Page 1 of 3 Meeting Request and Action Items - CHK Haynesville Prospective Study Site Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato 01/27/2012 05:12 PM Cc: John Satterfield Hide Details From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield 6 Attachments 6010-13c.pdf 8015-17.pdf 300 & SM4110 B-8a.pdf 8270-14.pdf 8260-16.pdf Microseismic Data Map.pdf Ramona and Jeanne:  It was very nice to meet with both of you this week.  I would like to check with you on setting up a meeting between your team  and CHK for next week.   I believe we talked about a conference call or a videoconference (which I believe would work even  better). On our end, John Satterfield and I will attend along with Chris Hill our CHK study liaison.  Please let me know a couple of  days and times that work for you next week, and we will accommodate.  By this email, I am also responding to the items you requested in our conference call prior to our face to face meeting.  First,  please find in the below table the list of critical analytes, identified by your agency, and the corresponding commercial laboratory  SOPs.   Please consider this confidential information.  You had also asked, Jeanne, about supplying a QAPP for our lab.  I have been  informed that labs do not have “QAPPs” per se but do have Quality Management (or Quality Assurance) Systems.  The lab we use,  Test America, is also contractor for the EPA, and given the confidential nature of the information, I wanted to suggest that you may  have better luck requesting this information directly.  We would be happy to revisit this issue, if necessary.  The other item you  requested was microseismic data in the vicinity of the Haynesville prospective study site.  I forwarded you a map Monday showing  two nearby locations for which we have that data.  Please let me know whether the microseismic from those two sites will be  useful to you.  If so, I will send the reports.  I have reattached the map for your convenience.  From our perspective, we are still waiting on the following information from your office:  1) the definition of critical versus non‐critical analytes 2) a link to the ORD‐TPM‐3.4 protocol 3) verification of the Region III lab’s glycol method 4) a schedule on timing for your activities at the site Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this week.  We look forward to a productive meeting next week to continue to move  toward the next steps of the study.  Stephanie  file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3432... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 EPA Analysis EPA Laboratory CHK Laboratory SOP Analyte Method Performing the Analysis Attached Gasoline Range Organics ORGM-506 r1.0, EPA Region Laboratory 8015-17 (GRO) EPA Method 8015D Diesel Range Organics r1.0, EPA Region Laboratory 8015-17 (DRO) EPA Method 8015D Volatile Organic Shaw Environmental 8260-16 Compounds Semivolatile Organic ORGM-515 r1.1, EPA Region Laboratory 8270-14 Compounds (SVOC) EPA Method 8270D Metals (As, Se, Sr, Ba, B) Shaw Environmental 6010-13c 257v2 or -332v0 Major Cations (Ca, Mg, Na, Shaw Environmental 601(H3c KI Major Anions (Cl, (N0 - RSKERC general parameters 300 SM4110 B-8 carbonate, bicarbonate, Br, 3 lab SO42-) by RSKSOP- 214v5) Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmerrneyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Ste hanie.Timmerme 3r@chk.com Chesapeake Logo This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by retum email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED This Email message contained an attachment named image0O1.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. and Settings\jzambran\Local 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web3432... 6/22/2013 Action Items Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato Bob Sussman, Donald Maddox, Ann Campbell, Paul Hagemeier, Cc: John Satterfield History: This message has been forwarded. 1 attachment HF Study Action Items 1-30.pdf Jeanne and Ramona:   Attached is a list of action items we prepared – please feel free to add  or revise items from your notes.  Also – I am resending the schedule the  we prepared for the HF Work Team.   While it is clearly out of date at  this point, it is a good estimation on timing for drilling, completions, and  other activities on our sites.   In order to facilitate selection of a new site, we still need to understand  EPA’s site criteria.  In speaking with John after the call yesterday, he  very quickly listed these site criteria from the EPA HF Team:   1.       Rural area (less opportunity for anthropogenic activities  to impact drinking water resources) 2.       Large contiguous surface land holding (fewer agreements  for monitoring wells/access) 3.       Low historical oil and gas activity in the area 4.       Consideration for depths/thicknesses of drinking water  aquifer(s) for costs associated with monitoring well installation  and sampling 5.       Low HF activity in the area   We understand now that you may be requesting that “no construction  activity” be a site criterion.  Additionally, because EPA recently asked  for microseismic in the vicinity of the Haynesville proposed site, we  assume that having that data in some proximity is also a part of site  criteria.  In any case, please feel free to add to or revise our  understanding of EPA’s site criteria.  The quicker we have that  information, the quicker we can respond to you with potential sites.   We would primarily be attempting to locate sites in the following plays,  once we have EPA’s site criteria in hand:   Mississippi Lime  Utica Eagle Ford  Colony Wash 02/01/2012 02:01 PM   We are available to travel to DC Tuesday February 7, to discuss  selection of a new site and to work toward resolution on the other  issues listed in the attached update.  Please let us know if you could  meet that day.       Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com   This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named Schedule.pdf which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. Page 1 of 2 Action Items week of 2/6/12 Stephanie Timmermeyer to: Jeanne Briskin, Ramona Trovato 02/06/2012 03:19 PM Cc: John Satterfield Hide Details From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield History: This message has been replied to. 1 Attachment HF Study Action Items 2-6.pdf Jeanne and Ramona:  It is unfortunate that the EPA HF study project schedule and Site Selection Criteria sent February 2, 2012  precludes using the originally proposed site located in the Haynesville Shale.  We are disappointed that all our  collective work associated with that site cannot be accomplished based on these documents, but will  nonetheless work with you to find another prospective site.     We look forward to our meeting tomorrow to focus on selection of a new Chesapeake site for a prospective  study.  We will come prepared to offer potential sites based upon the new EPA schedule and selection criteria.      We remain hopeful to schedule a meeting soon to resolve other project related issues that were not specific to  the study location, such as the QAPP.  Perhaps we can schedule a follow up video conference for this coming  Thursday?  Please let me know of any additions/changes to the attached action item list.        Thank you,  file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web9849... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 2 Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com  Chesapeake Logo   This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web9849... 6/22/2013 CHK Technical Review E & E Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. Executive Summary: Chesapeake Energy (CHK) has prepared these comments in response to E&E’s two technical memorandums prepared for the EPA and transmitted to CHK on March 1, 2012 and March 27, 2011 via email. CHK’s detailed response is formatted to follow the technical memorandums; the first bullet paraphrases language from the memorandum and sub-bullets represent CHK comments. General comments are highlighted below:       Chesapeake Energy understands that the Option #1 (vertical well with off pad access) proposed in the original technical memorandum has been removed as a viable alternative. The installation of horizontal monitoring wells after the production well has been installed significantly mitigates the potential risk to the monitoring wells’ integrity, and, therefore, the study. The limitations of the horizontal monitoring wells require additional consideration to ensure the study’s data quality objectives will be met. For example, the fluctuation in groundwater levels and end data use (i.e., modeling) should have specific considerations identified. CHK recommends EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. CHK does not believe the site characterization activity identified by the EPA will provide the information necessary to determine the groundwater velocity in the deeper bedrock formation. Appropriate monitoring well abandonment procedures for non-standard well should be developed. CHK understands EPA’s rationale for using non-standard wells on this highly influential scientific assessment stems from an EPA schedule issue related its 2014 report. CHK has worked with the EPA to identify a second site with what we believe to have favorable groundwater velocity. Based on characterization of the aquifers, the use of horizontal monitoring wells may not be necessary to achieve EPA’s study goals. 04/05/2012 Detailed comments: Re: Technical Memorandum – Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (February 24, 2012). Introduction:  E&E limited the scope of the study to underground sources of drinking water (USDW), which has a specific definition under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (i.e., 10,000 mg/L TDS). The State of OK has defined the base of treatable water (i.e. TDS of 10,000 mg/L) in this area at occurring between approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground level (bgl)., however, the E&E/EPA have proposed monitoring wells at depths up to 300 ft. The Final Study Plan does not limit the boundaries of the study to USDW. o EPA should develop clear boundaries for the study. It is recommended EPA use and clearly state that USDW are the boundaries of the study, and not install monitoring wells into zones that have naturally occurring brine or salt water present (TDS >10,000 mg/L).. o During the March 23, 2012 meeting, EPA stated it used 300 ft. because CHK previously stated this value as the depth of groundwater in this area. CHK believes it is important that EPA independently validate information (or secondary data) provided by CHK or others in accordance with EPA project specific data quality objectives, QMP, and QAPPs. The 300 ft. value was stated early in the site selection process as an approximation for the depth of USDW in the Mississippi Lime Play, but the Oklahoma Corporation has developed accurate depth to treatable water maps for this specific site, and those maps should be evaluated and used appropriately  E&E acknowledges that the proposed alternatives are non-standard groundwater monitoring wells. o CHK recommends the use of standard vertical groundwater monitoring wells on this study in order to reduce the risk to the study associated with the application of non-standard monitoring wells.  E&E states that this is a natural gas well pad. This statement is made throughout the memo. o This well is not considered a natural gas well. The Mississippi Lime is an oil play. Background:  E&E has assumed a 400 ft. by 400 ft. pad, and the ability to install the well approximately 75 ft. from the production well. o More accurate well pad dimensions will be provided to the EPA at a later date. There are a number of variables that dictate the size of the pad (i.e., drill rig, number of wells, etc.). Conservative dimensions for the pad are 350 ft. by 400 ft. 04/05/2012 o Note that orientation of the pad will not be necessary if EPA plans to use horizontal monitoring wells. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location.  E&E states that piezometers will be used to determine actual subsurface conditions, including groundwater flow direction, depth to water and depth to bedrock. o The limitations of the geo-probe scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. It has now been agreed that conventionally drilled monitoring wells will be used in lieu of geo-probe installed wells.  E&E referenced a 300 ft. exploratory boring (off-pad) to determine the presence or absence of water bearing zones in bedrock. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones.  The depths of proposed down gradient monitoring wells are stated as 20 ft. (top of the water table), 50 ft. (base of the unconsolidated aquifer), and 300 ft. (within the underlying shale formation). o It is understood that E&E made assumptions based on previous conversations, however, CHK would like the methods for determining the depths of the monitoring wells to be clearly stated and the use of best available information to be assured. For example, the top of the water table changes based on seasonal variations and water use, and the underlying bedrock formation varies greatly with depth, and the water quality varies with depth, typically becoming poorer with depth. Monitoring Well Installation:  E&E has stated an approximate sample point, for each of the down gradient wells, 15 ft. horizontally from the production wellbore. o There are numerous potential sources of contamination, both associated with and not associated with oil development operations. CHK does not believe EPA has incorporated systematic planning into the study design to ensure the study objective can be met and the appropriate data will be collected. For example, it is not clearly identified how EPA would differentiate the potential sources of contamination. o Data quality objectives for modeling and use of data need to be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well locations will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. 04/05/2012 o There would be a likely physical impact to monitoring wells due to proximity to production wellbore during well construction, which would compromise the study. Option 1: Vertical Wells with Off-Pad Access o CHK understands this option is no longer being considered. Option 2: Horizontal Direction Drilled (HDD) Monitoring Wells and Angle Drilled Wells  Active wireline guidance will be used to monitor the bit locations. o EPA should state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy.  Minimal starting distances of 100 ft. for the 20 ft. well and 250 ft. for the 50 ft. well. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments.  The goal of the 20 ft. well is to intersect the top of the water table. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. In this geological setting it is not uncommon to see yearly water level fluctuations on the order of 5 to 10 feet occur.  Development of the wells: o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements.  The wells are stated to be abandoned after study/sampling activities are completed in accordance with state regulations. o It should be stated exactly how the wells will be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. 04/05/2012 Groundwater monitoring, purging and sampling procedures  E&E states development of wells at least 48 hours before sampling. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days.  The use of pressure transducers. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements. o The pressure transducers in option one will not be accessible. How will the risk of equipment failure be mitigated. In addition, the use of offset monitoring wells to monitor water levels would not allow the use of the provided low-flow sampling procedure. Pervious use of HDD Techniques for Groundwater Monitoring  E & E has listed previous use of HDD monitoring wells. o CHK acknowledges HDD monitoring wells have been used on previous projects as a last alternative to monitoring groundwater quality. Note one of the examples provided choose to use HDD if the application of standard wells was possible. o Limited detail information could be found publically available for the examples provided, however, the information found stressed the limitation of HDD technology and completely understanding the application of HDD technology prior to use. 04/05/2012 Re: Technical Memorandum – Revised groundwater monitoring wells in support of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. (March 26, 2012) Introduction  E & E based the depth of the USDW on statements made by CHK in the meeting. o CHK recommends EPA and its contractors independently verify information CHK provides when possible. This recommendation is related to the public perception issues associated with the study. In addition, CHK believes it is important that both EPA and its contractors are familiar with the wealth of information the state provides to the public.  E & E has stated, for the purposes of discussion, assumed groundwater screen intervals. o CHK would prefer that the logic used to determine the groundwater screen intervals are described, as well as, how this information will be collected and the quality of this information will be assured. This preference is aligned with EPA’s Quality policies, procedures, and guidelines.  E & E states that three permanent monitoring wells will be installed to characterize the site. . o The monitoring wells may be temporary, and additional monitoring wells would be installed to increase the accuracy of the site characterization.  E & E stated that CHK will drill, log and complete a deep monitoring well. o The parties have not determined that CHK will drill the well.  E & E has stated that the need for the installation of horizontal monitoring wells will be made based on the results from groundwater monitoring. o CHK believes that the appropriate information will be collected to ascertain the groundwater velocity in the alluvial aquifer.  E & E states that the application of horizontal wells will be based on the need and subject to CHK approval. o CHK confirms that the application of horizontal wells is subject to our approval.  E & E states that the distance from the production well to the horizontal wells will be based on groundwater flow data during the initial monitoring period. o There are other variables to be considered besides groundwater velocity. In addition, determining the groundwater flow in the bedrock formation may be problematic. o The distance a potential contaminant from the wellbore is not limited solely by groundwater velocity. “The accelerated arrival of contaminants at a discharge point can be a characteristic feature of dispersion that is due to 04/05/2012 the fact that some parts of the contaminant plume move faster than the average groundwater velocity” according the a report found on the National Academies Press website (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record id=1770&page=37).  