. 

Flood Conformance Testing

The research MVA activities will augment the measurement of the injection zone through 

several different techniques to model and observe the movement of CO2 in the subsurface 

formations during the flood operation. Activities include: 

1) Reservoir Modeling – Available data from Denbury will be used to develop a reservoir 

simulation that will model the plume size. The model will be evaluated and calibrated using 

observed monitored data. Completion dates are not yet specified. 

2) Vertical Seismic Profile (VSP) – Annual VSP surveys will be conducted of the project site. 

This technique uses seismic receivers temporarily located in existing boreholes and on the 

surface. Three 3D VSPs are proposed to document the maximum lateral extent of the plume. To 

be completed in 2013-2015. 

3) Gravity Monitoring – Surface and borehole gravity monitoring will be conducted 

approximately 3-4 times per year. Several hundred permanent monuments (up to 500 12-inch 

round concrete monuments buried 2 feet in the ground) will be installed for surface equipment 

which will be deployed for 2 – 20 minutes at each site. Additionally, wire line trucks will be 

Topical 525
used to lower monitoring equipment down several of Denbury’s existing boreholes to monitor 

subsurface conditions. To be completed in 2013-2015. 

4) Bottom Hole Pressure Testing – Real-time bottom hole pressure measurements will be 

conducted in selected existing wells and/or in one or more future injectors wells drilled by 

Denbury in off-structure areas. To be completed in 2014-2015. 

5) Tracer Testing of Production Wells – Denbury is evaluating the possible use of Awardee’s 

proprietary technology in the area of tracer testing as method of tracking injected CO2. In the 

event that Denbury decides to include such tracer testing in the MVA, active oil production wells 

will be monitored to detect tracers added to the injected CO2 to further document plume 

movement. Completion dates are not yet specified. 

6) Geochemical Testing of Production Wells – Active oil production wells will be monitored to 

detect natural geochemical tracers. Completion dates are not yet specified. 

Above-Zone Monitoring

The research MVA activities will measure the pressure profiles and geochemistry of the zone 

above the injection zone to detect indications that CO2 is migrating past the confining layer as a 

result of the flood operation. Activities include: 

1) Current Pressure Profile – A profile of the current pressures above the injection zone will be 

established in a selected number (2 – 4) of new wells being drilled by Denbury for future 

injection or production or in existing wells that are perforated at an appropriate interval. To be 

completed in 2013. 

2) Pressure Testing – On-going monitoring of the pressures above the injection zone will be 

performed in a select number (2 – 8) of idle wells that have been plugged back and converted 

into monitoring wells by perforation at the appropriate interval. To be completed in 2013. 

3) Geochemical Testing – On-going sampling of geochemical parameters above the injection 

zone will be performed in a select number the wells to be used for above zone pressure testing. 

Sampling will be conducted if pressure anomalies are observed. To be completed in 2013. 

Table 2.1 shows the commercial m onitoring activ ities perform ed by Denbury and those 

performed as part of the research MVA program for the Hastings MVA project: 

Table 2.1 

Monitoring Activities at Hasting EOR Project 

Denbury Commercial Monitoring 

Activities 

*Research MVA Activities 

Integrity Testing 

Normal well review and remediation as needed 

prior to flood 

Additional surveillance of idle wells via logging 

Normal well surveillance and remediation 

procedure for active wells 

Surveillance of P&A wells via soil gas/casing head 

gas 

Normal well surveillance and remediation Surveillance of P&A wells via Seeper trace** 

Topical 526
Denbury Commercial Monitoring 

Activities 

*Research MVA Activities 

procedure for P&A wells (volumetric balance) 

Learning from experience in block A, and from 

well remediation in B&C 

Surveillance of P&A wells (groundwater monitoring 

plan via shallow (100 ft) freshwater wells, upgradient & down-gradient) 

Additional surveillance of idle wells via 

logging 

Surveillance of P&A wells via soil gas/casing 

head gas 

Surveillance of P&A wells (Available or 

planned Denbury-owned water wells) 

Surveillance of P&A wells (If no wells 

available, drill and complete 100 ft water 

sampling wells, plan and depth to groundwater) 

Flood Conformance 

Reservoir characterization DOE style reservoir modeling to confirm plume size 

Normal Denbury approach to monitoring flood, 

including daily pressure at well head, injection 

profiles, monitoring producer fluids at least 

monthly at test plant. 

Augmented measures of conformance - Annual VSP 

plan for blocks B&C 

Normal Denbury approach to mitigation, e.g. if 

a well will not take the planned rate, acidize, 

reperforate, or inject at a higher rate in other 

parts of pattern. 

Augmented measures of conformance - Surface & 

borehole gravity monitoring 3-4 times per year, 

Gravity plan for B&C 

Augmented measures of conformance - repeat 3-D 

seismic profiling. 

Augmented measures of conformance - Real time 

tubing pressure/increased intermittent memory gauge 

pressure. 

Augmented measures of conformance - Introduced 

tracers collected at wellhead 

Augmented measures of conformance - Natural 

geochemical tracers collected at wellhead 

Match predictive model to observed monitoring data 

Above-Zone Monitoring 

Identify idle or reentered wells that could be 

sacrificed 

Establish cur rent pressure profile via DST/perforate 

existing wells (Identif y new drills at which DST 

could be applied. Conside r pressure ab ove Miocene 

water disposal zone as proof of containment) 

Plug back i dle/reenter wells in selected above-zone 

interval to create monitoring wells 

Place instruments in plugge d back idle/reenter well s 

in select ed above zone (Detailed plan for pressure 

monitoring in idle perforated wells) 

Conduct geo chemical sam pling of plugged back 

idle/reenter wells in selec ted above-zone (Detailed 

Topical 527
Denbury Commercial Monitoring 

Activities 

*Research MVA Activities 

plan for geochem ical sampling of above-zone 

monitoring wells; follow up if pressure ano maly 

observed) 

Fault Monitoring 

Characterization of main fault; conduct 

well logging program in idle wells in B&C 

Logging program for fluid/temperature change 

at main fault intersection 

Perforate fault zone in one or more wells and 

monitor pressure 

* Actions conducted for the MVA activities that exceed the activities already expected to occur as a result of 

Denbury’s commercial EOR operations at the Hastings Field. 

** Denbury is evaluating the possible use of Awardee’s proprietary technology in the area of tracer testing as 

method of tracking injected CO2. In the event that Denbury decides to include such tracer testing in the MVA, 

tracers may be added to the injected CO2 and monitored in soil gas and groundwater wells. 

Table 2.2 provides an overview of the project sche dule of the MVA activities f or the Hastings 

MVA project. 

Table 2.2 

Hastings MVA Test Schedule 

Date(s) Major Milestones 

Well Integrity Testing 

2014-2015 Additional surveillance of idle wells via logging 

2012-2015 Surveillance of P&A wells via soil gas/casing head gas 

2014-2015 Surveillance of P&A wells via Seeper trace* 

2012-2015 Surveillance of P&A wells (groundwater monitoring plan via shallow 

(100 ft) freshwater wells, up-gradient & down-gradient) 

Flood Conformance

TBD DOE style reservoir modeling to confirm plume size 

2013-2015 Augmented measures of conformance - Annual VSP plan for blocks 

B&C 

2013-2015 Augmented measures of conformance - Surface & borehole gravity 

monitoring 3-4 times per year, 

Gravity plan for B&C 

2013-2015 Augmented measures of conformance - Repeat 3-D seismic profiling. 

TBD Augmented measures of conformance - Real time tubing pressure 

BHP/increased intermittent memory gauge pressure. 

TBD Augmented measures of conformance - Introduced PFT tracers 

collected at wellhead 

TBD Augmented measures of conformance - Natural geochemical tracers 

collected at wellhead 

2012-2015 Match predictive model to observed monitoring data 

Above-Zone Monitoring

2013 Establish current pressure profile via DST/perforate existing wells 

(Identify new drills at which DST could be applied. Consider pressure 

above Miocene water disposal zone as proof of containment) 

2013 Plug back idle/reenter wells in sel ected above-zone interval to create 

Topical 528
monitoring wells 

2013 Place instruments in plugged back idle/reenter wells i n selected above 

zone (Detailed plan for pressure monitoring in idle perforated wells) 

2013 Conduct geochemical sampling of pl ugged back idle/reenter wells in 

selected above-zone (Detailed plan f or geochem ical sam pling of 

above-zone monitoring wells; follow up if pressure anomaly observed) 

* Denbury is evaluating the possible use of Awardee’s proprietary technology in the area of tracer testing as method 

of tracking injected CO2. In the e vent that Denbury decides to include such tracer testing in the M VA, tracers may 

be added to the injected CO2 and monitored in soil gas and groundwater wells. 

Although most of th e activities related to the research MVA program will b e conducted at th e 

Hastings project site, som e analytical work, m odeling, and other evaluations of the data will be 

performed at res earch p artners’ fac ilities, su ch as the Bu reau of Econom ic Geolo gy at the 

University of Texas at Austin. 

DOE’s Need for Action 

“The vision for the road m ap is to possess the scientific understanding of carbon sequestration 

and develop to the point of deploym ent those options that insure environm entally acceptab le 

sequestration to reduce anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and/or atm ospheric concentrations. The 

goal is to have the potential to sequester a si gnificant fraction of the 1 Gt/year in 2025 and 4 

Gt/year in 2050” (U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, p.1-1). 

One option that has th e potentia l to ach ieve DOE’s goal is sequestration of CO 2 i n geologic 

formations, such as oil and gas fields, coal beds, and porous brine-b earing formations (U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1999, p.5-1). Decades of rese rvoir characterization experience gained by 

U.S. industries in understanding the performance of the subsurface in containing gases and fluids 

help make geologic sequestration an attractive op tion. The ability of the s ubsurface to store oil 

and gas for geologically significant periods is we ll known, lending credibility to the concept that 

injected CO2, which will be buoyant like oil and natural gas in m ost geological environm ents, 

could be sequestered for long periods (Hitchon, 1996). Technol ogies for intr oducing gas and 

fluids to th e subsurface are also m ature. For decades, oil producers hav e injected C O2 into oil 

reservoirs to act as a solvent and to enha nce oil recovery (EOR), a process known as CO 2 EOR. 

In many parts of the U.S., surface water is p rotected from contamination by dispo sal of waste 

fluids into the subsurface. A per mitting process, Underground Injectio n Control (UIC), assures 

the public that the disposal occurs in deep subsurface for mations that are below and 

hydrologically isolated from potable water. CO 2 is already being se questered geologically 

offshore beneath the N orth Sea, where approx imately one m illion ton nes of CO2 are stripped 

from natural gas and reinjected in to the subsurface annually to prevent release to the atmosphere 

(U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, p. 5-2). 

Although the processes of geologic sequestratio n are relatively well kno wn, additional research 

is needed to fill gaps in our scien tific understanding of carbon sequestration to dem onstrate 

permanent storage for the protection of hum an health and the environment, to reduce costs, and 

to facilitate the full-scale deploym ent of this technology. E xtensive laboratory and m odeling 

studies hav e been completed to as sess how C O2 geologic sequestration would work in the 

subsurface (for exam ple, Hitchon, 1996; U. S. Departm ent of Energy, 1999). Com paring 

Topical 529
predictions from bench scale tests and num erical m odels with f ield results is necessa ry to 

validate the models and demonstrate that scientific understanding is correct. 

The current absence of data sufficient to account for CO2 fate in the complex EOR system leaves 

a gap in scientific understanding. It is generally assum ed, but has never been dem onstrated, that 

migration of CO2 from the injection zone is small, relative to the other fates. 

Potential fates of CO2 injected for EOR that need to be studied include the following: 

 sorbed in the oil, 

 held by capillary forces in pore space, 

 trapped by buoyancy forces in stratigraphic or structural compartments, 

 dissolved in pore water, 

 produced and reused, or 

 migrate from the injection zone through the soils and/or penetrations. 

To address these gaps in scientific understandin g, we are proposing a field experiment in a highporosity, high-permeability formation similar to those that could eventually be used to sequester 

large volumes of CO 2. This pro ject will b e on shore, so th at it can be close ly m onitored to 

determine whether the CO2 remains within the injection zone and so that scientific understanding 

can be m aximized. The rese arch MVA will (1) demonstrate th at health and saf ety and 

environmental risks are m inimized, (2) obtain results quickly so that experien ce can be used in 

moving to production fields in other parts of the world, and (3) minimize costs during this phase 

before stak eholders are ready for full scale de ployment. The test location will provide an 

opportunity for m atching num erical m odel results with field observatio ns under co nditions of 

high volume injection at a scale sim ilar to what would be done if CO2 from a large 

anthropogenic source (such as a power plant) was captured and sequestered. 

2.2 Alternatives to Proposed Action

A complete description of likely alternatives to the project, including a “no action” 

alternative, shall be provided. The description shall address technology-specific aspects of 

the action, such as process design configurations, and site-specific considerations, such as 

alternative waste disposal sites, etc. 

2.2.1 “No Action” Alternative 

“No action” (meaning that the proposed MVA project is not implemented) would mean that the 

significant commercial EOR development in the Hastings Field would still take place yet 

exclude the critical research elements needed to document the fate and ultimately the long term 

storage capability for CO2. Existing commercial EOR data collection leaves a gap in scientific 

understanding of the fate of injected CO2. Hence without the research MVA implementation, the 

increased understanding of subsurface fate and behavior of CO2 in a large scale EOR setting of 

high permeability formation would not be gained, nor could an example of successful and safe 

sequestration be offered to the public and decision makers. “No action” would also turn away 

from a highly leveraged demonstration of long term EOR sequestration of CO2 which has the 

peripheral benefits of concurrently developing safe, domestically produced oil for our nation. 

Delays in acquiring this missing information on the fate of CO2 in a representative EOR 

environment would result in implementation delays of this possible “low cost” strategy to safely 

Topical 530
sequester CO2. Additionally this strategy is likely the fastest strategy to deploy and expand the 

sequestration of anthropogenic CO2 sources. Hence “no action” will delay meaningful 

sequestration efforts thereby jeopardizing goals of rapid action on climate change issues. A 3-

year delay in initiating large-scale sequestration efforts would increase CO2 emissions by 

approximately 5% and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 would increase by as much as 6 ppm 

before any stabilization effort would be started. 

2.2.2 Different MVA Site Alternatives 

Six fields were proposed and evaluated from which Hastings was selected. Hastings was highly 

desirable because of the following positive attributes not present at the other considered fields: 

1) It is proximate to several potential anthropogenic CO2 sources, significantly reducing 

pipeline costs, 

2) The field is in the early development stages for EOR. With an EOR development 

schedule closely aligned with Phase 2, only Hastings can be suitably monitored for 

baseline data before CO2 injections begin. Alternate fields have existing EOR CO2

injection and might offer a muddled data set related to clear understanding of the fate of 

the project’s injected CO2, 

3) Hastings has a close match between the volume needed for field development and 

availability of captured CO2. Hence only Hastings can simulate a future scenario with 

EOR based solely on anthropogenic CO2. 

2.2.3 Alternate MVA Technologies 

No reasonably reliable alternate MVA technologies are presently available. 

3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 

This section shall discuss the existing environment at the project location(s). The principal proposer 

and all proposed subcontractors shall discuss the following:

   3.1 Land Use

This section shall provide a description of the affected land area and its dimensions; a 

discussion of current land usage (e.g., farming, industrial, etc.); characterization of any 

existing landforms (i.e., waterfalls, runoff areas, etc.); and descriptions of nearby pipelines 

and transmission lines, as well as transportation access (by rail, road, barge, etc.). 

While the overall extent of the Hastings Oil Field consists of approximately 25 square miles of 

rural farmlands, suburban areas and residential neighborhoods, the proposed project area is less 

than 4 square miles located between Alvin and Pearland, Texas on State Highway 35. The 

Hastings Oil Field was discovered in 1934, and oil production continues to be a primary land use 

in the area (TSHA, 2010a). The project area contains approximately 80 active, 100 inactive, and 

110 plugged and abandoned (P&A) wells, as well as a number of temporarily abandoned (TA) 

wells (Figure 2.3). 

According to the 2001 USGS Land Use Survey (Figure 3.1.1), a large portion of the area is 

dedicated to pasture hay and cultivated corps. The majority of the remaining area is in open 

Topical 531
space and low intensity development. Pockets of medium intensity and high intensity 

development are located in the area, primarily along and just east of State Highway 35. Only 

small, scattered areas of deciduous forests and shrub/scrub areas remain. Cowart Creek is located 

in the northeastern section of the area and Chigger Creek flows through the southern edge. Both 

streams are small tributaries of Clear Creek approximately 3.5 miles to the east of the site. 

Figure 3.1.1 

2001 USGS Land Use 

NLCD 2001 

Land Cover 

Classification 

State Highway 35 runs north-south through the eastern portion of the project area, and County 

Road 128 (Hastings Cannon Road) runs east-west along the northern portion of the project area. 

Numerous smaller county and private roads provide access to the site. A spur of the Burlington 

Northern (Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe) Railroad also intersects the project area to the west. A 

large high-power transmission line is located just southwest of the project site. 

An extensive network of large oil and gas pipelines exists in this part of the North Gulf Texas 

coastal area and many run within a few miles of the project area. Denbury has identified 

pipelines owned and operated by the following companies in the West Hastings Field: BP 

Pipelines, Conoco Phillips, Enterprise Products, Exxon Mobil GGS, Kinder Morgan Tejas, Texas 

Eastern Transmission, TexCal Energy, and several others. A large network of smaller gathering 

pipelines also services the existing well sites in the Hastings Oil Field. High pressure and low 

Topical 532
pressure gas collection lines, production water and salt water lines, and power lines service the 

area, as well. Attachment 3.1.1 includes maps provided by Denbury Onshore, LLC that show 

the type and location of this network. 

   3.2 Atmospheric Conditions/Air Quality 

This section shall identify the air quality control regions where the project is located; and 

describe the local climate and existing air quality conditions in the immediate vicinity of the 

proposed site. 

The Hasting MVA project area is located in the Texas Coastal Plains, a humid subtropical area 

near the Gulf of Mexico. Humidity is high, especially during the summer when morning 

humidity values average over 90% and afternoon values exceed 60%. Prevailing winds are from 

the south and southeast, except in January when polar cold fronts cause strong north winds to 

occur. The proximity to the Gulf of Mexico moderates temperatures and results in abundant 

rainfall, which is evenly distributed throughout the year. Annual precipitation totals range 

between 30 and 60 inches about 75% of the time, with thunderstorms being the major 

contributor. The following Table 3.2.1 summarizes average climatic data for the National 

Weather Service station in Alvin, Texas (NCDC, 2010). 

Table 3.2.1 

NOAA Southern Regional Climate Center 

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Climate Normals 

Alvin, Texas 

Normals 

[1971 - 2000] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann 

Avg. 

Precipitation 

(inches) 

4.76 2.91 3.11 3.22 4.92 5.35 4.78 3.84 7.12 3.93 4.43 3.36 51.73 

Mean 

Temperature 

(Deg. F.) 

52.7 55.9 62.5 68.5 75.5 80.7 82.7 82.7 78.7 70.6 62.2 54.9 69.0 

Avg. High 

Temperature 

(Deg. F.) 

62.2 65.7 72.0 77.3 83.6 88.8 91.2 91.6 87.7 80.8 72.2 64.7 78.2 

Avg. Low 

Temperature 

(Deg. F.) 

43.1 46.1 53.0 59.6 67.3 72.5 74.2 73.8 69.6 60.4 52.1 45.1 59.7 

The Hastings MVA project site is located in the Houston-Galveston Metropolitan Statistical Area 

which is one of the most intensely monitored air quality regions in the nation with monitoring 

locations operated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, as well as a number of 

local and private organizations. The entire metropolitan area, including Brazoria County, is 

currently listed as nonattainment for the 8-hour National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone, but is in attainment for all other criteria pollutants identified in the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), including Sulfur Oxide (SOX), Particulate Matter (PM-10 & PM-2.5), Carbon 

Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), and Lead. 

The nearest air quality monitoring station to the Hastings MVA project area is at the Clear Brook 

High School in Friendswood approximately 5.5 miles to the northeast (TCEQ, 2010a). It 

Topical 533
collects data on ozone and a suite of meteorological parameters. Between the years of 2006 - 

2009, the station recorded several exceedances of the NAAQS for ozone. Other monitoring sites 

near the project area include the Manvel Croix Park station approximately 8.5 miles westnorthwest of the site and the Mustang Bayou station approximately 13.0 miles south-southeast of 

the site. These sites monitor for various nitrous oxides, as well as ozone and meteorological 

parameters. Attachment 3.2.1 includes descriptions of these monitoring stations, hourly ozone 

monitoring data, including high and second-high values, and ozone compliance values for 2006-

2009. 

3.3 Hydrologic Conditions/Water Quality

This section shall identify any watersheds and downstream drainage, surface and 

groundwater quality (nearby aquifers and the depth of groundwater) in the project area, 

existing floodplains, unique aquatic habitats, recreational areas, public water supplies; 

describe any constraints on water availability imposed by treaties, court decree, state and 

Federal water laws; and identify existing wastewater treatment and/or disposal facilities. 

Watershed: The Hastings MVA project area is located on relatively flat coastal plain. Two 

streams, Cowart Creek and Chigger Creek, are located within the project area and flow toward 

the east as tributaries to Clear Creek (Figure 3.3.1). Clear Creek flows into Clear Lake which 

ultimately connects to Galveston Bay. 

Figure 3.3.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area – TCEQ Surface Water Body Viewer 

Topical 534
Surface Water Quality: The TCEQ periodically monitors water quality in these streams and has 

detected impairments for bacteria concentrations in the following segments (TCEQ, 2010b): 

 Chigger Creek (Segment ID 1101B) from the confluence of Clear Creek Tidal to the 

Brazos River Authority Canal near CR 143 in Galveston County – first listed in 2002. 

 Cowart Creek (Segment ID 1102A) intermittent stream with perennial pools from the 

confluence with Clear Creek in Galveston County to SH 35 in Brazoria County – first 

listed in 2002. 

State plans to address these impairments, known as Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plans, 

have been initiated by the TCEQ. No other impairments have been noted. 

Wetlands: Several small, isolated wetlands have been identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wetland Inventory (USFWS, 2010) within the Hastings MVA project area, 

including freshwater ponds, emergent wetlands, and forested/shrub wetlands (Figure 3.3.2). 

Figure 3.3.2 

Topical 535
Floodplains: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has surveyed the 

floodplains in the project area and developed detailed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA, 

2010). Areas identified as Special Flood Hazard Areas Inundated by 100-year Floods (Zones A, 

AE, and AO) occur within short distances of Chigger and Cowart Creeks. Some areas identified 

as subject to 500-year floods (Zone X) are also indicated on the maps. These areas extend from 

100 feet to up to 2,000 feet across the drainage areas of these creeks. 

Aquatic Habitats: No unique aquatic habitats or recreational areas exist within the boundaries 

or in the proximity of the project area. 

Groundwater: The Gulf Coast aquifer system forms a wide belt along the Gulf of Mexico from 

Florida to Mexico. In Texas, the aquifer provides water to all or parts of 54 counties and extends 

from the Rio Grande northeastward to the Louisiana-Texas border (Figure 3.3.3). Municipal and 

irrigation uses account for 90 percent of the total pumpage from the aquifer (Baker, 1979). 

Figure 3.3.3 

Gulf Coast Aquifer Complex 

Topical 536
 

The aquifer consists of complex interbedded clays, silts, sands, and gravels of Cenozoic age, 

which are hydrologically connected to form a large, leaky artesian aquifer system (Baker, 1979). 

This system comprises four major components consisting of the following generally recognized 

water-producing formations. The deepest is the Catahoula, which contains ground water near the 

outcrop in relatively restricted sand layers. Above the Catahoula is the Jasper aquifer, primarily 

contained within the Oakville Sandstone. The Burkeville confining layer separates the Jasper 

from the overlying Evangeline aquifer, which is contained within the Fleming and Goliad sands. 

The Chicot aquifer, or upper component of the Gulf Coast aquifer system, consists of the Lissie, 

Willis, Bentley, Montgomery, and Beaumont formations, and overlying alluvial deposits. 

In Brazoria County only the Evangeline and the Chicot Aquifers are present. Brazoria County 

water well construction depths range from 60 feet to 1,400 feet and groundwater quality is 

generally good with total dissolved solids ranging from 480-950 mg/l. Thirty-four operational, 

demand, or emergency-use wells belonging to 28 public water systems are located within 2 miles 

Topical 537
Aquifer and range in depth from 100-674 feet (average 409 ft, median 375 ft).

Figure 3.3.4 is a map of the general project area including a two mile buffer zone indicating the 

location of each of the nearby wells. Attachment 3.3.1 lists the wells and depth of each of these 

wells. 

Figure 3.3.4 

Hastings MVA Project Area – PWS Wells within 2-Mile Buffer 

The Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District (BCGCD) was created by Texas statute 

to maintain and protect the groundwater resources of Brazoria County (BCGCD, 2008). The 

BCGCD was confirmed by county voters in November 2005 and proactively addresses 

groundwater issues by working with groundwater users to manage and plan for groundwater use. 

According to BCGCD rules, all monitoring wells similar to those to be used for MVA activities 

are exempted from registration and permitting. 

Wastewater Treatment: The following wastewater treatment facilities are located in the 

proximity of the Hastings MVA project area: City of Alvin, City of Hillcrest Village, Brazoria 

County MUD 24, K.C. Utilities Inc., Meadowland Utility Corp., Foretaire Estates, City of 

Pearland (3 facilities), Keeshan & Bost Chemical Co. Inc., and Texas-American Water Company 

(2 facilities). Figure 3.3.5 shows the locations of wastewater discharges near the project area. 

Figure 3.3.5 

Topical 538
Hastings MVA Project Area – Wastewater Discharges 

3.4 Geologic/Soil Conditions

This section shall describe the topographic stability (e.g., formations and/or faulting), the 

productivity of soil, any unique soil species, and the soil’s susceptibility to erosion. 

Brazoria County lies largely in the northern portion of the Gulf coastal plain, a 40- to 50-milewide swath along the Texas Gulf Coast. Typically, elevation rises approximately one foot per 

mile inland. Underpinning the upper coastal land surface are unconsolidated clays, clay shales, 

and poorly-cemented sands extending to depths of several miles. The region's geology developed 

from stream deposits from the erosion of the Rocky Mountains. These sediments consist of a 

series of sands and clays deposited on decaying organic matter that, over time, was transformed 

into oil and natural gas. Beneath these tiers is a water-deposited layer of halite, a rock salt. The 

porous layers were compressed over time and forced upward. As it pushed upward, the salt 

dragged surrounding sediments into dome shapes, often trapping oil and gas that seeped from the 

surrounding porous sands. 

Topical 539
A major subsurface fault exists within the area that runs from northwest to southeast almost 

exactly on a line followed by Texas Highway 35 between Pearland and Alvin and was used in 

1958 to divide the Hastings West and Hastings East Fields. No other significant topographic 

features exist within the area. 

Three major soil types were identified in National Cooperative Soil Survey by the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS, 2010). 

These include Bernard clay loam, Bernard-Edna complex, and Lake Charles clay (Figure 3.4.1). 

All of these soil types are characterized by slopes of from 0 – 1 percent and somewhat poorly to 

moderate drainage class indicating very limited susceptibility to erosion. Attachment 3.4.1

includes detailed soil type descriptions. 

Figure 3.4.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area – NRCS Soil Types 

3.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Conditions

This section shall describe any indigenous flora and fauna, state and federally-listed 

endangered or threatened species and their habitats, and sensitive habitats such as 

wetlands, floodplains, or other ecologically sensitive terrain. 

Topical 540
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) includes Brazoria County in the Coastal 

Prairies of Oak-Prairie Wildlife District (TPWD, 2010a). In pre-settlement times, this tallgrass 

prairie extended to approximately 9 million acres, of which 6.5 million were in Texas. Today, 

much of the prairie has been converted to improved pasture or rice, sugarcane, forage, and grain 

crops and less than one percent remains. 

The Hastings MVA project area is part of the Bluestem Grassland (Figure 3.5.1) with nearly 

1,000 plant species have been identified, including bushy bluestem, slender bluestem, little 

bluestem, silver bluestem, three-awn, buffalograss, bermudagrass, brownseed paspalum, singlespike paspalum, smutgrass, sacahuista, windmillgrass, southern dewberry, live oak, mesquite, 

huisache, baccharis, Macartney rose. 

Figure 3.5.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area – Vegetation Types 

Hastings MVA 

Project Area 

A wide range of waterfowl and other forms of wildlife also occur in the Coastal Prairie with 

more red-tailed hawk, northern harriers, white ibis, and white-faced ibis than any other region in 

the United States. A number of rare species exist in Brazoria County including 18 birds (e.g. 

Brown Pelican, Whooping Crane), 3 fish (e.g. Smalltooth Sawfish), 6 mammals (e.g. Jaguarundi, 

Ocelot, Red Wolf), 5 mollusks (e.g. False Spike Mussel), 10 reptiles (e.g. Alligator Snapping 

Turtle, Texas Horned Lizard), and 5 plants (Texas Windmill-grass). Attachment 3.5.1 provides 

a complete listing of state and federal rare, threatened, and endangered species observed in 

Brazoria County. 

The TPWD Wildlife Diversity Program provided data from the Texas Natural Diversity 

Database (TXNDD) for the USGS topographic quadrangles in near the Hastings MVA project 

site (Figure 3.5.3) and identified the approximate locations of observed federal and state listed 

Topical 541
threatened, endangered, and rare species (TPWD, 2010c). None have been observed in or within 

5 miles of the project area. (Note: These data cannot provide definitive statement as to the 

presence, absence, or condition of special species, natural communities, or other significant 

features in any area. Nor can these data substitute for on-site evaluation by qualified biologists.) 

The following are the nearest reported occurrences: 

 Houston Toad – 7 miles north in Harris County 

 Smooth Green Snake – 7 miles north in Harris County 

 Little Bluestem-Brownseed Paspalum Series – 6 miles north in Harris County 

 Texas Prairie Dawn – 11 miles northeast in Harris County 

 Texas Windmill Grass – 6 miles northeast in Harris County 

 Texas Windmill Grass – 7 miles south in Brazoria County 

Figure 3.5.3 

Hastings MVA Project Area – TPWD Proximity of Sensitive Species

Numerous, small, isolated wetlands have been identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wetland Inventory within the Hastings MVA project area, including freshwater ponds, 

emergent wetlands, and forested/shrub wetlands. Small areas of floodplain also occur along and 

adjacent to Cowart Creek and Chigger Creek within the project area. However, none of these 

wetlands, floodplains, or any other terrain represent sensitive habitats for endangered, threatened, 

or rare species.

Topical 542
3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions

This section shall discuss the population in the project area, and shall describe the 

employment and labor mix.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010), the population of Brazoria County in 2006-2008 

was 293,000 with 142,000 (49%) females and 150,000 (51%) males. The estimated per capita 

income was approximately $27,260. 

The Socioeconomic Modeling Group at Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC, 2010) 

collects data on the population and economy of the region and maintains databases with data 

from many federal and state sources. The Table 3.6.1 provides estimated 2008 employment and 

labor statistics for Brazoria County and the major population centers near the Hastings MVA 

project area. 

Table 3.6.1 

Employment and Labor Statistics for the 

Hasting MVA Project Area 

Brazoria County Alvin Pearland Friendswood 

 Civilian Labor Force 143,941 11,205 40,891 19,079

Civilian employed population 16 years and 

over 137,268 10,342 39,441 18,464

OCCUPATION

Management, professional, and related 

occupations 50,074 2,961 19,819 9,680

Service occupations 18,738 1,405 3,513 2,040

Sales and office occupations 32,124 2,165 10,285 4,207

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 616 0 26 0

Construction, extraction, maintenance and 

repair occupations 18,188 1,761 2,405 1,172

Production, transportation, and material moving 

occupations 17,528 2,050 3,393 1,365

INDUSTRY

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and 

mining 3,863 231 1,212 282

Construction 15,004 1,154 1,742 1,055

Manufacturing 20,063 1,518 4,114 2,520

Wholesale trade 4,698 466 2,031 433

Retail trade 13,749 1,470 4,272 1,255

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 6,828 553 2,313 1,313

Information 2,338 428 824 501

Finance and insurance, and real estate and 

rental and leasing 7,113 507 2,528 1,698

Professional, scientific, and management, and 

administrative and waste management services 14,684 906 5,180 2,305

Educational services, and health care and social 

assistance 26,284 1,764 9,431 4,260

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 

accommodation, and food services 8,820 785 2,036 1,157

Other services, except public administration 7,271 499 1,776 926

   3.7 Historic/Cultural Resources

The section shall describe any historic and/or cultural places in the project area, as well as 

archeological sites. 

Topical 543
Although Brazoria County has a rich historical heritage and has played a major role in Texas history, no 

sites of historical or cultural significance have been documented in the Hasting MVA project area. The 

nearest locations listed on the National Registry of Historic Sites are at the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) complex in Harris County approximately 10 miles northeast of the site. 

(THC, 2010) Major archeological studies have been reported in Brazoria County at the Levi Jordan and 

the Varner-Hogg Plantations, the 1897 Brazoria County Courthouse, and Lake Jackson, but all of those 

are from 25 – 35 miles southwest of the project area (TSHA, 2010b). Most recently, prehistoric human 

remains were discovered in the San Bernard National Wildlife Refuge approximately 45 miles to the 

southwest. 

Several cemeteries are located in the proximity of the Hastings MVA project area including the Friends 

Church Cemetery (3.6 miles), Old Pearland Cemetery (3.5 miles), Confederate Cemetery (5.4 miles), 

Manvel Cemetery (5.6 miles), and South Park Cemetery (6.6 miles). The Frank J. Brown Heritage 

Museum is also located approximately 3.6 miles from the site in Friendswood, Texas (THC, 2010). 

Attachment 3.7.1 shows historical locations near the project site. The Texas Historical Commission has 

been contacted to confirm the locations of any existing or potential historical or archeological sites near 

the Hastings project site, and an official response is pending. 

Figure 3.7.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area – Proximity of Historic Sites 

 

Hastings MVA 

Project Site 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 Office of Environmental Justice and Tribal 

Affairs (EPA, 2010) and the Alabama Coushatta Indian Tribe (ACIT, 2010) were contacted regarding 

potential Native American tribal interests in or near the Hastings MVA project area. No sites were 

identified and an official response is pending. 

Topical 544
3.8 Visual Resources

This section shall describe any scenic vistas or existing aesthetic landscaping in the project 

area.

The Hastings MVA project area is characterized by relatively flat coastal plain topography with 

no significant scenic vistas or outstanding aesthetic landscaping. Most of the project area has 

been converted to pasture hay and cultivated crops, oil and gas production, or low to moderate 

density development. 

No parks or other recreational areas are located within the project area. The nearest public park, 

Friendswood Sports Park, is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the area. Several other 

small community parks are located from 2.5 – 4.0 miles away. The nearest major recreational 

areas are Brazos Bend State Park, 17 miles west-northwest, and Brazoria National Wildlife 

Refuge, 18 miles south. 

3.9 Health and Safety Factors

This section shall discuss current emissions (toxic and non-toxic), effluents, and noise levels 

at the project area. 

All current environmental releases from activities in the Hastings MVA project area are 

generally associated with Denbury’s privately-funded, commercial oil exploration and 

production operations. Air emissions are limited to temporary diesel emissions from drilling 

equipment during well development as part of Denbury’s on-going commercial operations in the 

area. Total emissions (NOx, CO, VOC, etc.) will be well below levels considered to be major 

emission sources. 

Produced wastewater generated from the drilling is captured from the wells, transported by truck, 

and re-injected into permitted Class II wells operated by Denbury at the Hasting Field. Drilling 

mud and associated wastes also generated during drilling operations are landfarmed on site in 

accordance with Texas Railroad Commission regulations (Texas Administrative Code Title 16, 

Rule 3.8). No other solid or hazardous wastes are produced. 

Transient noise from diesel engines (80 Db) is generally only audible in the immediate proximity 

to an active drilling operation and is not at levels that could be considered a nuisance. 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED 

This section of the Environmental Volume shall describe the anticipated environmental impacts 

from the project. It shall describe all impacts and consequences of the project (at the selected site[s] 

and the alternative site[s], if appropriate). The existing environment (described in Section A.3) shall 

be evaluated in terms of the potential impacts from any construction, operation/testing, and 

disposition activities. Any mitigative measures that will address these impacts shall also be 

identified. 

The description shall address the environmental categories listed below. Please ensure that all 

direct, indirect, short-term, and long-term impacts resulting from project activities are identified 

clearly.

Topical 545
4.1 Land Use

This section shall describe land use impacts from any construction and operation activities; 

waste disposal problems (for non-toxic, toxic, and/or hazardous substances); and effluent 

discharges requiring the development of settling ponds.

Denbury is currently drilling and/or reworking a large number of wells in the Hastings Field that 

will be used for injection of CO2, production of oil and gas, testing, water production, and brine 

disposal. All activities related to the commercial operations at the Hastings project site will be 

permitted by the Texas Railroad Commission and used for EOR operations being conducted by 

Denbury. EOR operations and commercial monitoring activities will be conducted by Denbury 

regardless of the implementation of the research MVA activities. 

All research MVA activities will be consistent with the current oil and gas production land use 

within the Hastings Oil Field. MVA activities will be conducted in existing idle wells within the 

project area or will require only minor, temporary drilling of shallow groundwater and soil-gas 

testing boreholes. If new wells are required, existing well pads will be used, if possible, to 

reduce or eliminate changes in land use.

4.2 Air Quality Impacts

This section shall discuss projections in air quality changes; estimated process emissions (e.g., 

stack emissions); construction emissions from land disturbance or the operation of 

machinery/equipment, solid waste disposal operations, coal handling, etc.; and the source, 

emission rate, duration, and frequency of all emissions.

Air pollutant releases will be limited to temporary diesel emissions from drilling equipment 

during well development as part of Denbury’s on-going commercial operations in the area and 

drilling of the groundwater and soil-gas monitoring wells. No emissions will result from 

monitoring or testing operations during the MVA activities. 

4.3 Hydrological Conditions/Water Quality

This section shall describe any changes in groundwater/surface water quality and quantity, 

stream diversion resulting from construction, runoff from storage piles (source, discharge rate, 

discharge frequency and duration), leachates from waste disposal sites; and wastewater 

treatment and discharges.

The possibility of the migration of CO2 into the groundwater in the Hastings location is 

extremely remote due to the extensive configuration of geologic seals that separate the deep 

injection formations from shallow local aquifers and the surface. Furthermore, penetrationrelated pathways are greatly reduced by extensive plug and abandonment records and testing and 

the use of new well construction standards. The commercial and research MVA activities 

conducted as part of this project are targeted to detect subsurface movement or migration through 

existing P&A wells that could result in impacts to groundwater. Back plugging of idle wells for 

above-surface monitoring will be conducted in accordance with industry practices and 

regulations to prevent migration and will be monitored to demonstrate that no migration occurs. 

Thus, the risks of direct impacts to water quality will be greatly reduced as a result of the MVA 

activities. 

Topical 546
The fresh and saline dewatering of all of the wells that may be required of the MVA activities 

related to this project will be minimal or will be generated from Denbury’s commercial EOR 

operations even if the MVA project is not conducted. This wastewater will be captured from the 

wells, transported by truck, and re-injected into permitted Class II wells operated by Denbury at 

the Hastings Field. 

Drilling operations related to the MVA project will have no discharges and will not require 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Construction activities 

associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing and treatment, and transmission 

facilities are generally exempt from NPDES construction requirements. Denbury applies 

construction best management practices in order to minimize the discharge of pollutants in storm 

water runoff. 

4.4 Geologic/Soil Conditions

This section shall describe any subsidence that might be caused by construction; any possible 

erosion, stream diversion, floodplain and wetland intrusion, and any increases or decreases in 

soil permeability and filtration.

The research MVA activities associated with this project do not involve the removal or injection 

of any materials that will result in subsidence, changes in subsurface conditions, runoff, or other 

significant effluent release. Minor drilling operations will be temporary and result in no 

permanent change in geologic or soil conditions. 

One perennial stream, Chigger Creek, and one intermittent stream, Cowart Creek, intersect the 

project area, and a few isolated wetlands are observed in the area. No drilling activities related to 

the MVA activities will impact these potential flood-prone or wetland areas. Other monitoring 

activities, such as seismic profile and well integrity testing will have no permanent impacts. 

4.5 Vegetation and Wildlife Resources

This section shall describe any impacts to indigenous flora and fauna, state and federally-listed 

endangered species and their habitats, and sensitive habitats such as wetlands, floodplains, or 

other ecologically sensitive terrain.

The back plugging of idle wells, the drilling of groundwater and soil-gas testing boreholes near 

P&A wells, and the placement of concrete monuments for periodic seismic testing during MVA 

activities will require only minimal disturbance within the project area and will result in no 

permanent changes that would impact indigenous or listed species or their habitats. 

