CHAPTER 5
COSTS OF BASELINE AND ALTERNATIVE WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction and Background i
2. Format and Sources of the Cost Estimates 3
3. Relationship of the Cost Estimates to the 4
Waste Management Scenarios
4. Surface Impoundments 9
5. Monitoring and Site Management 22
6. Class X and Class 11 Injection Wells 26
7. Solidification 34
8. Incineration 44
9. Landfarming 4 5
10. Substitution 54
11. Waste Volume Reduction 60
12. Transportation 64
13. References 67
Appendix A: Surface Impoundment Model Runs
from the Pope-Reid Faci1ities Design
Tool Cost Model.
Appendix 8; Costs for Class I and Class II
Injection Wells.
Appendix C: Costs for Class I and Class 11
Injection Well Site Facilities.
Appendix D: Annual Operating Costs for Class I
and Class II Injection Wells.
Appendix E: Landfarming Model Runs from the
Pope-Reid Land Treatment Computer
Cost Model.
0267V
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
3-1 Criteria for intermediate Scenario 7
3-2 Relationship of Waste Management Practices ,10
to Waste Management Scenarios
4-1 Summary of Cost components for Surface 12
Impoundments
4-2 Surface impoundment Assumptions 14
4-3 Capital costs of Surface impoundments 15
4-4 Closure Costs of Surface Impoundments 16
4-5 Annual Operating Costs of Surface impoundments 18
4-6 Regional cost Factors 20
4-7 Annualized Surface Impoundment Costs/Annualized 21
Per Barrel Surface Impoundment costs
5-1 Cost Elements for Monitoring and Site Management 23
5-2 Capital Costs of Monitoring 24
5-3 closure Costs of Monitoring 25
5-4 Annualized Monitoring Costs/Annualized Per 27
Barrel Monitoring Costs
6-1 Cost Components of Class I and class II Injection 30
Wells
6-2 Class I injection well costs 31
6-3 Class II Injection Well Costs 33
6-4 Annualized Per-Barrel Injection Well Costs by 36
Basin
6-5 Annualized Per-Barrel Injection Well Costs by 37
Region
7-1 Costs of Solidification 40
9-1 Landfarming Cost Components 46
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONT.)
Pase
9-2 Landfarrning Cost Components by Waste Management 48
Scenario
9-3 Landfarming Model's Drilling Mud Waste Stream 51
9-4 Costs of Constructing, Maintaining, and Closing 5 2
a Commercial lar.dfarm Handling Drilling Wastes
9-5 Annualized Landfarming Costs by Regi on/Annua 1ized 53
Per Barrel Landfarming Costs by Region
10-1 The Major Constituents of Drilling Fluids 55
10-2 Cost of Mineral for Diesel Oi 1 Substitution 59
for a 15,000 Foot Well
10-3 Barite Costs for Typical Wells in Each Region 61
11-1 Rental Rates for Solids Control Equipment 63
12-1 Cost of Transporting One Barrel of Waste 66
Varying Distances
0267V
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1 Class I Facilities Schematic 32
2 Class II Facilities Schematic 35
0267V
-------
1, introduction and Background
EPA1s Office of Solid Waste is currently preparing a study
and a Report to Congress concerning drilling fluids, cuttings,
produced water, and other wastes generated during oil and gas
exploration/ development, and product ion as mandated under
Section 8002(m) of RCRA. 3y statute, the study must include,
among other topics, an analysis of alternatives to current
waste disposal methods in this industry, and the impact of
these alternatives on oil and gas exporation, development, and
production.
To assess the impact of alternative waste management
practices on this industry, it is necessary to identify current
(i.e., baseline) waste disposal practices and estimate their
costs; and then to compare these baseline costs to the cost of
alternative waste management practices. This preliminary
report provides estimates of the costs of baseline and
alternative waste management practices. The material presented
here will be used in the impact assessment and also will be
incorporated into the final Report to Congress and supporting
technical materials.
A list of baseline and alternative waste management
practices was presented in Part I, Chapter I of the EPA/OSW
Technical Report entitled Wastes from the Exploration,
Development, and Production of crude Oil, Natural Gas, and
Geothermal Energy (1986}ซ This list included the following
practices:
Primary Baseline Practices
Reserve Pit storage and Disposal
injection of Product ion Fluids in
Road Oiling and Spreading of Tank
Class II Wells
Bottoms and Sludges
. -1-
-------
Alternative Practices
Injection of Production Fluids in Class I Wells
Monitoring and Site Management Practices
Volume Reduction
Solidification
Incineration
Landfarming
Treatment and Discharge of Liquid, pumpable Waste
Disposal in Lined Pits
Disposal in a Secure Facility
Substitution of Less Toxic Components
All of these baseline and alternative waste management
practices are addressed in this report with the exception of
"Road Oiling and Spreading of Tank Bottoms and Sludges'* and
"Treatment and Discharge of Liquid, Pumpable Waste." The
former is omitted because it was decided by EPA that, in the
interest of time, the effort in this report would focus on the
most significant wastes: produced water from production
operations and muds and cuttings from drilling operations.
Cost estimates for the latter practice, treatment and
discharge, are now being developed and will be included in
later drafts.
Cost estimates for the baseline and alternative waste
management practices are presented in Sections Four through
Eleven. Several of the baseline and alternative practices
{"Reserve Pit Storage and Disposal," "Disposal in Lined Pits,"
and "Disposal in a Secure Facility") are treated together in
Section Four, Surface impoundments. Injection of produced
fluids in Class I and Class II injection wells are treated
together in Section Six. Otherwise, each baseline or
-2-
-------
alternative practices is considered in a separate, designated
sect ion.
Section Twelve, Transportation costs, provides information
on the cost of transporting wastes to offsite facilities. The
costs described in Section Twelve are applicable to any of the
individual waste management practices that require offsite
disposal. ,
2. Format and Sources for the cost Estimates
The cost estimates presented hece were developed from a
number of sources. For each baseline and alternative waste
management practice, EPA literature, data bases, and computer
models were reviewed to determine whether applicable cost
estimates had been prepared in support of other EPA programs.
Where such estimates were available, these estimates were
adapted for this report. Specifically, costs for surface
impoundments, landfarming, and monitoring and site management
were adapted from computer models developed by Pope-Reid
Associates, inc., for EPA. These computer models were accessed
through the EPA mainframe computer in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. costs for incineration were also adapted from
an EPA study providing cost estimates for a number of hazardous
waste options (U.S. EPA, 1985).
where existing EPA studies were not applicable, cost
estimates were developed from other sources. Because Class I
and Class II injection wells are the principal produced water
disposal option, original engineering cost estimates were
developed for these disposal options. For the remaining
disposal options (substitution, volume reduction,
solidification), cost estimates were developed through contacts
with vendors and other industry sources.
-3-
-------
All of the baseline and alternative waste management
practices entail both capital and operating costs to construct
and operate disposal facilities, capital cost items were
annualized using an 3 percent discount rate and added to annual
operating costs to generate total annual costs for the
facility. Annual costs for the facility were then divided by
the facilities' annual waste handling capacity (in barrels) to
generate a cost per barrel of waste disposed. Both produced
water disposal costs and drilling waste (i.e.# muds and
cuttings) disposal costs are expressed on a dollars-per-barre 1
basis.
In the impact assessment, the dollars-pec-barrel cost
estimates (e.g., for muds and cuttings disposal) can be
multiplied by the number of barrels of waste generated by a
model facility to estimate the cost of waste disposal for the
model facility. Costs for baseline and alternative practices,
so generated, can be compared in order to estimate the impact
of the alternative practice on the facility's profitability.
Thus, the standardization of cost estimates in this report
facilitates the impact assessment. Further, for the purpose of
consistency and comparability, all costs in this report are
expressed in 1985 dollars; and all costs were regionalized
using the eleven oil and gas regions selected for the Report to
Congress.
3. Relationship of Waste Management Practices to Waste
Management Scenarios
In order to determine the potential costs of changes in oil
and gas waste disposal requirements, three hypothetical waste
management scenarios have been defined. In the "Baseline
Scenario," existing practices and regulations are assumed to
remain unchanged in the future. In the "Intermediate Scenario,"
wastes are controlled more stringently than is presently common
-4-
-------
in roost states, bat the wastes ace not considered to be covered
by Subtitle C regulations. In the "RCRA Subtitle C Scenario,"
it is assumed that the wastes will be covered under the
Subtitle c regulations.
Because the scenarios represent varying degrees of
regulatory stringency, the waste management practices that can
be applied will vary under each scenario. The discussion which
follows describes the waste management scenarios and identifies
the primary waste management practices that would be applied
under each scenario.
Baseline Scenario
The Baseline Scenario represents the current situation and
therefore encompasses the waste management practices now
permitted under state and federal regulations. For drilling
fluids and cuttings, the use of an unlined pit is by fat the
most common means of disposal. The pit is dewatered by
evaporation or vacuum truck upon completion of drilling. The
pit is then backfilled, thereby burying the wastes.
For produced water, the primary disposal method in the
Baseline Scenario is injection in Class ti wells. In some
cases (e.g., stripper well operations in Appalachia, operations
in western states where discharges are allowed for beneficial
use), produced waters are discharged to land or water. Where
surface discharges are currently practiced, the wastes are
discharged untreated (except for water/hydrocarbon separa-
tion). Thus, the cost of this latter option is negligible and
is not covered in this report.
-5-
-------
Intermediate Scenario
In the Intermediate Scenario, oil and gas wastes are
divided into three levels, depending on the type and
concentration of constituents present in the waste. The Level
i wastes are those in which constituents of concern such as
heavy metals, organics and chlorides are not present or are
present at very low concentrations. The types of wastes likely
to fall in Level 1 would include freshwater bentonite drilling
fluids having minimal levels of additives, and produced water
with low levels of chloride and dissolved solids such as those
currently classified for "beneficial use." Table 3-1 shows the
criteria used to define Level 1 wastes.
The types of wells likely to generate Level 1 wastes are
primarily shallow (e.g., 3,000 feet drilling depth). Additives
such as barite, diesel oil, biocides, and corrosion inhibitors
may not be required in such wells.
The primary disposal options applicable to Level 1 wastes
are current practices (i.e., unlined pit Hsposal for muds and
cuttings, Class II well injection for produced water).
Additionally, where current rules now allow surface discharges
of produced water, this practice would still be permitted.
However, produced waters not meeting the criteria for Level I
wastes could no longer be discharged.
Level 2 wastes include all produced waters that do not meet
the Level 1 criteria (Table 3-1); and all dri11ing wastes
meeting the metals and pH requirements of Level 1 waste but
with less stringent criteria for chlorides and oil and grease
( <_ 5000 ppm and < 3 percent by dry weight, respectively). The
only disposal options for Level 2 produced water is Class I I
well injection. The permissible disposal options for Level 2
-6-
-------
TABLE 3-1
CRITERIA FOR INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO
DRILLING WASTES
PRODUCED WATER
Level 1
Level 1
pH 6-9
Arsenic _< 10 ppm
Barium <_ 2000 ppm
Cadmium <_ 1 ppm
Chromium _< 500 ppm
Lead < 500 ppm
Chloride < 500 ppm
Total dissolved sol ids
< 2000 ppm
Levels 2 and 3
All produced waters
exceeding Level 1
Criteria
Mercury ^ 10 ppm
Selenium 10 ppm
Si 1 ver 200 ppm
Zinc <_ 500 ppm
Oil and grease <_ 1 percent
dry weight
Chloride <_ 2000 ppm
Level 2
Metals and pH - Same as
Level One
Chlorides < 5,000 ppm
Oil and Grease 3 percent
dry weight)
Level 3
All drilling wastes
exceeding Level Two criteria,
0277V
-7-
-------
drilling wastes include burial in lined pits, and landfarming
with site management.
There is no distinction between Level 2 and Level 3 wastes
for produced water. Thus, all produced water not meeting Level
1 criteria must be injected in a Class 11 well. For dr illing
wastes. Level 3 wastes are those which exceed the Level 2
criteria. For Level 3 drilling wastes, the primacy permissible
disposable options are disposal in a lined pit with site
management procedures, landfarming with site management, and
solidification.
RCRA Subtitle c Scenario
Under this scenario, oil and gas wastes are covered under
Subtitle c of RCRA. Those wastes that are defined as hazardous
must be disposed of in approved Subtitle C facilities. Wastes
would be considered hazardous if they fail the EP or TCLP tests
for toxicity, corrosivity criteria, or if they contain
contaminants that are listed as hazardous under the RCRA
regulations (i.e., listed wastes}.
Produced waters that were defined as hazardous would be
disposed of in a class I injection well. Drilling wastes that
were defined as hazardous would be disposed of in a secure
facility with a triple-lined pit and site management
procedures, a RCRA-permitted landfarming facility with site
management procedures compatible with RCRA, or incineration.
Under the RCRA Subtitle C Scenario, wastes that are not
considered hazardous are disposed of in accordance with the
intermediate Scenario. Thus, the intermediate Scenario and the
RCRA Subtitle C Scenario differ only with respect to hazardous
wastes.
-8-
-------
Summary
Table 3-2 summarizes the waste management practices that
are applicable under each waste management scenario and level.
The costs of these waste management practices are described in
Sections Four through Twelve and in the Appendices which
follow. Two of the waste management practices, waste volume
reduction and substitution, are not included in Table 3-2.
These practices are omitted because they are not final disposal
options, but rather are intermediate measures that may reduce
the costs of final disposal. The applicability of these latter
measures is presented further in Sections Ten and Eleven.
Solidification, which is a final disposal option for the
Intermediate Scenario (Level 3), might also be used as a volume
reduction method under the RCRA Subtitle C Scenario if the
solidified waste can then be delisted or meet criteria as a
nonhazardous waste.
4. Surface Impoundments
Surface impoundments are currently the most widely used
onsite storage and disposal method for drilling mud wastes.
Used muds and cuttings are maintained in these impoundments
during the drilling operation. Upon completion of drilling,
the wastes are dewatered either by evaporation or by a vacuum
truck. The dewatered wastes are usually disposed in place or
landspread on surrounding fields, in some cases, these wastes
are disposed offsite at commercial facilities which were
explicitly designed for the disposal of oilfield wastes.
Large-scale commercial pits are operating in the largest oil
producing states including Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Kansas,
and Wyoming. in california, most drilling muds are removed for
offsite disposal (California Division of Oil and Gas, 1986).
-9-
-------
TABLE 3-2
RELATIONSHIP OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES TO WASTE MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS
SCENARIO
DISPOSAL METHODS
FOR DRILLING WASTES
DISPOSAL METHODS
FOR PRODUCED WATER
Baseline
Unlined Pit
Class II Injection/
Beneficial Use
intermediate
Level 1
Unlined Pit
Class ii injection/
Beneficial Use
Level 2
Single-Liner pit
Landfarming with
Site Management
Class II Injection
Level 3
Single-Liner Pit
with Site Management
Landfarming with Site
Management
Solidification with
Burial
Class II Injection
RCRA Subtitle C
Non-Hazardous
Same as Intermediate
Scenario
Same as Intermediate
Scenar io
Hazardous
Triple-Liner Pit with
RCRA Site Management
Landfarming with RCRA
Site Management
Inc ineration
Class 1 Injection
0283V
-10-
-------
Four alternative impoundment configurations were analyzed
using the Liner Location Moael and Facilities Design Tool cost
Model developed by Pope-Reid Associates. These alternatives
are differentiated between onsite and offsite locations and by
varying levels of sophistication in liner technologies. For
all four alternatives, capital, closure, and operation and
maintenance costs were calculated. These costs were then
annualized, and per-barrel costs were estimated.
Table 4-1 details the cost elements of the four surface
impoundment configurations and identifies the Waste Management
Scenario under which each configuration can be utilized. These
configurations have been developed to represent typical
oilfield conditions and to meet the requirements of the waste
management scenarios. Under more stringent regulatory
scenarios, additional pollution control elements are added.
For the intermediate Scenario Level 3 and the RCRA Subtitle c
Scenario, costs include not only the elements listed in Table
4-1, but also the costs of site management procedures. These
latter costs are presented separately in Section Five.
Costs for an unlined 0.25 acre onsite surface impoundment
are estimated. This unlined pit is assumed to be excavated and
closed in one year. At closure, the pit is dewatered by
evaporation and the wastes are mixed with earth fill.
Costs are also estimated for two single-liner surface
impoundments - a 0.25-acre onsite pit and a 15.0-acre offsite
facility. Both facilities are lined with a single 30-mil HOPS
synthetic 1iner. To protect the liner from tears, a geotextile
support liner is placed below the synthetic liner in each pit.
In the 15-acre offsite pit a layer of sand, 0.3 meters deep, is
placed above the synthetic liner to protect it during dredging
activities. At closure, the wastes are dewatered and the pits
are filled with earth fill. A 30-mil PVC liner is then placed
over the filled pit, followed by 0.3 meters of top soil.
-11-
-------
TAHU M
:.DW1ANr UK t ub'!' i (JM|iiNI.'NTSป Kuk SUHfr'AtT IHHJIINIMKNTS
A11 KM NAT I Vf
tin 11 net) |*ป!
Uif Uftfi J*11 (i.uiled an
s 11 e I
4 unmu , i j 1 uiit- I i hi'i I
t *ปป#ป*ปi idi "i * i jปlr I i if I ,
Mil- lit
i AHJTAI, t'USTS
Ilk* t'USTS
cj.OsuKt custs
MASTF NANAi;tfli fn~
Sl k!NAKU>
Pi I i*iซdvd 11 on 1.,?^ .ir r es )
t'l ซ*d r i nq a oil *jrul>hin*j
tuni i ni|ซhcy
corn i *i-t ot t re
u Nri| I mible
Pi I bur ul
only)
(i) 4Crcfi I
Nib cofuilf wci ion i
and vcyct*t ion)
tynlhetic 11ner
Unci |>ioiei-(ion
IqeoleiUJe luM i nr r J
tnqinvvf ii^, cunti4ct or,
and intpeciion !ซฆซ
com i nqvnt-y
u NetjJ iซ)iUlv
Pit bur >*) Iran h till)
rapping
- 10 ปt t PVV ifnihtl m*
Beelu ซrtr
- tup but I
Hcvซซjri ซ( i**it
Eii<|i nffr i ni I Ex<*ซva( ton (IS ictvs!
Sr
* I'lct ual tปl all
* fUIซMR
Haiml fjiiriLf labor and
iuppIics
Hiปii(tes
plant ovซfiirAil
Ur*d 1*115 I I I*
on* -1 mr i i i
Sulids!teatian
I've 1 liquid i raovd I dint
i reaiBeut
has* I1 nt and
Ini c*t scdiaie
l^vtl 1
InIfratdi ซ< e
it-vrl 2
111! d" i Bir.l |j|i<
l.i'wr I I aiul
InletBrUtai r
t.tvr I 1 wtlh
Stir Italic*ijv ฆ
ifnl
pi t M>av*t ton ( I h <ป< i >ฆ *
Sdme I'UMt H 46 *. uปB4f 11 ij I
on*-11net pit with the
odd*(ion ul:
- iidili lปorta I pit 1 in# rfl
- u-Jay 11nn replaces
fulfil i le lubhnfi
COM* II
t ummril iซ1 on*-11 nซ?r
pit
o Sซae costs as on*11ซ
onr* 1 mci p*t wii h
ddttion at -
- Addl t lOMl lincis lot
cap
o ฃquip*ant decantaปination
Kt'NA StfM tile
i' Si'vriai hi t u i
Ha24 t dims
Mdbt rป w|l li
Silt* Mdndtji*
Bent
IU04V
-------
The fourth facility is a 15.0-acre offsite surface
impoundment that utilizes a triple liner. The bottom liner is
0.92 meters of clay. It is assumed that the clay needs to be
imported from offsite. Above the clay is a 30-mil HOPE liner,
followed by a 0.3 meter-deep layer of sand, a second 30-mil
HOPE liner, and a second layer of sand. At closure, the
facility is covered with 0.6 meters of clay, a 30-mil pvc
liner, a layer of sand, a geotext ile filter fabric, and a layer
of top soil 0.6 meters deep.
The major technical and economic assumptions incorporated
into the surface impoundment costs are listed in Table 4-2. In
addition, it is assumed that offsite facilities would need to
be dredged annually. At closure, all remaining free liquid
wastes are removed from the offsite facilities and treated.
All remaining wastes are then solidified.
The costs for impoundment construction and cover are
calculated using the unit costs in Table 4-2. These unit costs
were developed by Pope-Reid Associates. Tables 4-3 and 4-4
show the surface impoundment cost estimates generated using
these unit costs. The facility costs are shown in more detai1
in Appendix A.
impoundment construction costs range from $7.5 thousand for
the unlined pit to $4 .7 million for the triple-liner pit. The
most significant factor in this cost range is the size of the
pit. For single-liner surface impoundments, costs range from
$19 thousand for the onsite pit to $2.2 million for the offsite
pit. The cover costs range from $8.9 thousand for the unlined
pit to $4.4 million for the triple-liner facility.
As shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4, the impoundment
construction and cover costs represent a major portion of
capital and closure costs. However, a number of other capital
cost items are significant. At offsite facilities, land,
-13-
-------
TABLE 4-2
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT ASSUMPTIONS
Operating depth:
Side Slope of Containment (Ran/Rise):
Bottom Slope:
Operating volume at Closure:
Facility Life (Off-Site):
Berm design (line facilities):
Berm freeboard: 0.6 m
Width at top: 2 m
Slide Slope: 2:1
Revegation (Lined Facilities):
3 meters
2.5:1
2 Percent
50 Percent
20 Years
Hydraulic Seeding
Unit Cost Assumptions ($1985)
Excavation
Off-site Clay
Top Soil
Earth Fill
Sand
30-mil HDPE Liner
30-mil PVC liner
Geotextile Filter Fabric
Geotextile Support Fabric
3.65 $/CU M
19.00 $/Cu M
14.90 $/Cu M
5.95 $/Cu M
12.35 $/CU M
5.38 $/Sq. H
3.23 $/Sq. M.
1.06 $/Sq. M
1.76 $/Sq. M
Source: Unit Cost Assumptions were developed by Pope-Reid
Associates, All other assumptions were developed by
ERG, 1987.
0279V
-14-
-------
TABLE 4-3
CAPITAL C09TS (YEAR 1
(1,000)
CAPITAL COSTS OF SURFACE IMPOUNO MENTS
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
UNLINEO
.25 AC
SINGLE
.25 AC
SINGLE
15.0 AC
T BI PL'
15.0 A [
DIRECT COSTS I
LAND
CLEAR INS AND GRUBBING
SIGNS
UTILITIES SITE WORK
GROUNDWATER WELLS
PORTABLE PUMP
[1 l DREDGING EQU IPMENT
INLET/OUTLET STRUCTURES
(2) IMPOUNDMENT CONSTRUCTION
5 .5
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
7 .5
13.0
S . 5
1 9.2
24,7
141.4
SO . 9
e . o
13.0
1 S 5 . 0
10.B
2,218.7
2,817.1
1 41
60 , E
a .a
13.3
1 55 .6
1 8 . S
4,740 . &
5,138.
INDIRECT CAPTIAL COSTS I
RCRA INITIAL COSTS
ENGINEERING FEE ( 1 0 X RCRA,St REST]
S3] INSPECTION FEE J5X RCRA,2 .SX BEST)
CONSTRUCTION & FIELD EXPENSES (5*)
CONTRACTOR FEE [ 10 X J
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY MX)
1 . 3
1 .2
0 . 5
2 . 5
130.9
5 5.5
13 0,9
2 8 1 .7
28.2
5 13,9
2 3 7 .0
2 5 6.9
5 13.9
5 1.4
SUBTOTAL INOIRECT CAPITAL
CONTINGENCY (1SX]
( 1 0* )
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPTIAL
1 .3
1 . 4
2 . 7
4.2
2 .9
7 .1
8 05 .2
3 2 2 .2
9 2 7 .4
1,573.1
1 , 0 0 6 .3
2,579.9
TOTAL FACILITY COST (YEAR 1 I
15.7
3 1.8 3,544.5
7,718.7
SOURCE! POPEREIO ASSOCIATES' LINER LOCATION MODEL
AND FACILITIES DESIGN TOOL COST MOOEL .
I 1 ) DREDGING EQUIP. IS ALSO PURCASEO IN YEAR 11 .
12) IMPOUNDMENT CONSTRUCTION COSTS WERE LATER REGIONALIZED
|3) TAKEN AS A PERCENT OF IMPOUNDMENT CONSTRUCTION
AN 0 GROUNDWATER WELLS.
-------
TABLE 4-4
CLOSURE C w S T S OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
CLOSURE COST (YEAR 21) SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
(1,000)
ป ,
U NL IN 6 0
SINGLE
SINGLE
TRIPLE
,25 AC
.25 AC
15.0 A C
1 5 , ~ AC
FREE L IQU 10 REMOVAL AND TREATMENT
3 , 7 90 .0
5 3 , 8 9 2 .7
SOLIDIFICATION
5,579.5
5 , 5 7 3 ,5
EQUIP. DECONTAMINATION
1 . 7
COVER
8 . 9
20,3
2,551 .2
4, 3 6 2 .1
ENGINEERING FEE HQS R C R A,5 X REST)
1 .0
127.8
438 .2
INSPECTION FEE (5* RCRA.2 ,31 REST)
0 . 5
83.8
218,1
CONTRACTOR FEE (10*)
0 .9
2 .~
255 .1
436.2
MONITORING
CERTIFICATION.SUPERVISION
SUBTOTAL
9 . 8
23.0
12,387.2
6 4,728.5
CONTINGENCY FEE (15* RCRA,101 REST)
1 ,0
2 .4
1,238.7
9,709 .0
TOTAL CLOSURE (YEAR 21)
10.8
2ฎ.2
13,803.9
7 4,43 5.3
SOU R CEI POPE-REID ASSOCIATES* LINER LOCATION MODEL
AND FACILITIES DESIGN TOOL COST MOOEL.
[1] COVER COSTS HERE LATER REGIONALIZED.
-16-
-------
clearing and grabbing, and dredging equipment purchases
represent a large portion of the remaining direct capital
costs. The dredging equipment is assumed to have a capital
cost of $156 thousand and an operating life of 10 years.
Therefore, new equipment will need to be purchased after 10
years for the offsite facilities. A number of indirect capital
costs have also been estimated.
In addition to cover, the other major costs for facility
closure are free liquid removal and solidification for the
offsite facilities. These two costs comprise a much larger
portion of the closure costs than does cover. Free liquid
removal and treatment costs $3.8 million for the single-liner
facility and $53.7 million for the triple-liner facility.
Liquid wastes from the single-liner facility are disposed of in
a Class 11 injection well. Liquid wastes from the triple-linec
facility are treated at a hazardous waste facility.
Solidification of all remaining solids at both offsite
facilities was estimated at $5.6 million.
Annual operation and maintenance costs for the offsite
facilities are provided in Table 4-5. For onsite facilities,
which operate for less than 1 year, all costs are included in
Tables 4-3 and 4-4. Maintenance labor and supplies are the
most significant O&M cost component. These have been estimated
at 2 percent of the total facility costs. The rest of the
costs are primarily direct and indirect labor costs.
For the offsite facilities, annual dredging is a very
significant cost component. Wastes from the single-liner
facility are disposed at a sanitary landfill at a cost of $1.3
million, annually. Wastes from the triple-liner facility are
solidified and disposed at a hazardous waste site at a cost of
$15.4 million annually. Dredging occurs annually in years 2
through 20. The dredging costs are based on the dredging
component of pope-Reid's Facilities Design Tool Cost Model.
-17-
-------
TABLE 4-5
OPERATING ANO MAINTENANCE
[YEARS 1 -201 (S 1 , 0 0 0 |
DIRECT O&M COSTS!
ANNUAL OPERA * ING COSTS OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
SURFACE IHPOUNOHENTS
UNLIN60 SINGLE SINGLE TRIPLt
.25 AC .25 AC 15.0 AC 15.0 AC
OPERATING LABOR 0 28,500
CLERICAL STAFF 15,000
FOREMEN *35,000
TOTAL OIRECT LABOR
(11 HAINT. LABOR & SUPPLIES
UTILITIES
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
1 9.9
1 . 9
a. a
30.8
7 0 . S
2 .0
19,3
1 .9
a. a
30.8
154.4
2 .0
TOTAL DIRECT O&M
103.5
1 87 ,Q
INDIRECT O&M
FRINGE BENEFITS (X DIRECT LABOR]
PLANT OVERHEAO (X DIRECT LABOR]
7 .7
15.3
7 .7
15,3
TOTAL INO IRECT O&M
TOTAL ANNUAL O&M (YEARS 1-20)
D , Q
0 . ~
0 . 0
0 .0
23.0
126.5
23.0
2 10.0
ANNUAL DREDGING!
DISPOSAL AT SANITARY LANDFILL
DISPOSAL AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE
0 . D
0 .0
0,0 1,774.3 a.a
0.0 0.0 15,433.4
SOURCE! POPE-REID ASSOCIATES' LINER LOCATION MODEL
AND FACILITIES OESIGN TOOL COST MO 0 EL .
[1) COMPUTED AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL FACILITY COST
-18-
-------
The point estimates in these tables are likely to vary by *
10-20 percent, depending on regional conditions. Regional cost
factors have been developed using Means Site Work Cost data.
These regional factors, shown in Table 4-6, were applied to the
impoundment construction and cover costs to generate regional
cost estimates.
Costs are also likely to be affected by regional
availability of materials such as clay, to the extent that
onsite clay is available, the RCRA cost estimates may need to
be adjusted downward. The use of onsite clay will typically
reduce costs by $12.30/m3 of clay material used. Local
conditions may also negate the need for geotextile filter
fabrics. These fabrics are intended to protect the liner from
jagged objects on the pit surface that may rip the liner. The
use of larger or smaller pit sizes will also greatly affect
total costs.
The costs in Tables 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 were annualized using
an 8 percent interest rate. The annualized costs are shown in
Table 4-7 for the nine regions with active drilling programs.
The costs are also shown on a per-barrel basis in Table 4-7.
The per-barrel costs at each facility were developed based on
facility capacity. The 0.25-acre site has a 13 thousand barrel
capacity, and the 15-acre site has a 2.4 million barrel
capacity. The flow rate for the 15-acre site is 3.0 million
barrels per year. The per-barrel costs for the 0.25-acre
single-liner facility ($5/barrel), and the 15-acre triple-liner
facility ($7/barrel) are the highest among the options
analyzed. Liner costs are an important component of the
per-bacrel costs. The installation of a single liner in the
onsite unlined pit increases the pec-barrel costs from
$2/barrel to $5/barrel. Similarly, the triple-liner facilities
($7/barrel) are roughly seven times more expensive than the
single-liner offsite facility ($l/barrel).
-19-
-------
TABLE 4-6
REGIONAL COST FACTORS
REGION
FACTOR3
Region
2
103 .9
Region
4
95.9
Region
5
97.0
Region
6
95.5
Region
7
104.0
Region
8
97.0
Region
9
97.1
Region
10
99.9
Region
11
143.1
aNat ional Factor = 100
Source: Based on aggregated civ/ cost
factors in Means Site Work Cost
Data, 1986.
0177V
-20-
-------
TABLE 4-7
ANNUALIZED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT COSTS
{ ป1 ปQOO 1 985 1
UNLINED
SINGLE
SINGLE
TRIPLE
REGION
,25 AC
.25 AC
15.0 AC
15,0 AC
NATIONAL
20.5
58.0
2,378.9
18,408.8
RE6I0N
2
2 7 .2
80 .0
2,383.9
18,825.4
REGION
4
2 5.7
58.1
2,358.1
18,445.7
REGION
5
SB .0
58.5
2 , 383 . 9
1 8 , 458 .7
REGION
6
as .7
5 5.8
2 ,387 .4
18 ,441 .8
REGION
7
87.3
BO .2
2,314.3
18,528,5
REGION
0
28 .0
58.5
2,383.9
18,458,7
REGION
9
28.0
58.5
2,304.3
18,457.8
REGION
1 0
28 .5
58.0
2,378.4
1 8 , 485 .8
REGION
1 1
3 5.0
80 .1
8,584.0
18,818.3
ANNUALIZED PER BARREL
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT COSTS
REGION
unlined
,35 AC
SINGLE
.85 AC
SINGLE
15,0 AC
TRIPLE
15.0 AC
NATIONAL
2
,04
4
.48
to
.37
REGION
2
*2
.09
4
,82
0
.38
REGION
4
1
,9 8
4
.32
0
.37
REGION
5
2
.00
4
.35
IQ
.97
REGION
8
1
. S 8
1 4
.2 9
1 0
.97
REGION
7
a
. 1 0
4
,63
10
.98
REGION
a
12
.00
1 4
.35
a
.97
REGION
9
2
.00
4
, 3 5
10
.97
REGION
1 0
2
,0 4
4
. 48
0
.97
REGION
1 1
2
.8 8
18
, 1 B
11
.0 5
18,78
18.78
8.7 5
8,75
8.74
10,7 9
16.75
ป 8 ,75
16.7 6
18.14
SOURCE
ERG ESTIMATES
NOT E I
ALL OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED ฆ ITH THE
0.25 ACRE FACILITIES OCCUR IN YEAR 1.
-21-
-------
5, Monitoring and Site Management
Costs for monitoring and site management practices were
developed costs using Pope-Reid Associates' Liner Location
Model and Facilities Design Tool Cost Model. These practices
are required, in conjunction with surface impoundments, under
the Intermediate Level 3 and RCRA Subtitle C Scenario, costs
were developed for leachate collection, runon/runoff systems,
wet well and pump, groundwater wells and post-closure costs.