The following comments and concerns from the original February 24, 2012 Technical Memorandum remain outstanding: o There is not the necessity for CHK to orientate the pad to accommodate a minimum distance of 75 ft., if EPA plans to use one of the alternative well designs. The adjustment will impact CHK’s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. o The limitations of the site characterization scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer well will not be able to determine conditions (i.e., groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. o “Water bearing zones” need to be clearly defined (e.g., USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. o EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities (i.e., accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. o We recommend EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a significant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. o We recommend data quality objectives for modeling and use of data be identified. o Certainty of monitoring well location will effect modeling and data use. o Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. o We recommend EPA state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data (i.e., modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a +/- 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. o The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. o The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well, screened at intervals is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. o Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. o It should be stated exactly how the wells are to be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no 04/05/2012 assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. Kent Wilkin and Robert Keyes had similar concerns with the lack of clarity regarding abandoning procedures. o CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. o The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements for transducers. 04/05/2012 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA; Stephanie Timmermeyer David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; John Satterfield; Randall Ross/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Steven Acree/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? 02/28/2012 08:40 AM I have sent a meeting invite to everyone on this email distribution. Please let me know if you have any questions or do not receive the invite. I look forward to our discussion. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 7:32 AM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Jewett; Doug Beak; Jeanne Briskin; John Satterfield; Randall Ross; Steven Acree Subject: Re: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? I think we can make that work.  Can Chris send out a calendar invite? Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/swp/groundwater/gw.htm From:        Stephanie Timmermeyer To:        Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, John Satterfield , "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Steven Acree/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA, Randall Ross/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA Cc:  Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:  02/27/2012 05:43 PM Subject:  Re: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? Hey Mike I'm afraid the CHK team has an all day meeting Wednesday - how does 10:30 am Thursday work for you guys? Steph Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 04:30 PM To: John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Jewett ; Doug Beak ; Steven Acree ; Randall Ross Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Phone call Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm? Hello everbody, Would Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 pm work for a conference call?  Please respond by e-mail. We hope to be able to provide the technical memo from our contractors to Chesapeake on that call.  We have just received it ourselves and want a quick review to make sure it is OK before sharing it. Also, following the site visit last week to look at the potential sites, we believe that the Oklahoma site is the best candidate for moving forward on.  We would like to send an EPA-owned direct-push (Geoprobe) rig to both the Oklahoma and Kansas sites in the next few weeks, just to push down through the terrace deposits and confirm the presence of an aquifer.  We anticipate doing one or two holes on each site.  This information would not be used as "data" in the study, but is just to make sure we have a usable site.  Therefore, we won't be writing a QAPP for that activity and can do it subject to getting the landowner's consent and the availability of our operators.  Looks like next week or the week after could work for them.  Since they are going that far, and the sites are only 15 miles apart, we think it makes sense just to plan on probing the Kansas site, too.  So, we would like Chesapeake to check into getting access for us, if possible. Doug and I will be doing field work in Texas starting Sunday and all of next week.  During that week, we anticipate providing you with the supplemental information on how the decision process will work. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at:  www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/swp/groundwater/gw.htm This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). ill Chesa cake ENERGY April 11, 2012 VIA: email Ms. Ramona Trovato Office of Research and Development USEPA Headquarters 1200 Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 8101R Washington, DC 20460 Re: Horizontal Drilling Dear Ms. Trovato: Pursuant to our discussions about the potential need to install horizontal monitoring wells at the proposed prospective study site, attached is a technical memorandum that outlines several issues that should be addressed before Chesapeake could agree to the installation. Four of the critical issues are detailed below: First and foremost we want to re-emphasize that site characterization may reveal that installation of these non?standard wells is unnecessary. Second, we have conditionally determined that the best possibility for installing the horizontal monitoring wells, if needed, would be after our Mississippi Limestone well is drilled but prior to hydraulic fracturing. As we have discussed, EPA will be required to accept all liability related to potential damage to the Chesapeake well and the environment related to the installation and use of these wells. This will be an extremely important issue that should be resolved quickly given the multi-million dollar investment Chesapeake has made, and will continue to make, at the location. The third issue is the ability for contractor to very accurately steer and map the location of the horizontal monitoring wells and formally agreeing to an anti-collision policy which includes a requirement that the horizontal monitoring wells will not be drilled within a 30 foot radius of Chesapeake?s well, regardless of groundwater velocity. The fourth issue to resolve, as mentioned by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the contract water well driller during our March meeting, is a detailed procedure for plugging and abandonment. Chesapeake Energy Corporation P.O. Box 8496 City, OK 0 6100 N. Oklaliorttn City, OK 731 18 405-848-8000 April 12, 2012 Ms. Ramona Trovato Page 2 Finally, we would request that your agency allow that, should horizontal monitoring wells be required, Chesapeake's comments about the non-standard nature of the wells as well as our attached technical memorandum be included in the final study report. Thank you for continuing to dedicate resources to this project. Chesapeake remains committed to a study based on sound science and recognized and accepted protocols. Given the importance of domestic oil and natural gas as an energy source for our country's quality of life, independence, and environment, we feel there is no more important task at hand than to continue to bolster the public?s confidence that we can, and do, explore and produce this important source of energy safely. Best regards, Chesapeake Energy Cor_porat_ion - CA ?r a Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director Federal Regulatory Affairs CHK Technical Review Technical Memorandum Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support of hydraulic fracturing study. Executive Summary: Chesapeake Energy (CHK) has prepared these comments in response to two technical memorandums prepared for the EPA and transmitted to CHK on March 1, 2012 and March 27, 2011 via email. detailed response is formatted to follow the technical memorandums; the ?rst bullet paraphrases language from the memorandum and sub-bullets represent CHK comments. General comments are highlighted below: Chesapeake Energy understands that the Option #1 (vertical well with off pad access) proposed in the original technical memorandum has been removed as a viable alternative. The installation of horizontal monitoring wells after the production well has been installed signi?cantly mitigates the potential risk to the monitoring wells? integrity, and, therefore, the study. The limitations of the horizontal monitoring wells require additional consideration to ensure the study?s data quality objectives will be met. For example, the ?uctuation in groundwater levels and end data use modeling) should have speci?c considerations identified. CHK recommends EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a signi?cant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. CHK does not believe the site characterization activity identified by the EPA will provide the information necessary to determine the groundwater velocity in the deeper bedrock formation. Appropriate monitoring well abandonment procedures for non-standard well should be developed. CHK understands rationale for using non-standard wells on this highly influential scienti?c assessment stems from an EPA schedule issue related its 2014 report. CHK has worked with the EPA to identify a second site with what we believe to have favorable groundwater velocity. Based on characterization of the aquifers, the use of horizontal monitoring wells may not be necessary to achieve study goals. Detailed comments: Re: Technical Memorandum Installation of groundwater monitoring wells in support hvdraulic fracturing studv. (February 24, 2012). Introduction: limited the scope of the study to underground sources of drinking water (USDW), which has a speci?c de?nition under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 10,000 mg/L The State of OK has defined the base of treatable water TDS of 10,000 mg/L) in this area at occurring between approximately 100 to 150 ft below ground level however, the have proposed monitoring wells at depths up to 300 ft. The Final Study Plan does not limit the boundaries of the study to USDW. EPA should develop clear boundaries for the study. It is recommended EPA use and clearly state that USDW are the boundaries of the study, and not install monitoring wells into zones that have naturally occurring brine or salt water present (TDS >10,000 During the March 23, 2012 meeting, EPA stated it used 300 ft. because CHK previously stated this value as the depth of groundwater in this area. CHK believes it is important that EPA independently validate information (or secondary data) provided by CHK or others in accordance with EPA project specific data quality objectives, QMP, and QAPPs. The 300 ft. value was stated early in the site selection process as an approximation for the depth of USDW in the Mississippi Lime Play, but the Oklahoma Corporation has developed accurate depth to treatable water maps for this speci?c site, and those maps should be evaluated and used appropriately acknowledges that the proposed alternatives are non-standard groundwater monitoring wells. CHK recommends the use of standard vertical groundwater monitoring wells on this study in order to reduce the risk to the study associated with the application of non-standard monitoring wells. states that this is a natural gas well pad. This statement is made throughout the memo. This well is not considered a natural gas well. The Mississippi Lime is an oil play. Background: has assumed a 400 ft. by 400 ft. pad, and the ability to install the well approximately 75 ft. from the production well. More accurate well pad dimensions will be provided to the EPA at a later date. There are a number of variables that dictate the size of the pad drill rig, number of wells, etc.). Conservative dimensions for the pad are 350 ft. by 400 ft. 04/05/2012 Note that orientation of the pad will not be necessary if EPA plans to use horizontal monitoring wells. The adjustment will impact operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. a states that piezometers will be used to determine actual subsurface conditions, including groundwater flow direction, depth to water and depth to bedrock. The limitations of the geo?probe scope of work should be disclosed in terms of the information that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer will not be able to determine conditions groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. It has now been agreed that conventionally drilled monitoring wells will be used in lieu of geo?probe installed wells. referenced a 300 ft. exploratory boring (off-pad) to determine the presence or absence of water bearing zones in bedrock. 0 ?Water bearing zones? need to be clearly defined USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. The depths of proposed down gradient monitoring wells are stated as 20 ft. (top of the water table), 50 ft. (base of the unconsolidated aquifer), and 300 ft. (within the underlying shale formation). It is understood that made assumptions based on previous conversations, however, CHK would like the methods for determining the depths of the monitoring wells to be clearly stated and the use of best available information to be assured. For example, the top of the water table changes based on seasonal variations and water use, and the underlying bedrock formation varies greatly with depth, and the water quality varies with depth, typically becoming poorer with depth. Monitoring Well Installation: 0 has stated an approximate sample point, for each of the down gradient wells, 15 ft. horizontally from the production wellbore. There are numerous potential sources of contamination, both associated with and not associated with oil development operations. CHK does not believe EPA has incorporated systematic planning into the study design to ensure the study objective can be met and the appropriate data will be collected. For example, it is not clearly identi?ed how EPA would differentiate the potential sources of contamination. Data quality objectives for modeling and use of data need to be identified. Certainty of monitoring well locations will effect modeling and data use. Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. 0 There would be a likely physical impact to monitoring wells due to proximity to production wellbore during well construction, which would compromise the study. Option 1: Vertical Wells with Off-Pad Access 0 CHK understands this option is no longer being considered. Option 2: Horizontal Direction Drilled (HDD) Monitoring Wells and Angle Drilled Wells Active wireline guidance will be used to monitor the bit locations. EPA should state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. Minimal starting distances of 100 ft. for the 20 ft. well and 250 ft. for the 50 ft. well. The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. The goal of the 20 ft. well is to intersect the top of the water table. The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. In this geological setting it is not uncommon to see yearly water level ?uctuations on the order of 5 to 10 feet occur. Development of the wells: Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. The wells are stated to be abandoned after study/sampling activities are completed in accordance with state regulations. 0 It should be stated exactly how the wells will be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. 04/05/2012 Groundwater monitoring, purging and sampling procedures states development of wells at least 48 hours before sampling. CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. The use of pressure transducers. The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements. The pressure transducers in option one will not be accessible. How will the risk of equipment failure be mitigated. In addition, the use of offset monitoring wells to monitor water levels would not allow the use of the provided low-flow sampling procedure. Pervious use of HDD Techniques for Groundwater Monitoring has listed previous use of HDD monitoring wells. 0 CHK acknowledges HDD monitoring wells have been used on previous projects as a last alternative to monitoring groundwater quality. Note one of the examples provided choose to use HDD if the application of standard wells was possible. Limited detail information could be found publically available for the examples provided, however, the information found stressed the limitation of HDD technology and completely understanding the application of HDD technology prior to use. 04/05/2012 Re: Technical Memorandum Revised groundwater monitoring wells in stgport of hvdraulic fracturing studv. (March 26, 2012) Introduction based the depth of the USDW on statements made by CHK in the meeting. CHK recommends EPA and its contractors independently verify information CHK provides when possible. This recommendation is related to the public perception issues associated with the study. In addition, CHK believes it is important that both EPA and its contractors are familiar with the wealth of information the state provides to the public. has stated, for the purposes of discussion, assumed groundwater screen intervals. CHK would prefer that the logic used to determine the groundwater screen intervals are described, as well as, how this information will be collected and the quality of this information will be assured. This preference is aligned with Quality policies, procedures, and guidelines. states that three permanent monitoring wells will be installed to characterize the site. The monitoring wells may be temporary, and additional monitoring wells would be installed to increase the accuracy of the site characterization. stated that CHK will drill, log and complete a deep monitoring well. The parties have not determined that CHK will drill the well. has stated that the need for the installation of horizontal monitoring wells will be made based on the results from groundwater monitoring. CHK believes that the appropriate information will be collected to ascertain the groundwater velocity in the alluvial aquifer. states that the application of horizontal wells will be based on the need and subject to CHK approval. 