 

The drilling of shallow groundwater monitoring wells will likely use small, temporary, truckmounted equipment that will result in insignificant impacts. No additional impact on terrestrial or 

aquatic species or habitats will result from the logging or monitoring of exiting idle wells or 

other MVA activities. The VSP and repeat seismic survey will use similar minimal invasive 

procedures, with truck-mounted drill rig or similar conveyance. The planned monitoring or 

tracer injection operations have no surface impacts. 

Topical 547
4.6 Socioeconomic Conditions

This section shall describe any increases/decreases in labor requirements or changes in labor 

mix.

The addition of the MVA activities to on-going Denbury EOR operations will result in no 

change in the labor force, employment, population, ethnic or cultural diversity, educational 

system, medical or emergency services, utility infrastructure, retail or wholesale markets, or 

other factors that would impact the socioeconomic characteristics of the area. The MVA 

activities will generally be temporary and require specialized personnel. The back plugging of 

existing wells and the drilling of shallow groundwater and soil-gas testing boreholes will be 

conducted by existing Denbury personnel or temporarily contracted companies that already 

service the oil and gas operations in the area. 

Significant benefits to the local economy may result from the increased production from the 

EOR activities at the Hasting Oil Field and its potential use as a long-term CO2 storage 

repository. 

4.7 Historic/Cultural Resources

This section shall describe any disturbance to historical or archeological sites caused by 

construction, interference with Native American tribal or other religious practices or sites; 

impacts on local community character.

No locations listed on the National Registry Sites or other significant historical or archeological 

sites are located in or within 5 miles of the project area. No Native American or tribal interests 

have been identified. Although several local churches and cemeteries are located in the 

proximity of the project area, they should not be impacted by the MVA activities which will be a 

small, temporary aspect of the much larger commercial EOR operations and consistent with the 

common oil and gas practices in the local community. 

4.8 Visual Resources

This section shall describe any impacts to scenic vistas or existing aesthetic landscaping.

No significant scenic vistas or outstanding aesthetic landscaping exist within the relatively flat 

coastal plain topography which has mostly been converted to pasture hay and cultivated crops, 

oil and gas production, or low to moderate density development. The MVA activities which will 

be very localized and temporary are consistent with existing and planned commercial oil and gas 

production operations in the area. No parks or other recreational areas that could be impacted by 

the MVA activities are located within the project area. The nearest public park, Friendswood 

Sports Park, is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the area. Several other small 

community parks are located from 2.5 – 4.0 miles away. The nearest major recreational areas 

are Brazos Bend State Park, 17 miles west-northwest, and Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge, 18 

miles south. 

4.9 Health and Safety Factors

This section shall discuss occupational hazards of project activities; exposure to toxic/hazardous 

substances; and increases in ambient noise, odor, and heat.

Topical 548
The potential health and safety hazards that may be present during MVA activities are consistent 

with those encountered in the oil and gas production industry. Denbury operations comply with 

all regulatory requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. Best 

management practices are implemented during all drilling, injection, monitoring, and other 

activities to avoid unnecessary hazards. 

http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/oilgaswelldrilling/index.html 

Transient noise from diesel engines (80 Db) during drilling operations should generally only be 

audible in the immediate proximity to an active drilling operation and is not at levels that could 

be considered a hazard with the use of appropriate industrial protection measures.

4.10 Solid and Hazardous Wastes

This section shall describe any and all waste material that is generated from project activities. 

This description shall include the source/type of any and all wastes produced (e.g., fly ash, 

bottom ash, scrubber sludge, etc.), and the approximate weight, density, and volume of the 

waste, and its method of disposal, location, and any permitting requirements necessary. 

Minimal quantities of drilling mud and associated wastes generated during shallow water well 

drilling operations will be landfarmed on site in accordance with Texas Railroad Commission 

regulations (Texas Administrative Code Title 16, Rule 3.8). No other solid or hazardous waste 

will be produced during monitoring operations. 

4.11 Impacts on Regional or Local Plans

This section shall describe any impacts to regional or local plans for fuel, water resources, solid 

waste, land, air quality, and labor force; commitment of resources and opportunities to reuse 

and recycle resources (wastes, water). 

Brazoria County is included in the Houston-Galveston ozone nonattainment area and subject to 

the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) that imposes requirements on new and existing 

sources of ozone precursor emissions. Although a small amount of diesel emissions will be 

generated during drilling operations, they are considered to be below deminimus levels and are 

not included under any current control strategies. No other air emissions covered by the SIP will 

be emitted during MVA activities. 

Two streams that intersect the Hasting project area, Chigger Creek and Cowart Creek, are listed 

as impaired for bacteria and are subject to current or planned Texas Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) plans to reduce contributing source contamination. Bacteria impairments primarily 

result from discharge from domestic wastewater and nonpoint source runoff from agricultural 

areas. None of the MVA activities will result in discharges to these water bodies and do not 

include activities that would cause bacterial contamination. 

Denbury Resources has a Waste Management / Minimization Plan to provide guidance 

concerning the proper management and minimization of each type of waste stream generated by 

Denbury Onshore, LLC. An excerpt from that plan reads: 

“Waste management includes the proper handling, accumulation, storage, 

transportation, and disposal of the waste generated. This section is designed to provide 

Topical 549
protection for the environment and comply with environmental laws and regulations 

regarding proper waste handling. The primary goal of this section is the reduction of 

generated waste at the source wherever possible. In the event source reduction is not 

feasible, recycling options will be the secondary goal. Denbury’s mission is to eliminate 

the wastes requiring treatment and/or disposal to the best of its ability. “ 

“This section has been designed to assist field personnel and should provide the 

information needed to effectively practice waste minimization (i.e., source reduction and 

recycling) and management (i.e., treatment and disposal).” 

No other regional or local plans exist in the project area. 

4.12 Mitigation Measures

All MVA activities will be conducted in accordance with best operating practices, waste 

minimization, and other policies utilized by Denbury during normal oil exploration, 

development, and production operations to comply with all applicable regulations and minimize 

potential impacts. Existing idle or active wells being used as part of Denbury’s existing 

commercial activities will be used for research MVA activities, if possible, to reduce the need for 

additional well completions. Existing water wells in the area will also be examined to determine 

if they can be used for groundwater monitoring to reduce or eliminate the need for additional 

well drilling. If new wells are required, existing pads will be used, if possible. 

All MVA activities will be temporary and impacted areas will be protected, maintained, and 

restored in accordance with best practices for similar oil field operations. 

5.0 POTENTIAL LIABILITY TO DOE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE SITE(S). 

This section shall discuss any potential conditions for exposing the DOE to previous 

liability. It should detail any previous research, development, construction, and/or 

demonstration testing that could potentially have impacts on the existing project site(s) and 

therefore, the proposed project. 

The Hastings Field is a mature oil & gas field. The field has changed ownership several times, 

but the primary operation of the field was to explore for, develop, and produce oil and natural 

gas. Numerous well bores were drilled and several production facilities were constructed 

throughout the life of the field in accordance with regulations of the Texas Railroad 

Commission. Any existing conditions would be typical for a mature and historically productive 

oil & natural gas field. Research activities which are integrated into existing commercial 

operations will result in minimal impact to the environment and community but will return 

maximum amounts of scientific data needed to assess the feasibility of geologic sequestration. 

6.0 ABILITY TO MEET COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS AT THE SITE(S). 

This section shall identify all of the environmental laws and regulations (Federal, state, and 

local) for which compliance would be necessary. It should include, but should not be limited 

to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, Toxic Substance Control Act, Water Pollution 

Topical 550
Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Occupational Safety and Health Act. Any necessary 

permits, manifest, etc., shall be discussed. 

The proposer’s strategy for meeting all compliance requirements shall be discussed in 

detail. Identify the best available control technology and feasible practices for compliance 

with Federal air, land use, and water quality statutes. In addition, whether the proposed site 

is in attainment or non-attainment with current standards shall be discussed.

The Hastings MVA activities will not result in the use, production, or release of any chemicals or 

substances regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act; the Toxic Substance Control Act; or 

the Water Pollution Control Act. The Hastings project site is located in a Clean Air Act ozone 

nonattainment area; however, no permit or other regulatory requirements will be required for the 

types and quantities air pollutant emissions that will occur from the small, temporary drilling of 

monitoring wells or any other actions required for research MVA activities. 

Denbury may be required to obtain a permit from the Texas Railroad Commission under Texas 

Administrative Code, Title 16, Chapter 3, to drill, deepen, reenter, or plug back any well to be 

used for MVA purposes. Wells used for injecting fluids, including wastewater, must obtain a 

Class II Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit from the Texas Railroad Commission. 

None of the MVA activities require injection that must be authorized under the UIC program. 

Groundwater monitoring wells included in the research MVA activities are not required to be 

authorized under the UIC program. However, all water wells must be drilled by operators 

licensed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation under Texas Administrative 

Code, Title 12, Chapter 1901. 

Denbury complies with all requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act applicable to 

oil and gas exploration, development, and production. 

7.0 EXPERIENCE AND APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION 

OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. 

This section of the Environmental Volume shall consist of a discussion of the following 

areas: 

1. All directly related education/experience of key project members in each of the following 

areas: 

* Air quality management 

* Surface water and ground water management 

* Solid and liquid waste management and disposal practices 

* Noise, land use, ecological resources, archaeological, cultural, and historical resources 

management 

* Environmental permit applications, amendments, and renewals 

The primary responsible official for regulatory compliance and permitting for the MVA will be 

Denbury’s chief regulatory compliance officer, Linda Gruver (Attachment 7.1). Ms. Gruver has 

over 27 years of experience in maintaining regulatory compliance with large scale EOR and 

other oil and gas enterprises. She manages and monitors all aspects of regulatory compliance, 

both state and federal, for thousands of wells located in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. 

Topical 551
Additionally, Ms. Gruver has two regulatory compliance professionals on staff to assist with 

Denbury’s proactive oversight of compliance issues. Given the small scale of permitting and 

regulatory issues created by this MVA project (see Section 6 above) it is highly unlikely that 

Denbury’s compliance team will encounter anything outside of their routine permitting and 

oversight duties. 

Augmenting the regulatory capability of the Denbury team will be the MVA’s lead researcher, 

Susan Hovorka, Ph.D. (Attachment 7.1). Dr. Hovorka has successfully overseen the permitting 

and research on numerous DOE funded CO2 sequestration projects (Frio Brine experiment, 

SECARB Phase II, and SECARB Phase III Early Test). These projects are directly correlated to 

the MVA in Hastings and thus create well matched experience for the environmental and 

regulatory issues that will be encountered. 

2. The offeror’s experience in addressing and resolving environmental concerns during the 

performance of past projects of similar size and complexity including the obtaining of 

necessary permits. 

See 7.1 above 

3. Any of the offeror’s existing written environmental policies, procedures, or plans 

currently in place and considered essential to the conduct of the offeror’s commercial 

business operation.

See Part 1, Section 4.0 

8.0 REFERENCES 

Alabama Coushatta Indian Tribe (ACIT), 2010, personal communications with Bryant Celestine, 

Tribal Historian, February 12, 2010. 

Baker, E.T., Jr., 1979, Stratigraphic and hydrogeologic framework of part of the Coastal Plain of 

Texas: TDWR Rept. 236, 43 p. 

Brazoria County Groundwater Conservation District (BCGCD), 2008, Rules adopted May 8, 

2008, 

http://bcgroundwater.org/documents/BCGCD%20RULES%20&%20REGS%20_as%20amended

%205-8-08_.pdf.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2010, Map Service Center, 

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeId=10001&catalogId=1

0001&langId=-1, (accessed February 18, 2010). 

Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), 2010, Socioeconomic Modeling Group, Regional 

Data and GIS Services, http://www.h-gac.com/rds/census/default.aspx, (accessed February 

21, 2010). 

Topical 552
Hitchon, Brian, ed., 1996, Aquifer disposal of carbon dioxide: hydrodynamic and mineral 

trapping—proof of concept: Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada, Geoscience Publishing 

Ltd.. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001, Climate change 2001: working group I: the 

scientific basis, Chapter 3 The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, 

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm. 

Keeling, C.D., and W horf, T.P., 2002, Atm ospheric CO 2 reco rds fro m sites in the SIO air 

sampling network, in Trends: a compendium of data on global change: Oak Ridge, TN, 

U.S. Departm ent of Energy, Oak Ridge National L aboratory, Carbon Dioxide 

Information Analysis Center, http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm.

National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 2010, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html (accessed February 15, 2010). 

National Energy Policy Development Group, 2001, 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/general/energypolicy/chapter3.pdf.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2010, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Cooperative Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/, (accessed 

February 15, 2010). 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010a, Yearly Summary Report by Site, 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/compliance/monops/select_year.pl?region12.gif, (accessed 

February 17, 2010). 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010b, Texas Integrated Report for 

Clean Water Act Sections 305(b) and 303(d), 

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/water/quality/data/wqm/305_303.html#fy200

8 (accessed February 18, 2010). 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 2010c, Water Utilities Map Viewer, 

http://gis3.tceq.state.tx.us/iWudSpatialEx/Controller/?ccn=&zipCode, (accessed February 24, 

2010). 

Texas Historical Commission (THC), 2010, Texas Historic Sites Atlas, http://atlas.thc.state.tx.us/, 

(accessed February 22, 2010). 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2010a, Wildlife Division, Wildlife Management 

Districts, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/habitats/oak_prairie/, (accessed February 

20, 2010). 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2010b, Rare, Threatened and Endangered 

Species by County, 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/ris/endangered_species/, Last Updated: 

February 2, 2010. 

Topical 553
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), 2010c, Texas Natural Diversity Database 

(TXNDD), GIS files provided on February 19, 2010, personal contact with Ms. Dorinda 

Scott. 

Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), 2010a, Handbook of Texas Online, s.v., 

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/HH/doh1.html (accessed February 12, 

2010). 

Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), 2010b, The Handbook of Texas Online, 

http://www.tshaonline.org/, (accessed February 22, 2010). 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2006-2008 American Community Survey, Fact Sheet, Brazoria 

County, Texas 

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=&_geoContext=&_street=&

_county=Brazoria+County&_cityTown=Brazoria+County&_state=04000US48&_zip=&_lang=e

n&_sse=on&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010 (accessed February 25, 2010). 

U.S. Climate Change Science Program / U.S. Global Change Research, 2003, U.S. national 

assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability and change educational 

resources, http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/education/default.htm.

U.S. Department of Energy, 1999, Carbon Sequestration—Research and Development, 

http://www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/sequestration/reports/rd/index.shtml.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2010, Region 6 Office of Environmental Justice 

and Tribal Affairs, Dallas, Texas, personal communications with Jay Harris, GAP 

Project Officer and Tribal Liaison, February 12, 2010. 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2010, National Wetland Inventory Mapper 

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html, (accessed February 18, 2010).

Topical 554
 Page 39 

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment 3.1.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Denbury Onshore, LLC Pipeline Distribution Maps

West Hastings RRC Pipeline Map 

Brazoria County, Texas 

HP Gas Lift Lines 

Low Pressure Gas Collection Lines 

Production Water Lines & Saltwater Transfer Lines 

TexCal Energy Power Distribution Map 

Attachment 3.2.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Air Quality Monitoring Data

Description of Closest Monitoring Sites and Hourly Ozone Data for 2009 

Clear Brook High School (C570) 

Manvel Croix Park (C84) 

Mustang Bayou (C619) 

 Fourth Highest Annual Ozone Values for Monitors in 

 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Nonattainment Area, 2007-2009 

Attachment 3.3.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Listing of Public Water System Wells

Attachment 3.4.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Detailed Soil Type Descriptions

Bernard Clay Loam 

Bernard-Edna Complex 

Lake Charles Clay 

Attachment 3.5.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Listing of State and Federal Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

In Brazoria County

Attachment 7.1 

Hastings MVA Project 

Qualifications of Key Team Members

Linda Gruver, Denbury Onshore, LLC 

Susan Hovorka, Ph.D., Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at 

 Austin

Topical 555
Attachment 3.1.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Denbury Onshore, LLC Pipeline Distribution Maps 

West Hastings RRC Pipeline Map 

Brazoria County, Texas 

HP Gas Lift Lines 

Low Pressure Gas Collection Lines 

Production Water Lines & Saltwater Transfer Lines 

TexCal Energy Power Distribution Map 

Topical 556
Topical 557
Topical 558
Topical 559
Topical 560
Topical 561
Attachment 3.2.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Air Quality Monitoring Data 

Description of Closest Monitoring Sites and Hourly Ozone Data for 2009 

Clear Brook High School (C570) 

Manvel Croix Park (C84) 

Mustang Bayou (C619) 

Fourth Highest Annual Ozone Values for Monitors in 

 Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Nonattainment Area, 2007-2009 

Topical 562
SITE SEARCH: 

please enter search phrase Go

SUBJECT INDEX 

 Air Water Waste

Search TCEQ Data 

Agency Organization Map 

Air Monitoring Site 

Information 

Monitoring Sites in this 

Region

Site Navigation

Rules, Policy & Legislation

Permits, Licenses & 

Registrations

Compliance, Enforcement & 

Cleanups

Drinking Water & Water 

Availability

Reporting

Environmental Quality

Assistance, Education & 

Participation

Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling

Contracts, Funding & Fees

TCEQ Home

About TCEQ

Contact Us

Have you had contact with the 

TCEQ lately? Complete our 

Customer Satisfaction 

Survey.

Additional Information

Air Quality

Questions or Comments: 

monops@tceq.state.tx.us

Clear Brook High School C570

 CAMS 570 Clear Brook High School C570

 EPA site number: 48-201-0570 

 State: Texas 

 County: Harris 

 City: Friendswood 

 Address: 4607 FM 2351 

 Site coordinates: 

Latitude: 29° 32' 56" North (+29.548889°) 

Longitude: 95° 11' 07" West (-95.185278°) 

Elevation: 14 m (46 ft) 

 Maintained by: University of Clear Lake-Environmental 

Institute of Houston (Dios Dado-Contractor) Funding 

provided in part by the Houston Endowment Air Quality 

Initiative 

Area Map Overall site view Street 

level Map

Northwest North Northeast

West East

Southwest South Southeast

Current Measurements at Clear Brook High School C570

Monthly Summary Report for Parameters at Clear 

Topical 563
PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current data, 

but it is not official until it has been certified by our technical staff. Data is collected from TCEQ ambient 

monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. All 

times shown are in Local Standard Time. 

Brook High School C570

Yearly Summary Report for Parameters at Clear Brook 

High School C570

 Real-time monitoring since: Friday, September 12, 2003

 Current status: Active 

 Continuous monitors located at this site: 

Met Data 

Ozone 

 Parameters currently being monitored: 

Pollution parameters: 

 Ozone 

Meteorological parameters: 

 Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Direction 

 Maximum Wind Gust 

 Standard Deviation of Horizontal Wind 

Direction 

 Outdoor Temperature 

 Dew Point Temperature 

 Relative Humidity 

 Solar Radiation 

 Precipitation 

Web Policies | Disclaimer | Site Help

Rules, Policy & Legislation | Permits, Licenses & Registrations | Compliance, Enforcement & Cleanups 

Drinking Water & Water Availability | Reporting | Environmental Quality | Assistance, Education & Participation | Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling | Contracts, Funding & Fees | TCEQ Home

About TCEQ | Contact Us 

Last Modified February 27, 2010

©2002-2004 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Topical 564
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

1/1/2009 23 23 22 21 17 15 15 11 9 13 14 19 23 28 33 34 34 29 27 19 17 19 21 1/2/2009 20 18 16 15 17 14 14 15 14 17 18 20 20 23 23 22 21 17 15 13 14 14 14 1/3/2009 14 15 16 15 14 13 16 15 17 23 27 27 27 26 25 25 24 22 20 18 18 17 18 1/4/2009 17 16 17 17 17 15 15 15 16 17 18 21 24 24 21 17 10 5 1 6 6 7 9 1/5/2009 10 10 11 10 10 7 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/6/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 6 5 10 11 15 9 9 13 11 16 1/7/2009 24 26 22 18 15 11 1 1 3 13 25 32 34 38 42 44 43 40 37 37 32 35 35 1/8/2009 31 29 22 21 23 22 15 3 5 QAS QAS 31 36 40 42 45 43 36 30 26 29 26 23 1/9/2009 26 27 28 30 30 30 29 26 30 37 43 46 47 46 44 41 37 35 34 31 28 25 23 

1/10/2009 22 22 22 20 18 16 14 12 13 11 10 11 11 12 14 14 16 16 17 20 19 20 20 1/11/2009 21 21 21 20 19 19 19 18 19 21 22 24 27 28 31 33 33 25 9 1 1 1 2 1/12/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 30 31 32 38 39 40 39 31 17 5 0 0 3 1/13/2009 1 0 4 0 11 12 13 10 18 21 24 26 29 30 31 33 30 27 22 14 5 3 3 1/14/2009 3 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 12 22 28 32 32 33 40 34 30 16 1 2 2 0 1/15/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 24 35 42 48 51 54 54 48 28 18 24 26 22 1/16/2009 23 21 17 19 18 12 14 12 20 22 23 23 23 26 29 28 28 24 22 14 6 4 3 1/17/2009 2 0 0 0 0 8 9 2 5 23 41 45 46 46 46 45 44 41 37 32 30 28 27 1/18/2009 13 22 23 19 18 21 21 22 22 24 29 35 39 41 43 44 43 41 38 24 19 12 9 1/19/2009 6 10 18 20 22 24 21 18 20 24 28 32 35 38 38 37 39 36 35 28 26 23 20 1/20/2009 19 12 9 11 19 8 2 3 5 20 30 33 35 37 35 36 35 31 20 15 11 19 16 1/21/2009 8 6 7 2 1 1 0 0 2 20 33 39 45 46 54 50 48 46 42 37 31 33 31 1/22/2009 30 31 30 30 25 15 1 1 11 30 37 44 47 37 38 39 40 38 35 31 26 24 27 1/23/2009 32 32 30 26 24 24 21 17 23 30 39 41 42 42 41 41 39 37 35 31 27 25 27 1/24/2009 28 27 23 18 14 15 16 11 11 10 11 13 18 22 24 23 20 18 18 17 15 15 14 1/25/2009 17 14 12 11 11 9 9 10 10 9 11 12 11 12 14 16 15 14 13 12 12 11 8 

Central Standard Time

Clear Brook High School 

C570 - EPA Site: CAMS 570 Ozone Summary Report for 2009Ozone (POC 1) measured in parts per billionData from this instrument does not meet EPA quality assurance criteria and cannot be used for regulatory purposes.

Topical 565
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

1/26/2009 11 11 13 16 20 17 16 13 13 15 20 25 33 34 34 35 35 34 32 32 32 31 31 1/27/2009 30 29 28 27 26 26 24 22 22 29 32 33 35 34 34 32 31 30 26 6 0 0 0 1/28/2009 1 2 1 2 3 6 4 4 3 6 7 12 14 17 18 22 19 16 7 2 0 0 0 1/29/2009 8 9 6 2 1 0 0 0 3 11 18 23 32 35 35 39 38 22 10 3 2 11 13 1/30/2009 17 15 12 13 8 2 0 0 6 32 33 36 46 42 32 36 35 34 11 33 33 34 34 1/31/2009 33 33 33 32 27 19 15 13 20 28 38 45 48 51 52 55 53 50 44 40 39 39 34 

2/1/2009 21 25 30 34 35 40 40 38 36 38 41 41 41 41 40 40 39 36 34 31 27 25 15 2/2/2009 19 21 21 20 17 25 27 19 18 28 37 39 40 41 41 41 40 35 28 16 3 4 5 2/3/2009 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 20 33 38 42 42 43 46 46 37 39 34 27 25 29 2/4/2009 27 15 8 4 23 25 18 12 23 24 24 29 31 35 40 40 39 35 30 23 13 7 10 2/5/2009 7 6 8 10 12 8 1 1 10 30 40 44 45 46 47 45 44 43 41 36 33 33 33 2/6/2009 33 32 31 32 30 27 19 18 29 40 43 44 44 44 44 45 45 44 42 41 40 41 41 2/7/2009 42 43 43 42 40 40 39 40 40 42 44 44 43 43 42 41 42 41 38 35 33 35 35 2/8/2009 33 33 31 29 27 21 16 17 26 32 36 39 41 41 40 41 41 39 38 38 38 37 36 2/9/2009 36 36 37 36 36 34 32 30 29 32 32 34 34 33 35 36 36 35 33 31 30 30 30 

2/10/2009 29 29 28 28 26 25 24 22 29 34 35 35 34 34 32 31 30 29 29 28 28 27 28 2/11/2009 27 34 47 42 38 32 24 20 24 QAS QAS 31 34 37 37 40 39 32 15 0 2 0 3 2/12/2009 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 24 38 46 48 49 49 50 52 53 51 48 47 48 49 2/13/2009 43 37 32 38 34 32 25 19 15 12 20 21 21 22 20 20 19 17 13 12 12 13 10 2/14/2009 11 11 13 11 8 5 11 17 17 23 27 34 35 29 26 25 21 20 19 14 10 15 16 2/15/2009 14 15 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 21 27 30 37 41 39 35 28 20 27 34 35 2/16/2009 33 32 29 27 26 23 17 22 27 33 35 36 41 46 48 44 41 41 39 37 41 40 40 2/17/2009 39 37 39 40 36 31 30 26 30 39 43 44 43 42 42 40 38 35 35 33 32 31 31 2/18/2009 27 26 22 21 22 20 18 15 15 13 18 19 19 17 14 18 17 14 8 9 10 5 3 2/19/2009 4 15 26 21 22 28 19 14 27 36 41 44 44 47 47 47 46 41 37 35 32 24 13 2/20/2009 15 21 21 21 11 6 0 2 15 37 40 45 50 54 49 50 50 48 45 36 34 27 23 2/21/2009 17 23 30 34 36 35 32 33 35 45 47 48 49 47 33 29 25 29 34 40 38 36 35 2/22/2009 37 38 35 35 28 29 15 9 31 36 38 42 42 44 46 49 47 43 32 19 1 1 0 2/23/2009 1 0 9 16 7 1 0 2 24 32 35 40 45 50 51 53 53 49 44 38 33 30 30 2/24/2009 33 31 30 31 30 25 12 4 24 41 44 45 45 45 44 44 44 45 39 34 32 30 31 2/25/2009 32 32 32 32 31 30 29 29 33 38 40 40 40 34 32 33 33 34 31 31 31 31 32 

Topical 566
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

2/26/2009 32 32 31 31 31 31 29 25 30 34 35 34 33 32 32 31 31 30 29 28 27 27 27 2/27/2009 23 22 23 25 25 24 24 23 24 25 27 29 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 32 30 29 27 2/28/2009 23 21 18 16 14 12 14 9 12 14 16 21 26 31 38 43 42 41 40 38 36 35 33 

3/1/2009 32 32 30 30 29 30 29 29 30 32 33 37 41 43 45 44 44 41 39 31 23 16 11 3/2/2009 26 28 26 19 13 8 0 2 18 31 43 42 49 42 37 38 39 47 64 57 55 51 43 3/3/2009 21 18 6 5 9 12 18 24 31 32 38 47 51 56 57 58 57 57 51 45 40 38 40 3/4/2009 36 38 42 43 39 39 26 20 28 42 50 52 53 51 51 50 50 49 46 43 43 43 44 3/5/2009 43 43 43 42 40 36 32 31 34 40 42 42 42 40 40 39 40 39 38 35 35 35 33 3/6/2009 34 34 33 31 29 27 25 21 32 37 40 41 41 40 39 37 37 36 33 32 32 31 31 3/7/2009 30 29 30 29 30 30 29 28 31 36 38 39 38 37 36 35 34 34 33 32 32 31 31 3/8/2009 30 30 28 28 27 24 20 10 29 35 38 39 40 40 40 39 39 37 35 35 34 31 33 3/9/2009 31 29 28 27 27 26 25 27 29 32 35 36 38 38 39 38 37 38 38 40 37 34 32 

3/10/2009 30 29 29 29 28 27 27 26 30 34 37 39 39 37 36 37 36 35 32 30 30 29 30 3/11/2009 30 30 29 28 28 27 25 25 25 35 39 40 40 40 41 42 42 40 23 9 13 17 17 3/12/2009 20 26 27 26 23 19 16 12 12 13 11 10 9 9 6 8 8 10 9 12 14 14 15 3/13/2009 13 13 11 11 10 8 6 7 9 12 9 10 7 7 6 7 7 8 8 8 6 5 4 3/14/2009 3 5 6 7 8 8 7 5 5 6 6 5 6 8 8 6 7 5 2 1 1 3 7 3/15/2009 10 10 9 9 9 8 7 8 12 15 15 17 17 15 20 21 17 13 8 3 4 3 5 3/16/2009 4 6 6 4 1 0 0 0 4 13 22 30 31 39 55 66 66 56 40 28 17 27 20 3/17/2009 4 2 0 6 20 18 17 16 16 21 23 31 34 38 40 42 42 41 33 22 19 16 13 3/18/2009 3 2 5 5 1 1 0 1 7 35 41 47 49 50 50 51 52 53 50 46 38 25 20 3/19/2009 10 6 5 5 12 7 0 1 5 26 49 53 58 56 56 58 57 57 54 42 6 1 9 3/20/2009 9 8 10 8 1 0 0 5 32 37 43 50 61 66 65 66 60 56 52 46 39 41 33 3/21/2009 11 14 15 6 5 1 0 3 31 54 61 62 62 65 65 65 65 60 59 48 42 34 33 3/22/2009 32 38 31 32 30 30 30 24 42 55 58 59 58 59 58 55 54 51 49 44 42 49 48 3/23/2009 51 50 50 50 49 46 47 48 51 53 52 51 48 45 46 46 43 40 39 37 38 37 37 3/24/2009 37 38 37 36 35 35 33 36 39 41 42 41 40 39 39 37 37 36 34 33 32 29 28 3/25/2009 27 26 25 26 27 21 12 18 22 29 27 33 37 38 37 36 35 33 29 27 23 29 31 3/26/2009 33 33 32 30 30 26 24 25 22 22 21 25 30 28 25 28 26 26 23 26 26 24 22 3/27/2009 27 27 22 16 12 10 1 3 18 22 25 27 26 19 20 24 28 30 23 19 32 30 33 3/28/2009 32 33 33 33 35 38 40 41 41 41 42 44 46 48 49 50 50 49 48 41 40 38 31 

Topical 567
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

3/29/2009 11 5 7 11 21 13 7 19 41 43 48 48 57 63 59 55 59 58 52 47 46 42 34 3/30/2009 40 36 37 35 33 23 10 35 50 54 55 54 53 52 50 47 48 47 46 44 42 42 40 3/31/2009 39 36 35 35 33 27 18 16 14 23 29 36 45 42 37 42 48 47 39 26 18 23 20 

4/1/2009 30 36 35 38 37 29 27 32 40 40 42 48 48 49 51 48 50 48 43 40 35 31 31 4/2/2009 27 29 29 31 27 24 20 33 31 34 52 55 56 53 55 54 54 53 51 48 46 46 48 4/3/2009 45 43 41 37 30 27 29 33 44 53 59 56 59 62 65 70 69 66 61 58 50 36 24 4/4/2009 30 38 35 33 35 36 30 35 52 56 59 60 57 54 52 52 52 50 48 44 42 43 45 4/5/2009 42 42 41 38 34 29 26 24 28 35 39 41 49 57 57 56 53 50 47 45 46 45 44 4/6/2009 43 43 43 43 41 37 35 34 35 35 37 40 43 45 47 49 50 49 49 47 45 41 40 4/7/2009 27 25 19 14 8 7 4 11 20 36 43 46 49 51 56 58 58 56 51 29 50 47 44 4/8/2009 36 32 41 44 41 37 15 33 47 53 56 57 55 54 53 53 52 50 49 46 42 39 42 4/9/2009 43 44 43 39 39 38 37 39 QAS QAS 37 38 38 39 40 40 39 36 35 35 36 35 36 

4/10/2009 36 35 35 39 41 39 35 35 42 43 46 51 65 80 68 60 62 53 45 43 42 41 41 4/11/2009 38 38 41 41 42 41 39 37 38 38 40 45 50 50 52 52 48 44 45 46 49 52 52 4/12/2009 49 42 37 33 28 23 20 20 19 21 22 25 34 41 51 56 61 61 57 39 31 23 19 4/13/2009 7 2 4 5 12 17 16 22 26 35 41 48 51 53 55 54 53 52 48 44 42 41 40 4/14/2009 41 35 32 26 10 4 2 26 41 43 56 55 61 62 63 70 68 66 55 48 31 17 25 4/15/2009 25 19 14 12 6 2 0 7 40 53 60 62 61 56 56 57 56 54 52 50 50 49 49 4/16/2009 49 46 47 45 42 42 44 47 50 54 56 56 57 60 60 60 56 56 54 53 49 50 51 4/17/2009 44 44 43 45 44 43 40 41 41 42 42 42 44 45 46 44 25 25 31 34 37 40 38 4/18/2009 38 36 32 35 33 34 34 35 34 33 33 35 35 37 38 35 40 34 37 38 33 27 25 4/19/2009 25 25 28 32 35 34 32 30 30 31 36 50 57 60 62 61 59 59 57 52 42 41 32 4/20/2009 36 35 36 30 26 21 15 23 32 43 50 53 57 57 62 62 60 56 46 24 14 20 23 4/21/2009 31 35 40 39 33 23 21 37 45 50 53 59 63 65 68 69 69 67 60 48 45 43 39 4/22/2009 31 30 29 32 26 30 31 39 46 47 51 42 46 48 50 50 51 49 42 36 37 35 34 4/23/2009 36 36 34 32 30 31 31 36 42 45 46 46 47 46 45 43 43 42 43 40 39 40 39 4/24/2009 40 40 40 37 34 34 37 42 44 45 46 46 44 43 41 41 38 36 31 39 41 40 36 4/25/2009 31 31 38 39 40 40 39 39 41 43 43 41 41 41 40 40 38 39 39 40 39 38 37 4/26/2009 38 39 39 39 39 40 39 40 42 41 40 39 39 38 37 37 34 33 33 31 29 28 26 4/27/2009 25 26 28 28 27 25 22 24 26 27 27 26 24 24 19 21 22 21 38 43 42 40 33 4/28/2009 31 33 30 27 27 28 27 24 22 24 25 25 24 23 23 24 24 25 24 23 22 22 24 

Topical 568
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

4/29/2009 26 25 26 25 24 25 26 25 26 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 24 25 24 23 25 25 4/30/2009 25 24 23 22 24 23 23 24 24 24 24 23 24 22 23 23 22 22 21 20 20 20 21 

5/1/2009 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 22 23 23 26 29 27 26 26 26 25 25 26 26 25 24 23 5/2/2009 24 25 28 27 25 25 20 18 20 21 23 24 25 26 23 23 24 26 28 26 28 27 27 5/3/2009 27 26 26 26 28 26 24 22 24 27 28 29 29 29 28 29 39 37 31 24 19 18 16 5/4/2009 23 28 27 28 26 23 18 21 23 30 39 49 65 79 82 81 88 82 53 49 39 39 36 5/5/2009 32 31 28 23 16 15 12 19 25 27 30 30 29 30 30 29 28 24 19 17 17 20 22 5/6/2009 22 23 22 21 20 25 26 24 25 26 29 30 30 31 23 20 21 20 19 20 22 22 22 5/7/2009 21 21 22 23 22 21 19 20 23 27 30 29 27 23 21 22 22 23 26 27 25 27 27 5/8/2009 29 27 25 25 25 25 26 28 28 27 26 28 28 28 27 27 27 28 28 28 29 31 31 5/9/2009 29 27 26 25 26 25 25 23 26 28 30 30 30 30 32 30 26 30 26 22 17 17 18 

5/10/2009 17 15 15 16 16 15 15 18 23 22 21 22 23 22 21 23 23 25 24 22 21 19 19 5/11/2009 20 21 22 22 21 17 16 21 25 25 25 26 24 25 23 22 24 18 16 15 15 16 15 5/12/2009 14 14 15 14 9 5 0 12 24 29 31 32 29 27 26 26 24 23 21 20 19 20 20 5/13/2009 23 24 24 24 24 25 27 28 26 27 28 28 27 26 25 25 23 24 22 22 20 18 18 5/14/2009 17 18 19 18 13 11 10 20 27 31 28 33 34 34 32 32 29 26 27 23 21 24 24 5/15/2009 18 15 16 17 13 11 13 19 22 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 23 21 19 19 18 5/16/2009 14 7 5 3 3 7 8 19 22 24 26 26 28 29 28 25 23 22 28 25 21 19 25 5/17/2009 26 24 22 21 20 19 17 24 26 28 30 31 26 22 29 40 38 35 31 30 33 32 28 5/18/2009 16 22 25 21 22 5 19 29 37 43 55 54 54 52 54 56 57 53 45 36 27 23 25 5/19/2009 30 28 31 25 23 12 12 30 36 44 51 56 58 65 71 71 71 67 65 55 43 14 39 5/20/2009 33 37 41 27 17 7 5 27 48 58 65 75 88 88 89 87 86 81 62 39 29 20 13 5/21/2009 15 23 28 27 25 9 11 24 38 60 62 67 68 66 66 56 57 57 56 53 33 16 20 5/22/2009 20 22 16 8 6 3 6 19 30 37 47 53 35 38 43 38 35 32 25 19 12 23 8 5/23/2009 5 6 2 3 5 4 11 27 36 43 41 35 33 43 36 41 43 46 38 29 21 41 26 5/24/2009 38 34 31 29 26 20 22 29 35 44 46 41 41 50 53 42 37 37 37 27 24 24 25 5/25/2009 24 25 18 23 23 20 20 27 37 43 44 45 47 49 50 52 54 58 48 40 31 25 27 5/26/2009 18 15 12 8 6 6 7 12 19 29 44 48 52 57 59 60 58 51 41 32 29 23 18 5/27/2009 16 14 13 8 8 5 5 10 22 19 14 13 21 22 31 25 31 38 35 30 27 8 2 5/28/2009 0 3 7 11 5 2 13 30 42 51 58 66 68 69 72 74 72 65 50 37 23 44 40 5/29/2009 42 37 31 25 10 7 12 28 43 58 71 98 QAS 85 82 77 78 73 73 75 69 56 34 

Topical 569
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

5/30/2009 30 25 14 7 5 1 5 33 53 61 68 73 78 86 94 82 80 76 67 64 55 48 41 5/31/2009 22 14 8 7 7 3 9 47 60 63 65 69 68 65 64 61 57 56 59 60 55 49 42 

6/1/2009 19 15 9 7 4 2 5 34 48 53 53 54 54 56 53 53 54 50 50 48 46 42 41 6/2/2009 35 20 15 11 4 1 3 23 34 35 33 33 30 29 36 31 28 29 27 25 19 21 19 6/3/2009 16 13 6 5 3 1 6 23 28 35 35 39 37 36 34 32 31 31 30 25 20 16 12 6/4/2009 3 3 3 2 18 22 20 32 38 43 46 56 62 63 65 65 61 57 47 37 33 24 23 6/5/2009 19 20 19 19 15 10 15 29 40 48 58 70 74 79 72 74 72 68 62 64 57 51 37 6/6/2009 19 9 7 16 5 1 6 28 44 54 59 59 63 69 63 63 63 64 61 58 55 50 43 6/7/2009 21 19 13 11 9 7 20 38 44 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 35 31 32 32 6/8/2009 28 29 29 29 19 10 20 32 36 39 38 36 34 33 31 31 29 27 25 24 21 16 15 6/9/2009 16 15 13 11 7 5 12 16 20 20 21 21 19 20 19 18 19 16 14 13 12 12 12 

6/10/2009 10 11 11 12 12 12 15 18 24 26 26 24 22 22 23 24 22 21 18 16 14 14 14 6/11/2009 14 14 15 16 17 18 18 20 23 25 28 29 29 27 27 27 25 24 18 17 15 15 15 6/12/2009 13 14 15 11 13 12 12 18 23 24 25 28 29 28 26 25 24 22 20 19 18 14 13 6/13/2009 14 13 10 10 10 10 13 17 19 22 25 26 27 27 28 25 25 22 21 18 17 17 16 6/14/2009 15 14 15 13 8 3 5 16 21 25 27 27 27 29 28 27 26 24 22 19 19 19 18 6/15/2009 18 17 15 10 5 3 8 18 22 26 28 28 29 28 29 26 25 23 19 17 16 16 17 6/16/2009 18 18 17 16 16 12 15 21 25 29 29 25 26 27 28 25 22 20 18 16 15 15 15 6/17/2009 14 14 12 11 10 8 11 18 22 24 25 25 23 23 21 21 21 19 19 19 16 15 15 6/18/2009 15 15 15 14 12 9 12 15 17 18 18 19 20 20 20 20 18 19 18 17 17 15 15 6/19/2009 13 13 13 10 4 1 10 14 17 19 20 20 19 18 18 17 17 18 20 19 14 13 13 6/20/2009 14 14 13 12 12 12 12 16 20 24 24 26 26 26 27 27 27 24 22 19 17 17 17 6/21/2009 17 19 17 10 5 6 12 20 23 25 27 29 27 28 27 23 21 19 17 16 16 14 12 6/22/2009 11 10 7 3 0 0 1 13 17 22 26 30 34 31 28 25 23 19 18 16 12 11 10 6/23/2009 8 8 6 5 4 0 4 13 17 21 26 31 37 50 59 59 46 34 22 17 16 14 13 6/24/2009 12 9 6 6 7 5 7 10 15 25 39 62 82 83 71 79 76 67 49 39 28 16 12 6/25/2009 9 9 9 7 7 3 3 8 11 18 32 53 61 62 73 63 55 47 40 37 32 28 18 6/26/2009 10 8 6 4 3 1 2 6 10 18 33 48 54 60 49 52 39 34 24 17 9 8 7 6/27/2009 5 4 3 3 2 0 3 13 17 20 22 22 26 32 30 26 24 19 18 14 12 12 10 6/28/2009 8 7 6 3 1 2 5 15 20 21 25 32 38 42 46 42 28 24 20 16 13 12 12 6/29/2009 11 11 10 10 9 6 6 12 16 22 31 41 48 55 56 56 41 33 28 40 48 31 21 