In order to incorporate leachate collection systems and
runoff systems into the surface impoundment, additional liners
are required. For example, to place a leachate collection
system below a single 30-mi1 HDPE liner, an additional sand and
synthetic liner was added to the facility. The second liner
ensures that none of the leachate is absorbed into the soil
prior to entering the leachate system, in order to accommodate
these additional liners, slightly deeper pits must be excavated
to maintain the intended operating capacity. These design
constraints only affect the single-liner facility? the
triple-liner facility already has the necessary additional
liners. For this reason, the monitoring and site management
costs for the single-liner facility are significantly greater
than the costs for the triple-liner facility. The cost
elements for monitoring and site management are summarized in
Table 5-1.
The capital costs associated with facility monitoring and
site management are presented in Table 5-2. The impoundment
construction item includes the costs associated with leachate
collection, wet well and pump, and the costs associated with
facility design changes. These costs are provided in more
detail in Appendix A.
Closure and post-closure costs are presented in Table 5-3.
In Table 5-3, the cover item contains costs for cover drainage
-22-
-------
TAHl.F. ฆ> I
CMT KI.KHENTS roll HUNITOHING ANU SITE MANAGEMENT
Al.TfcKNATlVE
SCENAXIUS
CAPITAL COS'J'S
OfcM COSTS
ll-USURE COSTS
POST-CLOSURE COSTS
WASTK MANAGEMENT
Site Haniiqement
Hon 11nrIn4 wel la
e in t tect ton
ayslcms
- dii ijns/t <ฆ(>ฆ i ป nq ttui RCHA
scenar i u I
Honilori nq we 11
ฆM|>l inq and
laboratory fees
Lvachซte Ileatnent
Soli poi soninq I to
l>(event disruption by
lonq-rooted plants)
Cover drainage I lie
- collection layer (sand
or qr avel1
ฆ qeotestite Iillet
fabric in nne-liner |ปit
Hon Hum nq
IV;tlIicatinn,
super vikion
Hon i t orinq
well sampling
Leachate
trcalaent
Wotiic Io
I yea 1
ant lioi 11 i ซ*
Nut at ion mi
propel ty devil
Pae 1111 y
I nupeft I nn
Hdinleriam r
and i e|>ซ 11
Cover
replaceaen t
toqi neerinq
and
I napect ion
( ees
Cunt inqency
o tnl riMdlatl Level
J Jtid RCNA Subtil If
c Scena*lo
(l.'HhV
-------
CAPITAL COSTS [YEAH 1]
{1,000]
DIRECT COSTS!
LAND
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
SIGNS
UTILITIES SIT E WORK
GROUNDWATER WELLS
PORTABLE PUMP
0RE0GIN8 E Q II IPMENT
INLET/OUTLET STRUCTURES
IMPOUNDMENT CONSTRUCTION
TABLE 5-2
CAPITAL COSTS OF MONITORING
MONITORING
SINGLE
15,0 AC
0 .9
a 2 .8
7 3 3 .5
TRIPLE
15.0 A C
0 .9
92.8
47 .0
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS
027 ,0
1 40 .3
INDIRECT CAPTIAL COSTS:
RCRA INITIAL COSTS 17.2
ENGINEERING FEE ( 1 OX RCRA.5X REST) 41 .3 14.0
INSPECTION FEE I 5X R C R A,2 , 5 X REST) SO.8 7.0
CONSTRUCTION & FIELD EXPENSES (5X) 41.3 7.1
CONTRACTOR FEE I10X1 82.7 14.0
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY (1X1 8.2 1.4
SUBTOTAL INDIRECT CAPITAL
CONTINGENCY (15X]
[ 1 OX )
TOTAL INDIRECT CAPTIAL
TOTAL FACILITY COST (YEAR 1]
1 9 4 ,1 80 .7
30.2
102.1
298.2 90.9
= 3a = se = as = 33s = a = =.
1 , 1 23 . 2 23 1 .4
SOURCE! POPE-R EI 0 ASSOCIATES' LINER LOCATION MODEL
AND FACILITIES DESIGN TOOL COST MODEL.
-24-
-------
TABLE 5-3
CLOSURE COSTS OF MONITORING
CLOSURE COST {YEAR 21] MONITORING
[ 1 1 , 0 0 0 1
SINGLE TRIPLE
15.0 AC 15.0 A C
FREE LIQUID REMOVAL ANO TREATMENT
SOLIDIFICATION
EQUIP. DECONTAMINATION
COVER 408 .5 it.5
ENGINEERING FEE {10* RCRA,5* REST) 20.4 0.7
INSPECTION FEE I 5* RC RA,2 . 5X REST] 10.2 4.3
CONTRACTOR FEE (10*1 40.9 9.7
MONITORING 5.7 3 .7
CERTIFICATION,SUPERVISION 0,4 S.4
SUBTOTAL 492 ,1 120,3
CONTINGENCY FEE (15* RCRA, 1 OS REST] 49.2 18.0
TOTAL CLOSURE (YEAR 211 541.3 130,3
POST-CLOSURE COSTS (SI,000)
MONITORING DURATION:
SINGLE TRIPLE
15.0 AC 1S.0 AC
5 YEARS 30 YEARS
YEAR 21 I
NOTICE TO LOCAL LAND AUTHORITY
NOTATION 0 N PROPERTY 0 E E 0
2 . 9
0 .5
2 .9
0 .5
YEAR 2 1-50 1
facility inspection o.i o.1
ROUTINE MA INT . & REPAIRS
MOW ING 1,4 1.4
FERTILIZING 4,0 4.0
GROUNDWATER MONITORING 9.5 9.5
L EACH AT E MANAGEMENT 3 0 . 8 30 .8
RODENT CONTROL (BI-ANNUAL SPRAYING] 0 . 1 0 . 1
EVERY S YEARS!
PARTIAL REVEGATATION OF COVER
ROUTINE EROSION DAMAGE
[REPAIR OF COVER AND 0 IT CH I
WATERING NEW VEGETATION
14.3
0 ,7
0 ซ 8
14.3
0 .7
0 .S
PUMP REPLACEMENT: YEAR 30,45
N A
0 .5
ENGINEERING FEE (10*
CONTINGENCY (15* J
SDURCEl POPE-REIO ASSOCIATES' LINER LOCATION MODEL
ANO FACILITIES DESIGN TOOL COST MOO EL .
-25-
-------
tile, run-on control costs, and any needed facility design
changes. The post-closure costs were developed in Pope-Reid
Associates' Liner Location Model. The largest costs are
associated with leachate management. Post closure is assumed
to last 5 years at the single-liner facility and 30 years at
the triple-liner facility.
Operation and maintenance costs are $13.8 thousand for
groundwater monitoring at each facility. Maintenance labor and
supply costs are $22.5 thousand for the single-liner facility
and $4.6 thousand for the triple-liner facility.
All of these costs are annualized using an 8 percent
interest rate. The annualized costs are shown in Table 5-4 Cor
the nine regions. The net present value of future expenditures
was calculated for each region prior to annualizing the costs.
Table 5-4 presents the costs on a per-barrel basis, which have
been calculated by dividing annualized costs by facility
capacity. Monitoring will increase disposal costs by less than
$0.10 per barrel.
6. Class I and n injection wells
Injection wells are frequently used to dispose of liquid
wastes, costs for constructing and operating class I and class
II wells have been developed for the 9 EPA regions under study
by centec. These costs were developed by Epps and Associates
consulting Engineers, Inc. A detailed analysis of the well,
facilities and operating costs can be found in Appendices B, C,
and D respectively.
The costs for class I wells are based on the regulations
presented in 40 CFR 146.12 and proposed amendments to 146.51
(Subpart G) due to be promulgated in June 1987. One important
-26-
-------
TABL E 3-4
ANNUAL I
" EO
annualized
HONITOR ING
COSTS
PER
BARREL
{<1 ,000
1 9 85]
MONITORING COSTS
SINGLE
TRIPLE
S INGLE
TRIPLE
REGION
15.0 AC 15.0 AC
15.0 AC
15.0 AC
NATIONAL
1 6 7 . 0
5 9.7
0.07
10.02
RES I ON
2
17 2,2
SO .2
0.07
0.02
REGION
4
1 S 1 , S
5 9.3
0.07
0.02
REGION
S
183.1
5 9.4
0.07
0.0 2
RE8I0N
B
161,1
59 .2
0.07
10.02
REGION
7
172.3
80 .2
0 ,07
0.02
REGION
8
1 83 , 1
59.4
0 .07
0.02
REGION
9
163.2
S3 .5
0.07
0.02
REGION
1 0
1 6 e .9
59.8
0.07
0 .02
REGION
11
2 8 3.9
6 4 . 8
0.09
0 .03
SOURCE! ERG ESTIMATES
-2 7-
-------
interpretation is that a Class I well cannot be converted front
an existing well. This interpretation is based on the fact
that a number of the well logs require an open wellbore in
order to be taken. Additionally, core samples are required
that cannot be taken after the well has been cased. Thus Class
I wells were assumed to be new wells for this analysis. An
important consideration for Class I wells in oil and gas
producing regions is the requirement that if any other welIs
penetrate into the injection zone, these wells must have been
properly plugged and abandoned in order to limit waste
migration.
Lastly, Class I wells must be tested on a continuous basis
during operation in order to ensure that fluids are being
properly disposed of in the injection zone. The current
regulations do not require post-closure monitoring, however.
The cost of post-closure monitoring is not included in the
Class I well cost analysis.
The costs for Class II wells are based on 40 CFR 146.22.
unlike class I wells, regulations are explicitly provided for
converting existing wells into Class II wells. In order to
facilitate this conversion, the open wellbore core sampling and
logging tests discussed above are not required. Costs for
developing new wells for disposal were not considered in this
analysis. Instead, class II wells were limited to those which
were converted from existing wells. This seems reasonable
given the likelihood that existing wells would be available for
conversion to injection disposal in oil and gas producing
regions. Integrity testing duri ng operation of Class 11 wells
is required. However, the requirements are not as strict as
those of the class I standards. For example, for many of the
testing requirements, the we 11 is tested on a weekly or monthly
basis, as opposed to the Class I requirement for continuous
daily monitoring.
-28-
-------
The major cost components of the class r and class n wells
are described ;n Table 6-1. Table 6-2 is the investment and
operating cost summary for class I disposal wells. These
estimates include the well cost, costs for associated surface
facilities, and annual operating costs. In addition to these
costs, $50 ,000 ia permitting fees for year 1, and $100,000 in
annual liability costs have been included in the analysis,
(The liability coverage is for $1 million dollars.)
A schematic diagram of a class I facility is shown in
Figure 1. Based on EPA regulations, the class I facility is
equipped with six 500 bbl holding tanks for initial storage of
the disposal liquids. There are six tanks so that separation
of incompatible fluids can be maintained. Four 1000 bbl tanks
provide storage, settling, oil skimming, and surge volume. In
addition, two 5000 bbl tanks are available for storage in the
event the well or equipment is being repaired and fluid cannot
be injected. All tanks are provided with heating coils to
prevent freezing during cold periods. In addition, the meters
monitor injection volume and the filters provide a two-stage
system of solids removal.
The Class I wells must be constructed below the lowest U.S.
drinking water aquifer. As a minimum, schedule 40 stainless
steel pipe was considered for injection piping. A chemical
system is injected into the well to inhibit corrosion and
remove solids and oil. A monitoring fluid (diesel oil) in the
annulus is also required by EPA.
Table 6-3 is an investment and operating cost summary for
Class II well facilities. The cost of converting an existing
well to an injection well was the basis for the Class 11 cost
estimate. Actual facility and operating costs can be as much
as 50 percent lower than the estimates provided here for "low
budget" operations. In addition to these costs, $100,000 in
-29-
-------
1
ฆm
a*
i i
s ซ >
-,12
* - A
S 4? 3
0 ~ -
* ft ซ * -
ป * a a
Hi;;
- a I M
ฃ it ฃ ฃ
d 3 d 9 3 3 9
r,#
vi 5
i - *c
j. - e -
t - 2 c
si
3S
3
S
i!?
I:'
u tj
B
_ , %
ฎ 'j V s- ฆ
5
%
O
l s
e a
I
5
s
ซ -
ซ -
ซ ป o
i
ป
! J ;
- a *
0 c 4? c a-ป
1 ' t : !
2~1 . ฆ ฆ
u
m m
V -
3*
e
ซ -
%. e
iง
j cป
0
ซซ c
w J
1 -
0- ^
: S
ซ
"3 -
C f
ป - a.
a
C K
- 0ป ป
li
o u
I ง2 3
& o - ซ
'j ^ 'j
ป!
C
A
2
ซ *t
c 5
a, -
4 J 6 3
T fl - * ป
* ^ ฃ T
- 3 - - %t *
3 C * 5. _
c - 31 - -
W5
-------
TABLE 6-2
CI,ASS I INJECTION WELL COSTS
REGION
BASIN
WELL
FACILITIES
ANNUAL
OPERATING
COST
($/YR.)
Region
2
Appalachian
$ 855,000
$1 ,251,000
$ 623,000
Region
4
Mississippi
666,000
1,351,000
574,000
Region
4
Arkla
588,000
1,039,000
436,000
Region
5
Michigan
1,030,000
1,092,000
517,000
Region
5
Illinois
1,156,000
962,000
442,000
Region
6
Williston
1,028,000
1,201,000
462,000
Region
6
Hugoton
585,000
1,010,000
425,000
Region
7
Permian
897,000
1,147,000
476,000
Region
7
Anadarko
5,325,000
1,314,000
516,000
Region
7
Gulf Coast
939,000
; ,059,000
4 7 6,000
Region
8
Powder River
942,000
1,184,000
494,000
Region
9
San Juan
1,029 ,000
1,214,000
516 ,000
Region
9
Denver
911,000
1,189,000
539,000
Julesburg
Region
10
San Joaquin
652,000
1,311,000
50 3,000
Region
11
North Slope
3,237,000
5,257,000
1,447,000
Source:
0244V
EPPS & Associates
Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
, 1987.
-31-
-------
FIGURE 1
QLAงS_I_FACILIIiEง_งCH6nAHQ
500 RBL
HOLDING
tanks 1000 nn*-
NJECT1QN
PUMPS
SETTLING
8. SKIM
TANKS
1000 BflL
FILTERS SURGE TANKS
UNLOADING
FACILITIES
METER
CHEMICAL
SYSTEM
F ILTERS
UJ
ro
SKIM OIL
TANK
ANNULAR
FLUID
5000 DHl. STORAGE TANKS
-------
TABLE 6-3
CLASS II INJECTION WELL COSTS
REGION
BASIN
WELL
FACILITIES
ANNUAL
OPERATING
COST
($/YR.)
Region
2
Appalachian $
207,000
$ 940,000
$ 480,000
Region
4
Mississippi
177,000
1,015,000
427,000
Region
4
Ar kla
155,000
794,000
288,000
Region
5
Michigan
230,000
846,000
370,000
Region
5
Illinois
278,000
735,000
295,000
Region
6
Wiliiston
252,000
934,000
314,000
Region
6
Hugoton
187,000
772,000
277,000
Region
7
Permian
207,000
891,000
328,000
Region
7
Anadar ko
446,000
987,000
369,000
Region
7
Gulf Coast
231,000
823,000
328,000
Region
8
Powder River
240,000
893,000
346,000
Region
9
San Juan
242,000
911,000
369,000
Region
9
Denver
233,000
843,000
391,000
Julesburg
Region
10
San Joaquin
147,000
1,018,000
355,000
Region
11
North Slope
992,000
5,257,000
884,000
Source:
0244V
EPFS & Associates
Consulting
Engineers, Inc.
, 1987.
-33-
-------
annual liability costs have been included in
Figure 2 provides a schematic representation
facility.
the analysis.
of a Class n
Tables 6-4 and 6-5 are the estimated costs which a
commercial operation would charge for fluid disposal. Table
6-4 presents costs by basins. These costs are based on an
annualized operating life of 20 years and an interest rate of 8
percent. Table 6-5 presents average per-barrei costs for each
region. These costs were developed by averaging the costs in
Table 6-4 by region.
It is interesting to compare the costs generated by Epps
and Associates to the prices charged by class II facilities
that are currently operating. The charges by existing
facilities vary from $0.25/bbl to $1.25/bbl for injection well
disposal costs. The lower rates occur in "competitive" markets
with many commercial disposal facilities. The higher rates
were a function of charging as much as the operator could. For
example, in Oklahoma where relatively high rates prevail, there
was only one disposal facility serving a large area.
Generally, commercial oilfield injection facilities were
charging $0.25/bbl to $0.60/bbl. Thus, the above cost
estimates for Class II wells are in the range of prices charged
by existing facilities.
7, Solidification
Solidification processes (also known as stabilization or
fixation) chemically or physically bind a liquid, sludge, or
semisolid waste to reduce or eliminate leaching of constituents
such as metals from the waste. To date, solidification has
seen limited use for treatment and disposal of oilfield wastes,
although it is becoming more common as state disposal
-34-
-------
FIGURE 2
CLftSS_II_FQCILiIlES_งCbEBeilG
l
u<
ui
l
>
<1
3
111
>
*-**
a
a
UNLOADING 500 BBL
FACILITIES , HOLDING
TANKS
METER
.g..,-f55V
METER
ปlool-
I LUllf
o~
1000 BBL
SETTLING
& SKIM
TANKS
CHEMICAL
SYSTEM
FILTERS
IOOO BBL
SURGE TANKS
INJECTION
PUMPS
WELLHEAD
SKIM OIL
1 AMK
5000 13BL SIQRAGE TANKS
-------
TABLE 6-4
ANNUALIZED PER BARREL INJECTION WELL COSTS 3Y BASIN
INJECTION RATE 5,000 BPD
REGION
BASIN
CLASS I
($/BBL)
CLASS II
($/BBL)
Region
2
Appalachian
0.52
0.38
Region
4
Mississippi
0.48
0.36
Region
4
Arkla
0.38
0.27
Region
5
Michigan
0.46
0.32
Region
5
Illinois
0.42
0.28
Region
6
Williston
0.43
0.30
Region
6
Hugoton
0.38
0.26
Region
7
Permian
0.43
0.30
Region
7
Anadarko
0.71
0.34
Region
7
Gulf Coast
0.43
0.30
Region
8
Powder River
0.44
0.31
Region
9
San Juan
0.46
0.32
Region
9
Denver
0.47
0.33
Julesburg
Region
10
San Joaquin
0.44
0.32
Region
11
North Slope
1.32
0.89
Source
0244V
*
ERG estimates.
-------
TABLE 6-5
ANNUALIZED PER-BARKEL INJECTION
WELL COSTS BY REGION
INJECTION RATE
5,000 BPD
REGION
CLASS I
(|/BBL)
CLASS II
($/BBL)
Region
2
0.52
0.38
Region
4
0.43
0.32
Region
5
0.44
0.30
Region
6
0,41
0.28
Region
7
0.52
0.31
Region
8
0.44
0.31
Region
9
0.47
0.33
Region
10
0.44
0.32
Region
11
1.32
0.89
Source: ERG estimates.
0244V
-37-
-------
regulations tighten. The major reason that solidification has
not been used more frequently is that the costs for
solidification are higher than those for onsite pit dewatering
and burial. Thus solidification has typically been used only
in those cases where permits or regulations do not allow the
usual disposal practices.
In most solidification processes, reagents such as flyash,
kiln dust, portland cement, asphalt, polyethylene, water
soluble silicates, and/or lime are combined with the waste, in
a matter of several hours to a day, the mixture begins to "set
up" or gel, and once cured, becomes a clay-like, soil-like or
solid substance. In many cases, the waste is then buried
onsite; however, the solidified waste may even be acceptable
for use as sanitary landfill cover, building material, or
general purpose fill. Waste determined to be hazardous may be
buried onsite (by creating an approved disposal pit meeting
RCRA requirements) or it may be transported offsite to a secure
landfill.
Not all solidification processes are suitable for
stabilizing (i.e., preventing leaching of) waste constituents
from drilling wastes. Additions of soil or sawdust often do
little to contain waste constituents, although they make liquid
wastes easier to handle. These types of solidification
processes are not considered here. Flyash and kiln dust,
depending on the nature of the material, can prevent some
leaching, but other pretreatments or reagents may be required
to bind salts, organics or some metals. These materials, with
other additives, are frequently used to solidify drilling
wastes at a relatively low cost (flyash and kiln dust cost $0
to $40 per ton (cullinane et al., 1986 ]) . Portland cements and
water soluble silicates are also sometimes used to solidify
drilling wastes. These materials are more expensive (up to
$65/ton for cement and $200/ton for silicates, which are used
-38-
-------
in small quantities [cullinane et al., 1986]); however, they
tend to bind waste constituents better than flyash and kiln
dust alone. Asphalt and polyethylene are used to encapsulate
waste and often provide the highest level of binding. Because
of their high cost, these latter methods are used for only the
most acutely hazardous wastes or wastes with the most highly
mobile constituents.
vendors supplying solidification services were contacted to
determine their schedule of charges, the processes employed,
and their applicability, in addition, various published
information was also used to determine costs. The information
gathered is provided in Table 7-1. The single most critical
variable in determining costs is the solidification agent.
Processes using flyash, kiln dust, cement, and/or water soluble
silicates have lower costs than those using polyethylene or
asphalt.
Most of the processes control heavy metals, organics
(material with 40-50 percent organics content), and chlorides
(material with up to 30,000 ppm chloride concentration). The
processes vary, however, in a number of respects.
o Several different modes of operation are used. Most
vendors move their equipment to the site to perform
solidifcation. venvirotek, on the other hand, processes
wastes brought to its site.
o Some systems use fork-like injectors attached to
backhoes to inject and mix reagents with the waste.
Others pump wastes into portable tanks, mix reagents
with waste, and return the setting material to the
original pit or to an additional pit constructed for
final disposal.
o Some vendors bury the wastes onsite* while other syst
are designed for the solidified wastes to be transpor
for offsite disposal. The costs shown in Table 7-1
not include the cost of offsite transport and dispof
although some of the vendor costs, where noted, inc
the cost of onsite pit burial (a minor cost element
since heavy construction equipment is already onsi
apply the solidification reagents).
-39-
-------
TABLE 7-1
COSTS OF SOLIDIFICATION3
SOURCE
WASTE TYPE
$/BBL
COMMENT
Enreco
Envirite
Chemfix/
VenVirotek
Hazcon
Velsicol chem.
IMCO Survey
Engineering
Estimates
Drilling muds
Drilling muds
Hazardous
waste/
drilling muds
Approx.
$5/bbl
Approx.
$4-8/bbl
$5-$12/
bbl
Heavy metals/
contaminated
soils and
sludges.
Hazardous
waste sludges
with up to
451 organics
Drilling
fluids
waste
liquids and
light sludges
$16/bbl
$6-$20/
bbl
$3-$4.50/
bbl
$7-$9/
bbl
Range from $3-$10/
bbl.
$10/bbl was speci-
fied as cost for
solidifying waste
in Alaska.
Chemfix's subsidiary
Venvirotek operates
a stationary
facility accepting
drilling waste at
$5.45/bbl. Chemfix
works with
hazardous waste/
drilling fluids at
$5-$12/ bbl.
This firm is a
startup. No work
has yet begun.
Low figure is in
situ treatment with
backhoe; high
figures is in situ
treatment with
portable tank*
These estimates
were based on using
mid-price
reagents. Less
-40-
-------
TABLE 7-1 (continued)
SOURCE
WASTE TYPE
$/BBL
COMMENT
Engineering
Estimates
Oil-based
and water-
based mud
$7/bbl
expensive reagents
could possibly be
used for drilling
fluids. If a self-
cementing fly ash
were used, the cost
could be as low as
$4.50/bbl.
includes cost
clay cap and
revegetation.
of
aEnreco and Envirite costs include on-site burial of the
pit. Chenfix/venVirotek, Hazcon, and velsico costs do not
include disposal costs. The Imco Survey does not specify
whether on-site burial is included in the cost cited.
Sources: Personal communication between Anne Jones, ERG/ and
Steven Erlandson, Enreco, Inc., December 22, 1986;
Anne Jones, ERG, and William Webster, Envirite,
January 7, 1987; Anne Jones, ERG, and Laura Tesar,
Venvirotek, December 31, 1986.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., 1986. Superfund
Treatment Technologies: A Vendor inventory, EPA
540/2-8/004.
Paul M. Hanson and Frederick V. Jones, 1986.
Mud Disposal, an industry Pespective. In: Drilling,
May 1986.
Cullinane, M. John, Larry W. Jones, and Phillip G.
Malone. 1986. Handbook for Stabilization/
Solidification of Hazardous Waste. EPA
540/2-86/001. June.
North America Environmental Service. 1985. closure
Plan for the Big Diamond Trucking Service, inc.
Drilling Mud Disposal Pit Near Sweet Lake, LA.
0153V
-41-
-------
The costs of solidifying drilling wastes tend on average to
be lower than the costs of solidifying unspecified hazardous
wastes. This is due to the fact that most of the cost of a
solidification operation is associated with reagents (up 40 to
65 percent of the total cost [cullinane et al., 1986]) and the
usual constituents of drilling fluids often reduce the amount
of reagents required to solidify waste. For example, drilling
fluids typically-contain large amounts of bentonite and other
clays. These same types of clays are often added to
solidifying agents to reduce the amount of agents required for
the solidification process. Clays improve the binding ability
of the solidified waste so that special additives may not be
required. In addition to clays, drilling fluids also tend to
be quite alkaline and often contain lime, which is an additive
frequently used to enhance solidifying and binding qualities of
the reagents. A low pH waste requires large amounts of lime to
achieve a stable solidified waste, whereas most drilling fluids
require little or no lime to achieve equivalent
solidification. When the solidified waste has a pH of between
9.5 to 11 (fairly common values for drilling waste), metals
such as zinc, copper, lead, and cadmium are least likely to
leach (Cullinane et al., 1986).
As Table 7-1 shows, the costs of solidification range from
$3 to $20 per barrel of waste. The higher costs tend to be
those associated with firms specifying costs for solidifying
hazardous wastes. Lower costs are quoted by those firms who
specified costs for solidifying drilling wastes. Most cost
quotes for solidifying drilling wastes ranged between $3 and $8
per barrel of waste. A cost of about $10/bbl was quoted by one
source for waste solidified in Alaska, due to costs of
transporting heavy equipment and reagents to the area. Since
two of the firms quoting costs specifically for drilling fluids
operate throughout most of the country, and their costs vary
-42-
-------
only slightly with region (both firms acquire construction
equipment and reagents locally so that transporation costs are
kept reasonable), it is probable that most oil and gas
operators desiring solidification of their wastes can be
provided with services in the $4 to $8/bbl range, with the
exception of Alaska.
Several factors may raise the cost of solidifying drilling
wastes. One of the most important of these is whether the
waste contains a high level of organics, particularly oil and
grease. Oil and grease can substantially reduce the bonding
ability of flyash reagents and cements, requiring additional
quantities of reagent or special pretreatments to improve the
bonding ability of the reagent. At least one vendor, however,
did not differentiate between the cost of solidifying an
oil-based mud and that of solidifying a water-based mud (both
were quoted at about $7/bbl, inclusive of clay cap and
revegetation). High levels of chlorides may also interfere
with the efficacy of the reagents, and special additives may be
required to fully control the leaching of salts from wastes.
At least one firm (Envirite), has shown its process to be
capable of controlling chlorides in a 30,000 ppm chloride mud
(Calloway, 1986 ).
Solidification would be expected to be used for Level 3
wastes, either alone or in combination with offsite impoundment
disposal. In this latter disposal option, solidification was
included as part of the cost of facility closure. This is also
the case under the RCRA Subtitle C scenario for the surface
impoundment disposal option. Thus the type of solidification
processes outlined here are applicable only to Level 3 wastes
disposed of onsite in lieu of disposal in a lined pit.
-43-
-------
8. Incineration
incineration is typically performed on hazardous wastes
containing high levels of organics. Such waste streams include
PCB-contaminated soils, solvents, organic sludges and
organic-contaminated soils. Since incineration is primarily
used to eliminate or reduce hazardous organic constituents in
the wastes, and many incineration operations have a limited
effect on reducing metals in the waste, this alternative may
not be useful in cases where wastes are classified as hazardous
because of heavy metal content. Therefore, the type of oil and
gas waste for which incineration is most suitable is likely to
be waste with a relatively high organic content. This waste
would include oil-based muds, portions of water-based muds in
which diesel oil has beeen used as a lubricant, or produced
water tank bottoms. The high ash content and/or low
combustibility of many water-based muds make the use of this
alternative less likely for this type of waste.
very few firms currently incinerate drilling fluids. Since
those which do are not required to handle the ash and scrubber
waste as potentially hazardous following incineration, their
current costs do not reflect the costs of incinerating a
hazardous waste. Because of its high cost, incineration would
only be considered as a primary disposal option under a RCRA
Subtitle c Scenario. Therefore, costs for incincerating
hazardous wastes are considered here.
In a recent report of hazardous waste disposal costs, EPA
surveyed 18 major firms providing a number of different
hazardous waste disposal services. Incineration was a service
offered by five of the firms surveyed. Those which handle
sludges and solids reported 1985 costs for incineration as
$115.5G/bbl to $199.50/bbl, which includes the cost of ash and
scrubber sludge disposal. These costs do not include the cost
-44-
-------
of transporting the waste to the incineration facility (see
Section Twelve). Thus, actual incineration costs for oil and
gas operators would be higher.
The per-barrel cost for drilling waste incineration is far
higher than those of RCRA triple-liner facilities with site
management practices. Thus, it is probable that incineration
will not be a major disposal option under any of the waste
management scenarios. These issues will be considered in more
detail in the impact assessment report.
9. Landfarming
Landfarming is defined here to be a commercial operation in
which numerous applications of drilling wastes are applied to
soils. The wastes and soils are well mixed to a depth of 2-3
feet. Biodegradation of organics takes place and some dilution
of metals and salts occurs. Currently, the landfarming of
drilling muds is most actively practiced in Louisiana.
The costs of commercially landfarming oil and gas wastes
have been estimated using a model developed by Pope-Reid
Associates. The major cost elements in this model are shown in
Table 9-1. This option is applicable under the intermediate
Scenario (Level 2 and 3 wastes) and under the RCRA Subtitle C
Scenario for hazardous waste. Thus, two landfarming cost
estimates were generated, one representing an Intermediate
Scenario in which oil and gas waste is not considered
hazardous, and one in which certain portions of oil and gas
waste are considered hazardous. The intermediate Scenario uses
the assumptions built into the model corresponding to a
pre-interim status facility. The RCRA Scenario uses the
assumptions associated with a facility complying with full Part
264 requirements. The differences between these two facility
-45-
-------
TABU 9-1
LANDPARIUWC COST COMOWgMTS
ALTERNATIVE
CAPITAL COSTS
(MM COSTS
CLOSURE COSTS
POST-CLOSURE COSTS
Coaacricai LandfarBing
o
Land cost
o
Labor
o Bevegetatloo
o
Land
0
Lud clearing coat
o
Groundwater Monitoring
authority and
o
Byltding coat
o
Soil pore coat
property deed
o
lyiiMtir cost 1BCHA
o
Maintenance
coat
scenario)
o
Utilities
0
Groundwater
o
Cluster valla (RCRA
o
insurance Taiee and
aonltorIng
ecenario)
Gt A
cost
o
Mind dispersal control
0
soil core coat
IICU scenario 1
o
Erosion
o
Storage tanks
control cost
&
Engineering and inspection
0
V*9etatIve
o
contingency
cover cost
o
Retention pond (RCtA
0
engineer ing
scenario)
and
0
Beraa (RCRA scenario)
inspection
coat
0
contingency
0287V
-------
types are presented in Table 9-2. Aฎ the table shows, the
pre-ISS scenario (which has been chosen to model the
Intermediate Scenario) does not have the elaborate site
managementr closure, and post-closure requirements of
landfarming operations handling RCRA wastes. However, for the
intermediate Scenario the costs of constructing and operating
groundwater monitoring wells for the one year of facility
operation and for 5 years after facility closure were
included.
