1

2012 REPORT TO THE

WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION

and

WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION

of

THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

by

THE COLORADO OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION

of

THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

IN ACCORDANCE

WITH

THE AUGUST 28, 1990 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

and

THE IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF SENATE BILL 181

JANUARY 2012
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................5

2.0 COGCC ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS..................................................................5

Public Outreach and Communication................................................................................5

COGCC Commissioners ..................................................................................................6

COGCC Staff...................................................................................................................6

COGCC Environmental Unit.............................................................................................7

Spill/Release Response........................................................................................7

Remediation Projects............................................................................................7

Pit Program......................................................................................................................8

Permitted Centralized Waste Management Facilities.............................................8

Disposal and Reuse of Produced Water................................................................9

Onsite Inspections................................................................................................9

Oil & Gas Location Assessment (OGLA)...............................................................9

Oil and Gas Conservation and Environmental Response Fund (Fund 170) .....................10

Data Management and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) ...................................11

Permit Processing and eForms...........................................................................11

Database............................................................................................................11

Document Imaging .............................................................................................12

GIS 12

Online Access to Baseline and Special Studies Reports .................................................13

Industry Services ...........................................................................................................13

Industry Compliance/Violations/Penalties .......................................................................14

Underground Injection Control (UIC)...............................................................................14

Voluntary Baseline Groundwater Quality Sampling Program...........................................14

How Well Do You Know Your Water Well.......................................................................15

3.0 COGCC COORDINATION WITH WQCD/WQCC ...........................................................15

4.0 OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION ACTIVITY IN COLORADO BY 

REGION/FIELD .............................................................................................................15

4.1 SOUTHWEST COLORADO ...............................................................................15

Oil and Gas E&P Activity ....................................................................................15

Public Involvement .............................................................................................15

Ground Water and Other Environmental Issues ..................................................16

4.2 NORTHWEST COLORADO...............................................................................17

Oil and Gas E&P Activity ....................................................................................17

Public Involvement .............................................................................................17

Environmental Issues .........................................................................................17

Groundwater and Surface Water.........................................................................17

Enforcement Related to Impacts to Ground Water, Surface Water, and 

Springs ...................................................................................................17

Drilling Near Project Rulison Test Site.................................................................18

Drilling Near Project Rio Blanco Test Site ...........................................................19
3

4.3 NORTHEAST COLORADO................................................................................19

Oil and Gas E&P Activity ....................................................................................19

Public Involvement .............................................................................................19

Enforcement Issues............................................................................................20

Environmental Issues .........................................................................................20

Ground Water.....................................................................................................20

4.4 SOUTHEAST COLORADO ................................................................................20

Oil and Gas E&P Activities..................................................................................20

Public Involvement .............................................................................................21

Environmental Issues .........................................................................................21

Ground Water.....................................................................................................21

Springs...............................................................................................................22

Surface Water ....................................................................................................22

Alleged Impacts from Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation (Fracing)............................22

Baseline Sampling..............................................................................................22

Huerfano County Methane in Water Wells...........................................................22

Orphaned Wells and Sites ..................................................................................23
4

LIST OF APPENDICES

1. COGCC Commission

2. COGCC Organization Chart
5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) is an implementing agency for 

water quality standards and classifications adopted by the Water Quality Control Commission 

(WQCC) for ground water protection. This authority was provided by SB 89-181, and is restated 

and clarified by a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that was adopted by the agencies on 

August 8, 1990. 

Section 5.1 of the MOA specifies that the COGCC must report annually to the WQCC about how 

its programs assure compliance with WQCC water quality standards and classifications for the 

activities, that are subject to the jurisdiction of the COGCC. 

This 21st annual report includes a summary of COGCC activities and changes in ground water 

protection programs that were made during the preceding year. Major issues concerning the 

implementation of water quality standards and classifications are also reported. 

2.0 COGCC ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS

Public Outreach and Communication

The COGCC employs the following strategies for effective communication with the public and the 

regulated industry:

• Staff reports are prepared prior to each hearing for the COGCC Commissioners. Ongoing 

staff activities such as compliance and enforcement actions, environmental and landowner 

issues, and other topics relevant to the mission of the COGCC are summarized in these 

reports. They are distributed widely to interested parties and they are posted on the 

COGCC website www.cogcc.state.co.us.

• A toll free telephone number (888-235-1101) to the Denver office has been established as 

a complaint hotline for citizen use.

• In 2012, the COGCC held one of its regular hearings (nine total) outside of Denver; in 

Steamboat Springs, Routt County.

• The COGCC continues to solicit participation on all levels from stakeholders, including the 

oil and gas industry, local governments, citizens, other regulatory agencies, agriculture

interests, and the environmental community. During 2012, COGCC staff participated in 

over 85 meetings at the request of municipal, county, and other local governments, EPA, 

BLM, and trade organizations, and in numerous meetings initiated by COGCC.

• Two new full-time employees (FTE) were added this year as Local Government Liaisons 

(LGLs). The LGLs provide an important communication role through their service, 

support, and outreach to Local Governmental Designees (LGDs), local government staff, 

various state agencies, the public, operators, and others.

• The COGCC continues to expand our internet presence. In addition to accessing oil and 

gas well data, internet users are able to access information regarding pits, spills/releases, 

complaints, and remediation projects and reports from numerous baseline ground water 

quality studies and environmental monitoring and investigation projects. The queries by 

which users access these data continue to be modified and refined to make them more 

“friendly”. Please visit our website at www.cogcc.state.co.us.
6

• On Wednesday, September 19, 2012, the COGCC water sample database went live on 

the COGIS system, available on the COGCC home page (cogcc.state.co.us). The water 

sample database allows the public to view water quality for specific sample locations 

throughout Colorado.

COGCC Commissioners

The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Act, as amended by HB 07-1341, specifies the number 

and composition of the Commission. HB 07-1341 requires nine Commissioners, seven of whom 

are appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate, and two ex officio voting 

members who are the Executive Directors of the Department of Natural Resources and the 

Department of Public Health and the Environment. At least two members are appointed from 

west of the continental divide and the other members are appointed taking into account the 

need for geographical representation of other areas of the state with high levels of oil and gas 

activity or employment. Of the seven, three members are to have substantial experience in the 

oil and gas industry and at least two of these must have college degrees in petroleum geology 

or petroleum engineering; one member must be a local government official; one member must 

have formal training or substantial experience in environmental or wildlife protection; one

member must have formal training or substantial experience in soil conservation or reclamation; 

and one member must be actively engaged in agricultural production and also be a royalty 

owner. A chart showing in more detail the makeup of the COGCC Commission is included in 

Appendix 1.