Topical 570
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

6/30/2009 12 12 11 7 9 7 5 QAS PMA 13 19 31 39 40 40 47 53 48 44 42 41 37 29 

7/1/2009 23 17 13 10 10 8 9 19 39 58 70 76 79 100 120 84 83 81 65 44 28 19 15 7/2/2009 10 9 5 5 4 0 4 10 15 25 38 50 56 58 65 48 37 28 22 20 19 18 17 7/3/2009 10 3 3 1 0 0 3 13 18 25 29 22 23 21 23 23 23 22 18 18 17 15 15 7/4/2009 13 10 10 11 12 12 14 16 19 26 31 31 31 30 30 30 29 27 24 21 18 15 15 7/5/2009 15 15 14 14 15 15 16 19 18 20 23 24 24 25 25 23 21 19 18 14 13 13 12 7/6/2009 12 10 6 7 8 4 5 12 16 20 26 29 30 32 31 29 24 20 19 18 16 15 14 7/7/2009 12 12 11 9 10 9 7 17 16 17 16 19 29 32 30 27 29 28 25 22 19 17 12 7/8/2009 8 6 5 3 2 0 4 12 20 25 28 30 33 31 30 28 26 25 21 16 15 12 12 7/9/2009 9 8 7 6 4 2 5 13 19 22 26 29 30 30 27 26 24 21 18 16 14 14 14 

7/10/2009 10 8 6 1 1 2 1 14 18 22 27 29 31 26 20 20 19 19 20 21 19 16 13 7/11/2009 10 8 3 1 0 1 3 13 21 24 25 26 26 28 26 25 22 21 21 21 19 18 15 7/12/2009 8 3 4 4 3 2 4 13 16 19 23 27 31 37 38 30 28 27 21 15 14 12 10 7/13/2009 8 10 10 8 8 6 7 10 14 17 20 24 28 32 37 27 22 19 18 13 12 9 9 7/14/2009 7 7 6 6 5 4 5 11 15 18 20 22 20 17 20 19 17 15 14 13 13 11 9 7/15/2009 11 9 9 8 6 3 0 9 15 19 22 23 25 26 24 22 19 17 15 14 13 11 11 7/16/2009 8 9 9 2 0 0 2 12 18 20 23 25 25 28 29 26 23 22 18 15 11 11 10 7/17/2009 9 6 4 0 1 0 1 12 15 17 19 35 60 61 65 64 55 50 36 24 14 15 16 7/18/2009 19 11 5 6 5 1 3 15 29 29 35 50 60 67 60 46 44 33 31 42 40 37 30 7/19/2009 20 15 12 8 4 1 9 23 35 37 37 49 50 42 48 46 53 48 42 43 40 36 34 7/20/2009 27 23 20 18 12 11 9 15 23 24 26 27 29 29 31 25 21 18 17 18 18 16 15 7/21/2009 16 15 15 13 12 11 12 13 17 20 19 22 18 18 18 18 15 14 13 12 10 11 10 7/22/2009 9 9 8 6 3 2 3 4 QAS QAS QAS 22 25 28 29 31 31 24 21 15 13 12 10 7/23/2009 8 6 6 5 3 2 2 8 12 16 22 29 37 41 44 40 32 40 35 20 16 12 8 7/24/2009 8 10 5 4 2 1 0 1 7 14 20 24 31 35 42 42 45 40 35 30 26 20 7 7/25/2009 10 7 3 1 0 0 3 16 23 27 31 36 39 43 39 31 29 24 20 18 16 13 12 7/26/2009 8 9 7 6 6 6 7 10 15 19 22 25 27 29 29 25 21 21 18 17 15 14 13 7/27/2009 15 14 12 10 8 4 2 12 17 22 25 27 26 24 23 23 28 27 23 19 20 21 26 7/28/2009 23 17 16 16 15 14 15 21 24 25 26 17 20 19 19 18 17 16 15 15 13 12 11 7/29/2009 8 8 7 9 10 9 10 14 18 19 22 24 24 23 22 20 18 16 14 13 12 11 12 7/30/2009 16 14 13 12 11 10 10 14 17 20 21 22 22 21 21 20 20 19 16 14 15 13 14 

Topical 571
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

7/31/2009 13 12 11 10 8 6 6 8 13 16 19 18 20 19 14 20 31 21 13 11 10 10 10 

8/1/2009 16 16 14 16 16 14 13 16 19 21 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 23 19 15 15 13 11 8/2/2009 12 9 11 12 12 13 11 14 18 20 23 27 29 30 30 30 25 23 21 19 17 16 14 8/3/2009 14 13 13 12 11 10 7 12 15 18 22 28 32 27 23 21 19 18 17 17 15 15 14 8/4/2009 11 9 6 1 1 0 0 11 17 22 23 23 24 21 22 22 21 18 18 17 15 13 13 8/5/2009 8 5 4 6 4 0 0 9 14 18 21 25 27 31 27 25 23 21 18 14 13 11 11 8/6/2009 10 9 8 7 5 0 2 9 17 21 24 28 32 35 41 47 30 22 18 16 15 13 12 8/7/2009 9 7 6 6 6 0 0 8 15 19 24 28 27 33 26 19 21 24 22 18 14 13 13 8/8/2009 12 15 19 18 14 5 5 26 39 40 37 33 32 30 27 25 24 22 21 18 17 14 12 8/9/2009 9 10 7 9 3 5 7 14 21 23 24 24 24 22 23 25 24 24 24 21 19 17 13 

8/10/2009 10 5 3 2 2 0 1 9 13 20 23 25 28 19 17 17 16 15 14 12 11 6 3 8/11/2009 4 4 3 3 1 0 0 3 7 11 15 16 18 23 25 21 17 16 16 12 10 8 7 8/12/2009 6 4 3 2 1 0 0 3 8 12 21 35 49 65 80 88 90 48 48 42 32 36 33 8/13/2009 24 20 14 8 4 0 1 8 26 44 55 61 64 68 48 42 47 43 30 22 18 11 12 8/14/2009 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 6 27 43 50 55 54 52 54 57 53 48 46 42 39 39 35 8/15/2009 20 13 11 8 7 2 1 15 30 37 39 46 47 44 43 39 36 33 34 27 24 19 16 8/16/2009 3 4 7 3 2 2 2 10 23 24 26 28 30 29 29 28 27 22 19 19 16 13 11 8/17/2009 10 9 3 0 0 0 0 6 15 21 24 25 26 24 23 26 24 17 12 11 10 9 8 8/18/2009 6 4 3 0 0 0 0 4 16 20 23 23 24 26 18 19 23 24 18 12 6 3 4 8/19/2009 10 8 6 3 0 0 0 3 14 19 20 21 22 23 22 20 21 20 19 16 14 13 12 8/20/2009 10 10 9 3 0 1 3 9 15 19 21 20 21 21 21 22 16 15 14 13 13 13 13 8/21/2009 12 10 8 4 0 0 0 6 15 17 20 24 27 28 28 30 27 25 16 17 17 11 7 8/22/2009 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 15 21 24 33 45 55 69 76 66 58 43 30 24 20 16 8/23/2009 11 9 7 5 3 1 1 5 11 15 24 32 44 43 41 42 50 47 46 43 34 29 25 8/24/2009 26 29 23 12 9 2 3 1 13 21 27 29 36 38 39 43 43 43 42 38 34 29 22 8/25/2009 11 7 7 8 4 2 2 8 17 29 35 41 66 62 57 49 47 47 48 43 42 40 39 8/26/2009 29 27 35 29 19 10 12 30 44 51 52 54 55 55 QAS QAS 43 43 41 38 38 39 33 8/27/2009 21 16 12 10 9 1 0 12 40 47 50 55 57 62 72 61 57 56 48 40 40 40 37 8/28/2009 33 25 26 26 38 35 25 22 25 30 34 40 51 53 67 64 55 49 44 47 47 31 19 8/29/2009 13 9 8 4 2 0 2 10 39 58 71 78 85 91 84 96 98 82 68 49 42 35 36 8/30/2009 32 32 36 34 25 28 30 26 42 56 66 64 65 64 64 69 66 57 57 100 91 66 46 

Topical 572
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

8/31/2009 31 30 25 20 19 6 4 13 25 31 39 45 54 64 69 71 66 53 40 32 21 41 21 

9/1/2009 15 10 15 12 14 22 24 27 31 36 41 47 52 64 74 78 55 43 32 5 0 0 0 9/2/2009 2 2 8 8 8 1 1 7 25 41 50 60 81 113 91 81 82 75 62 52 56 49 31 9/3/2009 17 17 13 9 11 5 0 9 31 55 65 85 102 128 108 90 80 72 76 76 76 69 59 9/4/2009 33 27 25 13 32 30 27 28 34 38 53 68 90 81 73 70 70 63 55 45 28 25 17 9/5/2009 8 7 10 13 16 13 11 16 37 63 67 69 66 60 62 64 61 50 44 38 35 26 12 9/6/2009 6 8 4 2 0 0 3 14 40 44 43 42 49 48 45 41 46 42 37 31 28 25 12 9/7/2009 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 7 24 50 63 68 54 48 49 53 53 49 45 42 39 29 20 9/8/2009 13 8 5 2 1 0 LST 3 21 42 43 40 43 24 28 29 32 30 25 21 18 11 6 9/9/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 8 10 12 15 22 24 17 19 21 19 17 11 5 4 3 2 

9/10/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 19 23 22 25 26 30 29 27 26 24 18 16 6 0 9/11/2009 3 9 13 13 13 1 2 8 13 20 23 23 25 29 31 31 30 29 28 26 25 23 19 9/12/2009 16 14 15 12 10 11 13 13 14 18 19 17 15 19 22 24 25 24 21 21 17 15 11 9/13/2009 8 11 13 11 11 8 4 14 25 37 41 43 43 39 38 37 37 36 33 29 24 21 24 9/14/2009 22 22 20 16 14 11 7 8 15 23 34 39 40 43 42 39 35 36 32 25 28 30 28 9/15/2009 27 26 23 20 20 19 20 20 21 22 25 27 32 30 34 33 31 31 28 23 23 21 14 9/16/2009 10 10 12 14 14 6 3 9 17 30 46 53 52 51 52 49 46 43 38 33 31 30 28 9/17/2009 21 18 22 22 20 14 14 19 27 40 47 49 48 43 46 45 43 41 40 35 31 27 22 9/18/2009 20 17 20 20 16 14 8 10 13 23 24 28 33 35 36 39 41 39 31 18 15 24 25 9/19/2009 15 10 9 12 12 8 5 9 19 31 33 37 44 50 52 51 48 41 28 18 7 4 5 9/20/2009 7 6 7 2 3 4 4 19 40 47 51 53 57 61 56 54 53 52 48 47 45 41 40 9/21/2009 35 32 28 27 21 16 5 11 32 41 48 48 45 40 38 37 35 33 31 30 29 29 30 9/22/2009 22 20 16 10 2 0 3 13 28 33 40 41 36 36 37 32 25 22 21 20 18 14 13 9/23/2009 9 12 13 13 13 10 8 8 13 24 36 46 QAS QAS 26 24 24 24 21 20 19 17 15 9/24/2009 18 20 18 18 15 11 9 9 14 14 17 20 30 32 33 32 33 26 24 20 18 17 17 9/25/2009 16 15 15 14 12 11 6 7 9 12 16 27 30 44 49 54 42 29 23 18 19 20 17 9/26/2009 14 11 9 6 4 4 1 5 15 22 37 54 62 74 76 67 67 77 83 54 37 35 33 9/27/2009 23 23 25 27 30 29 25 26 29 32 37 36 35 34 35 35 33 24 20 16 15 13 12 9/28/2009 11 10 9 7 4 1 1 6 12 17 19 22 28 28 26 25 19 16 13 10 8 3 1 9/29/2009 6 8 6 8 11 14 19 23 25 29 32 38 44 54 60 64 58 49 40 36 34 27 11 9/30/2009 14 12 5 2 0 0 0 10 28 40 48 54 58 62 61 61 60 61 61 51 42 41 36 

Topical 573
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

10/1/2009 30 29 28 23 14 19 20 22 26 28 30 26 26 25 23 24 23 16 10 8 7 7 5 10/2/2009 2 1 1 21 25 26 13 22 27 31 34 39 47 52 57 60 57 55 50 38 12 12 8 10/3/2009 28 23 18 16 17 15 14 16 20 23 25 28 33 29 27 23 24 25 20 19 18 20 20 10/4/2009 20 16 18 20 14 13 13 13 13 14 16 17 20 17 18 20 16 14 9 7 4 1 3 10/5/2009 1 3 5 5 2 0 0 0 2 4 7 13 21 23 25 18 15 14 13 11 10 10 12 10/6/2009 9 8 8 8 8 3 2 9 15 16 18 19 14 12 14 15 14 12 12 12 11 10 8 10/7/2009 7 10 10 7 4 2 4 14 20 21 23 22 22 24 25 23 22 20 19 18 15 14 16 10/8/2009 14 13 12 12 12 13 13 14 16 19 19 20 20 19 19 17 17 16 16 14 14 13 13 10/9/2009 14 14 13 15 17 16 16 16 17 18 26 28 26 24 22 25 21 20 7 0 1 2 3 

10/10/2009 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 8 12 17 18 23 27 23 19 16 14 14 13 6 7 10/11/2009 8 13 13 15 13 9 5 5 4 7 8 8 10 12 13 13 11 9 5 5 4 4 3 10/12/2009 2 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 23 22 20 13 15 17 17 11 3 6 2 0 10/13/2009 0 5 7 8 8 3 7 18 17 18 18 15 13 16 21 19 18 14 12 12 11 9 6 10/14/2009 9 6 3 3 4 2 1 3 8 12 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 18 12 9 7 6 5 10/15/2009 7 8 10 10 10 10 9 9 12 14 17 19 21 21 22 20 19 18 13 10 9 8 9 10/16/2009 13 9 7 8 7 6 9 15 17 20 24 29 34 37 36 35 27 23 22 25 27 25 26 10/17/2009 17 17 14 13 18 18 12 14 20 24 31 36 39 40 41 39 39 33 17 8 1 0 5 10/18/2009 25 23 21 21 21 20 21 23 26 29 31 33 36 39 43 46 42 37 31 26 21 20 10 10/19/2009 24 26 24 12 3 0 0 4 21 25 41 43 43 43 44 44 42 39 29 20 19 17 22 10/20/2009 29 26 25 28 26 15 8 16 31 36 40 40 39 37 38 39 38 34 29 33 35 36 40 10/21/2009 39 38 33 35 35 31 27 19 17 22 40 39 34 QAS QAS QAS 22 21 24 20 20 21 23 10/22/2009 21 22 21 22 21 22 21 24 23 19 19 24 30 33 36 33 28 23 17 18 17 16 13 10/23/2009 14 14 14 14 12 8 4 6 9 17 22 24 29 33 38 38 35 31 25 12 4 2 0 10/24/2009 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 16 27 36 40 44 50 49 46 47 43 39 33 19 24 17 10/25/2009 10 14 18 27 30 30 20 28 37 43 45 46 47 47 47 47 46 45 41 38 37 37 38 10/26/2009 46 46 45 42 39 35 36 32 26 35 28 27 32 32 30 27 26 21 18 18 18 21 19 10/27/2009 8 7 7 7 5 4 5 5 8 10 10 15 21 27 34 39 38 27 11 2 1 0 0 10/28/2009 1 1 2 5 1 1 0 3 18 29 34 33 27 26 25 23 24 19 23 22 22 20 18 10/29/2009 15 14 14 12 11 10 9 9 9 12 14 14 14 15 13 12 11 11 10 10 24 26 29 10/30/2009 34 31 29 27 30 34 33 29 28 25 25 20 19 20 18 18 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 10/31/2009 1 0 4 4 2 1 1 6 13 24 32 35 39 43 45 46 43 31 7 0 0 0 0 

Topical 574
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

11/1/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 32 37 38 40 42 43 44 41 28 10 7 2 0 1 11/2/2009 4 5 4 2 0 0 0 2 11 20 34 38 56 76 63 56 44 19 3 0 0 0 0 11/3/2009 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 10 26 32 37 41 44 49 49 47 26 1 0 0 0 0 11/4/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 28 38 47 49 44 42 46 48 36 13 1 0 0 1 11/5/2009 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 6 24 39 43 50 57 60 64 61 44 32 21 3 0 0 11/6/2009 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 34 56 62 68 69 68 68 65 54 43 32 16 4 1 11/7/2009 4 3 2 2 4 3 2 2 14 31 42 50 52 55 52 48 45 42 35 34 36 33 27 11/8/2009 25 30 31 30 28 27 27 28 30 31 33 36 39 42 42 40 38 36 36 36 32 28 27 11/9/2009 PMA 22 23 21 21 16 7 9 12 9 19 22 27 31 33 29 21 20 16 10 18 15 13 

11/10/2009 13 13 12 10 9 5 1 2 9 15 25 33 38 41 39 39 37 32 22 15 5 0 1 11/11/2009 0 0 0 0 1 7 3 2 10 21 39 47 52 54 51 47 44 30 26 12 8 1 0 11/12/2009 3 13 20 24 15 10 2 3 13 31 44 52 59 60 63 63 60 42 27 33 31 22 14 11/13/2009 4 0 1 6 1 1 1 0 7 42 53 53 53 53 54 53 50 44 39 36 34 33 31 11/14/2009 30 32 30 28 26 25 13 7 14 35 44 47 48 47 46 46 46 44 41 38 35 31 31 11/15/2009 26 30 33 31 28 24 22 24 32 40 41 40 40 41 40 40 39 37 35 33 33 32 34 11/16/2009 27 25 21 22 18 16 21 16 9 11 18 18 18 27 28 30 30 29 32 31 27 22 21 11/17/2009 19 15 17 19 22 22 19 12 18 28 29 35 37 40 40 41 39 32 24 6 3 5 7 11/18/2009 13 7 2 0 1 0 0 2 8 26 37 44 48 50 QAS QAS 38 41 31 29 23 13 3 11/19/2009 1 6 5 6 11 5 10 14 24 32 42 47 47 49 49 47 46 45 42 43 44 45 46 11/20/2009 44 43 46 40 40 42 38 24 33 36 33 35 30 31 32 32 21 20 22 23 25 25 24 11/21/2009 18 20 21 17 23 19 26 24 21 21 24 25 25 28 28 25 23 25 23 25 30 26 21 11/22/2009 7 7 7 9 7 3 0 3 11 21 32 35 39 42 45 47 48 30 7 1 4 15 22 11/23/2009 19 10 6 7 2 1 0 0 7 19 24 34 46 46 47 49 46 37 27 24 23 22 21 11/24/2009 25 28 30 31 27 21 19 16 14 19 13 14 17 9 14 17 14 17 17 17 24 31 32 11/25/2009 29 29 27 23 15 5 0 2 7 20 31 31 34 37 39 38 33 12 0 0 0 0 0 11/26/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 18 23 26 32 38 40 40 40 36 29 15 10 2 1 2 11/27/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 28 36 34 38 42 43 42 41 38 34 30 27 28 11/28/2009 31 25 18 13 8 17 22 21 25 36 42 42 42 39 38 37 39 37 33 33 36 37 36 11/29/2009 34 34 32 28 22 19 17 19 24 28 35 38 37 37 37 36 34 30 31 31 30 28 26 11/30/2009 22 16 7 6 9 9 6 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 6 7 4 1 2 5 16 19 20 

12/1/2009 13 18 17 16 14 15 12 10 10 11 12 11 11 8 4 3 2 2 3 2 8 6 7 

Topical 575
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

12/2/2009 11 10 11 12 13 17 17 16 17 20 23 26 27 28 29 33 32 28 25 24 22 22 20 12/3/2009 21 21 22 21 17 9 2 1 3 11 16 18 22 20 21 21 15 12 12 16 20 20 20 12/4/2009 19 18 17 14 15 8 9 11 6 9 9 10 12 9 13 14 10 10 13 8 1 0 0 12/5/2009 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 14 21 26 28 31 31 25 24 24 15 6 0 0 0 12/6/2009 12 4 11 18 22 22 23 20 20 23 25 30 31 27 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 26 12/7/2009 20 18 17 15 8 5 4 3 9 11 12 14 15 16 15 7 7 8 7 7 7 10 12 12/8/2009 11 9 6 6 3 1 1 0 5 12 13 15 16 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 21 20 12 12/9/2009 10 11 13 10 6 3 2 6 12 15 19 19 19 20 17 17 12 5 8 14 19 21 21 

12/10/2009 22 21 20 11 8 10 6 12 17 16 17 17 20 20 22 22 15 12 14 21 21 19 23 12/11/2009 20 19 18 17 11 14 12 11 11 17 18 18 20 21 22 21 21 19 21 22 22 23 22 12/12/2009 19 17 19 20 20 19 18 16 15 14 15 16 17 17 14 11 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 12/13/2009 0 0 0 0 3 9 11 9 8 7 8 10 12 13 16 18 17 11 11 10 11 24 24 12/14/2009 18 13 11 13 16 11 3 3 8 3 3 3 4 5 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12/15/2009 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 4 6 9 10 10 6 5 5 5 5 6 5 7 8 10 7 12/16/2009 10 12 11 16 15 12 9 9 11 12 13 13 14 QAS QAS QAS 12 6 3 6 11 17 19 12/17/2009 16 16 17 17 16 12 9 7 6 8 15 19 17 16 18 15 15 13 12 13 10 10 10 12/18/2009 5 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 4 7 12 18 25 28 27 30 27 18 11 5 2 11 12/19/2009 20 19 13 6 4 5 3 5 8 11 18 23 27 31 32 32 33 31 21 14 10 5 7 12/20/2009 0 4 11 10 10 9 7 8 14 19 20 27 37 39 45 49 46 27 19 12 8 3 5 12/21/2009 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 34 40 43 44 46 46 44 43 29 17 12 13 19 12/22/2009 32 31 31 31 33 32 31 31 33 36 39 37 37 39 39 39 37 35 36 36 35 33 32 12/23/2009 35 35 34 35 36 36 36 32 33 35 37 39 38 38 38 37 36 34 31 31 29 29 28 12/24/2009 27 25 28 29 29 24 28 26 34 39 40 35 30 23 19 17 17 19 22 23 24 26 26 12/25/2009 30 33 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 37 38 39 40 40 38 27 26 19 17 7 4 12/26/2009 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 8 12 26 25 29 28 29 30 24 23 20 19 20 21 15 20 12/27/2009 17 12 9 18 20 17 19 19 21 27 35 39 41 41 43 43 42 39 32 24 17 21 26 12/28/2009 26 23 19 17 18 21 11 5 14 21 24 26 29 30 30 31 30 20 6 2 2 2 4 12/29/2009 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 4 9 11 15 20 23 22 17 8 11 10 16 18 17 18 21 12/30/2009 23 23 21 16 15 15 14 3 6 3 3 2 4 5 6 8 14 15 15 15 20 20 19 12/31/2009 17 16 15 14 14 12 11 10 8 8 11 13 13 21 72 50 19 12 10 10 3 9 7 

Topical 576
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

Annual High/2n

PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current databut it is not official until it has been certified by our technical staff. ambient monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. All times shown are in Local Standard Time.

Topical 577
SITE SEARCH: 

please enter search phrase Go

SUBJECT INDEX 

 Air Water Waste

Search TCEQ Data 

Agency Organization Map 

Air Monitoring Site 

Information 

Monitoring Sites in this 

Region

Site Navigation

Rules, Policy & Legislation

Permits, Licenses & 

Registrations

Compliance, Enforcement & 

Cleanups

Drinking Water & Water 

Availability

Reporting

Environmental Quality

Assistance, Education & 

Participation

Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling

Contracts, Funding & Fees

TCEQ Home

About TCEQ

Contact Us

Have you had contact with the 

TCEQ lately? Complete our 

Customer Satisfaction 

Survey.

Additional Information

Air Quality

Questions or Comments: 

monops@tceq.state.tx.us

Manvel Croix Park C84

 CAMS 84 Manvel Croix Park C84

 EPA site number: 48-039-1004 

 State: Texas 

 County: Brazoria 

 City: Manvel 

 Address: 4503 Croix Parkway 

 Site coordinates: 

Latitude: 29° 31' 13" North (+29.520278°) 

Longitude: 95° 23' 33" West (-95.392500°) 

Elevation: 18 m (59 ft) 

 Maintained by: Enviroplan Consulting for the TCEQ 

Area Map Overall site view Street 

level Map

Northwest North Northeast

West East

Southwest South Southeast

Current Measurements at Manvel Croix Park C84

Monthly Summary Report for Parameters at Manvel 

Croix Park C84

Yearly Summary Report for Parameters at Manvel Croix 

Topical 578
PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current data, 

but it is not official until it has been certified by our technical staff. Data is collected from TCEQ ambient 

monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. All 

times shown are in Local Standard Time. 

Park C84

 Real-time monitoring since: Thursday, August 23, 2001

 Current status: Active 

 Continuous monitors located at this site: 

Met Data 

Ozone 

Nitrous Oxides 

 Parameters currently being monitored: 

Pollution parameters: 

 Nitric Oxide 

 Nitrogen Dioxide 

 Oxides of Nitrogen 

 Ozone 

Meteorological parameters: 

 Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Direction 

 Maximum Wind Gust 

 Standard Deviation of Horizontal Wind 

Direction 

 Outdoor Temperature 

Web Policies | Disclaimer | Site Help

Rules, Policy & Legislation | Permits, Licenses & Registrations | Compliance, Enforcement & Cleanups 

Drinking Water & Water Availability | Reporting | Environmental Quality | Assistance, Education & Participation | Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling | Contracts, Funding & Fees | TCEQ Home

About TCEQ | Contact Us 

Last Modified February 27, 2010

©2002-2004 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Topical 579
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

1/1/2009 21 21 20 19 17 13 10 11 12 14 18 25 32 37 42 45 43 39 34 28 28 29 27 1/2/2009 22 18 16 16 14 13 16 16 16 16 16 21 23 24 23 22 22 18 16 13 12 13 12 1/3/2009 14 13 15 16 16 15 10 13 12 22 26 26 26 26 26 25 24 23 20 17 15 13 SPN 1/4/2009 10 12 14 15 17 16 15 12 13 15 19 21 24 17 12 11 10 5 5 8 7 8 10 1/5/2009 11 12 12 11 11 8 7 5 4 3 4 4 4 6 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/6/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 6 8 9 12 17 16 14 13 13 14 18 1/7/2009 22 21 20 19 15 8 0 0 2 15 27 32 36 40 42 43 43 41 31 25 30 31 32 1/8/2009 32 29 23 21 13 10 10 16 13 22 34 40 43 45 47 49 46 36 26 24 17 20 23 1/9/2009 24 25 28 21 16 12 1 18 27 33 40 45 46 44 41 38 34 30 29 28 25 23 21 

1/10/2009 21 21 20 20 20 17 15 13 10 10 12 13 13 15 17 19 20 21 19 20 18 18 SPN 1/11/2009 21 21 22 22 21 21 19 19 20 22 23 23 24 26 28 31 30 27 22 19 14 2 1 1/12/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 24 33 35 37 42 43 42 30 22 19 12 9 6 1/13/2009 2 0 0 8 20 19 18 16 21 24 26 30 32 34 36 37 37 31 25 17 7 2 1 1/14/2009 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 23 33 35 37 42 41 37 34 22 20 18 22 17 1/15/2009 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 8 18 35 44 57 62 64 55 47 39 30 22 20 20 1/16/2009 18 22 18 15 16 14 8 8 16 21 23 26 27 27 30 34 31 20 12 18 15 12 9 1/17/2009 5 5 9 9 12 13 9 3 17 33 42 47 47 46 46 45 45 42 32 21 31 29 SPN 1/18/2009 16 14 15 24 22 23 23 23 22 27 33 37 39 PMA 44 44 43 41 36 32 25 23 20 1/19/2009 19 18 19 18 20 23 23 25 26 25 30 34 36 39 42 41 42 40 37 33 30 32 30 1/20/2009 21 18 16 11 12 13 9 11 9 21 29 PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA LST LST LST LST LST LST LS1/21/2009 LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST PMA 47 48 CAL CAL 32 29 28 28 1/22/2009 27 28 28 20 16 19 11 0 8 29 38 43 48 47 45 44 44 QAS 28 26 29 22 21 1/23/2009 26 27 26 16 19 21 18 14 12 28 40 41 42 41 41 41 39 38 33 23 23 20 26 1/24/2009 29 29 26 22 19 16 15 14 13 13 14 17 20 24 25 24 21 20 16 14 15 16 CAL CA1/25/2009 17 15 15 13 11 10 8 8 10 12 13 14 15 15 16 16 15 13 11 13 12 13 12 1/26/2009 12 13 13 15 19 18 16 15 13 12 22 31 33 33 32 33 33 31 27 24 25 26 27 1/27/2009 30 28 26 26 19 14 11 6 12 26 32 34 35 35 33 32 31 30 14 0 0 0 0 

CAMS 84 Ozone Summary Report for 2009

Manvel Croix Park C84 - EPA Site: 48_039_1004Ozone (POC 1) measured in parts per billion

Central Standard Time

Data from this instrument meets EPA quality assurance criteria for regulatory purposes.

Topical 580
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

1/28/2009 2 3 4 4 6 8 7 6 4 7 11 15 18 21 23 25 24 21 7 1 2 4 1 1/29/2009 12 10 8 6 4 0 0 1 5 8 14 19 24 27 29 32 34 28 23 13 2 3 12 1/30/2009 18 16 16 18 18 12 5 4 9 14 23 33 36 33 36 39 40 39 30 27 6 23 33 1/31/2009 38 35 31 24 23 20 20 16 18 34 41 45 49 51 51 53 51 47 42 38 33 30 SPN 

2/1/2009 28 30 33 27 30 26 27 29 30 36 40 41 41 40 40 40 40 38 34 27 18 15 14 2/2/2009 13 14 21 21 20 30 25 21 20 27 37 38 38 40 41 40 38 35 22 16 7 2 1 2/3/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 19 36 40 42 44 46 46 46 44 41 26 26 29 28 2/4/2009 27 16 13 4 11 15 10 7 18 24 26 29 31 33 39 42 42 37 29 24 17 17 14 2/5/2009 8 11 20 20 17 10 3 2 18 32 40 42 43 45 45 45 42 40 33 28 28 29 28 2/6/2009 26 26 25 27 21 11 10 3 18 35 41 42 43 42 42 42 41 41 39 37 38 37 37 2/7/2009 38 37 36 36 32 30 27 28 35 39 42 42 42 41 41 40 39 38 30 27 27 28 SPN 2/8/2009 21 22 25 24 24 25 23 25 26 30 37 38 38 40 38 39 39 38 37 38 37 37 36 2/9/2009 33 32 33 33 31 27 24 21 25 26 29 30 32 33 35 35 35 33 31 28 25 25 25 

2/10/2009 25 23 25 23 20 18 13 14 22 29 29 31 32 31 30 27 26 26 25 25 24 25 24 2/11/2009 25 37 42 34 31 26 22 22 25 34 37 39 41 44 46 47 47 45 34 29 21 8 0 2/12/2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 22 39 46 51 51 51 51 50 48 44 44 41 38 34 2/13/2009 32 32 21 27 28 21 14 14 15 13 16 20 20 19 18 19 18 16 11 10 9 7 7 2/14/2009 7 11 10 10 9 9 18 21 21 23 27 32 30 29 31 24 24 22 15 11 13 20 SPN 2/15/2009 12 8 13 14 14 14 11 12 14 15 17 17 23 28 36 39 39 36 30 25 21 28 29 2/16/2009 30 28 26 25 25 21 20 19 25 29 32 36 39 42 47 46 43 39 40 37 35 33 34 2/17/2009 31 29 34 31 30 31 31 30 31 34 36 40 38 38 35 32 31 28 26 25 24 24 23 2/18/2009 22 23 21 20 20 19 19 18 16 18 18 19 18 15 16 17 18 16 11 10 9 7 5 2/19/2009 11 29 32 34 34 29 14 15 30 36 39 40 41 42 43 45 43 40 33 29 24 22 24 2/20/2009 25 23 22 20 12 7 0 3 16 30 38 41 46 49 49 48 47 44 38 22 23 20 22 2/21/2009 28 28 25 26 22 19 21 19 32 41 45 46 48 41 31 27 26 31 37 37 36 35 CAL CA2/22/2009 35 34 35 38 36 33 27 24 33 35 37 40 40 42 44 47 48 47 33 22 15 14 5 2/23/2009 10 9 16 14 10 4 1 4 16 29 37 41 46 50 52 52 53 52 48 43 38 29 25 2/24/2009 31 31 30 26 27 13 7 12 27 41 45 46 45 45 45 44 44 44 40 34 25 21 22 2/25/2009 29 27 24 24 23 20 18 14 29 36 39 41 41 40 38 38 36 34 32 31 30 30 29 2/26/2009 32 32 32 32 31 26 19 20 30 33 36 35 34 34 33 32 32 31 28 27 26 25 24 2/27/2009 22 24 25 26 27 27 25 25 26 27 28 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 28 26 24 24 24 

Topical 581
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

2/28/2009 18 17 17 12 12 14 13 12 14 17 19 23 30 34 39 44 45 41 43 41 38 36 SPN 

3/1/2009 33 31 31 30 29 28 28 29 30 31 34 37 41 44 45 46 45 44 41 35 27 23 20 3/2/2009 14 17 23 22 15 7 2 5 18 26 37 38 37 39 42 44 45 46 54 51 51 43 43 3/3/2009 22 33 25 28 21 12 11 19 30 36 42 49 53 55 56 57 56 55 51 46 43 43 42 3/4/2009 39 38 37 37 36 31 29 27 35 44 49 50 50 50 49 48 48 46 41 40 38 36 36 3/5/2009 38 38 35 33 33 17 10 18 33 40 41 41 40 39 39 39 38 38 34 31 28 28 30 3/6/2009 27 26 26 25 21 13 9 8 24 34 40 42 42 42 41 40 38 35 29 30 30 29 28 3/7/2009 29 27 26 29 28 24 19 18 27 35 38 39 39 38 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 SPN 3/8/2009 28 25 22 21 21 19 12 10 23 33 39 38 39 39 38 38 38 37 33 31 28 29 30 3/9/2009 29 27 25 25 21 19 21 23 27 31 37 36 37 37 37 38 36 35 35 36 36 33 32 

3/10/2009 30 28 27 29 27 24 23 25 30 33 37 39 39 38 36 35 35 34 31 33 31 31 30 3/11/2009 27 24 26 26 22 16 13 21 27 35 39 39 39 41 41 41 39 36 15 9 12 13 16 3/12/2009 23 27 26 26 23 20 16 10 10 9 10 10 11 6 7 9 8 9 12 12 13 15 12 3/13/2009 14 12 11 10 9 8 6 7 7 9 7 8 9 11 QAS 6 6 9 10 6 8 7 7 3/14/2009 9 9 9 11 13 13 11 9 9 11 10 11 10 11 11 11 12 12 9 7 6 7 SPN 3/15/2009 6 8 8 12 10 11 10 11 13 14 13 13 14 13 21 24 28 26 12 5 0 0 1 3/16/2009 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 5 14 21 28 35 38 45 51 53 55 63 41 38 32 28 3/17/2009 18 17 20 15 9 16 19 17 19 21 27 31 36 42 45 PMA CAL CAL 36 30 28 16 16 3/18/2009 11 5 9 7 8 0 1 6 6 25 44 49 56 59 58 55 55 52 43 37 36 29 23 3/19/2009 25 19 11 10 8 1 2 4 7 16 39 54 62 64 65 62 62 57 50 40 32 27 24 3/20/2009 14 19 10 7 4 2 1 4 21 41 53 58 61 65 66 65 63 62 52 41 44 35 31 3/21/2009 16 11 7 13 13 15 15 17 33 49 58 60 62 61 61 63 62 60 61 55 51 44 CAL CA3/22/2009 39 41 39 26 27 34 38 41 47 55 60 61 60 59 58 57 56 54 52 50 49 48 50 3/23/2009 51 47 46 44 40 40 43 43 48 51 50 49 47 46 45 45 43 41 39 37 37 37 37 3/24/2009 36 36 37 36 33 33 30 35 39 40 41 40 38 38 39 39 38 35 34 33 33 30 29 3/25/2009 23 23 24 23 21 17 16 13 22 28 31 35 37 38 37 37 35 33 29 28 27 31 29 3/26/2009 30 31 30 29 27 26 25 23 24 24 25 27 28 24 32 31 27 22 24 20 12 12 18 3/27/2009 25 27 24 20 16 7 2 6 17 32 34 36 35 35 40 46 44 40 40 38 34 34 36 3/28/2009 34 34 33 33 36 39 41 42 42 43 44 45 48 50 51 51 51 52 50 43 37 33 SPN 3/29/2009 13 14 9 7 8 8 12 21 34 41 44 48 53 62 65 63 65 58 53 45 41 40 36 3/30/2009 33 30 37 30 24 12 17 29 48 52 53 51 51 49 45 44 44 44 43 40 38 36 36 

Topical 582
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

3/31/2009 33 35 35 34 30 25 22 18 22 31 30 36 41 42 46 49 51 50 46 37 26 22 11 

4/1/2009 32 35 37 33 28 22 16 21 35 40 42 49 50 50 49 48 48 47 45 41 39 35 32 4/2/2009 34 32 33 28 22 21 26 37 34 39 52 55 56 54 54 55 55 54 51 47 46 45 40 4/3/2009 33 34 38 38 36 33 23 32 40 41 52 69 72 65 63 68 64 64 59 58 54 46 38 4/4/2009 36 35 28 24 28 26 29 34 43 56 58 59 58 54 52 50 50 50 50 48 45 42 SPN 4/5/2009 41 42 39 35 31 28 26 25 31 37 37 42 51 55 55 55 53 51 49 47 47 46 44 4/6/2009 43 44 44 43 41 39 35 37 37 39 41 42 QAS 49 51 52 52 52 51 47 46 43 39 4/7/2009 32 24 21 19 15 11 11 13 33 41 45 49 53 57 59 61 62 61 48 32 41 45 45 4/8/2009 37 29 29 28 28 28 15 26 48 55 57 57 56 54 53 52 52 50 47 45 40 36 32 4/9/2009 36 38 39 37 37 38 38 41 44 46 45 45 44 44 44 44 42 40 39 37 37 38 40 

4/10/2009 38 38 38 38 41 42 43 40 44 47 50 55 65 75 77 60 59 56 50 47 43 42 44 4/11/2009 42 41 42 43 41 41 39 38 39 39 40 43 47 50 52 55 49 44 46 47 50 52 SPN 4/12/2009 48 42 40 35 29 22 19 19 19 22 24 34 35 42 53 59 60 58 47 29 32 32 27 4/13/2009 16 12 4 5 5 11 20 20 29 38 45 49 51 53 53 52 52 52 51 46 43 40 39 4/14/2009 43 43 33 22 10 5 5 25 38 45 57 58 54 61 67 75 77 74 62 54 52 45 39 4/15/2009 19 18 12 5 4 6 16 20 42 54 61 62 62 64 62 60 59 58 53 48 44 43 41 4/16/2009 39 39 43 36 30 32 37 41 47 52 55 54 57 59 59 58 57 57 56 53 51 48 49 4/17/2009 44 41 41 40 41 40 40 38 39 41 41 42 42 45 43 35 22 27 30 32 32 34 35 4/18/2009 36 34 30 34 34 33 36 36 35 34 34 35 37 39 39 39 44 40 37 35 33 27 CAL CA4/19/2009 25 29 29 36 35 32 31 32 30 31 38 47 54 57 58 58 59 59 57 55 47 28 25 4/20/2009 38 39 37 30 29 25 19 23 33 39 47 53 60 61 62 62 60 60 55 40 32 8 10 4/21/2009 21 26 30 32 32 29 25 33 43 PMA 54 58 63 65 66 68 67 67 56 45 40 37 35 4/22/2009 32 33 33 31 28 22 21 35 44 47 51 56 57 57 56 54 53 50 43 36 34 34 34 4/23/2009 30 30 30 24 27 28 27 33 40 47 49 49 48 47 47 45 42 40 40 40 38 38 38 4/24/2009 40 39 36 36 33 27 31 38 41 43 44 46 44 42 41 39 37 36 41 44 43 40 41 4/25/2009 34 32 37 42 41 40 38 38 40 43 44 41 40 38 38 37 39 38 39 39 38 37 SPN 4/26/2009 40 41 40 39 40 39 38 39 41 41 40 39 40 38 36 35 34 35 34 32 30 27 27 4/27/2009 24 25 25 26 24 21 20 24 26 26 27 24 25 24 23 20 19 34 46 45 43 41 32 4/28/2009 27 31 27 27 25 23 22 22 21 23 24 25 25 25 25 24 24 23 24 24 23 24 25 4/29/2009 25 25 25 25 23 23 24 25 25 26 26 27 26 25 26 25 24 24 23 23 25 25 24 4/30/2009 23 22 20 21 22 23 21 23 24 23 23 23 25 26 25 25 22 21 20 20 20 20 20 