Two 35-acre model facilities in each of eight regions were
costed - one representing the Intermediate Scenario, the other
the full RCRA scenario. Facility costs were estimated for
Regions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Region 11, Alaska, was
assumed to be unsuitable for landfarming operations due to
climate and soil conditions. For each applicable region,
appropriate precipitation rates and soil types were input to
the Pope-Reid Model. Since rainfall rates vary widely within
some of the regions, an approximate midpoint figure was
derived, soil types were deemed clayey in Eastern regions
{Regions 2, 4, and 5) and loamy/silty clays in Western
regions. Since a major portion of the waste stream is composed
of clays, even sandier areas would have clays incorporated into
the soils via the application of the wastes.
A model drilling waste stream was devised to characterize
some of the important constituents of the stream, such as
metals. The Pope-Reid Model currently accepts inputs for lead,
chromium, zinc, cadmium, copper, nickel, chlorides, barium,
total suspended solids, and specific gravity. Of these, lead
and zinc, chlorides, barium, total suspended solids, and
specific gravity are the most relevant to drilling fluid
disposal. Barium and chlorides, although not specified under
RCRA for soil loading, will be important limiting factors for
drilling fluid applications because of their high
-47-
-------
TABLE 9-2
LANDPARMING COST COMPONENTS BY WASTE
MANAGEMENT SCENARIO
INTER-
MEDIATE PART
COST COMPONENT SCENARIO 1264
Direct Capital
Land purchase X x
Land clearing X x
Building X X
Berm X
Waste application equipment X X
Lysimeters X
Groundwater monitoring wells X X
Wind dispersal control X
Drainage tile system X X
Retention pond for runoff control X
Waste storage area
Tank for liquids X X
Waste pile in maintenance building X
for solids
Indirect capital
Regulatory activities (i.e., treatment X
demonstration, background sampling,
and plans)
Fees X X
Direct O&M
Labor
Engineer/supervisor X
Technician X
Clerical X
Equipment operators X X
Maintenance supplies X X
utilities X X
Groundwater monitoring X X
Soil pore monitoring X
Soil core monitoring X
-48-
-------
TABLE 9-2 (continued)
INTER-
MEDIATE PART
COST COMPONENT SCENARIO 1264
Indirect O&M
Insurance, taxes, and G&A X X
Closure
Seed active area X
Remove contaminated soils X
Revegetation x
Retention pond closure X
Tank closure x
Haste pile closure X
Equipment decontamination X
Groundwater monitoring X x
Soil pore monitoring X
Soil core monitoring X
Certification of closure X
Post-closure (30 years)
Notice to land authority x
Notation on property deed X
Groundwater monitoring X x
Soil core monitoring X
Erosion control by recontouring portions X
of cover annually
Maintain vegetative cover
Mow X
Fertilize x
Partial revegetation of cover x
Inspect cover x
X ฆ Denotes cost incurred for that scenario.
0163V
-49-
-------
concentrations and the attendant risks of soil and groundwater
contamination. Pope-Reid Associates modified the program to
accommodate loading factor limits for barium and chlorides for
commercial landfarms. The drilling mud composition that was
programmed into the model is shown in Table 9-3. The metal
factors for barium, chromium, zinc and lead are based on a
recent study of metal concentrations in Louisiana and
Mississippi drilling mud pits (Freeman & Deuel, 1986). These
assumptions will be modified in future work based on the
recently-published CENTEC data.
Table 9-4 summarizes the output from the Pope-Reid Model.
(The model output is shown in Appendix E.) As can be seen, the
regional differences play a relatively minor role in the costs
of building, maintaining, and closing a commercial landfarming
facility. Large cost differences are seen, however, between
the Intermediate and RCRA Scenario facilities. All capital and
closure costs were annualized and divided by facility capacity
estimates to establish per-barrel costs (Table 9-5). These
costs are relatively high in comparison to other waste
management pratices due to the limitations that the barium
imposed upon landspreading volumes, in Regions 2, 4, and 5,
waste application was limited to 17,071 MT (metric tons) per
year. In the other regions waste was applied at a rate of
12,803 MT per year.
Transportation costs also need to be factored into the
analysis. The average distance from a drilling or production
site to a commercial landfarm could be as much as 500 miles,
since commercial landfarms may continue to be less common than
many of the other disposal options. Currently, few states
allow commercial landfarming of oil and gas wastes and the
number of permitted RCRA landfarms is declining (Strosnik,
1987; Sherman, 1987). Transportation costs are considered in
Section Twelve.
-50-
-------
TABLE 9-3
LANDFARMING MODEL'S DRILLING
MUf> waste Stream
METAL
PPM
Lead
250
Chromium
100
Zinc
250
Copper
250
Nickel
100
Cadmium
Barium
1,000
Chloride
2,000
Specific Gravity
1.2
% Water
87
% Other Inorganics
(including solids)
10
% Organics
3
Source: Freeman and Deuel, 1986, and
Freeman, 1987.
0175V
-51-
-------
TABLE 9-4
COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, MAINTAINING, AMD CLOSING
A COMMERCIAL LANDFARM HANDLING DRILLING WASTES
INTERMEDIATE SCENARIO FULL RCRA SCENARIO
REGION
CAPITAL
COSTS
(TOTAL)
O&M
COSTS
(ANNUAL)
CLOSURE
COSTS
(TOTAL)
POST-
CLOSURE
COSTS
(ANNUAL)
CAPITAL
COSTS
(TOTAL)
O&M
COSTS
(ANNUAL)
CLOSURE
COSTS
(TOTAL)
POST-
CLOSURE
COSTS
(ANNUAL)
2
$1 ,057,075
$107,183
$14,538
0
$1 ,927,752
$203,262
$432,964
$710,599
4
$1,002,380
$138,758
$14,538
0
$2,074,444
$251,596
$574,118
$726,706
5
$1 ,057,075
$107,183
$14,538
0
$1,950,521
$204,628
$449,101
$712,276
6
$1 ,026,345
$107,695
$14,538
0
$1,983,564
$208,967
$492,920
$717,448
7
$988,292
$135,557
$14,538
0
$1,881,736
$237,677
$444,574
$712,276
8
$1,026,34 5
$107,695
$14,538
0
$1,848,429
$200,858
$396,937
$706,448
9
$1,002,380
$119,397
$14,538
0
$1,824,464
$216,080
$395,127
$706,448
10
$988,292
$135,557
$14,538
0
$1,858,970
$236,311
$428,438
$710,599
Source:
0173V
Output from
Pope-Reid
Associates *
Land Treatment Computer
ฆ Cost Model, 1987.
-------
TABLE 9-5
ANNUALIZED
REGION
REGION 2
REGION 4
REGION 6
REGION a
REGION 7
REGION 8
REGION 9
REGION 10
ANNUALIZED PER
REGION
REGION 2
REGION 4
REGION 5
REGION 0
REGION 7
REGION 8
REGION B
REGION 10
LANOFARMING COSTS
( 19 88]
PRE ZSS
STANDARD
11,240,178
1,132,888
1,165,483
1,120,410
1,188,100
1,138,187
1 ,126,871
1,158,538
BARREL LANDFARMING
{ 1 985 )
PRE IS8
8TAN0ARD
13.21
12,08
12.41
15.91
17.01
18.14
15.99
18.42
BY REGION
RCR A
STANDARD
2,838,778
2,986,524
2 ,717 ,803
2,758,138
2,838,588
2,589,388
2,582,032
2,707,278
COSTS BY REGION
RCRA
STANDARD
3 0 .23
31.58
28.84
38.14
40 .31
38.48
38 .3 B
38.45
SOU RCEI ERG ESTIMATES.
-53-
-------
10. Substitution of Material Inputs
Both the intermediate and the RCRA Subtitle c Scenarios may
restrict and/or increase the cost of disposal of certain wastes
based on the concentration of individual contaminants or on the
toxicity of the whole waste. It might be possible to reduce
the cost of waste disposal by substituting less toxic
constituents into the drilling muds, thereby reducing the level
of contaminants in the waste. The substitution of less toxic
components might, however, result in an increase in cost or
deterioration of performance of the drilling mud.
Drilling muds are comprised of a base fluid, which acts as
a continuous phase to suspend the other materials and a variety
of additives. The base fluid is commonly water, but under
certain conditions, diesel oil is used as a base fluid. The
additives of drilling mud systems are grouped into functional
categories: weighting agents, viscosifiers, fluid loss
additives, commodities, dispersants, and specialty fluids, in
most drilling fluids, the base fluid is the largest constituent
by weight and volume. The percentage of other oilfield
chemicals sold, by dry weight, is shown in Table 10-1.
For both the base fluid and the additives, the selected
components may vary in their toxicity. For example, an
oil-based mud may contain diesel oil, which is highly toxic, as
the base fluid, or it may contain mineral oil, a less toxic
substitute. Similarly, the barite used as a weighting agent in
the mud nay vary considerably in the level of heavy metal
contaminants present in the ore.
If operators are concerned with the toxicity of their
drilling waste, they may select less toxic components for their
mud system. The operators must weigh a reduction in disposal
cost against a potential deterioration in mud performance or an
-54-
-------
TABLE 10-1
THS MAJOR CONSTITUENTS OF DRILLING FLUIDS
% OF TOTAL
BY DRY WEIGHT
Weighting Agents
Barite 64,18
Calcium Carbonate 0.43
64.61
Viscoslfiers
Bentonite 25,68
Organophilic Clay 0.11
Hydroxyethylcellulose 0.05
Attapulgite 2.40
xanthan Gum 0.008
Asphalt 0.23
Asbestos 0.07
Polyacrylamides 0.005
Guar Gum 0.005
28.57
Fluid Loss Additives
Carboxymethyl Cellulose 0.13
Starch 0.43
Polyacrylates 0.06
0.62
Commodities
Sodium Hydroxide 1.60
Calcium Chloride 0.50
Sodium carbonate 0.74
Sodium Chloride 0.42
Potassium Chloride 0 ป07
3.34
Dispersants
Lignosulfonates 1.48
Sodium Hexametaphosphate 0.07
Lignite 0.47
Sodium Acid pyrophosphate 0.04
Tannin 0ซ03
2.08
-55-
-------
TABLE 10-1 (Continued)
% OP TOTAL
BY DRY WEIGHT
Specialties
Emulsifiers 0.08
{ethoxylated phenols)
(ethoxylated nonylphenols)
Sodium Bichromate
Corrosion inhibitors
(fatty amines)
(imidazolines)
(actetylenic acids)
Biocides
(Paraformaldehyde)
(Dowacide G-pentachloro-
phenol)
Defoamers
(aluminum stearate)
(sulfonated castor oil)
(alcohols)
(silicones)
Zinc carbonate
All other
(lost circulation
material)
(- mica flakes)
(- sugar cane fiber)
(- ground paper)
(lubricants and coolants)
(- graphite)
(- diesel)
100.0
Source: C. H. Kline and Co./ 1980.
Note: This listing of chemicals does not specifically list
certain chemicals used in drilling such as gypsum
(calcium) sulfate and calcium hydroxide or calcium oxide
although these may appear in the "all other" category.
0280V
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.Q04
1.73
0.60
-56-
-------
increase in mud costs. The potential to reduce toxicity
through substitution of additives is considered below for three
drilling fluid components: the base fluid, weighting agents,
and biocides. These component agents were selected as examples
to be used in this report because they exhibit the following
features:
1. They are all major functional components of mud
systems.
2. For all three categories, a toxic and a less toxic
component are widely available*
3. All have been considered in previous EPA research as
components for which less toxic substitutes are
available.
After the results of the CENTEC sampling study have been fully
analyzed, other components may be considered in future research.
Base Fluid
Most wells are drilled with water as the base fluid, so
toxicity is not an issue. However, oil-based muds are used
under extremely deep or high temperature conditions, for holes
with hydratable shales, holes requiring directional drilling,
and other specialized circumstances (Maurice Jones, 1986). In
most cases, diesel oil is used as a base fluid when oil-based
muds are needed. Mineral oil is an available, relatively
non-toxic substitute for diesel oil.
The cost of substituting mineral oil for diesel oil depends
on the quantity of base fluid used in the mud system and on the
cost differential between the two fluids. Mineral oil
currently costs approximately $1.15/gallon, while diesel oil
sells for $0.70/gallon (Tom Siegmond, 1987). Thus, there is a
$0.45 increase in cost for every gallon ($18.90/barrel) of
diesel oil substituted.
-57-
-------
The amount of oil used in the mud system varies by depth of
well, region, and downhole conditions. Thus, each well using a
diesel-based system will be characterized by a different volume
of diesel oil. One example of a diesel-based mud system, based
on discussions with mud suppliers is shown in Table 10-2. In
this example, the amount of diesel oil required in the drilling
program is 2,250 barrels and the cost of diesel substitution is
|42 ,525. Since oil-based muds are recycled, these cost
overstate the cost of mineral oil substitution on a per-well
basis.
Weighting Agent
The second most significant constituent of the drilling
mud, after the base fluid, is the weighting agent. These
materials are used to control downhole pressures during
drilling. The primary weighting agent is barite or barium
sulfate, commercial barites may be contaminated by heavy
metals and other impurities, with impurities ranging from 0 to
8 percent. High-grade barites may have impurity levels as low
as 1 mg/kg of metals or less.
Commercial barite is sold in bulk, with no price
distinction based on the level of heavy metals or other
impurities. Thus, it is difficult to assess the cost of
shifting from impure barite to a high quality substitute.
Current barite costs are $63 per ton. A recent API study (API,
1986) however, estimated that a requirement that barite
supplies contain less than 1 mg/kg of metal impurities would
reduce world supplies by 41 percent and increase prices 40 to
60 percent. A restriction that barite supplies contain less
than 5 mg/kg of cadmium and 3 mg/kg of mercury would reduce
supplies by 14 percent and increase price by 10 to 25 percent.
-58-
-------
TABLE 10-2
COST OF MINERAL FOR DIESEL OIL
SUBSTITUTION FOR A 15,000 FOOT WELL
Assumptions
Well Depth ;
Volume of Mud system :
Percent Diesel Oil ;
Drilling late ;
Diesel Replacement Rate :
Duration of Drilling ;
Calculations
Initial Diesel Volume ;
Diesel Replacement Volume :
Total Oil Requirement: :
Net cost of Replacing -
Diesel with Mineral Oil
15,000 feet
2/500 barrels
30
200 feet per day
20 barrels/day
75 days
2,500 barrels x .30 ป 750 barrels
20 barrels day x 75 days ฆ 500
barrels
750 barrels + 1,500 barrels =
2,250 barrels
2,250 barrels x 1.89 - $42,525
0289V
-59-
-------
Using the API study as a basis, Table 10-3 assesses the
cost increases for typical wells based on shifting the market
to high quality barite. National average costs per well range
from $1,300 to $4 ,500 (5 mg/kg cadmium, 3 mg/kg of mercury) to
a maximum of $5,700 (1 mg/kg metals limitation). It should be
noted that barite costs, as a percentage of total mud costs, is
an increasing function of well depth. Therefore, a change in
barite cost will have the greatest impact on deeper wells.
Biocides
Biocides represent a small component of the entire mud
system. However, these substances are highly toxic, in 1979,
29 percent of the market was held by Dowicide G (containing
pentachlorophenol which biodegrades very slowly); while 57
percent of the market was captured by paraformaldehyde (a much
more rapidly biodegradable substitute), since that time,
however, environmental permitting restrictions have limited the
use of pentachlorophenol-based biocides. Host manufacturers
have discontinued the sale biocides containing
pentachlorophenol in the United States. Thus, where biocides
are currently used, the vast majority of operators are
currently already using paraformaldehyde products. Therefore,
further biocide substitution to reduce the hazardous
characteristics of drilling muds and associated wastes is not a
viable option for most drilling programs.
11. Waste Volume Reduction
Waste volume reduction includes a wide range of
technologies for recycling muds during drilling and for
dewatering wastes prior to disposal. Waste volume reduction is
-60-
-------
TABLE 10-3
BARITE COSTS FOR TYPICAL
WELLS IN EACH REGION
BARITE COSTS (DOLLARS)
AVERAGE
REGION
WELL
DEPTH9
(FEET)
DRILLING
MUDb
(BBLS)
BARITEC
(TONS)
CURRENT
COSTSd
3 & 5 mg/kg
SCENARIOฎ
1 mg/kg
SCENARIO
Region
2
3,053
184
20.9
$1,317
$1,554
$1,976
Region
4
5,830
352
39.9
2,514
2,967
3,771
Region
5
2,811
170
19.3
1,216
1,435
1,824
Region
6
4,163
251
28.5
1,796
2,119
2,694
Region
7
5,100
308
34.9
2,199
2,595
3,299
Region
8
6,603
398
45.1
2,841
3,352
4,262
Region
9
6,308
380
43.1
2,715
3,204
4,073
Region
10
2,555
154
17.5
1,103
1,302
1,655
Region
11
8,777
529
60.0
3,780
4,460
5,670
aBased on the 1985 Joint Association Survey on Drilling Costs,
American Petroleum Institute, 1986.
^Assumes a 7-7/8" drill bit size and 0.0603 bbl/ft of dry
drilling mud.
cAssumes 42 gal/bbl, 12 lb/gal, 45 percent of the mud weight is
barite, and 2,000 lbs/ton.
^Assumes barite costs $63/ton.
ewith cadmium and mercury metal limitations of 3 and 5 mg/kg,
respectively, barite costs will rise approximately 18 percent.
fWith metal limitations of 1 mg/kg, barite costs will rise
approximately 50 percent.
0203V
-61-
-------
generally used to reduce costs. However, in environmentally
sensitive areas, the use of waste volume reduction techniques,
such as "closed loop" systems, may be mandated by regulatory
agencies to minimize potential environmental damage.
The most popular way of reducing waste volumes during
drilling is to use traditional solids control equipment such as
shale shakers, desilters, desanders, and degassers. Many of
these solids control devices are standard drilling equipment.
The mud can be recycled more efficiently if additional
equipment like centrifuges is also employed. Standard costs
for these solids control equipment items are shown in
Table 11-1. The net benefits of using this equipment will
depend on such critical variables as the depth and diameter of
the well and the cost and weight of the mud.
The costs of drilling a shallow well with a relatively
inexpensive mud will generally be insufficient to justify
spending large sums of money on solids control equipment.
Deeper drilling operations with higher drilling mud costs can
derive more financial benefit from solids control equipment
Unfortunately, this equipment is frequently poorly installed or
improperly maintained, resulting in reduced equipment
efficiency (Rafferty, 1985).
Conscientious onsite waste management strategies can reduce
many of these inefficiencies. For example, water is often used
in the mud system and in cleaning the rig and equipment.
Additional water also comes from rainwater. Proper water
recycling and rainwater control systems can greatly reduce
water volumes.
In an effort to improve solids control efficiency, new
technologies have been developed that can greatly reduce wastes
and decrease mud dilution rates. This equipment is generally
-62-
-------
TABLE 11-1
RENTAL RATES FOR SOLIDS
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
ITEM
DAILY
RENTAL
RATE
Shale Shakers
Desanders
Desilters
Mud Cleaners
Degassers
Centrifuges (small)
{large)
Choke
Monitoring Instrumentation
$150
$ 90
$ 90
$150
$ 50
$150
$200
$ 50
$ 50
Source: James Griffin, 1987
0175V
-63-
-------
referred to as a "closed loop" system, in "closed-loop"
systems as much of the recyclable material is recovered as is
technically feasible. Wastes are dewatered so that much of the
water can be recycled as well. In fully closed systems the
waste solids are held in tanks instead of pits. This is often
done in environmentally sensitive areas where wastes are not
allowed to be stored in surface impoundments.
A number of industry sources offer closed-loop systems at
rental charges ranging from $1,500 to $2,000 per day
(Slaughter, 1987; Eafferty, 1987). A recent industry study
(Standard Oil, 1987) estimated a closed-loop system at $1,700
per day for solids control equipment and $500 per day for
solids handling equipment. Thus, total equipment rental
charges would vary from $1,500 to $2,200 per day. For a 14-day
drilling program, such as might be required for a 5,000 foot
well, costs would range from $21,000 to $30,800.
Many of these waste volume reduction techniques are also
being used to clean up existing waste sites. By reducing waste
volumes onsite, the final volume of waste that needs to be
transported and treated can be reduced. This can substantially
lower transportation and treatment costs.
12. Transportation
Transportation costs were developed for both drilling muds
and produced waters. The drilling muds may be transported to
any of the offsite facilities discussed above; the produced
waters must be transported to injection well sites.
Hazardous drilling mud transit costs are based on a cost of
$0.18- $0 .22/ton-mile. This cost range was compiled through
survey data {U.S. SPA, 1985). Assuming that drilling mud
-64-
-------
weighs 575 lbs/bbl, transportation costs are approximately
$0.06 per barrel-mile, For non-hazardous drilling muds,
trucking costs are generally $40-$65/hour for vacuum trucks
(Tesar, 1986; Brandon, 1987; Cangelosi, 1987). The capacity of
these trucks is typically 80 to 110 barrels and their speeds
average is approximately 30 mph. Thus, the cost of
transporting these wastes is approximately $0.02 per
barrel-mile.
For Class II well disposal, the costs for trucking produced
water are estimated to be $30 to $35 per hour for an 80-barrel
water truck (Epps and Associates, 1987). Assuming a speed of
30 raph, costs for transporting these wastes would be
approximately $0.01 per barrel-mile.
Class I disposal would require transport as a hazardous
waste. Thus, the transport cost estimate of $0 .18$022 per
ton-mile for hazardous drilling wastes would be applicable.
Assuming that produced water weighs 400 lb/barrel,
transportation costs for hazardous produced water is
approximately $0.04 per barrel-mile.
Using the above unit cost factors, Table 12-1 shows the
cost of transporting drilling wastes and produced waters to
disposal locations at varying distances from the well site.
These costs can be as high as $3.00 per barrel. The costs
presented in Table 12-1 will be used in conjunction with
disposal costs to determine the least-cost disposal method
under each waste management scenario. These estimates will be
provided in the impact assessment.
0281V
-65-
-------
TABLE 12-1
COST OF TRANSPORTING ONE BARREL
OF WASTE VARYING DISTANCES
UNIT
TRANSIT
COSTS
(^/BARREL- 1 MILE 25 MILES 50 MILES
MILE) ($/BARREL) (^/BARREL) (f/BARREL)
Hazardous Drilling 0.06 0.06 1.50 3 .00
Waste
Non-Hazardous 0.02 0.02 0.50 1.00
Drilling Waste
Class II Produced 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.50
Water
Class I Produced 0.04 0.04 1.00 2.00
Water
0290V
-66-
-------
13. References
American Petroleum Institute, 1986. comments of the American
Petroleum Institute on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed Rulemaking: Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore Segment
of the Oil and Gas Extraction point Source Category. March
15, 1986.
Brandon, Gregg, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Gregg Brandon, MP Vacuum Truck Service,
April 9, 1987.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1986. Telephone
communication with personnel of the California Division of
Oil and Gas, August 25, 1986.
Calloway, Michael. 1986. Stabilization of Drilling Muds in:
Proceedings of a National conference on Drilling Muds.
University of Oklahoma Environmental Groundwater Institute.
Cangelosi, Richard, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Richard Cangelosi, ChemCo, Inc., April 9,
1987.
Cullinane, M. John, Larry W. Jones, and Phillip G. Malone.
1986. Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of
Hazardous Waste. EPA/540/'2-86/001. June.
Camp Dresser & McKee, inc., 1986. Super fund Treatment
Technologies; A Vendor Inventory, EPA 540/2-8/004.
Erlandson, Steven, 1986, Personal communication between Anne
Jones, ERG, and Steven Erlandson, Enreco, Inc., December
22, 1986i
Evans, Gordan, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Gordon Evans, K. W. Brown and Assoc.,
January 6, 1987.
Field, M. and Smith, W., 1986. "Design considerations for
Landfarming Non-Hazardous Oilfield Waste Drilling Fluids"
in Proceedings of a National Conference on Drilling Muds:
May"J 1986., Enviornmental and Groundwater Institute,
Oklahoma.
Freeman, B., 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Bill Freeman, Shell Oil Company, March 26,
1987.
-67-
-------
Freeman, B.D. and Deuel, L.E., 1986. "closure of Freshwater
Base Drilling Mud Pits in Wetland and Upland Areas" in
Proceedings of a National Conference on Drilling Muds: May
1986., environmental and Ground Water institute, Oklahoma.
Hanson, Paul M. and Frederick V. Jones, 1986. Mud Disposal, an
Industry pespective. in; Drilling, May 1986.
Heffner, Michael T., 1987. Presentation by standard Oil RCRA
Task Force.
Jones, Fred, 1987. Personal communication between Scott *
carlin, ERG, and Fred Jones, IMCO Services, February 20,
1987.
Jones, Maurice, 1982. "The Basics of Drilling Fluids"
presented at the Technological conference: Georges Bank:
Hydrocarbon Exploration and Development, Massachusetts,
April 1982.
Jones, Maurice, 1986. "A Review of Drill cuttings Discharge
Technology and Regulations from Offshore Platforms,"
presented at the National Conference on Drilling Muds,
Oklahoma, May 1986.
Kline, 1980. Oil Field Chemicals; North America 1980, C. H.
Kline & Co., 1980.
Means, 1985. Means Site Work Cost Data, 1986, R.S. Means
Company, Inc., MA.
North America Environmental Service. 1985. closure Plan for
the Big Diamond Trucking Service, Inc. Drilling Mud
Disposal Pit Near sweet Lake, la.
Pope Reid Associates, 1985. "Appendix F - Cost Model" in Liner
Location Risk and Cost Analysis Model, prepared for EPA,
Oflice of Solid Waste.
Pope-Reid Associates, 1985. Engineering Costs Supplement to
Appendix ? of the Liner Location Report, prepared for EPA,
Office of Solid waste.
Pope-Reid Associates, 1987. Land Treatment computer cost
Model. Available on the EPA computer in Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Pope-Reid Associates, 1987. Facilities Design Tool Cost
Model. Available on the EPA computer in Research Triangle
Park, NC.
-68-
-------
Rafferty, Joe, 1987. personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Joe Rafferty, Ramteck Systems, inc.,
February 4, 1987.
Rafferty, Joe, 1985. "Recommended Practices for the Reduction
of Drill Site Wastes" in Proceedings of a National
Conference on Drilling Mud Wastes; May 1985, Environmental
and Ground Water Institute, Oklahoma.
Siegmund, Tim, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Tim Siegmund, N.L. Baroid Inc., March 18,
1987.
Sherman, Lynn, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Lynn Sherman, Envirosafe Services, Inc.,
January 3, 1987.
Slaughter, sen, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Ken Slaughter, New Park Waste Treatment
Systems, February 5, 1987.
Strosnik, Joe, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Joe Strosnik, American Waste Processing,
January 3, 1987.
Tesar, Laura, 1986. Personal communication between Anne Jones,
ERG, and Laura Tesar, VenVirotek, December 31, 1986.
Trahan, Kevin, 1987. Personal communication between Scott
Carlin, ERG, and Kevin Trahan, Campbell wells, January 7,
1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. "1985 Survey of
Selected firms in the Commercial Hazardous Waste Management
Industry," EPA Office of Policy Analysis, November 6, 1986.
Webster, William, 1987. personal communication between Anne
Jones, ERG, and William Webster, Envirite, January 7, 1987.
0230V
-69-
-------
APPENDIX A
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT MODEL RUNS PROM THE
POPE-REID FACILITIES DESIGN TOOL COST MODEL
-------
MODEL RUN
< > < > <
><><><><><
> < > <
> < >
><><><><><><><><><><><><>
><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><>
iiit:::::
FACILITY
BASELINE FACILITY
OPERATING AREA ......
OPERATING AREA
OPERATING VOLUME .....
SURFACE LENGTH,
SURFACE WIDTH.
TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME.
0 ,25 ACRES
1011.71 SQ M
8 0 6 4. CU H
31,81 METERS
31 .81 METERS
2064. CU H
FINAL COVER
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN GRAVEL
1194. C L) M
VOLUME OF LAYER 1
* m m
6 3 ,
CU
M
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL,,.
0 .
CU
M
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER
* *
1 2 83 .
SQ
H
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE. .
127
. 49
METERS
TOTAL AREA TO BE REVEGETATE0...
1 2 83 .
SQ
M
SURFACE AREA TO BE POISONED....
* ฆ *
0 .
SQ
M
DIVERSION DITCH LENGTH
ป ป
1 43
.23
METERS
FINAL COVER THICKNESS INCREASED
TO
0
.08
METERS
~~ปปปปซป~
COST SUMMARY
EXCAVATION COST #
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST... $
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST 5
WET WELL AND SUMP COST....... *
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST ซ
FINAL COVER
7532 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
FILL AND SLOPE COST
COST OF LAYER 1
BANKRUN GRAVEL...........
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST.
COVER REVEGETATION COST..
COVER ORAINASE TILE COST.
SOIL POISONING COST
RUN-ON CONTROL COST......
8083 .
0 ,
0 .
0 .
1 453 .
0 .
952 .
SUBTOTAL. ฆฆฆซซ..ซ .......... f
-------
ENGINEERING FEE
INSPECTION FEE. . .
OTHER FEE
$
ฃ
S
1 882 .
9 41 ,
a .
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY.
TOTAL DESIGN
COST
S 216 44.
S 3247 .
S 2 489 1.
FACIL ITY
INTERMEDIATE ON-SITE
OPERATING AREA. . . .
OPERATING AREA
OPERATING VOLUME
SURFACE LENGTH .........
SURFACE WIDTH
TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF 30 MIL SYNTHETIC
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 1
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF 20 MIL SYNTHETIC
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2
0.25
1011 .71
SOS 4 a
31.81
31 .81
S 0 6 4 .
MEMB .
1 3 43 .
MEMB .
1 3 42 ,
ACRES
SQ M
C U M
METERS
METERS
CU M
SO M
SQ M
BERM
BERN CONSTRUCTION
BERM SURFACE AREA
27 8
87 8
CU M
S Q M
FINAL COVER
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF 36 MIL SYNTHETIC
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 1
LAYER 2 CONSISTS OF TOP SOIL
VOLUME OF LAYER 2 ....
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE...
TOTAL AREA TO BE REVEGETATED....
SURFACE AREA TO BE POISONED.,...
DIVERSION 0 ITCH LENGTH.
1194
MEMB .
12 83
376
8
1 362
0 . 0
20 40
7 3
CU
SQ M
CU
CU
SQ
METERS
SQ M
SO M
147.06 METERS
**ซ***ป C0ST SUMMARY
EXCAVATION COST .......
BERM CONSTRUCTION
COST OF LAYER 1
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB
COST OF LAYER 2
ฆ ป ฆ
7 S 3 2 .
2088 .
7 222 .
-------
20 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB. S 2 3 6 3 .
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST... $ 0.
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST S 0 ,
WET WELL AND SUMP COST $ 0 .
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST $ 0 .
FINAL COVER
FILL ANO SLOPE COST.. $ 8BB3.
COST OF LAYER 1
36 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB $ 4143.
COST OF LAYER 2
TOP SOIL $ 6 451 .
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST $ 62.
BERH R E V E G ET AT I 0 N COST C 2 3 7 .
COVER REVEQETAT ION COST * 477 .
COVER DRAINAGE TILE COST ป 0.
SOIL POISONING COST. * 79,
RUN-ON CONTROL COST . . I 9 7 8 .
SUBTOTAL 9 40494.
ENGINEERING FEE $ 40 49 .
INSPECTION FEE. ... $ 2025 .
OTHER FEE $ 0 .
SUBTOTAL I 4556 8 .
CONTINGENCY * 69B5 .
TOTAL DESIGN COST $ 53554 .
FACILITY 3
INTER . ON-SITE
-------
0 E R M
Bern construct row ................, 27 8 . cu h
BERH SURFACE AREA 07 8 . SQ M
final cover
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF 36 MIL SYNTHETIC
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 1
LAYER 2 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME 0 F LAYER 2
LAYER 3 CONS ISTS OF 60 HIL SYNTHETIC
SURFACE AREA 0 F LAYER 3
LAYER 4 CONSISTS OF TOP SOU
VOLUME OF LAYER 4
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE
TOTAL AREA TO BE R E V E G ET AT E 0
SURFACE AREA TO BE POISONED
DIVERSION DITCH LENGTH............
COST SUMMARY
EXCAVATION COST... ป 893 3 .
BERH CONSTRUCTION $ 2068 .
COST OF LAYER 1
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEM0 $ 7222.
COST 0 F LAYER 2
BANKRUN SAND. . S 5211.