0 CHK con?rms that the application of horizontal wells is subject to our approval. states that the distance from the production well to the horizontal wells will be based on groundwater flow data during the initial monitoring period. There are other variables to be considered besides groundwater velocity. In addition, determining the groundwater flow in the bedrock formation may be problematic. The distance a potential contaminant from the wellbore is not limited solely by groundwater velocity. ?The accelerated arrival of contaminants at a discharge point can be a characteristic feature of dispersion that is due to 04/05/2012 the fact that some parts of the contaminant plume move faster than the average groundwater velocity? according the a report found on the National Academies Press website The following comments and concerns from the original February 24, 2012 Technical Memorandum remain outstanding: There is not the necessity for CHK to orientate the pad to accommodate a minimum distance of 75 ft., if EPA plans to use one of the alternative well designs. The adjustment will impact CH K?s operations, and was offered to facilitate the installation of conventional monitoring wells off the pad location. The limitations of the site characterization scope of work should be disclosed in tenns of the infonnation that will be able to be collected. For example, the piezometer well will not be able to detennine conditions groundwater velocity) for the proposed deep monitoring well in the bedrock formation. ?Water bearing zones? need to be clearly defined USDW). The quality and quantity of water is of interest. EPA should set limits, in terms of monitoring drilling capabilities accuracy of location), for target water bearing zones. We recommend EPA identify the process it will use to differentiate between potential causes (including naturally occurring) should sampling results indicate a signi?cant change in water quality that is otherwise unexplainable. We recommend data quality objectives for modeling and use of data be iden??ed. Certainty of monitoring well location will effect modeling and data use. Certainty of production well location will effect modeling and data use. We recommend EPA state the tolerances and accuracies of bore path required to meet its data quality objectives and intended use of data modeling). Robert Keyes stated that the technology could be navigated within a 3 ft. horizontal and vertical tolerance. However, the tolerances associated with the monitoring well drilling technology are not inclusive of all variables that could affect the total spatial accuracy. The minimal starting distances will complicate the land owner access agreements and assessments. The use of horizontal wells only allows for the sampling of a small vertical interval. There is a very likely risk that the water level will change causing the water table to drop below the shallow well. A vertical well, screened at intervals is more appropriate well type for monitoring the top of the water. Details regarding the development of the well should be provided, included parameter stabilization requirements. It should be stated exactly how the wells are to be abandoned. EPA should work with the state to understand its expectations. Without a clear understanding of what is required for proper abandonment, there is no assurance these requirement would not impede CHK operations at a future date. Kent Wilkin and Robert Keyes had similar concerns with the lack of clarity regarding abandoning procedures. 0 CHK requests that the time between development of well and sampling be no less than 5 days. The EPA will need to specify calibration requirements for transducers. 04/05/2012 Page 1 of 3 Re: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/18/2012 09:55 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been forwarded. Paul is looking to schedule a meeting week of 30 JUL with Bob to discuss our ATGAS report and our report on the retrospective split sampling in Bradford county, pa. If we get this scheduled, let me know what level of convo you'd like to have. I can cover the technical issues to a certain point, but if you really want to talk about the hydrogeology and statistical correlation of differing parameters, will need to bring a couple of other folks. Alternately, can have higher level discussions including bob and Paul after we have a technical convo.... Let me know.... John A Satterfield Director Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:09 AM, "Ramona Trovato" wrote: Thanks John. I'll move this along. From: John Satterfield [john.satterfield@chk.com] Sent: 07/17/2012 12:56 PM GMT file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 To: Ramona Trovato Subject: FW: Insurance information Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.    Hopefully will be easy adjustment on E&E’s part.   Please let me know if you have questions or concerns.       From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information Mike,   Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded  revisions address all concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all  changes to the agreement, signed the document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of  insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider the contractor liability issues adequately  addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy to setup a conference call in  the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to work through.    I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.    Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do  to help. We look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.    Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com     From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can.   From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E-mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 April 25, 2012 Mr. Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation P.O. Box 18496 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73154-0496 Re: Proposal/Cost Estimate Limited Hydrogeological Investigation Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study NE/4 Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West Alfalfa County, Oklahoma Dear Mr. Hill: SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC (SAIC), is pleased to present Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) the following Proposal/Cost Estimate to conduct a Limited Hydrogeological Investigation (Investigation) to support the Hydraulic Fracturing Prospective Case Study proposed in the NE/4 of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma (Site). The Investigation is being conducted to evaluate the Site soil and groundwater background conditions prior to construction of a pad site for gas well drilling/development. Groundwater contained within the Quaternary-age terrace deposits underlie the well pad area, and have been identified as a major alluvial aquifer that is used for agricultural, municipal and domestic purposes. The bedrock (Permian-age) groundwater that underlies the terrace deposits in the area will also be evaluated. The bedrock formations in this area contain naturally-occurring poor water quality of low yield and therefore, groundwater is not typically used from bedrock formations in this area. However, this investigation will evaluate that portion of the bedrock groundwater system that is above the base of treatable groundwater (i.e., groundwater with a TDS of 10,000 mg/L or less). The base of treatable groundwater in the well pad area has initially been determined to be 100 to150 feet below ground level (bgl) by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC). The base of treatable groundwater will occur within the Hennessey Group bedrock units. The main objectives of this Investigation will be to: 1) determine the groundwater flow direction and collect hydraulic parameters to estimate groundwater velocity; 2) determine the subsurface geology and groundwater occurrence beneath the Site; 3) collect initial soil samples for limited analytical testing; 4) collect 1 round of groundwater samples for comprehensive analytical testing; and 5) define the variation of groundwater quality with depth within the terrace and bedrock groundwater systems. Surficial geology at the Site consists of Quaternary-age terrace deposits related to the Salt Fork of the Arkansas River. These deposits consist of light-tan to gray gravel, sand, silt, clay, and volcanic ash, with sand dunes common in places. A review of water well data from wells located within approximately 2 miles of the Site indicates that the terrace deposits at the Site likely range from 20 to 50 feet in thickness and average approximately 35 feet in thickness. Groundwater in the terrace deposits in this area are reported to range from approximately 3 feet bgl to 28 feet bgl, and average approximately 15 feet bgl. Underlying the terrace deposits is Permian-age consolidated bedrock of the Hennessey Group, which includes the Bison Formation, Salt Plains Formation, Kingman Formation, and Fairmont Shale. These units consist of fine-grained sandstone, siltstone, and shale. The Bison Formation is approximately 120 feet thick, the Salt Plans Formation is approximately 160 O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC One West Third Street, Suite 100 Tulsa, OK 74103 tel: 918.492.1600 fax: 918.496.0132 saic.com/EEandI Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 2 of 7 feet thick, the Kingman Formation is approximately 70 feet thick, and the Fairmont Shale is approximately 160 feet thick, with a collective thickness of approximately 510 feet. Groundwater in the consolidated bedrock occurs principally within fractures and joints and is typically of very poor quality, becoming more mineralized with depth. During implementation of the Investigation, SAIC anticipates implementing the following activities on behalf of Chesapeake: Task 1 - Project Management The Investigation activities will be managed out of SAIC’s Tulsa, Oklahoma office by Mr. Bruce McKenzie. SAIC’s on-site hydrogeologist will be Mr. Matt Mugavero, and SAIC technicians will include either Mr. Stan Marshall or Mr. Terry Fisher as schedules allow. QA/QC of the laboratory analytical data will be managed by Ms. Kristin Drucquer. SAIC will prepare a Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) that will address all field activities proposed herein. Task 2 - Monitoring Well Installation and Development A total of 6 groundwater monitoring wells, 5 shallow (~50 feet) and 1 deep (~150 feet), will be installed to establish and monitor the groundwater quality at or in close proximity to the proposed well pad site. These monitoring wells will be drilled and installed by a licensed well driller (Associated Environmental Industries, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma) in accordance with Oklahoma state regulations. The shallow groundwater monitoring wells will be installed utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous split-barrel sample system from surface to total depth. Borings will be advanced to the top of the underlying consolidated bedrock. During drilling, lithological descriptions will be made using the Unified Soil Classification System. Field activities will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook, and all hydrogeological information noted documented on permanent soil boring records. In each borehole, soil samples will be collected from the following depth intervals: 0-0.5 feet bgl, 1-2 feet bgl and 2-3 feet bgl. Upon collection, the soil samples will be placed into laboratory prepared containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, TN) for volatile organic compound (VOC) (SW 8260B), semi-volatile organic compound (SVOC) (SW 8270C), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) (SW 8270C-SIM) and total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) (TX 1005) analyses. In addition to soil samples for laboratory analysis, an aliquot of each soil sample will be submitted to a soils laboratory (Inter-Mountain Laboratories, Inc., Sheridan, Wyoming) for comprehensive salinity analysis by Saturated Paste Extraction (Cations: sodium, calcium, magnesium, potassium; Anions: nitrate-n, chloride, sulfate, boron, bicarbonate, carbonate; General Chemistry: pH, conductivity, texture; Derived Values: total soluble salts, sodium adsorption ratio, potassium adsorption ratio, exchangeable sodium percentage, exchangeable potassium percentage). The shallow monitoring wells will be constructed using 2-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. In general, approximately 30 to 40 feet of screen will be installed in each monitor well such that the top of the screen is situated above (approximately 5 feet) the groundwater saturation level observed at the time of well installation. Once the screen/casing strings are positioned within the open boreholes, a clean silica sand pack will be placed in the annular space between the screen/casing and the open borehole. In each monitor well, the sand pack will extend from total depth to approximately two feet above the top slot of the screen. A 2-foot minimum sodium bentonite pellet seal will be placed immediately above the O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 3 of 7 sand packs. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon each well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pads have cured, a weep hole will be drilled in each protective outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on permanent well completion records. The deep monitoring well will be installed by drilling through the terrace deposits and 5 feet into the underlying bedrock utilizing a truck-mounted hollow-stem auger drilling rig and CME continuous splitbarrel sample system. A 10-inch diameter surface casing will then be set and grouted in-place to isolate the groundwater within the terrace deposits from the groundwater within the underlying bedrock. Once the surface casing grout has cured, air-rotary drilling equipment will be utilized to drill into the underlying bed rock. During bedrock drilling operations, an attempt will be made to collect water quality measurements (i.e., specific conductivity, temperature and pH) from the borehole as these data may be useful in determining the base of treatable water. Upon reaching total depth, geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted in the deep borehole. The geophysical and water quality logging will be conducted by Century Geophysical Corporation and Earth Data Northeast, Inc., respectively, and will include the following: • • • • • • • • • • • • • Caliper, Natural Gamma, Normal Resistivity, Single Point Resistance, Fluid Resistivity and Temperature, Spontaneous Potential (SP), Induction Conductivity, Magnetic Susceptibility, Full Wave Form Sonic, Acoustic Borehole Imager with Vertical Deviation and Azimuth, Neutron Density, Gamma-Gamma Density, and Water Quality Logging (pressure, temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH and Eh). The deep monitoring well will be constructed using 4-inch diameter, screw-coupled, Schedule 40 PVC 0.010-inch slot screens and Schedule 40 PVC casing. Approximately 80 to 100 feet of screen will be installed so that the top of the screened interval will terminate at, or just above, the top of the groundwater zone to be monitored. Once the screen/casing assembly is positioned within the borehole, the annular space between the wellbore and the screen/casing will be filled with clean, silica sand to a level approximately two feet above the top slot of the screened interval. Four feet of bentonite will then be placed in the annular space above the silica sand/filter pack and hydrated. Following hydration of the bentonite seal, the remaining annular space will be filled with a cement/bentonite grout using pressure-grouting techniques to approximately one foot bgl. A vented cap will be placed on top of the well casing, and a locking steel protective outer casing will be centered upon the well casing. The protective outer casing will be set in a 3-inch thick by 36-inch diameter concrete pad. During well completion, the well identification nomenclature will be placed on or in the well protector. When the well pad has cured, a weep hole will be drilled in the protective O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 4 of 7 outer casing just above the concrete pad so that moisture will not accumulated within the protective outer casing. Well completion details will be recorded on a permanent well completion record. During drilling operations, soil and rock cuttings will be containerized and labeled properly. These cuttings will be stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Drilling equipment will be decontaminated between each monitoring well location. During well drilling/completion activities, samples of the silica sand, bentonite (pellets and powder), cement and any drill-fluid additives will be collected and archived for future analysis if needed. Following well completion activities, each monitoring well will be left undisturbed for a minimum of 48 hours to allow the cement/bentonite grout to cure. After this 48-hour period, each of the newly installed monitoring wells will be developed to remove the fine particles that have accumulated in the well casing and annulus. The monitoring wells will be developed utilizing bailers, submersible pumps, surge-blocks or other suitable devices to ensure that the wells are free of suspended sediment and provide representative water samples. Development will be conducted until a minimum of three casing volumes are removed, the water quality parameters of the discharging groundwater are stable (within 10% variance) and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less. All well development water will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Upon completion of well installation/completion activities, each monitoring well will be surveyed for horizontal and vertical control by an Oklahoma-licensed land surveyor (Jividens Land Survey Company, Woodward, Oklahoma). The coordinate location (within 1 foot), top of case elevation (TOC) (within 0.01 foot) and ground elevation (within 0.01 foot) for each monitoring well will be determined. In addition, to surveying, the location of each monitoring well will be recorded with a sub-meter GIS-compatible GPS. Task 3 - Groundwater Monitoring Upon completion of well development activities, the monitoring wells will be left undisturbed for a period of one week. Following this period, two rounds of concurrent depth to groundwater (DTW) measurements will be taken within each of the monitoring wells at the Site. The first DTW event will be conducted immediately prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, and the second DTW event will be conducted one week following the groundwater sampling event. The water levels will be measured from the surveyed TOC of each monitoring well utilizing a decontaminated electronic water level indicator and will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Data from the water level measurements, in conjunction with the TOC elevation data, will be utilized to construct groundwater potentiometric surface maps of the groundwater system being monitored. Upon completion of well development activities and prior to conducting groundwater purging/sampling activities, vertical water quality logging will be conducted within each monitoring well. During these activities, the specific conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and oxidation/reduction potential (Eh) of the groundwater will be measured on 1-foot increments from the top of the water column to the base of the monitoring well. These measurements will be recorded in a dedicated field logbook. Reference data for the area indicate that the groundwater within the shallow terrace deposits likely exhibits density and/or chemical stratification. These data also suggest that the deep bedrock groundwater is also likely stratified. Therefore, it is anticipated that two groundwater samples will be collected from each of the monitoring wells completed at the Site. The groundwater sampling zones will be selected based upon the results of the vertical water quality logging conducted within each monitoring well. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 5 of 7 Prior to conducting groundwater sampling within each selected zone, the zone will be low-flow purged utilizing a decontaminated bladder-pump with a dedicated bladder. Field measurements of pH, Eh, dissolved oxygen, specific conductance, temperature and turbidity will be collected and documented in a dedicated field logbook during well purging and immediately prior to sample collection. When three consecutive readings of the field parameters taken do not differ by more than 10%, and the turbidity of the discharging groundwater is 20 NTU or less, groundwater samples will be collected. If turbidity values of <20 NTU cannot be achieved, then dissolved analyses of metals, cations and radionuclides will be conducted. Upon collection, the groundwater samples will be placed directly into laboratory prepared sample containers, labeled as to source and contents, placed on wet-ice for preservation, and placed under chain-of-custody control for transport to the analytical laboratory (TestAmerica, Inc., Nashville, Tennessee) for analytical suite developed by Chesapeake for this investigation. This analytical suite is provided in attached Table 1. All purge water and water not consumed during the sampling process will be containerized, properly labeled and stored on-site until proper disposal can be arranged. Task 4 - Hydraulic Conductivity Testing To further characterize the shallow unconfined groundwater system present beneath the Site, singlewell displacement tests (slug) tests will be conducted in the 5 proposed shallow groundwater monitoring wells. During these slug tests, the groundwater within the well will be artificially lowered by rapidly removing groundwater from the well utilizing dedicated bailers. The return of the lowered groundwater level to an equilibrium level will be recorded utilizing a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well attached to a data logger at the surface. To further characterize the bedrock groundwater system, a 12-hour constant rate pump test followed by a 12-hour recovery monitored period will be conducted in the proposed deep monitoring well. A 1-hour pumping pre-test will be conducted on the well to determine pumping rate for the 24-hour test and will be conducted at least 1 day prior to the 24-hour test. The deep well will be outfitted with a pressure transducer positioned at the bottom of the monitoring well (placed in the well approximately 2 days prior to initiating pre-test activities) attached to a data logger at the surface to monitor drawdown. A pressure transducer will also be installed in the shallow monitoring well located adjacent to the deep monitoring well to measure any potential change/effect that pumping of the bedrock groundwater system may have upon the shallow groundwater system. Discharge measurements will be taken and the pH, specific conductivity and temperature of the discharging groundwater measured hourly throughout the pump test. A totalizing flow meter will be installed in the discharge line to monitor flow throughout the test. Data from the pump and slug tests will be interpreted and values for hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity calculated, which will be used to estimate groundwater flow velocities. Task 5 - Report Preparation Upon completion of the field activities and receipt of the laboratory analytical data, SAIC will prepare a brief report detailing the results of the investigation. This report will describe the field operations and sampling activities conducted and will include the following: • • • • • • • A brief discussion of the Site geology, A discussion of all field activities performed, A summary of results of the well installation activities, A discussion of the results of the deep geophysical logs, Tables summarizing the laboratory analytical data, A Site location and topographic features map, A Site map showing the actual locations of the newly installed monitoring wells, O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation • • • • • • • • • April 25, 2012 Page 6 of 7 A depth to water map, Two groundwater potentiometric surface maps for the shallow groundwater system, Two cross sections (N-S and E-W), An evaluation of velocity of the shallow groundwater system beneath the Site, Soil boring and monitoring well construction records, Copies of the deep geophysical logs, Copies of field notes, Site photographs, and Laboratory analytical reports and chain-of-custody documentation. A Cost Estimate to implement the scope of work is attached. SAIC’s charges will be billed on a timeand-materials basis in accordance with the current Chesapeake/SAIC contract agreement. SAIC appreciates this opportunity to be of service to Chesapeake. If you have any questions concerning the proposed scope of work or the estimated costs, please do not hesitate to contact me at (918) 599-4383. Sincerely, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC Bruce E. McKenzie, P.G. Project Manager Attachments: Table 1 - Retrospective Case Study Analytical Suite Figure 1 - Site Location and Topographic Features Figure 2 - Proposed Gas Well Pad Site and Monitoring Well Locations Cost Estimate Assumptions and Limitations In preparing the proposed Scope of Work (SOW) and Cost Estimate, SAIC has relied upon verbal and/or written information provided by Chesapeake Energy Corporation (Chesapeake) and/or secondary sources. SAIC has not been tasked to make an independent investigation concerning the accuracy or completeness of the information relied upon. To the extent that SAIC has based its proposed SOW and Cost Estimate on such information, the proposed SOW and Cost Estimate are contingent on the validity of the information provided. Chesapeake acknowledges that SAIC has not contributed to the presence of hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, petroleum products, asbestos, chemicals, pollutants, contaminants, or any other hazardous or toxic materials (hereinafter Hazardous Materials) that may exist or be discovered in the future at the site at which SAIC’s services shall be provided and that SAIC does not assume any liability for the known or unknown presence of Hazardous Materials. SAIC’s investigation will be restricted to collection and analyses of a limited number of environmental samples and visual observations obtained during the physical site visit, and from records made available by Chesapeake or third parties during the investigation. Because the investigation will consist of collecting and evaluating a limited supply of information, SAIC may not identify all potential items of concern. Therefore, SAIC warrants only that the project activities under this SOW and contract have been performed within the parameters and scope communicated by Chesapeake and reflected in the SOW and contract. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Mr. Chris Hill Chesapeake Energy Corporation April 25, 2012 Page 7 of 7 The proposed report will be prepared for the sole and intended use of Chesapeake. Any person or entity obtaining, using, or relying on this report hereby acknowledges that they do so at their own risk, and that SAIC shall have no responsibility or liability for the consequences thereof. This report is intended to be used in its entirety and taking or using in any way excerpts from the proposed report are not permitted and any party doing so does so at its own risk. In preparing this proposed report, SAIC will have relied on verbal and written information provided by secondary sources and interviews, including information provided by Chesapeake. Opinions and recommendations that may be presented in this report apply only to site conditions and features as they existed at the time of SAIC’s site visit. The opinions and recommendations presented in this report cannot be applied to conditions and features of which SAIC is unaware and has not had the opportunity to evaluate. O:\Enviro\TUL\PROPOSAL\2012\2602299041-_CHK_AlfalfaCo\Ltd Hydr Invest Prop 4-25-2012.docx Client#: 812 ACORD ECOLENV DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE TM 9/20/2011 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACT NAME: PHONE (A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: PRODUCER Willis of New York, Inc. 344 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14202 716 856-1100 FAX (A/C, No): 716 856-1100 716-803-6762 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. INSURER B : National Union Fire Ins. Co. INSURER C : New Hampshire Ins. Co. INSURER D : Chartis Specialty Insurance Com 19410 19445 23841 19402 INSURER A : INSURED Ecology & Environment, Inc. 368 Pleasant View Drive Lancaster, NY 14086 INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR A GENERAL LIABILITY X POLICY NUMBER 4691781 POLICY EFF POLICY EXP (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM/DD/YYYY) 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CLAIMS-MADE A A ADDL SUBR INSR WVD TYPE OF INSURANCE X OCCUR LIMITS EACH OCCURRENCE DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurrence) $ 3,000,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 50,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 3,000,000 $ 500,000 GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 3,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: X PROX LOC POLICY JECT PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 3,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT (Ea accident) $ 2,000,000 BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ X X ANY AUTO ALL OWNED AUTOS HIRED AUTOS X $ 4691782 4691783 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 SCHEDULED AUTOS NON-OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ PROPERTY DAMAGE (Per accident) $ $ B X UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB C C X BE23542942 OCCUR 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 CLAIMS-MADE X RETENTION $10000 DED WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y/N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N N/A (Mandatory in NH) If yes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below D Professional & Pollution Liability EACH OCCURRENCE $ 15,000,000 AGGREGATE $ 15,000,000 $ WC25889575 WC25889576 STATU08/01/2011 08/01/2012 X WC TORY LIMITS 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT OTHER $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 COPS28426118 E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 08/01/2011 08/01/2012 $11,000,000 Each Claim $11,000,000 Aggregate DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Specimen AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2010/05) #S62183/M60260 1 of 1 The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD PJQ SURFACE DAMAGE AGREEMENT AND RELEASE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: WHEREAS, Greg Baker, Power of Attorney (POA) for Barbara Ann Bouziden ("Surface Owner") is the Owner of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 28 North, Range 11 West, Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. For and in Consideration of the total sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars to be paid to Surface Owner by CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. ("Operator"), prior to Operator entering said property, Surface Owner hereby releases Operator from all ordinary necessary damages sustained in connection with the drilling, completing, and equipping of the Baker 15-28-11 1H, (Well) to be located approximately 250 feet from the North line and 660 feet from the East line on the above property according to the attached plat, together with the drilling and installation of monitor water wells provided for in Paragraph 10 below. As additional consideration for the covenants contained herein, Operator expressly agrees to the following as binding terms of this agreement: 1. If the Well is completed as a commercial producer, Operator shall maintain the Well site and road for ingress and egress in a prudent and reasonable manner, including keeping same from erosion and keeping free of noxious weeds. Roadway location shall be agreed to by Lessor. 2. If the Well is not completed as a commercial producer or upon abandonment of the Well, Operator shall, within 90 days, remove all of its equipment and restore all of the Surface Owner's property as nearly as practical to its original condition, Operator shall at all times keep Surface Owner's property, the location and lease road free of trash and debris. 3. .Surface Owner and Operator agree that Operator shall limit its use of the above described lands to that area of land necessary for it operations, surrounding or immediately adjacent to the well bore of the Well, and the monitor water wells provided for in Paragraph 10 below. The location will not exceed 375 feet by 325 feet in size. The roadway shall not exceed 20 feet in width for ingress and egress to the well site. Dirt dug pits shall not be allowed and frac trailers must be used for fracing operations. 4. The production facility of the Well shall be fenced by Operator and cattle guard(s) placed at one entry point where Operator has to cut Surface Owner's fence lines in the construction of a lease road and location. Operator will install at the entrance to Surface Owner's property off of the county road an arm across the cattle guard. Upon abandonment of a Well, the cattle guards shall become the property of Surface Owner. Operator shall repair any fences that are cut on Surface Owner's property in a manner consistent with existing fences to Surface Owner's satisfaction. All corner posts and bracing shall be steel pipe set in concrete, all to be approved by the surface owner. Operator shall install metal pipe H-Braces on each side of the cattle guard to tie and properly stretch all wire to Surface Owners satisfaction into the fence. Operator will at the request of Surface Owner, lock any new entrance made to Surface Owner's property. Operator agrees to rock all lease roads constructed on Surface Owner's property and said roads shall be maintained for the life of the well so as to prevent obstruction of water and spreading of rock off the location and roadways. Operator shall clean up any rock which is scattered to prevent a hazard to Surface Owner's farm equipment. Low areas and ruts occurring in the road will be repaired and employees or agents of Operator? shall not be permitted to by-pass such ruts and low areas by driving around the roadway. Operator shall not allow water to back up on either side and provide proper drainage from same including any necessary water culverts. 5. The aforementioned consideration does not include damages for any gathering lines or pipelines that Operator lays across lands owned by Surface Owner for the Well. 6. Operator will comply with all Oklahoma Corporation Commission rules and regulations with respect to any pits constructed on Surface Owner's property. 7. Operator agrees to conduct its operations on the location and road authorized by this Agreement and will advise its employees, representatives, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors to stay on the road and location built by Operator and not to utilize any of Surface Owner?s land, without prior written authorization by the Surface Owner. Violation of this shall be considered trespass. Operator, its employees, representatives, contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors shall not be allowed to hunt or fish on Surface Owner's land. 8. Operator agrees to indemnify and hold Surface Owner harmless for all debts, claims, damages and demands incurred in connection with the performance of this Agreement and the operations conducted thereon whether above or below the surface. 9. It is the specific intent of this Release to cover the drilling, completing and equipping insofar and only insofar as to the Well and the monitor water wells described in Paragraph 10 There shall be no other well or borehole situated on Surface Owner's property. This Release does not cover unusual or extraordinary damages of pollution presently or in the future. Operator shall be further liable to Surface Owner for any unusual damages or pollution not covered by this Agreement, whether the same is caused by Operator, its employees, agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors or independent contractors. Operator shall not be allowed to dispose of any saltwater or other deleterious substances from outside the well site upon or into Surface Owner's property without written permission. Commercial saltwater disposal wells shall not be allowed. 10. Surface Owner agrees that Operator may drill, equip and operate as many water monitoring wells as are necessary to properly characterize the shallow geology/hydrogeology and monitor the water quality through out the complete process of site preparation, drilling, operating and producing the Well. All water monitoring wells will be drilled in accordance with Oklahoma Water Resource Board regulations, and located approximately thirty (30) feet outside the perimeter of the Well location.. Operator and Surface Owner agree that no water will be used from the water monitoring wells to drill or complete the Well without an expressed written agreement with the Surface Owner. If the Well is completed as a well capable of commercial production, the water monitoring wells will remain in place for a minimum of two (2) years from the date of first sales from the Well. Surface Owner hereby expressly grants ingress and egress to Operator, and its designees (including but not limited to representatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) onto the location to periodically collect water samples, and to maintain or repair the monitor wells. Upon completion of the use of the water wells as provided for herein, the wells shall be proper plugged and abandoned in accordance with Oklahoma Water Resource Board regulations. 11. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of all parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns. 12. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart, each of which counterpart execution shall be deemed an original for purposes of this instrument. 13. Except as provided for in Paragraph 10 above, Lessee may not use fresh water obtained from or under the leased premises without the express written consent of the Surface Owner. In Witness Whereof, this Agreement has been executed this day of April, 2012. SURFACE OWNER: Barbara Ann Bouziden By aker (POA) OPERATOR CHESAPEAKE OPERATING, INC. - Edam Doty, Field?lana?er ACKNOWLEDGMENTS STATE OF OKLAHOMA )ss: COUNTY OF WOODS BEFORE me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this day of April, 2012 personally appeared Greg Baker as Power of Attorney for Barbara Ann Bouziden, to me known to be the identical person(s) who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and seal the day and y/ejr last above written. Nqfa?l P?E:bIic I 1- My Commission expires: My Commission 09? 