Topical 583
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

5/1/2009 20 20 20 19 17 15 16 19 21 24 27 29 29 28 28 25 24 24 24 24 25 25 24 5/2/2009 22 24 25 26 24 21 19 18 20 21 24 26 26 27 25 25 25 26 26 25 25 26 SPN 5/3/2009 24 25 26 26 26 27 27 27 29 31 32 34 34 30 29 29 42 42 35 29 29 24 23 5/4/2009 30 30 29 29 26 26 20 19 18 21 31 41 51 65 73 76 78 74 48 50 40 31 31 5/5/2009 27 25 27 22 11 6 9 17 24 27 30 32 33 34 34 32 29 25 21 17 15 16 19 5/6/2009 22 21 17 16 13 19 21 22 24 29 31 30 31 30 28 23 22 22 17 17 18 17 16 5/7/2009 18 19 18 17 15 14 15 16 22 28 32 32 30 27 26 27 28 23 24 22 21 23 25 5/8/2009 28 26 24 25 24 23 23 28 30 30 28 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 27 26 27 29 31 5/9/2009 25 23 20 19 20 25 19 23 26 28 30 32 31 32 32 30 30 26 25 21 19 17 SPN 

5/10/2009 15 16 14 13 11 9 11 17 22 26 28 26 25 24 24 21 21 22 22 19 20 16 15 5/11/2009 14 14 14 16 13 7 13 21 26 28 30 29 28 27 24 20 21 20 16 15 15 14 13 5/12/2009 12 10 9 6 5 0 4 13 23 30 32 33 30 28 26 27 25 23 20 20 19 18 19 5/13/2009 20 21 21 19 16 12 17 24 26 29 29 29 31 29 29 27 27 24 23 20 20 18 18 5/14/2009 17 16 17 14 13 8 13 19 28 30 31 32 33 33 33 33 30 27 23 25 20 19 19 5/15/2009 8 7 11 12 5 5 8 17 22 25 27 27 26 26 25 25 25 24 22 17 14 13 11 5/16/2009 7 7 6 8 5 2 8 15 23 25 28 29 33 33 31 27 26 28 33 31 28 25 CAL CA5/17/2009 26 25 23 24 24 22 21 23 24 28 33 36 31 25 34 40 39 38 36 33 30 29 30 5/18/2009 21 17 20 25 22 23 22 36 41 46 52 53 54 55 58 59 59 55 52 46 34 26 25 5/19/2009 33 31 34 34 25 4 15 29 38 46 53 59 66 70 78 80 78 71 65 57 46 32 26 5/20/2009 17 19 36 37 24 13 13 27 43 60 69 77 98 107 100 98 94 87 77 56 38 29 25 5/21/2009 13 13 13 16 16 16 15 20 36 63 77 86 83 72 62 59 57 56 55 52 43 37 28 5/22/2009 30 27 26 14 10 6 10 22 34 40 58 49 46 43 41 42 39 29 21 21 15 13 8 5/23/2009 6 2 2 5 4 5 8 18 31 38 41 49 48 44 42 44 44 45 41 30 21 34 SPN 5/24/2009 38 34 27 23 17 13 18 28 35 44 PMA PMA 48 47 48 43 41 42 39 29 28 29 28 5/25/2009 20 22 17 16 15 16 19 29 39 43 44 44 46 49 50 51 53 54 44 40 31 21 20 5/26/2009 14 14 11 6 3 3 1 7 17 31 45 49 51 58 59 62 59 50 45 38 32 26 21 5/27/2009 17 15 11 4 3 10 11 14 16 5 10 13 20 23 30 35 42 40 35 24 13 21 11 5/28/2009 6 6 9 12 5 3 14 24 38 49 55 64 73 79 81 85 88 75 61 42 46 38 32 5/29/2009 34 30 32 24 18 15 16 30 49 59 67 78 121 124 97 92 91 89 81 76 64 52 39 5/30/2009 32 25 18 13 14 8 7 40 57 67 71 74 78 85 85 79 75 73 67 59 49 44 SPN 5/31/2009 23 15 16 9 8 9 11 43 63 64 64 66 71 73 68 61 57 55 55 52 43 33 21 

Topical 584
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

6/1/2009 18 16 11 11 8 8 16 36 51 55 55 55 55 53 QAS 50 50 48 48 44 41 37 37 6/2/2009 22 18 10 10 7 5 12 27 38 39 36 36 34 35 37 29 24 29 28 26 22 14 10 6/3/2009 15 17 11 7 3 2 5 20 26 30 33 35 42 40 38 36 34 35 32 22 24 17 12 6/4/2009 9 14 11 7 14 26 29 32 39 47 52 56 59 61 62 63 62 62 59 44 37 30 24 6/5/2009 20 18 8 6 6 4 12 26 37 61 76 73 78 78 87 87 87 83 74 54 49 42 44 6/6/2009 25 16 10 8 7 8 13 30 48 60 66 67 69 69 65 65 66 63 62 59 52 43 SPN 6/7/2009 32 30 20 19 15 12 23 36 43 45 47 46 46 45 43 42 40 39 37 32 25 24 21 6/8/2009 12 15 14 8 4 2 11 27 35 38 40 40 38 39 38 36 31 28 25 20 16 15 11 6/9/2009 9 9 9 6 2 1 5 13 20 23 25 25 26 25 26 25 24 23 18 14 11 10 8 

6/10/2009 8 8 9 8 6 4 9 18 25 28 28 27 25 23 23 23 23 22 19 16 13 14 13 6/11/2009 12 14 14 14 11 12 15 21 25 27 27 28 29 29 28 27 26 25 22 18 14 14 12 6/12/2009 11 16 15 9 3 1 7 17 23 28 30 29 29 29 29 31 31 29 26 20 16 15 12 6/13/2009 10 9 9 8 7 6 10 16 20 23 24 25 27 28 29 29 30 28 23 20 17 12 CAL CA6/14/2009 11 12 13 12 9 6 6 16 21 23 25 25 28 30 30 29 28 28 23 19 18 17 14 6/15/2009 14 13 13 7 2 1 4 16 21 24 26 26 26 26 27 28 28 26 22 17 15 15 15 6/16/2009 15 14 11 9 3 1 5 18 25 28 29 30 30 30 30 28 26 25 22 17 16 15 15 6/17/2009 14 13 10 7 2 1 5 17 22 27 29 32 31 32 28 24 22 21 18 19 14 10 9 6/18/2009 7 10 11 9 3 1 7 15 18 19 22 24 24 26 25 23 20 19 18 16 12 11 10 6/19/2009 10 10 9 3 1 1 5 13 18 19 20 24 25 25 23 23 20 18 19 16 14 7 6 6/20/2009 4 3 4 3 6 5 6 15 20 23 26 30 29 29 28 27 27 27 24 17 15 12 SPN 6/21/2009 10 16 15 10 6 5 11 19 21 23 23 25 25 26 27 27 27 25 22 18 14 12 11 6/22/2009 9 5 3 1 1 1 4 12 18 22 23 24 27 28 27 25 25 27 23 17 11 9 8 6/23/2009 3 4 4 2 1 1 6 13 19 22 26 34 37 36 39 35 30 30 26 19 15 15 13 6/24/2009 7 4 4 3 2 2 6 12 21 28 38 55 63 77 83 83 64 55 50 35 21 15 13 6/25/2009 9 8 7 5 7 7 8 12 15 21 36 49 52 53 59 57 52 44 37 42 34 18 11 6/26/2009 6 4 2 2 1 1 2 7 13 19 33 48 59 60 65 50 41 40 36 25 12 10 8 6/27/2009 5 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 17 23 27 30 33 34 34 33 32 28 21 16 12 12 SPN 6/28/2009 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 12 19 24 31 39 42 43 45 49 40 31 23 19 15 14 12 6/29/2009 11 9 11 10 7 3 7 13 17 23 31 41 49 56 59 53 44 32 27 37 53 40 31 6/30/2009 18 12 8 1 0 0 1 9 16 22 26 35 43 39 51 64 62 PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA LS

7/1/2009 PMA 12 8 7 8 9 12 22 40 60 75 87 87 96 114 119 72 81 71 45 27 19 17 

Topical 585
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

7/2/2009 4 3 2 1 1 0 3 11 16 27 39 50 52 52 53 46 35 32 25 17 9 10 11 7/3/2009 5 1 1 1 0 1 1 10 18 24 28 28 26 24 25 26 27 26 20 17 14 9 8 7/4/2009 10 10 4 3 4 6 8 14 19 29 33 34 34 32 32 31 29 27 24 22 17 16 SPN 7/5/2009 11 9 5 8 11 9 6 15 18 19 20 21 21 22 23 22 20 18 17 14 13 11 11 7/6/2009 8 5 7 6 1 0 0 11 16 21 25 28 32 33 32 30 24 20 18 18 16 14 13 7/7/2009 11 6 3 4 6 6 6 8 18 16 20 23 29 31 29 30 31 28 26 20 15 10 7 7/8/2009 4 3 4 0 0 0 2 10 19 24 27 35 36 33 30 29 25 22 19 16 16 14 12 7/9/2009 7 7 6 3 0 0 1 10 18 22 26 27 29 30 30 28 26 23 22 18 15 11 7 

7/10/2009 3 2 5 3 0 0 0 10 17 20 23 28 34 32 26 24 20 19 19 18 15 11 9 7/11/2009 9 5 1 0 0 0 2 11 17 21 24 26 28 28 24 25 27 22 18 21 17 15 CAL CA7/12/2009 4 2 2 1 0 1 4 12 17 19 20 24 30 34 36 34 31 26 21 16 13 13 10 7/13/2009 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 9 14 18 22 27 31 34 37 37 27 22 19 15 10 7 3 7/14/2009 4 4 2 4 2 2 1 7 15 19 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 23 19 16 13 10 8 7/15/2009 6 3 2 0 0 0 1 8 16 19 22 24 25 26 26 27 27 20 17 14 12 11 8 7/16/2009 5 3 1 0 1 1 3 13 18 21 24 26 26 29 31 30 27 26 19 16 11 9 7 7/17/2009 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 16 19 21 41 56 60 59 64 66 57 52 40 39 30 24 7/18/2009 20 16 8 7 4 1 5 18 26 28 34 37 49 53 44 47 53 47 41 PMA PMA PMA PMA AQ7/19/2009 AQI PMA 12 15 9 8 8 25 42 45 42 42 41 42 44 44 44 44 41 39 35 33 29 7/20/2009 19 16 15 17 15 2 3 10 21 23 23 25 24 25 22 17 20 19 17 15 13 11 14 7/21/2009 14 13 13 11 7 3 5 13 20 19 19 18 19 20 21 20 16 16 14 11 9 5 4 7/22/2009 7 6 7 2 0 1 3 6 10 15 20 24 26 31 33 33 33 24 18 15 14 11 11 7/23/2009 5 3 4 2 0 0 0 6 13 18 22 30 35 38 QAS 41 34 33 34 26 17 12 7 7/24/2009 0 1 3 3 4 2 1 4 10 16 19 26 28 33 39 39 40 33 30 26 18 14 13 7/25/2009 8 8 5 3 0 0 2 8 20 26 31 37 39 38 38 33 31 25 19 16 12 11 SPN 7/26/2009 6 4 3 1 0 0 4 7 14 20 25 28 29 28 25 23 22 20 17 15 15 13 11 7/27/2009 8 9 9 1 0 0 1 7 15 21 23 24 23 26 18 21 24 25 22 18 15 19 21 7/28/2009 19 15 13 9 3 3 9 18 23 23 22 23 22 21 20 19 17 16 15 15 13 10 6 7/29/2009 8 8 5 6 4 1 2 12 18 21 22 23 23 23 22 20 18 17 15 13 10 9 10 7/30/2009 13 13 10 9 6 2 3 12 16 18 20 20 20 19 20 19 18 18 17 16 15 12 10 7/31/2009 10 9 2 0 0 3 1 6 12 15 22 23 22 19 17 22 30 28 16 12 10 9 8 

8/1/2009 14 13 12 11 11 10 13 16 18 20 22 24 25 25 24 25 24 23 21 16 12 5 SPN 

Topical 586
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

8/2/2009 8 6 10 10 12 11 7 12 18 20 23 26 29 32 30 30 26 24 22 20 16 13 13 8/3/2009 11 12 12 11 9 5 1 5 13 19 23 24 26 25 27 26 24 19 17 16 13 10 6 8/4/2009 10 9 4 1 0 0 1 7 16 22 25 26 26 25 25 22 20 17 16 15 12 11 10 8/5/2009 7 4 3 2 3 1 3 9 14 18 20 24 27 29 27 25 24 23 20 14 12 11 11 8/6/2009 7 8 5 5 3 0 0 9 17 22 27 33 39 43 37 36 32 25 19 15 13 11 11 8/7/2009 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 6 14 19 23 27 31 32 27 22 22 23 22 19 13 9 9 8/8/2009 7 10 7 6 2 2 3 24 38 38 34 33 30 30 28 27 26 23 20 16 13 9 CAL CA8/9/2009 5 3 3 4 3 1 5 15 22 25 19 21 25 28 27 29 25 26 22 18 15 13 9 

8/10/2009 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 14 18 21 22 21 22 21 12 19 15 14 11 9 6 3 8/11/2009 4 4 5 5 3 1 2 7 12 17 21 25 27 31 30 26 24 19 16 12 10 8 6 8/12/2009 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 10 18 26 34 42 57 61 66 55 PMA PMA PMA 34 33 29 8/13/2009 26 17 14 5 5 1 2 11 24 45 61 68 65 61 54 51 51 42 36 29 15 19 14 8/14/2009 5 2 1 0 1 0 1 10 28 40 46 51 57 AQI 50 53 48 45 40 30 26 27 21 8/15/2009 9 11 6 3 1 3 4 18 33 37 43 48 48 41 38 37 33 35 32 25 20 14 SPN SP8/16/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/17/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM PMA CAL CAL CAL LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/18/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/19/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/20/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA PMA PMA LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/21/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/22/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPN SPN SP8/23/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/24/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SP8/25/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM PMA 58 52 43 44 32 26 30 33 8/26/2009 23 21 20 21 6 5 10 27 45 CAL CAL 53 53 54 52 57 54 52 48 42 37 37 31 8/27/2009 16 12 7 6 6 5 2 17 41 51 54 57 59 60 70 65 56 55 46 35 29 29 24 8/28/2009 20 20 21 41 37 24 19 17 27 31 CAL CAL CAL 52 60 61 55 56 46 40 46 41 34 8/29/2009 10 4 6 3 5 5 6 19 34 47 62 74 85 86 80 77 68 60 49 39 39 43 SPN 8/30/2009 22 22 20 15 11 27 30 34 44 57 61 62 61 60 63 63 64 67 71 81 61 61 56 8/31/2009 40 32 28 24 17 6 6 12 24 32 40 49 59 75 72 67 68 68 50 35 36 33 28 

9/1/2009 11 11 8 5 3 8 18 23 28 35 40 48 56 64 72 88 81 66 38 16 18 7 7 

Topical 587
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

9/2/2009 5 4 2 10 8 5 3 9 26 40 54 72 88 106 113 112 96 86 74 74 62 56 46 9/3/2009 23 18 21 20 10 2 3 16 51 62 67 79 88 95 101 127 103 75 65 61 60 57 50 9/4/2009 24 22 20 18 32 42 35 25 32 26 40 57 68 83 101 93 82 72 58 45 41 38 27 9/5/2009 14 11 7 13 15 8 5 16 40 67 73 74 77 76 69 64 65 59 48 40 29 22 CAL CA9/6/2009 17 12 9 4 4 7 8 17 38 52 58 49 44 49 46 41 45 43 35 26 20 15 12 9/7/2009 7 2 3 4 5 3 3 9 29 39 55 73 76 62 51 50 53 46 42 31 27 19 15 9/8/2009 5 2 3 1 2 1 2 9 28 44 50 52 45 31 31 QAS 37 29 22 14 7 3 3 9/9/2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 10 15 13 18 23 23 18 20 17 20 15 7 7 3 4 5 

9/10/2009 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 6 13 21 26 28 28 35 35 35 35 32 25 16 7 5 3 9/11/2009 4 2 3 6 6 4 2 4 11 14 21 26 30 34 34 32 32 30 28 27 28 25 25 9/12/2009 17 14 13 13 12 11 12 13 15 17 20 18 16 20 21 27 30 27 23 19 17 12 SPN 

9/13/2009 8 12 14 12 11 8 7 10 19 31 36 39 37 39 37 37 36 36 31 22 20 17 21 9/14/2009 17 15 12 9 10 7 4 7 14 23 35 36 39 40 38 35 34 34 31 28 28 27 28 9/15/2009 25 24 18 16 19 21 20 21 23 25 25 28 32 31 33 33 32 33 25 22 19 14 11 9/16/2009 9 6 8 12 11 8 5 10 21 34 45 48 48 47 46 45 45 42 39 36 31 25 19 9/17/2009 18 16 20 17 16 15 16 22 34 41 45 46 45 44 45 43 43 41 37 34 29 28 24 9/18/2009 19 16 18 17 11 8 7 12 16 21 29 34 40 37 40 41 44 40 36 30 26 25 24 9/19/2009 16 16 16 13 12 9 7 10 19 27 34 41 45 49 50 51 49 47 39 25 15 18 SPN 9/20/2009 20 20 15 8 8 5 6 24 39 48 52 52 54 53 53 55 56 52 48 42 37 32 33 9/21/2009 27 32 29 25 16 11 7 16 30 49 52 51 49 44 39 38 39 34 32 29 29 28 29 9/22/2009 23 20 16 11 7 10 15 31 38 40 39 39 37 36 37 34 25 28 23 20 21 19 16 9/23/2009 16 16 16 17 18 15 13 13 16 20 28 33 39 44 42 39 35 32 28 23 23 24 24 9/24/2009 25 25 23 22 19 15 9 11 10 PMA CAL CAL CAL 26 29 33 30 27 24 20 19 18 18 9/25/2009 16 17 16 14 13 10 7 6 10 11 14 19 37 40 45 49 50 49 32 16 16 17 16 9/26/2009 8 6 4 3 2 3 3 6 10 21 38 56 64 61 58 60 63 62 46 38 37 30 SPN 9/27/2009 12 14 19 24 25 24 19 20 31 33 37 38 36 35 36 35 34 35 27 19 16 15 13 9/28/2009 12 10 7 4 0 0 1 5 12 17 21 25 30 26 20 23 20 22 19 13 12 9 7 9/29/2009 3 9 14 15 12 9 14 19 24 29 37 45 49 54 64 74 78 69 45 38 33 27 26 9/30/2009 17 11 13 8 5 4 5 15 29 PMA 53 59 63 68 65 62 59 56 52 50 44 39 37 10/1/2009 26 22 18 14 5 3 4 16 26 29 29 23 26 24 21 20 18 16 12 8 6 6 5 10/2/2009 3 3 2 21 33 30 17 20 28 32 43 42 51 58 65 70 79 53 28 31 25 20 18 

Topical 588
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

10/3/2009 19 13 15 14 13 12 13 17 21 24 27 28 33 33 31 28 26 22 23 21 19 20 CAL CA10/4/2009 17 17 14 12 10 13 12 14 16 16 17 16 17 18 21 19 18 16 15 13 11 5 1 10/5/2009 5 3 4 4 2 1 1 3 7 10 17 19 25 29 26 23 20 16 13 10 9 8 9 10/6/2009 9 8 8 5 3 1 3 9 16 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 18 17 13 12 13 11 10 10/7/2009 6 9 5 2 1 2 2 12 21 25 25 26 29 31 30 28 25 21 19 16 15 14 14 10/8/2009 14 13 12 11 12 10 11 14 17 20 21 22 23 22 22 21 19 17 17 16 16 15 15 10/9/2009 15 15 15 16 18 17 16 18 19 19 35 31 29 29 26 28 25 15 1 1 4 4 5 

10/10/2009 8 9 9 8 9 7 6 7 8 9 10 16 19 21 23 25 24 23 19 16 15 13 SPN 10/11/2009 10 14 14 14 14 13 7 5 7 8 8 10 11 11 12 12 9 7 5 3 4 4 4 10/12/2009 3 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 15 24 25 21 19 19 17 20 12 10 9 5 6 10/13/2009 3 2 5 7 8 5 2 11 16 19 18 14 14 20 21 23 17 14 7 8 6 7 7 10/14/2009 12 11 8 5 3 2 1 5 9 14 16 17 16 18 19 19 19 18 14 10 9 5 4 10/15/2009 10 12 12 12 12 10 9 10 14 16 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 17 14 11 8 9 14 10/16/2009 18 13 10 9 9 11 15 16 18 22 26 31 36 39 41 42 40 35 35 30 26 28 25 10/17/2009 23 24 22 21 21 20 16 18 24 30 36 36 40 44 46 46 41 35 26 16 6 5 SPN 10/18/2009 22 21 20 16 14 14 13 17 23 27 31 34 37 42 44 47 45 38 31 24 21 22 23 10/19/2009 15 13 17 17 10 4 6 8 21 32 41 42 43 49 46 42 41 35 25 20 22 20 21 10/20/2009 25 27 26 18 18 12 6 19 29 36 38 40 38 38 38 38 QAS 34 28 27 30 34 35 10/21/2009 37 36 34 31 29 26 26 19 20 24 37 38 37 36 36 32 31 27 25 23 22 18 25 10/22/2009 22 22 22 24 24 24 25 27 27 QAS QAS 34 35 37 37 32 29 25 22 20 19 18 15 10/23/2009 14 14 12 11 8 3 2 7 14 20 24 30 34 37 38 38 38 33 29 20 14 9 3 10/24/2009 9 5 2 3 1 0 2 5 17 25 39 44 49 51 53 55 50 36 34 34 30 31 SPN 10/25/2009 21 22 25 27 28 26 21 29 37 43 45 46 47 45 46 45 45 45 41 39 38 39 38 10/26/2009 42 43 41 40 37 33 31 27 25 40 36 33 33 34 32 27 26 22 22 20 24 30 20 10/27/2009 8 8 9 8 8 10 11 12 14 15 19 23 28 36 40 41 40 33 25 5 2 3 7 10/28/2009 4 9 11 10 3 1 3 8 19 34 38 37 36 34 33 31 30 29 30 28 24 22 21 10/29/2009 16 16 17 14 12 11 11 11 13 14 15 16 16 16 15 15 13 12 11 20 32 32 38 10/30/2009 38 36 35 33 36 30 30 29 22 25 24 20 21 24 24 26 32 28 16 3 1 1 1 10/31/2009 1 6 8 8 5 4 5 8 17 29 35 40 43 46 48 49 47 35 16 9 11 1 CAL CA

11/1/2009 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 28 44 40 39 42 44 44 42 29 15 13 6 4 6 11/2/2009 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LS

Topical 589
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

11/3/2009 LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST LST 38 41 54 60 46 29 12 3 CAL CAL CAL 11/4/2009 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 19 45 52 58 65 62 60 55 35 23 15 9 7 5 11/5/2009 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 6 18 38 46 51 58 65 67 64 56 36 24 14 13 9 11/6/2009 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 11 33 57 64 68 67 63 62 59 47 36 33 19 16 17 11/7/2009 19 16 16 14 9 7 11 9 22 35 45 48 49 51 51 51 47 40 33 29 31 25 SPN 11/8/2009 24 27 24 28 30 29 25 28 31 33 34 37 38 39 42 41 39 38 36 37 35 31 29 11/9/2009 26 25 26 24 21 20 11 9 12 13 17 21 29 32 33 30 24 16 14 16 14 14 13 

11/10/2009 12 12 14 12 11 9 7 5 10 14 25 31 37 40 39 42 42 37 24 15 9 6 2 11/11/2009 1 1 3 4 7 9 9 6 9 19 29 39 47 53 55 54 49 41 21 14 8 6 2 11/12/2009 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 17 32 44 50 69 85 89 89 79 47 32 34 30 24 22 11/13/2009 12 5 6 5 0 1 1 2 18 43 53 54 58 56 51 50 45 40 35 28 26 26 27 11/14/2009 27 26 28 17 14 6 3 9 22 32 41 49 48 46 45 46 43 38 31 32 31 29 SPN 11/15/2009 23 23 25 22 18 18 16 22 31 38 39 39 39 39 39 36 35 31 30 28 24 23 18 11/16/2009 21 19 15 21 21 15 15 16 11 13 15 18 23 27 30 31 33 33 32 30 25 21 20 11/17/2009 19 20 20 21 20 18 18 13 21 30 33 36 39 41 42 42 41 37 30 26 16 10 11 11/18/2009 10 8 6 7 2 1 1 4 10 31 41 45 47 48 49 49 47 30 25 30 26 20 21 11/19/2009 17 12 20 26 22 15 20 25 25 31 44 49 49 48 47 47 46 44 41 43 45 46 46 11/20/2009 46 47 47 46 42 44 40 32 39 38 35 36 36 35 31 32 27 21 21 26 25 27 28 11/21/2009 21 21 21 22 28 31 30 28 27 25 25 28 28 29 31 29 29 27 26 26 27 29 SPN 11/22/2009 10 11 9 11 8 6 5 8 14 24 31 38 42 47 48 49 45 34 23 18 4 7 17 11/23/2009 19 13 3 8 1 2 1 4 16 28 36 43 49 46 47 49 46 37 29 28 22 18 16 11/24/2009 20 24 22 20 21 21 20 15 6 13 16 16 12 14 18 21 24 14 10 24 27 24 31 11/25/2009 32 28 24 27 20 13 4 6 11 18 29 32 34 35 37 38 37 29 17 8 4 4 2 11/26/2009 2 2 1 1 4 6 8 15 20 25 28 33 37 39 39 40 37 34 27 20 15 11 10 11/27/2009 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 11 26 33 34 39 42 42 41 36 30 28 25 24 24 11/28/2009 23 26 21 16 19 25 22 22 29 38 41 41 41 41 41 40 37 35 35 36 35 33 CAL CA11/29/2009 33 32 28 26 27 26 26 21 24 29 38 38 38 36 36 35 33 31 31 28 28 26 26 11/30/2009 23 8 8 10 12 13 12 9 8 8 7 8 9 9 8 6 6 5 1 1 3 16 17 

12/1/2009 17 17 17 15 16 14 12 12 11 11 11 12 10 9 7 5 3 2 5 8 14 11 9 12/2/2009 14 14 15 15 19 19 19 18 19 22 27 31 31 31 34 36 35 33 30 26 25 24 22 12/3/2009 23 22 23 20 14 9 6 4 5 10 15 17 20 22 25 26 25 23 15 18 20 19 21 

Topical 590
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

Central Standard Time

12/4/2009 22 21 20 20 19 17 15 14 11 9 8 12 12 12 15 15 8 15 12 6 2 1 2 12/5/2009 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 15 23 27 30 34 36 35 31 26 21 14 11 9 SPN 12/6/2009 13 10 11 17 17 20 22 22 20 21 29 31 34 34 34 32 23 25 26 28 29 27 27 12/7/2009 20 18 15 12 4 4 13 13 11 12 14 15 14 13 10 9 6 2 2 5 5 6 7 12/8/2009 8 2 11 9 5 3 2 2 4 11 16 18 19 22 24 24 25 26 29 28 18 10 9 12/9/2009 12 14 19 16 14 16 8 9 12 13 19 17 QAS QAS 17 CAL CAL 18 20 23 20 18 22 

12/10/2009 22 22 20 20 19 17 12 11 14 15 15 18 20 21 23 20 16 13 10 17 17 17 22 12/11/2009 22 20 18 18 14 10 9 7 9 14 15 19 22 22 21 22 22 22 20 22 24 24 24 12/12/2009 22 21 20 23 22 21 21 21 19 19 19 19 20 19 18 15 11 2 1 1 1 1 SPN 12/13/2009 3 4 4 7 12 13 10 11 11 11 12 13 15 16 17 19 18 16 15 18 19 22 25 12/14/2009 24 20 16 11 13 8 7 6 4 3 4 7 6 5 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 12/15/2009 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 8 11 14 14 8 6 7 7 7 6 7 11 13 15 16 16 12/16/2009 16 17 18 19 20 18 15 11 11 12 13 14 15 14 14 13 10 5 1 1 1 4 15 12/17/2009 14 15 16 16 15 20 15 6 6 7 11 12 15 17 16 15 14 14 15 16 12 9 10 12/18/2009 7 5 4 4 4 3 1 1 4 8 14 20 26 30 35 39 40 37 31 22 16 14 11 12/19/2009 16 12 12 14 14 11 8 5 10 16 22 28 33 36 36 37 35 32 26 18 20 19 SPN 12/20/2009 1 2 5 6 5 5 3 3 10 19 24 29 36 40 41 42 40 24 19 18 12 10 7 12/21/2009 1 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 7 24 35 42 43 46 47 47 42 32 28 31 27 26 25 12/22/2009 34 34 29 27 26 21 17 16 28 35 41 38 39 41 40 39 37 35 35 34 33 32 31 12/23/2009 38 37 35 37 37 35 34 35 34 36 37 40 41 41 40 39 38 36 33 30 30 32 31 12/24/2009 30 29 31 35 27 31 33 29 40 42 40 34 28 22 19 LST 19 22 24 25 27 27 27 12/25/2009 32 35 35 36 37 37 36 35 36 37 38 39 41 42 43 43 43 39 26 14 23 26 11 12/26/2009 12 7 1 3 13 6 1 6 16 26 27 29 31 32 30 26 24 25 24 19 16 9 CAL CA12/27/2009 10 5 7 19 20 14 15 15 19 27 34 38 42 45 46 46 45 41 34 26 21 25 28 12/28/2009 23 23 23 27 22 17 12 15 19 24 24 26 28 30 31 31 30 23 13 8 4 3 5 12/29/2009 4 1 1 2 6 6 2 3 7 11 15 19 20 18 11 10 10 8 10 18 19 19 20 12/30/2009 24 25 23 18 17 16 3 9 3 3 5 6 10 11 15 22 26 24 23 24 24 22 20 12/31/2009 24 23 18 19 19 16 12 10 13 12 13 14 18 21 21 23 21 16 11 8 6 11 10 

Annual High/Second H

Topical 591
SITE SEARCH: 

please enter search phrase Go

SUBJECT INDEX 

 Air Water Waste

Search TCEQ Data 

Agency Organization Map 

Air Monitoring Site 

Information 

Monitoring Sites in this 

Region

Site Navigation

Rules, Policy & Legislation

Permits, Licenses & 

Registrations

Compliance, Enforcement & 

Cleanups

Drinking Water & Water 

Availability

Reporting

Environmental Quality

Assistance, Education & 

Participation

Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling

Contracts, Funding & Fees

TCEQ Home

About TCEQ

Contact Us

Have you had contact with the 

TCEQ lately? Complete our 

Customer Satisfaction 

Survey.

Additional Information

Air Quality

Questions or Comments: 

monops@tceq.state.tx.us

Mustang Bayou C619 

 CAMS 619 Mustang Bayou C619

 EPA site number: 48-039-0619 

 State: Texas 

 County: Brazoria 

 City: Liverpool 

 Address: FM 2917 at County Road 169 

 Site coordinates: 

Latitude: 29° 18' 49" North (+29.313611°) 

Longitude: 95° 12' 05" West (-95.201389°) 

Elevation: 6 m (20 ft) 

 Maintained by: URS Corp. for Brazoria County - 

Chocolate Bayou Industry Group 

Area Map

Overall site 

view not 

available

Street 

level Map

View to 

the 

Northwest 

not 

available

North

View to 

the 

Northeast 

not 

available

West East

Topical 592
PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current data, 

but it is not official until it has been certified by our technical staff. Data is collected from TCEQ ambient 

monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. All 

times shown are in Local Standard Time. 

View to 

the 

Southwest 

not 

available

South

View to 

the 

Southeast 

not 

available

Current Measurements at Mustang Bayou C619 

Monthly Summary Report for Parameters at Mustang 

Bayou C619 

Yearly Summary Report for Parameters at Mustang 

Bayou C619 

 Real-time monitoring since: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 

 Current status: Active 

 Continuous monitors located at this site: 

Met Data 

Ozone 

Nitrous Oxides 

 Parameters currently being monitored: 

Pollution parameters: 

 Nitric Oxide 

 Nitrogen Dioxide 

 Oxides of Nitrogen 

 Ozone 

Meteorological parameters: 

 Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Speed 

 Resultant Wind Direction 

 Maximum Wind Gust 

 Standard Deviation of Horizontal Wind 

Direction 

 Outdoor Temperature 

 Net Radiation 

Web Policies | Disclaimer | Site Help

Rules, Policy & Legislation | Permits, Licenses & Registrations | Compliance, Enforcement & Cleanups 

Topical 593
Drinking Water & Water Availability | Reporting | Environmental Quality | Assistance, Education & Participation | Pollution Prevention & 

Recycling | Contracts, Funding & Fees | TCEQ Home

About TCEQ | Contact Us 

Last Modified February 27, 2010

©2002-2004 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Topical 594
CAMS 619 Ozone Summary Report for 2009

Mustang Bayou C619 - EPA Site: 48_039_0619Ozone (POC 1) measured in parts per billionData from this instrument meets EPA quality assurance criteria for regulatory purposes.Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

1/1/2009 23 19 16 16 18 17 15 15 15 15 18 29 35 41 43 44 43 40 36 31 29 29 26 21/2/2009 17 14 14 17 18 16 16 17 17 17 18 19 22 21 21 21 19 17 13 14 15 15 15 1

1/3/2009 16 16 13 9 14 14 17 19 22 23 23 24 26 26 25 24 23 21 20 18 15 17 SPN 11/4/2009 17 18 17 16 16 16 17 16 16 12 15 18 19 24 25 19 12 9 6 5 4 6 8 11/5/2009 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 6 4 5 5 6 5 6 6 6 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 1/6/2009 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 7 8 8 12 16 14 14 12 12 14 13 11/7/2009 18 12 18 17 15 15 11 9 13 23 30 33 38 37 41 45 41 40 38 33 30 28 28 21/8/2009 27 26 26 26 21 21 21 19 19 29 33 38 43 44 43 44 43 35 30 28 25 23 21 21/9/2009 27 28 29 31 29 28 28 28 27 36 42 45 46 45 43 38 36 37 32 30 27 25 24 2

1/10/2009 23 21 22 20 17 18 17 14 14 13 11 13 14 15 14 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 SPN 11/11/2009 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 19 21 22 23 25 27 29 29 32 32 31 27 17 13 8 7 1/12/2009 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 11 20 29 35 38 41 42 43 43 41 37 24 24 20 16 11/13/2009 7 3 10 11 16 18 16 16 20 23 24 28 31 32 33 36 38 38 32 24 18 15 13 1/14/2009 4 2 3 3 4 5 9 9 13 23 30 34 36 37 38 42 45 43 39 32 33 28 31 21/15/2009 18 20 15 15 13 15 17 20 23 29 QAS 37 42 45 48 51 52 49 39 26 24 23 21 21/16/2009 26 23 21 20 20 21 21 21 22 23 24 26 28 29 30 31 31 27 21 20 17 17 17 11/17/2009 18 16 16 16 17 20 31 35 36 37 43 45 46 46 45 46 44 39 36 35 33 30 SPN 21/18/2009 20 16 15 19 22 18 20 19 21 26 31 36 39 41 42 43 41 36 28 31 26 19 20 21/19/2009 22 21 21 24 24 23 23 23 24 27 29 31 34 37 40 40 39 38 35 33 26 23 23 21/20/2009 17 18 18 15 8 12 11 12 16 19 28 33 35 36 39 39 38 35 30 24 15 14 11 11/21/2009 11 6 6 12 14 6 3 2 7 22 35 39 41 44 45 46 46 44 42 40 37 33 37 31/22/2009 30 30 28 30 29 27 22 22 27 32 37 46 45 45 45 44 42 39 32 31 31 30 28 21/23/2009 25 27 27 26 27 23 22 27 29 33 41 41 41 41 41 40 38 36 31 23 25 25 23 21/24/2009 28 29 28 25 16 11 10 14 15 14 15 16 19 23 26 26 26 21 20 19 18 15 CAL CAL 1/25/2009 16 16 14 14 13 12 11 10 12 13 14 14 15 16 18 20 16 13 12 12 15 15 15 11/26/2009 18 19 20 22 25 25 22 21 21 24 29 30 32 33 33 31 33 33 29 29 28 29 29 21/27/2009 27 26 24 23 23 22 22 21 24 28 31 31 32 32 31 31 30 29 27 20 0 1 1 

Central Standard Time

Topical 595
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

1/28/2009 1 3 3 3 4 6 6 5 7 7 8 13 16 19 21 22 22 16 11 7 9 12 11 1/29/2009 10 11 10 9 9 7 7 7 10 16 21 35 36 48 47 42 42 39 32 26 19 10 9 11/30/2009 15 12 12 14 12 15 17 15 20 26 32 37 38 42 50 42 38 43 41 39 36 34 36 31/31/2009 36 30 28 29 28 29 25 23 26 31 37 42 45 49 49 48 48 45 40 39 36 34 SPN 4

2/1/2009 39 39 37 36 35 37 37 32 35 38 39 39 39 38 38 37 35 34 30 29 26 22 23 12/2/2009 18 23 14 18 15 18 28 25 21 23 34 41 41 42 43 42 40 38 32 26 19 12 14 2/3/2009 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 9 25 35 38 41 43 45 47 45 44 40 37 38 32 29 22/4/2009 19 28 18 14 17 27 26 23 22 24 28 32 35 37 39 41 41 38 38 34 31 31 33 22/5/2009 22 24 29 27 25 26 25 23 27 38 40 42 42 42 42 41 40 41 35 31 31 30 28 32/6/2009 29 30 30 31 29 28 27 27 35 39 41 41 41 41 42 41 42 39 38 37 38 37 39 32/7/2009 39 40 38 36 34 35 36 37 39 39 40 40 41 40 39 39 39 37 34 30 28 31 SPN 32/8/2009 29 27 27 26 24 24 24 27 30 35 37 37 39 38 39 39 38 36 36 35 36 35 34 32/9/2009 33 32 32 32 32 31 30 28 29 32 32 32 30 31 32 32 33 32 31 28 28 27 28 2

2/10/2009 26 25 24 23 23 23 24 23 28 32 33 32 31 31 30 30 28 27 27 26 26 26 26 22/11/2009 26 25 41 36 30 31 26 23 23 31 35 37 38 42 44 45 45 44 34 28 27 23 21 22/12/2009 14 13 12 13 11 15 7 10 18 30 40 45 47 48 50 51 53 53 49 44 41 46 45 42/13/2009 41 41 40 42 42 41 38 34 29 26 22 20 21 21 21 20 18 15 15 14 14 11 12 12/14/2009 14 13 11 11 10 9 9 10 17 21 24 25 26 23 26 25 25 24 23 24 24 15 SPN 12/15/2009 18 19 14 12 8 8 8 11 14 16 18 22 27 29 33 41 41 36 30 28 24 27 32 32/16/2009 32 31 29 27 25 23 22 22 28 32 31 33 38 42 42 43 43 41 40 37 36 37 41 42/17/2009 42 39 39 36 38 37 38 39 38 41 43 43 43 43 42 40 39 38 36 34 33 31 30 22/18/2009 26 23 21 20 20 20 20 19 19 19 17 19 21 22 20 21 21 17 14 13 11 10 6 2/19/2009 5 16 28 29 29 30 31 30 32 36 39 40 47 48 47 48 46 43 38 34 29 28 28 22/20/2009 24 23 23 20 13 17 21 23 25 36 42 45 46 47 48 47 47 45 42 40 39 41 40 42/21/2009 38 38 36 36 39 39 39 39 41 42 45 46 45 44 39 27 28 25 27 35 37 34 CAL CAL 2/22/2009 34 35 34 32 35 33 31 29 33 34 36 38 41 47 50 49 49 46 43 31 32 32 31 22/23/2009 24 18 9 14 20 15 11 16 25 30 35 41 46 48 49 51 51 50 47 44 44 44 41 32/24/2009 34 32 30 34 37 33 29 31 35 40 41 41 41 40 41 41 41 39 35 29 29 28 29 32/25/2009 30 31 31 29 30 29 30 31 34 37 39 38 37 37 37 36 35 35 33 32 32 31 31 22/26/2009 30 29 29 29 29 29 28 27 31 33 33 32 30 30 30 30 29 27 27 26 27 26 26 22/27/2009 24 24 24 24 22 22 22 22 22 24 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 32 33 31 28 27 25 22/28/2009 24 23 19 15 13 11 14 12 13 14 18 20 26 33 35 40 42 40 37 39 38 35 SPN 3