COST OF LAYER 3
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB % 7 90 1 .
COST OF LAYER 4
20 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.. I 2585.
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST . . . S 17 5.
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST S 2 7 5 .
WET WELL AND SUMP COST S 9 80 0 .
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST...... 8 0.
FINAL COVER
FILL AND SLOPE COST $ 9 8 83 ,
COST OF LAYER 1
38 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....... S 4143.
COST 0 F LAYER 2
BANKRUN SAND > 5 114.
COST OF LAYER 3
60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB ป 1S80.
COST 0 F LAYER 4
TOP SOIL . ฆ . . ฆ ฎ 6594.
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST 9 316.
BERM REVE6ETAT I ON COST. J 237 .
COVER REVEGET ATION COST $ 513.
COVER DRAINAGE TILE COST J 1 0 3 3 .
SOIL POISONING COST . . $ 1 466 .
119 4. CU M
MEMB .
1283. SQ M
3 7 6. CU M
MEMB .
1585. SO M
3 8 5. CU H
43. CU M
1466. SQ M
143.23 METERS
2144. SQ M
1466. SQ M
151 .86 METERS
-------
RUN-ON CONTROL COST t
SU6T0TAL*aiปซiia
-------
** COST SUMMARY ~~ซปปปซป
EXCAVATION COST.,
B ERM CONSTRUCT ION
COST OF LAYER 1
BANK RUN S AND
COST OF LAYER 2
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEM8
COST OF LAYER 3
SO MIL SYNTHETIC M E MB
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST.
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST...
WET WELL AND SUMP COST
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST
FINAL COVER
ฆ *
1483 7 82.
14325.
2573 61 .
3 490 47 .
114187.
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
FILL AND SLOPE COST. S 20030 7 1 .
COST OF LAYER 1
38 MIL SYNTHETIC M E MB I 2 0 2 5 7 8 .
COST OF LAYER 2
TOP SOIL...,....., * 321 37 1
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST.,... I 428
BEAM REVEGETAT ION COST S 1644
COVER REVEGETATIQN COST,..,.. $ 22140
COVER ORAINAGE TILE COST 9 0
SOIL POISONING COST $ 53 B
RUN-ON CONTROL COST $ 6 6 86
SUBTOTAL * 47771 57
ENGINEERING FEE I 4777 1 6
INSPECTION FEE $ 238858
OTHER FEE $ 0
SUBTOTAL I 549373 1
CONTINGENCY,..,.... $ B24060
TOTAL DESIGN COST
6 3 1 7 7 9 1 .
FACILITY 5
INTER, OFF -SITE */ MONITORIN
ป *
OPERATING AREA
OPERATING AREA.,...
OPERATINS VOLUME...
SURFACE LENGTH
SURFACE WIDTH ......
TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SANO
15.00 ACRES
607 0 2 . 8 4 SQ M
3 87571. CU M
2 46 . 3 8 METERS
246.38 METERS
425735. CU M
-------
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 . 1 8944 , C U M
NUMBER OF LEACHATE BRANCHES.. 0
LEACHATE BRANCH.............. 0.0 METERS
LEACHATE MAIN................ 0.0 METERS
LAYER 2 CONS ISTS 0 F 30 MIL SYNTHETIC ME MB .
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2.,... 64879, SO M
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 3. 1 3 2 2 0 . CU M
NUMBER OF LEACHATE BRANCHES.. 14
LEACHATE BRANCH 2337 , 6 4 METERS
LEACHATE MAIN 1 9 S . 86 METERS
LAYER 4 CONSISTS OF 30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 4 65754. SO M
LAYER 5 CONSISTS OF 20 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 5 65754 . SO M
B ERH
BERM CONSTRUCTION ................ . 1 926 , CU M
BERM SURFACE AREA 46iB. SQ M
FINAL COVER
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE 289321 , CU M
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF 3 B MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 1..... B2718. SO M
LAYER 8 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 2 1 8755 . CU M
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF 60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 3..... 64738. SO M
LAYER 4 CONSISTS 0 F TOP SOIL
VOLUME OF LAYER 4 1B816. CU M
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL 293 . CU M
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER.... 8393 8 . SO M
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE 1 00 1 . 5 2 METERS
TOTAL AREA TO BE REVEGETATED 68836. SQ M
SURFACE AREA TO BE POISONED 63 93 8 . SQ M
DIVERSION DITCH LENGTH,... 1010.15 METERS
ปป COST SUMMARY ปปป
EXCAVATION COST...... I 1 553833.
BERM CONSTRUCTION $ 1 43 2 5 .
COST OF LAYER 1
BANK RUN SAND > 257361 .
COST OF LAYER 2
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....... ป 349047,
COST OF LAYER 3
BANK RUN SANO S 261 099 .
COST OF LAYER 4
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....... S 353755.
COST OF LAYER 5
20 M IL SYNTHETIC MEMB ป 1 1 57 2 6 .
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST... S 3 3 4 8 9 .
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST ซ 3697 ,
WET WELL AND SUMP COST f 3800 ,
-------
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST $
FINAL COVER
FILL AND SLOPE COST S
COST OF LAYER 1
3 6 NIL SYNTHETIC ME MB $
COST OF LAYER 2
BANKRUN SAND $
COST OF LAYER 3
60 MIL SYNTHETIC HEMB. *
COST OF LAYER 4
TOP SOIL.. 5
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST
B E R M REVEGET AT ION COST....... I
COVER REVEGETATIQN COST 9
COVER ORAINAGE TILE COST..... *
SOIL POISONING COST I
RUN-ON CONTROL COST S
SUBTOTAL .......... $
ENGINEERING FEE $
INSPECTION FEE *
OTHER FEE... . . S
SUBTOTAL $
CONTINGENCY J
2 0 0 3 0 7 1
202579
854790
6 8622
3 2 2 405
2 1 7 G
1 S 44
2 2 37 8
11417
6333B
B 71 8
5911970
5 9 119 7
295598
B7 9 87 6 5
1019815
TOTAL DESIGN COST
781B5B0
FACILITY 6
' I I I ฆ t I I
RCRA FACILITY
OPERATING AREA 15.00 ACRES
OPERATING AREA 607 02 . 84 SQ M
OPERATING VOLUME 3 8757 1 . CU M
SURFACE LENGTH... 246 .38 METERS
SURFACE WIDTH . 246 .38 METERS
TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME........... 486 41 6 . CU M
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 1 8944 . CU M
NUMBER OF LEACHATE BRANCHES.. 0
LEACHATE BRANCH.. 0.0 METERS
LEACHATE MAIN 0.0 METERS
LAYER 2 CONSISTS OF 30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB .
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2 84879. SQ M
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME Of LAYER 3 1 9 220 . CU M
NUMBER OF LEACHATE BRANCHES.. 0
LEACHATE BRANCH.............. 0.0 METERS
-------
LEACHATE MAIN. .
LAYER 4 CONSISTS OF
SURFACE AREA OF
LAYER 5 CONS I STS OF
VOLUME OF LAYER
30 MIL SYNTHETIC
LAYER 4
OFF-SITE CLAY
5...........
0 . 0
ME MB .
8 5754,
6 06 B1
B ERM
BERN CONSTRUCTION
B E R M SURFACE AREA
19 2 6
4698
FINAL COVER
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE 268321.
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF OFF-SITE CLAY
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 3 8644 ,
LAYER S CONSISTS OF 36 MIL SYNTHETIC ME MB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2..... 6B8B6.
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 3 . 1 9450 .
LAYER 4 CONSISTS OF 60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 4..... 66BB5.
LAYER 5 CONSISTS OF TOP SOIL
VOLUME OF LAYER 5... 38900 .
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL...... 1944.
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER...,. 6B035.
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE 1018.26
TOTAL AREA TO BE REVEGETATE0 . . , . . . 72733.
SURFACE AREA TO BE POISONED 6 8035 .
DIVERSION DITCH LENGTH 1 0 40 . 2 9
CUT OFF FOR COVER INCREASED TO.... 4.09
**ซ*ป COST SUMMARY
EXCAVATION COST...........
BERM CONSTRUCTION
COST OF LAYER 1
BANK RUN SAND
COST OF LAYER 2
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....
COST OF LAYER 3
BANKRUN SAND
COST 0 F LAYER 4
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....
COST OF LAYER 5
OFF-SITE CLAY
TOTAL LEACHATE BRANCH COST
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST..
WET WELL AND SUMP COST ... .
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST...
FINAL COVER
FILL AND SLOPE COST
COST OF LAYER 1
OFF-SITE CLAY
COST OF LAYER 2
1 7 75 41 B .
143 25.
2573 6 1 .
3 490 47.
2610 99.
353 7 55 .
1 729404.
0 .
0 .
0 .
0 .
2003071 .
1101359.
METERS
SO M
CU M
CU M
S Q M
CU M
CU M
SO M
CU M
SQ M
CU M
CU M
SQ M
METERS
S Q M
SQ M
METERS
METERS
-------
36 MIL SYNTHETIC MENS # 216040 .
COST OF LAYER 3
BANKRUN SAND * 26 4227 .
COST OF LAYER 4
60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB . . ซ 70 89 9 .
COST OF LAYER 5
TOP SOlLi S 666540*
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST...,. ป 14457.
0 E R M REVEGETATION COST I 1 6 44.
COVER REVEGETATION COST I 23 81 2 .
COVER DRAINAGE TILE COST..... * 11608.
SOIL POISONING COST I B 803 5 .
RUN-ON CONTROL COST ป 6918.
SUBTOTAL . * 91 B9027 .
ENGINEERING FEE ซ 9 1 890 3 .
INSPECTION FEE I 45 9 45 1 .
OTHER FEE.... ............... $ 0.
SU8T0TAL I 1 05673 B2 .
CONTINGENCY , 9 1 5851 07 .
TOTAL DESIGN COST I 1 2 1 5 2 489 ,
:::::::::::
FACILITY 7
: : ; i S : : : ! t s
RCRA FACILITY W/ MONITORING
OPERATING AREA.................... 15.00 ACRES
OPERATING AREA 60 70 2 . 8 4 SQ M
OPERATING VOLUME., 3 87 57 1 . CU M
SURFACE LENGTH 246 .38 METERS
SURFACE WIDTH 248.3 B METERS
TOTAL EXCAVATION VOLUME 486 41 6 . CU M
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 .... 1 9944. CU M
NUMBER 0 F L EACH AT E BRANCHES . . 0
L EACH AT E BRANCH 0.0 METERS
LEACHATE MAIN................ 0.0 METERS
LAYER 2 CONSISTS OF 3 0 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB .
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2 6 487 9 . SQ M
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 3 1 9220 . CU M
NUMBER OF LEACHATE BRANCHES . . 14
LEACHATE BRANCH... 29 37 . 6 4 METERS
LEACHATE MAIN................ 199.86 METERS
LAYER 4 CONSISTS 0 F 3 0 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB .
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 4 65754 . SO M
LAYER 5 CONSISTS OF OFF-SITE CLAY
VOLUME OF LAYER 5 ... 80681 . CU M
-------
a e r h
BERK CONSTRUCTION . 1 92 B . C U M
BEAM SURFACE AREA 4 6 9 8 . SQ M
FINAL COVER
SOIL VOLUME OF FILL AND SLOPE 2 6 9 3 2 1 . C U M
LAYER 1 CONSISTS OF OFF-SITE CLAY
VOLUME OF LAYER 1 . .......... 38644 . CU M
LAYER 2 CONSISTS OF 3 B MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 2 68 0 86 . SQ M
LAYER 3 CONSISTS OF BANK RUN SAND
VOLUME OF LAYER 3........... 19450. CU M
LAYER 4 CONSISTS 0 F 60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB.
SURFACE AREA OF LAYER 4 6 6 0 05 . SQ M
LAYER 5 CONSISTS OF TOP SOIL
VOLUME OF LAYER 5........... 30900. CU M
VOLUME OF COVER CUT OFF FILL 1 944 . CU M
SURFACE AREA FINAL COVER 0 00 3 5 . SQ M
LENGTH OF COVER DRAINAGE TILE...., 1010.26 METERS
TOTAL AREA TO BE REVEGET ATEO 72733 . SQ M
SURFACE AREA TO 8 E POISONED 6 0035 . SQ M
D IVER9 ION DITCH LENGTH...., 1 0 40 . 29 METERS
CUT OFF FOR COVER INCREASED TO ... . 4.09 METERS
ป~ COST SUMMARY ซ
EXCAVATION COST 5 1 77 5 41 8 .
BERH CONSTRUCTION............ $ 14325.
COST OF LAYER 1
BANKRUN SAND $ 2 5 7 3 6 1 .
COST OF LAYER 2
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....... S 349047,
COST OF LAYER 3
BANKRUN SAND * 2 6 1 0 9 9 .
COST 0 F LAYER 4
30 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....... ป 353755.
COST OF LAYER 5
OFF-SITE CLAY ป 1 7 2 9 40 4 .
TOTAL LEACH ATE BRANCH COST . . . * 33 489 ,
TOTAL LEACHATE MAIN COST..... S 3697.
WET WELL AND SUMP COST $ 9 800 .
LEACHATE TREATMENT COST 0.
FINAL COVER
FILL AND SLOPE COST $ 200307 1 .
COST OF LAYER 1
OFF-SITE CLAY ... ป 1 1 0 1 3 5 9 .
COST OF LAYER 2
36 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMB....,,. 8 216040.
COST 0 F LAYER 3
BANKRUN S AND * 2 6 4227 .
COST 0 F LAYER 4
60 MIL SYNTHETIC MEMS * 7 0899,
-------
COST OF LAYER 5
TOP SOIL i i ฆ S 6 6 6 5 4 8
FINAL COVER CUT OFF COST $ 1 4487
BEHM REVEGETATION COST $ 1644
COVER REVEGETATION COST ซ $ 23 81 2
COVER DRAINAGE TILE COST..... S 11608
SOIL POISONING COST S 6 8 0 3 5
RUN-ON CONTROL COST.. f 6918
SUBTOTAL.... ซ 92360 1 4
ENGINEERING FEE...... S 313601
INSPECTION FEE....... ซ 461801
OTHER FEE 8 0
SUBTOTAL $ 1 0621 41 S
CONTINGENCY,.,.....,,....... $ 1593212
TOTAL DESIGN COST........... $
12214628
-------
NOTES TO APPENDIX A
In these tables the following labels have changed:
The label:
should read:
20-mil synthetic liner
30-mil synthetic liner
36-mil synthetic liner
60-mil synthetic liner
geotextile support fabric
30-mi1 HOPE liner
30-mil PVC liner
geotextile filter fabric
In addition# all odd numbered facilities, except Facility 1,
were modeled to calculate the site management costs and
monitoring costs associated with the previous facility. (For
example, Facility 3 captures the monitoring costs associated
with Facility 2.) certain site management and monitoring costs
could not be removed from the even numbered facilities and
Facility One. These costs were manually subtracted from the
facility totals. These costs include: Cover Drainage Title
Cost, Soil Poisioning Cost and Run-On Control Cost.
0176V
-------
APPENDIX B
COSTS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS IX INJECTION WILLS
Prepared by Epps and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
The costs for class I wells are for drilling new wells. The
costs for Class II wells are for converting existing wells into
injection wells.
0176V
-------
date : 1/10/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.,
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO .
LOCATION , Appalachian Basin FIELD 1 ,
COUNTY , ^ TAT F . Pennsylvania prn, 7000'
REQUESTED BY : PREPARED BY ;
OBJECTIVE : Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' below top of
Bradford Formation
I 7)
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAV, PERMIT
O
O
O
O
1
$ 14.000
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
N/A
-0-
-0-
005
IOC AT ION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
15,000
5,000
20,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, #ie.
20,000
-0-
20,000
001
DRHIING RIG - DAYWORK
155,750
i* ,1*50
160,200
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
17,550
17,550
003
FUEL
17,500
500
18,000
004
WATER
9,000'
1,500
10,500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
27,000
3,200
30,200
009
BITS, CORE ME AD, DRlG. TOOLS
37,3^0
500
37,8*40
010
103
RENTALS
7,ซ00
5,500
13,300
0 12
102
CEMENTING
30,955
2k ,763
55,613
on
107
CONTRACT LABOR
26,950
12,350
39,300
0M
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
50,310
18,136
68,1*1*6
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
3,000
000
3, BOO
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
li,800
3,800
9,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES { DST'ป,#ie.)
11,1*00
-0-
11,1*00
014
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
U2,000
12,000
5Moo
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
10s
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
_o-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 1*62,705
$ 128,01*9
$ 590,751*
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
N/A
N/A
SURFACE CSG.
7,059
7,059
INTERMEDIATE CSG-
63,01*0
63,01*0
WELLHEAD
U ,500
7,000
11,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
101.990
101,990
LINER
10,85!*
10,851*
TUBING
66,933
66,033
DOWNHOlE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 7^,599
$ 189,777
$ 261*,376
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
$ <^7 TDli
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE ; 2/l/8?
AFE NO.:
WEll NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION j Mississippi Salt Dome FIELD
COUNTY : STATE : Mississippi PTD. 5000'
REQUESTED BY , PREPARED BY
OBJECTIVE : Drill & Complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' belov top of
Wilcox Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT of way, permit
$ 6.000
$ -0-
$ 6.000
Otl
CONOUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3.500
OOS
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CIEAN UP
10,000
5,000
15,000
002
mobilization/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซปc.
19.000
-0-
19.000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
100,000
14,000
10U,000
001
- footage
-0-
-0-
-0-
00)
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
10 1
completion rig
-0-
16.000
16.000
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
6,000
1,500
7,500
007
DR1UING FLUIDS
23,000
2,500
25,500
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
29,790
500
30.290
010
103
RENTALS
7,800 "
5,500
13,300
012
102
CEMENTING
30,855
18,732
1*9,587
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
22,510
10.350
32,860
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
38,050
12,650
50,700
0 15
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,200
700
2,900
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,U50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES { DST'i, tie.J
11, WO
-0-
11,1400
016
Ml
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10%)
31.500
10,000
141,500
025
PLUG A ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 31*5.OSS
$ 108.582
$ 1*53.537
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
$ 1.000
t 1.000
SURFACE CSG.
6,89*4
6,9914
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
61,600
61,600
WELL HEAD
^ ,500
7,000
11,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
72,000
72,000
LINER
10,293
10,293
TUBING
U6,7l8
1*6,718
OOWNHOie EQUIPMENT
-0-
3.000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
_0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-o-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 73.99^
$ 139.011
$ 21J,00?
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
$ U19.0U9
t 2U7.593
$ 666 6k?
-------
\
DATE : 1/29/B7
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
AFE NO.
WELL NAME & NO.:
LOCATION r ARK. - LA. Basin
COUNTY ;
PROSPECT/LEASE NO. >
f lELD : g1. Texas, 3W Affcanaai
STATE ฆ Louisiana PTD:
UOQO'
REQUESTED BY :
OBJECTIVE : Drill & rornplpt.r a Class I
PREPARED BY:
Hazardous Waste Disposal Well: 1000' below ton of
Buck Ranee Formation
I 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT Of WAY, PERMIT
$ 5,000
$ -0-
$ 5,000
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SEtVICES
3.S00
-0-
1.500
OOS
IOC AT ION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
9.000
5.000
13.000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, tic.
10,000
-0-
19,000
001
DRILLING RIG OAtWORK
96,000
li.OOO
100,000
00)
- footage
-0-
-0-
-0-
00>
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
15,200
15,200
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-c-
004
WATER
5,000-
1,000
6,ooq
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
17,000
2,000
19,000
009
BITS, COSEHEAD, DRIG. TOOLS
28,0i*0
500
28,51*0
0)0
103
RENTALS
7,500
5,500
13,000
0 12
toz
CEMENTING
28,61*0
17,151
1*5,791
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
21,1*20
9,700
31,120
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
33,320
10,916
1*1* ,236
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,100
700
2,800
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,1*50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DST'i, ซ>c.)
11,1*00
_o-
11,1*00
016
III
MISCELLANEOUS { 10% )
29,000
9,500
38,500
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
M/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 318,370
$ 102,317
$ U20,687
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
SURFACE CSG.
6,732
6,13?
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
1*5,120
1*5,120
WELLHEAD
1* ,500
7,000
11,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
56,Q20
56,920
LINER
6,51*9
6,51*9
TUBING
36,630
36,630
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
artificial lift
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACIHTIE S
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-C-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 57,352
$ 110,099
$ 167,1*51
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
t. . /ฆ
-------
DATE : 1/29/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.;
LOCATION , Michigan Basin FIELD !
COUNTY; , STATE : MicMTan PTD:
REQUESTED BY : PREPARED BY,
OBJECTIVE : Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well
Mt, Simon Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF way, PERMIT
$ 8.000
$ -0-
$ 9.000
Oil
CONOUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3,500
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
25,000
6,000
31,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, #rซ.
15,000
-0-
15,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWOflX
21*3,000
14,500
2147 ,500
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION BIG
-0-
22,000
22,000
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
9,000
1.500
10,500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
55,000
3,600
58,600
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRlG. TOOLS
59.6U0
500
60,11*0
010
103
rentals
8,250
7,000
15,250
012
102
cementing
22,039
25,585
1*7,6214
01 J
>07
CONTRACT LABOR
32,650
13,500
146,150
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
146,000
13,000
59,000
0 IS
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
U ,600
1,000
5,600
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
14,500
3,500
8,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | DST'i, Ic.)
11,1*00
-0-
11,1*00
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS
55,000
12,500
67,500
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT (10%)
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
20,000
20 ,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 602,579
$ 131*, 185
$ 736,76U
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
SURFACE CSG.
6,9TB
6,978
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
61*, 290
61*,290
WELLHEAD
U,500
7,500
12,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
115,81*0
115,81*0
LINER
13,629
13,629
TUBING
76,769
76,769
OOWNMOlE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 76,768
$ 216,738
$ 203,506
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE 1
A
---
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE :
AFE NO. s
WELL NAME & NO.: . PROSPECT/LEASE NO. s
LOCATION , Illinois Basin FIELD s
COUNTY; , STATE ; Indiana ptd. 10.000'
REQUESTED BY, PREPARED BY.-
OBJECTIVE Drill & complete a Class I' Hazardous Waste Disposal Well
Mt. Simon Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$ 3,500
$ -0-
$ 3,500
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3,500
oos
IOC ATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
30.000
8.000
38,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, etc.
10,000
-0-
10,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
2J8,U00
1* ,800
283,200
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
2*4,200
21*, 200
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
9,500
1,500
11,000
007
OR 111 INC FLUIDS
36,500
U.500
u1,000
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRIG . TOOLS
61,390
500
61,890
010
103
RENTALS
20,650 '
7,150
27,800
012
102
CEMENTING
21,03^
l*0,U38
62,272
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
33,550
15,150
1*8,700
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
5** ,500
23,000
77,500
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
6,250
1,000
7,250
02 4
114
TRANSPORTATION
k,850
1*,000
8,850
076
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DST'.,ซiซ.)
11,1*00
-0-
11,1*00
016
til
MISCELLANEOUS (lOZ)
59,000
16,000
75,000
025
PLUG A ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
22,000
22,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
ง 6lil*,821*
$ 172,238
$ 817,062
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG,
$ 1,000
$ 1,000
SURFACE CSG.
6,978
6 v978
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
53,575
53,515
WELLHEAD
U.500
8,000
12,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
lUU ,800
11*1*, 800
LINER
21.21*3
21.21*3
TUBING
96,709
96,709
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 66,053
$ 273,752
$ 339,805
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
-------
DATE 1/27/8?
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.,
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO. r
l QC AT ION , Williston Basin FIELD : ,
COUNTY . STATF .North Dakota PTD. QQOO'
REQUESTED BY- PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Disposal WpII: 1.000' hปlnir trปn
Fox Hills Formation ( Dakota) ,
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGE5, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
o
o
o
\o
1
& -0-
$ 6-000 '
on
CONDUCTOR "IPE SERVICES
Contractor
-0-
-0-
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
18,000
8,500
26,500
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซtc.
Contractor
-0-
-0-
001
DRILLING RIG - DAY WOP K
56,000
U.000
60,000
001
- FOOTAGE
112,500
-0-
112,500
001
Boiler jQCXGOEOCKX
5.800
200
6.000
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
18,000
18,000
003
FUEL
Contractor
-0-
-0-
004
WATER
9,500
1,500
11,000
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
30,000
14,000
314,000
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG . TOOLS
10,500
500
11,000
010
103
RENTALS
10.U50 '
6,500
16,150
012
102
CEMENTING
uo,623
30,032
70,655
013
07
CONTRACT LABOR
27,1400
13,650
Ul,050
ou
105
LOGGING 4 PERFORATING
62,510
20,&$6
83,396
0IJ
T1 0
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,700
1,000
3,700
024
ltd
TRANSPORTATION
3,^50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( DST'i, tie.)
11,1400
-0-
11,1*00
016
Ml
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10$)
1*1,000
13,200
5^,200
025
PLUG A ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
20,000
20,000
108
NON -CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
* UU7
$ 1U5.118
1 592.951
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSC.
Contrac tor
Contractor
SURFACE CSG.
$ T ,*ป10
$ 7,k10
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
17^,960
17U,9b0
WELLHEAD
J4.500
7,500
12,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
131,850
131,850
LINER
19,053
19.053
TUBING
87,000
87,000
OOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
_0-
0
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-Q-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
& 186,600
' $ 2140,1403
$ "435,003
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
t coi
& t rv^-*r aci.
-------
DATE . 1/29/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION Hugoton Basin FIELD i Hntrntnn
COUNTY i STATE t Kansas Ptn. 6500'
REQUESTED BY: PREPARED BY : .
OBJECTIVE Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well;
Arbuckle Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$ 6.000
$ -0-
u_
ifr
G\
O
O
O
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIP SERVICES
N/A
-0-
-0-
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK I CLEAN UP
U,000
3,000
7,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ OEMOBILIZATION, *ic.
Q,000
-0-
<3,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
96,250
3,850
100,100
00!
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION R(G
-0-
18,50U
18,500
003
FUEL
Contractor
dontractor
-0-
004
WATER
3,TOO
1,000
h ,700
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
19,000
3,000
22,000
00?
61TS, COREHEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
26,3U0
500
26,8U0
010
103
RENTALS
2,600
5,500
8,100
017
102
CEMENTING
lU.5^9
17,913
32,1*62
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
18,650
11,175
29,825
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
39,000
13,000
52,000
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,250
800
3,050
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
2,500
2,500
5,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES { DST'i, ปซ.]
11.U00
-Cl-
11,U00
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS {10%)
26,000
io, 500
36,500
025
PLUG 4 ABANDONMENT
-0-
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
15,000
15,000
10S
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 281,239
$ 111,238
$ 392,U77
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
conductor csg.
FT/A
t -0-
SURFACE CSG.
6,813
b,ai3
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
16,7^2
16,7^2
WELLHEAD
h ,500
7.000
11,500
PROOUCTION CSG.
93,015
93,015
LINER
lO.oUU
10,0UU
TUBING
61,50^
61,50^
OOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
_0-
-0-
PROOUCTION FACILITIES
-o-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 28.055
$ 1714,563
$ 202,618
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
$ "jno ooli I
4; oftc Am
ฃ cac nsse
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE i 1/27/87
AFE NO.!
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO..
tOCATiON . Powder River Basin FIELD; ,
COUNTY; , STATE . Wyoming . PTD. ?000'
REQUESTED Br PREPARED BY;
OBJECTIVE r Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well: 1000' below too of
Buck Springs Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT Of WAY, PERMIT
$ 7.500
$ -Q-.
O
O
1r
t-
-V*
on
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
Contractor
-0-
-0-
005
IOC AT ION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
10,000
5,000
15,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซic.
Contractor
-0-
-0-
0OI
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
1*5,500
3,500
1*9,000
001
- FOOTAGE
81.000
-0-
81.000
001
- turnkey
-0-
0**
-0-
101
completion *IG
_o-
IT,500
17,500
003
FUEL
Contractor
_o~
-0-
004
WATER
12,000
1,500
13,500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
20,000
h ,000
2U.000
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRIG. TOOLS
10,500
500
11.000
010
103
RENTALS
9,1*50
6,500
16,950
012
102
CEMENTING
1*2.873
11.512
71*.1*05
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
2T,310
13,650
1*0,960
ou
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
62,510
20,886
83,396
0 15
HO
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,500
1,000
3,500
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,1*50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | DST'i, tic.)
11>00
-0-
11,1*00
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10?)
35.000
13,000
U8,000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
_o-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
108
NON - CON f ROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-o-
total intangible expenses
$ 380,993
$ 139,718 .
$ 520,711
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
Contractor
-0-
SURFACE CSG.
$ 6,813
$ 6,813
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
168,000
168,000
WEIL HEAD
1* ,500
7,500
12,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
128.790
128.790
LINER
16,356
16,356
TUBING
86,30U
86,301*
DOWN HOI E EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-C-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 179,313
$ 21*1,950
$ 1*21,263
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
* n - r s*
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE : 1-/?R/a~r
APE NO.:
WEIL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO. i
LOCATION . Permian Basin FIELD:
COUNTY : , STATE : lexas PTD. TOGO'
REQUESTED BY. _ PREPARED BY-
OBJECTIVE" Drill & complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' belov top of
San Andreas
17!
172
intangible expenses
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
damages, right of way, permit
$ s.soo
S -n_
$ s.son
OH
CONDUCTOR PIP? SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3,500
005
LOCATION, ROAD WOtK & CLEAN UP
10,000
5,000
15,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, He.
15,000
-0-
15,000
001
DRILLING RIG-DAYWORK
ltปb,500
14,500
153,000
001
- FOOTAGE
-o-
-0-
-Q-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
17,550
17,550
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
_o-
004
WATER
9,000'
1,500
10,500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
1*0,000
3.200
1*3,200
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRLG.TOOLS
39.8U0
500
1*0,3^0
010
103
RENTALS
3,U0O *
5,500
8,900
0)2
102
CEMENTING
37,736
23,733
61,1*69
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
27 *,520
12,000
39,520
0t4
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
1*9,700
11*, 1*00
61* ,100
0 IS
no
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,450
800
3,380
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,**50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (OST'i,ซic.)
11,1*00
-0-
11,1*00
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
111,000
11,000
52,000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
(OS
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
_o_
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 1*1*8.^06
1 120.833
$ 569.220
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
5 1.000
1
O
s
3 1.0C0
SURFACE CSG.
6.732
6,732
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
12U,680
12b,680
WELL HE AO
U ,500
7,000
11,500
PRODUCTION C5G.
Q9.610
09 .610
LINER
11*,673
ll* ,673
TUBING
66,330
66,330
OOWNHOIE EQUIPMEMT
-0-
3,000
3 ,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 136,912
$ 190,613
$ 327,525
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
$ 585,308
$ 311,^6
$ 896,751*
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE : 2/?/87
AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION Anadarko Basin FIELD:
COUNTY ป , <;tatp . Oklahoma Ptn. 16,000*
REQUESTED BY : PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE r Drill & complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' below top of
Mississippi Formation
1 7 1
1 172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, Right Of WAT, PERMIT
$ T.SOO
1 I
o
1
$ 7.500
011
CONOUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
6,.500
-0-
6.500
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
30,000
10,000
I40,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBIIIZATION, ซ>c.
50,000
-0-
50,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
1.15?.200
12.625
1.389.825
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-o-
-0-
-0-
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
51,700
51,700
003
FUEL
312,000
7,500
31ฐ ,500 '
004
WATER
2*8,000
U,500
52,500
007
DRILLING HUlDS
3^ ,000
7,500
351,500
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1401,200
2,000
1403,200
010
103
RENTALS
3*40,000
20,000
360,000
0 12
102
CEMENTING
210.000
60.000
270.000
on
107
CONTRACT LA80R
200,800
33.000
233,800
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
115,7140 '
37.900
153,6140
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHIAO
26,600
1.700
28.300
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
25,000
6,000
31,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | DST'i, tie.)
16,500
-0-
16,500
016
til
MISCELLANEOUS
350.000
32.000
382.000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
stimulation
I45.OOO
1*5 .000
<08
NON - CON 1 ROILED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$3,81*1,01*0
$ 351,1425
$14,192,1465
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSC.
i i.ono
f '3.000
SURFACE CSG.
57,190
57,100
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
109 ,iiU0
lOO.UliO
WELLHEAD
8,000
15,000
23,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
25q.lili0
250. uuo
LINER
314,383
314,383
TUBING
170,188
170,180
DOWN HOI 6 EQUIPMENT
-0-
U.500
I4,500
artificial uf?