13115 -2 . #11ooa372 STATE OF OKLAHOMA SS2 COUNTY OF OKLAHOMA BEFORE me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, on this ,?0"??Vday of April, 2012, personally appeared Adam Doty, Field Manager of Chesapeake Operating, to me known to be the identical person who subscribed the name of the maker thereof to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed and as the free and voluntary act and deed of such corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and seal the day and year last above written. NotaPyr?Pu/blic I I My Commission expires: #o3o1393o My Commission TOPOGBAPHIO LAND SUHVEYORS OF OKLAHOMA 6709 NORTH CLASSEN BLVD., OKIA. CITY, OKLA. 73115 LOCAL (405) 843-4847 OUT OF STATE (800) 554-3219 Cer?frbafe of No. 129.3. Exh All AI-FALFA County, Oklahoma 250 FNL 550 FEL Section Township Range 1894931 696751 Xi 1889639 696806 SURFACE HOLE (us Feet) 3e'54'45.2" 93361971449 2537PATH I I i 2547? 1894920 Y- 694-104 1889642 694-169 Bottom HOIE I I (us Feet) 3s'53'57.9" I 556399418463 98561622042 I v=s91s34 (US Feet) 35-5353.0" I 361899446612 93551972523 I I I I GRID 1/ 1 I I I Y=69166l Scal 550' 1800' I 163964 26'-3'3 18922 2533? IEEHE - - . - Ibv Operator Ustei 11491 Genera 0'9: Take" . ?n brackets are based on GL I Land Off'ce t:Iis ances and have been measured on the grauhd. Operator: CHESAPEAKE OPERATING. INC. Lease Name: BAKER 15-28-11 weII No.1 1H 1213' Gr. at Stake Topography 3.5 Vegetation LOC. fell in wheat field 0 ?o A 2 .362545' Reference Stakes or Alternate Location Good Drill Site? Yes Stakes Set N??e Best Accessibility to Location From 0? C?U?t1f mad Distance 85 Direction from Hwy Jet or Town The dot. of St. Hwy. 11 and St. Hwy, 58 South. go 1.0 mI. North to the NE Cor. of Sec. Date of Drawing: A 20- 2012 Invoice 181815 Date stoked; Apr. 19, 2012 AC 3'33 LAT: ?g LONG: CERTIHCATE: THOMAS ft?? LAT: . - .39; 98561620951 I. Thomas L- a Oklahoma Licensed Land HOWELL Surveyor and an authorized agent of Topographic Land .32? STATE PLANE Surveyors of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above COORDINATESI (US Feet) described well location was surveyed and staked on the ?.39 OK NORTH groun shown here" - x: 1394270 696508 Oklahoma No, 1433__ .. I LL 3 Fw: New FOIA Request #01479-12 - please fon/vard your responsive records for review Doug Beak Suzanne Jackson 07/05/2012 07:53 AM Pam Daggs Hi Suzanne. This is part 1 of 2 for the above FOIA request. If you have any questions let me know. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemistry! Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235?7158 ..- Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" To. Michael Doug Randall Steven Bert Smith Tamara Robbins (to Stephanie 'l"immermeyer Date 04/30/2012 09:51 PM SUDJCCI. Invitation: EPA Miss Lime Prospective Study (May 1 03:00 PM CDT in Call in: 877-935-0245 Code: 745 420 Rm 231) This meeting has been scheduled to have a technical discussion regarding CHK proposed site characterization scope of work. Additional topics of discussion may include the following - Status of EPA's formal response to CHK's tech memo comments. - Access agreement status. - Schedule. This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited . If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM Frcne ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From ?Chris Hill (Regu atory)" 10 Michael 0? Stephanie Timmenneyer John Satter?eld Tamara Robbins "Bert Smith" Randall Steven Doug Dale: 04/30/2012 09:49 PM Subject: EPA HF Prospective Study Mike, As you requested, I have attached the following items: 1. A copy of monitoring well alternatives technical memo comments with "draft" water mark removed. 2. A copy of CH K's proposed site characterization scope of work. We would appreciate EPA's comments and/or approval of the proposed site characterization scope of work at EPA's earliest convenience. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be sending you a calendar invite for a conference call tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 pm, as you requested. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405)388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.HilI@chk.gQm Thus r-mm: (and utlatznmerwls if any) is inte2ndz=.r.1 only fur the USE) ut?hly to .I IS artriressc;-vi. and may mm :5 com denim! or pr vtvge-.1 and from unujer law. If the reader 0! lh.s is nol the rmmuerut. or the employee or .-agent hle Inr this message in thu interded recrpurrnt, you are hereby that any or us umhihnleri. you have pioasc rmlufy Ihr- hv rnimn cteslroy al?. of Ihe If [attachment Review - Tech Mcmo.pdf" deleted by Doug [attachment "Pages from Prop 4-25-2012 (2).pdf? deleted by Doug Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM rom' Doug To- "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Cc: Cariyle Ralph Date. 05/03/2012 07:30 AM Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris. I can only speak for the case studies l'm Involved with. TX and ND. if you want to know about the other case studies, you will need to contact the Pl's on those. The others involved with NE PA case studies have been or will be contacted. we split up the task. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak Geochemistry! Environmental Chemistry 919 Kerr Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: beak.doug@epa.gov Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-235-7158 "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. 05/03/2012 12:16:42 AM From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" To: Doug Cc: Ralph Cariyle Date: 05/03/2012 12:16 AM Subject RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I appreciate the quick response. I am working to provide you the same courtesy regarding the information you requested. Please note that I believe some of this Information has been provided to EPA on previous occasions in regards to our prospective study. However, I will have the information verified, compiled and sent to you as soon as possible. It is interesting to hear that EPA has only requested this information for the TX and ND studies. I know there are other stakeholders (state and industry) that are collecting samples in conjunction with EPA's retrospective sampling events, including in the Susquehanna/Bradford Co. study. Out of curiosity, what is the rationale behind requesting this information from some participating stakeholders and not others? Please let me know if you think of anything else CHK can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:46 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: Re: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Chris, Yes, we have requested similar information for both the TX and ND studies. For the ND site we have had this infonnation since last July along with their approved QAPP. In TX the state is currently putting this information together since they are the only others sampling and observing. Since we don?t know how the data you are collecting will be used, we are concerned about the comparability and quality of the data you are collecting. Similar to what we are hearing from your side when in the ?eld. Therefore, we need the requested information to be assured that the data you are collecting is comparable and of similar quality. Doug Dr. Douglas G. Beak 9 9 Ken Research Dr. Ada, OK 74820 email: Phone: 580-436-8813 Fax: 580-436-8703 Blackberry: 580-23 5-7158 From: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" [chris.hill@chk.com] Sent: 05/02/2012 03:58 AM GMT To: Doug Beak Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller Subject: RE: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA Hi Doug, I hope you all had a good round of sampling in Bradford County! I was disappointed I was not able to get out there, but hopefully I can make it in July. I am more than happy to round up this information for you, Ralph, and Carl. Similar to your team, we have a_number of folks in transit, however, it shouldn't be a problem getting this information to you next week. If you don't mind, could you please inform me how this information will be used by EPA in their study efforts? I would also like to know if EPA has requested similar information from other operators? Please let me know if you think of anything else CHK can do to help. Thanks From: Doug Beak mm Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:38 PM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Ralph Ludwig; Carlyle Miller subject: Sampling methods and protocols used in Ne PA HI Chris, In October 2011 we asked Dana for the sampling methods and protocols you used for your sampling in NE PA. we never received these, but did receive information on split sampling method. We are again requesting the this Information. We are interested in knowing what analytes were sampled for, the protocols for sampling (including sampling ?ow rates, how the ?ow rates are determined, containers used, preservatives used, criteria for determining when samples should be collected, and all methods used for sample collection). In addition, we are interested in knowing what QA samples were collected, the frequency of collection, and the proximity to the sampling location in the case of blanks . Finally, we are requesting the protocols for the calibration of ?eld equipment, the QA types and frequency used for the field equipment and measurements. It would also be helpful to get a copy of the QAPP for this effort. We would also like the same information for the April/May sampling also. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Doug This email (and attachments ii? any) is intended only for the use oi the individual or ently to which it is airidressetl and may con'an information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. It the reader of this email is not the intended iecipieiit. or the employee or agent responsible for deliverirg this message to the inlencleci retzinieni, are hereby notilied that any dissemination, disiribut-0". or copying oi ll?ll$ is strictly pFOl?lil)lleCl, It you have receivecl his r.ornniunication in evoi, please riot.ly the sender immediately by return email and all copies of the email (and arty) mnr? IS inleiirie-Ti "(ii the tr?, i? anti irilui in illcil L?i I: liar; re; tier of lliis?. r~ the oi age-rii re-1,? f:-r tr.? l-?if: i~itc-ridml ii "wit c?1'itii'i I t-irng seiiriei ate." I r:-Iuar 1-i-Jail incl custi-oy all oi Ito ram?: if Forwarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From: "Chris Hill (ReguIatory)" To: Michael Cc: Doug David John Satter?eld Bert Smith Tamara Robbins Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 05/04/2012 10:48 AM Subject RE: QAPP and contact info Hi Mike, You are correct, I did owe you Bert?s contact information (See below). Please keep John Satterfield and Stephanie Timmermeyer included in email correspondence as well. For your information I believe Bert is out of the office today 12). Bert Smith Work: 405-935-1270 As you requested, I have attached a copy of our QAPP comments that we sent to Doug Beak on 1/6/12 for your reference. Based on our conversation on Tuesday, it would be beneficial for EPA finalize this QAPP in parallel with the site characterization work. I am comfortable having you incorporate the specific technical comments in to the QAPP, however, I would appreciate a formal response to the critical items listed in the CHK cover letter. Based on our April 18, 2012 conference call, we are operating with the following understanding: 1. EPA agrees with the timing after well construction and pre-HF) of the installation of horizontal wells, if they are even necessary. . 2. EPA is willing to accept any and all liabilities associated their actions on the project and is self-insured. The EPA project team has initiated discussions with their general counsel. 3. EPA is willing to maintain a buffer of 30 ft. when installing the horizontal wells. 4. EPA will have a detailed procedure for abandoning the horizontal monitoring wells prior to their construction. 5. EPA plans to include language in the final study plan regarding our concern and the limitations of horizontal monitoring wells. I appreciate you touching base with Steve V. regarding the QA requirements for the site characterization scope of work. This is valuable information for me to communicate to CHK management as they deliberate on whether or not CHK will manage and finance this the scope of work. I have attached below the subcontractor's estimates for drilling and logging for your reference. mskoescarrnou urns ?mam Subcontractor - Well Logging (Centuy Geophysics corp I Set Uplservicc Charge LS I 800 800 L5 2 400 800 Per Diem 4 I50 600 Magnetic Susceptibility 350 700 Sonic Ea I 450 450 Slim Hole Inmcnon Ea I 350 350 &Ann caliper En I 250 250 E-Log mm Neutron Ea 2 400 800 Teieviewer Ea I 875 875 Subcontractor - Morltortng Wet! Dnt l\9ICompie1Ion (Associated lnaustnes_ Inc R19 and Support Vefictcs LS I 3.000 3.000 E11 6 150 900 Ont! Air Rotary wl 7-7/8 or 6-3/4-Inch Tooth Bit Fl 450 24 45 1 L003 Complete 2-lndt and Diameter PVC Monlonng Wells Ft 450 20 9,000 Ream mu set Sutace Casing Fl 50 51 oo 2.550 Above Grade Comptetlons Ea 6 525 3.150 Per Diem CrewIDav 0 425 3.400 Thank you. Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405)935-2321 Mobile: (405)388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: hris. ill hk om From: Mldwael Overbay Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:53 AM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: Doug Beak; David Jewett Subject: QAPP and contact info Hi Chris, Wanted to remind you that you were going to send me Bert?s contact information and the QA comments from Chesapeake. Also, we have started a review of the proposal and I had a discussion with the Ada crew this morning about it from a QA viewpoint. The QA manager for the HF study project says that these prospective projects are not like the retrospective ones in that as a collaborator on this study, EPA needs your information that we will use to meet the same QA standards as if we generated it, which is what we call Category 1 standards. Here is a link to our QAPP's for the retrospective case studies that you can use as an example. Since we will be using the hydrogeologic data generated by your efforts to characterize the site, we will de?nitely have to have information on the well installation and development procedures. water level measurements, pump testing, etc. Most of that can probably be referenced to either information the driller can provide, or ASTM standard methods. We will also need the information on the procedures the geophysics companies will use to log the wells. I have an example from the USGS on what their procedures would be (note that it includes an example of the log montage at the end): As to the collection and analysis of environmental media samples. we will be putting our own QAPP together to do that for ourselves, but if Chesapeake wants EPA to be able to consider your sample analytical results, those sample collection and analytical procedures will have to meet our Category 1 QA requirement in order to be included in the study. Again. review the QAPPs at the link above for examples. Finally, as to the comments Chesapeake had provided earlier. although I would still like a copy sent to me, our contractor has them and will be writing a new version of the QAPP that will consider those comments. as well as new information and procedures EPA has developed. As such, due to the time crunch (in order to construct the pad in July and allow 3 weeks for ?eld work, we have to get the ball moving here), we won't be producing a direct response to those previous comments. but will rely on our revised QAPP to fulfill that role. We look forward to hearing from you on Monday about Chesapeake's funding decision. Michael Overbay. P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: r6/6wg[swgIgroundwater/gw. him This I ifcind it is einr} niay that oi l1lldt:f law. Ii? Ill:-r is not the cr [hi-3 or ngciit "oi" this In ?lm iecii?-ieri: you are hereby iicililiee ital r: its ll ou liavc this . 1 ei'rci'. please notify the senrler by rziimil an-?I vjr--zliriy all of the email (Gil-fl if [attachment CHK Case Study QAPP working copy 121611 (CHK Comments deleted by Doug ?-onivarded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM From: Michael To: ?Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Cc? Bert Smith David Doug John Satteifield Stephanie Timmermeyer Tamara Robbins Susan Date; 05/04l20l2 11:16 AM Subject: RE: QAPP and contact Info Thanks for the reply Chris. We do plan on giving y'all back a reply to the letter from Stephanie to Ramona. have a conference call set up with OGC next week to discuss how we can document the liability. but they have con?rmed to me that the federal government. including EPA. is "self?insured". So we'll get something going on that, but as you noted. it is not on the critical path for beginning the ?eld work. We do agree with the installation timing and location of any horizontal wells, if needed at least 30' from the well bore and being installed after the gas well is drilled, but before the hydraulic fracturing). I have tasked with developing a plugging and abandonment plan. which will be generic in some details for now, but will be revised with specifics about well details after they are built so the plan will reflect actual conditions . This is another task we talked about not being on the critical path, but it is underway. Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Visit the Ground Water Center on the web at: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Hi Mike. You are correct, I did owe you 05/04/2012 10:48:27 AM Fon?arded by Doug on 07/05/2012 06:49 AM Research on Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Coordination with Industry 5/15/12 We appreciate the information industry (as well as states, academia and others) has shared with EPA so far, and look forward to additional exchanges of reliable scientific data and analysis. Past 1. Public input during SAB review of study scope - Winter 2010 2. Public stakeholder process, included opportunities for oral and written statements - Summer 2010 3. Technical workshops February-March 2011 4. Input during SAB review of draft study plan February - August 2011 5. Data provided by nine hydraulic fracturing companies in response to request of September 2010 6. Data provided by nine randomly chosen well owner/operator companies in response to request of August 2011. Ongoing 1. Two prospective case studies underway with Range Resources and Chesapeake 2. Duplicate samples offered to relevant stakeholders at five retrospective case study sites 3. Collaboration at two waste water treatment plants in Pennsylvania for source apportionment study 4. Discussions with selected hydraulic fracturing service providers to follow up on data provided in response to information request 5. Provide quality assurance project plans (QAPPs) on website for use by industry. These include chemical methods, QA approaches to allow companies to conduct studies comparable to EPA's. Possible future collaborations/coordination 1. Additional prospective case study (only if additional funds allowed by Congress -- We have discussed this option with Southwestern) 2. We would appreciate working with companies to obtain samples of flowback, produced water, and cores to inform: chemical method development, assessment of effectiveness of waste water treatment methods, and to assess interactions between chemicals used in HF and target formations. (Samples of flowback and produced water are our highest priority request from industry) 3 Does industry have other data to share with EPA (especially data with known QA/QC information)? 