Topical 596
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

3/1/2009 31 30 30 27 24 25 28 28 30 30 32 35 38 40 42 42 42 41 37 29 23 22 21 13/2/2009 14 11 11 17 17 17 16 17 28 35 39 43 50 50 46 47 54 58 56 53 51 49 44 33/3/2009 30 28 34 28 33 32 25 21 28 40 43 47 50 52 53 53 55 56 54 50 47 42 42 43/4/2009 41 40 41 40 38 36 33 36 41 46 47 48 48 48 48 47 47 46 43 38 38 39 38 33/5/2009 38 38 35 37 36 35 35 34 34 37 39 38 37 36 36 37 36 35 35 33 31 31 31 33/6/2009 31 29 31 29 27 26 26 27 33 36 37 37 37 36 35 34 35 33 34 31 30 28 27 23/7/2009 25 26 27 26 27 26 26 25 30 35 37 37 36 35 35 34 33 33 32 30 29 29 SPN 23/8/2009 29 27 23 22 28 26 24 21 31 34 36 37 37 36 36 35 36 37 35 36 34 32 31 33/9/2009 29 28 27 26 26 26 26 27 28 31 31 34 36 36 36 36 37 38 38 39 36 31 30 3

3/10/2009 28 28 27 26 26 27 26 28 31 33 34 35 36 36 35 35 36 35 35 30 31 31 30 23/11/2009 27 26 24 25 27 27 24 23 30 34 36 37 38 38 40 40 39 39 37 32 29 20 21 23/12/2009 24 22 24 25 26 24 19 18 18 18 16 14 14 12 12 6 11 11 11 11 13 14 16 13/13/2009 15 13 12 11 13 12 11 9 9 10 13 15 FEW LST LST LST LST LST PMA 8 9 7 6 3/14/2009 6 5 6 7 8 9 9 9 8 8 9 10 10 8 7 8 8 8 7 7 5 5 SPN 3/15/2009 8 7 8 8 7 8 8 10 13 16 18 25 28 27 21 17 16 15 14 12 9 7 5 3/16/2009 6 7 8 6 5 3 1 4 9 17 25 29 34 42 45 55 62 62 41 31 28 27 22 13/17/2009 14 14 18 15 16 19 19 21 23 24 28 30 33 36 38 39 38 37 33 30 30 23 21 23/18/2009 20 14 6 9 15 9 12 13 17 31 38 41 42 42 42 43 42 44 42 38 35 29 26 23/19/2009 23 20 14 16 18 15 13 17 26 37 44 49 49 50 49 49 52 52 50 40 37 30 19 13/20/2009 13 13 12 14 17 18 14 14 29 33 38 43 54 53 52 53 52 52 50 45 42 44 35 33/21/2009 27 29 32 24 23 25 17 21 28 47 53 52 52 55 56 55 55 56 55 52 48 41 CAL CAL 3/22/2009 47 45 48 40 39 30 35 38 55 55 56 55 55 55 55 54 54 53 52 51 48 48 49 53/23/2009 48 47 46 47 47 46 46 47 49 51 51 48 46 45 45 44 41 39 36 35 35 35 34 33/24/2009 34 35 34 33 33 33 35 37 38 38 40 40 39 39 37 35 35 35 34 32 29 28 28 23/25/2009 27 24 27 26 25 24 23 26 30 32 34 35 37 37 37 37 36 32 26 24 24 23 26 33/26/2009 31 28 25 27 25 25 24 22 22 25 28 30 31 31 29 32 27 25 25 25 22 29 28 23/27/2009 23 20 18 22 22 24 24 25 26 30 30 30 30 31 33 34 33 37 32 27 33 34 31 33/28/2009 31 31 30 29 30 28 34 38 39 40 40 42 44 46 48 49 48 47 42 31 24 20 SPN 23/29/2009 21 16 5 3 8 13 14 21 35 40 45 51 55 54 58 59 56 56 58 53 49 49 44 43/30/2009 45 40 43 42 43 41 42 45 50 52 51 50 50 49 50 48 46 46 44 41 39 37 36 33/31/2009 35 33 31 32 29 33 28 22 23 27 31 35 43 44 42 41 43 45 41 36 32 27 17 2

4/1/2009 24 26 31 36 35 32 32 28 33 43 47 48 49 49 48 49 49 47 44 41 40 43 42 4

Topical 597
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

4/2/2009 38 34 31 29 25 24 21 31 34 34 47 53 52 53 51 51 51 51 48 44 39 41 39 24/3/2009 21 30 34 35 35 33 30 35 41 44 50 54 59 59 59 63 62 63 65 60 51 47 47 44/4/2009 48 48 47 49 46 44 43 47 53 55 56 54 52 50 50 51 52 51 51 46 44 42 SPN 34/5/2009 35 33 31 34 32 30 27 25 28 32 37 40 45 52 54 54 52 49 46 44 43 43 42 44/6/2009 40 40 40 40 40 37 36 34 34 36 37 41 42 45 47 48 48 48 46 39 32 29 21 34/7/2009 30 23 25 24 20 16 14 22 37 42 44 46 49 53 56 57 58 57 53 51 46 43 40 44/8/2009 40 42 43 43 42 42 43 43 47 51 53 54 53 51 50 49 47 46 45 43 41 40 39 44/9/2009 43 40 40 39 37 41 40 41 43 45 43 42 42 43 42 41 39 38 35 38 38 36 37 3

4/10/2009 36 37 38 38 39 37 32 32 43 48 48 49 55 62 66 58 51 51 52 45 44 46 44 44/11/2009 44 44 42 42 42 40 38 37 35 33 36 38 41 44 44 46 48 49 49 49 49 49 SPN 44/12/2009 46 44 42 37 27 22 20 19 20 22 24 27 32 38 45 52 56 58 54 39 34 30 29 24/13/2009 17 24 13 12 9 10 22 25 30 33 42 47 49 51 51 52 51 50 48 44 40 35 37 34/14/2009 36 35 31 22 24 29 23 34 42 47 50 54 62 76 74 71 73 71 68 64 50 41 51 44/15/2009 32 32 24 23 21 20 24 28 53 56 56 54 56 56 57 56 58 56 52 52 50 49 49 54/16/2009 49 44 45 44 42 42 42 45 48 52 53 55 57 59 58 56 54 53 50 49 45 46 47 44/17/2009 41 41 42 41 40 40 41 40 42 44 45 45 46 45 46 46 37 27 35 36 37 35 34 34/18/2009 37 35 37 38 36 38 39 38 37 37 37 39 39 37 35 37 38 37 38 35 31 27 CAL CAL 4/19/2009 29 31 31 31 31 30 28 30 29 29 34 41 49 54 56 56 56 54 53 50 46 41 32 34/20/2009 25 26 29 24 18 17 18 23 27 38 48 53 57 59 62 61 59 55 51 39 38 35 32 34/21/2009 36 34 36 38 35 34 35 39 44 49 51 53 57 59 62 64 62 55 50 44 40 39 31 34/22/2009 37 37 40 40 38 40 40 42 46 45 45 47 48 49 50 48 47 44 40 38 38 38 36 34/23/2009 33 36 35 36 36 36 37 38 39 41 43 43 43 43 41 40 41 41 42 39 38 38 38 34/24/2009 37 36 36 34 33 35 38 40 42 42 43 42 42 41 39 39 38 36 36 33 32 35 34 34/25/2009 35 35 37 37 38 39 38 38 40 41 40 40 38 40 39 41 40 40 39 39 37 36 SPN 34/26/2009 38 38 38 37 37 37 37 39 39 39 38 37 36 35 35 34 35 35 33 31 29 26 25 24/27/2009 24 25 26 26 25 23 24 25 26 26 26 26 25 25 24 23 23 21 28 40 40 37 35 34/28/2009 33 28 27 27 27 26 25 24 24 25 24 23 23 23 22 24 25 26 26 27 25 26 26 24/29/2009 26 26 25 24 24 26 27 26 26 26 26 25 24 24 24 25 26 25 25 26 27 26 26 24/30/2009 24 23 23 24 25 25 26 25 24 25 25 21 19 19 QAS 22 21 21 22 20 21 21 21 2

5/1/2009 20 20 20 21 20 21 21 23 23 24 26 24 24 23 24 25 25 25 27 26 25 24 24 25/2/2009 23 26 24 22 24 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 21 21 25 27 29 29 27 27 SPN 25/3/2009 27 26 27 27 27 23 22 21 23 25 26 26 26 25 25 24 22 20 19 18 16 11 11 1

Topical 598
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

5/4/2009 16 16 22 24 24 24 21 20 22 26 33 50 69 74 66 64 52 51 53 40 39 39 39 35/5/2009 29 29 23 19 19 21 21 23 25 26 26 26 27 26 26 26 24 20 18 17 20 23 24 25/6/2009 24 24 24 24 26 27 25 25 24 25 26 26 28 23 19 19 18 20 22 25 26 25 24 25/7/2009 23 24 23 24 25 24 24 24 26 27 27 26 25 20 20 21 21 25 27 28 29 30 32 35/8/2009 27 26 25 26 28 30 31 30 28 25 26 26 26 24 24 25 28 28 27 30 32 33 32 35/9/2009 28 27 24 23 26 24 24 24 26 27 26 26 26 26 26 26 25 28 26 25 23 19 SPN 2

5/10/2009 21 18 18 16 17 20 19 21 20 20 18 19 20 19 20 22 25 24 23 23 24 24 23 25/11/2009 23 24 26 24 22 22 22 23 25 25 24 22 20 19 19 19 19 17 17 18 20 20 18 15/12/2009 17 18 20 21 20 18 20 26 28 29 31 29 28 26 26 24 24 23 22 21 22 21 23 25/13/2009 26 25 27 31 28 31 30 26 26 26 25 24 23 23 24 23 23 23 22 22 20 19 19 15/14/2009 17 18 19 20 19 20 23 26 26 27 28 28 28 27 30 28 26 25 27 24 27 26 26 25/15/2009 24 23 21 20 20 20 21 23 24 23 23 22 21 21 23 23 23 22 22 21 21 21 20 25/16/2009 20 20 19 19 18 18 17 20 21 21 22 24 26 24 21 22 21 22 22 29 25 21 CAL CAL 5/17/2009 20 21 19 18 18 17 17 20 23 26 27 29 33 29 24 34 40 36 33 30 32 31 27 25/18/2009 22 21 21 26 34 28 29 33 38 40 43 52 64 61 57 54 56 52 47 40 33 34 34 35/19/2009 25 30 25 22 22 20 22 28 36 42 47 50 51 52 56 60 60 62 59 51 30 35 28 25/20/2009 32 31 35 35 34 30 28 31 45 56 60 61 65 74 79 79 75 71 66 54 35 20 12 25/21/2009 26 26 16 12 14 14 13 28 36 47 54 54 53 55 60 63 59 61 58 51 37 31 18 15/22/2009 27 25 23 19 13 12 14 21 29 37 41 40 39 38 40 35 32 38 34 37 33 28 30 15/23/2009 12 5 12 11 5 4 10 25 38 48 44 46 37 40 47 52 47 44 46 48 50 50 SPN 45/24/2009 44 32 30 28 29 27 26 34 34 37 41 43 46 45 43 41 38 35 34 30 28 29 32 35/25/2009 29 27 28 23 23 18 20 26 33 41 44 46 44 45 55 59 53 46 41 31 27 27 23 15/26/2009 14 14 12 13 13 14 13 17 24 39 43 46 46 50 50 46 45 39 31 32 23 20 21 15/27/2009 19 15 17 16 15 6 10 15 26 19 21 22 22 24 39 37 34 39 34 28 23 25 20 15/28/2009 17 18 10 5 10 13 21 33 45 53 65 77 71 75 81 81 76 71 65 63 55 54 43 35/29/2009 38 40 29 23 20 25 24 42 52 58 62 65 83 89 90 83 81 80 77 68 58 47 36 25/30/2009 32 36 35 29 12 16 29 40 50 61 69 71 69 71 70 71 68 63 63 55 52 52 SPN 45/31/2009 29 24 25 18 13 22 20 43 53 54 56 57 58 55 54 54 54 53 59 58 51 47 44 3

6/1/2009 30 24 26 22 26 35 39 48 50 48 CAL 42 43 42 41 42 CAL CAL 44 42 41 40 39 36/2/2009 36 32 30 24 17 18 17 27 29 31 30 28 29 27 29 24 27 25 26 24 22 21 24 26/3/2009 23 26 24 15 10 10 11 24 28 30 29 29 33 38 28 31 29 29 27 24 20 18 15 6/4/2009 9 16 12 10 6 14 22 26 32 38 48 53 56 58 59 59 59 57 51 39 30 25 23 2

Topical 599
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

6/5/2009 20 21 20 18 16 14 18 25 35 41 44 47 54 63 78 75 76 63 60 54 51 51 48 36/6/2009 20 27 26 17 20 18 25 34 44 53 57 56 56 58 56 58 60 60 57 55 52 45 SPN 36/7/2009 28 37 31 21 20 25 34 40 41 41 40 39 38 37 36 36 35 33 31 29 28 29 31 36/8/2009 29 26 22 28 29 27 31 33 33 33 31 28 26 25 24 23 24 23 23 20 16 16 15 16/9/2009 13 13 14 13 14 15 15 18 18 18 17 16 16 17 15 15 14 14 14 11 10 12 12 1

6/10/2009 11 9 13 17 17 16 17 21 23 23 22 20 18 18 20 20 19 17 16 14 13 14 15 16/11/2009 12 13 15 15 14 14 17 20 22 22 23 22 22 21 20 20 20 18 16 15 14 12 15 16/12/2009 15 13 14 15 13 13 14 19 20 21 23 24 24 22 22 21 20 19 20 18 16 15 17 16/13/2009 15 13 13 13 14 15 15 18 19 21 21 21 22 22 20 21 20 20 19 18 19 16 CAL CAL 6/14/2009 13 17 17 13 16 15 14 17 21 22 24 24 26 24 22 21 21 20 19 20 20 20 19 26/15/2009 20 18 19 18 19 17 15 19 21 23 25 26 27 25 23 21 20 19 16 17 17 18 19 16/16/2009 21 21 19 19 20 19 19 21 24 26 27 27 28 27 25 21 20 18 16 14 14 19 15 16/17/2009 16 15 15 15 14 15 16 19 20 20 20 19 18 18 19 18 18 18 21 16 16 17 13 16/18/2009 15 14 15 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 17 16 17 19 17 17 18 16 17 15 16 16 16/19/2009 16 14 12 13 13 10 13 14 15 16 16 15 14 15 14 16 17 18 18 13 14 14 13 16/20/2009 15 15 13 15 14 14 14 17 18 20 20 21 22 22 22 21 21 19 17 17 16 17 SPN 26/21/2009 21 21 22 21 19 15 17 20 21 22 21 22 21 19 19 17 17 17 17 16 15 14 13 16/22/2009 13 12 11 11 7 4 6 12 17 18 20 19 17 18 18 18 15 16 15 13 12 10 6 16/23/2009 7 8 7 5 2 1 3 11 17 22 29 30 24 21 20 22 18 18 16 17 16 14 14 16/24/2009 13 8 6 3 1 3 7 13 17 20 28 35 42 44 43 56 57 41 35 20 13 12 10 16/25/2009 7 4 4 3 3 3 5 8 11 15 23 32 36 39 39 34 42 43 29 26 22 15 8 SPZ 6/26/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SPZ6/27/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPN SPN SPN6/28/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SPZ6/29/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM CAL CAL CAL CAL CAL 33 26 28 28 24 18 14 13 13 10 16/30/2009 10 10 9 6 5 2 4 13 17 18 23 28 30 31 45 37 32 19 30 24 35 36 35 2

7/1/2009 14 11 16 9 7 10 14 25 36 46 50 56 60 61 60 49 62 59 34 25 21 18 13 17/2/2009 9 5 3 1 1 1 3 8 15 21 29 32 35 31 26 22 20 19 19 17 16 15 17 17/3/2009 11 7 5 2 0 1 5 12 17 19 20 19 20 19 19 19 18 18 19 17 17 15 13 17/4/2009 16 14 14 13 14 16 12 15 23 29 27 26 27 27 27 25 23 21 20 18 18 17 SPN 17/5/2009 13 14 20 21 20 19 16 16 17 18 18 17 18 19 20 19 18 17 15 13 13 12 11 17/6/2009 13 13 10 12 10 6 6 11 16 18 22 24 26 26 24 22 20 19 17 16 16 16 12 1

Topical 600
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

7/7/2009 11 10 10 10 8 8 7 15 15 16 17 20 22 24 24 24 26 26 23 18 19 12 11 7/8/2009 9 9 6 5 5 6 8 13 19 23 24 25 24 25 25 22 21 20 18 18 15 15 14 17/9/2009 11 9 9 8 4 3 7 17 20 23 23 24 22 22 21 20 19 18 18 17 17 16 14 1

7/10/2009 12 12 13 12 11 10 12 15 17 18 19 19 17 16 16 16 17 18 18 17 14 13 14 7/11/2009 11 10 9 5 3 1 3 12 18 20 25 26 21 21 20 16 17 21 20 21 18 14 CAL CAL 7/12/2009 13 10 4 1 1 0 2 11 14 16 18 21 26 22 20 20 18 16 15 13 14 11 12 17/13/2009 12 12 10 7 5 5 8 11 15 16 20 24 27 22 18 16 15 15 13 11 9 9 5 7/14/2009 9 8 5 6 7 4 6 11 14 17 18 19 18 18 18 18 16 16 15 14 13 11 14 17/15/2009 13 12 9 9 9 6 7 13 17 20 22 23 19 18 17 17 15 14 13 13 12 10 13 17/16/2009 11 12 11 9 4 2 12 18 17 18 21 21 22 21 20 17 17 16 15 12 10 11 10 17/17/2009 9 8 3 1 2 0 3 10 16 17 20 25 33 43 45 44 36 31 23 16 12 11 3 17/18/2009 12 12 9 9 5 1 6 17 21 26 30 37 41 45 42 46 37 28 19 33 38 35 SPN 27/19/2009 31 19 8 12 7 9 12 19 27 26 25 30 37 37 40 39 41 40 39 36 36 33 29 27/20/2009 26 22 24 21 18 16 15 20 22 22 22 21 19 27 20 17 16 15 14 14 11 14 12 17/21/2009 14 13 13 13 13 11 12 14 13 15 15 14 14 14 14 13 12 12 12 10 10 8 8 7/22/2009 9 9 8 6 4 6 6 7 10 13 15 18 21 21 22 20 20 19 15 14 14 11 10 7/23/2009 6 4 2 2 5 6 6 9 15 15 16 18 22 25 20 22 37 24 23 22 17 13 7 7/24/2009 3 3 1 2 2 2 4 8 15 17 16 20 21 24 28 36 31 31 26 24 16 12 8 17/25/2009 9 8 7 1 1 5 5 17 23 26 33 34 32 24 23 22 21 18 19 18 14 12 SPN 17/26/2009 11 11 9 9 6 6 6 12 17 21 21 22 22 22 20 18 17 17 18 18 17 16 16 27/27/2009 15 14 AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI 7/28/2009 AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI7/29/2009 AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI7/30/2009 AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI PMA PMA PMA AQI AQI AQI AQI AQI CAL CAL 16 17 19 16 20 27/31/2009 15 14 12 13 12 9 11 13 15 13 13 17 16 17 16 18 15 15 15 13 15 17 20 2

8/1/2009 16 18 18 18 18 16 16 17 18 20 22 22 23 23 23 23 21 20 18 17 15 16 SPN 28/2/2009 19 18 17 14 16 15 14 15 18 21 22 25 26 27 26 23 23 21 19 18 16 13 15 18/3/2009 11 13 13 13 11 6 5 10 15 21 24 22 19 17 17 18 17 17 17 12 13 16 18 18/4/2009 16 10 10 9 8 6 6 11 16 17 19 19 18 18 18 18 16 17 17 15 9 13 14 18/5/2009 12 8 10 10 9 7 5 12 15 18 21 26 24 21 20 20 18 17 15 15 12 10 10 18/6/2009 10 9 7 5 2 2 4 11 16 21 22 24 25 28 27 23 18 16 16 15 16 16 16 18/7/2009 8 9 10 5 3 3 4 13 20 22 23 21 22 17 17 18 21 20 17 14 16 18 14 2

Topical 601
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

8/8/2009 25 22 31 27 30 29 23 33 35 33 31 29 27 23 23 21 21 20 19 18 16 11 CAL CAL 8/9/2009 14 14 15 15 14 12 16 18 19 21 20 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 20 19 15 15 10 1

8/10/2009 10 10 6 9 8 11 10 13 16 15 18 17 16 16 15 16 15 14 13 14 16 15 12 18/11/2009 10 8 9 9 6 3 4 11 12 16 21 22 23 18 19 17 16 14 13 13 11 10 8 8/12/2009 7 6 3 1 0 0 2 6 10 13 17 29 36 40 41 59 62 55 51 26 18 24 24 28/13/2009 17 10 6 10 4 5 7 18 28 44 51 52 48 40 37 38 32 31 43 41 35 31 28 28/14/2009 17 5 3 3 2 2 6 14 26 35 40 50 50 47 47 43 43 41 39 42 42 35 32 18/15/2009 12 5 5 6 9 6 7 21 32 33 34 35 33 32 33 34 32 31 28 24 20 17 SPN 18/16/2009 15 7 6 8 7 8 9 17 22 24 26 25 25 21 19 18 17 17 16 13 10 10 8 18/17/2009 13 13 11 4 4 3 2 10 16 19 19 18 17 18 21 17 15 15 13 15 13 12 9 18/18/2009 7 10 7 7 14 12 9 10 16 20 21 22 23 22 22 24 23 22 21 20 14 8 15 18/19/2009 14 18 12 10 9 7 5 11 19 20 20 21 22 20 19 18 20 18 15 12 12 10 8 18/20/2009 13 16 14 14 12 12 12 13 15 17 17 19 19 18 18 15 14 14 15 11 14 17 17 18/21/2009 13 14 13 11 11 6 5 8 15 18 22 23 25 25 27 25 19 16 14 17 20 14 9 8/22/2009 6 2 4 2 1 6 9 15 22 26 25 30 36 40 42 41 42 35 28 24 20 17 SPN 18/23/2009 9 6 3 3 1 2 3 10 12 18 27 34 33 38 39 41 42 41 34 25 23 19 15 38/24/2009 28 26 15 13 5 2 2 3 8 16 20 28 32 36 40 41 40 39 34 27 23 26 28 38/25/2009 29 11 9 6 6 3 8 10 24 29 34 39 42 37 39 42 42 41 40 37 32 28 31 38/26/2009 28 31 33 35 29 32 32 31 45 48 51 49 49 49 49 50 49 45 40 41 38 34 35 38/27/2009 30 33 30 27 17 8 13 27 41 45 46 46 46 45 47 44 46 41 38 36 34 32 30 28/28/2009 29 16 16 20 20 14 19 28 32 31 33 35 36 41 49 43 43 41 39 36 36 39 33 28/29/2009 14 15 14 6 7 5 5 14 30 46 67 68 75 86 71 59 51 46 44 37 34 21 SPN 18/30/2009 7 6 12 17 14 20 17 29 42 51 58 64 62 59 56 56 74 86 99 70 53 44 45 38/31/2009 22 27 22 17 14 15 14 12 20 26 35 44 45 48 49 50 51 52 48 38 26 20 20 2

9/1/2009 17 21 19 18 15 19 18 15 24 30 36 45 50 50 54 60 67 65 52 37 25 21 18 29/2/2009 12 17 13 14 17 18 20 23 32 41 48 49 56 61 67 69 84 76 63 58 49 31 25 29/3/2009 26 15 14 12 11 13 15 26 45 56 62 64 69 80 90 76 73 69 71 69 63 55 49 29/4/2009 22 24 23 21 23 32 28 34 40 49 59 77 72 69 70 66 67 66 58 49 39 31 20 19/5/2009 15 5 15 15 16 13 14 24 39 53 58 55 53 53 64 60 45 41 40 34 28 26 CAL CAL 9/6/2009 13 13 11 9 10 10 12 20 30 38 43 45 41 38 38 37 35 35 34 31 19 11 13 19/7/2009 7 4 5 7 9 8 11 15 31 41 50 48 43 46 44 41 40 39 35 35 32 24 18 19/8/2009 17 11 6 6 8 12 13 21 32 36 40 35 32 25 31 27 28 28 24 12 9 15 15 

Topical 602
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

9/9/2009 4 5 4 4 4 6 10 16 20 18 20 23 25 24 21 22 19 13 11 6 3 1 0 

9/10/2009 0 1 2 2 1 1 3 7 15 21 23 25 28 30 29 28 28 27 25 22 19 10 7 9/11/2009 6 7 5 5 6 7 9 11 16 18 20 21 24 27 26 26 26 26 25 21 24 23 21 19/12/2009 18 18 16 14 12 11 13 13 15 17 15 15 14 15 19 26 26 26 21 18 14 11 SPN 19/13/2009 7 7 7 11 6 6 3 9 20 26 30 31 32 27 33 34 32 31 28 24 22 21 19 29/14/2009 21 20 20 17 15 13 9 11 17 21 29 32 33 33 33 31 30 28 25 22 19 17 19 19/15/2009 15 14 14 13 11 9 10 13 17 22 25 28 29 30 30 30 29 29 21 10 13 12 10 9/16/2009 9 11 10 11 7 7 6 12 20 30 39 46 45 43 43 40 39 39 36 26 19 14 19 19/17/2009 14 13 11 15 12 17 17 18 30 35 40 41 40 39 39 41 41 39 30 25 22 23 23 29/18/2009 16 15 14 12 10 8 7 9 15 21 25 32 36 39 40 41 41 38 31 14 14 19 7 9/19/2009 8 9 9 9 8 6 6 10 18 27 32 40 45 48 50 48 48 47 43 62 48 41 SPN SPN 9/20/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SPZ9/21/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM SPZ SPZ9/22/2009 LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM LIM CAL CAL LIM LIM CAL CAL CAL CAL 33 26 21 21 20 16 15 19/23/2009 9 8 10 11 12 11 10 11 14 24 36 45 47 44 40 39 30 29 25 23 21 19 17 19/24/2009 14 17 17 19 16 14 12 12 14 18 20 25 34 40 42 38 32 29 24 22 20 18 18 19/25/2009 16 13 13 15 16 15 12 11 13 16 17 19 22 30 34 42 36 36 30 22 18 17 15 19/26/2009 12 12 9 8 7 5 7 6 13 17 27 39 42 42 49 52 50 50 41 36 34 31 SPN 29/27/2009 24 28 26 24 22 18 14 19 26 30 35 36 32 28 27 27 23 22 18 16 14 13 12 19/28/2009 10 11 11 9 8 5 3 11 13 16 19 19 21 20 23 22 21 15 13 12 8 6 2 9/29/2009 3 1 2 3 4 8 15 18 21 26 27 33 40 46 48 53 56 56 49 39 32 16 16 19/30/2009 15 9 10 6 12 15 15 17 26 40 48 51 52 51 56 55 55 57 48 42 36 31 30 210/1/2009 28 30 28 22 25 22 22 21 27 29 27 26 24 23 22 21 18 14 11 11 8 7 7 10/2/2009 6 3 2 2 PMA PMA PMA 21 24 28 31 36 43 44 45 46 46 44 41 28 20 19 15 110/3/2009 17 19 20 15 12 14 15 15 15 20 24 29 28 28 27 24 21 18 17 12 12 16 CAL CAL 10/4/2009 17 16 13 12 15 17 17 17 17 16 15 21 20 17 17 16 15 13 12 11 8 8 6 10/5/2009 7 5 6 9 10 6 8 9 16 18 18 19 18 16 17 15 16 16 15 12 8 13 11 110/6/2009 11 13 13 12 12 13 15 15 16 16 16 17 16 17 17 16 17 16 13 13 13 13 11 110/7/2009 15 14 14 12 15 14 14 18 20 21 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 19 17 16 16 16 110/8/2009 15 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 18 18 18 18 17 16 15 14 14 14 110/9/2009 11 11 15 17 17 17 14 16 17 16 19 29 28 27 25 26 28 23 10 0 0 1 2 

10/10/2009 5 6 5 5 5 4 4 6 6 8 14 18 26 28 32 33 26 19 17 18 14 12 SPN 1

Topical 603
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

10/11/2009 12 13 12 13 12 10 8 6 8 9 9 10 10 10 10 11 10 8 9 8 7 6 4 10/12/2009 4 5 5 5 3 2 2 3 5 12 20 23 19 19 18 17 18 16 12 11 11 9 7 10/13/2009 5 10 12 10 11 9 18 19 18 19 18 15 16 18 19 18 17 15 13 12 10 11 10 110/14/2009 10 9 7 6 8 8 6 8 11 14 15 15 15 16 16 15 14 14 12 11 10 9 6 110/15/2009 12 11 8 10 10 8 7 10 13 14 15 15 16 16 15 15 15 12 11 10 8 6 6 110/16/2009 11 12 9 7 8 9 10 15 19 22 27 32 37 39 39 38 35 30 27 27 27 28 27 210/17/2009 19 20 16 17 19 18 14 17 21 24 30 35 45 44 41 38 36 33 23 20 19 16 SPN 110/18/2009 19 19 10 11 15 13 13 20 24 28 31 34 35 37 38 39 39 33 25 23 25 25 20 210/19/2009 23 24 18 12 7 5 6 10 20 35 39 40 34 35 34 QAS 39 36 33 33 31 32 32 310/20/2009 35 33 34 34 29 25 30 29 34 36 37 36 35 36 36 36 35 33 32 33 35 35 36 310/21/2009 36 34 34 35 33 31 27 30 32 34 37 35 36 36 34 34 30 28 26 23 22 25 27 210/22/2009 24 24 22 23 20 24 22 26 25 24 26 30 33 34 36 32 28 25 17 15 18 13 10 110/23/2009 12 11 8 8 9 8 7 9 14 18 22 26 31 34 36 35 34 27 23 21 14 11 17 10/24/2009 6 3 5 10 14 10 6 10 14 27 34 39 42 45 44 44 45 44 37 35 24 28 SPN 210/25/2009 21 22 25 30 30 30 29 31 36 39 40 41 40 41 41 42 43 40 40 38 40 39 39 410/26/2009 39 38 37 36 36 35 32 33 35 35 35 35 33 32 30 28 27 24 22 22 16 16 21 110/27/2009 7 7 7 8 6 7 8 10 10 14 16 19 25 29 33 36 36 32 27 23 17 10 15 110/28/2009 11 6 10 17 26 19 22 28 31 34 35 34 32 31 31 30 30 30 29 26 21 20 18 110/29/2009 13 13 14 11 10 10 10 11 12 14 17 17 16 16 16 14 13 12 11 8 16 26 28 210/30/2009 32 31 28 26 26 34 35 30 24 23 25 25 24 24 23 18 16 14 11 8 6 11 13 10/31/2009 5 3 2 4 4 10 8 14 21 26 33 36 39 41 43 44 42 34 23 15 15 13 CAL CAL 

11/1/2009 4 3 6 13 9 5 2 5 17 29 34 35 37 39 36 36 35 34 31 25 14 14 14 11/2/2009 5 6 7 8 5 7 4 5 18 29 34 37 37 36 39 43 51 42 21 14 13 10 5 11/3/2009 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 9 17 25 33 36 38 41 46 49 48 40 26 24 18 17 11 11/4/2009 8 5 6 4 6 9 7 8 17 29 39 47 50 52 53 50 48 44 26 20 23 21 19 11/5/2009 8 7 6 8 11 11 3 7 15 26 38 44 47 51 58 59 52 45 31 26 20 19 11 111/6/2009 13 11 8 9 14 10 8 12 27 42 55 60 60 60 60 58 58 55 39 33 33 35 30 211/7/2009 29 25 19 21 18 25 23 21 29 39 43 44 44 44 45 44 42 39 34 30 27 25 SPN 211/8/2009 24 20 21 30 31 31 31 29 30 30 32 35 37 38 37 38 36 34 34 33 30 28 26 211/9/2009 24 25 25 22 20 18 16 16 14 17 20 24 29 31 32 31 30 23 17 17 19 20 18 1

11/10/2009 11 10 9 8 9 8 8 8 12 18 25 32 38 41 41 41 37 32 26 24 11 6 3 11/11/2009 2 1 2 3 3 2 7 8 14 24 45 50 51 52 51 49 46 39 35 24 11 11 9 1

Topical 604
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

11/12/2009 9 5 10 7 4 10 11 17 25 34 43 50 54 55 56 57 57 47 44 40 37 31 17 211/13/2009 17 16 15 7 8 11 14 15 23 42 48 47 47 47 46 46 45 41 37 33 35 36 36 311/14/2009 33 37 37 37 36 29 24 23 32 41 44 44 43 43 43 42 42 39 35 33 31 29 SPN 311/15/2009 32 31 32 29 29 26 26 28 31 36 38 37 37 38 36 36 36 33 30 27 27 27 25 211/16/2009 27 24 23 25 22 21 19 20 11 12 16 17 18 24 27 28 27 25 21 30 22 14 16 111/17/2009 11 15 14 12 11 9 11 14 23 30 32 34 36 38 39 39 36 30 25 22 24 23 23 211/18/2009 19 16 14 12 14 11 11 15 23 33 38 41 45 48 48 48 47 40 38 33 21 22 21 111/19/2009 27 21 17 27 29 29 30 32 34 41 47 47 46 46 45 45 44 43 44 43 43 43 43 411/20/2009 43 44 43 43 43 43 41 40 40 37 36 36 36 35 34 32 29 35 26 25 25 26 24 111/21/2009 18 20 25 24 25 24 24 23 24 23 25 25 27 26 26 27 26 25 22 20 23 29 SPN 111/22/2009 15 6 9 10 9 6 7 10 16 23 31 36 38 41 42 42 40 28 35 30 31 31 30 211/23/2009 21 15 14 8 9 12 10 15 21 29 38 40 42 44 46 44 42 37 29 24 22 29 27 211/24/2009 23 27 25 24 19 23 20 24 22 24 25 24 18 19 10 15 16 15 18 18 14 21 24 211/25/2009 20 22 23 19 12 12 8 10 16 22 29 31 38 36 36 37 34 28 15 11 4 2 2 11/26/2009 2 2 4 5 5 7 5 10 17 24 29 32 36 38 38 37 35 29 19 13 10 9 7 11/27/2009 9 13 10 12 6 6 7 6 7 15 19 23 30 38 39 39 37 35 34 32 31 26 28 211/28/2009 14 16 17 18 16 16 24 25 28 36 39 39 39 37 35 36 35 34 35 35 35 34 CAL CAL 11/29/2009 28 27 27 27 27 22 23 24 25 27 32 31 34 33 32 31 30 29 27 26 27 25 21 211/30/2009 27 22 5 3 7 9 10 7 7 7 8 9 9 9 11 9 7 8 7 10 16 19 18 1

12/1/2009 17 16 15 15 15 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 10 9 6 5 6 6 12 11 11 112/2/2009 13 12 12 13 15 16 18 16 17 21 24 26 29 29 30 32 31 29 28 24 22 20 19 112/3/2009 13 15 18 19 17 13 7 5 9 12 16 20 23 25 22 21 19 16 15 12 17 19 16 112/4/2009 17 15 16 15 15 17 16 13 15 12 12 14 13 13 13 14 13 11 13 8 7 5 2 12/5/2009 3 4 6 5 2 1 2 4 9 16 22 26 27 28 30 32 32 27 19 17 15 14 SPN 112/6/2009 22 26 26 29 30 33 33 33 33 34 33 AQI PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA 12/7/2009 PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA LST LST LST LST LST LST PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA12/8/2009 PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA PMA CAL CAL CAL 17 18 18 19 19 21 23 23 22 21 112/9/2009 11 12 15 15 12 7 8 7 10 16 20 23 18 18 18 17 14 10 11 12 14 18 18 2

12/10/2009 19 17 17 17 17 17 16 16 19 20 20 21 23 24 25 24 23 22 22 22 22 21 20 112/11/2009 17 17 17 18 17 16 16 16 16 17 19 20 22 23 23 23 22 21 22 22 22 21 19 112/12/2009 18 18 17 17 15 16 17 17 20 21 20 20 19 21 21 24 20 12 6 5 2 1 SPN 12/13/2009 2 3 4 4 5 10 11 11 11 11 11 13 14 14 16 17 17 19 18 24 29 26 23 1

Topical 605
Date

0:00

1:00

2:00

3:00

4:00

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00 

Central Standard Time

12/14/2009 15 11 8 9 11 11 13 13 12 13 14 14 17 22 19 16 13 10 11 11 7 1 2 12/15/2009 2 1 1 1 2 0 3 7 8 14 15 14 12 7 8 8 7 8 8 9 9 11 11 112/16/2009 13 15 15 16 17 17 16 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 19 18 18 16 14 13 8 16 212/17/2009 18 17 16 18 18 19 18 17 16 15 17 22 23 27 28 27 21 20 15 15 15 13 12 112/18/2009 5 5 6 5 2 2 2 2 6 9 13 16 20 24 27 31 32 27 23 21 16 12 12 12/19/2009 9 12 4 7 8 4 8 7 9 18 23 24 29 31 32 33 29 22 19 16 18 21 SPN 112/20/2009 10 6 3 2 2 6 8 8 15 20 22 25 28 30 33 33 28 25 23 22 13 10 11 12/21/2009 5 4 1 1 2 4 6 11 15 24 33 37 40 40 41 41 39 37 33 29 29 30 31 312/22/2009 29 30 31 32 30 29 27 30 34 35 36 38 37 37 36 35 33 33 33 33 32 31 32 312/23/2009 32 33 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 34 35 36 35 36 37 36 34 32 30 29 28 28 28 212/24/2009 23 24 28 27 25 23 28 27 34 37 37 33 28 21 16 16 17 17 19 21 22 23 23 212/25/2009 26 28 29 30 30 31 30 30 30 32 33 34 35 36 36 37 36 37 32 27 16 17 22 112/26/2009 10 13 17 14 15 10 15 22 23 24 22 25 26 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 23 24 CAL CAL 12/27/2009 20 17 14 12 15 17 20 17 20 27 34 38 38 36 37 39 36 33 29 26 20 18 13 112/28/2009 10 8 12 16 15 18 22 23 21 21 23 24 26 28 27 27 27 24 19 16 15 12 9 12/29/2009 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 12 14 15 18 18 19 19 18 17 20 20 20 18 19 21 212/30/2009 29 27 27 27 25 27 21 15 11 10 8 5 7 9 11 17 20 19 18 22 23 24 24 212/31/2009 19 17 17 15 14 12 11 13 16 18 18 17 22 22 19 21 19 16 12 11 7 11 11 

PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current databut it is not official until it has been certified by our technical staff. Dis collected from TCEQ ambient monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. All times shown are in Local Standard Time.

Topical 606
Area Monitoring Site 2007 2008 2009

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria

 Houston East C1/G316 76 73 79 76

 Houston Aldine C8/AF108/X150 86 83 80 83

 Channelview C15/AH115 78 76 80 78

 Northwest Harris Co. C26/A110/X154 90 76 86 84

 Galveston Airport C34/A109/X152 51 * 

 Hou.DeerPrk2 C35/235/1001/AFH139FP239 86 76 82 81

 Seabrook Friendship Park C45 85 71 79 78

 Houston Bayland Park C53/A146 84 83 86 84

 Conroe Relocated C78/A321 76 73 65 71

 Houston Regional Office C81 68 68 80 72

 Manvel Croix Park C84 86 75 91 84

 Clinton C403/C304/AH113 74 71 78 74

 Houston North Wayside C405 78 70 69 72

 Houston Monroe C406 72 72 71 71

 Lang C408 73 71 81 75

 Houston Croquet C409 74 76 80 76

 Houston Westhollow C410 84 82 71 79

 Houston Texas Avenue C411 76 71 79 75

 Park Place C416 85 76 73 78

 HRM-3 Haden Road C603/A114 75 71 76 74

 Wallisville Road C617 92 85 75 84

 Danciger C618 77 77 74 76

 Mustang Bayou C619 86 75 71 77

 Texas City 34th St. C620 80 72 73 75

 Lynchburg Ferry C1015/A165 71 65 * 73 69

 Lake Jackson C1016 72 76 76 74

 Galveston 99th St. C1034/A320/X183 87 69 76 77

* The value shown for this site does not represent an entire year's worth of data.

PLEASE NOTE: This data has not been verified by the TCEQ and may change. This is the most current data but it is not official until it has been certified by our 

technical staff. Data is collected from TCEQ ambient monitoring sites and may include data collected by other outside agencies. This data is updated hourly. 

All times shown are in Local Standard Time.