1*72,350
-0-
1472, 350
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
" 1 "'-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 6Uq,900
$ 1483,511
$1, 133 ,14-91
TOTAL WEIL COST ESTIMATE
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE : 1-/28/37
AFE NO. i
WELL NAME & NO.i ___ PROSPECT/LEASE NO,:
LOCATION . Gulf Coast (LA - TX) FIELD :
COUNTY; , , STATE . T,A . - TVปya* PTn ,
REQUESTED BY : PREPARED BY:
ORIFTTIVF Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' below top of
jปrio Formation. ^ "
171
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$ 6,000
i
o
L
$ 6,000
Oil
CONDUCTOR PI ft SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3,500
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
10,000
5,000
15,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซtc.
15,000
-0-
15,000
001
DRILLING RIG - OAYWORK
132,000
U,000
136,000
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
19,000
19,000
003
FUE L
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
7,^00
1,500
Q,000.
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
3*5,000
3,600
38,600
009
BITS, COREHEA0. DRlG, TOOLS
31,5 W
500
32.0U0
010
103
RENTALS
<5,900
6,500
16,uoo
012
102
CEMENTING
37,560
22,610
60,170
on
107
CONTRACT LABOR
27,290
13,000
1*0,290
014
103
LOGGING & PERFORATING
5li,770 -
18,UU0
73,210
0 15
no
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,850
1,000
3,850
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,1*50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( DST'i, tie.I
11,1*00
-0-
11,1*00
016
III
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10*)
39,000
12,000
51,000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
20,000
20,000
too
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$1*26,760
$130,300
$557,060
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
o
o
o
r-4
$ 1,000
SURFACE CSG.
6,813
6,fcS13
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
1^7,000
It* 7,000
WELLHEAD
1* .500
7,000
11.500
PRODUCTION CSG.
Ill4,il80
lib ,M0
LINER
16.68T
l6.86^i
TUBING
76,38U
76,38U
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL lift
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FA C111 TIES
-0-
_0~
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$159,313
$217;727
$377,01*0
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
$S86 r>T7
t-3liW noT
&r\). 1 ao
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE , 1/28/87
AFE NO.,
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
LOCATION , San Juan Basin FIELD >
COUNTY : STATF. .Hew Mexico PTD- 9000'
REQUESTED BY: , PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE : Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well: 1000' below too of
Glorieta Formation
1 7 )
>72
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, right OF WAY, PERMIT
$ u.sno
i
o
ป
ฆV*
$ 1* .500
on
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
n/A
-0-
-0-
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & ClEAN UP
10,000
5,000
15.000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, iie.
16,000
-0-
16,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
119.000
3.500
122.500
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
-0-
-0-
-0-
10 1
COMPLETION BIG
-0-
17,000
17,000
003
*UEl
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
15,000
2,000
17,000-
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
*45,000
u.ooo
1*9,000
009
BITS, COREHEAO, DRIG. TOOLS
50,Uป0
500
50,61*0
010
103
RENTALS
12.250
6.500
l8.750
012
102
CEMENTING
1*2,873
31,532
71*,1*05
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
29,110
13,650
1*2,760
OM
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
62,510
20,886
83,396
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2.950
1.000
1.950
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,1*50
3,150
6,600
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | OST'i, !<.}
o
o
*
-0-
11 U00
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10*)
1*2,500
13,000
55,500
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
20.000
?o.nno
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 1*66,603
$ 11*1,718
$ 608,1*01
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
N/A
-0-
SURFACE C5G.
6,813
6,813
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
i6ft,ooo
168,000
WELLHEAD
U,500
7,500
12,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
128.790
128,790
Mปฃ*
16,356
16,356
TUBING
86,301*
86,301*
DOWN MOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
_0-
-o-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 179,313
$ 21*1,950
$ 1*21,263
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
A, r\ ~ f
A
.
-------
DATE : l/?8/67
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO. =
WELL NAME & NO.= , PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
i or AfinM ฆ De^er Julesburg Basin FIELD :
COUNTY : STATE s Colorado PTH. 9000'
REQUESTED BY: , PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE Drill and complete a Class I Hay.ardnn* Wast* ntcnn^i M.n mnnป
Dakota Formation
I 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES. HIGH! OF WAY, PERMIT
$ k.000
c
1
m
f h nnn
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
N/A
-0-
-0-
005
LOCATION, ROAD WOซ 4 CLEAN UP
5,000
*4,000
9,000
002
MOBILIZATION/1 DEMOBILIZATION, ซic.
10,000
-0-
10,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
101,500
3,500
105,000
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
_o-
-0-
00)
- TURNKEY
-0-
-6-
-0-
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
16,500
16,500
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
7,000
1,500
8,500
007
DftlUING FLU'DS
15,000
*4,000
19,000
009
BITS, COREHEAO, DRLG.IOOLS
Ul.590
500
*42,090
010
103
rentals
2,900 *
6,500
9, *4 00
012
102
cementing
<40,623
30,032
70.655
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
29,860
13,650
39,510
OH
105
LOGGING 4 perforamng
60,010
19,900
79,910
0 >5
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHfAO
2,500
1,000
3,500
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,000
3,000
6,000
026
>04
SPECIAL SERVICES fDSTV,tซ.|
11,1400
-0-
11,1*00
0)6
III
MISCELLANEOUS (MS)
33,500
12,000
*45,500
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
15,000
15,000
108
NON - CON 1 ROILED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 363,883
$ 131.082
$ *49*4,9^
.
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
N/A
N/A
SURFACE CSG.
$ 6,732
$ 6,732
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
166,2*40
166,2^0
WELLHEAD
14,500
7,500
12,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
128,070
12b ,070
LINER
1*4,09*4
1*4,09*4
TUBING
86,130
86,130
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
_0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
-0-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-o-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 177,*472
'$ 238,79*4
$ 1*16,266
tdt a
1 flirt 1 ซ* ป* r m
.
-------
DATE : 1/29/8?
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.,
WELL NAME & NO,: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.ป
LOCATION San Joaquin Basin F IF> D ฆ
COUNTY San Joaquin Valley STAT E : Callfornia PTD: 3500'
REOUE5TEO BY : PREPARED BY.
OBJECTIVE : Drill and complete a Class I Hazardous Waste Disposal Well; 1000' below too of
Etchegoin Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, HIGH I OF WAY, PERMIT
$ 10.000
$ -0-
$ 10.000 '
OH
CONDUCTOR PIPS SERVICES
3,500
-0-
3,500
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK A CLEAN UP
10,000
7,000
17,600
001
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซtc.
18,000
-0-
18,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DAVWORK
129,600
5 ,1400
135,000
001
- FOOTAGE
-0-
-0-
-0-
001
- TURNKEY
_o-
-0-
-0-
101
COMPLETION RIG
-0-
17,600
17,600
003
FUEL
Contractor
Contractor
-0-
004
WATER
6,500
1.500
8.000
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
140,000
1,800
141,800
009
BITS, COREHEAO, DRLG. TOOLS
U1.3U0
500
UI.8I4O
010
101
RENTALS
T ,500
5,500
13,000
011
102
CEMENTING
22,02U
16,276
39,100
011
107
CONTRACT LABOR
19,925
9,875
29,800
0M
105
LOGGING 4 PERFORATING
32,000 ฆ
10,000
142,000
0 15
no
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2,100
Too
2, 0UU
024
>14
TRANSPORTATION
3,U50
3,150
6,600
076
104
SPECIAL SERVICES |DST'ป, tic.)
11,1400
-0-
11,1400
016
III
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
36.000
10,000
U6,ooo
025
PLUG ft ABANDONMENT
N/A
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 39M39
$ 107,301
$ 501, 14Uo
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG,
$ 1.000
$ 1,000
SURFACE CSG.
7,059
7,059
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
39 >00
39,14 00
WELLHEAD
u ,500
7,000
11,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
50,995
50,995
LINER
5,3^6
5,3^6
TUBING
32,967
32,967
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
-0-
3,000
3,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
_o-
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 51,959
$ 99,308
$ 151,267
i tiir
II ,,
1
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE : 1/30/87
AFE NO.;
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.i
1 nrarion . North Slope fifi n , Prudhoe Bay
COUNTY : Statf, Alaska PTD- ^,000'
REQUESTED BY : PREPARED BY
OBJECTIVE Drill & complete a Class I: Hazardous Wastes Disposal Well; 1.000' below too of
Prince Creek/Schroder Formation
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
006
damages, right of way, permit
$ 3.000
$ -0-
0
0
0
! ^
m
on
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
19,500
-0-
19.500
003
LOCATION, ROAD WORK 4 CLEAN UP
150.000
70.000
??n,nnn
002
mobilization/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซIฃ.
1*31,000
-0-
1*31,000
001
DRILLING RIG - DATWORK
585,000
-0-
585,000
001
- fOOTAGE
-0-
_0_
-0-
001
CAMP - MJtWtWMc @U,500
135,000
36.000
171.000
101
COMPLETION RIGS $ IQ.SOn
-0-
IS6.000
1sfi nnn
003
FUEL
75,000
20,000
95,000
00 *
WATER
22.500
8.000
son.
007
DRILLING FLUIDS
80.000
7.500
87rson
009
BITS, COREHEAD, 0RLG. TOOLS
00,000
2.000
02.000
010
103
RENTALS
60,000 '
15,500
75.500
012
102
CEMENTING
86.000
SP'.OOO
i3fi,nnn
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
31,500
8,1*00
39.900
' ou
105
LOGGING h PERFORATING
100,000
1*0.000
11*0,000
01s
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
12,000
5 >00
17,1*00
02*
>14
TRANSPORTATION
70,000
20,000
90,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES {DST'i,ซle.J
U5.000
-0-
US.000
0)6
III
MISCELLANEOUS (l0*>
200.000
25.300
22S.300
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
-0-
-0-
-0-
106
STIMULATION
6s,nnn
6s nnn
toi
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
-0-
-0-
total INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$2.195.500
$ 531.100
1>p. 7?6 6nn
.
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
11.1*00
11 .1*00
SURFACE CSG.
19,281*
19.28-1*
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
129,000
129,000
wellhead
10,000
65,000
75,000
PRODUCTION CSG.
152,520
152,500
xmzK
20.165
20,165
TUBING
ol*, 165
9U.165
DOWN HOLE equipment
-0-
P
O
P
O
0.000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
-0-
-0-
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
-0-
_o~
MISCELLANEOUS
-0-
-0-
-0-
total tangible expenses
160,68U
3*40,850
510,531*
TOTAL WELL C05T ESTIMATF
A
. _ 1
-------
DATE , 1/11/fl7
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION Appa 1 anha i ri Basin FIELD :
COUNTY : , statp. Pennsylvania PTn. 7,000'
REQUESTED 8Y: PREPARED 8Y .
OBJECTIVE Convert existing 7.000' wel l to Disposal WpI 1
! 71
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT of WAV, PERMIT
$
$
Olt
CONDUCTOR PIPE 5IRVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
( 6.500
6. son
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, He.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- turnkey
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
29.250
29.250
003
FUEL
004
WATER
1 , 5nn
ljSnn
00 7
drilling fluids / chemicals
3. 200
3,200
009
BITS, COR EHEA0, DRLG. TOOLS
1,000
1,000
010
103
RENTALS
8,200
8, 200
012
102
cementing
13.000
13.000
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
9,200
9,200
0M
105
LOGGING & perforating
17.000
17 .000
015
no
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1.250
1,250
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3 .800
3 . 800
07b
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( OST'i, He. J
0!6
Ml
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
11.200
11.200
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
-
18,000
18.000
10a
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 123 ,100
$ 123,100
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3. 500
3 . 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
10.854
10.854
TUBING
66.933
66.933
OO W N NOL E EQUIPMENT
1.000
3 .000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
P ROOUC TION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ " 84,287
$ 84,287
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
S 1R7
* 907 T A 7
-------
OATE 1/31/07
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION ; Mississippi Salt. Dome FIELD :
COUNTY,- STATE . Mississippi pro. 5000
REQUESTED BY , , PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE Convert existing 5.000' well to disposal well
1 7 ป
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT Of WAY, PERMIT
$
$
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
6,500
6,500
002
MOBILIZATION/ DC MOBILIZATION, ซlc.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAVWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
10)
COMPLETION RIG
26,600
26,600
001
FUEL
001
WATER
1, 500
1,500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS /chemicals
2,500
2 , 500
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG . TOOLS
1.000
1.000
010
103
RENTALS
8,000
8.000
0 12
102
CEMENTING
13 ,200
13,200
01 3
107
CONTRACT LABOR
8,700
8,700
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
12,900
12,900
01S
110
SUPERVISION 4 OVERHEAO
1,200
1,200
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3, 150
3 , 150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES { OST'i, tie.)
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
10.500
10,500
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
18,000
18,000
100
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
? 113,750
$ 113,750
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONOUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSC.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3,500
3,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
10.293
10.293
TUBING
46,718
46,718
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
ARTIFICIAL lift
3 ,000
3 ,000
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ " 63,511
$ 63,511
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
- , .
-------
DATE : 2/2/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE APE NO.
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO.:
LOCATION: flPK -r.A RAfiTN FIELD,
COUNTY : state, N. Louisiana pTn. 4,000'
REQUESTED BY: PREPARED BY,
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 4000' well to disposa 1 well
] 7 1
17 2
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$
$
01)
CONDUCTOR PIP E SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
6. 5nn
a
c
if
KC
002
MOBIll/ATfON/ DEMOBILIZATION, tfic.
001
DRILLING RIG - OAYWORK
oor
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
24,700
24 , 700
003
FUEL
004
WATER
1.500
1. 500
007
DRILLING FLUIDS /chemicals
2,000
2 ,000
009
BUS, COREHEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1.000
1.000
010
103
RENTALS
7 , 200
7,200
012
102
CEMENTING
O
o
m
H
11,500
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
8, 000
8,000
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
11.100
11,100
01S
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1. 100
1. 100
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3 . 150
3 . 150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | DST'i, tie.)
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
9,600
9,600
025
PLUG 4 ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
18,000
lfl,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 105,350
$ 105,350
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3 , 500
3, 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
IINER
6, 549
6. 549
TUBING
36,630
36,630
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
3.000
3 , 000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACIL4 TIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ "49,679
$ 49,679
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE :
AFE NO.
WELL NAME A NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO. >
LOCATION i Michigan Basin FIELD ,
COUNTY : STATE , Michigan PTn. flnoo'
REQUESTED BY- PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE Convert existing 3,OOP' well to Disposal Well
1 7 1
172
intangible expenses
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$
$
Oil
CONDUCTOfl PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
6. 500
6. 500
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, *ie.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
! 0 1
COMPLETION RIG
33.000
33,000
003
FUEL
004
WATER ,
1,850
1,850
007
DRILLING FLUIDS JFwif , | <ฆ"
3,600
3, 600
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRlG. TOOLS
1,000
1,000
010
103
RENTALS
8, 350
8,350
012
102
CEMENTING
13,350
13,350
013
>07
CONTRACT LABOR
9, 700
9,700
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
18,440
18,440
0 IS
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1,350
1,350
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3. 800
3,800
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( DST'i, iปc.)
016
in
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
12,100
12, 100
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
20,000
20,000
ioa
NON -CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 133,040
$ 133,040
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3,500
3, 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
13,629
13,629
TU8ING
76,769
76,769
OOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
3 .000
3 ,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACIII T US
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ "96,898
$ 9 6, 8 9 o
t
TOTAL WELL COST E ST 1 MA TP
- =" ;[l 1
-------
DATE : 2/1/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.! PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
LOCATION; Illinois Basin FIELD ป ,
COUNTY i , , STATF . Indiana pto. 10, 000
REQUESTED BY; PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 10,000' well to disposal well
1 7 1 I 172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
s
$
on
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK A CLEAN UP
7 r nnn
7 nnn
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซtc.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
101
COMPLETION RIG
iqrfinn
rfinn
003
FUEL
004
007
WATER
2, 000
2,000
drilling fluids / chemicals
4,500
4.500
009
BITS. COREHEAD, DRIG. TOOLS
1.000
1.000
010
103
RENTALS
9.850
9,850
012
102
CEMENTING
15,350
15,350
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
10.650
10.650
014
105
LOGGING & perforating
22.000
22.000
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1,500
1.500
02 4
114
TRANSPORTATION
4.000
O
o
o
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( OST'i, tic.)
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10%)
14,000
14,000
025
PLUG A ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
22,000
22,000
108
NON - CON t ROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 153.450
$ 153,450
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELL HE AO
3 ,700
3 , 700
PRODUCTION CSG.
21.243
21,243
LINER
96.709
96.709
TUBING
3.000
3 ,000
OOWNHOlt EQUIPMENT
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 124,652
$ 124,652
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
-------
date : 3/7/A7
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.r
LOCATION: Hx, I Lis tan BasJ.n . FIELD, ,
COUNTY : STATF- North Dakota PTD: Q f nnn 1
REQUESTED 8Y : PREPARED 8Y : ,
OBJECTIVE: Convert existing 9,000' well to Disposal Well
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
ORY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT Of WAY, PERMIT
S
S
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
6, 500
6, 500
002
MOBILIZATION/ Of MOB 11IZ AT ION, tic.
00)
OR IKING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
31,450
31,450
003
FUEL
00 4
WATER
2 . 000
2 .-000
007
drilling fluids /chemicals
4, 000
4,000
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1. 000
1,000
010
103
RENTALS
9, 300
9,300
012
102
CEMENTING
15-350
15.350
Oil
107
CONTRACT LABOR
1D.300
10.300
Ota
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
20.400
20,400
015
HO
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1,350
1. 350
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3 . 1 50
3.150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DST'i,ซtc.)
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
15,000
15,000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
20.000
20,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 139,800
% 139,800
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3 . 500
3. 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
19.053
19,053
TUBING
R7.000
07,000
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
3 .000
3 , 000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 112,553
% 112,553
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE |
C "i r "i -ป f -ป
- - - - - -
-------
date. 1/31/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WEIL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION H11 gn r.nn R as 1 n FIELD ซ Hugo ton
COUNTY , , , STATE : Kansas PTn. 6, 500'
REQUESTED BY, , PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 6,500' well to Disposal well.
171
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, right of way, permit
$
$
OH
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK A CLEAN UP
4,500
4 . 500
00?
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOS <(. 1Z AT ION, ซc.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
00)
- TURNKEY
101
COMPLETION RIG
26.600
26.600
003
FUEL
004
WATER
i . nnn
1 .000
00 7
drilling fluids/Chemicals
3.000
3 . 000
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1,000
1,000
010
101
RENTALS
7,700
7 , 700
012
102
CEMENTING
13.000
13.000
01 3
107
CONTRACT LABOR
8,500
8, 500
014
103
LOGGING & PERFORATING
15.350
15.350
0 15
110
SUPERVISION i, OVERHEAD
'1.200
1 .200
02 4
114
TRANSPORTATION
2.500
2 . 500
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | DST'i, ซ.}
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10% )
9,950
9,950
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
15.000
15,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 109,300
$ 109,300
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WEIL HEAD
3, 500
3,500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
10,044
10,044
TUBING
61,504
61,504
OOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
3.000
3 , 000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
? "78,049
$ 7 8,048
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
. -
-------
DATE 2/1/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.ซ
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO.ซ
l nr AT ION , Permian Basin FIELD;
COUNTY : state ฆ Texas pTn, 7, 000'
REQUESTED BY , PREPARED BY ป
OBJECTIVE : r?on vp r t- existing 8, t)00' well to disposal well
171
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, right of way, permit
s
S
Oil
CONDUCTOR PIPi SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
5,000
5.000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, *tc.
001
DRILLING RIG DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- turnkey
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
29,250
29,250
003
FUEL
00 4
WATER
1, 500
1, 500
007
drilling fluids / chemicals
3,200
3 ,200
009
BITS, CORE HE AO, DRLG. TOOLS
1.000
1 .000
010
103
RENTALS
a. 200
8 . 200
012
102
CEMENTING
12 ,300
12,300
013
>07
CONTRACT LABOR
9,200
9, 200
0U
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
lb,500
16,500
0 IS
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1.250
1.250
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3,150
3, 150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES ( DJT't, ซtc.)
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
10,900
10,900
02S
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
18,000
10,000
10ft
NON - CONTROLLED ^EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 119,450
$ 119,450
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSC.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WEUHEAO
3,500
3. 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
14,673
14,67 3
TUBING
66,330
66,330
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
3,000
3 ,000
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ "87,503
$ 87,503
TOTAL WEIL COST ESTIMATE
* r> /* rป f
- - -
-------
2/2/37
DATE :
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.,
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO.:
LOCATION; ftnada.rko Basin , FIELD :
COUNTY ! state. nkiah^ma pro is. nnn
REQUESTED BY, ___ PREPARED BY :
OBJECTIVE ' Convert existing 16,000' we 11 to disposal well - Class II well
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKQVER
TOTAL
006
0AMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$
s
OH
CONDUCTOR PซPf SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
7.000
7. nnn
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, *ic.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAVWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
101
COMPLETION RIG
63 .450
63.450
003
FUEL
004
WATER
4. 500
4 ;500
00 7
drilling nuiDS/chemicals
7, 500
7,500
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1.600
1 . 600
010
103
RENTALS
14.Ann
i a . ann
0)2
101
CEMENTING
24.000
24,000
01 3
107
CONTRACT LABOR
14,400
14,400
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
36, nnn
ifi.nnn
0 IS
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
2.2 50
2 .250
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
4,000
4 , 000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES | D*Pป, tie.)
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
21.000
2 1,000
025
PLUG A ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
30,000
30,000
ioa
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENS6S
230.500
230,500
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WEIL HEAO
PRODUCTION CSG.
IINER
TUBING
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
artificial lift
PRODUCTION FACIllffHES
MISCELLANEOUS
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
7 . non
34,383
170,188
4, son
TOTAL
7 f nnn
34,383
170, 188
4 . son
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 216,071
216,07
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE = 1/3,1/37
AFE NO,:
WEIL NAME 4 NO ฆ PROS PECT / LEASE NO,:
LOCATION, Gulf Coast (LA. - TX. ) FIELD : ,
COUNTY : STATE : Louisiana-Tx . ptd: 8000 '
REQUESTED BY- PREPARED BY . ,
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 8000' well to disposal well
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAV, PERMIT
$
$
on
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
6,500
6, 500
001
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, tftc.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWOB K
001
- ROOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
101
COMPLETION RIG
31,200
31,200
003
FUEL
004
WATER
2,000
2,000
007
DRILLING KUIOS /chemicals
3 , 600
3 . 600
009
BITS, CORE HEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1,000
1,000
0)0
103
RENTALS
8.350
8.350
0 12
102
CEMENTING
13,700
13,700
on
107
CONTRACT LABOR
9,700
9,700
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
18,400
18,400
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1,350
1,350
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3.150
3 , 150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DST'i,#lc.)
016
HI
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
12,000
12 ,000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
20,000
20,000
108
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 130,950
$ 130,950
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3, 500
3, 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
16,863
16,863
TUBING
76,384
7 6,384
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
3.000
3 ป 00 0
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MlSCEllANE OUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ ' 99,747
$ 99,747
TOTAL WELL COST ESTIMATE
S 230.697
* ? i n a -
-------
DATE , 2/1 /87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WEtl NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
LOCATION , Powder River Basin FIELD:
COUNTY : STATE ป Wyoming Pin. 9,000*
REQUESTED BY t PREPARED BY
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 9,000' well to Disposal Well
171
1 172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT of WAY, permit
$
S
011
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
5,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ Df MOBIUZATtON, ซ>c.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWOR K
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
29 r7sn
, 7
003
FUEL
00 4
WATER
2 .000
2 .non
007
DRILLING nuios/chemicals
4,000
O
o
o
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRLG. TOOLS
1. 000
1.000
010
103
RENTALS
9,300
9,300
0 12
02
CEMENTING
15.350
15.150
013
107
CONTRACT LABOR
10.300
10.300
ou
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
20.400
20.400
0 15
t T 0
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1.350
1.3 50
02^
U4
TRANSPORTATION
3.150
3. 150
076
104
SPECIAL 5ERVICE5 (DST'i,ซic.)
016
III
MISCELLANEOUS ( 10%)
12.000
12 .000
02S
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
18.000
18.000
ioa
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 131,600
$ 131,600
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
3.500
1 r 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
16.356
16.356
TUBING
86.304
86.304
DOWNHOLE EQUIPMENT
o
o
o
ro
UJ
o
o
o
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
miscellaneous
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 109,160
ฆ% 109,160
TOTAI IHCM rr-m.
-------
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE
DATE: 2/1/87
AFE NO. i
WILL NAME & NO,:. PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
location : sail Juan Basin , field :
COUNTY : , STATE . New Mexico PTn, 9, 000'
REQUESTED BY- PREPARED BY,
OBJECTIVE : rnnuprf exi<;l-.ing 9 f QOQ ' well to Disposal Wp I 1
171
172
intangible expenses
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER *
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAV, PERMIT
$
$
OH
CONDUCTOR pปPฃ SERVICES
oos
LOCATION, ROAD WORK ซ CLEAN UP
5.000
5,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, #te.
001
OR 1 IIING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
101
COMPLETION RIG
28.900
28.900
003
fuel
004
WATER
2.500
2.500
00?
drilling nuios /chemicals
4.000
4 . 000
009
BITS, CORE HE AO, 0RLG, TOOLS
1,000
1,000
0)0
103
RENTALS
9,300
9, 300
012
102
CEMENTING
15.350
15.350
on
107
CONTRACT LABOR
10.300
10.300
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
20.400
20.400
0 IS
MO
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
1.350
1, 350
024
TM
TRANSPORTATION
3 . 150
3 . 150
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DST'i, >ซ.)
016
Ml
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
12.200
12,200
023
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
2 0.000
20.000
toe
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
S 131.450
S 133.450
-
tangible expenses
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONOUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG-
WELL HEAD
3. 500
3 . 500
PRODUCTION CSG.
16.356
16.356
LINER
R6.304
86.304
TUBING
3 .000
3 .000
DOWN HOI E EQUIPMENT
ARTIFICIAL LIFT
PRODUCTION FAC lit TIES
miscellaneous
total tangible expenses
$ "109,160
$ 109,160
total WELL COST EST!MATP
-------
DATE: 7/1/R7
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE APE NO..
WELL NAME & NO-: PROSPECT/LEASE NO..
I or AriDN ฆ nonwr .Tiileshnra Basin FIELD i ,
COUNTY : , statf. Colorado ptd. 9,000
REQUESTED BY . PREPARED BY
OBJECTIVE : ronvort- ovi gt- i ng Q^nnn' wp 1 I ta Di spnsa 1 We.ll
1 7 I
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
$
$
011
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
5,000
5 , 000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DIMOBIlIZATION, #>c.
001
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKfY
to 1
COMPLETION RIG
2Rtn^o
28.050
003
FUEL
004
WATER
1.800
o
o
00
007
drilling fluids / chemicals
4,000
4,000
009
BITS, COREHEAD, DRLG, TOOLS
1. 000
1,000
010
103
rentals
*
9.300
9.300
0 12
102
CEMENTING
15.350
15.350
01 3
107
CONTRACT LABOR
10-300
10,300
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
20.400
20,400
0 IS
110
SUPERVISION & OVERWKAO
1.350
1.350
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
3 . 000
3,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES t DST't, ซie.J
016
111
MISCELLANEOUS (10%)
11,500
11,500
025
PLUG 4 ABANDONM6W
106
STIMULATION
15,000
15,000
toa
NON - CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 126,050
$ 126,050
-
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
SURFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
PRODUCTION CSG.
3, 500
3,500
LINER
14.094
14 . 0 9 4
TUBING
86-130
86. 130
DQWNHOLE equipmwt
3,000
3,000
artificial lift
PRODUCTION FAC'LI RES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
' $ ~ 106,724
$ 106,724
TOTAl \AJCI 1 rr\ CT cctllK"
TOTAI wen rr\cr n e r.
-------
DATE: 2/2/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/LEASE NO.:
LOCATION; San Joaquin Rag in FIELD:
COUNTY i , , , statf . California PTn. 3,500'
REQUESTED BY, , PREPARED BY:
OBJECTIVE : Convert existing 3.500' w*>U t-o nixpn^i w^ii ,
1 7 1
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY
HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RICH! OF WAY, PERMIT
s
ฃ
011
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CIEAN UP
firnnn
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, ซic.
00 J
DRILLING RIG - DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
- TURNKEY
10 1
COMPLETION RIG
?
-------
DATE : 2/3/87
AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE AFE NO.:
WELL NAME & NO.: PROSPECT/ LEASE NO. > .
LOCATION , North SI ooe FIELD : Prudhoe Bay
COUNTY : statP ฆ Alaska ptn, 4,000'
REQUESTED BY . PREPARED BY
OBJECTIVE : rnnwpr<- pyistina 4.000' well to Disposal Well
1 7 \
172
INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
WORKOVER
TOTAL
006
DAMAGES, RIGHT OF WAY, PERMIT
S.
$
011
CONDUCTOR PIPE SERVICES
005
LOCATION, ROAD WORK & CLEAN UP
80,000
80,000
002
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION, *le.
250,000
250,000
001
DRILLING RIG DAYWORK
001
- FOOTAGE
001
Como ~ TURNKEY <3 4500
45,000
45,000
101
COMPtE TlON RIG
150,000
150,000
003
FUEL
20,000
20,000
004
WATER
15.000
15/000
007
drilling fluids /chemicals
7,500
7. 500
009
BITS, COREHCAD, DRIG. TOOLS
2.000
2,000
010
103
RENTALS
16.000
16.000
012
102
cementing
15.000
35.000
, oil
107
CONTRACT LABOR
10.500
10,500
014
105
LOGGING & PERFORATING
a?.nnn
42.000
015
110
SUPERVISION & OVERHEAD
6.700
6,700
024
114
TRANSPORTATION
30,000
30,000
026
104
SPECIAL SERVICES (DSf'i.aic.)
016
m
MISCELLANEOUS (5%)
39,000
39 , 000
025
PLUG & ABANDONMENT
106
STIMULATION
65,000
65,000
10S
NON-CONTROLLED EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INTANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 813,700
$ 813,700
TANGIBLE EXPENSES
DRY HOLE
COMPLETION
TOTAL
CONDUCTOR CSG.
5URFACE CSG.
INTERMEDIATE CSG.
WELLHEAD
.nnn
55.000
PRODUCTION CSG.
LINER
?n.l65
20.165
TUBING
94.165
94,165
DOWN HOLE EQUIPMENT
9.000
9, 000
artificial lift
PRODUCTION FACILITIES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL TANGIBLE EXPENSES
$ 17 8,330
$ 17 8,3 30
TOTA 1 V*#
CI 1 T *ป -
-------
APPENDIX C
COSTS FOR CLASS 1 AND CLASS II
INJECTION WELL SITE FACILITIES
Prepared by EPFS and Associates Consulting Engineers, inc.
0176V
-------
BASIN : APPALACHIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 300 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
LABOR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
Eft
iU (J
d.2000
60
3000
25,000
S.S. ANSI 600
B
EA
8050
6 '+400
200
1600
66ป000
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
20
16000
o
7200
23,200
S.S. SCH. 80
200
FT
150
30000
20
4000
34,000
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
-
500 BE
-------
BASIN : MISSISSIPPI SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : SCO PSI AMD ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
475.2
23760
64 .3
32h0
57.000
S.S. ANSI 600
a
EA
8694
69552
216
1723
71,230
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
21.6
17280
9.72
7776
25,056
S.S. SCH. BO
200
FT
162
3 2 <+00
21.6
4320
36.720
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
"
500 BBL
7
EA
12150
85050
2511
17577
102,627
1000 BBL
4
EA
28890
115560
7560
30240
145,800
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
ฃ
EA
7560O
151200
37SOO
75600
226 ปSOO
METERS
2
EA
4104
8208
648
1296
9,504
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1296
5184
324
1296
6 ป4'dO
PUMPS
4
EA
648
2592
108
432
3.02^
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.24
518. 4
3.24
518.4
1 ,037
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2160
12960
432
2592
< C CC ป
1 -J ซ -JwC,
POSITIVE DISPL.
a
EA
97200
194400
10G00
21600
216 - 00-J
FILTERS
4
EA
9504
38016
1296
5184
43,200
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MIS .