COGCC Staff

The COGCC has 71 FTE positions, with Information Technology (IT) support provided by four 

employees of the Office of Information Technology. The current organization chart is included in

Appendix 2.

The Engineering Unit includes eight professional engineers, one engineers-in-training (EIT) and

two engineering/environmental technicians. One engineer and the EIT are located in Rifle and 

one engineer is located in Durango. The others are located in the Denver office. 

The Environmental Unit includes 13 environmental protection specialists; one of the 

environmental protection specialists positions (Rifle) is currently vacant. Five of the environmental 

protection specialists (EPS II) are located in field offices in Brighton, Durango, Rifle, and Trinidad, 

which helps to minimize their complaint response time and maximize their ability to identify and 

address other potential environmental issues related to oil and gas development. The others are 

located in the Denver Office. The Oil and Gas Location Assessment (OGLA) group, which is part 

of the Environmental Unit, consists of five EPS that conduct a thorough review of the potential 

environmental impacts from the surface disturbance associated with oil and gas operations, 

including waste management. The OGLA staff can apply site specific conditions of approval to 

the Form 2As that address additional precautions that need to be taken to protect public health, 

safety, welfare, and wildlife. They also facilitate consultation with CDPHE and CDPW.

The Field Inspection Unit has 17 FTE including one manager, three supervisors, 

ten engineering technicians and two environmental protection specialists who bring additional 

expertise related to reclamation and other environmental issues. The supervisors, field 

inspectors, and the environmental protection specialists are located in Arvada, Broomfield, 

Cheyenne Wells, Durango, Fort Lupton, Grand Junction, Lafayette, Parachute, Pueblo West, 

Battlement Mesa, Steamboat Springs, Sterling , Trinidad, and Whitewater, which helps to 
7

maximize their time for field inspections and helps to minimize their response time for complaints 

and incidents. The COGCC is in the process of hiring an additional inspector who will be based 

in Rifle, Colorado. 

COGCC Environmental Unit

The COGCC environmental staff all have professional experience and expertise in

environmental issues associated with oil and gas operations, hydrogeology, geology, and 

geochemistry. We continue to handle questions, concerns, problems, programs, and issues 

relating to the oil and gas industry's impact on the environment, including wildlife, and public 

health safety and welfare. The environmental staff works closely with the COGCC engineering 

staff and the field inspectors. Incidents resulting in environmental impacts are typically referred 

to the environmental staff for investigation, remediation as necessary, and enforcement. The 

primary responsibilities of the environmental staff are discussed below.

Spill/Release Response

Operators are required to report spills and releases that occur as a result of oil and gas 

operations, in accordance with COGCC Rule 906. Produced oil, gas, and water are the 

substances most commonly spilled or released. These substances fall under the exploration 

and production (E&P) waste exemption to regulation as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of 

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); therefore, they are subject to COGCC 

jurisdiction. In most cases, impacts from these events are limited to soils and are limited in 

scope.

Spill response by the environmental staff includes onsite inspections, sample collection, 

remediation oversight, and review of reports, remediation plans, analytical data, and operating 

practices, to ensure protection of surface and ground water, in accordance with COGCC rules and 

WQCC standards and classifications. Spills are tracked in COGCC’s Master Records Database 

(MRDB) and can be accessed via the COGCC website (www.cogcc.co.us, select Database, then 

Inspection/Incident, then Spill/Release). In 2012 approximately 380 spills and releases were

reported and have been remediated or are in the process of being remediated.

An eForm version of the spill/release reporting form (Form 19) is being developed and will likely 

be released for statewide usage in early 2013. The eForm will improve reporting consistency 

and increase COGCC’s efficiency in reviewing and responding to spills. 

Complaint Response

The COGCC responds diligently to complaints received from individuals and other agencies. 

Complaints are tracked in the COGCC’s MRDB and can be accessed via the COGCC website. In 

2012, COGCC received approximately 200 complaints related to water issues. Landowner

complaints alleging damage to their land or water wells are most common. The environmental 

staff follow up where appropriate and collect samples for laboratory analysis when necessary. 

Operators are required to perform additional investigation, remediation, and mitigation, as 

needed, to bring sites into compliance with soil and ground water standards.

Remediation Projects

Operators are required to remediate significant adverse environmental impacts that occur as a 

result of oil and gas activities. Situations requiring remediation often result from spills and 

releases of produced water and hydrocarbons discovered at the time of occurrence, during due 
8

diligence investigations, during the upgrading of production facilities and replacement of older 

equipment, during the plugging of wells and abandonment of locations, or during pit closures. The 

environmental staff reviews and approves remediation plans, evaluates analytical data, monitors 

the progress of the remediation, and ensures cleanup standards and other remediation

requirements are met through verification sampling and other measures. 

Remediation projects are tracked in the COGCC’s MRDB database and can be accessed on the 

COGCC website. During 2012, COGCC received approximately 600 new remediation plans, and 

closed approximately 570 remediation projects. 

Where ground water has been impacted, operators are required to: eliminate any continued 

release; investigate the extent of contamination; remove the source of contamination (such as the 

impacted soils in contact with ground water or free hydrocarbon product); remediate; establish 

points of compliance; and monitor contaminant levels.

Pit Program

Industry operators employ pits at oil and gas locations for a variety of purposes, most commonly 

to contain drill cuttings, produced water and flow back, and reuse and recycling of produced 

water. The COGCC is responsible for permitting pits (Form 15), inspecting their operation to 

ensure compliance, and overseeing their closure. COGCC Staff review pit permits for 

construction and operational details, and evaluate the environmental setting to ensure that the 

pit can be used without causing adverse environmental impacts. The Director may apply 

conditions of approval with additional provisions to protect waters of the state, public health or 

the environment (Rule 903.e.). In 2012, COGCC staff approved permits for approximately 65

new pits and approved the closure of approximately 106 pits. 