Fourth Highest Annual Average

Compliance with Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

 Three-Year 

Avg

Topical 607
Attachment 3.3.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Listing of Public Water System Wells 

Topical 608
Attachment 3.3.1 

Public Water System Wells w/in 2 Miles of Hastings MVA Project Area 

Public Water Systems PWS_ID Depth

ALVIN PANTRY 261 CITGO 0200302 350 

BRAZORIA COUNTY RESOFT PARK 0200552 357 

CEDAR GROVE PARK 0200353 585 

CHAPLINES MOBILE HOME PARK 0200181 125 

CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD 0840002 650 

CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD 0840002 602 

CITY OF FRIENDSWOOD 0840002 635 

CITY OF PEARLAND 0200008 674 

COUNTRY CREEK ESTATES WATER SYSTEM 0200337 380 

FLORA 6 0200153 349 

GENES COUNTRY STORE 0200559 100 

HASTINGS HOMEOWNERS WATER SYSTEM 0200218 373 

HEIGHTS COUNTRY SUBDIVISION 0200349 375 

HEIGHTS COUNTRY SUBDIVISION 0200349 383 

KWIK E MART 0200445 328 

LA CASITA RESTAURANT 0200266 350 

MANSFIELD MOBILE HOME PARK 2 0200191 350 

MEADOWLAND SUBDIVISION 0200347 388 

MEADOWVIEW SUBDIVISION 0200189 565 

MEADOWVIEW SUBDIVISION 0200189 364 

MOORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM 0200094 363 

MOORELAND SUBDIVISION WATER SYSTEM 0200094 460 

MORELAND SUBDIVISION BLOCK 1&2 0200226 375 

MORELAND SUBDIVISION BLOCK 3&4 0200227 361 

OAK HOLLOW MOBILE HOME PARK 0200055 350 

PALMETTO SUBDIVISION 0200242 421 

PALMETTO SUBDIVISION 0200242 455 

PINE COLONY MOBILE HOME PARK 0200419 300 

PLEASANT MEADOWS SUBDIVISION 0200223 451 

PLEASANTDALE SUBDIVISION 0200248 395 

RYAN LONG SUBDIVISION 2 WATER SYSTEM 0200108 355 

SPIN IN MARKET 11 0200406 

VILLAGE TRACE WATER SYSTEM 0200341 622 

WELLBORN ACRES 0200211 322 

Topical 609
Attachment 3.4.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Detailed Soil Type Descriptions 

Bernard Clay Loam 

Bernard-Edna Complex 

Lake Charles Clay 

Topical 610
Brazoria County, Texas

7—Bernard clay loam

Map Unit Setting

Elevation: 10 to 150 feet

Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 50 inches

Mean annual air temperature: 68 to 70 degrees F

Frost-free period: 250 to 300 days

Map Unit Composition

Bernard and similar soils: 85 percent

Minor components: 15 percent

Description of Bernard

Setting

Landform: Meander scrolls

Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf

Down-slope shape: Linear

Across-slope shape: Linear

Parent material: Loamy fluviomarine deposits of late pleistocene age

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 1 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low

to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 20 percent

Available water capacity: High (about 9.4 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w

Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w

Ecological site: Blackland 24-44" PZ (R150AY526TX)

Typical profile

0 to 13 inches: Clay loam

13 to 65 inches: Clay

65 to 69 inches: Silty clay

Minor Components

Edna

Percent of map unit: 10 percent

Landform: Flats

Ecological site: Claypan Prairie 28-44" PZ (R150AY528TX)

Lake charles

Percent of map unit: 2 percent

Map Unit Description: Bernard clay loam–Brazoria County, Texas Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 1 of 2

Topical 611
Bernard

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Morey

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Unnamed, hydric minor components

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Landform: Depressions

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Brazoria County, Texas

Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 26, 2009

Map Unit Description: Bernard clay loam–Brazoria County, Texas Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 2 of 2

Topical 612
Brazoria County, Texas

8—Bernard-Edna complex

Map Unit Setting

Elevation: 10 to 150 feet

Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 52 inches

Mean annual air temperature: 68 to 72 degrees F

Frost-free period: 250 to 330 days

Map Unit Composition

Bernard and similar soils: 60 percent

Edna and similar soils: 20 percent

Minor components: 20 percent

Description of Bernard

Setting

Landform: Meander scrolls

Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf

Down-slope shape: Linear

Across-slope shape: Linear

Parent material: Loamy fluviomarine deposits of late pleistocene age

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 1 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low

to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Depth to water table: About 6 to 18 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 20 percent

Available water capacity: High (about 9.3 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w

Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w

Ecological site: Blackland 24-44" PZ (R150AY526TX)

Typical profile

0 to 12 inches: Clay loam

12 to 60 inches: Clay

60 to 64 inches: Silty clay

Description of Edna

Setting

Landform: Flats

Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf

Microfeatures of landform position: Pimple mounds

Down-slope shape: Linear

Across-slope shape: Linear

Map Unit Description: Bernard-Edna complex–Brazoria County, Texas Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 1 of 2

Topical 613
Parent material: Loamy fluviomarine deposits of late pleistocene age

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 1 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Somewhat poorly drained

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low

to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Depth to water table: More than 80 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent

Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)

Available water capacity: Moderate (about 8.8 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): 3w

Land capability (nonirrigated): 3w

Ecological site: CLAYEY BOTTOMLAND 25-35" PZ (R150AY527TX)

Typical profile

0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam

9 to 48 inches: Clay

48 to 60 inches: Clay

Minor Components

Leton

Percent of map unit: 10 percent

Landform: Deltas

Ecological site: Lowland 35-56" PZ (R150AY537TX)

Lake charles

Percent of map unit: 5 percent

Aris

Percent of map unit: 5 percent

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Brazoria County, Texas

Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 26, 2009

Map Unit Description: Bernard-Edna complex–Brazoria County, Texas Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 2 of 2

Topical 614
Brazoria County, Texas

24—Lake Charles clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Map Unit Setting

Elevation: 10 to 100 feet

Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 55 inches

Mean annual air temperature: 68 to 70 degrees F

Frost-free period: 250 to 280 days

Map Unit Composition

Lake charles and similar soils: 95 percent

Minor components: 5 percent

Description of Lake Charles

Setting

Landform: Flats

Landform position (three-dimensional): Talf

Microfeatures of landform position: Gilgai

Down-slope shape: Linear

Across-slope shape: Linear

Parent material: Clayey fluviomarine deposits of late pleistocene age

Properties and qualities

Slope: 0 to 1 percent

Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches

Drainage class: Moderately well drained

Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low

to moderately low (0.00 to 0.06 in/hr)

Depth to water table: More than 80 inches

Frequency of flooding: None

Frequency of ponding: None

Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 20 percent

Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)

Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0

Available water capacity: High (about 10.8 inches)

Interpretive groups

Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w

Land capability (nonirrigated): 2w

Ecological site: Blackland 24-44" PZ (R150AY526TX)

Typical profile

0 to 13 inches: Clay

13 to 40 inches: Clay

40 to 64 inches: Clay

64 to 80 inches: Clay

Minor Components

Bernard

Percent of map unit: 2 percent

Map Unit Description: Lake Charles clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes–Brazoria

County, Texas

Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 1 of 2

Topical 615
Pledger

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Edna

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Landform: Flats

Bacliff

Percent of map unit: 1 percent

Landform: Depressions on flats

Microfeatures of landform position: Gilgai

Data Source Information

Soil Survey Area: Brazoria County, Texas

Survey Area Data: Version 8, Oct 26, 2009

Map Unit Description: Lake Charles clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes–Brazoria

County, Texas

Hastings MVA Study Area

Natural Resources

Conservation Service

Web Soil Survey

National Cooperative Soil Survey

2/15/2010

Page 2 of 2

Topical 616
Attachment 3.5.1 

Hastings MVA Project Area 

Listing of State and Federal Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 

In Brazoria County 

Topical 617
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 1 of 5

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Last Revision: 2/2/2010 8:23:00 AM

resident of the Texas Gulf Coast; brackish marshes and shallow salt ponds and tidal flats; nests on ground or 

in trees or bushes, on dry coastal islands in brushy thickets of yucca and prickly pear

Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens T

Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis

found primarily near rivers and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water; communally roosts, 

especially in winter; hunts live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds 

Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis DL E

salt, brackish, and freshwater marshes, pond borders, wet meadows, and grassy swamps; nests in or along 

edge of marsh, sometimes on damp ground, but usually on mat of previous year's dead grasses; nest usually 

hidden in marsh grass or at base of Salicornia 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL T

year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from 

more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range 

of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low-altitude 

migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.

American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum DL T

migrant throughout state from subspecies’ far northern breeding range, winters along coast and farther 

south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and 

barrier islands; low-altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, 

and barrier islands.

Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius DL

both subspecies migrate across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter 

along coast and farther south; subspecies (F. p. anatum) is also a resident breeder in west Texas; the two 

subspecies’ listing statuses differ, F.p. tundrius is no longer listed in Texas; but because the subspecies are 

not easily distinguishable at a distance, reference is generally made only to the species level; see subspecies 

for habitat.

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus DL T

wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast; beaches and bayside mud or salt flats

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus LT T

wintering individuals (not flocks) found in weedy fields or cut-over areas where lots of bunch grasses occur 

along with vines and brambles; a key component is bare ground for running/walking

Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis LE E

largely coastal and near shore areas, where it roosts and nests on islands and spoil banks

Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii

historic; nonbreeding: grasslands, pastures, plowed fields, and less frequently, marshes and mudflats

BIRDS Federal Status State Status

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Topical 618
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 2 of 5

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Sharpnose shiner Notropis oxyrhynchus C

coastal waterways below reservoirs to gulf; spawns January to February in ocean, larva move to coastal 

waters, metamorphose, then females move into freshwater; most aquatic habitats with access to ocean, 

muddy bottoms, still waters, large streams, lakes; can travel overland in wet areas; males in brackish 

estuaries; diet varies widely, geographically, and seasonally

American eel Anguilla rostrata

endemic to Brazos River drainage; also, apparently introduced into adjacent Colorado River drainage; large 

turbid river, with bottom a combination of sand, gravel, and clay-mud

Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata LE E

FISHES Federal Status State Status

Wood Stork Mycteria americana T

forages in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including saltwater; usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds (i.e. active 

heronries); breeds in Mexico and birds move into Gulf States in search of mud flats and other wetlands, 

even those associated with forested areas; formerly nested in Texas, but no breeding records since 1960

potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast; winters in coastal marshes of Aransas, 

Calhoun, and Refugio counties

Southeastern Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris

wintering migrant along the Texas Gulf Coast beaches and bayside mud or salt flats

Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

predominately 'on the wing'; does not dive, but snatches small fish and squid with bill as it flies or hovers 

over water; breeding April-July 

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus

formerly an uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast

Sooty Tern Sterna fuscata T

White-tailed Hawk Buteo albicaudatus T

Whooping Crane Grus americana LE E

near coast on prairies, cordgrass flats, and scrub-live oak; further inland on prairies, mesquite and oak 

savannas, and mixed savanna-chaparral; breeding March-May

uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi T

prefers freshwater marshes, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields, but will attend brackish and saltwater habitats; 

nests in marshes, in low trees, on the ground in bulrushes or reeds, or on floating mats

BIRDS Federal Status State Status

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Topical 619
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 3 of 5

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

stable substrate, rock, hard mud, silt, and soft bottoms, often buried deeply; east and central Texas, Red 

through San Antonio River basins

Rock pocketbook Arcidens confragosus

Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa

False spike mussel Quadrula mitchelli T

substrates of cobble and mud, with water lilies present; Rio Grande, Brazos, Colorado, and Guadalupe 

(historic) river basins

mud, sand, and gravel substrates of medium to large rivers in standing or slow flowing water, may tolerate 

moderate currents and some reservoirs, east Texas, Red through Guadalupe River basins

Smooth pimpleback Quadrula houstonensis T

MOLLUSKS Federal Status State Status

dense chaparral thickets; mesquite-thorn scrub and live oak mottes; avoids open areas; breeds and raises 

young June-November

Ocelot Leopardus pardalis LE E

possible as transient; bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of inaccessible forested areas

Jaguarundi Herpailurus yaguarondi LE E

thick brushlands, near water favored; 60 to 75 day gestation, young born sometimes twice per year in March 

and August, elsewhere the beginning of the rainy season and end of the dry season

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus LT T

extirpated; formerly known throughout eastern half of Texas in brushy and forested areas, as well as coastal 

prairies 

West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus LE E

Gulf and bay system; opportunistic, aquatic herbivore

Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta

catholic; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers 

wooded, brushy areas and tallgrass prairie

Red wolf Canis rufus LE E

MAMMALS Federal Status State Status

different life history stages have different patterns of habitat use; young found very close to shore in muddy 

and sandy bottoms, seldom descending to depths greater than 32 ft (10 m); in sheltered bays, on shallow 

banks, and in estuaries or river mouths; adult sawfish are encountered in various habitat types (mangrove, 

reef, seagrass, and coral), in varying salinity regimes and temperatures, and at various water depths, feed on 

a variety of fish species and crustaceans

FISHES Federal Status State Status

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Topical 620
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 4 of 5

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

Gulf and bay systems, and widest ranging open water reptile; omnivorous, shows a preference for jellyfish; 

in the US portion of their western Atlantic nesting territories, nesting season ranges from March to August

Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta LT T

Gulf and bay system primarily for juveniles, adults are most pelagic of the sea turtles; omnivorous, shows a 

preference for mollusks, crustaceans, and coral; nests from April through November

Kemp's Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii LE E

Gulf and bay system, adults stay within the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico; feed primarily on crabs, 

but also snails, clams, other crustaceans and plants, juveniles feed on sargassum and its associated fauna; 

nests April through August

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea LE E

Texas diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin littoralis

Atlantic hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata LE E

Gulf and bay system, warm shallow waters especially in rocky marine environments, such as coral reefs and 

jetties, juveniles found in floating mats of sea plants; feed on sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, molluscs, and 

crustaceans, nests April through November

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii T

perennial water bodies; deep water of rivers, canals, lakes, and oxbows; also swamps, bayous, and ponds 

near deep running water; sometimes enters brackish coastal waters; usually in water with mud bottom and 

abundant aquatic vegetation; may migrate several miles along rivers; active March-October; breeds AprilOctober

Gulf Saltmarsh snake Nerodia clarkii

saline flats, coastal bays, and brackish river mouthss

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas LT T

Gulf and bay system; shallow water seagrass beds, open water between feeding and nesting areas, barrier 

island beaches; adults are herbivorous feeding on sea grass and seaweed; juveniles are omnivorous feeding 

initially on marine invertebrates, then increasingly on sea grasses and seaweeds; nesting behavior extends 

from March to October, with peak activity in May and June 

REPTILES Federal Status State Status

small to moderate streams and rivers as well as moderate size reservoirs; mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel, 

tolerates very slow to moderate flow rates, appears not to tolerate dramatic water level fluctuations, scoured 

bedrock substrates, or shifting sand bottoms, lower Trinity (questionable), Brazos, and Colorado River 

basins 

Texas fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon T

little known; possibly rivers and larger streams, and intolerant of impoundment; flowing rice irrigation 

canals, possibly sand, gravel, and perhaps sandy-mud bottoms in moderate flows; Brazos and Colorado 

River basins 

MOLLUSKS Federal Status State Status

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Topical 621
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept. Page 5 of 5

Annotated County Lists of Rare Species

in Texas on saturated, fine sandy loam soils, along nearly level fringes of deep prairie depressions; also in 

depressional area within coastal prairie remnant on heavy black clay; in Louisiana, most sites are coastal 

prairie on poorly drained sites, some on slightly elevated areas surrounded by standing shallow water, and 

on moderately drained sites; soils include very strongly acid to moderately alkaline silt loams and silty clay 

loams; flowering/fruiting May-June, August-September, and possibly other times in response to rainfall

Texas meadow-rue Thalictrum texanum

Coastal gay-feather Liatris bracteata

Giant sharpstem umbrellasedge

Cyperus cephalanthus

Texas endemic; mostly found in woodlands and woodland margins on soils with a surface layer of sandy 

loam, but it also occurs on prairie pimple mounds; both on uplands and creek terraces, but perhaps most 

common on claypan savannas; soils are very moist during its active growing season; flowering/fruiting 

(January-)February-May, withering by midsummer, foliage reappears in late fall(November) and may 

persist through the winter

Threeflower broomweed Thurovia triflora

Texas endemic; near coast in sparse, low vegetation on a veneer of light colored silt or fine sand over saline 

clay along drier upper margins of ecotone between between salty prairies and tidal flats; further inland 

associated with vegetated slick spots on prairie mima mounds; flowering September-November

Texas windmill-grass Chloris texensis

Texas endemic; sandy to sandy loam soils in relatively bare areas in coastal prairie grassland remnants, 

often on roadsides where regular mowing may mimic natural prairie fire regimes; flowering in fall

Texas endemic; coastal prairie grasslands of various types, from salty prairie on low- lying somewhat saline 

clay loams to upland prairie on nonsaline clayey to sandy loams; flowering in fall

PLANTS Federal Status State Status

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum T

coastal marshes, tidal flats, coves, estuaries, and lagoons behind barrier beaches; brackish and salt water; 

burrows into mud when inactive; may venture into lowlands at high tide

Timber/Canebrake 

rattlesnake

Crotalus horridus T

swamps, floodplains, upland pine and deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland; limestone 

bluffs, sandy soil or black clay; prefers dense ground cover, i.e. grapevines or palmetto

open, arid and semi-arid regions with sparse vegetation, including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby 

trees; soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under 

rock when inactive; breeds March-September

REPTILES Federal Status State Status

BRAZORIA COUNTY

Topical 622
Attachment 7.1 

Hastings MVA Project 

Qualifications of Key Team Members 

Linda Gruver 

Denbury Onshore, LLC 

Susan Hovorka, Ph.D. 

Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin 

Topical 623
LINDA M. GRUVER 

4320 Oak Knoll Drive 

Plano, Texas 75093 

(972) 599-4320 

gruverlm@yahoo.com

SUMMARY

Regulatory and compliance in oil & gas production. Results oriented professional with 

strong knowledge and success with regulatory compliance. Unique blend of functional 

expertise and interpersonal skills, recognized for speed, accuracy and effectiveness of 

business processes. Major strengths in: 

• Mergers and Acquisitions • Staff Development 

• Permitting • Production Analysis 

• Enhanced Recovery Operations • Increased Productivity 

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

DENBURY ONSHORE, LLC 2007-Present 

PLANO, TEXAS 

REGULATORY & COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR 

Manage and monitor all aspects of state regulatory compliance for operation areas in 

Texas, Louisiana and Jackson Dome area in Mississippi of the West Onshore Region. 

• Execute all corporate filings mandated by regulatory agencies for acquisitions and 

divestments. 

• Interact with acquisitions group to insure seamless transitions into Denbury's 

processes and business practices. 

• Supervise two regulatory & compliance specialists and two file clerks. 

KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS ONSHORE LP 2004-2006 

DALLAS, TEXAS 

SENIOR REGULATORY ANALYST 

Manage and monitor state regulatory permitting and associated filings for drilling, 

completions, commingling, annual and semi-annual testing and new field designations for 

the Permian Basin/Mid-Continent operations area of the Onshore Southern Region. 

• Set up administrative and operational processes to insure ease and timeliness of 

several business mergers and acquisitions. 

• Took additional workload with the closing of the Tulsa office. 

• Worked within tight time frames for obtaining drilling permits. 

Topical 624
Page Two Linda M. Gruver 

WESTPORT OIL AND GAS COMPANY 1990-2004 

(formerly Coda Energy, Inc./Belco Energy Corp.) 

DALLAS, TEXAS 

REGULATORY ADMINSTRATOR 

Manage and monitor all aspects of regulatory compliance, both state and federal, for 

approximately 2500 wells located in Texas, Louisiana and Arkansas. Executed all 

corporate filings for wells in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas and Oklahoma. 

• Hired, trained and managed two production analysts. 

• Highly effective communication and rapport established with governmental 

agencies overseeing oil & gas industry. 

DEMINEX U.S. OIL COMPANY 1985-1990 

DALLAS, TEXAS 

PRODUCTION ANALYST 

Production analyst reporting to production records supervisor. Coordinated and 

monitored regulatory compliance and production accounting for properties located in 

Texas, Oklahoma, Illinois and New Mexico. Prepared gross production and petroleum 

excise taxes on enhanced recovery project in Oklahoma. 

PRODUCTION ANALYST 1983-1985 

WORLD PRODUCERS INC. 

DALLAS, TEXAS 

Production analyst reporting to VP of Production. Managed regulatory compliance and 

production accounting for properties in Texas and Louisiana. Audit of severance tax 

resulted in a refund of approximately $5000.00 from State Comptroller’s Office. 

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE 

ASSISTANT EDITOR 

CTB/MCGRAW-HILL 

MONTEREY, CALIFORNA 

Assisted project manager in writing test items for the DMI Mathematics System. 

Prepared final versions of test items, proofread copy and assisted in preparation of 

ancillary test materials. 

 

 

Topical 625
Page Three Linda M. Gruver 

ELEMENTARY TEACHER 

Teaching positions held in Germany, Okinawa, Iceland, Bermuda, Mesquite, Texas, 

Midland, Texas and Corpus Christi, Texas. 

EDUCATION 

BS in Elementary Education 

University of North Texas, Denton, Texas 

Additional coursework at Texas Tech in Lubbock and University of North Texas. 

Topical 626
Susan D. Hovorka 

Professional Summary 

February 9, 2010 

Business address: The University of Texas at Austin 

 Bureau of Economic Geology 

 University Station, Box X 

 Austin, Texas 78713-8924 

 (512) 471-4863 

E-mail address: susan.hovorka@beg.utexas.edu 

Academic Background

B.A. Geology, Earlham College, 1974 

M.A. Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1981 

Ph.D. Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1990 

Areas of Expertise

A. Sedimentology for supporting hydrogeology. 

B. Petrography. 

C. K-12 outreach. 

Professional Work Experience

A. Present Position: Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of 

Texas at Austin (1981 - Present). 

 CO2 sequestration in saline aquifers (1998–present); Edwards aquifer studies (1993–

1995); Austin Chalk study for Superconducting Super Collider project (1990–present); K–

12 outreach coordinator; salt cavern studies in the Midland Basin (1996–1999); Montague 

County saline contamination study (1997–1998); Quaternary studies: geologic analogs for 

engineered barriers (1995–1997); reservoir characterization, Delaware Mountain Group 

(1995–1996); playa basin sediment study, Pantex Plant area (1992–1995); San Andres 

Reservoir Characterization Research Laboratory project (1989–1990); University Lands, 

Siluro-Devonian reservoirs project (1989–1990); host rock analysis, West Texas Waste 

Isolation project (1981–1988). 

B. Geologist, Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, Austin, TX (April 1979 - April 1981). 

 National Uranium Resource Evaluation (NURE) program. 

Professional Societies

Austin Geological Society 

Geological Society of America 

International Association of Sedimentologists 

SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) 

Awards and Honorary Societies

Topical 627
Award of Excellence, Association for Women in Communications, World of Water Simulation, 

2006 

Joseph C. Walter Jr. Award, Jackson School of Geosciences, 2005 

Committee Responsibilities and Professional Activities

Member, Climate Systems Science Theme Hire Review Panel, Jackson School of 

Geosciences, 2007 

Member, Promotions Advisory Committee, Bureau of Economic Geology, 2007 

Chair, K-12 and Public Outreach Committee, John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of 

Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 2006 - present 

Expert Review Panel Member, Greenhouse Gas Program, Review of Weyburn Phase II, 

Regina, Saskatchewan, International Energy Agency (Paris), 2006 

Member, Expert Review Panel, Edwards Aquifer Authority, 2006 

Issue Leader, Monitoring Working Group, International Energy Agency, Greenhouse Gas 

Program, Rome,, 2005 

Member, Organizing Committee, Applied Technology Workshop on CO2 Sequestration, 

Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2005 

Member, Outreach Working Group, Regional Geological Sequestration Partnerships, 2005 - 

2006 

Member, Organizing Committee, Applied Technology Workshop on CO2 Sequestration, 

Society of Petroleum Engineers, 2005 

Member, Geological Storage Working Group, Regional Geological Sequestration 

Partnerships, 2004 - 2005 

Member, Symposium Coordinating Committee, Symposium on Edwards Resources in Central 

Texas: Retrospective and Prospective, South Texas Geological Society and Austin 

Geological Society, 2004 

Session Chair, Symposium on Edwards Water Resources in Central Texas: Retrospective 

and Prospective, South Texas Geological Society and Austin Geological Society, 2004 

Chair, Geoscience Alliance, Jackson School K-12 and Public Outreach Committee, John A. 

and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin, 

Austin, Texas, June, 2002 - 2003 

Member, Texas Education Commission Task Force of Geoscience Education in High School, 

June, 2002 - 2003 

Chairman, Evaporite Research Group, Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists, 1988 

Publications

Published Interviews

Price, Lena, and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, UT takes on carbon research, In The Daily Texan, 

September 11. [Front-page, above-the-fold article in which Hovorka is heavily quoted and 

features a color photo of her.] 

Biello, David, and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Carbon storage: a few good CO2 reservoirs could go 

a long way toward making coal 'clean,' in Climatewire, 

http://www.eenews.net/cw/2009/03/09. [Online article in which Hovorka is heavily quoted.] 

Biello, David, and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Carbon capture and storage: absolute necessity or 

crazy scheme?: 60-Second Science Blog [Online article in which Hovorka is heavily 

quoted.] 

Topical 628
Hovorka, S. D., 2008, Locked up: Can we solve global warming by storing CO2 underground? 

Energy Special Report: GOVERNING.com, 

http://www.governing.com/articles/0809carbon.htm, September (Christopher Swope). 

Clayton, Mark, Smyth, R. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 2007, Earth too warm? Bury the CO2, in 

Christian Science Monitor, July 31, http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0731/po1s05-

wogi.html 

Article in which Smyth and Hovorka are heavily quoted. 

Nowak, Rachel, and Hovorka, S. D., 2007, Biggest carbon-burial test will hunt for leaks: 

NewScientist Environment, February, NewScientist.com [Hovorka quoted extensively] 

Hovorka, S. D., 2006, On-camera interview by Perth, Australia, ABC affilliate on greenhouse 

gas technologies, fall 2006. 

Stowell, Cindy, and Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Solution to warming: go underground: researchers 

consider storing carbon dioxide beneath Earth's surface: Daily Texan, Focus, February 25 

[feature in which Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Geologists bury carbon dioxide in test: The State.com: South Carolina's 

home page, October 5, http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/business/9839112.htm 

[feature in which Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Techline: Frio Formation Test Well injected with carbon dioxide: 

researchers perform small scale, short term carbon sequestration field test: DOE National 

Technology Laboratory web page, November 19, file://C:\\User/CO2iii\press\NETL%20-

%20Carbon%20Sequestration_files\tl_frio_injection [Hovorka prominently featured]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, CEC environmental exchange: carbon sequestration may be answer to 

excess greenhouse gas: CEC Newsletter, July, 

http://www.cechouston.org/newsletter/2004/nl_07-04/carbon.html [feature in which 

Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Texas locks up greenhouse gases―underground: The Christian 

Science Monitor, December 1 [feature in which Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Geologists bury carbon dioxide in test: The Beaumont Enterprise, 

October 5 [feature in which Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Experiment seeks answers on burying carbon dioxide deep 

underground: The University of Texas at Austin web page, December, 

http://www.utexas.edu/research/projects/frio.html [feature in which Hovorka is quoted 

extensively + photo]. 

Laramée, Valéry, and Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Entretien: La séquestration reste encore trop 

chère pour les raffineurs: Enerpresse, November [one-on-one interview]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, A global threat buried: The Times, London, May 20 [feature in which 

Hovorka is quoted extensively]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, New technology shows promise for state of Texas: Midland ReporterTelegram, December 6 [story in which Hovorka is featured]. 

Berger, Eric, Nowlan, Godfrey, and Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Greenhouse gas goes 

underground: geologists catch, compress and bury carbon dioxide from smokestacks: 

Houston Chronicle, City and State, October 5 [feature in which Hovorka is quoted 

extensively + photo]. 

Books, Manuals

Farlow, J. O., Langston, W., Jr., Deschner, E. E., Solis, Richard, Ward, William, Kirkland, B. 

L., Hovorka, Susan, Reece, T. L., and Whitcraft, James, 2006, Texas giants: dinosaurs of 

the Heritage Museum of the Texas Hill Country: The Heritage Museum of the Hill Country, 

105 p. 

Topical 629
Reports, Monographs, Brochures, Pamphlets, Bulletins

Hovorka, S. D., 2000, Characterization of bedded salt for storage caverns—a case study from 

the Midland Basin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology Geological Circular 00-1, 80 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1998, Facies and diagenesis of the Austin Chalk and controls on fracture 

intensity—a case study from North Central Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 98-2, 47 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1998, Permeability structure of the Edwards 

aquifer, South Texas—implications for aquifer management: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 250, 55 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Dutton, A. R., Ruppel, S. C., and Yeh, J. S., 1996, Edwards aquifer groundwater resources: geologic controls on porosity development in platform carbonates, South 

Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of 

Investigations No. 238, 75 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Quaternary evolution of playa lakes on the Southern High Plains—a 

case study from the Amarillo area, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 236, 52 p. 

Gustavson, T. C., Avakian, A. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Origin and development of playa 

basins, sources of recharge to the Ogallala aquifer, Southern High Plains, Texas and 

New Mexico: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of 

Investigations No. 229, 44 p. 

Ruppel, S. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Chert reservoir development in the Devonian 

Thirtyone Formation: Three Bar field, West Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 230, 50 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1994, Water-level controls on halite sedimentation: Permian cyclic evaporites 

of the Palo Duro Basin: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology 

Report of Investigations No. 214, 51 p., 2 pl. 

Paine, J. G., Avakian, A. J., Gustavson, T. C., Hovorka, S. D., and Richter, Bernd, 1994, 

Geophysical and geochemical delineation of sites of saline-water inflow to the Canadian 

River, New Mexico and Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology Report of Investigations No. 225, 73 p. 

Tyler, Noel, Bebout, D. G., Garrett, C. M., Jr., Guevara, E. H., Hocott, C. R., Holtz, M. H., 

Hovorka, S. D., Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Major, R. P., and Ruppel, S. C., 1991, 

Integrated characterization of Permian Basin reservoirs, University Lands, West Texas: 

targeting the remaining resource for advanced oil recovery: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 203, 136 p. 

Fracasso, M. A., and Hovorka, S. D., 1986, Cyclicity in the middle Permian San Andres 

Formation, Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau 

of Economic Geology Report of Investigations No. 156, 48 p. 

Gustavson, T. C., Kreitler, C. W., Bassett, R. T., Budnik, R. T, Ruppel, S. C., Baumgardner, 

R. W., Jr., Caran, S. C., Collins, E. W., Dutton, A. R., Dutton, S. P., Fisher, R. S., Fogg, 

G. E., Hovorka, S. D., Kolker, Allan, McGookey, D. A., Orr, E. D., Roberts, M. P., Senger, 

R. K., Smith, D. A., and Smith, D., 1983, Geology and geohydrology of the Palo Duro 

Basin, Texas Panhandle: a report on the progress of nuclear waste isolation feasibility 

studies (1982): The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology 

Geological Circular 83-4, 156 p. 

Gustavson, T. C., Bassett, R. T., Budnik, R. T, Finley, R. J., Goldstein, A. G., McGowen, J. 

H., Roedder, Edwin, Ruppel, S. C., Baumgardner, R. W., Jr., Bentley, M. E., Dutton, S. 

P., Fogg, G. E., Hovorka, S. D., McGookey, D. A., Ramondetta, P. J., Simpkins, W. W., 

Smith, D., Smith, D. A., Duncan, E., Griffin, J. A., Marritt, R. M., and Naiman, E. R., 1982, 

Geology and geohydrology of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle: a report on the 

Topical 630
progress of nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1981): The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Geological Circular 82-7, 212 p. 

Guidebooks

Hovorka, S. D., and Mace, R. E., 1997, Interplay of karst, fractures, and permeability in the 

Cretaceous Edwards aquifer: analogs for fractured carbonate reservoirs: The University 

of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology Field Trip Guidebook, 35 p. 

Chapters/Sections

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, Christine, and Holtz, M. H., 2005, Testing efficiency of storage in the 

subsurface: Frio Brine Pilot Experiment, in Wilson, M., Morris, T., Gale, J., and 

Thambimuthu, K., eds., Greenhouse gas control technologies: San Diego, Elsevier, 

Volume II, 1361–1372. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1996, Review of Sedimentology and Geochemistry of Modern and Ancient 

Saline Lakes, R. W. Renault and W. M. Last, eds., in Special Publication No. 50 SEPM 

(Society for Sedimentary Geology): Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. 66, no. 1, p. 

294–295. 

Hovorka, S. D., Nance, H. S., and Kerans, Charles, 1994, Chapter 19, Parasequence 

geometry as a control on permeability evolution: examples from the San Andres and 

Grayburg Formations in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, in Loucks, R. G., and 

Sarg, J. F., eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy: recent developments and 

applications: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 57, p. 493–514. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1994, Stratigraphic controls on fracture frequency in the Austin Chalk: data 

from the near surface and its implications for hydrocarbon production, in Austin Chalk 

Symposium: Texas A&M University, p. 1–19. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1989, Depth evolution of the Delaware Basin—Castile/Salado transition, in

Harris, P. M., and Grover, G. A., eds., Subsurface and outcrop examination of the Capitan 

Shelf Margin, north Delaware Basin: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists, Core Workshop No. 13, p. 441–449. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Granger, P. A., 1988, Subsurface to surface correlation of Permian 

evaporites—San Andres–Blaine–Flowerpot relationships, Texas Panhandle, in Morgan, 

W. A., and Babcock, J. A., eds., Permian rocks of the midcontinent: Midcontinent Society 

of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Paper No. 1, p. 137–159. 

Articles

Peer Reviewed

Lu, Jiemin, Partin, J. W., Hovorka, S. D., and Wong, Corinne, 2009, Potential risks to 

freshwater resources as a result of leakage from CO2 geological storage: a batchreaction experiment: Environmental Earth ScienceS, DOI 10.1007/s12665-009-0382-0. 

Ambrose, W. A., Breton, C., Holtz, M. H., Nuñez López, V., Hovorka, S. D., and Duncan, I. J., 

2009, CO2 source-sink matching in the lower 48 United States, with examples from the 

Texas Gulf Coast and Permian Basin: Environmental Geology: Environmental Geology, v. 

57, p. 1537–1551. 

Ambrose, W. A., Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, Nuñez López, Vanessa, Hovorka, S. D., and 

Duncan, I. J., 2008, Geologic factors controlling CO2 storage capacity and permanence: 

case studies based on experience with heterogeneity in oil and gas reservoirs applied to 

CO2 storage: Environmental Geology, v. 54, p. 1619–1633. 

Topical 631
Nuñez López, Vanessa, Wood, D. J., Ambrose, W. A., and Hovorka, S. D., 2008, Quick-look 

assessments to identify optimal CO2 EOR storage sites: Environmental Geology, v. 54, p. 

1695–1706. 

Hovorka, S. D., Holt, R. M., and Powers, D. W., 2007, Depth indicators in Permian Basin 

evaporites, in Schreiber, B. C., Lugli, S., and Babel, M., Evaporites through space and 

time: The Geological Society of London, Special Publication 285, p. 335–364. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Cole, D. R., Hovorka, S. D., Gunter, W. D., Knauss, K. G., and Freifeld, B. M., 

2006, Gas-water-rock interactions in Frio Format on following CO2 injection: implications 

for the storage of greenhouse gases in sedimentary basins: Geology, v. 34, no. 7, p. 577–

580. 

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, Christine, Benson, S. M., Freifeld, B. M., Sakurai, Shinichi, Daley, T. 

M., Kharaka, Y. K., Holtz, M. H., Trautz, R. C., Nance, H. S., Myer, L. R., and Knauss, K. 

G., 2006, Measuring permanence of CO2 storage in saline formations: the Frio 

experiment: Environmental Geosciences, v. 13, no. 2, p. 105–121. 

Freifeld, B. M., Trautz, R. C., Kharaka, Y. K., Phelps, T. J., Myer, L. R., Hovorka, S. D., and 

Collins, D. J., 2005, The U-tube: a novel system for acquiring borehole fluid samples from 

a deep geologic CO2 sequestration experiment: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 

110, B10203, 10 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, Christine, Benson, S. M., Pruess, Karsten, and Knox, P. R., 2004, 

The impact of geological heterogeneity on CO2 storage in brine formations: a case study 

from the Texas Gulf Coast, in Baines, S. J., and Worden, R. H., eds., Geological storage 

of carbon dioxide: Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 233, p. 147–163. 

Mace, R. E., and Hovorka, S. D., 2000, Estimating porosity and permeability in a karstic 

aquifer using core plugs, well tests, and outcrop measurements, in Sasowsky, I. D., and 

Wicks, C. M., eds., Groundwater flow and contaminant transport in carbonate aquifers: 

Rotterdam, A. A. Balkema, p. 93–111. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Quaternary evolution of ephemeral playa lakes on the Southern High 

Plains of Texas, USA: cyclic variation, in lake level recorded in sediments: Journal of 

Paleolimnology, v. 17, p. 131–146. 

Holliday, V. T., Hovorka, S. D., and Gustavson, T. C., 1996, Lithostratigraphy and 

geochronology of fills, in small playa basins on the Southern High Plains, United States: 

Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 108, no. 8, p. 953–956. 

Ruppel, S. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Controls on reservoir development in Devonian 

chert: Permian Basin, Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 79, no. 12, p. 1757–1785. 

Gustavson, T. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1994, Origin of satin spar veins in evaporite basins: 

Journal of Sedimentary Research, v. A64, no. 1, p. 88–94. 

Hovorka, S. D., Nance, H. S., and Kerans, Charles, 1993, Parasequence geometry as a 

control on permeability evolution: examples from the San Andres and Grayburg 

Formations in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico, in Loucks, R. G., and Sarg, J. F., 

eds., Carbonate sequence stratigraphy: recent developments and applications: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists, Memoir 53, p. 493–514. 

Hovorka, S. D., Fisher, W. L., Gao, Guoqiu, and Knauth, L. P., 1993, Marine to non-marine 

facies transition, in Permian evaporites of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas: geochemical 

response: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 105, p. 1119–1134. 

Collins, E. W., Hovorka, S. D., and Laubach, S. E., 1992, Fracture systems of the Austin 

Chalk, North-Central Texas, in Schmoker, J. W., Coalson, E. B., and Brown, C. A., eds., 

Geological studies relevant to horizontal drilling in western North America: Rocky 

Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 75–88. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1992, Halite pseudomorphs after gypsum, in bedded anhydrite—clue to 

gypsum-anhydrite relationships: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 62, no. 6, p. 1098–

1111. 

Topical 632
Bein, Amos, Hovorka, S. D., Fisher, W. L., and Roedder, Edwin, 1991, Fluid inclusions in 

bedded Permian halite, Palo Duro Basin, Texas: evidence for modification of seawater in 

evaporite brine-pools and subsequent early diagenesis: Journal of Sedimentary 

Petrology, v. 61, no. 1, p. 1–14. 

Gao, Guoqiu, Hovorka, S. D., and Posey, H. H., 1990, Limpid dolomite, in Permian San 

Andres halite rocks, Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle: characteristics, possible origin, 

and implications for brine evolution: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, v. 60, no. 1, p. 

118–124. 

Fisher, W. L., and Hovorka, S. D., 1987, Relations between bromide content and depositional 

processes, in bedded halite, Permian San Andres Formation, Palo Duro Basin, Texas: 

Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 2, no. 1, p. 67–82. 

Fracasso, M. A., and Hovorka, S. D., 1987, First occurrence of a phyllodont tooth plate 

(Osteichthyes, Platysomidae) from the Permian San Andres Formation, subsurface, 

Texas Panhandle: Journal of Paleontology, v. 61, no. 2, p. 375–379. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1987, Depositional environments of marine-dominated bedded halite, 

Permian San Andres Formation, Texas: Sedimentology, v. 34, p. 1029–1054. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Petrographic criteria for recognizing post-Permian dissolution of 

evaporites, Donley County, Texas, in Gustavson, T. C., and others, Geology and 

geohydrology of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report on the progress of 

nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1982): The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 83-4, p. 66–74. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Dissolution and recrystallization fabrics in halite and the timing of their 

development, Palo Duro Basin, in Gustavson, T. C., Kreitler, C. W., Bassett, R. L., 

Budnik, R. T., Ruppel, S. C., Baumgardner, R. W., Jr., Caran, S. C., Collins, E. W., 

Dutton, A. R., Dutton, S. P., Fisher, R. S., Fogg, G. E., Hovorka, S. D., Kolker, A., 

McGookey, D. A., Orr, E. D., Roberts, M. P., Senger, R. K., Smith, Dale A., and Smith, D. 

Anderson, Geology and geohydrology of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report 

on the progress of nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1982): The University of 

Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 83-4, p. 58–65. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Sedimentary structures and diagenetic modifications in halite and 

anhydrite, Palo Duro Basin, in Gustavson, T. C., and others, Geology and geohydrology 

of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report on the progress of nuclear waste 

isolation feasibility studies (1982): The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, Geological Circular 83-4, p. 49–57. 