20 M OF
EQUIPMENT COST
186,01 ฃ
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
54000
54 ซ000
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
37.8
4536
1 . OS
129.6
4 ซ 66&
TANK
i
EA
1296
1296
324
324
1 ,620
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'A
TOTAL
175.514
-------
BASIN : ARKLA
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOW 200 PS I
CLASS I
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
LABOR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50 EA
1.2
2376U 64.0
3240
lK >( 1
S.S. ANSI 150
a
EA
1944
15552
216
1723
17,230
PIPE
PLASTIC
aoo
FT
21 .6
17230
9.72
7776
25, v5t>
S.S. SCH. 40
200
FT
51 -04
10363
16.2
3240
13,60S
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
-
500 BBL
7
EA
12150
85
-------
BASIN : MICHIGAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TO 800 PSI
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
PER
UN IT
TOTAL
PER
UNIT
TOTAL
COST
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
440
2 HO 00
60
3000
55.000
3S . ANSI 300
8
EA
3300
26400
20)0
1600
23.000
PIPE
PLASTIC
aoo
FT
20
16000
9
7200
23,200
S . S. SCH ซ 40
HOO
FT
40
9600
15
3000
12,600
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
1000 BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
7
4
2
EA
EA
EA
11250
26750
70000
78750
107000
140000
2325
7000
35000
16275
2S000
70000
95,025
135,000
210,000
METERS
a
EA
3300
7600
600
1200
3 * 800
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
L~
4
160
EA
EA
FT
1200
600
3
4900
2400
4S0
300
100
3
1200
400
480
6ป000
2,800
960
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6
2
EA
EA
aooo
64000
12000
120000
400
eooo
2400
16000
14.400
144,000
FILTERS
4
EA
aaoo
35200
1200
4300
40. OC'O
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGE!
5. MIS .
20'/, OF
EQUIPMENT COST
14?,157
SITE WORKป BUILDINGS
50000
50,000
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
120
1
BBL
EA
35
1200
*~200
1200
1
300
120
300
4 .320
1 .500
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'
'A
141,741
TOTAL
*7,092 k 503
-------
BASIN : ILLINOIS
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOW 200 PS I
CLASS 1
QUANTITY
MO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UN IT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UN IT
TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
VALUES
PLASTIC
50
EA
440
22000
60
3000
25ป*JO0
S.S. ANSI 150
a
EA
1300
14400
200
1600
16.000
PIPE
PLASTIC
000
FT
20
16000
9
7200
ฃ3,200
S.S. SCH. 40
20O
FT
4a
9600
15
3000
12,600
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
lOOO BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
7
4
2
EA
EA
EA
11250
26750
70000
73750
107000
140000
2325
7000
35000
16275
28000
70000
95,025
135,000
210,OOO
METERS
a
EA
3800
7600
600
1200
8,800
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
4
4
160
EA
EA
FT
1200
600
3
4800
2400
480
300
100
3
1200
400
480
6,000
2,800
960
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6
S
EA
EA
2000
25000
12000
50000
400
6000
2400
12000
14,400
62,OOO
FILTERS
4
EA
ssoo
35200
1200
4800
40.000
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MIS
207. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
130,357
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
50000
50,000
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
iao
1
BBL
EA
35
1200
4200
1200
1
300
120
300
4,320
i , 50O
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15!'.
124,821
TOTAL
S962,763
-------
BASIN : WILLISTON
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TQ 800 FS1
CLASS I
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
LAE'OR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
48^+
24200
66
3300
<ฃ?. 500
S.S. ANSI 300
a
EA
3630
29040
220
1760
30,800
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
22
17600
9.9
7920
25 < 520
S.S. SCH. 40
200
FT
52. a
10560
16.5
3300
13,860
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
"
500 BBL
7
EA
12375
86625
2557.
17902.5
104.528
1000 BBL
4
EA
29425
117700
7700
30800
148,500
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
77000
154000
38500
77000
231,000
METERS
2
EA
4 ISO
8360
660
1320
9,680
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1320
5230
330
1320
6. 6O0
PUMPS
4
EA
660
2640
110
440
3,080
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.3
528
3.3
523
1 ,05a
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2200
13200
4*+0
2640
15.840
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
70400
140800
8 BOO
17600
158,400
FILTERS
4
EA
96S0
38720
1320
5280
44,000
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MI
3 .
20y. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
164,073
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
55000
55,000
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
38.5
4620
1 . 1
132
4,755
TANK
1
EA
1320
1320
330
330
1 j 650
OVERHEAD & PROFIT IS'/.
TOTAL
155,915
___________
-------
BASIN :HUGQTON
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOW 200 PSI
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
COST
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
23100
63
3150
26.250
S.S. ANSI 150
G
EA
1890
15120
210
1600
16.800
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
HI
16800
9.45
7560
Sh,360
S.S. SCH. 40
200
FT
50. 4
looao
15.75
3150
13.230
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
"
500 BBL
7
EA
11812
82687.5
2441 .
17088.75
99,776
1000 BBL
4
EA
23087
112350
7350
29400
141,750
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
73500
147000
36750
73500
2^'.*, 5'JO
METERS
2
EA
3990
7980
630
1260
9 .240
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
IS 60
5040
315
1260
6 300
PUMPS
4
EA
630
2520
105
420
2 .940
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.15
504
3. 15
504
1 ,009
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2100
1 ?600
420
2520
15,120
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
56250
52500
6300
12600
65100
FILTERS
4
EA
9240
36960
1260
5040
42000
FITTINGS j PRESS.
GAGE;
3 , MIS
I
20% OF
EQUIPMENT COST
I3&iy75
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
52500
52500
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
36.75
4410
1 .05
126
4,53a
TANK
1
EA
1260
1260
315
315
1 .575
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/.
131.Oo2
TOTAL
*1,010.922
-------
BASIN ;PERMIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE ; 200 PSI TO 800 PSI
CLASS I
QUANTITY
HATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UN IT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
462
23100
63
3150
S.S. ANSI 300
a
EA
3465
27720
210
16S0
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
21
16300
9.45
7560
S.S. SCH. 40
200
FT
50.4
100S0
15.75
3150
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 B5L
7
EA
11812
82687.5
2441 .
17088.75
1000 BBL
4
EA
28087
i12350
7350
29400
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
73500
147000
36750
73500
METERS
a
EA
3990
7980
630
1260
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANK'S
4
EA
1260
5040
315
1260
PUMPS
4
EA
630
2520
105
420
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3. 15
504
3.15
504
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2100
12600
420
2520
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
67200
134400
8400
16800
FILTERS
4
EA
9240
36960
1260
5040
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MIS
20V. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
525U0
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BfcfL
36.75
4410
1 .05
126
TANK
1
EA
1260
1260
315
315
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/.
TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
26 , 250
29,^00
2*4 j 360
13,230
99,776
141 ,750
220ป500
9,240
6,300
2, 9<+0
1 .008
15)1 60
151,200
42,000
l
-------
BASIN : ANADARKO
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 RSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER-
COST
UNITS
ME AS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
462
23100
63
3150
26
. 250
S . S . ANSI 6
-------
BASIN :GULF COAST SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE ; SCO PSI TO 800 PSI
CLASS I
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
LABOR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50 EA
<~26.8
El 340
ss.2
29 1 O
2h,2!
S.S. ANSI 300
a
EA
3201
2560B
194
1552
27,160
PIPE
PLASTIC
eoo
FT
19.4
15520
B.73
6984
22,504
S.S. SCH. 40
200
FT
46.56
9312
14.55
2910
12,222
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
ป
500 BBL
7
EA
10912
76387.5
2255.
15786.75
92.174
1000 BBL
4
EA
25947
103790
6790
27160
130,950
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
67900
135800
3395U
67900
203,700
METERS
2
EA
3636
7372
582
1164
a, 536
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1164
4656
291
1164
5,820
PUMPS
4
EA
532
2328
97
388
2.716
S.S- TUBING
160
FT
2-91
465.6
2.91
465.6
931
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1940
1 1640
388
2328
13,968
POSITIVE DISPL.
S
EA
62080
124160
7760
15520
139,680
FILTERS
4
EA
8536
34144
1164
4656
33,SOO
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MIS .
20'/. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
144,632
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
48500
48,500
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
33.95
4074
0.97
116.4
4, 190
TANK
1
EA
1164
1164
291
291
1 ,455
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/.
TOTAL
137
*1,059
,4-89
7?ii
-------
BASIN : POWDER RIVER
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
VALVES
PLASTIC
3.S. ANSI 600
PIPE
PLASTIC
S.S. SCH. 80
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
50 EA
a ea
BOO FT
200 FT
418
7647.
19
142.5
20900
611 SO
15200
28500
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
57
190
B.SS
19
2350
1520
6940
3900
23 ป750
62,700
22,040
32,300
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL 7 EA
1000 BBL 4 EA
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL 2 EA
METERS 2 EA
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS 4 EA
PUMPS 4 EA
S.S- TUBING 160 FT
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 6 EA
POSITIVE DISPL. 2 EA
106B7 74812.5
25412 101650
66500 133000
3610 7220
1 140
570
2.85
1900
85500
FILTERS 4 EA S3e>0
FITTINGS, PRESS. GAGES, MIS .
SITE WORK. BUILDINGS
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
2209. 15461.25
6650 26600
120 BBL 33.25
1 EA 1140
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/.
4560
aaao
456
1 1400
171000
33440
20'/, OF
3990
1140
33250
570
29!
9!
2.8?
380
9500
66500
1140
1140
380
456
2230
19000
1140 4560
EQUIPMENT COST
47500
0.9!
28!
114
285
TOTAL
90,274
iaa,250
199,500
B, 360
5,700
2,660
912
13,630
190,000
33,000
163,625
47,500
4 , 104
1 ,425
154,383
'*171897163
-------
BASIN : SAN JUAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PS I AND ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UN I Tฃ
i MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
486. 0
21340
C,Q
2 '-y 1.
S,S. ANSI 600
8
EA
7308.
62468
194
1552
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
19.4
15520
8 .73
6984
S.S. SCH. 80
200
FT
145.5
29100
19.4
3830
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
7
EA
10912
76387.5
SS55. 1
5786.75
1000 BBL
4
EA
25947
103790
6790
27160
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
S
EA
67900
135800
33950
67900
METERS
2
EA
3686
7372
582
1164
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1164
4656
291
1164
PUMPS
4
EA
582
2328
97
388
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
2.91
465.6
ฃ.91
465 .6
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1940
11640
388
232S
POSITIVE DISPL.
8
EA
87300
174600
9700
19400
FILTERS
4
EA
8536
34144
1164
4ฉ56
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES. MIS .
20*/, OF
EQUIPMENT COST
SITE WORK', BUILDINGS
48500
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
33.95
4074
0.97
116.4
TANK
1
EA
1164
1 164
291
291
TOTAL
COST
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15H
TOTAL
64,020
22 504
3S,980
9ci j 17%
130.950
203.700
3 < jjs
5.S50
2 , 7 1 o
931
13.963
194,000
33 i BO'-.1
167.070
48.500
4, 190
1 .455
157.63S
il.214,ioj
-------
BASIN : DENVER - JULESBURG
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO F'SI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
COST
UNITS MEAS
UN IT
TOTAL
UN IT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
41S
209OO
c, -7
2350
23.75'."'
S.3. ANbI 6O0
3
EA
7647.
61 ISO
190
1520
62700
PIFE
PLASTIC
aoo
FT
19
15200
8 .55
6340
22ซO4o
S.S. SCH. SO
200
FT
142.5
28500
19
3800
32,300
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BEL
7
EA
10687
74812.5
22 OB.
15461.25
90,274
1000 BBL
4
EA
25412
101650
6650
26600
123,250
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
a
EA
66500
133000
33250
66500
199.500
METERS
s
EA
3610
7520
570
1 140
8, 360
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1140
4560
205
1140
5,700
PUMPS
4
EA
570
2230
95
330
2,660
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
2.85
456
2.85
456
912
FUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1900
11400
380
2230
13 * 63','
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
B5500
171000
9500
19000
190,000
FILTERS
4
EA
8360
33440
1140
4560
3Syou
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGE:
S, MIS
20'/. OF
EQUIPM
ENT COST
163 < sdj
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
47500
47ซ50O
ANNULAR FLUID
120
BBL
33.25
3990
0.95
114
4, 104
TANK
1
EA
1 140
1140
285
285
1 ,425
OVERHEAD L PROFIT 15'/.
154,388
TOTAL
___________
-------
BASIN ! SAM JOAQUIN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PS I TO 800 PSI
CLASS I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNITS
UNIT
: ME AS
PER
UN IT
TOTAL
PER
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
sea
26** 00
72
3600
"q . "3 . ANSI dUO
a
EA
3 "960
31680
240
1920
PIPE
PLASTIC
eoo
FT
24
19200
io. a
8640
S . S- SCH. 4y
200
FT
57.6
1 1520
10
3600
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
1000 BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
7
4
2
EA
EA
EA
13500
32100
84000
94500
128400
16S000
2790
8400
42000
19530
33600
84000
METERS
2
EA
<+560
9120
720
1440
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
4
4
160
EA
EA
FT
1 440
720
3.6
5760
2880
576
360
120
3.6
1440
480
576
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6
2
EA
EA
2400
76300
14400
153600
480
9600
2Q80
19200
FILTERS
4
EA
10560
42240
1440
5760
FITTINGS, PRESS -
GAGES * MIS .
20'/ป OF
EQUIPMENT COST
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
60000
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
120
1
BBL
EA
42
1440
5040
1440
1.2
360
144
360
TOTAL
COST
OVERHEAD L PROFIT 15%
TOTAL
j'O i Ovv
S3 ซ a00
ฃ"? > 9^+0
15,120
114.030
162,000
252, 000
10560
7.200
3.360
1.152
1 7 .280
172.300
48ป000
1 7b . Vidb
60.000
5, 134
1 .300
170.090
*1 ,311, 004
-------
BASIN :NORHT SLOPE
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PS I AND ABOVE
CLASS I
QUANTI TV
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO.
UNITS
UNIT
I ME AS
PER
UNIT
TOTAL
PER
UNIT
TOTAL
CuST
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
1 S4a
92400
252
12fc00
105,000
3 -S. ANSI 600
a
EA
33310
270480
840
6720
ฃ77,200
PIPE
PLASTIC
aoo
FT
64
67200
37.8
30240
97,440
S.S. SCH. SO
200
FT
630
126000
84
16900
142,aoo
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
1000 BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
7
4
2
EA
EA
EA
47250
112350
294000
330750
449400
53BOOO
9765
29400
147000
68355
117600
294000
399,105
567,000
832.000
METERS
2
EA
15960
31920
2520
5040
36,960
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
4
4
160
EA
EA
FT
5040
2520
12.6
20160
10080
2016
1260
420
12.6
5040
1680
2016
25.200
11,760
4 032
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6
2
EA
EA
2400
379000
50400
756000
16B0
42000
10080
84000
60.480
840,000
FILTERS
4
EA
36960
147840
5040
20160
168,000
FITTINGS. PRESS.
GAGES, MIS .
20*/. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
723 ปJ 9
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
210000
210.000
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
1H0
1
BBL
EA
147
5040
17640
5040
4.2
1260
504
1260
18,144
6 , vO
OVERHEAD L PROFIT 15%
TOTAL
682,556
~is7l57737i
-------
BASIN : APPALACHIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO PS! AND ABOVE
CLASS I I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITE
; MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
44 0
53000
6"ป!
3000
STEEL ANSI 600
a
EA
3725
29BOO
200
1600
PIPE
PLASTIC
soo
FT
20
16000
9
7200
STEEL SCH. SO
200
FT
26
5200
ia
3600
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
1 1250
33750
2325
6975
1000 BBL
2
EA
26750
53500
7000
14000
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
70000
140000
35000
70000
METERS
2
EA
3300
7600
600
1200
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1200
4800
300
1200
PUMPS
4
EA
600
2400
100
400
S-S. TUBING
160
FT
3
490
3
480
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2000
12000
400
2400
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
72000
144000
aooo
16000
FILTERS
4
EA
asoo
35200
1200
4600
FITTINGS., PRESS. GAGES, MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
20'/. OF EQUIPMENT COST
50000
TOTAL
COST
ปO'-'O
3 i. 400
23,200
aซaoo
AO,723
67.500
210,000
S , 800
6 .000
2ซ800
960
14ป400
160.000
AO.000
127,917
50ป000
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/. 122.625
TOTAL $940,12?
-------
BASIN : MISSIPPI SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AMD ABOVE
CLASS II
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER-
UNITS MEAS
UN IT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
475.2
23760
64.8
3240
STEEL ANSI 600
a
EA
4023
32104
Elty
1728
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
21 . 6
17280
9.72
7776
STEEL SCH. BO
200
FT
23.03
5616
19.44
3saa
TANKS .
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
12150
36450
2511
7533
10O0 BBL
a
EA
28390
57780
7560
15120
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
75600
151200
37800
75600
METERS
a
EA
4104
8203
648
1296
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1296
5184
324
1296
PUMPS
4
EA
648
2592
108
432
S.S. TUBINS
160
FT
3.24
518.4
3.24
518.4
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2160
12960
432
2592
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
77760
155520
8640
17280
FILTERS
4
EA
9504
3B016
1296
5184
FITTINGS, PRESS. GAGES, MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
ฃ07. OF EQUIPMENT COST
54000
TOTAL
COST
c;
33,912
25.05c
9.504
43.oas
72,900
225,300
9. 504
6 , hBO
3.024
1 .037
15.555
172.000
tt3 , 200
133,ISO
OVERHEAD ฃ= PROFIT 15*/. I32.43=i
TOTAL "$1,015,337
-------
BASIN : ARKLA
INJECTION PRESSURE ; BELOW 200
CLASS I I
PS I
QUANTITY
NQ. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT
TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
HALVES
PLASTIC
58 EA
475. c
27561.6
64 .3
3758.4
31,220
PIPE
PLASTIC
1000 FT
21 .6
21600
9.72
9720
31,320
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
1000 BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
3 EA
2 EA
2 EA
12150
28890
75600
36450
57780
151200
2511
7560
37800
7533
15120
75600
43.983
72,900
ฃ26 ซ800
METERS
2 EA
4104
8208
648
1296
9,504
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
4 EA
4 EA
160 FT
1296
648
2.24
5184
2592
518.4
324
108
3.24
1296
432
518.4
6,480
3ซ02*+
1 ,037
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6 EA
S EA
2160
18360
12960
36720
432
4320
2592
8640
15,552
45ซ360
FILTERS
4 EA
9504
38016
1296
5ie^
43 * 200
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MISC.
20'/. OF
EQUIPMENT COST
106,09a
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
54000
54 $ 000
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15%
TOTAL
103.586
"*7947162
-------
BASIN ; MICHIGAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TO SCO PSI
CLASS II
QUANT ITY
MATERIAL
LAEOF:
NU,
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
4h0
22000
oO
3000
STEEL ANSI 300
8
EA
1600
12Q0' j
200
1600
PIPE
PLASTIC
aoo
FT
SO
16000
9
7200
STEEL SCH. 40
soo
FT
24
4900
15
3000
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
11550
33750
2325
6975
1000 BBL
2
EA
26750
53500
7000
14000
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
e
EA
70000
140000
35000
70000
METERS
2
EA
3800
7600
600
ieoo
CHEMICAL. SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1200
4600
300
1200
PUMPS
4
EA
600
2400
100
400
S.S. TUBIMS
160
FT
3
480
3
400
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2000
12000
400
ฃ400
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
50000
100000
6000
12000
FILTERS
4
EA
0800
35200
1200
4300
TOTAL
COST
FITTINGS, PRESS, GAGES f MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
20'/. OF EQUIPMENT COST
50000
14 , it'K'
S3.ฃ00
7 ซ800
4 0725
67.500
210,000
8.800
6 000
2. aoo
960
14 >400
112,000
40 j 0 00
114.71"
soปooo
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/, 1I0.74S
TOTAL ~i55iซu-+7
-------
BASIN : ILLINOIS
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOU 200 PS I
CLASS II
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
58
Eh
4^0
ฃ5520
60
3480
PIPE
PLASTIC
o
c
o
FT
SO
20000
9
9000
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
11250
33750
2325
6975
1000 BBL
a
EA
26750
53500
7000
14000
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
70000
140000
35000
70000
METERS
2
EA
3800
7600
600
1200
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1200
4800
300
1200
PUMPS
4
EA
600
2400
100
400
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3
480
3
480
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2000
12000
400
2400
POSITIVE DISPL.
a
EA
17000
34000
4000
8000
FILTERS
4
EA
saoo
35200
1200
4800
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MISC.
ao54 OF
EQUIPMENT COST
TOTAL
COST
ฃ9 ปO'Xซ
29,OOO
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
50000
40,725
67iSOU
S10j000
8,000
6ป000
2 i BOO
9o0
14.400
UBซ000
40000
98.237
50ป000
OVERHEAD Sc PROFIT 15/. 95.913
TOTAL 17357335
-------
BASIN : WILLISTON
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 P5I TO 600 RSI
CLASS 11
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS
1 ME AS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
434
24200
66
3300
STEEL ANSI 300
a
EA
1760
14080
220
I7fa0
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
22
17600
9.9
7920
STEEL SCH. 40
200
FT
ฃ6.4
5280
16.5
3300
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
12375
37125
2557.
7672.5
1000 BBL
2
EA
29425
58350
7700
15400
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
77000
154000
38500
77000
METERS
a
EA
4 180
8360
660
1 320
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1320
5200
330
1320
PUMPS
4
EA
660
2640
110
440
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.3
526
3.3
528
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2200
13200
440
2640
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
55000
110000
6600
13200
FILTERS
4
EA
9 630
38720
1320
5280
FITTINGS. PRESS. GAGES. MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
SO*/. OF EQUIPMENT COST
55000
TOTAL
COST
ฃ . ~
15.6nv
25,sao
a, sao
44 ,798
74.250
23 i.000
9,680
6ซ600
3,080
1 .056
15. 84o
123.200
4^+ . 000
12b . IS'r
55*000
OVERHEAD t. PROFIT 15'/. 121,3^0
TOTAL *9337955
-------
BASIN :HUGQTON
INJECTIUN PRESSURE : BELOW 200 PSI
CLASS Ii
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UN IT TOTAL
LABOR TOTAL
PER COST
UNIT TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
53 EA
<ฆ+62
2e79o
63
PI RE
PLASTIC 1000 FT 21 21000 9.45 9450 30.^50
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
50O BBL 3 EA 11312
1000 BBL a EA 23087
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL 2 EA 73500
METERS 2 EA 3990
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
35437.5 2441. 7323.75
56175 7350 14700
147000 36750 73500
7980 630 1260
TANKS
4
EA
1260
5040
315
1260
RUMPS
4
EA
630
2520
105
420
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.15
504
3.15
504
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
6 EA
H EA
4 EA
2100
17850
FILTERS 4 EA 9240
FITTINGS, PRESS. GAGES, MIS .
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
12600 420 2520
35700 4200 8400
36960 1260 5040
20'/. OF EQUIPMENT COST
52500
42,761
70,375
220ซ500
9,240
6,300
2,940
1 .003
15.120
44,100
42,000
103.1-9
OVERHEAD & PROFIT 15'/. 100 .709
TOTAL ~ $772,1-..2
-------
BASIN : PERMIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PS I TO 800 PS I
CLASS I I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS
1 MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
462
23100
63
3150
STEEL ANSI 300
8
EA
1680
13440
210
1630
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
ฃ1
16800
9.45
7560
STEEL SCH. 40
200
FT
25. a
5040
15.75
3150
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
11312
35437.5
2441 .
7323.75
1000 BBL
2
EA
28087
56175
7350
14700
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
73500
147000
36750
73500
METERS
2
EA
3990
7980
630
1260
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1260
5040
315
1260
PUMPS
4
EA
630
2520
105
420
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.15
504
3.15
504
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2100
12600
420
2520
POSITIVE DI3PL.
e
EA
52500
105000
6300
12600
FILTERS
4
EA
9240
36960
1260
5040
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MISC.
20% OF
EQUIPMENT COST
TOTAL
COST
2& 25','
13,120
24 .360
a, i 90
<~2,761
70,975
220,500
9, 240
6 300
2,940
1 ,003
15,120
117.600
42,000
120,453
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
52500
52,
OVERHEAD L PROFIT 15'/. 116,233
TOTAL ""$391,500
-------
BASIN : AMADARKQ
INJECTION PRESSURE : 900 RSI AND ABOVE
CLASS II
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEA3
UNIT
TOTAL
UN I T
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
5o
EA
462
23100
63
3150
STEEL ANSI 600
a
EA
3911 .
31290
210
16B0
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
21
16800
9.45
7560
STEEL SCH. SO
200
FT
27.3
5460
18.9
37 a 0
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
11312
35437.5
24m .
7323.75
1000 BBL
2
EA
23037
56175
7350
14700
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
73500
147000
36750
73500
METERS
2
EA
3990
79 SO
630
1260
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1260
5040
315
1260
PUMPS
4
EA
630
2550
105
420
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.15
504
3.15
504
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2100
12600
420
2520
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
75600
151200
S400
16800
FILTERS
4
EA
9240
36960
1260
5040
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAliES ซ Mlb'L.
20% OF
EQUIPMENT COST
TOTAL
COST
SITE WORK. BUILDINGS
52500
35 * 97o
24. 360
9, 240
hS,761
70,Q75
aao,soo
9,240
6 j 30o
a, 9^0
1 j 00 s
15,120
163i000
42.00'.*'
134.313
52.500
OVERHEAD b PROFIT 15'/. 128,757
TOTAL "$9377134
-------
BASIN j GULF COAST SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : ฃ00 PSI TO 800 PSI
C L A b S II
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
COST
UNITS
MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
SO
Eh
4ti6. S
21340
53 2
2910
24.250
STEEL ANSI 300
a
EA
155a
12416
194
1552
13.9cS
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
19.4
15520
8.73
6984
22.504
STEEL SCH. 40
SOO
FT
23.28
4656
14.55
2910
7,566
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
-
500 BBL
3
EA
10912
32737.5
2255.
6765.75
39ซ503
1000 BBL
a
EA
25947
51895
6790
13530
65.475
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
67900
135800
33950
67900
SO3.700
METERS
ฃ
EA
3686
7372
LI
CD
ru
1164
8,536
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1164
4656
291
1164
5,820
PUMPS
4
EA
532
2328
97
388
2,716
S.3. TUBING
160
FT
2.91
465.6
2.91
465.6
931
FUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1940
11640
388
2328
13,963
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
43500
97000
5820
11640
103*640
FILTERS
4
EA
8536
34144
1164
4656
38,SOO
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MISC.
20% OF
EQUIPMENT COST
111 ,575
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
48500
hB,500
OVERHEAD &= PROFIT 15'/.
TOTAL
107,423
*iiai7s76
-------
BASIN : POWDER RIVER
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LfiBOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UN I T
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
SO
EA
418
20900
57
2850
STEEL ANSI 600
8
EA
3538.
23310
190
1520
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
19
15200
8-55
6840
STEEL SCH. 80
SOO
FT
24.7
4940
17.1
3420
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BEL
3
EA
10607
32062.5
2208.
6626.25
1000 BBL
2
EA
25412
50825
6650
13300
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
a
EA
6 6 SOO
133000
33250
66500
METERS
2
EA
3610
7220
570
1140
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1 140
4560
285
1140
PUMPS
4
EA
570
2280
95
380
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
2.B5
456
2.05
456
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1900
11400
330
2280
POSITIVE DISPL.
a
EA
68400
136800
7600
15200
FILTERS
4
EA
6360
33440
1140
4560
FITTINGS, PRESS.
GAGES, MISC.
ฃ0!<; OF
EQUIPMENT COST
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
47500
TOTAL
COST
23.750
59320
ฃ2040
8. 360
38.689
64ซ 1
199,500
8.360
5.7 00
S 660
912
13,630
152 ? 000
33 <% 000
121,521
47.500
OVERHEAD &= PROFIT 15'/. 116,494
total ~ iaiaTIii
-------
BASIN : SAM JUAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS 11
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABs
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS
! MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNI'
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
426. S
21 340
53.2
STEEL ANSI 600
8
EA
3613.
28906
194
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
19.4
15520
8.73
STEEL SCH. 60
200
FT
25.22
5044
17.46
TANKS .
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
10912
32737.5
2255.
1000 BBL
a
EA
25947
51895
6790
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
67900
135800
33950
METERS
a
EA
3686
7372
582
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1164
4656
291
PUMPS
4
EA
582
2328
97
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
2.91
465.6
2.91
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1940
1 1640
308
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
69840
139680
7760
FILTERS
4
EA
S536
34144
1 lot
FITTINGS, PRESS. GAGES, MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
cv i y
1552
6984
3492
6765.75
13530
67900
1164
1 164
388
465.6
2329
15520
4656
20X OF EQUIPMENT COST
48500
OVERHEAD L PROFIT 15'/.
TOTAL
TOTAL
CGbT
2-+ . 250
20,-ปf 3
* S'.'^
Q 53ฑj
39.503
65it75
203, ?oo
S * 53o
5,320
2,71c;
95 I
13.9=S
155,200
3y 3
1 2"t , 0
4S.500
1 18,947
*491 i75=i
-------
BASIN : DENVER - JULESBURG
INJECTION PRESSURE : 600 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS II
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO .
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS
; MEAS
UN IT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
413
20900
57
2350
STEEL ANSI 600
a
EA
3533.
23310
190
1520
PIPE
PLASTIC
BOO
FT
19
15200
3 - 55
6840
STEEL SCH. 80
200
FT
24.7
4940
17. 1
3420
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
10637
32062.5
220B.
6626.25
1000 BBL
2
EA
25412
50825
6650
13300
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
66500
133000
33250
66500
METERS
2
EA
3610
7220
570
1140
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1140
4560
205
1 140
PUMPS
4
EA
570
2280
95
3S0
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
2.85
456
a. ss
456
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
1900
11400
380
2280
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
63400
136800
7600
15200
FILTERS
4
EA
S3 60
33440
1140
4560
FITTINGS, PRESS. GAGES, MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
HO54 OF EQUIPMENT COST
47500
TOTAL
COST
ฃ3,750
29.830
22,040
a, 3 60
38,689
64,125
199,500
9, 360
5,700
2 , 66U
912
13,630
152,000
36,000
121, 5E1
47,500
OVERHEAD 8* PROFIT 15*/. 116,49'+
total ieisTTil
-------
BASIN : SAN JOAQUIN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PS I TO 800 PSI
CLASS I I
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO.
UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
VALVES
PLASTIC
50
EA
523
26400
72
3600
STEEL ANSI 300
8
EA
1920
15360
240
1920
PIPE
PLASTIC
800
FT
24
19200
10.8
8640
STEEL SCH. 40
200
FT
CD
CD
OJ
5760
18
3600
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
3
EA
13500
40300
2790
8370
1000 BBL
2
EA
32100
64200
8400
16800
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
2
EA
84000
168000
42000
84000
METERS
2
EA
4560
9120
720
1440
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
4
EA
1440
5760
360
1440
PUMPS
4
EA
720
2880
120
400
S.S. TUBING
160
FT
3.6
576
3.6
576
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
6
EA
2400
14400
480
eaeo
POSITIVE DISPL.
2
EA
60000
120000
7200
14400
FILTERS
4
EA
10560
42240
1440
5760
FITTINGS,. PRESS. GAGES, MISC.
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
HOX OF EQUIPMENT COST
60000
TOTAL
COST
so,
i7,aao
27,340
9.3 60
*~8.370
B1,000
252,000
10,560
7,Sou
3 , 360
1 152
17,280
134,400
48 ,000
137,asO
60 <000
OVERHEAD & PROFIT IS'/.
TOTAL
132,894
%l ,010,857
-------
BASIN :NOftHT SLOPE
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PS I AND ABOVE
CLASS I I
QUANTITY MATERIAL
NO. UNIT PER
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TuTAL
COST
VALVES
PLASTIC
S.S. ANSI 600
50 EA
a ea
1949
33310
92400
270ASO
252
940
12600
6720
105,000
277 i
PIPE
PLASTIC
S.S. SCH. 80
TANKS
FIBERGLASS
500 BBL
1000 BBL
COATED STEEL
5000 BBL
METERS
CHEMICAL SYSTEM
TANKS
PUMPS
S.S. TUBING
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
000 FT
200 FT
h EA
2 EA
4 EA
84
630
67200
126000
37. S
84
8400
378000
FILTERS 4 EA 36960
FITTINGS. PRESS. GAGES, MIS .
SITE WORK, BUILDINGS
ANNULAR FLUID
TANK
120 BBL
1 EA
147
S040
50400
756000
147840
20'/. OF
17640
5040
1690
42000
30240
16900
7
EA
47250
330750
9765
6B355
4
EA
112350
449400
29400
117600
2
EA
294000
589000
147000
294000
2
EA
15960
31920
2520
5040
4
EA
5040
20160
1260
5040
4
EA
2520
10080
420
1600
160
FT
12.6
2016
12.6
2016
10080
84000
5040 20160
EQUIPMENT COST
210000
4.2
1260
504
1260
OVERHEAD ฃ. PROFIT 15*/.
TOTAL
97,440
142,800
399,105
567,000
862,000
36,960
25,200
11.760
4,032
60,490
940 <000
169,000
723,395
210,000
13,144
6,300
692,556
"$572577372
-------
APPENDIX D
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR CLASS I AND CLASS II
INJECTION WELLS
Prepared by Epps and Associates consulting Engineers, Inc.