COGCC released a new eForm Form 15 for pit applications in early 2012. The eForm improves

consistency among applications and increases COGCC’s renew and processing efficiency. 

Statewide, applications for new pits are down over the previous year reflecting both a decrease 

in new O&G activity in areas that traditionally have used pits for produced water disposal and 

widespread industry acceptance of “pit-less” drilling and completion activities. As an alternative 

to drilling pits, many operators are implementing “closed loop” drilling systems, which contain 

and circulate fluids in a series of tanks. Use of closed-loop systems has increased dramatically 

in Weld County, where approximately 90% to 95% of new wells used closed loop systems in 

2012. The Form 2A permitting process allows operators to specify whether closed loop systems 

will be used for wells on a location; however, COGCC staff may also require the use of closed 

loop systems in areas where site specific conditions, such as shallow groundwater, warrant

additional precautions.

Permitted Centralized Waste Management Facilities

Non-commercial centralized exploration and production (E&P) waste management facilities are 

permitted by COGCC under Rule 908. Generally these facilities are larger than a typical tank 

battery that might handle wastes from only one or a few wells. These larger facilities handle 

wastes from many wells and wastes that may be from more than one field or lease and may 

include lined pits, land farms, drill cuttings solidification facilities, or tank batteries. A permit is 

required for these facilities and, as part of the approval process, staff evaluates the proposed 

site, operation, financial assurance, and preliminary closure plans. These facilities are currently 

required to have financial assurance in an amount equal to the estimated cost for proper 

closure, abandonment, and reclamation. During 2012, the COGCC permitted two new 
9

centralized E&P waste management facility. Permits for three new centralized E&P waste 

management facilities are under review. Staff closed one facility in 2012. There are 31 active

permitted centralized E&P waste management facilities in the state.

Disposal and Reuse of Produced Water

Approximately 50% of the water co-produced with oil and gas is disposed of or used for 

enhanced recovery by underground injection. Most produced water that is not injected is

disposed in evaporation and percolation pits or discharged under Colorado Discharge Permit 

System (CDPS) permit. A small amount of produced water is used for dust suppression on oil 

and gas lease roads. In addition, to minimize waste and the use of fresh water, more operators 

are reusing and recycling produced water and other fluids for drilling and well completion 

activities including hydraulic fracture treatment (“fracing”).

Onsite Inspections

In January 2005, COGCC adopted a policy to conduct onsite inspections where oil and gas 

wells are proposed on lands where the surface owner did not execute a lease or is not party to a 

surface use agreement. Under COGCC Rule 306, an operator is required to use its best efforts 

to consult in good faith with the affected surface owner with regard to locations of proposed 

wells and surface facilities, access roads, and final reclamation and abandonment. If the 

COGCC Rule 306 good faith consultation between the operator and the surface owner does not 

resolve operational issues related to the proposed well, the surface owner may request that the 

COGCC conduct an onsite inspection under the policy.

During the onsite inspection, the surface owner, operator, and COGCC staff meet at the location 

and discuss issues related to the proposed well and associated surface facilities. The local 

government designee may also attend if requested by the surface owner. Following the 

inspection, the COGCC may apply appropriate site specific drilling permit conditions, if 

necessary to avoid potential unreasonable crop loss or land damage, or to prevent or mitigate 

health, safety and welfare concerns, including potential significant adverse environmental 

impacts. Any such conditions of approval must be consistent with applicable Commission 

spacing orders and well location rules, and must take into account cost-effectiveness, technical 

feasibility, protection of correlative rights, and prevention of waste. The COGCC cannot require 

an operator to use an exception location, directional drilling techniques, or otherwise 

compromise its reasonable geologic and petroleum engineering considerations.

Since January 2005, the COGCC has received a total of 148 requests for onsite inspections 

under the Policy For Onsite Inspections On Lands Where The Surface Owner Is Not A Party To

A Surface Use Agreement Policy. There were two onsite inspections in 2012.

In addition to the Onsite Inspection Policy, onsite inspections are being conducted in the San 

Juan Basin under Cause 112, Order Nos. 156 and 157. These are cases where an onsite 

inspection was required because an APD was submitted without a surface use agreement.

Oil & Gas Location Assessment (OGLA)

Operators are required to submit an Oil and Gas Location Assessment (OGLA) Form 2A for any 

“new oil and gas location.” Most operators are taking advantage of the COGCC’s eForm 

process and more than 95% of the Form 2As are submitted, reviewed, modified, and approved 

electronically.
10

The Form 2A requires site specific environmental information about surface locations and 

provides for consultation by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE) and Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife (CPW) with the surface owner in some 

circumstances. OGLA specialists review and evaluate Form 2A applications, as well as publicly 

available information, to determine whether the proposed oil and gas operations have the 

potential to negatively impact public health, safety and welfare, including the environment and 

wildlife resources. Site-specific conditions of approval can be required to prevent or mitigate 

potential impacts. 

One critical part of the evaluation is the sensitive area determination and the evaluation of water 

resources. OGLA specialists consider proximity to surface and ground water, terrain, 

topography, local geology and soil types to determine whether the proposed location is situated 

in a sensitive area. Once the sensitive area determination is made, appropriate protective 

measures are considered and applied. The Form 2A process allows the COGCC to work 

cooperatively with operators to protect water resources by advanced planning and proactive 

operational measures. 

The OGLA group facilitates the consultation process with CDPHE and CPW. In 2012 COGCC 

staff consulted with CDPHE on 3 proposed oil and gas location - Form 2As. In addition the 

COGCC consulted with CPW on approximately 181 proposed Form 2As. 

Oil and Gas Conservation and Environmental Response Fund (Fund 170)

The COGCC receives an annual appropriation of $312,033 that is used primarily by the 

environmental staff to respond to and investigate complaints alleging impacts from oil and gas 

operations, and an appropriation of $325,000 that can be used to conduct special environmental 

projects such as baseline ground water testing, gas seep investigations, and regional 

investigations of potential impacts from oil and gas operations. Because of the COGCC’s need 

to respond to emergency situations related to oil and gas operations, the COGCC has been 

appropriated $1,500,000 for emergency response activities. In addition, the COGCC continues 

to receive an appropriation of $220,000 for plugging, abandoning, and reclaiming orphaned

wells.