Ruppel, S. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Stratigraphic section along the northwestern margin 

of the Palo Duro Basin: core analysis of DOE–Stone and Webster No. 1 Mansfield test 

well, Oldham County, Texas, in Gustavson, T. C., and others, Geology and geohydrology 

of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report on the progress of nuclear waste 

isolation feasibility studies (1982): The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, Geological Circular 83-4, p. 47–48. 

Ruppel, S. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Stratigraphic section along the northeastern margin 

of the Palo Duro Basin: core analysis of DOE–Stone and Webster No. 1 Sawyer test well, 

Donley County, Texas, in Gustavson, T. C., and others, Geology and geohydrology of the 

Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report on the progress of nuclear waste isolation 

feasibility studies (1982): The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, Geological Circular 83-4, p. 45–46. 

Hovorka, S. D., Naiman, E. R., and McGowen, J. H., 1982, Petrographic summary of Permian 

rocks from the DOE/Gruy Federal No. 1 Grabbe well, Swisher County, in Gustavson, T. 

C., Bassett, R. L., Budnik, R., Finley, R. J., Goldstein, A. G., McGowen, J. H., Roedder, 

E., Ruppel, S. C., Baumgardner, R. W., Jr., Bentley, M. E., Dutton, S. P., Fogg, G. E., 

Hovorka, S. D., McGookey, D. A., Ramondetta, P. J., Simpkins, W. W., Smith, D., Smith, 

D. A., Duncan, E. A., Griffin, J. A., Merritt, R. M., and Naiman, E. R., Geology and 

geohydrology of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle, a report on the progress of 

Topical 633
nuclear waste isolation feasibility studies (1981): The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Geological Circular 82-7, p. 91–100. 

Non-Peer-Reviewed

Nicot, J. -P., Choi, Jong-Won, Meckel, Timothy, Chang, C. Y., Hovorka, S. D., and Solano, 

Silvia, 2009, Results of numerical investigations at SECARB Cranfield, MS field test site, 

in Eighth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration: DOE/NETL, May 4–

7, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 11 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Put it backr, in Laubach, S. E., and Tinker, S. W., eds., 2009, Earth’s 

art: celebrating the Centennial of the Bureau of Economic Geology, 1909–2009: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, p. 130–131. 

Nicot, J. -P., Hovorka, S. D., and Choi, J. -W., 2009, Investigation of water displacement 

following large CO2 sequestration operations, in Energy Procedia (v. 1, no.1), 

Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 

GHGT9, November 16–20, Washington D.C., p. 4411–4418. 

Nicot, J. -P., Oldenburg, C. M., Bryant, S. L., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Pressure 

perturbations from geologic carbon sequestration: area-of-review boundaries and 

borehole leakage driving forces, in Energy Procedia (v. 1, no.1), Proceedings of 9th 

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies GHGT9, November 

16–20, Washington D.C., p. 47–54. 

Hovorka, S. D., Choi, J. -W., Meckel, T. A., Treviño, R. H., Zeng, H., Kordi, M., Wang, F. P., 

and Nicot, J. -P., 2009, Comparing carbon sequestration in an oil reservoir to 

sequestration in a brine formation—field study, in Energy Procedia (v. 1, no. 1), 

Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies 

GHGT9, November 16–20, Washington D.C., p. 2051–2056. 

Smyth, R. C., Hovorka, S. D., Lu, J., Romanak, K. D., Partin, J. W., Wong, C., and Yang, C., 

2009, Assessing risk to fresh water resources from long term CO2 injection—laboratory 

and field studies: Energy Procedia, v. 1, p. 1957–1964. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Frio Brine Pilot: the first U.S. sequestration test: Southwest Hydrology, 

v. 8, no. 5, p. 26, 27, 31. 

Wong, Corinne, Hovorka, Sue, and Meckel, Tip, 2007, Evaluating the mobilization of cations 

from aquifer rocks exposed to high CO2 levels: Gulf Coast Association of Geological 

Societies Transactions, v. 57, p. 797–808. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Thordsen, J. J., Hovorka, S. D., Nance, H. S., Cole, D. R., Phelps, T. J., and 

Knauss, G. K., 2007, Subsurface monitoring of anthropogenic CO2 injected in 

sedimentary basins: results from the Frio-I brine test, Texas, in Bullen, T. D., and Wang, 

Y., Proceedings, 12th International Symposium on Water-Rock Interaction (WRI-12), v. 

1, p. 597–601. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Cole, D. R., Thordsen, J. J., Kakouros, E., Pfiffner, S., and Hovorka, S. D., 

2007, Environmental implications of toxic metals and dissolved organics released as a 

result of CO2 injection into the Frio Formation, Texas, USA, in Proceedings, International 

Symposium on Site Characterization for CO2 Geologic Storage, March 20–22, Berkeley, 

LBNL-59726, p. 214–218. 

Ambrose, W. A., Holtz, M. H., Nuñez-Lopez, Vanessa, Breton, C. L., Gülen, Gürcan, Duncan, 

Ian, Smyth, R. C., Foss, M. M., Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, and Hovorka, S. D., 2006, 

FutureGen: clean-coal and near-zero-emission power generation technology for the Gulf 

Coast: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 56, p. 5–13. 

Duncan, I. J., Ambrose, W. A., Holtz, M. H., Hovorka, S. D., Nuñez-Lopez, Vanessa, 

Esandoh-Yeddu, Joseph, Nicot, J. -P., Smyth, R. C., and Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, 

2006, The Gulf Coast Carbon Center: developing a carbon sequestration industry in the 

Gulf Coast region, in Green house gas technology 8, Trondheim, Norway, June 19–22, 

CD-ROM, 4 p. 

Topical 634
Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Frio Brine Storage Experiment―lessons learned, in 8th International 

Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Trondheim, Norway, June 19–22, 

CD-ROM [6 p.]. 

Duncan, I. J., Ambrose, W. A., Holtz, M. H., Hovorka, S. D., Esandoh-Yeddu, Joseph, Nuñez 

López, Vanessa, Nicot, J. -P., Smyth, R. C., and Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, 2006, 

The Gulf Coast Carbon Center: developing a carbon sequestration industry in the Gulf 

Coast region, in 8th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, 

Trondheim, Norway, June 19–22, CD-ROM [4 p.]. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Put it back―an experiment in returning carbon from burning of fossil 

fuel to the subsurface as carbon dioxide: Houston Geological Society Bulletin, v. 47, no. 

5, p. 34–43. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Frio Brine Pilot Experiment—six months after injection: Greenhouse 

Issues, no. 77, p. 1–3. 

Lindgren, R. J., Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., Worthington, S. R. H., and Painter, Scott, 2005, 

Conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, Texas, in 

U.S. Geological Survey Karst Interest Group Proceedings, Rapid City, South Dakota, 

September 12–15: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5160, p. 

48–57. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Stop 5: 337 Loop roadcut, New Braunfels, in Schindel, G. M., Hoyt, J. 

R., Johnson, S. B., Veni, G., Wilcox, B. P., Munster, C. L., Hovorka, S. D., Kreitler, C. W., 

and Shade, B. L., eds., An introduction to the Balcones Fault Zone segment of the 

Edwards Aquifer in South-Central Texas: an event of the 2005 Ground Water Summit: 

National Ground Water Association and Edwards Aquifer Authority, p. 5-1–5-2 + 2 figs. 

Hovorka, S. D., Hotinski, Roberta, and Friedmann, S. J., 2005, Audience-pleasing physical 

models to support CO2 outreach, in Proceedings, Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon 

Capture and Sequestration: DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2–5, 9 p., CD-ROM. 

McCallum, S. D., Riestenberg, D. E., Cole, D. R., Freifeld, B. M., Trautz, R. C., Hovorka, S. 

D., and Phelps, T. J., 2005, Monitoring geologically sequestered CO2 during the Frio 

Brine Pilot Test using perfluorocarbon tracers, in Proceedings, Fourth Annual Conference 

on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, May 2–5, 9 p., CD-ROM. 

Hovorka, S. D., Collins, Dan, Benson, Sally, Myer, Larry, Byrer, Charles, and Cohen, Karen, 

2005, Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: eight months after injection, in Proceedings, Fourth 

Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, 6 p., CD-ROM. 

Mace, R. E., Marrett, R. A., and Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Fractal scaling of secondary porosity in 

karstic exposures of the Edwards aquifer, in Beck, B. F., ed., Sinkholes and the 

engineering and environmental impacts of karst: Proceedings, Tenth Multidisciplinary 

Conference, San Antonio, September 24–28: American Society of Civil Engineers, 

Geotechnical Special Publication No. 144, p. 178–187. 

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, Christine, and Holtz, M. H., 2004, Testing efficiency of storage in the 

subsurface: Frio Brine Pilot Experiment, in 7th International Conference on Greenhouse 

Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, September 5–9, unpaginated [5 p.]. 

Kim, E. M., Hovorka, S. D., and Holtz, M. H., 2004, The Gulf Coast Carbon Center: carbon 

sequestration opportunities in geologic formations: Gulf Coast Association of Geological 

Societies Transactions, v. 54, p. 281–288. 

Collins, E. W., Tremblay, T. A., Raney, J. A., Paine, J. G., Hovorka, S. D., Gutiérrez, Roberto, 

Smyth, R. C., and Hepner, Tiffany, 2004, Geologic mapping and construction of digital 

map data sets of the Edwards aquifer region, Central Texas, in Hovorka, Sue, ed., 

Edwards water resources in Central Texas: retrospective and prospective: South Texas 

Geological Society and Austin Geological Society, CD-ROM, p. 1–15. 

Lindley, A. L., and Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Applying statistical analysis to cave maps to infer 

controls on conduit development in the Edwards aquifer of Central and South Texas, in 

Topical 635
Hovorka, S. D., ed., Edwards water resources in Central Texas: retrospective and 

prospective: South Texas Geological Society and Austin Geological Society, CD-ROM [15 

p.] 

Hovorka, S. D., and Green, Ron, 2004, Role of conduits in flow in the Edwards aquifer: results 

and questions, in Hovorka, S. D., ed., Edwards water resources in Central Texas: 

retrospective and prospective, CD-ROM [10 p.] 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Progress on the Frio Brine Pilot Experiment: Greenhouse Issues, No. 

72, May, p. 6–7. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Knox, P. R., 2003, Frio brine sequestration pilot in the Texas Gulf Coast, 

in Gale, J., and Kaya, Y., Greenouse gas control technologies: Proceedings, 6th 

International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, October 1–4, Kyoto, 

Japan: New York, Pergamon, p. 583–587. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Knox, P. R., 2003, Frio Brine Sequestration Pilot in the Texas Gulf Coast, 

in Gale, J., and Kaya, Y., eds., Greenhouse gas control technologies: Proceedings of the 

6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Volume I : 

Amsterdam, Elsevier, p. 583–587. 

Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., and Bennett, P. C., 2002, Effect of Pleistocene depositional 

heterogeneity on movement of a subsurface crude-oil spill, San Patricio County, South 

Texas: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 52, p. 207–216. 

Knox, P. R., Hovorka, S. D., and Oldenburg, C. M., 2002, Potential new uses for old gas 

fields: sequestration of carbon dioxide: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 

Transactions, v. 52, p. 563–571. 

Knox, P. R., and Hovorka, S. D., 2001, Geological sequestration of greenhouse gases: 

opportunities for industry academe research partnerships: Houston Geological Society 

Bulletin, v. 43, no. 5, p. 26–33. 

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, C. A., Knox, P. R., Green, C. T., Preuss, K., and Benson, S. M., 

2001, Evaluation of brine-bearing sands of the Frio Formation, Upper Texas Gulf Coast 

for geologic sequestration of CO2, in Proceedings, First National Conference on Carbon 

Sequestration, May 14–17, Washington, D.C., sponsored by National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, 13 p., 7 figs, on CD. 

Doughty, C. A., Preuss, K., Benson, S. M., Hovorka, S. D., and Green, C. T., 2001, Capacity 

investigation of brine-bearing sands of the Frio Formation for geologic sequestration of 

CO2, in Proceedings, First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration, May 14–17, 

Washington, D.C., sponsored by National Energy Technology Laboratory, CD-ROM. 

Hovorka, S. D., Romero, M. L., Warne, A. G., Ambrose, W. A., Tremblay, T. A., and Treviño, 

R. H., 2000, A tool to facilitate modeling and pilot projects for sequestration of carbon 

dioxide in saline formations: American Chemical Society, Division of Fuel Chemistry, 6 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2000, Deep-water to shallow-water transition in evaporites in the Delaware 

Basin, Texas, in Lindsay, R. F., Trentham, R. C., Ward, R. F., and Smith, A. H., eds., 

Classic Permian geology of West Texas and southeastern New Mexico: 75 years of 

Permian Basin oil and gas exploration and development: West Texas Geological Society, 

Geo 2000 field trip guidebook Publication 00-108, p. 273–299. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2000, Understanding the processes of salt dissolution and subsidence, in 

Sinkholes and unusual subsidence over solution mined caverns and salt and potash 

mines, Technical Session: Solution Mining Research Institute Fall Meeting, p. 12–23. 

Paine, J. G., Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., Blum, Martina, Mahoney, M., and Sullivan, E. J., 

1998, Brine in the near-surface environment: determining salinization extent, identifying 

sources, and estimating chloride mass using surface, borehole, and airborne EM, in Bell, 

R. S., Powers, M. H., and Larson, Timothy, eds., Proceedings, Symposium on the 

Application of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems: Environmental 

and Engineering Geophysical Society, p. 215–219. 

Topical 636
Hovorka, S. D., 1996, High-frequency cyclicity during eustatic sea-level rise: Edwards Group 

of the Balcones Fault Zone: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, 

v. 46, p. 179–184. 

Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1995, Regional distribution of permeability in 

the Edwards aquifer: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 45, 

p. 259–265. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Nance, H. S., 1994, Dynamic depositional and early diagenetic 

processes in a deep-water shelf setting, Upper Cretaceous Austin Chalk, North Texas: 

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 44, p. 269–276. 

Gustavson, T. C., Holliday, V. T., and Hovorka, S. D., 1994, Development of playa basins, 

Southern High Plains, Texas and New Mexico, in Urban, L. V., and Wyatt, A. W., eds., 

Proceedings, Playa Basin Symposium: Texas Tech University, Water Resources Center, 

p. 5–14. 

Hovorka, S. D., Dutton, A. R., Ruppel, S. C., and Yeh, Joseph, 1994, Sedimentologic and 

diagenetic controls on aquifer properties, Lower Cretaceous Edwards carbonate aquifer, 

Texas: implications for aquifer management: Gulf Coast Association of Geological 

Societies Transactions, v. 44, p. 277–284. 

Scanlon, B. R., Goldsmith, R. S., Hovorka, S. D., Mullican, W. F., III, and Xiang, Jiannan, 

1994, Evidence for focused recharge beneath playas in the Southern High Plains, Texas, 

in Urban, L. V., and Wyatt, A. W., eds., Proceedings, Playa Basin Symposium: Texas 

Tech University, Water Resources Center, p. 87–95. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1991, Petrographic and facies study of parasequence 7, upper San Andres, 

of the Lawyer Canyon area, Algerita Escarpment: development of moldic porosity, in 

Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Senger, R. K., Fogg, G. E., Nance, H. S., Kasap, Ekrem, 

and Hovorka, S. D., Characterization of reservoir heterogeneity in carbonate-ramp 

systems, San Andres/Grayburg, Permian Basin: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Reservoir Characterization Research Laboratory, final 

contract report, p. 91–115. 

Ruppel, S. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1990, Controls on reservoir heterogeneity in the Three Bar 

Devonian chert reservoir, Andrews County, Texas, in Flis, J. E., and Price, R. C., eds., 

Permian Basin oil and gas fields: innovative ideas in exploration and development: West 

Texas Geological Society Symposium, Publication No. 90-87, p. 57–73. 

Kreitler, C. W., Fisher, W. L., Senger, R. K., Hovorka, S. D., and Dutton, A. R., 1985, 

Hydrology of an evaporite aquitard: Permian evaporite strata, Palo Duro Basin, Texas: 

International Association of Hydrogeologists Memoires, v. 17, part 1, p. 150–168. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Carbonate-anhydrite-halite cycles, San Andres Formation (Permian), 

Palo Duro Basin, Texas, in Shaw, R. L., and Pollan, B. J., eds., Permian Basin cores—a 

workshop: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists Core Workshop No. 2, 

p. 197–224. 

Internet/Web Sites/Modules

Hovorka, S. D., Romero, M. L., Warne, A. G., Ambrose, W. A., Tremblay, T. A., Treviño, R. 

H., and Sasson, D., 2000, Sequestration of greenhouse gases in brine formations: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, hypertext publication at 

http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/dispslsaln.htm. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Andrews, J. R., 2000, VRML model of the Edwards aquifer: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, hypertext publication at 

http://activink.net. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Andrews, J. R., 2000, Using GIS to examine Earth systems: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, hypertext publication at 

http://activink.net. 

Topical 637
Hovorka, S. D., Andrews, J. R., and Aslan, Andres, 1999, Geo-environmental characterization 

of the Delta del Orinoco: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

hypertext publication at http://www.beg.utexas.edu/geoenvirn/orinoco/summary/ 

main/front.htm. 

Abstracts

Romanak, K. D., Smyth, R. C., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Modeling shallow 

groundwater geochemistry and carbon isotopes: test of methodology for CO2 storage 

evaluation at an EOR site, West Texas, USA (abs.): Eos, v. 90, no. 22, Abstract V13C-03. 

Meckel, Tip, Hovorka, S. D., and Treviño, R. H., 2009, Continuous real-time pressure 

monitoring during a CO2-EOR project from Cranfield, MS, and relevance for geologic 

sequestration (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention, 

v. 18, p. 141. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Risks and benefits of geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide—how do 

the pieces fit? (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention, 

v. 18, p. 97. 

Yang, C., Romanak, K. D., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, CO2 release experiment in the shallow 

subsurface at the Brackenridge Field Laboratory and numerical modeling (abs.): Eos, v. 

90, no. 52, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract No. H21E-0895. 

Smyth, R. C., Romanak, K. D., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Shallow groundwater 

monitoring at the SACROC oilfield, Scurry County, TX: good news for geologic storage of 

CO2 despite a complex hydrogeologic and geochemical setting (abs.): Eos, v. 90, no. 52, 

Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract No. H13I-02. 

Yang, C., Romanak, K. D., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, CO2 release experiment in the shallow 

subsurface at the Brackenridge Field Laboratory and numerical modeling, (abs.): Eos, v. 

90. 

Smyth, R. C., Romanak, K. D., Yang, C., and Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Shallow groundwater 

monitoring at the SACROC oilfield, Scurry County, TX: good news for geologic storage of 

CO2 despite a complex hydrogeologic and geochemical setting, (abs.): Eos, v. 90. 

Smyth, R. C., Hovorka, S. D., Romanak, K. D., Partin, J. W., Meckel, Timothy, Wong, 

Corinne, Nicot, J. -P., and Holt, R. M., 2008, Assessing risk to fresh water resources from 

long term CO2 injection—laboratory and field studies (abs.), in 9th International 

Conference on Greenhouse Gas Technologies, November 16–20, Washington, D.C. 

Nicot, J. -P., and Hovorka, S. D., 2008, Role of geochemical monitoring in geologic 

sequestration (abs.), in 2008 UIC Conference : What's hot in UIC!: Ground Water 

Protection Council, New Orleans, January 14–16, p. 24. 

Kharaka, Yousif, Bullen, T. D., Knauss, Kevin, Cole, D. R., and Hovorka, S. D., 2008, 

Potential environmental issues of CO2 storage in saline aquifers: metal mobilization from 

the Frio-II brine test, Texas, USA (abs.): AAPG 2008 Annual Convention and Exhibition 

Abstracts Volume, v. 17, p. 108. 

Choi, J.-W., Nicot, J. -P., Meckel, T. A., Chang, K.-W., and Hovorka, S. D., 2008, Preliminary 

results of numerical investigations at SECARB Cranfield, MS, field test site (abs.): Eos, v. 

89, no. 53, Fall Meeting Supplement, Abstract U41C-22. 

Treviño, R. H., Hovorka, S. D., Ambrose, W. A., and Meckel, T. A., 2008, Sequence 

stratigraphy and reservoir characterization of Cranfield field, Mississippi—an enhanced oil 

recovery and carbon sequestration study (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 40. 

Meckel, Tip, and Hovorka, S. D., 2007, Gulf Coast stacked storage field test (abs.), in Sixth 

Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration: Expediting deployment of 

industrial scale systems: Can it be done? How? Concerns to be addressed, May 7–10, 

Pittsburgh, Abstract #085. 

Topical 638
Smyth, R. C., Hovorka, S. D., and Meckel, T. A., 2007, Potential saline reservoir sinks for 

storage of CO2 generated in North and South Carolina (abs.), in Sixth Annual Conference 

on Carbon Capture & Sequestration: Expediting deployment of industrial scale systems: 

Can it be done? How? Concerns to be addressed, May 7–10, Pittsburgh, Abstract #138. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Bullen, T. D., Hovorka, S. D., Cole, D. R., Knauss, K. G., and Freifeld, B. M., 

2007, Mobilization of metals as a result of CO2 injection into sedimentary basins: results 

from the Frio-II Brine Test, Texas (abs.), in Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture 

& Sequestration: Expediting deployment of industrial scale systems: Can it be done? 

How? Concerns to be addressed, May 7–10, Pittsburgh, Abstract #149. 

Hovorka, S. D., Daley, T. M., Freifeld, B. M., Kane, Jeff, Kharaka, Y. K., Benson, S. M., 

Phelps, T. J., Pope, Gary, and Doughty, C. A., 2007, Testing interactions of buoyancy, 

multiphase flow, and geochemical interactions: preliminary results for the Frio II Test 

(abs.), in Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration: Expediting 

deployment of industrial scale systems: Can it be done? How? Concerns to be 

addressed, May 7–10, Pittsburgh, Abstract #070. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Bullen, T. D., Hovorka, S. D., Cole, D. R., Knauss, K. G., and Freifeld, B. M., 

2007, Mobilization of metals as a result of CO2 injection into sedimentary basins: results 

from the Frio-II Brine Test, Texas, USA (abs.), in 6th Annual Conference on Carbon 

Capture and Storage, Pittsburgh, May 7–10. 

Kharaka, Y. K., Thordsen, J. J., Cole, D. R., Hovorka, S. D., and Bullen, T. D., 2007, Potential 

environmental issues of CO2 storage in saline aquifers: geochemical results from the Frio 

Brine Pilot Tests, Texas, USA (abs.), in Proceedings, Goldschmidt Conference, Cologne, 

Germany, August 19–24. 

Smyth, R. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Potential of subseafloor Atlantic units for geologic 

sequestration of carbon dioxide (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs, v. 38, no. 7, p. 15. 

Nicot, J. -P., Saripalli, Prasad, Hovorka, S. D., and Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, 2006, 

Leakage pathways from potential CO2 storage sites in the Texas Gulf coast and 

implications for permitting (abs.), in Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & 

Sequestration: Taking steps toward deployment utilizing the accumulated knowledge 

base, May 8–11, Alexandria, Virginia, unpaginated. 

Hovorka, S. D., Smyth, R. C., and Paine, J. G., 2006, Downscaling capacity from a regional to 

a site scale--a case for the southeastern U.S. (abs.), in Fifth Annual Conference on 

Carbon Capture & Sequestration: Taking steps toward deployment utilizing the 

accumulated knowledge base, May 8–11, Alexandria, Virginia, unpaginated. 

Lindgren, Richard, Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., Worthington, S. R., and Painter, S. L., 2006, 

Conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio Region, Texas 

(abs.), in Abstract book of the 2006 Ground Water Summit: National Ground Water 

Association, p. 153. 

Ambrose, W. A., Holtz, M. H., Nuñez López, Vanessa, Hovorka, S. D., Guevara, E. H., 

Breton, Caroline, and Christopher, Charles, 2006, Structural and stratigraphic controls on 

storage and CO2 EOR potential in major basins in Texas, California, Illinois, and 

Michigan (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention, v. 15, 

p. 4. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Update on the Frio Brine Storage Project--progress on estimating 

permanence (abs.), in Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration: 

Taking steps toward deployment utilizing the accumulated knowledge base, May 8–11, 

Alexandria, Virginia, unpaginated. 

Nicot, J. -P., Hovorka, S. D., and Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, 2006, Impact of carbon 

storage on shallow groundwater and pressure-controlled regional capacity for brine 

aquifers (abs.), in American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, California, 

December 12. 

Topical 639
Ambrose, W. A., Breton, C. L., Duncan, Ian, Holtz, M. H., Hovorka, S. D., Nuñez-Lopez, 

Vanessa, and Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, 2006, Source-sink matching and potential 

for carbon capture and storage in the Gulf Coast, in Proceedings of the 2006 UIC 

Conference of the Groundwater Protection Council, Abstract 16. 

Nicot, J. -P., Hovorka, S. D., Knox, P. R., and Naing, Thet, 2006, Area of review: how large is 

large enough for carbon storage? in Proceedings of the 2006 UIC Conference of the 

Groundwater Protection Council, Abstract 17. 

Hovorka, S. D., Sakurai, Shinichi, Kharaka, Y. K., Nance, H. S., Doughty, Christine, Benson, 

S. M., Freifeld, B. M., Trautz, R. C., Phelps, Tommy, and Daley, T. M., 2006, Monitoring 

CO2 storage in brine formations: lessons learned from the Frio field text one year post 

injection, in Proceedings of the 2006 UIC Conference of the Groundwater Protection 

Council, Abstract 19. 

Ambrose, W. A., Lakshminarasimhan, S., Holtz, M. H., Nuñez-Lopez, V., Hovorka, S. D., and 

Duncan, I., 2006, Geologic factors controlling CO2 storage capacity and permanence - 

techniques and case studies based on experience with heterogeneity in oil and gas 

reservoirs applied to CO2 storage (ext. abs.), in Proceedings, CO2SC Symposium, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, March 20–22, p. 9–11 + 

CD-ROM. 

Nicot, J. -P., Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, and Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Capillary trapping in 

the overburden as a defense-in-depth mechanism against leakage from CO2 storage 

sites: the case of the Tertiary Texas Gulf Coast (ext. abs.), in Proceedings, CO2SC 

Symposium, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, March 20–22, 

p. 173–175 + CD-ROM. 

Nuñez Lopez, Vanessa, Holtz, M. H., Wood, D. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Quick-look 

assessments to identify optimal CO2 EOR storage sites (ext. abs.), in Proceedings, 

CO2SC Symposium, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, March 

20–22, p. 245–247 + CD-ROM. 

Lindgren, Richard, Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., Worthington, S. R. H., and Painter, Scott, 

2005, Conceptualization and simulation of the Edwards aquifer, San Antonio region, 

Texas (abs.), in The abstract book of the 2005 Ground Water Summit Program, April 17–

20, San Antonio, p. 234–235. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2005, Frio experiment: CO2 storage in brine-bearing sandstone, Texas, USA 

(abs.), in 1st Indo-US Workshop on Carbon Sequestration souvenir & abstract volume: 

Hyderabad - 500 007, India, National Geophysical Research Institute, p. 17. 

Hovorka, S. D., Doughty, Christine, Sakurai, Shinichi, and Holtz, Mark, 2005, Frio Brine Pilot: 

field validation of numerical simulation of CO2 storage (abs.): American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention abstracts volume, v. 14, p. A63. 

Hovorka, S. D., Benson, Sally, and Myer, Larry, 2005, Frio Brine Pilot: lessons learned and 

questions restated (abs.), in Proceedings, Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration DOE/NETL, May 2–5, 2 p., CD-ROM. 

Freifeld, B. M., Trautz, R. C., Kharaka, Y. K., Phelps, T. J., Myer, L. R., Hovorka, S. D., and 

Collins, D. J., 2005, The U-tube: a novel system for sampling and analyzing multi-phase 

borehole fluid samples during the Frio Brine Pilot Test (abs.), in Proceedings, Fourth 

Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, May 2–5, 2 p., 

CD-ROM. 

Myer, Larry, Benson, Sally, Cole, David, Daley, Tom, Doughty, Christine, Dutton, Alan, 

Freifeld, Barry, Gunter, William, Holtz, Mark, Hovorka, Susan, Hoversten, Mike, Kennedy, 

B. P., Mack, B., Kharaka, Yousif, Knauss, Kevin, Knox, Paul, Majer, Ernie, Phelps, 

Tommy, Pruess, Karsten, and Robinson, J. E., 2004, Subsurface monitoring and 

verification at the Frio Pilot Text (ext. abs.), in 7th International Conference on 

Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Vancouver, Canada, September 5–9, Abstract 

no. LBNL-54221. 

Topical 640
Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Frio Brine Pilot Experiment―update and preliminary results (abs.): 

Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 36, no. 5, p. 542. 

Hovorka, S. D., Schindel, G. M., Nicot, J. -P., Worthington, S. R. H., Johnson, S. B., and 

Lindley, Adrien, 2004, Improving the conceptual model for flow in the Edwards aquifer 

(abs.): Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 54, p. 251. 

Friedmann, S. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Just do it! Large-scale storage of greenhouse 

gas in the United States and abroad (abs.): American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts Volume, v. 13, p. A49. 

Holtz, Mark, Doughty, Christine, Yeh, Joseph, and Hovorka, Susan, 2004, Modeling of CO2 

saline aquifer sequestration and the effects of residual phase saturation (abs.): American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts Volume, v. 13, p. A66. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Developing a business plan for carbon sequestration in the Gulf Coast 

(abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Abstracts 

Volume, v. 13, p. A66. 

Raney, J. A., Hovorka, S. D., Holtz, M. H., and Sakurai, Shinichi, 2004, Underground injection 

of CO2 as a method of decreasing atmospheric greenhouse gas: a status report (abs.), in 

Underground Injection Control: Environmental Trade Fair and Conference: Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality, p. 49. 

Hovorka, S. D., Andrews, J. R., Clift, S. J., Hepner, T. L., Gibeaut, J. C., Rodgers, S. D., 

Jennette, D. C., and Raney, J. A., 2004, Update on public and K-12 programs at the 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Texas (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with 

Programs: v. 36, no. 5, p. 349. 

Lindley, Adrien, and Hovorka, S. D., 2004, Applying statistical analysis to cave maps to infer 

controls on conduit development in the Edwards aquifer of Central & South Texas (abs.): 

Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, December, p. 186. 

Myer, Larry, Hovorka, Susan, Hoversten, Mike, Fouad, Khaled, and Holtz, Mark, 2003, 

Geophysical characterization and monitoring for the Frio Pilot Test (ext. abs.), in 

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 8–12, Abstract no. 

LBNS-53637. 

Knox, P. R., Doughty, C. A., and Hovorka, S. D., 2003, Impacts of buoyancy and pressure 

gradient of field-scale geological sequestration of CO2 in saline formations (abs.): 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, v. 12, 

p. A94. 

Hovorka, S. D., Knox, P. R., Holtz, M. H., Yeh, J. S., Fouad, Khaled, and Sakurai, Shinichi, 

2003, Tapping the potential for large volume sequestration—update on the Frio brine pilot 

project (abs.), in Briefing book: Second Annual Conference on Carbon Sequestration: 

developing & validating the technology base to reduce carbon intensity, Alexandria, 

Virginia, May 5–9, unpaginated. 

Kim, E. M., and Hovorka, S. D., 2003, Regional Yates gas resource assessment and reservoir 

characterization, Permian Basin, Texas (abs.), in New methods for locating and 

recovering remaining hydrocarbons in the Permian Basin: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology; Petroleum Technology Transfer Council; and 

University Lands West Texas Operations, p. 12. 

Combs, D. M., Kim, E. M., and Hovorka, S. D., 2003, Stratigraphic characterization of the 

Yates Formation, Permian Basin, Texas (abs.), in Hunt, T. J., and Lufholm, P. H., The 

Permian Basin: back to basics: West Texas Geological Society Fall Symposium: West 

Texas Geological Society Publication #03-112, p. 355–356. 

Raney, J. A., Collins, E. W., and Hovorka, S. D., 2002, Geologic maps and groundwater 

resource evaluation and protection, Edwards limestone aquifer, Texas (abs.): AEG News, 

v. 45, p. 80. 

Topical 641
Hovorka, S. D., Knox, P. R., Holtz, M. H., Yeh, J. S., Fouad, Khaled, and Sakurai, Shinichi, 

2002, Sequestration pilot site in the Texas Gulf Coast, USA (abs.): Geological Society of 

America Annual Meeting, Paper No. 135-10, 

http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2002AM/finalprogram/abstract_44374.htm. 

Kim, E. M., and Hovorka, S. D., 2002, Regional Yates gas resource assessment and reservoir 

characterization, Permian Basin, Texas (abs.): West Texas Geological Society Fall 

Symposium, Midland, Texas, CD-ROM. 

Hovorka, S. D., Paine, J. G., and Dutton, A. R., 1999, Permeability structure of a North Texas 

Permian fluvial and Quaternary terrace system delimited by saline plumes (abs.), in 

AAPG Annual Convention official program: American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists, p. A63. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1999, Getting the word out supplying local geologic information to teachers in 

a large state (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 31, no. 7, 

p. A-147. 

Dutton, A. R., Hovorka, S. D., and Bennett, P. C., 1999, Heterogeneity control on occurrence 

and movement of a subsurface plume of crude oil, South Texas (abs.), in AAPG Annual 

Convention official program: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. A35. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Dutton, A. R., 1999, Exploring for optimal geological environments for 

carbon dioxide disposal in saline aquifers in the United States (abs.), in AAPG Annual 

Convention official program: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. A63. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1998, Reconstruction of dissolved evaporite facies (abs.), in Bridges to 

discovery: extended abstracts, volume 1, AAPG Annual Convention: American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, p. A312. 

Cole, A. G., Dutton, S. P., Barton, M. D., Hovorka, S. D., and Asquith, G. B., 1997, 

Geophysical characterization of Permian deep-water sandstones, Bell Canyon Formation 

and Cherry Canyon Formation, Geraldine Ford area, West Texas (Delaware Basin) 

(abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official 

Program, v. 6, p. A21. 

Dutton, S. P., Barton, M. D., Hovorka, S. D., Cole, A. G., and Asquith, G. B., 1997, Reservoir 

characterization of Permian deep-water Ramsey sandstones, Bell Canyon Formation, 

Ford Geraldine Unit, West Texas (Delaware Basin) (abs.): American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Annual Convention Official Program, v. 6, p. A31. 

Mace, R. E., and Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Quantification and spatial distribution of matrix and 

conduit porosity and permeability, in a karst aquifer, Edwards Group, South-Central 

Texas (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 29, no. 7, p. A183. 

Dutton, S. P., Cole, A. G., and Hovorka, S. D., 1996, Application of advanced reservoir 

characterization, simulation, and production optimization strategies to maximize recovery 

in slope and basin clastic reservoirs, West Texas (Delaware Basin) (abs.), in Improving 

production shallow shelf carbonate (class 2) reservoirs: Workshop sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Energy and BDM Oklahoma, Inc., unpaginated. 

Mace, R. E., and Hovorka, S. D., 1996, Karst-conduit characterization of the Edwards aquifer 

outcrop (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 1, p. 50. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1996, Long-term maintenance of playa lakes and lake basins on the Southern 

High Plains of Texas (abs.): Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 28, no. 1, p. 19. 

Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1995, Regional distribution of permeability in 

the Edwards aquifer (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 79, 

no. 10, p. 1559. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Bedded gypsum in the Edwards Group, Texas: its role in reducing 

porosity and enhancing permeability (abs.), in AAPG Annual Convention Official Program: 

Topical 642
petroleum technology of the world: American Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 

44A. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Permeability structure of the Edwards aquifer—implications for aquifer 

management (abs.): South Texas Geological Society Bulletin, v. 36, no. 3, p. 4. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Porosity and permeability structure of the San Antonio segment of the 

Edwards aquifer (abs.): Austin Geological Society Newsletter, v. 30, no. 4, p. 1. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Quaternary playa lake evolution on the Southern High Plains of Texas: 

cyclic variation, in lake level recorded in sediments (abs.): Geological Society of America, 

North-Central–South-Central Sections Abstracts with Programs, v. 27, no. 3, p. 60. 

Scanlon, B. R., Xiang, Jiannan, Goldsmith, R. S., Mullican, W. F., III, and Hovorka, S. D., 

1994, Unsaturated zone studies to evaluate subsurface water movement in the vicinity of 

the Pantex Plant, Amarillo, Texas (abs.), in Nash, D. J., ed., From the far corners to the 

Four Corners: Proceedings, 70th Annual Meeting of the Southwestern and Rocky 

Mountain Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science: American 

Association for the Advancement of Science, Southwestern and Rocky Mountain Division, 

Program and Abstracts, v. 34, no. 1, p. 22. 

Gustavson, T. C., Paine, J. G., Avakian, A. J., Hovorka, S. D., and Richter, Bernd, 1993, 

Natural salt-water pollution of the Canadian River, New Mexico and Texas: source 

identification using chemical, geophysical, and structural data (abs.): Geological Society 

of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 6, p. A-368. 

Paine, J. G., Hovorka, S. D., and Gustavson, T. C., 1993, Subsidence beneath a playa basin 

on the Southern High Plains, U.S.A.: evidence from shallow seismic and stratigraphic 

data (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 6, p. A-59. 

Gustavson, T. C., Hovorka, S. D., Mullican, W. F., III, Scanlon, B. R., and Xiang, Jiannan, 

1993, Stratigraphic controls on preferred pathways for recharge to the Ogallala aquifer, 

Texas and New Mexico (abs.): Eos, v. 74, no. 43, p. 273. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Evaporite karst, in the Rolling Plains and High Plains of Texas—

process and petrographic evidence (abs.): Geological Society of America, South-Central 

Section, Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 1, p. 15. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Evolution of playa basins on the Texas High Plains—evidence from 

playa-basin fills (abs.): Geological Society of America, South-Central Section, Abstracts 

with Programs, v. 25, no. 1, p. 15. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Geographic and tectonic controls on evaporite sedimentation, Permian 

Delaware and Palo Duro Basins, Texas, USA (abs.), in Carboniferous to Jurassic 

Pangea: Annual Convention, Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists with the Global 

Sedimentary Geology Program, program and abstracts, Canadian Society of Petroleum 

Geologists, p. 142. 

Mace, R. E., Dutton, A. R., and Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Stratigraphic and structural controls on 

hydraulic conductivity distribution, in fractured chalk at the SSC, North-Central Texas 

(abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 6, p. A-208. 

Romanak, K. D., Bennett, P. C., and Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Spatial and temporal variations in 

CO4 and O2, in the unsaturated zone of a freshwater playa: implications for geochemical 

processes (abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 6, p. 

A-201. 

Mace, R. E., Dutton, A. R., and Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Stratigraphic and structural controls on 

hydraulic conductivity distribution in fractured chalk at the SSC, North-Central Texas 

(abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 25, no. 6, p. A-208. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1992, Cyclic sedimentation, synsedimentary volcanism, microfabrics, and 

fracture intensity, in the Austin Chalk, Texas (abs.): Geological Society of America 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 24, no. 7, p. A67. 

Topical 643
Hovorka, S. D., and Kerans, Charles, 1991, Moldic porosity beneath bar crests, Permian San 

Andres Formation, Algerita Escarpment, New Mexico (abs.): American Association of 

Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 75, no. 3, p. 598. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Ruppel, S. C., 1990, Controls on porosity evolution, in Devonian cherts of 

West Texas (abs.): American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 74, no. 5, p. 

678. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1988, Alteration of gypsum to anhydrite—examples from the Permian Basin 

(abs.): Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, v. 20, no. 7, p. A263. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1988, Evaporite diagenesis driven by synsedimentary evolution of brines 

(abs.): Association of American Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 72, no. 2, p. 199. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Fisher, W. L., 1987, Transition from marine to nonmarine evaporites, 

Permian of the Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle (abs.), in SEPM Annual Midyear 

Meeting Abstracts: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, v. 4, p. 36. 

Knauth, L. P., Hovorka, S. D., and Fisher, W. L., 1987, Isotope geochemistry of fluid 

inclusions in relation to sedimentology and bromide geochemistry of halite in the Palo 

Duro Basin, Texas (abs.), in American current research on fluid inclusions: Socorro, New 

Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, Program and Abstracts: programs and 

abstracts, unpaginated. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Fisher, W. L., 1986, Use of sedimentological data in interpretation of 

evaporite geochemistry (abs.), in 192nd American Chemical Society National Meeting, 

abstracts of papers, GEOC35. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Granger, P. A., 1986, Subsurface to surface correlation of Permian 

evaporites: San Andres–Blaine–Flowerpot relationships, Texas Panhandle (abs.): in 

SEPM 4th Annual Meeting Abstracts: Society of Economic Paleontologists and 

Mineralogists, 

Hovorka, S. D., 1985, Model for deposition of bedded halite, in a shallow shelf setting, San 

Andres Formation, Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle (abs.): Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, no. 7, p. 614. 

Posey, H. H., Fisher, R. S., Hovorka, S. D., and Elliott. L. A., 1985, Diagenesis of Early 

Permian evaporites and carbonates, Palo Duro Basin, Texas (abs.): Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 17, no. 7, p. 692. 