4. Public input during SAB review of study reports (expected December 2012 and December 2014) Current research focuses on potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources. The President's FY 13 budget requests $14.1 M: 6.1 M to continue the current study (baseline), and $8 M (increase) to address air, water, human health and environmental risk. We will work through our MOU with DOE and DOI/USGS to assure the three agencies coordinate research. Up to date information on EPA's HF study is at www.epa.gov/hfstudy ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN EPA AND HYDRAULIC FRACTURING PRO PECTIVE ASE STUDY IN OKLAHOMA pursuant to the Surface Damage Agreement and Release between and the surface owners of the (attached as Exhibit A, the ?Surface Agreement?) and pursuant to the necessary rights and privileges arising from ownership interest in the oil and gas leasehold estate, hereby authorizes entry and access on the property in (as described in Exhibit B, ?Property?) to the employees and authorized representatives, agents, consultants, contractors and subcontractors of the United States Environmental Protection Agency in order to implement a prospective case study of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources (hereinafter the ?Project?). 1. The following activities (hereinafter the ?Work?) may be conducted on the Property by the EPA and its contractors and representatives, and are covered by this authorization: Staging equipment and supplies 0 Installation and sampling of ground water monitoring wells 0 Collection of environmental media samples soil, surface water) 0 Measurement of geophysical properties 0 Related Activities The activities conducted by EPA are undertaken as part of a national scienti?c study. EPA shall, in the exercise of the rights and privileges granted by this agreement, adhere to and comply with good engineering practices and all laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and orders applicable to EPA's activities, operations and work performed upon, or use of, the Property. 2. The"Work shall be coordinated and approved in advance with and a representative shall accompany the EPA at all times the EPA enters the Property. Therefore, EPA shall provide a copy of the schedule for the Work with 5 business days notice prior to commencement. The initial notice, any subsequent notices or communications shall be provided to: ?s Representative: CONTACT EPA Representative: CONTACT does not intend, and EPA shall not be required to follow the provision in this paragraph two (2) if and when it enters the Property in its of?cial enforcement and inspection 1 capacity. 3. shall provide the Property to EPA in "as-is" condition. EPA has inspected the Property and is satis?ed that it is ?t for EPA's purpose. shall not be responsible for repairing, maintaining or removing any alterations to or installations on the Property by EPA or its contractors. 4. EPA's access to the Property is r1on-exclusive. EPA shall access the Property and perform the Work at all times so as not to unreasonably interfere with the use of the Property by or any owner, tenant, licensee or other occupant of the Property. The Surface Agreement, recorded at Book Page of the records of the intended to and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property for the term hereof. 5. Upon the completion of either of the activities included in the Work on the Property or upon the expiration of this Access Agreement, whichever shall earlier occru?, contractors shall restore the portions of the Property disturbed by the Work to the same or substantially similar condition, based upon photographs to be taken by contractors prior to the commencement of the Work, as existed prior to the commencement of the Work. The foregoing will not apply to any wells and appurtenances required to be maintained by EPA on the Property. 6. contractors shall provide the following insurance for the Work: Certi?cates of Insurance for prime contractor, Ecology and Environment, have been furnished to and accepted by as evidence that such contractor maintains adequate insurance coverage. The drilling subcontractor will be required to maintain the insurance coverage described in Exhibit C. All other professional services subcontractors will be required to maintain the insurance coverage described in Exhibit D. Prior to entering the Property the subcontractors must submit to certi?cates of insurance showing that the subcontractor has the proper insurance coverage, as described above, and that has been named as an ?additional Insured? on all policies except Workers Compensation and Professional Liability where applicable, and that is extended a waiver of subrogation on all those policies. Said certi?cates should be forwarded to: CONTACT 7. Nothing contained in this Access Agreement shall be deemed or construed to create the relationship of principal and agent, or a partnership, or any form of joint venture between the parties, it being understood and agreed that there is no relationship between the parties. 8. By giving consent, does not waive or otherwise compromise its rights under federal, state or local law, nor under common law, with the exception of those rights waived in giving this consent. 9. This Access Agreement shall expire on December 31, 2015, unless earlier withdrawn, in which case notice of such withdrawal shall be made at least 30 days in advance. The expiration date may be extended by mutual agreement, con?rmed in writing, prior to the expiration date. 10. This Access Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties as to the subject matter and there are no verbal or collateral understandings, agreements, representations or warranties not expressly set forth herein. This Access Agreement may not be changed or terminated orally but only by an instrument in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 11. These terms, conditions, covenants, releases, provisions and undertakings shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Access Agreement and their respective heirs, successors, representatives and assigns, and is intended to and shall constitute a covenant running with the Property for the term hereof. 12. If any provision of this Access Agreement is held invalid under any applicable statute or rule of law, whether now existing or hereinafter passed or adopted, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Access Agreement that can be given effect without the invalid provision, and, to this end, the provisions of this Access Agreement are declared to be severable. In such event, the particular provision held invalid shall be renegotiated and redrafted so as to comply with the particular statute or rule of law. In no event, however, shall this severability provision operate as to alter in any material respect the basic understandings to the parties as to their respective obligations hereunder. 13. EPA, an agency of the federal government, shall be liable for claims, damages and injuries which may occur under this Access Agreement as provided in subsections a. and b. below: a. The Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671, 2680) provides coverage for damage or loss of property, or personal injury or death, caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of EPA while acting within the scope of his or her employment, under circumstances where EPA, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. b. If an employee of EPA is injiued while acting within the scope of his or her employment, government liability for that injury will generally be dictated by the provisions of the Federal Employees Compensation Act (5 U.S.C. 1801). 14. List of Exhibits: A. Surface Damage Agreement and Release between and the surface owners of the B. Property description C. Insurance Requirements - Drilling Subcontractor 3 D. Insurance Requirements - Professional Services Subcontractors [Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank] OWNER: [COMPANY]  Signature Date    ___________________________________________  Printed or Typed Name    ___________________________________________  Title 5   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Signature Date _____________________________________ Printed or Typed Name _____________________________________ Title   6 Fw: Comments on the CHK proposal for site characterization K2 Michael Overbay Claudia Meza-Cuadra 01/29/2013 11:22 AM Here is the second E-mail. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) Forwarded by Michael on 01/29/2013 10:21 AM rom; Michael To: Chris Hill Bert Smith Cc: Doug Steven Randall David Date: 05/18/2012 01:01 PM Subject: Comments on the CHK proposal for site characterization Hi Chris and Bert, Below are the comments from Steve Acree, our hydrogeologist working on this project, on the proposal Chesapeake sent on conducting the initial site hydrogeologic characterization . We will still need to look at the geochemical parameters. Regards, Michael Overbay. P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665~2191 (FAX) Wsit the Ground Water Center on the web at: wvvw.epa .gov/earthi Mike, I have reviewed the proposal for site characterization provided on April 30 by Mr. Chris Hill and have the following comments and recommendations to offer regarding the proposed hydrogeologic methodology. I will leave review of the geochemical aspects, particularly Table 1, to others. Task 2 Monitoring Well Installation and Development 1. The plan proposes to obtain samples for lithologic logging using a split barrel sampling system during the drilling of the shallow monitoring wells. The methodology is appropriate. For clarity, the plan should explicitly state that samples will be obtained continuously from land surface to the total depth of the bonng. 2. The plan proposes to install the shallow monitoring wells with continuous screens positioned across the entire saturated thickness of the terrace aquifer. Depending on the actual thickness of the aquifer, this could result in wells screening as much as 30 to 50 ft of saturated materials. Given that vertical strati?cation in water quality is anticipated (page 4 of the plan) and that there will likely be differences in hydraulic conductivity of aquifer materials with depth, this type of construction combined with the characterization methods proposed in the plan would result in bulk characterization data appropriate for estimating aquifer yield and bulk quality for purposes such as agricultural use assessments but not for estimating groundwater velocities or background quality in speci?c intervals of interest. If the saturated thickness is found to be greater than approximately 15 ft, it is recommended that well pairs, with one well screened across the water table and one well screened at the bottom of the terrace aquifer, be installed rather than a continuously screened well. 3. The plan lacked specific details regarding some aspects of well construction. With respect to the shallow wells, the proposed borehole diameter and HSA size should be speci?ed. The size distribution of the ?lter pack material should be speci?ed. The method for placing the ?lter pack and bentonite pellets should be described placement using a tremie pipe through the augers). The plan should also describe the general methodology for installing the well presumably through the augers. Similar detailed information should be provided regarding drilling and installation of the deep monitoring well installed in the Hennessey Group. 4. The plan states that an attempt will be made to collect water quality measurements during drilling of the deep well. Obtaining discrete water samples representative of speci?c intervals during drilling can be dif?cult. Details regarding the tools to be used and the methodology should be provided. 5. Water quality logging is proposed in conjunction with the suite of geophysical logs. More information should be provided concerning the proposed tool to be used, its calibration, and the methodology. In addition, it is likely that there will be vertical ?ow of groundwater within the borehole given the length of the open hole and the geology of the site. In order to interpret the information from the water quality log, it will be necessary to also have a vertical ?ow log using a tool such as the electromagnetic borehole ?owmeter produced by Century Geophysical. This addition should not be a problem since the plan proposes to use Century Geophysical to do the logging. Depending on the magnitude of the observed ?ow, it may be necessary to run the tool in stationary mode as well as trolling mode. Details regarding the calibration and proposed methodology for use of the ?owmeter should be provided. 6. The plan states that soil and rock cuttings will be containerized and stored until disposal can be arranged. It is recommended that the split spoon samples from a representative number of the shallow wells and samples of the cuttings from the deep well be retained for the duration of the project. 7. Well development is only discussed in general terms. More details concerning the specific methods to be used should be provided. In general, development should be suf?ciently aggressive to remove any accumulation of ?ne-grained materials from the well and to result in water ?ow in and out of the screen. Water velocity should be sufficient to remove ?nes from the ?lter pack and repair damage to the borehole wall. This will often require methods such as surging and over pumping and often require removal of signi?cantly more than three borehole volumes of water. Task 3 - Groundwater Monitoring 8. The plan proposes water quality logging in each well on a 1-ft interval within the screen. More information should be provided concerning the proposed tool to be used, its calibration, and the methodology. It should be noted that some of the larger diameter tools that are currently available can result in water mixing within a 2-in ID well during tool positioning. This factor should be considered during the design of the measurement methodology. In addition, it is quite possible that there will be vertical ?ow of groundwater within the well screen, particularly if screens longer than 10 to 20 ft are used. In order to interpret the lnforrnatlon from the water quality log, it will be necessary to also have a flow log obtained under non-pumping conditions using a sensitive vertical -component borehole ?owmeter. 9. The plan states that low-?ow techniques will be used during well sampling. Details concerning equipment, pumping rates, stabilization criteria, and the proposed methodology should be provided. Due to the potential range in geologic heterogeneity of aquifer materials adjacent to long -screened wells and the potential existence of vertical groundwater flow within such wells, low-?ow sampling methods often result in water samples being obtained from a very limited zone in the well which is not understood not necessarily adjacent to the pump, and not necessarily representative of either a zone of greatest interest or of the bulk water chemistry. Therefore, caution should be exercised in using this methodology with the proposed well construction. Information regarding the vertical flow in the well at the time of sampling and the hydraulic conductivity distribution of the aquifer materials adjacent to the screen, not simply the bulk hydraulic conductivity, would be needed to properly interpret these data. 10. Slug tests performed by removal of water using a bailer are proposed to estimate hydraulic conductivity of materials adjacent to the shallow wells. It is recommended that this procedure be revised to re?ect the use of solid slug PVC rods) to allow both falling head and rising head tests to be performed and to alleviate data bias caused by leaking bailers. In addition, it is recommended that the methodology be revised to conform to the recommendations of Butler (1997). particularly with respect to the performance of tests with different displacements and to repetition of displacements to allow better evaluation of data quality. It is also noted that this methodology would only provide an estimate of the average or bulk hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer materials. The values obtained from this type of test in a long-screened well would not provide a reliable estimate of groundwater velocity for any particular interval of interest water table) if significant heterogeneity were present. Additional studies, such as estimation of the hydraulic conductivity distribution using borehole ?owmeter techniques or multi -level slug testing, would be required to provide such information in a long-screened well. 11. A 12-hour pumping and recovery test is proposed to estimate transmissivity in the deep well. In a well screened over the proposed 80-100 ft interval, such data would be appropriate for estimating yield but not for estimating groundwater velocity or for identifying potential contaminant transport pathways in a heterogeneous setting such as this is likely to be the case in this setting . If a long-screened well is used, it is recommended that borehole ?ow logging be performed using a sensitive vertical component borehole ?owmeter to determining the relative contribution of flow as a function of depth in the screen during the pumping test (Young et al., 1998) and under static conditions. This information can be used to estimate the differences in hydraulic conductivity of the materials adjacent to the screen and allow more targeted sampling. References: Butler, J.J., Jr., (1997). The Design, Perfannance, andAna/ysis of Slug Tests. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL. Young, S.C., H.E. Julian, H.S. Pearson, F.J. Molz, and G.K. Boman, (1998). Application of the electromagnetic borehole ?owmeter. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. Steven D. Acree, Hydrologist Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center P.O. Box 1198 I 919 Kerr Research Drive Ada, OK 74821 (580) 436-8609 (voice) I (580) 436-8614 (FAX) From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stephanie Timmermeyer Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Re: OGC 06/07/2012 01:31 PM That time works for us - thanks Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 12:18 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: OGC Hi Stephanie, How about 2 pm EDT on Tuesday June 12? Our general counsel's office will participate. I can provide a conference call line. To assist the discussion, please provide us in advance with a draft of any access agreement or other similar document they anticipate using in connection with this project. Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Stephanie Timmermeyer ---06/06/2012 08:33:17 PM---Just heard back - we can do anytime between 3-5CT Monday or 1-4CT Tues or Wed. Thanks. Stephanie R. From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , John Satterfield , Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 06/06/2012 08:33 PM Subject: Re: OGC Just heard back - we can do anytime between 3-5CT Monday or 1-4CT Tues or Wed. Thanks. Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Chesapeake Energy Director, Regulatory Affairs - Federal 304.941.9879 From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 06:17 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: RE: OGC That sounds fine. Thanks! -----Stephanie Timmermeyer wrote: ----To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 06/06/2012 01:13PM Cc: "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" , John Satterfield , Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: RE: OGC Friday we have a shareholders meeting on campus so all will be very busy – we are checking the team’s schedules for Mon through Wed and will let you know best times first thing in the morning From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 3:05 PM To: Stephanie Timmermeyer Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato Subject: Re: OGC Hi Stephanie, As we discussed today, EPA would like to confirm that, as we stated in our letter of 5/23, the federal government self insures, and that this arrangement is acceptable to Chesapeake before we invest in the site characterization. I will set up a meeting with our general counsel's office. What is your availability for Friday and early next week? Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 Stephanie Timmermeyer ---06/06/2012 03:59:23 PM---Ramona and Jeanne - It did come as a surprise that EPA is not moving forward with site characterizat From: Stephanie Timmermeyer To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: John Satterfield , "Chris Hill (Regulatory)" Date: 06/06/2012 03:59 PM Subject: OGC Ramona and Jeanne – It did come as a surprise that EPA is not moving forward with site characterization due to the liability issue associated with the horizontal wells which may or may not be drilled. Given this information, we now appreciate the need to resolve this issue post-haste. We believe we will require a conversation with your attorneys – could you send us their contact information or set up a meeting for our attorneys with yours? At a minimum, we will require something written from OGC I believe. In any case, a phone conference would be helpful to schedule as soon as possible. Thanks, Stephanie Thank you, Stephanie R. Timmermeyer Director - Federal Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Mobile: (304) 941-9879 E-mail: Stephanie.Timmermeyer@chk.com This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED ******************* This Email message contained an attachment named image001.jpg which may be a computer program. This attached computer program could contain a computer virus which could cause harm to EPA's computers, network, and data. The attachment has been deleted. This was done to limit the distribution of computer viruses introduced into the EPA network. EPA is deleting all computer program attachments sent from the Internet into the agency via Email. If the message sender is known and the attachment was legitimate, you should contact the sender and request that they rename the file name extension and resend the Email with the renamed attachment. After receiving the revised Email, containing the renamed attachment, you can rename the file extension to its correct name. For further information, please contact the EPA Call Center at (866) 411-4EPA (4372). The TDD number is (866) 489-4900. *********************** ATTACHMENT NOT DELIVERED *********************** This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: When Date: Time: Chair: Invitees Required (to): Optional (cc): Where Location: catch up re:  prospective case study Monday  07/16/2012 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM   (0 hours 30 minutes) Jeanne Briskin sroy@rangeresources.com ckiray@rangeresources.com Jeanne will call Scott Meeting Confirmed: Susan Sharkey has confirmed this meeting Calendar Entry Subject: When Date: Time: Chair: Invitees Required (to): Optional (cc): Where Location: Pattersone-UTI Rob Kirsch (in person) Tuesday  06/26/2012 02:00 PM - 03:00 PM   (1 hour) Susan Sharkey Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Conference Room 51109-1/DC-Ronald Reagan-OSP Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: EPA hydraulic fracturing research When Date: Tuesday  06/12/2012 Time: 09:30 AM - 10:00 AM   (0 hours 30 minutes) Meeting is in time zone (GMT-06:00) Central Time (US & Canada) Here:  09:30 AM - 10:00 AM There:  08:30 AM - 09:00 AM Chair: Jeanne Briskin Invitees Required (to): matt.armstrong@bakerhughes.com Optional (cc): Where Location: I'll call you at 202-569-1130 Thanks for sending this; sorry we’ve kept missing each other. Matt Meeting Invitation Accepted: Calendar Entry Subject: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation When Date: Tuesday 06/12/2012 Time: 02:00 PM 03:00 PM (1 hour) Chair: leannsuirislsin. Sent BY: Invitees Required Optional (CC): Where - cont) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jeanne Briskin Stephanie Timmermeyer John Satterfield; Ramona Trovato FW: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study:  Chesapeake question re: indemnification 06/11/2012 08:10 PM Hi Stephanie, I was able to forward this to our attorney yesterday in preparation for our meeting. Looking forward to our conversation later today. Jeanne -----Stephanie Timmermeyer wrote: ----To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Stephanie Timmermeyer Date: 06/11/2012 04:29PM Cc: John Satterfield Subject: FW: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemnification Were you guys able to track down any of the standard agreements we requested below?  In the meantime, we think the following questions will help inform our discussions tomorrow – you could forward to your attorneys ahead of time.  These are issues be believe we need to talk through – Thanks Steph Questions for Consideration 1. What limits if any does sovereign immunity place upon the EPA’s ability to indemnify and hold CHK harmless 2. Who at the EPA can “accept” liability on behalf of the agency? 3. If the EPA itself cannot or is unwilling to indemnify CHK, is subcontractor insurance and/or an EPA bond sufficient? 4. What has the EPA done before in situations like this? 5. What are the EPA’s suggestions? 6. What does self-insured mean precisely to the EPA? 7. What effect does being self-insured have on CHK’s ability to collect on a claim given the EPA’s protection under sovereign immunity and the federal tort claims act? From: Stephanie 1'immermeyer Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:48 AM To: ?Jeanne Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Doug Michael Pooja Stephen Susan Cc: John Satter?eld; Ramona Subject: RE: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation Jeanne and Team: Our legal department is in the process of preparing for our meeting next week regarding the potential liability and indemnity issues with respect to the prospective study. In an effort to facilitate discussions, they have asked whether you can provide a ??sample?? or ?standard? agreement the EPA uses with its non-government vendors or partners. Specifically, they are looking for EPA standard provisions around premises liability, personal injury, safety, subcontractor indemnity, and environmental hazard/pollution, etc. By making this request, the legal department is hoping that they may be able to work from your standard provisions in creating an agreement to address any concerns more quickly than might be the case in starting fresh. Thanks Stephanie From: Jeanne Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 8:27 AM To: Jeanne Chris Hill (Regulatory); David Doug Michael Pooja Stephanie Timmermeyer; Stephen Susan Cc: John Satter?eld; Ramona Subject: Information Update - Description has changed: Prospective case study: Chesapeake question re: indemni?cation When: Tuesda June 12, 2012 2:00 PM Eastern. Where: conf cod To assist the discussion, please provide to EPA in advance with a draft of any access agreement or other similar document Chesapeake anticipates using in connection with this project. File: File: c092647.ics Tl? i~ e'ia Lam: if artyeitititv to which it IS may that IS or egezil exe'i'pt titm app ical: law If the l6JiI2r%l' of Ihliageitt toi tize this ii?e~3sage to the ii'itei'iw:le::1 vat. are l?iei?e::yv liOl l tE?Ijl that adv OI of this ixroh If itece:ve?:: this in er'i'oi? inlease notify the IN email a I x:c:?pie:. of the email ia"::l attac if aw: From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US@EPA John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; David Jewett/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Susan Mravik/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA; Doug Beak/ADA/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Follow-up on the liability issues 06/15/2012 06:09 PM Hi Mike, We appreciate you looking in to having CHK included as an additional insured within the Master Service Agreement (MSA) (or equivalent) between E&E and EPA, as requested during our conference call. After discussing this topic with CHK’s Risk Management department, it appears a $10MM value would be appropriate. The CHK RM department also requested a copy of the MSA (or equivalent) between E&E and EPA for their review. This additional information will provide a better understanding of the liabilities association with the project, which would be valuable for CHK to make an informed decision regarding our willingness to proceed with the project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 3:24 PM To: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Cc: John Satterfield; Stephanie Timmermeyer; Jeanne Briskin; David Jewett; Susan Mravik; Doug Beak Subject: Follow-up on the liability issues Hi Chris, Just wanted to check in after our call earlier this week.  We have E&E looking into the potential issuance of that insurance certificate naming Chesapeake as an additional insured (I think I have that term correct).  Have y'all finished putting together the $ value we talked about?  Did John get any feedback from Chesapeake management about their willingness to proceed with the project under the liability scenarios we discussed? Hope all is well. Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:41 PM To: Bob Costello; Chris Hill (Regulatory); John Satterfield Cc: Stephen Hess; Susan Mravik; Doug Beak; Jeanne Briskin; Florentino, Gene Subject: Draft Access Agreement Hi Bob, Chris and John, As we just discussed, here is the draft access agreement with edits from counsels representing EPA, CHK and E&E.   I had discussed the recent revisions with Chris Hill on Wednesday, July 18th, regarding the changes to the insurance language requirements.  I am still waiting on E&E to get cost information so that I can go forward to EPA management to approve the additional insurance costs for liability and well control insurance.  Also, based on our discussions today, CHK will make additional revisions to address the issue of allowing EPA continued access to the property should CHK no longer own the mineral interests in the future.  Bob Costello will also send Steve Hess information relating to the title opinion he discussed.   Since it seems that is something that we may be able to do in just a few days, I will wait to make sure that we are comfortable with our understanding of that issue before pushing forward for final OK.  Hopefully, we can this all resolved next week. Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). [attachment "draft EPA Chesapeake access agreement July 27 12.docx" deleted by Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US] [attachment "Scanned Document.pdf" deleted by Michael Overbay/R6/USEPA/US] This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly proh bited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Srock, John Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior 02/15/2012 04:15 PM Nathan, I have the facility going back to hard copy records for the month and pulling all jobs. I believe we should be able to identify the customer and well from the records. I should have this to you by the February 22nd. -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 www.swsi.com www.nabors.com -----Original Message----From: Nathan Wiser [mailto:Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 1:02 PM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Re: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Thank you John, I will forward the two MDS well information sets to Randy Morris, of MDS Energy. On the last well, the data came to EPA from Superior with that information, in Superior's response to EPA's Sept 2010 letter to Superior seeking information on hydraulic fracturing. That information included the list of all wells that Superior frac'd in the year prior to EPA's Sept 2010 letter. This particular well was one of those picked at random from that list. Although in Superior's submission it was identified as an EQT Production well, it seems that it either is not an EQT well or if it is, then the well's location is wrong and it is not located in Uintah County, Utah. How would you like to proceed on this very last well? --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 From: "Srock, John" To: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 02/13/2012 10:55 AM Subject: 2-13-12-RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Nathan, Below is the information on MDS Energy. The EQT well is not a Utah well. If I was able to get more specific information on the well I could let you know the customer in Utah if you need it. I do not have the email address for the MDS individual overseeing this project. Could you please send this along to him or send me the contact email and I can send it along. 22-026568 22-026802 MDS Energy - Edward Dunmire #2-331 - 08-13-09 MDS Energy - Gilbert Querio #1-43 - 08-29-10 - 2 -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 www.swsi.com www.nabors.com -----Original Message----From: Nathan Wiser [mailto:Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 11:38 AM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior To John Srock, Superior Well Services Hi John, Has there been any news to report about better identifying these three well IDs from Superior? We'd like to be able to get back to the operators so they can compile well data to send to EPA. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 02/13/2012 09:26 AM ----From: To: Date: Subject: Superior Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US "Srock, John" 01/27/2012 10:26 AM RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Hi John, Here is the well data that we're trying to correct: 1. MDS Energy Well ID supplied by Superior: 22-026568 Date: 8/13/2009 Armstrong County, PA 2. MDS Energy Well ID supplied by Superior: 22-026802 Date: 8/29/2010 Armstrong County, PA 3. EQT Production Well ID supplied by Superior: Neilson 3-22 Date: 12/7/2009 Unitah County, UT For the MDS wells, they cannot recognize the well ID (I assume this is actually Superior's job ticket number). For the EQT Production well, they told us they've never had Utah operations and thus claim that cannot be their well. Jeanne and I still plan to contact you today. this. Thanks for your help on --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 From: To: Cc: Date: Subject: Superior "Srock, John" Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 01/26/2012 05:34 PM RE: Some additional well ID information needed from Nathan, I am just returning from vacation. I will be back in the office Friday. I was able to receive emails but not send them for the last week due to size limitations. I will be available for a call at 1:30 EST for about 1/2 hour. I am OK with you sending me the well data like before. This way I can get our appropriate sales member to pull the hard copy information if we have it. The call may be more beneficial after I have the data. Either way I am good. Have a great evening. -John -Regards John Srock HSE Director Health, Safety, and Environmental SUPERIOR WELL SERVICES INC. A Nabors Industries Company W: 724.403.9066 C: 724.541.7822 F: 866.691.8298 ________________________________________ From: Nathan Wiser [Wiser.Nathan@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 6:19 PM To: Srock, John Cc: Jeanne Briskin Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, Jeanne Briskin and I plan to call you tomorrow (Friday, Jan 27) at 1:30 pm Eastern time to see if we can follow up on this matter. Will that work for you? --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 01/26/2012 04:17 PM ----From: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US To: "Srock, John" Date: 01/25/2012 01:02 PM Subject: Fw: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, I have not heard from you about this matter. I have confirmed that there are mis-identification issues at three wells (two operators) where the originating data came from Superior's answer to EPA's Sep 2010 letter, yet these two operators cannot ID their well(s) as we that original identification on to them. This would, I assume, be a fairly simple matter to Superior which could be handled in much the same way we addressed the three Sand Ridge well IDs before. Please let me know if I should set up a call with you or others at Superior, or if (with your permission) emailing you the well IDs as originally supplied by Superior along with the operator might be sufficient. Thank you. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ----- Forwarded by Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US on 01/25/2012 12:56 PM ----From: Nathan Wiser/R8/USEPA/US To: "Srock, John" Date: 01/18/2012 03:14 PM Subject: Some additional well ID information needed from Superior Hi John, I need to identify to Superior some information about well IDs that pose a problem much like the Sand Ridge examples we dealt with earlier. I want to honor confidentiality of information, so I do not wish to place that information in this email. Might I be able to contact you and provide it over the phone in the near future? Or, with your permission, I could send you the operator name and well ID as provided to EPA by Superior. This applies only to 2 or 3 wells. Thanks. --Nathan Wiser Environmental Scientist U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy (303) 312-6211 office (303) 312-6953 fax wiser.nathan@epa.gov mailing address: U.S. EPA Region 8 (Mail Code 8ENF-UFO) 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, Colorado 80202 ******************************* NABORS EMAIL NOTICE - This transmission may be strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you may not disclose, print, copy, or disseminate this information. If you have received this in error, please reply and notify the sender (only) and delete the message. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. This communication does not reflect an intention by the sender or the sender's principal to conduct a transaction or make any agreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shall satisfy the requirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute a contract or electronic signature under the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, or any other statute governing electronic transactions. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Stephanie Meadows Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Amy Farrell Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Donald Maddox/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Lisa Matthews/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Meeting 12/13/2012 01:49 PM Mary: Thank you for the prompt response.  I think Don can just get in contact with me to help organize the session.  My contact information is included.  Happy holidays to everyone. Stephanie Stephanie R. Meadows Senior Policy Advisor Upstream American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, NW Washington, DC  20005 Phone:  202-682-8578 Fax:  202-682-8426 Email:  meadows@api.org From: Hanley.Mary@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Hanley.Mary@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:01 AM To: Amy Farrell; Stephanie Meadows Cc: Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov; Maddox.Donald@epamail.epa.gov; Matthews.Lisa@epamail.epa.gov Subject: Fw: Meeting Amy, Stephanie, We look forward to having this meeting. Don Maddox will work to set this up in early January. Would you kindly reply with the name of the person Don can work with in your organization to get this on the calendar? Wishing you a very Happy Holiday! Mary Mary Hanley Special Assistant Office of the Administrator US EPA (Mail Code 1101A) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC, 20460 Ph: 202-564-0316 FAX: 202-501-1428 ----- Forwarded by Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US on 12/13/2012 10:34 AM ----From: Mary Hanley/DC/USEPA/US To: "Amy Farrell" , Lisa Matthews/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Stephanie Meadows" Date: 12/11/2012 03:08 PM Subject: Re: Meeting Amy, Thank you for this opportunity. We look forward to getting back to you with some possible dates. Mary From: Amy Farrell [afarrell@anga.us] Sent: 12/11/2012 03:00 PM EST To: Mary Hanley; Lisa Matthews Cc: Jeanne Briskin; "'Stephanie Meadows' (Meadows@api.org)" Subject: Meeting Hi Mary and Lisa – Thanks for sending around the information on the workshop. We’ll get the word out so we can send a good set of technical experts your way. I’m actually writing because we are close to having some final deliverables from Battelle and we’d like to come in to brief you all. I’ve briefly described the effort to Jeanne and mentioned it to Bob when we last spoke. I think it would be beneficial for us to meet and for you all to have a chance to review the materials in advance of your retrospective data release. Given holiday travel I think the best thing would be to start looking for days in the new year – basically the week of the 31 st or soon after. Please email to let us know a few options that might work on your end and Stephanie and I will work to get Battelle and some of our members lined up. Thanks! Amy Amy L. Farrell VP of Regulatory Affairs America's Natural Gas Alliance 202-789-2642 (office) 202-715-1742 (direct) 202-997-7012 (mobile) afarrell@anga.us Page 1 of 3 Re: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/18/2012 09:55 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been forwarded. Paul is looking to schedule a meeting week of 30 JUL with Bob to discuss our ATGAS report and our report on the retrospective split sampling in Bradford county, pa. If we get this scheduled, let me know what level of convo you'd like to have. I can cover the technical issues to a certain point, but if you really want to talk about the hydrogeology and statistical correlation of differing parameters, will need to bring a couple of other folks. Alternately, can have higher level discussions including bob and Paul after we have a technical convo.... Let me know.... John A Satterfield Director Environmental & Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my iPad On Jul 17, 2012, at 8:09 AM, "Ramona Trovato" wrote: Thanks John. I'll move this along. From: John Satterfield [john.satterfield@chk.com] Sent: 07/17/2012 12:56 PM GMT file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 To: Ramona Trovato Subject: FW: Insurance information Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.    Hopefully will be easy adjustment on E&E’s part. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information Mike, Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded  revisions address all concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all  changes to the agreement, signed the document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of  insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider the contractor liability issues adequately  addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy to setup a conference call in  the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to work through.  I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.  Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do  to help. We look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.  Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can. From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E-mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web7398... 6/22/2013 Page 1 of 3 FW: Insurance information John Satterfield to: Ramona Trovato 07/17/2012 08:56 AM Hide Details From: John Satterfield To: Ramona Trovato/DC/USEPA/US@EPA History: This message has been replied to and forwarded. 3 Attachments Draft Access Agreement with Chesapeake v1 by MO CBH2.docx Scanned Document.pdf Eand E insurance certificate.pdf Ramona – below is our Risk Management Department’s review of E&E’s insurance information.   Hopefully will  be easy adjustment on E&E’s part. Please let me know if you have questions or concerns. From: Chris Hill (Regulatory) Sent: Monday, July 16, 2012 10:58 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik'; John Satterfield Subject: RE: Insurance information file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 Page 2 of 3 Mike,   Please see CHK’s comments regarding EPA’s proposed agreement attached. The embedded revisions address all  concerns regarding the subcontractor issue. Once EPA has accepted all changes to the agreement, signed the  document and provided CHK a new E&E certificate of insurance aligned with the agreement, CHK will consider  the contractor liability issues adequately addressed to proceed with field activities. I would be more than happy  to setup a conference call in the near future, if there are any issues with the revised agreement that we need to  work through.    I have attached a copy of the CHK/Landowner access agreement for your information.    Please let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if there is anything else we can do to help. We  look forward to proceeding with the Mississippi Lime prospective study.    Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Chris.Hill@chk.com     From: John Satterfield Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:37 PM To: 'Michael Overbay' Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); 'Jeanne Briskin'; 'Ramona Trovato'; 'Bob Sussman'; 'Stephen Hess'; 'Lek Kadeli'; 'Steve Pressman'; 'David Jewett'; 'Doug Beak'; 'Susan Mravik' Subject: RE: Insurance information Thanks!  Will run to ground and get back with you as soon as I can.   From: Michael Overbay [mailto:Overbay.Michael@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 3:35 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Chris Hill (Regulatory); Jeanne Briskin; Ramona Trovato; Bob Sussman; Stephen Hess; Lek Kadeli; Steve Pressman; David Jewett; Doug Beak; Susan Mravik Subject: Insurance information Hello John, I am happy to finally be able to provide you information about the insurance requirements contained in the EPA contract with our prime contractor for this project, Ecology and Environment (E&E). Attached is a certificate of insurance showing E&E's existing policies, with coverage up to $15 million. The policies will be carried forward under our existing contract with E&E. If the coverage is sufficient, Chesapeake will be added as an additional insured for the liability coverage. Per Stephanie's E-mail message June 27th, it appears you will not need insurance information about the drilling subcontractor in order to move forward. I am hoping the above information will be adequate to allow Chesapeake to resolve their concerns about liabilities issues. Once you have had a chance to share this information and discuss it internally, I would appreciate receiving an E- file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 Page 3 of 3 mail with your confirmation that the liability/indemnification issue is resolved. Also, we would like to receive a copy of the access agreement with the landowner to confirm that we have access to conduct our EPA activities through your agreement. As you know, we would like to make sure all the paperwork is agreed to so that we can move ahead with this project. Please feel free for either you or Chris Hill to call me if you have any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael Overbay, P.G. Regional Ground Water Center Coordinator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6 (214)665-6482 (214)665-2191 (FAX) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent respons ble for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distr bution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). file://C:\Documents and Settings\jzambran\Local Settings\Temp\notesFCBCEE\~web8267... 6/22/2013 From: To: Subject: Date: walter.postula@shell.com Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study 08/31/2012 12:04 PM Thanks for the reply Jeanne.  Sorry to hear the EPA will not be able to participate on this topic. Kind regards, Walter From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM To: Postula, Walter S GSUSI-PTD/TCB Subject: RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Walter, Thank you for your kind invitation. I have checked with our folks and we will need to decline your offer to participate in the 2013 Ethylene Producer's Conference. Thank you for considering us as part of the agenda. Best, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 ---08/30/2012 07:00:28 PM---Dear Jeanne, Just wanted to follow up on EPA interest in a paper/presentation as detailed in my note From: To: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/30/2012 07:00 PM Subject: RE: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Jeanne, Just wanted to follow up on EPA interest in a paper/presentation as detailed in my note below. We are about two months away from the abstract submission deadline and I would like to firm up my list of authors/papers to know if I need to pursue other possibilities. Kind regards, Walter From: Postula, Walter S GSUSI-PTD/TCB Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:44 PM To: 'Briskin.jeanne@Epa.gov' Subject: Query on Potential Paper/Presentation for 2013 Ethylene Producers' Conference on EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Dear Jeanne, I am a member of the Ethylene Producers’ Environmental Sub-Committee. Each year the Ethylene Producers’ Conference takes place in conjunction with the Spring Meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. At this conference, 12-13 sessions are organized by various sub-committees to present material of general (non-confidential) interest to US Ethylene Producers. The 2013 conference is being held in San Antonio at the end of April, 2013. I found your name via a “podcast” on hydraulic fracturing and am writing to begin the discussion on someone from the EPA making a presentation (writing paper too) at our conference on the current knowledge on environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing. This is especially topical because of the recent announcements for ethylene plant expansions and new construction, based on availability of shale gas from hydraulic fracturing. Please let me know if this is possible. Kind regards, Walter Walter S. Postula Shell Projects and Technology - Global Solutions Downstream Lower Olefins and Aromatics (GSUSI-PTD/TCB) Westhollow Technology Center, D-3 Q10 3333 Highway 6 South, Houston, TX 77082 Tel: +01 281 544-8313 Email: walter.postula@shell.com, 9/80 Schedule B www.shell.com/globalsolutions This e-mail, and any attachment and response string are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please telephone or e-mail the sender and delete this message and any attachment immediately. Internet communications are not secure and therefore Shell does not accept legal respons bility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender. From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Jeanne Briskin John Satterfield Dayna Gibbons RE: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx 08/15/2012 07:45 AM thanks for the update. Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C.  20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC  20004 ▼ John Satterfield ---08/15/2012 07:40:39 AM---It's in Paul's hands.  He may want to discuss with Bob.  Sorry can't be more help. From: Jeanne Bris From:    John Satterfield To:    Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc:    Dayna Gibbons/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date:    08/15/2012 07:40 AM Subject:    RE: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx It’s in Paul’s hands.  He may want to discuss with Bob.  Sorry can’t be more help. From: Jeanne Briskin [mailto:Briskin.Jeanne@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:41 PM To: John Satterfield Cc: Dayna Gibbons Subject: Re: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx Hi John, Any word on whether the proposed desk statement is still ok or suggested edits? I understand that Paul Hagemeier may have a call in to Bob Sussman, so we would appreciate being able to let Bob S know the latest, soon. thanks! Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 yv+LAH8AAAAAAAAASW5hY3RpdmUgaGlkZSBkZXRhaWxzIGZvciBKZWFubmUgQnJpc2tpbi0tLTA4 LzEwLzIwMTIgMDQ6MDc6NDUgUE0tLS1IaSBKb2huLCBJIHRoaW5rIHdlIGFyZSBvbiB0aGUgdmVy Z2Ugb2YgcmVzb2x2aW5nIGFsbCB0aGUgbw== Jeanne Briskin---08/10/2012 04:07:45 PM---Hi John, I think we are on the verge of resolving all the outstanding questions regarding our collab From: Jeanne Briskin/DC/USEPA/US To: John Satterfield Cc: Dayna Gibbons/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 08/10/2012 04 07 PM Subject: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx Hi John, I think we are on the verge of resolving all the outstanding questions regarding our collaboration on our prospective case study in Oklahoma. Several months ago, Stephanie Timmermeyer and I worked out the attached text so that we could update our website and explain why we are changing locations. The attachment contains the language we agreed to at that time. Would you please review the proposed text to make sure that it still works for Chesapeake and let me know whether it is ok as is? Thanks, Jeanne Jeanne Briskin Office of Science Policy Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. (8104R) Washington, D.C. 20460 (202) 564-4583 - office (202) 565-2911 - fax briskin.jeanne@epa.gov Address for Deliveries: US EPA Ronald Reagan Building --Room 51144 Washington DC 20004 (See attached file: draft Alfalfa County desk statement.docx) This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or en ity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is confidential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Due to scheduling con?icts, the prospective case study of the hydraulic fracturing site near Mans?eld in DeSoto Parish, Louisiana, will be replaced by an alternative site. Sampling to establish baseline conditions for the study could not be completed before drilling was to begin on the site. While it was not a factor in the decision to cancel this case study, the site was also not ideal for collection of certain baseline samples, due in part to the anticipated slow rate of groundwater ?ow. We have been working closely with Chesapeake Energy (our industly partner on this project) to identify a replacement site that meets the criteria for hydraulic fracturing study. A new site has been selected in Alfalfa County, Oklahoma. Draft Questions and Answers 1. Why was the newly selected prospective case study site not in the Haynesville Shale area? EPA was not able to replace this site with another one in the Haynesville Shale area because there were no available sites that satisfy our criteria while fitting into the schedules of both EPA and Chesapeake Energy. Therefore, we have worked with Chesapeake to evaluate potential replacement sites they have provided in areas where drilling activities remain high. 2. Why was the Alfalfa County site selected? The site in Alfalfa County meets the technical considerations for a site which EPA had outlined as relevant to a prospective case study. This includes factors such as being in an area without signi?cant pre-existing development, and having relatively shallow depths to good quality groundwater. Additionally, the site schedule for development is compatible with the EPA schedule for investigation. 2. Will this delay results for the ?nal Hydraulic Fracturing Report? EPA intends to establish a schedule, in agreement with our industry partner, that would make results available in 2014. 3- Invitation: Fw: EPA Prospective Study Conf Call -Li Thu 11I01l201210:00 AM - 11:00 AM 3 Attendance is required for Ramona Trovato John Satterfield 877-935-0245 (745420) chris.hilI@chk.com chris.hilI has invited Ramona Trovato to a meeting. Required: trovato.ramona@epa.gov Time zones, This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Thu 11/01/2012 9:00 AM CDT - 10:00 AM CDT Description Fyi from chris .. I have schedule this meeting to ensure we continue forward progress regarding the Prospective Study. The proposed topics of discussion are identi?ed in the agenda below. Agenda - Site Selection - QAPP Development - Access Agreement Please let me know if you have any questions prior to the conference call. I look fonivard to our discussion. Thank you, Chris Hill Environmental Engineer Chesapeake Energy Corporation Office: (405) 935-2321 Mobile: (405) 388-3907 Fax: (405) 849-2321 E-mail: Thanks, John Satter?eld Director, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Chesapeake Energy Corporation Sent from my B ackBerry This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is con?dential or privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient. or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). - EPA HF Study - Prospective Study Tue 03/27/2012 4:00 PM - 4:30 PM I . Attendance is required for Ramona Trovato ma Conference Call (877-935-0245 745420) Michael stephanie.timmenneyer@chk.com, Required: Jeanne beak.doug@epa.gov, David trovato.ramona@epa.gov This entry was created in a different time zone. The time in that time zone is: Tue 03/27/2012 3:00 PM CDT - 3:30 PM CDT Time zones: Description Please forward as appropriate. This email (and attachments if any) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, con?dential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return email and destroy all copies of the email (and attachments if any). Personal Notes