In 2012 the COGCC used the $312,033 appropriation to respond to and investigate complaints 

and spills/releases, and to ensure compliance with COGCC rules. In addition, Special 

Environmental Projects conducted by the COGCC environmental staff included: ongoing 

monitoring of methane impacts to ground water from an orphaned gas well in Bondad; oversight 

of required environmental monitoring for gas wells drilled in the vicinity of the Project Rulison 

and Project Rio Blanco nuclear test sites; third party review of engineering, ground water, and 

geologic data related to concerns in Garfield County regarding potential impacts from oil and 

gas activity; ongoing investigation of ground water and surface water impacts from leaking pits 

in Garfield County; ongoing investigations of gas seeps associated with orphaned oil and gas 

wells in Fremont County; and ongoing monitoring, investigation, and remediation oversight 

related to ground water and water well impacts from gas development in Huerfano County. 

The COGCC engineering staff used appropriated funds and claimed financial assurance to plug 

and abandon and to reclaim orphaned oil and gas sites in Cheyenne, Fremont, La Plata, Mesa, 

and Morgan Counties. In FY 2012-2013, the engineering staff plans on plugging, abandoning 

and reclaiming orphaned oil and gas wells in Archuleta, Fremont, Garfield, Logan, Mesa, Moffat, 

and Washington Counties.
11

Data Management and Geographical Information Systems (GIS)

To implement new rules adopted in April of 2009, COGCC made changes to applications to 

improve electronic tracking and processing of permits and other data. Major modifications were 

made to the following systems along with their associated databases:

• Permit processing – eForm was implemented;

• COGIS Database – Many new tables and queries to support eForm and other 

applications;

• Imaging System – Migration from Content Manager to LaserFiche

• GIS- Addition of several new map layers.

A brief description of the changes for each system is provided below:

Permit Processing and eForms

The eForm application allows Operators to submit forms electronically. eForms currently in use 

are:

• Form 2 – Application for Permit to Drill

• Form 2A – Oil and Gas Location Assessment

• Form 5 – Drilling Completion Report

• Form 5A – Completed Interval Report

• Form 6 – Well Abandonment Report

• Form 15 – Earthen Pit Report/Permit 

• Form 17 – Bradenhead Test Report

• Form 41 – Trade Secret Claim of Entitlement

• Form 42 – Notice of Notification (Notice of Hydraulic Fracturing)

With eForms, COGCC staff is able to review the forms and attachments electronically. Each 

staff member involved in the process then approves their portion of the form (i.e. spacing, 

engineering, etc.) online. Paper files are not generated for these new permits. Multiple 

approvals are required on each form. As a form is working its way through the COGCC review 

process, the public is able to track the status of the form through the use of the public user 

interface. The IT staff is currently converting additional COGCC Forms to the electronic format.

Environmental Database

COGCC developed and maintains a publicly-available, searchable database of groundwater 

and soil sample analytical results from throughout the state. The environmental database was 

developed in 2011 and 2012, and went “live” in September 2012. Historic sampling data 

received from several sources dating back many years is being migrated to the new database. 

We anticipate the data migration will be complete in early 2013. Once complete, data for over 

12,000 sample locations and 27,000 individual samples will be available to the public. New data 

will be continuously added to the database.

The data can be accessed through the GIS Online map. Sample locations with available water 

quality data appear as blue triangles when the Water-Gas Sample layer is turned on. The user 

can double click on a sample site and gain access to the analytical data for that site. An 

example analytical report is shown below:
12

The current dataset is comprised of water quality data received since the beginning of 2007; 

data for 7,800 samples from wells and other sampling locations such as springs is available. 

The database allows for electronic data deliverables to be used for input. New samples from 

COGCC staff sampling efforts, current COGCC baseline sampling rules, and the COGA 

Voluntary Baseline Sampling Program are currently being uploaded.

Document Imaging

LaserFiche allows for improving functionality with respect to uploading and indexing images. 

The system provides users with tools to sort and query the image repository in ways that were 

not previously possible. 

GIS

The GIS Online map continues to be a critical application that staff, industry, other agencies, 

and the general public depend on to process permits, create reports and to view information that 

can assist in exploration programs, or address environmental concerns. Additionally, certain

rules require industry to view the online map to determine if a proposed location falls within a 

CDPHE 317B Buffer Zone, a Sensitive Wildlife Habitat (SWH), and/or a Wildlife Restricted 

Surface Occupancy (RSO) Area.

The GIS Online map contains over 150 map layers including oil and gas wells, permits, spacing 

orders, field boundaries, and a number of base layers such as cities, rivers, roads, sections, 

land ownership, etc. Aerial photos, topographic quads, and geologic maps are displayed as 
13

images in the map. 

A new build of the mapping application (GIS Online 2012) will be deployed in January 2013. 

The new version allows a user to zoom to a street address, has improved printing functionality, 

and includes a live connection to the environmental database sample sites.

A screen shot of the new map is provided below:

Online Access to Baseline and Special Studies Reports

The written reports for COGCC managed baseline sampling projects and other special 

environmental studies, such as the Water Well Booklet and Water Quality Trend and Data 

Analysis for the San Juan Basin are posted on the website under the “Library” tab where they are 

primarily organized by basin. Many of these reports are in PDF format and can be downloaded.

COGCC is in the process of redesigning the website so that these documents can be more easily 

located and reviewed.

Industry Services

The COGCC continues to promote its mission to foster the responsible development of 

Colorado’s oil and gas natural resources by providing information and assistance in complying 

with the COGCC rules and requirements. Our expanded website and GIS capabilities support 

this mission.
14

Industry Compliance/Violations/Penalties

In 2012, the COGCC continued efforts to reduce a backlog of enforcement matters. The 

Commission assessed penalties totaling approximately $287,600 against 10 operators for 

violations of rules and orders. Another $5,500 worth of bonds were called.

Underground Injection Control (UIC)

COGCC staff continues to work with WQCD and EPA staff to ensure that operators of Class II 

injection wells in Colorado are in compliance with ground water standards and classifications, and 

that points of compliance are established. In addition, the Colorado Geologic Survey is consulted 

on site specific matters, such as the occurrence of faults and potential seismic issues. Current 

injection operations in the Raton Basin are being studied to evaluate how injection of produced 

water may relate to local seismicity. 