0176V
-------
BASIN : APPALACHIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 300 PS I AND ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
UPERAT uPS
5
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
29400
~2 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
HO
BBL
294
5680
EMULSION BREAKER
ao
BBL
ฃ94
23520
40000
00000
29 *400
33.600
5ซS3'-*
S3.520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
t/'KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KUI
0.11
47300
POSITIVE DISPL.
2O0
KW
0.11
189200
MISC.
10
KW
0.11
9460
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES
8600
HRS/YR)
FILTERS
5324
EA
9.S
50579
SOLIDS TRUCKING
2
LOADS
3500
7000
MAINTENANCE
1
MISC.
200
200
800
800
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
HP
10
500
20
1000
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
HP
10
2000
20
4000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
1
EA
10000
10000
0
TRACER SURVEY
1
EA
10000
10000
0
CEMENT BOND LOG
0.2
/YR
10000
2000
PIPE EVALUATION 0.3 /YR 10000 2000
{THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
47,300
159.ฃ00
O - L4 i *
S*J. 579
7ซ000
I, <ป:
I , 50*0
6 %'JO'J
10ซ00'
10.00'
2 . 00'.
2 : 00*
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : MISSISSIPPI SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AMD ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UN I T
TOTAL
UN IT
TOTAL.
MANFL'-JER
OPERATORS
5 EA
4 0000
200000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
CuET
ANNUAL
20 0.0
2v 400
3'J, 600
5 * SSO
23,520
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 KW 0.036
POSITIVE DI3PL. 200 KW 0.086
MISC. 10 KW 0.086
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 9600 HRS/YR)
369B0
147920
7396
36ป 't'SO
147,920
7,396
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA
2 LOADS
9.!
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
200 HP
10
10
50578
ฃ00
500
2000
3500
300
20
20
7000
aoo
1 ooo
4000
501578
7 i 000
1 . 000
1 ป500
6.000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
1 EA
1 EA
10000
10000
10000
10000
0
0
10ปOC'O
10.000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
2.000
2.000
TOTAL *374.77*
-------
BASIN : ARKLA
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOW 200 RSI
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERI
AL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
40000
200000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
200ป000
ฃ9. 400
33.600
5. aso
23.520
ELECTRICY 4/KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 KW 0.086 3o990 36.960
POSITIVE DISPL. 20 KW 0.086 14792 14,792
MISC. 10 KW 0.086 7396 7,396
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 3600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS
TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
20 HP
10
10
5057B
3500
200 800
500
200
20
20
7000
800
1000
400
50 ซ5 . S
7,000
1 , 000
1 ,500
600
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
1 EA 10000 10000
1 EA 10000 10000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
o
0
10ป000
10.000
2 . OOO
2.000
TOTAL $^+36,246
-------
BASIN ; MICHIGAN
INJECTION PRESSURE t 200 PS! TO 800 PS I
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UMIT
UNITS MEA3
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
XOST
ANNUAL.
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
6T
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BEL
29<+
OS SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
COAGULENT
ao
BBL
294
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
29*
UUO
200000
29 <+00
33600
5000
23520
200 <000
29, 400
33,600
5, aao
23,520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
4/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0. 1
43000
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.1
06000
MISC.
10
KW
O. 1
S600
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
43,000
86.000
a. 600
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
532* EA
2 LOADS
9.5
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
100 HP
10
10
1 EA IOOOO
1 EA 10000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
50578
200
500
1000
10000
10000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0-2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
3500
BOO
20
20
7000
aoo
1000
2000
o
0
30,573
7,000
1 .000
1 ,500
3.ซ000
1Oiooo
10,000
2,000
E. 000
TOTAL *517.073
-------
BASIN : ILLINOIS
INJECTION PRESSURE : BELOW 200 PSI
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UN ITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
C
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
29*
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
COAGULENT
20
BBL
29*
EMULSION BREAKER
BO
BBL
29*
HO 000
200000
29400
33600
5380
23520
200i000
29ป *00
33 > 600
5 * 030
231
ELECTRICY $/KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.095
*0850
POSITIVE DISPL.
20
KU
0.095
163*0
MISC.
10
KW
0 .095
8170
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 9600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
332* EA
2 LOADS
9.:
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
ao hp
10
10
50S78
200
500
200
3500
800
20
20
7000
900
1000
400
>0.573
7,000
1 ,000
1 .500
600
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
EA
EA
10000
10000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
10000
10000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
u
0
10> 000
10ป000
2ซ000
2.00'.'
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : UILLISTQM
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TO 800 PS I
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER-
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
<40000 200000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
rf'l
V."
29, <*00
33600
5ซ8So
23,550
ELECTRICY ซ/kwh
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.06
25300
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.06
51600
MISC.
10
KW
0.06
5160
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 0600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 9.5
S LOADS
1 MISC. 200
30 HP
100 HP
10
10
50578
200
500
1000
3S00
BOO
20
20
7000
800
1000
2000
SO ซ573
7.000
1 .000
1 .500
3', 000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
EA
EA
10000
10000
10000
1 oooo
o
0
io.
t o.
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
TOTAL *-*62.02 3
-------
BASIN ; HUGOTON
INJECTION PRESSURE
CLASS I
BELOW 200 RSI
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY MATERIAL LABOR
TOTAL
MO. UNIT
PER
PER-
COST
UNITS MEA3
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
2'JUu'JU
200000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
29,400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
33 * 600
COAGIJLENT
20 BBL
294
5380
5.830
EMULSION BREAKER
90 BBL
294
23520
23,520
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.07
30100
30.100
POSITIVE DISPL.
20
KW
0.07
12040
12,040
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
6,020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS
TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS- TEST
TRACER SURVEY
5324
a
EA
LOADS
9.5
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
20 HP
10
10
1 EA 10000
1 EA 10000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
50578
200
500
200
10000
10000
0.2 /YF: 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
3500
000
20
20
7000
300
1000
400
0
0
50i578
7.000
1 , ooo
1 .500
600
10 < O'.'O
10ป000
2.000
2 t 'If00
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : PERMIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 RSI TO SCO PSI
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
eo
BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
294
23520
hOOOO ฃ00000
d'.!'
29ซ<+00
33ป600
s.a-ao
23.520
ELECTRICY */KUH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KM
0.07
30100
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.07
60200
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. SOO
SO HP
100 HP
lO
10
50578
200
500
1000
3S00
800
HO
20
7000
800
1000
2000
50 ป5 / Q
7ซ000
1 .000
1 i 500
3ซ000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
1 EA 10000 10000
1 EA 10000 10000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
u
0
10i000
10 * 000
2.000
2ซ000
TOTAL *475,7-3
-------
9A3IN : ANADARKO
INJECTION PRESSURE
CLA35 I
800 PS I AND ABOVE
QUANTITY
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
MATERIAL
NO.
UNIT
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS 5
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION 100
BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER 100
BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT 20
BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER 80
BBL
294
23520
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
40000
200000
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
29>400
33i600
5.330
23,sao
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
*/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KM
0 .06
25800
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.06
103200
MISC.
10
KW
0.06
5160
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
5324
EA
9.5
50579
SOLIDS TRUCKING
2
LOADS
3500
7000
MAINTENANCE
1
MISC.
200
ฃ00
800
800
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
HP
10
500
20
1000
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
HP
10
2000
20
4000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
1
EA
10000
10000
0
TRACER SURVEY
1
EA
10000
10000
0
CEMENT BOND LOG
0.2
/YR
10000
2000
PIPE EVALUATION
0.2
/YR
10000
2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5
YEARS)
25, 300
103.200
5 1 o1.'
50,578
7,000
1 ,000
1 .500
6 * 000
10 * 000
10000
2 ,000
a. ooo
(A3 REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : GULF COAST SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI
CLASS I
TO SOO PSI
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UN IT
PER-
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
40000
ฃ00000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5830
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
aoc
29,400
33 j feoO
5, S30
23,520
ELECTRICY ซ/KUH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.07
30100
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.07
60200
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 3600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DI3PL.
5324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. 200
SO HP
100 HP
10
10
5057B
200
500
1000
3500
BOO
20
20
7000
800
1000
2000
>u , 5 / U
7. OOO
1 ป
-------
BASIN : POWDER RIVER
INJECTION PRESSURE : 900 PS I AMD ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5
EA
40000
200000
E0'.1 000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
29400
29.400
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
33600
33 * 600
COAGULENT
20
BBL
294
5880
5. sao
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
294
23520
23,520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
% / KUH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0 .05
21500
21,500
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.05
86000
So.000
MISC.
10
KW
0.05
4300
4 .300
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
5324
EA
9.5
5057Q
50.5~S
SOLIDS TRUCKING
2
LOADS
3500
7000
7,000
MAINTENANCE
1
MISC.
200
200
800
000
1 ,000
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
HP
10
500
20
1000
1 .500
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
HP
10
2000
20
4000
6. <000
WELL COST
PRESS- TEST
1
EA
10000
10000
0
10ป000
TRACER SURVEY
1
EA
10000
10000
0
10 - 000
CEMENT BOND LOG
0.2
/YR
100 oo
2000
ฃ . 000
PIPE EVALUATION 0.2 /YR 10000 2000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
2, oo>
TOTAL ^9h,3:'c
-------
BASIN : SAN JUAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COST:
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
S
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
ฃ94
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
COAGULENT
20
BBL
294
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
ฃ94
40000
ฃ9400
33600
5030
23320
200000
200.000
59,400
33ซ600
5ซB6o
S3,sao
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 KW 0.06
POSITIVE DISPL. 200 KW 0.06
MISC. 10 KW 0.06
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
25800
103200
5160
25ซ800
103,200
5 ซ 1 6
-------
BAS IN : DENVER - JULESBURG
INJECTION PRESSURE : 600 PSI AMD ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COST?
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
C
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
Qฃ SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
COAGULENT
20
BBL
ฃ94
EMULSION BREAKER
SO
BBL
ฃ94
40000
ฃ9400
33600
5080
ฃ3520
2.00000
200ซOv!
29,400
33,600
5,830
ฃ3,5ฃ0
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
*/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.
.07
POSITIVE DISPL.
ฃ00
KW
0,
.07
MISC.
10
KW
0.
.07
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 0600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS
TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. ฃ00
50 HP
ฃ00 HP
10
10
30100
120400
6020
50578
200
500
ฃ000
3500
BOO
ฃ0
ฃ0
7000
800
1000
4000
30,100
120,400
6 ,050
50.576
7,000
1 ,000
1 ,500
6,000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
1 EA 10000 10000
1 EA 10000 10000
0
0
10,000
i o.ooo
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
0. ฃ /YR 10000 ฃ000
0.ฃ /YR 10000 ฃ000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
2.. 000
2 .000
TOTAL
*53S,?v3
-------
BASIN ; SAN JOAQUIN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TO 800 PS I
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
40000
20000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
200i000
29,400
33,600
5,aao
23,520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
*/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0 .09
38700
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.09
77400
MISC.
10
KW
0.09
7740
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
33.700
77.400
7. 740
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
5324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. 200
SO HP
100 HP
EA
EA
10
10
10000
i 0000
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
50578
200
500
1000
10000
10000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
0.2 /YR 10000 2000
-------
BASIN : NORTH SLOPE
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COST:
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UN IT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
5 EA
140000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
940
94000
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
982
98200
CGAGULENT
20 BBL
940
18800
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
940
75200
TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
-oo.OOO
94000
98*200
18800
75,aoo
FUEL S/MCF
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 HP 6 20640
POSITIVE DISPL. 200 HP 6 82560
MISC. 10 HP 6 4128
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
20ป6-ป0
82i56u
4 , 123
FILTERS
SOLIDS SHIPPING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 29.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. 600
50 HP
200 HP
30
30
157058
600
1500
6000
35000
3200
80
80
70000
3200
4000
16000
157.053
70,000
3ป800
5 * 5'JO
22.000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
TRACER SURVEY
EA
EA
40000
40000
40000
40000
0
0
40 ป000
<+0.00'.'
0.2 /YR 40000 8000
0.2 /YR 40000 8000
(THESE COSTS OCCUR ONCE EVERY 5 YEARS)
(AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS)
CEMENT BOND LOG
PIPE EVALUATION
8 ซ000
a, ooo
TOTAL SI,447,a8o
-------
BASIN : APPALACHIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS 11
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEA3
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
2 EA
40000 soooo
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
29^
29*00
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
29^
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
29^
23520
TO T A'_
COST
ANNUAL
S'.' ป '.<00
29, MX'
33 j 600
s, aeo
23,550
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
% / KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.11
*~7300
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.11
189200
MISC.
10
KW
0.11
9460
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
<+7.300
i a?, soo
9 i ^c1)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISFL.
532^ EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. SOO
50 HP
aoo hp
10
10
50578
200
500
sooo
700
800
20
SO
l
-------
BASIN : MISSISSIPPI SALT DOME
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS 11
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MO. UNIT
UNIfS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
2
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20
BBL
294
5880
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
294
23520
**0000
aOOoo
auซฆ
29.400
33 % 600
5189'.>
23,520
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 KW 0.036 36930
POSITIVE DI5PL. 200 KW 0.086 147920
MISC. 10 KW 0.036 7396
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 0600 HRS/YR)
36.930
147,920
7,391>
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
>324 EA
2 LOADS
9 .!
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
200 HP
10
10
50578
200
500
8000
700
800
20
20
1400
800
1000
4000
SO, 57a
1 ,400
1 .000
1 .500
6 < 000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA 10000
2000
0
2 ซ000
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : ARkLA
INJECTION PRESSURE ; BELOW 200 RSI
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
02 SCAVENGER
CQAGULENT
EMULSION BREAKER
E
EA
100
8BL
29^
100
BBL
336
SO
BBL
29h
80
BBL
ฃ9
-------
BASIN : MICHIGAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 RSI TO 800 PSI
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
MO. UNIT
PER
PER
COST
UNITS MEAS
UN IT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
annual
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
a ea
VX>00
soooo
SO.000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
29^00
29.*00
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
33 ? 600
COAGULENT
SO BBL
58ao
5,880
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
29<*
23520
23,520
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.1
<~3000
^3.000
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.1
86000
86.OOO
MISC.
10
KW
0.1
8600
8 .600
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
532<* EA
a LOADS
9.5
1 MISC. 200
SO HP
100 HP
0.2 EA
10
10
10000
50573
200
500
1000
2000
700
a oo
so
20
1H00
BOO
1000
ฃ000
SO. 573
1 . ^ 00
i % 000
1 . 500
3 .000
2 . 000
TOTAL $369,*73
-------
BASIN s ILLINOIS
INJECTION PRESSURE s BELQl-J
CLASS II
:00 PS I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANT ITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
Nu. UNIT
PER
PER
UN [ TS MEAia
UNIT
TOTAL
UN I T
TOTAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
2 EA
<~0000
S000<
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
C0A6ULENT
20 BBL
294
5380
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
COST
AMNUhL.
SO, 00'
2vซ400
33~600
5 * 890
23.520
ELECTRICY S/KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL 50 KW 0.095 40850
POSITIVE DISPL. 20 KW 0.095 16340
MISC. 10 KW 0.095 a170
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES B600 HRS/VR)
40.350
16i3hO
a, i
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA
2 LOADS
9.1
1 MISC. 200
SO HP
20 HP
10
10
50573
200
500
200
700
900
20
20
1400
800
1000
400
50ป573
1 i *+00
1 ซ000
1 ,500
600
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
looo*:
2000
0
2.000
TOTAL
-------
BASIN ; WILLISTON
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PS I TQ 800 PS I
CLASS 11
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTI TV
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
Tu i AL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
ฃ
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20
BBL
294
5080
EMULSION BREAKER
30
BBL
294
23520
*~0000
90000
ao.ov
29ซtO1
33 5 60'
5 39ป
23,52'
ELECTRICY 4/KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.06
25800
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.06
51600
MISC.
10
KW
0.06
5160
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES B600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
i324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. 200
30 HP
100 HP
10
10
50578
200
500
1000
700
BOO
HO
20
1400
BOO
1000
2000
1 .40'
1 .0'*."
1 ,50
3,00
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
i oooo
2000
0
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : HUGOTQN
INJECTION PRESSURE
CLASS II
BELOW ฃ00 PSI
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UMIT
UNITS HEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MAMPCHER
OPERATORS
2
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
CQAGULENT
20
BBL
294
EMULSION BREAKER
ao
BBL
294
40000
29400
33600
5880
23520
3 (JO 00
29.400
33ซ600
5 ซ SSo
S3,520
ELECTRICY S/KWH
RUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0,
.07
30100
POSITIVE DISPL.
20
KW
0,
.07
12040
MISC.
10
KW
0.
. 07
6020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
30 <100
IS , 040
6ป02,0
FILTERS 5324 EA 9.5 50578 50,573
SOLIDS TRUCKING 2 LOADS 700 1400 1,400
MAINTENANCE 1 MISC. 200 200 BOO 900 1.000
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL SO HP 10 500 20 1000 1,500
POSITIVE DISPL. ฃ0 HP 10 300 20 400 600
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST 0.2 EA 10000 2000 0 5,000
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : PERMIAN
INJECTION PRESSURE : 200 PSI TO 300 PS I
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COST'-
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEAS
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER-
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
GFERATORS
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
02 SCAVENGER
CGAGULENT
EMULSION BREAKER
2
EA
100
BBL
294
100
BBL
336
20
BBL
294
00
BBL
294
40000
80000
29400
3360O
5880
23520
c;l,l ,
59 ,400
33,600
5.330
23.520
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.07
30100
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0.07
60200
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 0600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA
2 LOADS
9.5
1 MISC. 200
50 HP
100 HP
10
10
30570
200
500
1000
700
000
20
20
1400
800
1000
HO 00
i'J *5/3
1 ป hOO
1 ,000
1 500
3.000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
10000
2000
u
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : ANADARKO
INJECTION PRESSURE : BOO PSI AMD ABOVE
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
. LU'jT
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
TOTAL
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
ฃ EA
40000
80000
SoปO'j'."
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
29,400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
33ซ600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5880
5 103o
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
23.520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
$/k!WH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.06
25800
25,BOO
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.06
103200
103,200
MISC.
10
KW
0.06
5160
5, IcO
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
5324 EA
2 LOADS
9.:
1 MISC. 200
30 HP
a oo hp
0.2 EA
10
10
10000
50578
200
500
2000
sooo
700
800
20
20
1400
BOO
1000
4000
;0 .573
1 , 400
1 .000
1 .500
6ป000
3.. 000
TOTAL *369,038
-------
BASIN : GULF COAST SALT DOME
INJECTIGM PRESSURE : 200 PS I TO BOO PS I
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TGThL
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
COST
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UN IT TOTAL
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
2 EA
L
~0000 soooo
80*000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
E94
29400
29,400
02 SCAVENGER
iOO BBL
336
33600
33 > 600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5330
5 % SQO
EMULSION BREAKER
00 BBL
294
33520
23,520
ELECTS ICY
PUMPS
S/KUH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.07
30100
30.100
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KM
0.07
60200
60.300
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
6,02 v
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
5324
EA
9.5
5057a
5vซ570
SOLIDS TRUCKING
2
LOADS
700
1400
1 . 400
MAINTENANCE
1
MISC.
200
200
800
BOO
1 ,000
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
SO
HP
10
500
20
1000
1 J 500
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
HP
10
1000
30
2000
3 < OOG
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2
EA
\ oooo
ฃ000
ปJ
a. goo
TOTAL S3c3.193
-------
BASIN s POWDER RIVER-
INJECT I ON PRESSURE : 300 PSI AND ABOVE
CLASS I I
ANNUAL OPERATING COST;
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
2 EA
40000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
02 SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
5380
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
294
23520
TOTAL
80000
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
> UvO
29 % 400
33ซ600
s, a ao
23.sao
ELECTRICY */KWH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KM
0. OS
21500
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0 .05
86000
MISC.
10
KW
0.05
4300
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 9600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
WELL COST
PRESS- TEST
3324 EA 9.5
2 LOADS
1 MISC. BOO
50 HP
200 HP
0.2 EA
10
10
10000
50578
200
300
2000
2000
700
800
20
20
1400
800
1000
4000
o
iO .573
1 , 400
1 1000
1 .,500
6 ซ000
c.
TOTAL
-------
BASIN s SAN JUAN
INJECTION PRESSURE
CLASS 11
600 PSI AND ABOVE
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
TOTAL
MO. UNIT
PER
PEP:
COST
UNITS MEAS
UN IT
TOTAL
UNIT TOTAL
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
a ea
hOOOO soooo
80ป000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
294
29400
29.400
OS SCAVENGER
100 BBL
336
33600
33,600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
294
saso
5 * 380
EMULSION BREAKER
BO BBL
294
23520
23.520
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
S/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
SO
KW
0.06
25300
25 t 300
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.06
103200
103 % 200
MISC.
10
KW
0.06
5160
5. 160
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
3324
EA
9.5
50573
50 *573
SOLIDS TRUCKING
2
LOADS
700
1400
1 ซ400
MAINTENANCE
1
MISC.
200
200
800
aoo
1 ป000
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
HP
10
500
20
1000
1 ,500
POSITIVE DISFL.
200
HP
10
2000
20
4000
6,000
WELL COST
PRESS- TEST
0.2
EA
10000
2000
(!)
2.000
TOTAL
$3oV* 038
-------
BASIN ~ DENVER - JULESBURG
INJECTION PRESSURE : 800 PS I AMD ABOVE
CLASS II
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
LABOR
NO. UNIT
PER
PER
UNITS MEAS
UNIT
TOTAL
UNIT
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
S EA
40000
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100 BBL
29A
29^00
02 SCAVENGER
lOO BBL
336
33600
COAGULENT
20 BBL
29<+
saso
EMULSION BREAKER
80 BBL
29<+
23520
TOTAL
SOOOO
ELECTRICY
PUMPS
*/KWH
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0.07
30100
POSITIVE DISPL.
200
KW
0.07
120^00
MISC.
10
KW
0.07
6020
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
i32<* EA
2 LOADS
9.!
1 MISC. 200
SO HP
200 HP
10
10
50578
200
500
2000
700
800
20
20
l<+00
800
1000
<~000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
10000
2000
u
TOTAL
-------
BASIN : SAN JOAQUIN
INJECTION PRESSURE : ฃ00
CLASS II
fsi to aoo psi
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
QUANTITY
NO. UNIT
UNITS MEA3
MATERIAL
PER
UNIT TOTAL
LABOR
PER
UNIT TOTAL
TOTAL
COST
ANNUAL
MANPOWER
OPERATORS
E
EA
CHEMICALS
CORROSION
100
BBL
294
02 SCAVENGER
100
BBL
336
COAGULEMT
20
BBL
294
EMULSION BREAKER
80
BBL
294
*~0000
SO 000
29400
33600
5090
23520
29,400
33,600
s.eao
23,5HO
ELECTRICY S/KUH
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
50
KW
0,
.09
39700
POSITIVE DISPL.
100
KW
0,
.09
77400
MISC.
10
KW
0.
.09
7740
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
FILTERS
SOLIDS TRUCKING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA
2 LOADS
9.!
1 MISC. SOO
50 HP
100 HP
10
10
50578
200
500
1000
700
BOO
20
20
1400
800
1000
2000
50.57S
1 ซ400
1 ,000
1 .500
3,000
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
10000
2000
0
2.000
TOTAL
-------
APPENDIX E
LANDFARMING MODEL RUNS FROM THE POPE-REID
LAND TREATMENT COMPUTER COST MODEL
The costs for the first eight facilities (1-8) are for the
pre-lSS scenario, with one facility for each region. The costs
for the second eight facilities (1-8) are for the RCRA
scenario. Each facility is labeled by region and scenario.
0176 V
-------
BASIN : NORTH SLOPE
INJECTION FRESSURE ; 300 PS I AND AEuVE
CLASS I I
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
uL'Al-l i I i i MaTEhIAL LABuR TljT-
MO. UNIT F EP: PER CG5"
UNITS MEAS UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAl AriNL
hAMpul-iER
OPERATORS 5 En 1 40000
CHEMICALS
corrosion 100 bbl 940 94000 9'+.
02 SCAVENGER 100 BBL 932 98300 99,500
COAGULENT 20 BBL 940 18800 13.300
EMULSION BREAKER 80 BBL 940 75200 73,200
FUEL */MCF
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL SO HP 6 80640
POSITIVE DISPL. 800 HP 6 82560
MISC. 10 HP 6 4128
(EQUIPMENT OPERATES 8600 HRS/YR)
HOซo-^O
88. 560
4.123
FILTERS
SOLIDS SHIPPING
MAINTENANCE
PUMPS
CENTRIFUGAL
POSITIVE DISPL.
5324 EA 29.5
2 LOADS
I MISC. 600
SO HP
200 HP
30
30
157058
600
1500
6000
7000
3200
00
80
14000
3200
4000
16000
157.u53
14.000
3. SOO
5,500
22ปOOU
WELL COST
PRESS. TEST
0.2 EA
40000
8000
3ซ000
TOTAL
-------
<><><><><><.><>'><><><><><><><><><><> ; <><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><>RESULTS><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
FACILITY 1
REGION 2i PRE-ISS [BASELINE]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 7 0 7 0 . 86 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE............ 131.31 MT/OAY
ACTIVE AREA 3 5 . 0 0 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH.... 376 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 37 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH..... 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIuM
CLEARED AREA 47.26 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA.. 6 9 .0 Q ACRES
BUILDING AREA 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH.............. 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 1 7 3 440 , GALLONS
CL OSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 3 5 .00 ACRES
* COST SUMMARY
PRE-ISS [BASELINE]
CAPITAL COSTS
LAN 0 PURCHASE COST
$
3 45 42 1
LANO CLEARING COST........
ฆ
$
123150
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST . .
*
S
27 56 4
a
BUILDING COST.............
$
61824
EQUIPMENT COST
5
1 00 880
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST.
S
0
STORAGE TANK COST . .
$
9 82 45
SUBTOTAL ..
ฆ ฆ
$
7 2 9 5 2 1
ฆ
ENGINEERING FEE....
$
7 295 2
ซ
CONTRACTORS FEE...
i
$
7 2 95 2
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE
ซ
ฆ
s
0
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY.,...
*
f
7 2 95
CONSTRUCTION ~ FIELD EXPENSE
$
3 6 47 6
ซ
SUBTOTAL...
C 0 N T I NGENCY .
$
f
-------
total capital COST ...
C ANO M COSTS
LABOR COST.. i 3 So 2 1
MAINTENANCE i 10571
UTILITIES.., . 5 5 7 3 7
INSURANCE TAXES AMD G & A..., S 52854
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS............ S 107103
CLOSURE COSTS
REVEGETATIQH COST S 10113.
SUBTOTAL S 10113.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... $ 506 .
CONTRACTORS FEE. $ 1011,
SUBTOTAL............... $ 12642.
CONTINGENCY $ 1 0 9 6 .
TOTAL CLOSURE COST..... $ 1 4530 .
i * ! ! i t ! ฆ 1 i
FACILITY 2
REGION 4, PRE-ISS (BASELINE]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE.. 1 7070 ,86 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 65 . 66 MT/ 0 A Y
ACTIVE AREA ... 3 5 . 0 0 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH................ 376.36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 3 7 6 . 36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH................. 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 47 . 2 6 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA............... 69.09 ACRES
BUILDING AREA 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH. 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY BS724 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 3 5 .00 ACRES
COST SUMMARY
PRE-ISS [BASELINE]
-------
CAPITAL COSTS
LANO PURCHASE COST 5 345421.
LAND CLEARING COST........... 5 123150.
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST S 27564.
aulLCING COST .......... $ 61 824 .
EQUIPMENT COST t 93800.
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST.,., $ 0.
STORAGE TANK COST $ 6 7 5 7 0 .
SUBTOTAL.... S 891774.
ENGINEERING FEE $ 19177.
CONTRACTORS FEE $ 6 9 1 7 7 .
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... ป 0.
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY........ $ 6918,
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE. I 34589.
SUBTOTAL $ 87 1 63 5 .
CONTINGENCY f 1 307 45 ,
TOTAL CAPITAL COST,,,.,,..... $ 1002380,
0 AND M COSTS
LABOR COST,.... $ 67141.
MAINTENANCE $ 1 0024 .
UTILITIES,.,..,., ป 1 1 474 .
INSURANCE TAXES A ft 0 G & A,.., $ 50119.
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS............ $ 136758.
CLOSURE COSTS
REVEGETATION COST,..,. ป 10113,
SUBTOTAL. S 10113.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... $ 508.
CONTRACTORS FEE S 1011,
SUBTOTAL. S 1 26 42 ,
CONTINGENCY $ 1 896 ,
TOTAL .CLOSURE COST.,...,..,.. 8 14530.
* i
FACILITY 3
REGION 5, PRE-ISS [BASELINE]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
-------
WASTE APPLICATION RATE..,,..,..... 1 7 0 7 0 . B 6 V T / Y E A R
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 131.31 MT/0 A Y
ACTIVE AREA,...,,,..............,. 35.00 ACHES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH, 376.36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 376.36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH.. 1,00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTCR: BARIUM
Cleared apea........... & 7.26 acres
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA. 6 9 , 0 8 ACRES
BUILDING AREA..................... 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH ............. , 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 1 7 3 4 48 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
KEVEGETATICtl SURFACE AREA........ 35.00 ACHES
** COST SUMMARY
PRE-ISS (BASELINE)
CAPITAL COSTS
L AN 0 PURCHASE COST.... 3 3 45421.
LAND CLEARING COST 1 23 1 50 .
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST S 27 56 4 .
BUILDING COST................ S 81824.
EQUIPMENT COST * 1 0 0 8 00 .
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... . S 0.
STORAGE TANK COST $ 9 82 45 .
SUBTOTAL.......... f 729521 .
ENGINEERING FEE $ 7 295 2 .
CONTRACTORS FEE.............. S 72952,
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... < 0.
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY $ 7 2 95 .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE . * 3 6 476 .
SUBTOTAL..,...,.. $ 919196.
CONTINGENCY. . . S 1 3 7 8 7 9 .
TOTAL CAPITAL COST........... * 1057075.
0 AND M COSTS
LABOR COST S 3 B021 .
MAINTENANCE.................. S 10571.
UTILITIES.... $ 5737.
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A.... S 5 2 8 5 4.
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS ซ 1 0 7 1 83 .
CLOSURE COSTS
-------
f. EVEGHTATION COST............ ซ 10113.
5U5TGTAL... . . ........ .. 5 101i3a
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... S SOC.
CONTRACTORS FEE S 1011.
SUBTOTAL S 1 26 42 .
CONTINGENCY $ 1 6 9 6 .
TOTAL CLOSURE COST. S 1 453 8 .
FACILITY 4
SSSSSS'SSSS
REGION 6, PRE- ISS (BASELINE)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 2803 .1 4 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE... 98 .49 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA^iiiiit.a.at.ttt.taiaia 3 5.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH.... 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH..,. 3 76 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1 .00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 47.26 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA............... 69.00 ACRES
BUILDING AREA ... 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH.............. 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 1 3 00 86 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGET ATION SURFACE AREA 3 5 .0 0 ACRES
COST SUMMARY ป
PRE-ISS (BASELINE)
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST * 3 45 42 1
LAND CLEARING COST.. S 123150
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST ป 27 58 4
BUILDING COST . ป 61824
EQUIPMENT COST S 93808
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST 0
STORAGE TANK COST ซ 841 1 0
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING FEE.
$
9
-------
CONTRACTORS FEE.. ............ S 7 0 B 31 .
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... 3 0.
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY $ 7033 .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE. S 3 5 41 8 ,
SUBTOTAL..,. S 8 9 2 47 ฃ .
CONTINGENCY.,,, 3 133871.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST S 1 0 263 45 ,
0 AND M COSTS
LABOR COST,.,., $ 3 80 21,
MAINTENANCE, ปซ .ซ ซ . ฆซ . . * $ 10 2 6 3 ฆ
UTILITIES , , , $ 8 0 9 3 .
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A.,,. $ 51317,
TOTAL 0 & M COS S $ 107695 .
CLOSURE COSTS
BEVE6ET ATION COST..,., ... 10113,
SUBTOTAL I 10113.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... I 506.
CONTRACTORS FEE $ 1011.
SUBTOTAL $ 1 2642 .
CONTINGENCY . $ 1898.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST.. * 1453 8 .