Gustavson, T. C., Budnik, R. T, Collins, E. W., Dutton, S. P., Hovorka, S. D., and Ruppel, S. 

C., 1984, Geologic issues in isolating nuclear waste in the Palo Duro Basin, Texas (abs.): 

Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma Geology Notes, v. 44, no. 3, p. 78–79. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1984, Textures formed during shallow water halite deposition—an example 

from Permian of Palo Duro Basin, Texas (abs.): American Association of Petroleum 

Geologists Bulletin, v. 68, no. 4, p. 487–488. 

McGookey, D. A., Hovorka, S. D., and Kolker, Allan, 1984, Depositional environments and 

source areas of Middle and Late Permian terrigenous clastic rocks, Palo Duro Basin, 

Texas (abs.): Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 16, no. 2, p. 

108. 

Gustavson, T. C., Budnik, R. T, Collins, E. W., Dutton, S. P., Hovorka, S. D., and Ruppel, S. 

C., 1983, Geologic issues in isolating nuclear waste in the Palo Duro Basin, Texas (abs.): 

Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 1, p. 3. 

Fisher, W. L., and Hovorka, S. D., 1983, Textural and geochemical evidence of primary and 

altered halite, Permian San Andres Formation, Texas (abs.): Geological Society of 

America, Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 6, p. 574. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Budnik, R. T, 1981, Normal marine–marine marginal sabkha transition, 

lower Permian, Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle (abs.): Geological Society of America, 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 15, no. 1, p. 6. 

Topical 644
Hovorka, S. D., 1977, Sedimentary textures as clues to the nature of early diagenesis, in 

bedded radiolarian cherts (abs.): Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 

South-Central Section, v. 9, p. 1027–1028. 

Hovorka, S. D., Luttrell, P. E., and Murphy, T. D., 1976, Facies relationships and depositional 

history of South Florida carbonate mud banks (abs.): Geological Society of America, 

Abstracts with Programs, v. 8, p. 23–24. 

Proceedings Volumes

Hovorka, S. D., ed., 2004, Edwards water resources in Central Texas: retrospective and 

prospective, South Texas Geological Society and Austin Geological Society, CD-ROM. 

Contract Reports

Hovorka, S. D., 2009, Optimization of geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in 

saline aquifers in the United States: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, final report prepared for U.S. DOE, under contract no. DE-AC26-

98FT40417, CD-ROM. 

Smyth, R. C., Hovorka, S. D., Meckel, T. A., Breton, C. A., Paine, J. G., and Hill, G. R., 2007, 

Potential sinks for geologic storage of CO2 generated in the Carolinas: The University of 

Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Southern States 

Energy Board and Electric Power Research Institute 

(http://www.beg.utexas.edu/environqlty/co2seq/pubs_presentations/CarolinasSummary_1

6April07.pdf), 14 p. 

Nicot, J. -P., Saripalli, Prasad, Bouroullec, Renaud, Castellanos, Hugo, Hovorka, S. D., 

Lakshminarasimhan, Srivatsan, Paine, J. G., and Yang, Yiling, 2006, Development of 

science -based permitting guidance for geological sequestration of CO2 in deep saline 

aquifers based on modeling and risk assessment: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, final scientific report prepared for U.S. Department of 

Energy, under DOE Agreement No. DE-FC25-04NT42210, 220 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2006, Proposed methodology for construction of a 2006 national geological 

carbon sequestration capacity assessment: Capacity and Fairways Subgroup of the 

Geologic Working Group of the DOE Carbon Sequestration Regional Partnerships, final 

report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Regional Carbon Sequestration 

Partnership Program, 35 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Holtz, M. H., Smyth, R. C., Nuñez-Lopez, Vanessa, Kim, E. M., Breton, 

Caroline, Scanlon, B. R., and Reedy, R. C., 2005, Southeast regional carbon 

sequestration partnership: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, final report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, under DOE award 

number DE-FC26-03NT41980, 40 p. 

Holtz, M. H., Ambrose, W. A., Hovorka, S. D., Nuñez-Lopez, Vanessa, Guevara, E. H., and 

Breton, C. L., 2005, CO2 sink analysis near U.S. BP refineries: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, report prepared for BP, Charles Christopher, 18 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Phu, Thandar, Nicot, J. -P., and Lindley, Adrien, 2004, Refining the 

conceptual model for flow in the Edwards aquifer—characterizing the role of fractures and 

conduits in the Balcones Fault Zone segment: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau 

of Economic Geology, final contract report prepared for Edwards Aquifer Authority, under 

Joint Funding Agreement No. 01-70-AS, 53 p. 

Collins, E. W., Tremblay, T. A., Gutiérrez, Roberto, Raney, J. A., Rawlings, Jennifer, Lindley, 

Adrien, and Hovorka, S. D., 2003, Applications of laser terrain mapping in Central Texas 

for managing karst aquifers and land use: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, final report prepared for California Institute of Technology, Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory,, under contract 1247072 for the NASA-AAG Program, 34 p. 

Topical 645
Scanlon, B. R., Mace, R. E., Smith, Brian, Hovorka, S. D., Dutton, A. R., and Reedy, R. C., 

2002, Groundwater availability of the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards aquifer, 

Texas—numerical simulations through 2050: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, final report prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, under 

contract no. UTA99-0, 36 p. + figs., tables, attachment. 

Hovorka, S. D., Paine, J. G., Reedy, R. C., Collins, E. W., and Lindley, Adrien, 2002, 

Evaluation of the potential for cross contamination of the Edwards aquifer from dissolved 

contaminants in the shallow groundwater zone in the vicinity of Kelly AFB via faults and 

wells: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report 

prepared for U.S. Air Force, Kelly Air Force Base, 47 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2001, Task 3 milestone: approaches for the recognition and management of 

sensitive features in the Edwards aquifer recharge zones: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone report prepared for Texas Natural 

Resource Conservation Commission, 42 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2001, Task 1 milestone: draft bibliography on karst geomorphology and 

hydrology relevant to geologic assessment of recharge features in the Edwards aquifer 

interagency contract on evaluation of the geologic assessment of sensitive features: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone report prepared for 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, 10 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 2001, Task 5 milestone: instructions to geologists for geologic assessments 

on the Edwards aquifer recharge/transition zones: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone report prepared for Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission, 34 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Romero, M. L., Treviño, R. H., Warne, A. G., Ambrose, W. A., Knox, P. R., 

and Tremblay, T. A., 2000, Project evaluation: phase II: optimal geological environments 

for carbon dioxide disposal in brine-bearing formations (aquifers) in the United States: 

The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, under contract no. 

DE-AC26-98FT40417, 222 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Nava, Robin, 2000, Characterization of bedded salt for storage caverns—

a case study from the Midland Basin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, final report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Petroleum Technology Center, under contract no. DE-AF26-97BC15030, 115 p. 

Aslan, Andres, Crawford, Melba, Gibeaut, J. C., Guevara, E. H., Hovorka, S. D., 

Neuenschwander, A. L., Raney, J. A., Smith, Solar, Sullivan, E. J., Warne, A. G., and 

White, W. A., 1999, 1998 Annual report: year one: geo-environmental characterization of 

the Delta del Orinoco, Venezuela: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology and Center for Space Research, final report prepared for Petróleos de 

Venezuela, S.A., and Coordinación Desarrollo Armónico de Oriente, 190 p. 

Warne, A. G., Aslan, Andres, White, W. A., Gibeaut, J. C., Tremblay, T. A., Smyth, R. C., 

Guevara, E. H., Gutiérrez, Roberto, Hovorka, S. D., Raney, J. A., Crawford, Melba, Smith, 

Solar, and Neuenschwander, A. L., 1999, 1999 final report year two: geo-environmental 

characterization of the Delta del Orinoco, Venezuela: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., and 

Coordinación Desarrollo Armónico de Oriente, 99 p. + figures, tables, and appendices. 

Hovorka, S. D., Dutton, A. R., Paine, J. G., Nava, Robin, and Blum, Martina, 1999, Site 

investigation of the Montague salt-water seep, Montague County, Texas (RRC Cleanup 

No. 09-50211): The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final 

report prepared for Oil Field Special Response Program, Railroad Commission of Texas, 

under Interagency Contract No.96-0050, 133 p. + apps. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1999, Optimal geological environments for carbon dioxide disposal in saline 

aquifers in the United States: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Topical 646
Geology, final report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Federal Energy 

Technology Center, under contract no. DE-AC26-98FT40417, 55 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Guevara, E. H., 1999, Orinoco Delta bibliography: The University of 

Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology and Center for Space Research, final 

report prepared as part of the Geo-Environmental Characterization of the Delta del 

Orinoco Project for Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., and Coordinación Desarrollo Armónico 

de Oriente, 154 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Analogs of engineered barriers: natural examples of very long-term 

performance of layered geologic materials: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of 

Economic Geology, technical report prepared for the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste 

Disposal Authority, under interagency contract no. CON-97-028, 77 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Salt cavern studies—regional map of salt thickness in the Midland 

Basin: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final report 

performed for Bartlesville Project Office, U.S. Department of Energy, under contract no. 

DE-AF22-96BC14978, DOE/BC/14978, 31 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., Parra, S. P., and Porterfield, Susanne, 1997, Lubbock County 

pilot study for development of a hydrogeologic geographic information system (HGIS) to 

support TNRCC implementation of risk-reduction rules: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, final technical report prepared for Texas Natural Resource 

Conservation Commission, under Interagency Contract 72-000000-38, 76 p. 

Paine, J. G., Blum, Martina, and Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Status of site investigation and plan for 

evaluation of remediation alternatives for the Montague County saltwater seep, Montague 

County, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, interim 

technical report prepared for Oil Field Special Response Program, Railroad Commission 

of Texas, under interagency contract no. 96-0050, 23 p. 

Dutton, S. P., Hovorka, S. D., and Cole, A. G., 1996, Application of advanced reservoir 

characterization, simulation, and production optimization strategies to maximize recovery 

in slope and basin clastic reservoirs, West Texas (Delaware Basin): The University of 

Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, annual report prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, under contract no. DE-FC22-95BC14936, 81 p. 

Gustavson, T. C., Bebout, D. G., Bennett, P. C., Fish, E. B., Fryar, A. E., Hovorka, S. D., Hua, 

H.-P., Kirschenmann, Kyle, Laun, Scot, Minehardt, T. J., Mullican, W. F., III, Nicot, J. -P., 

Paine, J. G., Pezzolesi, T. P., Rainwater, Ken, Ramsey, Heyward, Reeduer, Alan, 

Romanak, K. D., Scanlon, B. R., Thompson, David, Xiang, Jiannan, and Zartman, R. E., 

1995, Summary hydrogeologic assessment, U.S. Department of Energy Pantex Plant, 

Carson County, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

milestone report prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, 98 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., and Collins, E. W., 1995, Regional distribution of permeability in 

the Edwards aquifer: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

final report prepared for Edwards Underground Water District, under contract no. 93-17-

FO, 128 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Quaternary evolution of playa lakes on the Southern High Plains—a 

case study from the Amarillo area: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, final report prepared for Office of the Governor of Texas using funds provided 

by the U.S. Department of Energy, under grant no. DE-FG04-90AL65847, 102 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1995, Stratigraphy of playas in the Pantex area—Playa 5 and Pantex Lake: 

The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone report, activity 

1 prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, 22 p. 

Dutton, A. R., Collins, E. W., Hovorka, S. D., Mace, R. E., Scanlon, B. R., and Xiang, Jiannan, 

1994, Occurrence and movement of ground water in Austin Chalk and Eagle Ford and 

Ozan Formations at the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) site, Ellis County, Texas: 

The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, topical report prepared 

Topical 647
for the Texas National Research Laboratory Commission, under contract no. IAC(92-93)-

0301, 393 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1994, Evaluation of the ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey at TDCJ 

playa, Carson County: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

milestone report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy through the Office of the 

Governor, State of Texas, 16 p. 

Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Senger, R. K., Fogg, G. E., Nance, H. S., and Hovorka, S. D., 

1993, Characterization of facies and permeability patterns in carbonate reservoirs based 

on outcrop analogs: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final 

report prepared for the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 

under contract no. DE-AC22-89BC14470, 160 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Ruppel, S. C., Dutton, A. R., and Yeh, Joseph, 1993, Edwards aquifer storage 

assessment: Kinney County to Hays County, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for Edwards Underground Water 

District, under contract no 93-04-F0, 51 p., 8 pl. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1993, Playa basin fills near the Pantex Plant—stratigraphic and geomorphic 

analysis: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone 

report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 16 p. 

Xiang, Jiannan, Hovorka, S. D., Goldsmith, R. S., and Scanlon, B. R., 1993, Evaluation of 

preferential flow in playa settings near the Pantex Plant: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, milestone report prepared for the U.S. Department 

of Energy, 11 p. 

Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Senger, R. K., Fogg, G. E., Nance, H. S., and Hovorka, S. D., 

1992, Characterization of facies and permeability patterns in carbonate reservoirs based 

on outcrop analogs: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, under contract no. DE-AC22-

89BC14470, 160 p. 

Gustavson, T. C., Avakian, A. J., Hovorka, S. D., and Richter, Bernd, 1992, Canadian River 

salinity sources, Ute reservoir, New Mexico, to Lake Meredith, Texas: evaporite 

dissolution patterns and results of February 1992 water quality survey: The University of 

Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, final contract report prepared for the 

Canadian River Municipal Water Authority, 49 p., 2 pl. 

Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Senger, R. K., Fogg, G. E., Nance, H. S., Kasap, Ekrem, and 

Hovorka, S. D., 1991, Characterization of reservoir heterogeneity in carbonate-ramp 

systems, San Andres/Grayburg, Permian Basin: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Reservoir Characterization Research Laboratory, final 

contract report, 245 p. 

Tyler, Noel, Bebout, D. G., Garrett, C. M., Jr., Guevara, E. H., Hocott, C. R., Holtz, M. H., 

Hovorka, S. D., Kerans, Charles, Lucia, F. J., Major, R. P., and Ruppel, S. C., 1990, 

Opportunities for additional recovery in University Lands reservoirs-characterization of 

University Lands reservoirs: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, final report prepared for the University of Texas System, 255 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., Fisher, R. S., and Nance, H. S., 1988, Petrography and geochemistry of the 

Artesia Group, Palo Duro Basin, Texas Panhandle: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, final report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Salt Repository Project Office, under contract no. DE-AC97-83WM46651, 79 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., and McCrary, M. M., 1986, Petrography of the Artesia Group: interim report, 

volume 1 and volume 2: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

final report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Salt Repository Project Office, 

under contract no. DE-AC97-83WM46651, Open-File Report OF-WTWI-1985-42, 

Revision 1, unpaginated. 

Topical 648
Droddy, M. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 1982, National uranium resource evaluation, Beeville 

quadrangle, Texas: Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, report prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, NURE, under contract no. DE-AC07-76GJ01664, Open-File 

Report No. PGJ/F-066(82), 22 p. 

Droddy, M. J., and Hovorka, S. D., 1982, National uranium resource evaluation, Llano 

quadrangle, Texas: Bendix Field Engineering Corporation, report prepared for U.S. 

Department of Energy, NURE, under contract no. DE-AC07-76GJ01664, Open-File 

Report No. PGJ/F-122(82), 24 p. 

Atlases/Maps/Cross Sections

Hovorka, S. D., and Dutton, A. R., 2001, Aquifers of Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, 

Bureau of Economic Geology, Page-Sized Map, 1 p., scale 1 inch = 100 mi. 

Collins, E. W., and Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Structure map of the San Antonio segment of the 

Edwards aquifer and Balcones Fault Zone, south-central Texas: structural framework of a 

major limestone aquifer: Kinney, Uvalde, Medina, Bexar, Comal, and Hays Counties: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, Miscellaneous Map No. 38, 

14-p. text, scale 1:250,000. 

Course Notes

Hovorka, S. D., 1999, Water and the environment in Southwest Texas: resources for Summer 

Institute, Eisenhower Professional Development Workshop: The University of Texas at 

Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, course notes and workbook, unpaginated. 

Hovorka, S. D., 1997, Salt thickness, in the Midland Basin: regional screening criterion for salt 

cavern development: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, 

poster presentation handout for Fall Meeting, 19 p. 

Workshop Workbooks

Hovorka, S. D., and Andrews, J. R., 2000, EarthView Texas: high-tech investigation of 

geology in your backyard: The University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, at “Think Globally, Learn Locally”, 13 p. 

Hovorka, S. D., and Andrews, J. R., 2000, Environmental Assessment of your Town: The 

University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology, short course workbook and 

digital data set for teachers, 12 p. 

Thesis

Stratigraphy and petrography of the Upper Chert and Shale Member, Caballos Formation, 

Brewster County, West Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, M.A. thesis, 272 p., 1981. 

Dissertation

Sedimentary processes controlling deposition of halite, Permian Basin, Texas: The University 

of Texas at Austin, Ph.D. dissertation, 394 p., 1990. 

Lecturing

BEG Colloquia

Is there really enough space to "put it back"?: Capacity estimation for geologic storage of 

CO2: presented at Bureau of Economic Geology Research Seminar, The University of Texas 

at Austin, Austin, Texas, September 8, 2006. 

Topical 649
Climate change: the issues and the options: presented at BEG Summer Lecture Series, 

Austin, Texas, June 10, 2005. 

Climate change—issues and answers for Texas: presented at Bureau of Economic Geology 

seminar with P. R. Knox, M. H. Holtz, K. Fouad, S. Sakurai, J. G. Paine, and J. Yeh, Austin, 

Texas, October 18, 2002. 

Introducing the Jackson School Geoscience Alliance: presented at Bureau of Economic 

Geology seminar, Austin, Texas, February 22, 2002. 

Sedimentary processes: Bureau of Economic Geology research seminar, The University of 

Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2000. 

Why should you include an educational element in an applied research project?: present at 

the Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, November 1999. 

"3-D visualization of the Edwards Aquifer”: presented to Bureau of Economic Geology, April 

1998, June 1998, February 1999, 1998. 

Salt dissolution in the Permian Basin: process and implications: February 1997. 

Regional distribution of permeability in the Edwards aquifer: January 1995. 

Porosity distribution in the Edwards aquifer—depositional facies, Cretaceous dolomitization, 

and Cenozoic fresh-water alteration: presented at Bureau of Economic Geology Colloquium, 

April 1994. 

Quaternary playa basin fills on the Southern High Plains, Texas—implications for Pleistocene 

climate, Ogallala recharge, and playa basin evolution: presented at Bureau of Economic 

Geology Colloquium, April 1993. 

Cyclic sedimentation in deep-water shelf facies of the Austin Chalk: presented at Bureau of 

Economic Geology Colloquium, April 1992. 

Porosity Development in Chert Three Bar Devonian Field: Andrews County, Texas, February 

1989. 

Early Diagenesis in Sulfates: December 1987. 

Update of Depositional Models for Palo Duro Evaporites and Carbonates: November 1986. 

Cyclicity in the San Andres Formation, Palo Duro Basin, New Models: presented at a BEG 

research seminar, March 1984. 

Cyclicity in the San Andres Formation: presented at a BEG research seminar, May 1983. 

Diagenesis and Dissolution in Evaporites, Donley and Swisher County Cores, West Texas: 

presented at a BEG research seminar, April 1982. 

Corporate Schools, Research Seminars

Denbury Resources Green Pipeline CO2 Sequstration: Video appearance during course of 

31⁄2-minute presentation for Denbury Resources, Plana, Texas, September 2009. 

Workshops

Monitoring and verification issues for carbon storage: presented as online lecture to Regional 

Sequestration Partnerships Outreach and Geologic Working Groups, Austin, Texas, 2006. 

Workshop on salt core: Solution Mining Research Institute Field Trip to Bureau of Economic 

Geology Core Research Center (with Steve Seni), Austin, Texas, 2000. 

Lectures and Addresses

Investigation of water displacement following large CO2 sequestration operations view 

boundaries and borehole leakage driving forces: presented at the GHGT-9 (Green House 

Gas Technology) Conference, Washington, D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Topical 650
Comparing carbon sequestration in an oil reservoir to sequestration in a brine formation- field 

study: presented at the GHGT-9 (Green House Gas Technology) Conference, Washington, 

D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Pressure perturbations from geologic carbon sequestration: Area-of-review boundaries and 

borehole leakage driving forces: presented at the GHGT-9 (Green House Gas Technology) 

Conference, Washington, D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Continuous pressure monitoring for large volume CO2 injections: presented at the GHGT-9 

(Green House Gas Technology) Conference, Washington, D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Assessing risk to fresh water resources from long term CO2 injection—laboratory and field 

studies: presented at the GHGT-9 (Green House Gas Technology) Conference, Washington, 

D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Recent advances in well-based monitoring of CO2 sequestration: presented at the GHGT-9 

(Green House Gas Technology) Conference, Washington, D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Geochemical modeling of near-surface CO2 interactions: the critical element in cost-effective 

long-term monitoring: presented at the GHGT-9 (Green House Gas Technology) Conference, 

Washington, D.C., November 16–20, 2008. 

Update on carbon storage field projects: presented at TCEQ Environmental Trade Fair and 

Conference, Austin, Texas, May 1–3, 2007. 

Testing interactions of buoyancy, multiphase flow, and geochemical interactions: preliminary 

results for the Frio II Test: presented at Sixth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & 

Sequestration: Expediting deployment of industrial scale systems: Can it be done? How? 

Concerns to be addressed, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, May 8, 2007. 

Role of geochemical interactions in assuring permanence of storage of CO2 in geologic 

environments: presented to AIChE, Houston, Texas, April 23, 2007. 

Downscaling capacity from a regional to a site scale--a case study for the southeastern U.S.: 

presented at Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Alexandria, 

Virginia, May 8–11, 2006. 

Update on the Frio Brine Storage Project--progress on estimating permanence: presented at 

Fifth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture & Sequestration, Alexandria, Virginia, May 8–11, 

2006. 

Update on Frio Brine Project—15 months after injection: presented at Workshop on Carbon 

Capture and Storage, hosted by RITE, Tokyo, Japan, February 18–23, 2006. 

Stacked storage field project: presented at SECARB Industry Briefing, Atlanta, Georgia, 

January 18–19, 2006. 

Assessment of geological storage capacity of the southeastern U.S. for CO2 in brines and 

economic use for EOR: presented at SECARB Industry Briefing, Atlanta, Georgia, January 

18–19, 2006. 

Monitoring and verification issues for carbon storage pilot experiments: presented at SECARB 

Industry Briefing, Atlanta, Georgia, January 18–19, 2006. 

Verification: does geologic storage really provide environmental benefit?: presented at GCCC 

4th Quarter Partners Meeting, Austin, Texas, December 14, 2005. 

Frio site visit and Frio Pilot overview: presented to Group from MIBRAG and Anhalt-Saxony, 

Germany, Dayton, Texas, November 22–23, 2005. 

Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: 1 year after injection: presented at Applied Technology 

Workshop (ATW) CO2 Sequestration, Galveston, Texas, November 16, 2005. 

Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: 1 year after injection: presented at IEA Annual Monitoring 

Network Workshop, Rome, Italy, October 4, 2005. 

Frio case study: presented at IEA Annual Monitoring Network Workshop, Rome, Italy, 

October 5, 2005. 

Topical 651
Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: 1 year after injection: presented at Carbon Sequestration 

Leadership Forum, CSLF Project Exhibits by Policy Group & Technical Group delegates and 

VIP's, Ministry of Economics and Labor (BMWA), Berlin, Germany, September 28, 2005. 

Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: 1 year after injection: presented at Carbon Sequestration 

Leadership Forum, GeoForschungszentrum, Potsdam, Germany, September 29, 2005. 

GCCC plan and scope: presented to GCCC partners, Houston, Texas, August 20, 2005. 

Karst and flow in the confined and unconfined Edwards aquifer--key issues and unresolved 

problems: presented at Edwards Aquifer Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, July 18, 2005. 

Update on the Frio Brine Pilot: 8 months after injection: invited talk presented at First IndiaU.S. CCS Workshop, Hyderabad, India, June 2, 2005. 

Frio Brine Pilot: field validation of numerical simulation of CO2 storage: presented at 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists Annual Meeting, Calgary, Canada, June 23, 

2005. 

From concept to reality: a systematic management approach for field implementation of the 

Frio Brine Pilot Test: presented at Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture and 

Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2–5, 2005. 

Review of existing injection well permit regulations and expectations of future geologic 

sequestration CO2 regulations with monitoring conditions: presented at Fourth Annual 

Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2–5, 

2005. 

Frio Brine Pilot: lessons learned and questions restated: presented at Fourth Annual 

Conference on Carbon Capture and Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2, 

2005. 

The U-tube: a novel system for sampling and analyzing multi-phase borehole fluid samples 

during the Frio Brine Pilot Test: presented at Fourth Annual Conference on Carbon Capture 

and Sequestration DOE/NETL, Alexandria, Virginia, May 2, 2005. 

Application of numerical models to development of the Frio Brine Storage Experiment: 

presented at EPA Modeling Workshop, Houston, Texas, April 6, 2005. 

Draft strategic plan: presented to GCCC partners, Houston, Texas, April 11, 2005. 

Testing the concepts of sequestration--field demonstration and economic projects: presented 

at UT CPGE Geological Storage JIP, Austin, Texas, March 22, 2005. 

Testing geologic sequestration in high-permeability sandstone of the Frio Formation: 6-month 

update: presented at AJW CCS Conference, Melbourne, Australia, March 3, 2005. 

Testing geologic sequestration in high-permeability sandstone of the Frio Formation: 6-month 

update: presented at Australian CO2 CRC-Peter Cook Group, Canberra, Australia, March 2, 

2005. 

Testing geologic sequestration in high-permeability sandstone of the Frio Formation: 6-month 

update: presented to Society of Petroleum Engineers Perth, Perth, Western Australia, March 

8, 2005. 

Frio Brine pilot: CO2 outreach: Testing geologic sequestration in high-permeability sandstone 

of the Frio Formation: 6-month update: presented at the BP Festival, Houston, Texas, 

February 20, 2005. 

Gulf Coast Carbon Center review: presented to GCCC partners, Houston, Texas, November 

15, 2004. 

Progress update: Developing a science and business plan for carbon storage and use in the 

Gulf Coast: presented to NETL management, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, November 22, 2004. 

Testing efficiency of storage in the subsurface: Frio Brine Pilot Experiment: presented at MIT 

CSS Workshop, Boston, Massachusetts, November 4, 2004. 

New views of familiar places: elementary geoscience labs: Is dirt just dirt? and How the Earth 

makes us rich: presented at CAST, Corpus Christi, Texas, November 3, 2004. 

Topical 652
Testing efficiency of storage in the subsurface: Frio Brine Pilot experiment: presented at the 

Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, October 

10, 2004. 

Frio Brine Pilot Experiment: update: presented at Geological Society of America Annual 

Meeting, Denver, Colorado, October 30, 2004. 

Texas Gulf Coast: presented to Geologic Working Group of the U.S. Department of Energy 

Regional Partnerships Program, Dayton, Texas, October 21–22, 2004. 

Developing a business plan for carbon use and carbon sequestration in the Gulf Coast: 

presented at Baker Center, Rice University, Houston, Texas, September 1, 2004. 

Subsurface monitoring and verification: presented at the 7th Greenhouse Gas Technology 

Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, September 4, 2004. 

Monitoring and verification issues for carbon storage: presented at SSEB Annual Meeting, 

Atlanta, Georgia, September 13, 2004. 

Informal update: Frio Brine Pilot: presented to GCCC partners, Houston, Texas, September 

15, 2004. 

Progress update: Frio Brine Pilot, Texas Gulf Coast: presented at DOE-NETL Program 

Review, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, April 18, 2004. 

Monitoring and verification issues for carbon storage: invited talk presented to EPA, 

Washington, D.C., February 2, 2004. 

Outreach lecture: CO2 is a gas: presented to BP, CO2 Fest, Houston, Texas, February 21–

22, 2004. 

Frio Brine Pilot poster: presented to BP, CO2 Fest, Houston, Texas, February 2004. 

Partnership kick-off: presented to U.S. Department of Energy, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 

October 29, 2003. 

Energy and the environment—tapping the potential for large-volume storage of carbon in the 

Gulf Coast: presented at Meeting of the Texas PTTC Producers Advisory Group (PAG) and 

State of Texas Policy Makers, Austin, Texas, May 22, 2003. 

The role of map dimension and movement in helping students solve geology problems: 

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 

Chicago, Illinois, April 2003. 

Geologic sequestration—case studies in the onshore U.S.: presented at IBC Workshop on 

Carbon Sequestration, Houston, Texas, October 25, 2002. 

Recharge to the BFZ Edwards aquifer—the issues and the unknowns: presented at The 

University of Texas at Austin, Department of Geological Sciences Hydro Brown Bag Seminar, 

Austin, Texas, September 6, 2002. 

Frio Brine Pilot Project status report: presented to National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 27, 2002. 

Overview of Frio Brine Project: presented to GEO-SEQ advisory panel, Berkeley, California, 

January 23, 2002. 

Reducing atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gasses by injecting them underground: 

presented to Austin Geological Society, Austin, Texas, April 30, 2001. 

Identifying optimal environments for geologic storage of large volumes of CO2, onshore US: 

presented at Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, April 6, 

2001. 

Tour of the Edwards aquifer: presented to Honor Society, Southwest Texas Junior College, 

Uvalde, Texas, September 26, 2000. 

Virtual reality tour of the Edwards aquifer: presented at Groundwater Festival 2000, Aquarena 

Center (with Scott Rodgers and John Andrews), San Marcos, Texas, September 15, 2000. 

Topical 653
Virtual reality tour of Earth Science research in Texas: presented to Leakey School (with John 

Andrews and Dallas Dunlap), Leakey, Texas, April 17-18, 2000. 

Rocks from space: meteorites in the classroom: presented at National Science Teachers 

Association National Convention (with D. F. Lester, M. Walker, R. Stryker, and J. Jackson), 

Orlando, Florida, April 6, 2000. 

Bureau of Economic Geology K-12 outreach: presented to Austin Geological Society, Austin, 

Texas, February 7, 2000. 

Strategies for identification of optimal saline formations for sequestration of carbon dioxide in 

the United States: presented at ENERGX Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2000. 

Flood! : presented at College of Natural Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Science 

Fun Day (with Bureau staff and Mrs. Hernandez’ 6th grade), Austin, Texas, 2000. 

Virtual field trip through Texas: presented at Math and Science Technology Conference (with 

John Andrews), Austin, Texas, 2000. 

Virtual field trip through Texas and high-tech investigation of geology in your backyard: 

presented at Think Globally, Learn Locally Technology Conference (with John Andrews), 

Jefferson, Texas, 2000. 

Exploring for optimal environments for CO2 sequestration, onshore U.S.: presented at 

International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme , Leeuwenhorst, 

Netherlands, 2000. 

Edwards Aquifer Issues and Scientific Resolution and Edwards aquifer field trip stop 3 and 4: 

presented to Commission National del Agua, August 17-18, 1998. 

Sysnsedimentary dissolution, a method for determining water depth in evaporites: presented 

to SEPM Evaporite Research Group, American Association of Petroleum Geologists National 

Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah, May 20, 1998. 

Determining water depth from evaporite sediments - a key element in modeling basin 

evolution: presented to Department of Geology, University of Texas at Arlington, March 26, 

1998. 

Long-term maintenance of playa lakes and lake basins on the Southern High Plains of Texas: 

presented to the Panhandle Geological Society, Amarillo, TX, October 22, 1996. 

Permeability structure of the Edwards aquifer, South Texas—implications for aquifer 

management: presented to the South Texas Geological Society, San Antonio, Texas, 

November 8, 1995. 

Porosity and permeability structure of the San Antonio segment of the Edwards aquifer: 

presented to the Austin Geological Society, Austin, Texas, November 6, 1995. 

Recognition of evaporite dissolution textures: presented to Evaporite Research Group, March 

1995, 1995. 

Regional distribution of permeability in the Edwards Aquifer: presented to Edwards 

Underground Water District Board Meeting, February 1995. 

Overview of recent research on the Edwards aquifer: presented to the TNRCC Groundwater 

Protection Committee, February 1995. 

Regional distribution of permeability in the Edwards aquifer: presented to the technical review 

group of the Edwards Underground Water District, December 1994. 

Gypsum in the Edwards group of South Texas: presented to SEPM Evaporite Research 

Group, Austin, Texas, October 1994. 

Austin Chalk at the SSC site—cyclic sedimentation, synsedimentary volcanism, microfabrics, 

and fracture intensity: presented to Union Pacific Resources, Fort Worth, 1993. 

Microfabric influence on fracture intensity, Austin Chalk, shallow subsurface, Ellis County, 

Texas: poster session presented to the Natural Fracture Workshop, Bureau of Economic 

Geology, Austin, Texas, 1992. 

Topical 654
Origin of Porosity in Chert of the Devonian Thirty-one Formation: presented to Mobil, Midland, 

Texas, October 1989. 

The Sedimentology of Salt, Examples from the Palo Duro and Delaware Basins: presented to 

Geology Department Technical Sessions, October 1988. 

Marine to Non-Marine Transition in Evaporites: presented to Penrose Conference on Marine 

Evaporites, Windsor, Ontario, August 1988. 

San Andres Evaporite Depositional Model: presented at AAPG meeting in New Orleans, 

Louisiana, April 1988. 

Sedimentary Significance of Polyhalite, Glauberite, and Sylvite-A Problem from the Permian 

of the Texas Panhandle: presented to SEPM Evaporite Research Group, Houston, Texas, 

March 1988. 

Core workshop: Dissolution of Evaporite: Petrologic Evidence of Dissolution and Criteria for 

Determining Timing: presented to Shell Exploration, February 1988. 

Halite Pseudomorphs after Gypsum in Bedded Anhydrite–Clue to Gypsum–Anydrite 

Relationships: presented to Department of Geological Sciences, January 1988. 

Recap of August meeting: presented to U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission in Columbus, Ohio, November 1985. 

Core workshop—overview of U.S. Department of Energy cores: U.S. Department of Energy 

and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1985. 

San Andres Evaporite Depositional Model: presented at AAPG meeting, April 1985. 

Core workshop—overview of U.S. Department of Energy cores: presented at BEG Core 

Research Center to U.S. Department of Energy, March 1985. 

Distinguishing between Permian and Post-Permian Dissolution: presented at a SWEC-ONWIBEG Meeting, January 1983. 

Short Courses

Geologic assessments of karst areas: presented at the 10th Multidisciplinary Conference on 

Sinkholes and the Engineering and Environmental Impacts of Karst, San Antonio, Texas, 

September 2005. 

Examples from the Edwards aquifer: using hydrocarbon resource assessment to understand 

an aquifer/using aquifer tests to understand hydrocarbon resources and Revision to TNRCC 

Guidance for Geologists Doing Geologic Assessments of the Edwards Aquifer Recharge 

Zone: presented to South Texas Geological Society, December 11, 2002. 

Revision to TNRCC Guidance for Geologists Doing Geologic Assessments of the Edwards 

Aquifer Recharge Zone: presented to San Antonio College, November 20, 2002. 

Revision to TNRCC Guidance for Geologists Doing Geologic Assessments of the Edwards 

Aquifer Recharge Zone: presented to Government Canyon, August 28, 2002. 

Environmental assessment of your town—water, soils, rocks, and pollution: presented as 

short course to teachers: Conference for the Advancement of Science Teaching (CAST), 

College Station, TX, October 12-13, 2000. 

Public Outreach

BEG virtual reality tour: presented to Whitte Museum staff, Austin, Texas, December 18, 

2002. 

Water for Texas (assisting Sigrid Clift with workshop): presented at the Conference for 

Advancement of Science Teaching, El Paso, Texas 

Texas, November 7–9, 2002. 

Aquifer-in-a-tank and sugar karst: presented at Environmental Science Institute Public 

Lecture Series, Austin, Texas, October 18, 2002. 

Topical 655
Aquifer-in-a-tank: presented at the Aquarena Groundwater Festival, September 20, 2002. 

Virtual reality and Bureau tour: presented to the Austin Nature and Science Center staff, 

Austin, Texas, September 4, 2002. 

Introducing the Jackson School Geoscience Alliance: presented to Austin Geological Society, 

Austin, Texas, February 4, 2002. 

Aquifer in a tank: presented at the Southwest Texas State University Groundwater Festival, 

Aquarena Springs, Texas, September 21, 2001. 

GIS 101: Using a computer for environmental assessment: think globally work locally: 

presented to the River Basin Institute, Jefferson, Texas, August 2001. 

GIS 101: Using a computer for environmental assessment: presented to Texas Earth 

Science Teachers Association, short course, Selah Bamberger Ranch, Johnson City, Texas, 

February 17, 2001. 

Rocks from space: meteorites in the classroom: presented at Workshop Conference for the 

Advancement of Science Teaching (CAST) (with Roger Stryker and Dan Lester), College 

Station, Texas, October 14, 2000. 

EarthView Texas: high-tech investigation of geology in your backyard: presented at Cyprus 

Valley Education Center, Jefferson, Texas, July 2000. 

Bureau Professional Development Programs: presented to Conference for the Advancement 

of Science Teaching (CAST) Informal Science Association Showcase, Lubbock, Texas, 

October 1999. 

K-12

All that glitters: demonstration presented at Zilker Geofest, Austin, Texas, August 12, 2006. 

All that glitters: demonstration presented at Explore UT, Austin, Texas, March 4, 2006. 

Tour through Edwards aquifer: presented at Explore UT, Austin, Texas, March 4, 2006. 

All that glitters: demonstration presented at Explore UT, Austin, Texas, March 4, 2006. 

Making of "Tour through the Edwards Aquifer" movies: presented at Explore UT, Austin, 

Texas, March 4, 2006. 

Host for shadowing: three "COOL Week" studentsfrom Leander and Cedar Park High 

Schools, Austin, Texas, February 8–9, 2006. 

One-on-one mentoring of high school students Trey Ballman, Jenna Kroman, Tanner 

Scheneward: Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin, Texas, 2006. 

"Sugar karst" demonstration: presented at Cave Week, Austin, Texas, October 27, 2005. 

Is dirt just dirt?: presented at CAST meeting, Corpus Christi, Texas, November 6, 2004. 

Panning for pyrite: presented at CAST meeting, Corpus Christi, Texas, November 4, 2004. 

Geoscience news on global warming: presented at CAST meeting, Houston, Texas, 

November 1, 2003. 

New views of familiar places using GIS in the classroom: presented at CAST meeting, 

Houston, Texas, October 31, 2003. 

Is Dirt Just Dirt Classroom Activity: Laurel Mountain Elementary, April 2003. 

New views of familiar places—a GIS program for students: presented at the Conference for 

Advancement of Science Teaching (CAST), Austin, Texas, November 7–9, 2002. 

New views of familiar places short course, Region XIII training: presented to the Round Rock 

ISD, Round Rock, Texas, June 26–27, 2002. 

New views of familiar places—a GIS program for students: presented at the 18th Annual GIS 

Conference, Education Session, Austin, Texas, February 1, 2002. 

Zoom into the environment: presented at a workshop Conference for the Advancement of 

Science Teaching (CAST), November 2, 2001. 

Topical 656
Geoscience looks at global warming: presented at Earth Science Week Career Fair, 7th 

grade, Austin, Texas, October 9, 2001. 

Aquifer in a tank: presented at the Eanes Elementary School Science Night, Austin, Texas, 

March 27, 2001. 

Disaster masters—using GIS in the classroom: presented at Austin Science Fun Day, 

Parkside Community School, Austin, Texas, March 3, 2001. 

Geoscience projects and virtual field trips for K-12 teachers: presented to Department of 

Geological Sciences Public Outreach program, The University of Texas at Austin (with Sigrid 

Clift), Austin, Texas, September 15, 2000. 

Aquifer in a Tank: presentation of hands-on 4th grade experiment to Earth Camp, City of 

Austin environmental education training program for teachers, October 1999. 

Aquifer in a Tank: presentation of hands-on 4th grade experiment for filming by Texas 

Education Agency “Eye on Earth” program, 1999. 

Field Trips

Leader, Frio Brine Pilot: MIBRAG group, Anhanlt-Saxony, Germany, Dayton, Texas, 

November 2005. 

Leader, Frio Brine Pilot: Toyota site tour, Dayton, Texas, 2004. 

Leader, Frio Brine Pilot: Regional Sequestration Partnership Working Group on Geologic 

Storage, Dayton, Texas, October 2004. 

Leader, Frio Brine Pilot: Community and stakeholders tour, Dayton, Texas, October 2004. 

Leader, Evolution of conduits in the Edwards Group (and field trip to Edwards outcrops): 

presented at U.S. Geological Society Fracture Workshop, San Antonio, Texas, September 

2002. 

Congressional, Legislative, and Special Committee Testimony

January 25, 2007

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Introduction to geologic 

sequestration of CO2. 

2006

National Academy of Science Committee, Earth resources in "Overview of Carbon Storage 

Field Projects," Washington, DC, April 6. 

Topical 657
THE LAKE CHARLES CCS PROJECT 

PHASE 1 TOPICAL REPORT 

APPENDIX 11

Non-Proprietary Programmatic and Technical Prospectus 

(Fact Sheet) 

Topical 658
Topical 659
Topical 660