COGCC approved 24 Class II UIC well permits during 2012. One permit was denied because 

staff concluded that protection of the overlying underground sources of drinking water (USDW) 

could not be assured. The applicant appealed staff’s denial to the Commission, which upheld 

staff’s decision unanimously. The COGCC staff was supported in this hearing by assistance of 

WQCD staff.

Voluntary Baseline Groundwater Quality Sampling Program

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA), in cooperation with COGCC, developed a 

Voluntary Baseline Groundwater Quality Sampling Program that went into effect January 1, 

2012. It is open to all oil & gas operators throughout the state and provides a standardized 

program for baseline and post-drilling and completion sampling and analysis of domestic water 

wells and other groundwater features such as seeps and springs. COGCC acts as custodian of 

the data generated from the sampling program. This voluntary program does not exempt oil 

and gas operators from the mandatory groundwater monitoring required in the Greater 

Wattenberg Area by Rule 318A.e.(4), or the Rule 608.b. requirements for coalbed methane 

wells or other existing field-wide orders. 

During 2012, several oil and gas operators performed voluntary baseline ground water sampling 

and provided analytical data to COGCC. These operators are actively developing the Niobrara 

Formation in northern Weld County and collected samples from over 300 domestic water wells 

in this area. 

Pending Rulemaking - Statewide Groundwater Baseline Sampling and Monitoring

The COGCC, through numerous orders, rules and conditions of approval, has required water 

well sampling and monitoring in various parts of the State. In November, the Commission 

initiated rulemaking upon the staff’s recommendation to consider adopting a statewide 

groundwater baseline and monitoring rule. The proposed sampling rule will provide the COGCC 

with a mechanism to obtain data consistently across the state. The data will be used to establish 

pre-drilling groundwater quality. Subsequent monitoring data will assist in determining whether 

oil and gas operations have had any impact on groundwater quality and that impacts, should 

they occur, are quickly identified and mitigated. A copy of proposed Rule 609 is available on the 

COGCC Internet homepage.
15

How Well Do You Know Your Water Well

The brochure, How Well Do You Know Your Water Well, has been updated and revised to 

include information about mitigating methane in water wells, current contact information for 

various agencies, and water well maintenance and record keeping. COGCC provides this 

useful brochure to water well owners when water samples are collected from their wells by 

COGCC, operators, or third party contractors. The update project was initiated by the Colorado 

Oil and Gas Association (COGA) with support from the COGCC and cooperation of CDPHE and 

DWR. An electronic version of the brochure is available in the Library section of the COGCC 

website. 

3.0 COGCC COORDINATION WITH WQCD/WQCC

In 2012 the COGCC, WQCD, and WQCC staff and commission representatives met 4 times 

(quarterly). Craig Wiant is the WQCC representative at these meetings.

4.0 OIL & GAS EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION ACTIVITY IN COLORADO BY 

REGION/FIELD

This section summarizes oil and gas activities within Colorado by region, and highlights COGCC 

studies, issues and concerns relating to ground water. In each region there are remediation 

projects of various sizes and types in which impacted soils and/or ground water are being 

investigated or cleaned up by operators. Not all of the projects are described in this report. The 

COGCC environmental staff directs and monitors these projects, as described in Section 1.

4.1 SOUTHWEST COLORADO

Oil and Gas E&P Activity

Most of the gas produced in the southwestern part of Colorado comes from coalbed methane 

(CBM) wells. Drilling activity has decreased in response to lower gas prices throughout the 

region. In 2012 approximately 107 permits for new wells and recompletions of existing wells 

were approved. Currently there are approximately 3,343 active wells in La Plata County. These 

wells produce approximately 1.02 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas per day, which is 

approximately 25% of the total gas production in the state. Also, there are approximately 485 

active oil, gas, and carbon dioxide wells in five other southwestern Colorado counties: San 

Miguel, Dolores, Montezuma, Montrose, and Archuleta. Approximately 270 bcf of carbon 

dioxide is produced from wells in Montezuma and Dolores Counties. This is approximately 96% 

of total carbon dioxide production in the state.

Public Involvement

In 2000, the COGCC established the Gas and Oil Regulatory Team (GORT) to provide a forum 

for meaningful dialogue between operators, citizens, county and local governments, the Southern 

Ute Indian Tribe, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the US Forest Service (USFS), and the 

COGCC. Members of this group continue to fund and provide technical support for the ongoing 

monitoring and mitigation of methane seeps along the Fruitland Coal outcrop. 

In July 2006 the USFS and BLM issued the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 

Northern San Juan Basin. As an outgrowth of the EIS process, the USFS and BLM established 

the Northern San Juan Basin Stakeholders Group to provide a forum similar to the GORT group, 
16

but one that more directly addresses issues relating to oil and gas development within the EIS 

geographic area. 

Ground Water and Other Environmental Issues

As a result of COGCC Orders 112-156 and 112-157 and numerous subsequent orders related to 

CBM development in the San Juan Basin, operators have collected more than 7,000 water 

samples from more than 2,128 water wells. The analytical results have been submitted to the 

COGCC and to the land owners. To date, no systemic impacts to groundwater quality related to 

drilling and production from CBM wells has been detected. As a result of the December 2008

rulemaking, water well sampling in advance of CBM development is now required statewide by 

COGCC Rule 608.

Citizen Complaints, Spills and Other Issues Regarding Ground and Surface Water

The COGCC received 11 complaints alleging impacts from oil and gas operations in La Plata, 

Rio Grande and Montezuma Counties. Four complaints alleged impact to water wells or 

requested baseline sampling. Of these, three were determined to be unrelated to oil and gas 

activities and one is still under investigation.

The COGCC received five complaints regarding other environmental damage or operational 

issues. Of these, four were noise complaints and one was a livestock mortality issue. Of the 

four noise complaints, three were closed with no violation noted and one resulted in a Notice of 

Alleged Violation (NOAV). The livestock death was not linked to any oil & gas activity. 

Nineteen spills/releases of E&P waste were reported in La Plata, Montezuma, and Dolores 

Counties during 2012. Of these, three were releases to surface water; two into dry channels 

and one into an irrigation ditch. Both of the releases to dry channels were investigated and 

closed with no impact identified. The release to the irrigation ditch is currently under 

assessment and remains open. Four of the remaining spill cases were on SUIT land and were 

addressed by the SUIT; one was on BLM surface and has been addressed by the BLM. Three

spills resulted from truck spills, all which were assessed, cleaned up and closed. One spill 

involved non-E&P waste at a compressor site and assessment and cleanup was addressed 

through the CDPHE.

 

COGCC received over 50 requests for baseline water well testing near a proposed well pad in 

Rio Grande County. These requests are being catalogued and a testing program will be 

conducted in advance of the proposed drilling activities. The APD was approved by COGCC in 

2012, is currently under review for a Federal (BLM) permit, and still requires a County permit.

Rio Grande County implemented a drilling moratorium in 2012 pending results of a regional 

hydrogeologic study that is in progress.

COGCC staff in southwest Colorado continues to work with area operators to systematically 

assess the status of “pits” in the COGCC database throughout the region. In 1995 operators 

were required to submit an inventory of all of the “pits” they operated. In addition to pits, some 

operators reported containment vessels, including partially buried steel and fiberglass tanks, 

and these were entered into the database as “pits”. The intent of this assessment is to update 

the database to accurately reflect waste management facilities previously and currently used in 

the San Juan Basin.
17

4.2 NORTHWEST COLORADO

Oil and Gas E&P Activity

Northwest Colorado continues to experience a high level of oil and gas activity, especially in 

Garfield, Mesa, and Rio Blanco Counties. Northwest Colorado drilling permits account for 

approximately 35% of the state total (27% in Garfield County, 5% in Mesa County, and 3% in 

Rio Blanco County). The driving force behind this active development continues to be the 

extensive natural gas reserves in the Piceance Basin, and an expanding pipeline infrastructure 

that enables improved marketing of natural gas from the area. 

Public Involvement

The Northwest Colorado Oil and Gas Forum (NWCOGF) meets quarterly. The NWCOGF is an 

important forum for the discussion of oil and gas issues and concerns at the local level. The 

participants include the COGCC, other State, Federal, and local government agencies, the oil 

and gas industry, and concerned landowners and citizens. Meetings are well attended by the 

various stakeholders.

Environmental Issues

COGCC staff investigated citizen and other agency’s complaints and responded to requests for 

baseline sampling, processed and tracked spill/release reports submitted by operators, followed 

up on the findings of COGCC field inspections, and conducted other environmental studies in 

northwestern Colorado. In accordance with the MOA for Response to Spills/Releases to 

Surface Water, the COGCC notifies the CDPHE of releases impacting waters of the state. In all 

cases where ground water was impacted, operators were required to conduct a site 

investigation and perform appropriate remediation to comply with COGCC requirements.

Groundwater and Surface Water

The COGCC investigated a number of complaints about releases of exploration and production 

(E&P) waste that either impacted or threatened to impact ground water in northwestern 

Colorado. COGCC staff and third party contractors collected water samples from 11 water 

wells and four surface water bodies for laboratory analysis. COGCC staff determined the water 

wells and surface water body had not been impacted by oil and gas operations. 

There were three spill/releases of E&P waste fluids that impacted either surface water or dry 

drainages leading to surface water. CDPHE was notified by the COGCC in accordance with the 

MOA for Response to Spills/Releases to Surface Water.

Enforcement Related to Impacts to Ground Water, Surface Water, and Springs

In 2008, spills and releases of E&P waste at several locations on the Roan Plateau impacted 

springs, ground water, and surface water. Investigation, remediation, and enforcement have 

continued since then. During 2012, enforcement actions were taken against three operators 

related to impacts to surface and ground water and springs. These matters were resolved by 

Administrative Orders by Consent. COGCC staff consulted with WQCD Enforcement Group 

during the resolution of these matters. Total fines in the amount of $133,000 were provided to 

the Middle Colorado River Watershed Partnership to help fund a watershed assessment and to 

support an application by the Colorado River Conservation District to the EPA for matching 

funds pursuant to Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. 
18

Drilling Near Project Rulison Test Site

In 1969, the Atomic Energy Commission, a predecessor to the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE), conducted three experiments on the use of nuclear devices to enhance natural gas 

production from wells. One of those projects, known as Project Rulison, was conducted in 

Garfield County. The well in which an approximately 40-kiloton nuclear device was detonated is 

located on Battlement Mesa. The device was detonated at a depth of 8,426 feet, the deepest 

nuclear detonation ever performed in the United States.

In 2005, Presco Corporation (PRESCO) submitted APDs for, and began drilling, a number of 

wells in Garfield County in the vicinity of Project Rulison, but outside the 0.5 mile buffer zone 

established by the COGCC. To address concerns regarding the potential for new gas wells to 

intercept materials impacted by the nuclear test, PRESCO agreed to conduct a monitoring 

program to test for radionuclides. This monitoring program included background monitoring of 

non-impacted gas and water from the Williams Fork Formation and overlying formations, 

surface and ground water in the vicinity, and monitoring of drilling mud, cuttings and gas brought 

to the surface during drilling, completion, and production at selected locations. Reports 

summarizing the results of the 2004 Baseline and the 2005 and 2006 Annual Water Sampling 

activities conducted by PRESCO were submitted to the COGCC. PRESCO also submitted 

reports summarizing the results of Gas Well Drilling Monitoring activities to the COGCC. 

In 2008, Noble Energy, Inc., Williams Production RMT, and EnCana Oil & Gas USA agreed to 

voluntarily prepare and submit a consolidated Rulison Sampling and Analysis Plan (RSAP) to 

monitor gas wells whose bottom-hole locations are within a three-mile radius of the detonation 

site. Compliance with the RSAP became a condition of approval for Applications for Permit to 

Drill (APDs) issued within a three-mile radius of the detonation site. To date, samples have been 

collected for laboratory analysis from 16 Tier I wells and 63 Tier II wells. There have been a total 

of 244 samples from Tier I locations and 265 samples from Tier II locations. Various media 

including produced water, natural gas, drilling mud, flowback fluid, drill cuttings, and frac fluid 

have been sampled and analyzed. Rulison related constituents have not been detected in any 

of the samples.

Quarterly and annual reports from 2006 to the present have been submitted by Noble Energy, 

Inc., EnCana Oil & gas (USA), Inc., Williams Production RMT, Inc., and Laramie II, LLC. These 

reports, as well as the PRESCO reports are available on the COGCC website, 

www.cogcc.state.co.us under Library.

In June 2010, The U.S. Department of Energy – Office of Legacy Management (DOE-OLM) 

completed a Final Rulison Path Forward report. DOE developed the path forward report as 

guidance for their discussions with Colorado state regulators and other interested stakeholders 

in response to increased drilling for natural gas reserves in the vicinity of the Project Rulison test 

site. COGCC and CDPHE staff reviewed the report and their comments are being incorporated 

by DOE-LM. The Draft Path Forward Report is available on the DOE-LM website at

http://www.lm.doe.gov/land/sites/co/rulison/rulison.htm. 

In July 2010, Noble Energy, Inc., EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., and Williams Production RMT, 

Inc. prepared revision 3.0 of the RSAP. The current RSAP, review comments from COGCC, 

CDPHE, DOE, and other interested parties, quarterly monitoring reports, annual monitoring 

reports, and annual audits done by the COGCC are available on the COGCC website

(www.cogcc.state.co.us) under Library, Piceance Basin. 

In calendar year 2012, 70 spring, surface water, and water well samples were collected as part 

of the annual Rulison environmental sampling performed by Noble. Rulison related constituents 
19

were not been detected.

Drilling Near Project Rio Blanco Test Site

Project Rio Blanco is the site of the detonation of three 30 ± 3-kiloton nuclear devices at depths 

of 5,838, 6,230, and 6,689 feet below ground that occurred on May 17, 1973. The oil and gas 

operators, in consultation with other affected working interest owners, have voluntarily agreed to 

a drilling moratorium within the area between the 600-foot Department of Energy (DOE) 

exclusion zone and a 1⁄2-mile radius of Project Rio Blanco until additional radiological data have 

been collected outside of this zone to demonstrate that gas drilling, completion, and production 

can be safely accomplished. 

The operators also agreed to a voluntary drilling exclusion zone around the Fawn Creek 

Government No. 1 (FCG No. 1) well where radioactively-contaminated water produced from the 

Rio Blanco test well was injected into an interval between 5,360 and 6,072 feet below the 

ground surface. Although the federal government did not implement a drilling exclusion zone 

around FCG No. 1, the voluntary drilling exclusion zone around this well will be maintained until 

sufficient radiological data have been collected to confirm that radionuclides at the FCG No. 1 

well have not migrated to producing gas wells outside this zone. Under the voluntary drilling

exclusion zone, the operators propose to limit drilling and gas production within a 600-foot 

radius of the FCG No. 1 well to a true vertical depth of 6,500 feet below ground surface. FCG 

No. 1 is also within the 1⁄2-mile voluntary drilling moratorium area discussed above. 

The COGCC has adopted special procedural requirements regarding APDs in the Project Rio 

Blanco area. The COGCC collaborated with the CDPHE, BLM, DOE, Rio Blanco County, 

operators and surface owners in the preparing and releasing version 1.0 of the Rio Blanco

Sampling and Analysis Plan (RBSAP). The SAP and related information and correspondence 

are available on the COGCC website, www.cogcc.state.co.us under Library. Additionally, an 

email address has been set up to convey Project Rio Blanco related information. That address 

is: Rioblanco.submittal@state.co.us. In the calendar year 2011, there was no drilling near 

Project Rio Blanco; however, one well is scheduled to be plugged and abandoned in 2012.

4.3 NORTHEAST COLORADO

Oil and Gas E&P Activity

Oil and gas activity in the northeastern portion of the state remains high with continued interest 

in oil production from the Niobrara Formation using horizontal wells. In 2011, approximately 

48% of the total well permits approved by the COGCC were issued to operators in Weld County, 

which has the largest number of active wells (approximately 19,000) in the State. Smaller oil 

and gas fields with lower levels of activity are located in other counties throughout northeast 

Colorado. In 2012, approximately 250 billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas were produced in 

northeast Colorado (approximately 20% of the total gas production for the state) and 

approximately 26 million barrels (bbls) of crude oil were produced (approximately 72% of the 

total crude oil production for the State). 

Public Involvement

COGCC staff continues to receive and follow up on complaints and requests for presentations 

and participation in public meetings from local governments and the public throughout 

northeastern Colorado. 
20

One example of public involvement was a presentation provided to members of the Colorado 

Environmental Crimes Task Force by Engineering Manager, Stuart Ellsworth and Environmental 

Protection Specialist John Axelson. The presentation provided information on hydraulic 

fracturing, the life cycle of an oil and gas well and covered COGCC regulations, enforcement 

and environmental issues.

Enforcement Issues

COGCC staff discovered an unreported release at an oil well in Washington County. After 

contacting the operator to notify them of appropriate reporting and cleanup requirements, the 

operator still failed to take appropriate actions. The failure to properly report and cleanup the 

spill resulted in a Notice of Alleged Violation (NOAV) that ultimately led to an Administrative 

Order by Consent, Cause No. 1V, Order No. 1V-398. The operator was ordered to pay a 

$25,000 fine and complete all corrective actions to properly remediate the location. As part of 

the agreement, the operator also closed unlined earthen skim pits at four leases in Washington 

County and is in the process of remediating all impacts associated with those pits. COGCC 

staff continues to work with operators in northeast Colorado to voluntarily bring unlined earthen 

skim pits into compliance.

COGCC staff is currently pursuing enforcement measures against several other operators in 

northeast Colorado for a variety of environmental violations such as failure to report releases, 

improper management of E&P waste and failure to properly remediate impacts from spills and 

releases. In addition, COGCC staff continues to issue NOAVs for a variety of rule violations and 

are generally successful in resolving corrective actions without any additional enforcement 

measures beyond the NOAV. 

Environmental Issues

COGCC staff investigated citizen and other agency’s complaints and responded to requests for 

baseline sampling, processed and tracked spill/release reports submitted by operators, and 

followed up on the findings of COGCC field inspectors. In accordance with the MOA for 

Response to Spills/Releases to Surface Water, the COGCC notifies the CDPHE of releases 

impacting surface water. COGCC staff and third party contractors collected water samples from

39 water wells and one surface water body for laboratory analysis.

Groundwater

In all cases where groundwater was impacted, operators were required to conduct site 

investigations and perform appropriate remediation to comply with COGCC requirements. In 

addition, the COGCC continues to oversee the investigation and remediation of contaminated 

soil and ground water associated with gas plants and compressor stations throughout northeast 

Colorado. 

4.4 SOUTHEAST COLORADO

Oil and Gas E&P Activities

Southeastern Colorado produces conventional gas, CBM gas, carbon dioxide and crude oil from 

several basins, including the Raton Basin, the southern portion of the D-J Basin, the Cañon City 

Embayment, and the Hugoton Embayment. There are approximately 4295 active wells within 

the nineteen county region. Approximately 2,905 and 311 of the active wells are located in Las 

Animas and Cheyenne Counties, respectively. Approximately 115 billion cubic feet (bcf) of 
21

natural gas, 11 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide and 2,300,000 bbls of oil were produced in 

this region during 2012. Approximately 83% of the gas was produced from the 2,905 CBM wells 

in Las Animas County and approximately 53% of the oil was produced from wells in Cheyenne 

County. The 11 billion cubic feet of carbon dioxide was produced from wells in Huerfano 

County. This is approximately 4% of the total amount of carbon dioxide produced in the state.

A total of 120 drilling permits were issued for oil and gas wells in southeastern Colorado in 

2012. Approximately 68% of the 164 were issued in four counties (25% in Lincoln County, 20% 

in Cheyenne County, 14% in El Paso County and 9% in Kiowa County).

Approximately 81,000,000 barrels of produced water were generated in southeast Colorado 

during 2012. Eighty-four percent of the produced water was generated from CBM wells in Las 

Animas County. Produced water is managed by underground injection, CDPS permitted 

surface water discharge, and in evaporation/percolation pits. There are 93 active injection (UIC) 

wells in this region; 40 in Cheyenne County, 22 in Las Animas County, 14 in Baca County, nine

in Kiowa County, and eight additional UIC wells in other counties in Southeastern Colorado. 

There are also 57 UIC wells in Baca County used as part of an active gas storage field.

Public Involvement

COGCC staff participated as a stakeholder in the Colorado Water Quality Forum Agricultural 

Diversion Work Group held in previous years. The work group consisted of representatives 

from the oil and gas industry, the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD), irrigators, 

the agriculture community and wastewater treatment facilities. Permits, including narrative 

standards that were discussed by this group to protect agricultural interests, have been issued 

to four operators in the Raton Basin. Norwest Applied Hydrology (on behalf of Pioneer Natural 

Resources) installed and maintains continuous monitoring stations in the Apishapa River 

drainage in an attempt to better define possible impacts from WQCD permitted discharges of 

CBM produced water into the waters of the state. Temperature, conductivity and pressure are 

monitored at 3 locations in the watershed. Local irrigators have access to data collected from 

these stations (www.apishapawatershed.org/ ). 

The measurement of pressure can be used to estimate flow. The conductivity of the water can 

be used to calculate sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) by comparison with laboratory measured 

sodium, calcium and magnesium concentrations collected on a monthly basis. Three oil and 

gas operators installed a similar nine station continuous monitoring network in the upper 

Purgatoire River drainage as part of an effort to gather information that might aid them in 

understanding whether there are impacts from discharging produced water from CBM wells 

under CDPS permits issued by the WQCD (www.purgatoirewatershed.org/).

Environmental Issues

COGCC staff investigated citizen complaints and followed up requests for baseline water 

sampling, investigated the findings of COGCC field inspections, and conducted special projects 

and emergency response actions. The citizen complaints included investigating water wells, 

sampling produced water, investigating pit overflows and leaks, sampling springs and soil. The 

special projects included two ground water monitoring projects, soil sampling at an abandoned 

pit, and gas sampling at two leaking orphaned gas wells. 

Groundwater

Forty-two water wells were sampled during 2012. Two water wells were sampled twice as part 
22

of continuing investigations of impacts from CBM operations in Huerfano County. These 

Huerfano County water wells were also sampled by U.S. EPA and operators as part of the 

EPA’s national study of potential impacts from hydraulic fracture well completion practices.

Springs

No impacts to springs were observed in the 2012. 

Surface Water

There were three spill/release events in which E&P waste entered surface water. E&P waste 

spilled was mainly CBM produced water. These three events occurred within the Raton Basin. 

WQCD staff was notified as required under the MOA between WQCD and COGCC. There were 

six additional spills that reached dry arroyos that were reported as spills impacting waters of the 

state. One spill from a leaking lined pit may have impacted groundwater nearby as discussed 

above.

Stormwater and Surface Water Complaints

One complaint alleging inadequate implementation and maintenance of stormwater best 

management practices along a lease road was investigated. In this case, the operator had 

installed and maintained sediment traps and other filtering BMP’s and successfully performed 

interim reclamation and maintained the installed BMPs following issuance of a Notice of Alleged 

Violation.

Alleged Impacts from Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation (Fracing)

The Raton Basin in southeastern Colorado was one of several areas chosen by the U.S. EPA 

for a retrospective study of hydraulic fracture well completion practices and possible impacts. 

COGCC is working with EPA staff and operators on the Colorado portion of the study. Samples 

of groundwater, produced water and surface water were collected from approximately 20 sites 

by EPA staff in May and again in November 2012.

Baseline Sampling

Thirteen water wells in Freemont County were sampled at the request of landowners to 

establish baseline conditions prior to drilling. A baseline sampling and analysis report for 25

water wells in Elbert County was prepared in 2012 and is available on the COGCC website 

library pages for the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Huerfano County Methane in Water Wells

As part of the ongoing investigation, monitoring, and mitigation efforts conducted by a CBM 

operator in response to impacts to water wells. The operator’s CBM wells were plugged and 

abandoned this year after remaining shut-in since July, 2007. The remediation system 

consisting of three removal wells and eight injection wells was also shut down this year. The 

operator has installed and tested passive mitigation systems at three homes in accordance with 

orders adopted by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission in September 2011. Installation 

and testing of an active methane mitigation system at one home is still underway.
23

Orphaned Wells and Sites

Five orphaned wells in Fremont County were plugged by the COGCC in 2012. Several other 

orphaned oil wells have been identified for future plugging by the COGCC. COGCC staff will be 

developing a program to systematically search for additional orphaned wells that may pose a 

threat to public health, safety, and welfare.
APPENDIX 1

COGCC COMMISSIONERS
2
3

APPENDIX 2

COGCC ORGANIZATION CHART
4
5
6