: ) : : i : : i 3 : :
FACILITY 5
REGION 7, PRE-ISS (BASELINE)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE..... 12B03.14 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 49 .2 4 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA 35 .00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 3 7 8 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH....... 376 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR; 8A3 IUH
CLEARED AREA 47 .26 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA,........,...,. 69.00 ACRES
BUILDING AREA...,. 112. SO M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY....,..,,,.., 650 43 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
-------
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 3 5 , 0 0 ACRES
ป~ปปปป~ COST SUMMARY ซซ
PRE-ISS t BASEL INE)
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST........
s
3 4S 421 .
LAND CLEARING COST
$
123150.
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST.,
*
3
2 7 564.
BUILDING COST ,
S
6 1824.
EQUIPMENT COST.
e
i
$
9 3 8D 8 .
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST.
ฆ
$
0 .
STORAGE TANK COST
t
5 7 8 4 0 .
SUBTOTAL
$
6 0205 1 .
ENGINEERING FEE
s
6 8 20 5 .
CONTRACTORS FEE...
$
6 6205.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE
s
0 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
t
6 821.
CONSTRUCTION ~ FIELD EXPENSE
$
3 41 03 .
SUBTOTAL..,..,.,....
m
$
858 3 85 .
CONTINGENCY
ซ
$
12 8908.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$
98 8292 .
0 ANO M COSTS
LABOR COST,... .... ........
ซ
$
67141 ,
MAINTENANCE
ฆ
$
988 3 .
UTILITIES*..... ., . . .......
*
s
9119.
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A.
ฆ
ฆ
ซ
49 41 5 .
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS
a
a
$
135557.
CLOSURE COSTS
REVEGETATION C0ST.........
$
10113.
SUBTOTAL..........,
%
10 113.
INSPECTION ANO TESTING FEE
*
$
5 0 6 .
CONTRACTORS FEE...........
ฆ
s
10 11.
SUBTOTAL............
$
1 26 42 ,
CONTINGENCY
ฆ
$
1 8 9 6 .
TOTAL CLOSURE COST
i
14538.
FACILITY 6
-------
REGION e , PRE- I SS ( 9 A S S L I f. E )
GENERAL CHARACTEft I STICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE.. 1 2 80 3 . 1 4 h T/Y ฃ A
WASTE APPLICATION RATE... 98.49 MT/DAV
ACTIVE AREA.............. 3S.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH... 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA W I CTM ......... 37 6 . 36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 47.26 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 6 9 . 0 8 ACRES
BUILDING AREA 118. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH. 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY ........... . 1 300 86 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA........ 3S.OO ACRES
cosy SUMMARY
PRE-ISS [BASELINE)
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST $ 345 42 1 .
LAND CLEARING COST ป 1 231 50 .
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST 2756 4 .
BUILDING COST................ S 61824.
EQUIPMENT COST 9 3 80 8 .
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST.... $ 0.
STORAGE TANK COST J 8 41 1 0 .
SUBTOTAL S 7 0 831 3 .
ENGINEERING FEE I 7D831.
CONTRACTORS FEE ซ 7 0 83 1 .
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... % 0 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY f 7 0 83 .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE. $ 3 5 416.
SUBTOTAL I 89247 4 .
CONTINGENCY.................. $ 133871.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST. S 1 0263 45 .
0 AND M COSTS
L A 8 0 R COST
MAINTENANCE. .. .. .... ...... . . .
$
t
3 80 2 1 .
10263.
-------
UTILITIฃSiit(lll|>atlcaiiiiia S 6 0 9 3.
INSURANCE TAXES A N 0 G & A.,.. 5 51317.
TOTAL 0 o M COSTS.... ป 1 0 7 6 9 5 .
CLOSU RE COSTS
REVEGETAT ION COST S 10112,
SUBTOTAL . I 10 113.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... ป 506.
CONTRACTORS FEE ป 1011.
SUBTOTAL J 1 26 42 .
CONTINGENCY ซ 1896.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST f 1 453 8 .
FACILITY 7
REGION 9 t PRE-ISS I BASELINE)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE . . 12 80 3 . 1 4 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE. . 65 , 66 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA 3 5 .0 0 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH., 3 7 6 . 36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA 0EPTH ................ . 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTORS BARIUM
cleared area...................... 47.26 acres
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 6 9 .0 0 ACRES
BUILDING AREA..... 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH..... ......... 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY..... 86724. GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA........ 35.00 ACRES
COST SUMMARY ปป**
PRE-ISS ( BASELINE)
$
$
t
3 45 421 .
123150.
27 56 4.
-------
BUILDING COST... ฆ *
equipment cost.......... s
SOIL drainage SYSTEM cost.,.. *
STORAGE TANK COST. 5
SUBTOTAL. .......... . . . , S
ENGINEER I fl G PEE. ............. S
CONTRACTORS FEE S
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... 5
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY $
CONSTRUCTION + F I E L 0 EXPENSE. S
SUBTOTAL. S
CONTINGENCY $
TOTAL CAPITAL COST........... ป
0 ANO H COSTS
LABOR CQSTiiti^iit.aiti.ai.i. S
MAINTENANCE. I
UTILITIES . . S
INSURANCE TAKES ANO G & A..,. S
TOTAL Q i H COSTS............ *
CLOSURE COSTS
REVEGETAT ION COST I
SUBTOTAL.... ป
INSPECTION ANO TESTING PEE... I
CONTRACTORS FEE I
SUBTOTAL . $
CONTINGENCY.................. f
TOTAL CLOSURE COST i
6 1824
9 3 60 S
0
6 7 5 7 0
6 9 17 7 4
6 9 17 7
5 9 17 7
0
6 9 18
34589
67 1635
1307 45
1002360
5 0 6 49 .
10024,
86 0 6 .
5 0 119.
119397.
10 113
10 113.
506 .
10 11.
1 2 6 4 2 .
1 896 .
14538.
FACILITY 0
REGION 10, PRE-ISS (BASELINE)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE... 12803.14 HT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 49 .24 MT/OAY
ACTIVE AREA. ...... .. ....... ....... 35.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH.......... 378 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1 .00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR! BARIUM
-------
CLEARED AREA 4 7 , 2 6 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 6 9 .0 9 ACRES
BUILDING AREA 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH 0.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 5 50 43. GALLONS
closure
R6VEG6TAT ION SURFACE AREA 35 .00 ACRES
**ซ COST SUMMARY ปปซป
PRE-ISS (BASELINE]
CAPITAL COSTS
LANO PURCHASE COST S 3 4542 1 ,
LAND CLEARING COST S 1 23 1 50 .
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST 27564.
BUILDING COST . S 61 824 .
EQUIPMENT COST 5 93 80 8 .
SCIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... . S 0 .
STORAGE TANK COST....... ป 57848 ,
SUBTOTAL S 682051 .
ENGINEERING FEE ป 68205.
CONTRACTORS FEE ซ 68205 .
INSPECTION AMD TESTING FEE... S 0 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY $ 6 82 1 .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE. ป 34103.
SUBTOTAL............... $ 8 S 9 3 8 S .
CONTINGENCY S 1 2 890 8 .
TOTAL CAPITAL COST ... 9 9 8 B2 92 .
0 ANO H COSTS
LABOR COST................... I 67141.
MAINTENANCE.............. 9 8 83 .
UTILITIES...... 9 9119.
INSURANCE TAXES ANO G & A.... S 49415.
total o a h costs ป 135557 .
CLOSURE COSTS
REVEGETATION COST ซ 10113.
SUBTOTAL.. ...... ....... 9 10113.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... I 5 0 6 .
CONTRACTORS FEE ... ... I 1011.
SUBTOTAL I 1 2642 .
-------
CONTINGENCY . 8 1 8S6
TOTAL CLOSURE COST,...,.,,.,. * 14538
-------
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><>RESULTS><>0<><><><><><><><><><><)
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
FACILITY 1
REGION a, PAST 26 4 [ RCRA)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 7 0 7 0 . 06 HT/VEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 131.31 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA... 3 5 , 0 0 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 376 ,36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA OEPTH 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR! BARIUM
CLEARED AREA.. ............ ........ 53.SB ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 7 7.21 ACRES
BUILDING AREA ... 112. SQ M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH 0 .00 METERS
GROUNDWATER HELLS 36 WELLS
LYSIMETERS 22 LYSIMETE
RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL
8ERM VOLUME 2069 . CU M
BERM SURFACE AREA.... 8 20 2 . SQ M
BERM HEIGHT 0.60 METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 1 99000 0 . GALLONS
RETENTION POND OPERATING VOLUME 7533. CU M
RETENTION POND LENGTH 57 .63 METERS
RETENTION POND WIDTH 5 7 , 63 METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTH 2.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 1 73 448 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVE6ETATI0N SURFACE AREA........ 35.00 ACRES
SOIL CORE SAMPLES 1 B
SOIL PORE SAMPLES................. 22
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 36
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 324
SOIL CORE SAMPLES 1 6 2
AREA TO BE M0WE0 53,95 ACRES
ป COST SUMMARY ปป
-------
FART 26 4
LAND PURCHASE COST
LAND CLEARING COST...........
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST
BUILOING COST.
EQUIPMENT COST
BERM CONSTRUCTION COST. ......
0EBH REVEGETATION COST
RETENTION PONO COST
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... .
STORAGE TANK COST
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST.......
LYS I METERS COST.
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST..
SUBTOTAL. ซ . . . . . . ฆ.ฆ . ซ .
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
ENGINEERING FEE
CONTRACTORS FEE
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE...
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY........
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE.
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY..
CAP IT A L COSTS
TOTAL CAPITAL
CLOSURE COSTS
COST.. .........
s 3 3 6 0 7 5.
S 140674.
S 2 7 5 6 4,
ป 6 1824.
S 1 0 B 1 6 0 .
S 19623,
* 27 89.
S 1497 92,
5 0 ,
f 9 82 45.
ป 12 5 400.
S 4 400.
3 87 BO .
ป 1135 765.
S 23 87 55.
S 113577.
8 1 1 3 5 7 7 .
J 6 490.
t 113 58.
S 567 BB .
$ 1 6 7 6 3 0 7 .
f 251446.
< 1 92 7 7 52 .
S 427 3 3.
* 1 2249 .
S 18 438.
< 8442.
S 1 9 27 B .
S 5 737.
I 9 63 8 8 .
S 203 262 .
$ 0 .
$ 1 41 6 45 ,
t 13 4858.
% 0 ,
S 0 .
S 283 ,
S 6 482.
8 5 984 .
S 0 .
S 6 2 46.
C AND M COSTS
LABOR COST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . .
SOIL PORE COST..
SOIL CORE COST... ............
MAINTENANCE
UTILITIES., ... ...............
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A....
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS............
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING.
REVEGETATION COST
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST..
TRANSPORTATION COST
DISPOSAL COST.. .. . . , ฆ ....ซซ
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION....
CERTIFICATION COST
TANK CLOSURE COST
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST. .
-------
SOIL POPE COST S
SOIL COPE COST S
4 7 3 7 .
43 25 ,
SUBTOTAL..,.,,,......,. ฎ
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... ป
CONTRACTORS FEE.............. S
ENGINEERING FEE., S
3D 4553 .
1 3 62 5 .
2 7 6 50 .
3 0 45 6 .
SUBTOTAL ป
CONTINGENCY S
TOTAL CLOSURE COST %
FOST CLOSURE COSTS
3 7 6 491 .
5 6 474.
432964.
LAND AUTHORITY rPflOP DEED CST S
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST,.
SOIL CORE COST , i , , . . , , . i i i
EROSION CONTROL COST
VEGETATIVE COVER COST.....
PARTIAL R E V E G COVER COST. .
INSPECTION COST . . .
ซ... *
SUBTOTAL
ENGINEERING FEE.....
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY...
4930
5621 7
3 7 9 89
47 0 40
3 10153
10 3 3 5 4
4986
561739
5 8 17 4
6 17 912
9 2 6 87
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST
ซ ซ . . .
7 10 5 9 9
: I : : i t t : t t :
FACILITY 2
REGION 4, PART 264 [RCRAJ
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 7 070 . 86 HT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 6 5 . 6 6 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA.. . ฆ 35.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 376 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH.. 3 7 6 , 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA 0EPTh................. 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA...................... 5 6.50 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 00 . 26 ACRES
BUILOING AREA ..................... 112. SQ M
ORAINAGE TILE LENGTH 0,00 METERS
GROUNDWATER WELLS 36 WELLS
LYSIMET6RS....................... . 22 LYSIhETE
RUN-ON/HUN-OFF CONTROL
-------
BEAM VOLUME 2 9 8 6 . C U M
BEAM SURFACE AREA 8 5 2 7. SO Y
BEAM HEIGHT, 0.60 METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 46 7 245<1. GALLONS
RETENTION PCHD OPERATING VOLUME 17687, CO M
RETENTION P C N 0 LENGTH 80.93 METERS
KETENTlCfl POriC WIDTH 80.93 METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTH S .00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY. 8 67 2 4 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA
SOIL CORE SAMPLES .
SOIL PORE SAMPLES...........
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES...
3 5
,00 ACRES
1 8
2 2
3 6
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES.
SOIL CORE SAMPLES...
AREA T 0 BE MOWED...,
* ซ
3 2 4
1 6 2
56,47 ACRES
COST SUMMARY ~~ป
PART 26 4
CAPITAL COSTS
t ป ft c *
T .
LAND PURCHASE COST ....
LAND CLEARING COST....
UTILITIES SITE WORK COS
BUILDING COST . ........
EQUIPMENT COST
BERN CONSTRUCTION COST
BERM REVEGETATION COST
RETENTION POND COST...
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST
STORAGE TANK COST
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST
LYSIHETERS COST ...... .
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST
ฆ ฆ ซ
ฆ a *
SUBTOTAL .
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
ENGINEERING FEE
CONTRACTORS FEE
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
CONSTRUCT ION + FIELD EXPENSE
401293.
147235.
27 56 4.
61824.
1010 68 .
2 0 432 .
2902 .
265 0 9 6 .
0 .
6 7 5 7 0 .
1 25400 .
4400 .
3 9 7 6 0 .
1 2 3 7 0 0 1 .
23 87 55 .
183 700.
12 3 7 00.
6 490 .
12 3 7 0.
61850.
SUBTOTAL... ...... ......
CONTINGENCY,,,,., ..tt*. ซซ*#
$
$
1003865.
270580 .
-------
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
G ANO M COSTS
LABOR COST . . S 7 6 5 2 8 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST. . S 12249.
SOIL POPE COST $ 18436.
SOIL CORE COST ป 8 442 .
MAINTENANCE $ 20744.
UTILITIES $ 1 1 47 4 .
INSURANCE TAXES ANO G ฃ A.... J 103722.
TOTAL 0 & H COSTS...... I 85 1 596 .
CLOSURE COSTS
CONTAMINATEO SOIL EXCAVATING. ซ 0.
REVEGETATION COST S 1 41 6 45 .
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST,. $ 235571.
TRANSPORTATION COST t 0.
DISPOSAL COST. ...... ......... 5 0.
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION.... I 282.
CERTIFICATION COST........... t 8482.
TANK CLOSURE COST I 3122.
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST...... $ 0.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. I S246.
SOIL PORE COST............... $ 4737.
SOIL CORE COST I 43 25 .
SUBTOTAL $ 40 2 41 0 .
INSPECTION ANO TESTING FEE... ป 16B61.
CONTRACTORS FEE, S 37722.
ENGINEERING FEE....,...,..,.. * 40241.
SUBTOTAL((,ซ t...... . I 499233.
CONTINGENCY I 74085.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST S 57 41 1 8 .
POST CLOSURE COSTS
LANO AUTHORITY + PROP DEED CST I 5117.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . . * 5621 7 .
SOIL CORE COST # 3 7 9 89 .
EROSION CONTROL COST ........ . I 47040 .
VEGETATIVE COVER COST I 3203 2 4 .
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST $ 1 07 804 .
INSPECTION COST ป 5 0 9 7 .
SUBTOTAL. ......... .. . . ฎ 5 7 4 4 71 a
ENGINEERING FEE ซ 5 7 447 .
SUBTOTAL. . . . S 631918.
CONTINGENCY $ 9 4 7 6 8 .
-------
TOTAL PCST CLOSURE COST...... S
7 2 6 7 0 6 .
FACILITY 3
REGICN ฃ , PART 264 ( RCRA)
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 7 0 7 0 . 8 6 HT/YEAP
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 131.31 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA. ....... ...... . , .fl . .. . . 35.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 3 7 5 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIOTH................. 376.38 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH.. 1 .00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTORS BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 5 4 , 2 9 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY ABEA ............... 77 .59 ACRES
BUILOING AREA 112. S Q M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH.............. 0.00 METERS
GROUNDWATER WELLS 36 WELLS
LYS INETERS ................. 22 LYSIMETE
RUN-DN/RUN-OFf CONTROL
BERM VOLUME 2 0 8 3 . CU M
BERM SURFACE AREA............... 8243. SQ M
BERM HEIGHT 0.60 METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 2249010 . GALLONS
RETENTION POND OPERATING VOLUME 8313. CU M
RETENTION POND LENGTH 60 .50 METERS
RETENTION POND WIDTH 60 . 5 0 METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTH 2.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 17 3 448. GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 35 .00 ACRES
SOIL CORE SAMPLES 10
SOIL PORE SAMPLES......... 22
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 36
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES.... 324
SOIL CORE SAMPLES........ 162
AREA T D BE MOWED 54 .28 ACRES
COST SUMMARY
PART 264
# *
-------
CAPITAL COSTS
LA MO PURCHASE COST S 387952.
LAUD CLEARING COST........... S 1414B4.
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST...,. S 875 6" <1.
8 U I L 0 I M G COST................ 3 6 1 8 2 4.
EQUIPMENT COST $ 10 8 16 0.
BERN CONSTRUCTION COST * 19728.
BEBM RE VEGETATION COST S 2 80 3 .
RETENTION PO NO COST 5 162565.
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... . S 0 .
STORAGE TANK COST 5 9B245,
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST S 1 2 5 40 0 ,
LYSIMETERS COST $ 4400 .
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST . . S 3 8 920 .
SUBTOTAL... $ 115 1478.
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES S 23 87 55 .
ENGINEERING FEE........ S 115148.
CONTRACTORS FEE.... I 115148.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE... $ 6490.
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY S 11515.
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE. I 57574.
SUBTOTAL S 1 69 6 1 0 6 .
CONTINGENCY. . 8 2 5 441 6 .
TOTAL CAPITAL COST $ 19 5 0521.
0 AND M COSTS
LABOR COST ป 427 3 3 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. S 12249.
SOIL PORE CDST I 1 843 6 .
SOIL CORE COST............... ซ B 442 .
MAINTENANCE... * 1 9 5 0 5 .
UTILITIES 3 5737.
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A.,.. $ 97526.
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS 8 2 0 46 2 6 .
CLOSURE COSTS
CONTAMINATED S DIL EXCAVATING. I 0.
REVEGETAT ION COST............ ป 1 41 8 45 .
RETENTION POND CLOSURE CDST.. ซ 146084.
TRANSPORTATION COST..... I 0.
0 ISPOSAL COST I 0 .
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION.... $ 283 .
CERTIFICATION COST 9 6 48 2 .
TANK CLOSURE COST ..... ง 5984 .
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST S 0 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . . ซ 82 46 .
SOIL PORE COST S 473 7 .
SOIL CORE COST.....,,.....,.. $ 4325.
-------
subtotal s 31S7B5,
INSPECTION AMD TESTING FEE... S 14385,
CONTRACTORS FEE,...,......,., S 23773.
ENGINEERING FEE. ป 3 15 7 9.
SU9TCTAL .............. . $ 3 90 523,
CONTINGENCY S 58578.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST I 449 1 01 .
POST CLOSURE COSTS
LAND AUTHORITY ~PROP C E ED CST S 4953 ,
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. * 56217.
SOIL CORE COST % 3 7 9 B9 .
EROSION CONTROL COST $ 47 0 40 ,
VEGETATIVE COVER COST........ ป 311337.
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST...,. $ 105484.
INSPECTION COST.,,.,,,.,,.... * 4998,
SUBTOTAL.,..,,......... S 563064.
ENGINEERING FEE........ * 5830 6 ,
SUBTOTAL ........ ... S 613371,
CONTINGENCY ป 92906,
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST t 71 8276 ,
s ; i s i i s i i i
FACILITY 4
REGION 6ป PART 2 8 4 [RCRA]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION
RATE .
ซ *
*
1 2 BO 3
,14
MT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICAT ION
RATE.
i
ซ
*
98
,49
MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA
1 ft ป
ฆ
t
3 5
.00
ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH
ฆ ฆ
ฆ
ป
ซ
376
,36
METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH.
ฆ ฆ
ฆ
a
*
a
378
,36
METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH,
* ฆ * ป
*
1
,00
METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR
CLEARED AREA,.
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA,..,...
BUILDING AREA.,.,.,.,..,..
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH......
GROUNDWATER WELLS...
LYSIMETERS..........
BARIUM
ซ ป
* a
i ป I *
*
i i l i
ป # ซ *
55.12 ACRES
70,60 ACRES
112. SQ M
0.00 METERS
3 6 WELLS
22 LYS IMETE
2922, CU H
-------
EEP" SURFACE AREA..,,
BERH HEIGHT...
RETENTION POND
P 0 N D
POKO
p o n o
F 0 fl 0
RETENTION
RETENTION
RETENTION
R t T E h T i C II
STORAGE T
ซ**
CAPACITY.
GPE RATING
LENGTH...
HICTH
DtPTf-
VOLUME
**
**
ANK CAPACITY
8 3 5 4 .
0.60
3 0 3 6 5 3 9.
11502 .
5 8 . 2 0
6 8.20
a .co
1 3 0 0 S 6
SO M
METERS
GALLONS
C U M
METERS
METERS
METERS
. GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGET ATION SURFACE AREA...
SOIL CORE SAMPLES..
SOIL PORE SAMPLES..
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
3 5.00 ACRES
1 8
2 2
3 6
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SOIL COPE SAMPLES . .
AREA TO BE MOWED,..
3 S 4
162
55.10 ACRES
ซ COST SUMMARY
PART 264
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST
LAND CLEARING COST.
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST.....
BUILCING COST. ...............
EQUIPMENT COST
8ERM CONSTRUCTION COST.......
BERM REVEGETATION COST
RETENTION POND COST .
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... .
STORAGE TANK COST .
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST.......
LYS IMETERS COST
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST..
SUBTOTAL. . . . . . ซ . . . .... .
REGULATDRY ACTIVITIES
ENGINEERING FEE. .............
CONTRACTORS FEE
INSPECTION AN 0 TESTING FEE...
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE.
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY.. ...... ..........
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
ป 3 9297 7 .
ป 143650.
* 27 56 4.
S 61824,
S 1 0 1 0 0 0 .
* 19993.
$ 2 040.
S 19BB02 .
s 0 .
s 84110.
$ 125 400.
S 4 400.
S 3 9 2 0 0 ,
$ 1174282
S 23 0755
S 1 1 7 42 B
J 1 1 7 42 B
S 6 4 9 0
I 117 43
$ 5 8 7 14
S 17 2 4839.
S 2587 26.
S 1 9 83564 .
-------
C AND H COSTS
LABOR COST
S
42 7 3 3
GROUNDWATER MOhlTOfilHG COST..
$
1 22 43
SOIL PCPE COST
#
1 3 43 G
SlIL CORE COST. ..............
s
6 4 4 2
maintenance . ป
ฃ
1 9 33 6
UTILITIES..
ฃ
8 0 9 3
INSURANCE TAXES AND G 5. A....
$
9 9 17 9
TOTAL 0 S M COSTS
CLOSURE COSTS
2 0 6967
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING. <
REVEGETATION COST S
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST . . *
TRANSPORTATION COST..
DISPOSAL COST .
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION. . . .
CERTIFICATION COST........... $
TANK CLOSURE COST . I
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST...... *
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . . t
SOIL PORE COST.... *
SOIL CORE COST . . $
1 416 45
177 026
0
0
2 82
6 4 02
45 53
0
62 46
4737
43 25
SUBTOTAL.. ....... . . .. . .
INSPECTION A NO TESTING FEE...
CONTRACTORS FEE .....
ENGINEERING FEE...
ป . *
$
$
$
ซ
SUBTOTAL. ........ ...... ฎ
CONTINGENCY I
TOTAL CLOSURE COST J
POST CLOSURE COSTS
3 460 96
1 5 9 7 4
3 19 47
3461 0
428626
6 42 9 4
492 9 20
LAND AUTHORITY +PROP DEED CST S
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. ซ
SOIL CORE COST ป
EROSION CONTROL COST......... I
VEGETATIVE COVER COST ป
PARTIAL R6VEG COVER COST..... $
INSPECTION COST ป
SUBTOTAL t
ENGINEERING FEE.............. I
50 15
56 21 7
37 9 S9
47 0 40
31460 4
10627 1
5 0 3 2
567153
5671 5
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST ซ
623 8SS
93 5 80
7 17 440
-------
FACILITY 5
PEG! CM 7, P>s P T 28a ( R C R A 1
GENERAL CHAP. ACTEfllST ICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 2 80 3 .14 HT/YEAR
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 49.24 MT/OAY
ACTIVE AREA 35 .00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH 376 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 5 4 .29 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 7 7 . 3 9 ACRES
BUILDING AREA. 112. SQ M
ORAI N AGE TILE LENGTH 0 .00 METERS
GROUNDWATER WELLS................. 36 WELLS
LYSIMETERS 22 LYS IMETE
RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL
BERM VOLUME. . 2 0 83 . C(J M
BERN SURFACE AREA. 8243 . SO M
BERM HEIGHT 0.60 METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 22 4901 0 . GALLONS
RETENTION PONO OPERATING VOLUME 8513. CU M
RETENTION POND LENGTH..... 60.50 METERS
RETENTION POND WIDTH.. 60.50 METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTH 2.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY 6 5 0 43 . GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 3 5 , 00 ACRES
SOIL CORE SAMPLES....... 18
SOIL PORE SAMPLES 22
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 36
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES..... 324
SOIL CORE SAMPLES 162
AREA TO BE MOWEO 54 ,26 ACRES
ซป COST SUMMARY *
PART 26 4
CAPITAL COSTS
-------
LANO PURCHASE COST
.
s
3 87953.
LAUD CLEARING COST..
s
141404,
utilities site work cost...
.
s
2 7 564.
building cost
5
6 1824.
EQUIPMENT COST....
*
ป
1 0 1 0 S 8 .
BERU CONSTRUCTION COST.....
S
19 7 2 8.
a E R II RE VEGETATION COST
J
2 0 0 3 .
RETENTION POND COST........
*
s
162565.
SOIL OflAINAGE SYSTEM COST.,
5
0 .
STORAGE TANK COST
S
5 7 0 48.
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST....,
s
1 25 400 .
LYSI MET E RS COST . .
s
4 400 .
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST
ฆ
$
3 8 9 2 0 ,
SUBTOTAL. ป . ฆ ฆ . . . . * * *
$
1 1 0 400 a.
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
s
2387 55.
ENGINEERING FEE
$
1 1 0 40 1 .
CONTRACTORS FEE
s
1 1 0 40 1 .
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE.
K
$
6 490 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
s
1 1 0 40 .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE
$
5 S 2 00 .
SUBTOTAL .
$
1 6 3 6 2 9 3 .
CONTINGENCY
s
2 45444.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$
1 8 B 1 7 3 6 .
0 A N 0 H COSTS
LABOR COST
s
7 6 52 8 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
s
122 49.
SOIL PORE COST.............
*
s
1643 6.
SCIL CORE COST
s
8 4 42 .
MAINTENANCE
t
1 B B 1 7 .
UTILITIES. .. .. .. . . ซ
ซ
s
9119.
INSURANCE TAXES AHO G & A..
s
9 40 87 .
TOTAL 0 & H COSTS.
ฆ
s
237 67 7 .
CLOSURE COSTS
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING
s
0 .
REVEGETATION COST
a
*
1 41 6 45 ,
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST
a
s
146084.
TRANSPORTATION COST
s
0 .
DISPOSAL COST..,..
*
t
0 .
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION..
$
2 82 .
CERTIFICATION COST .
$
6 482 .
TANK CLOSURE COST..........
t
9
2 406.
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST....
ซ
,
ป
0 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
ฆ
$
6 2 46 .
SOIL PORE COST.............
ซ
*
s
473 7 .
SCIL CORE COST .
5
43 25 .
SUBTOTAL . . .. . . .. . . . .
s
3 12207.
-------
INSPECTION AMD TESTING FEE... S
CONTRACTORS FEE S
ENGINEERING FEE *
1 42 0 6
2 6 7 7 3
3 12 2 1
SUBTOTAL .
*
CONTINGENCY S
3 8 6 5 0 7 .
5 7 2 8 8.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST
POST CLOSURE COSTS
4445 7 4.
LAND AUTHORITY +PROP DEED CST $
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. S
SOIL CORE COST.,..
EROSION CONTROL COST . . .
* C
VEGETATIVE COVER COST.
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST S
INSPECTION COST.... >
495 3.
56217.
3 7 9 B9 .
47 0 40 .
31 1 337 .
105484.
4398 .
SUBTOTAL ....
ENGINEERING FEE...
SUBTOTAL .
CONTINGENCY.,..
* i I ซ I i a I
563064 .
5 6 306,
6 1 9 3 7 1 .
9 2 9 0 6 .
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST
i i ซ i a i
7 12 2 7 6
t t t ซ t * I
FACILITY 6
REGION B, PART 264 {RCRA]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE
HASTE APPLICATION RATE
ACTIVE AREA
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH.,.,.
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH .
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA..,..,.,,..,.....
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA,.
BU ILO ING AREA .
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH.
GROUNDWATER WELLS ... .
LYSIMETERS...........
12803.14 HT/YEAR
90,49 MT/DAY
3 5 .00 ACRES
376,36 METERS
3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
1,00 METERS
53.29 ACRES
76.38 ACRES
112. SQ M
O.OD METERS
36 WELLS
22 LYS IMETE
RUN-CH/RUN-OFF CONTROL
2836. C(J M
810 9, SQ M
0.60 METERS
-------
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 1478431 . GALLONS
RETENTION POND OPERATING VOLUME 55S6. CU I'
RETENTION POND LENGTH 51.21 METERS
RETEFIT IQN POND W I C T H . . . . ....... 51.21 METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTh 2,00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY. 130QB6. GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA
SOIL CORE SAMPLES ........
SOIL PORE SAMPLES
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
3 5.00 ACRES
1 8
2 2
3 6
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES.
SOIL CORE SAMPLES...
AREA TD BE MOWED....
3 2 4
1 82
53.26 ACRES
CoST SUMMARY *
PART 264
CAPITAL COSTS
LAUD PURCHASE COST . . I
LAND CLEARIN G COST J
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST t
BUILDING COST. t
EQUIPMENT COST I
BERK CONSTRUCTION COST....... %
B E R M REVEGETATION COST I
RETENTION PONO COST.......... f
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST ... . *
STORAGE TANK COST $
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST %
LYS I METERS COST I
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST.. $
3 81876.
13 8 8 6 5.
27 564 .
61 B2 4 .
10 10 88.
1 9 407 .
27 57 .
1227 94.
0 .
84110.
1 2 5 40 0 .
4400 .
3 8500.
SUBTOTAL*............ i *
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
ENGINEERING FEE.
CONTRACTORS FEE
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE...
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY . .
CONSTRUCTION + FIELD EXPENSE.
10 8 1021
23 87 5 5
10 6102
10 810 2
8 490
10 810
5 40 51
SUBTOTAL . $ 1 60 7 3 3 0
CONTINGENCY..... * 241099
TOTAL CAPITAL COST.
1 B 4 3 4 2 9
0 ANO M COSTS
-------
LABOR COST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
SOIL PORE COST
SOIL CORE COST..
MAINTENANCE . .
UTILITIES....
INSURANCE TAXES ARD G & A
ฆ lis
4 2 7 3 3 .
122 43.
1 E 4 3 6 .
e 4 42 ,
18 4 6 4.
eo 9 3 .
9 2 42 1 .
T C T A L 0 6 M COSTS
CLOSURE COSTS
2 0 0 0 S 8
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING
REVEGETATION COST
RETENTION PONO CLOSURE COST.
TRANSPORTATION COST ... .
DISPOSAL COST
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION
CERTIFICATION COST
TANK CLOSURE COST
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST.
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
SOIL PORE COST .......
SOIL CORE COST
ซ ซ
SUBTOTAL
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING FEE.....
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY
I
0 .
1416 45.
1110 5 5.
0 .
0 .
282 .
6 482 .
45 53 .
0 .
6 2 4 6 ,
47 37 ,
4 3 2 5 .
27 9 3 25 .
12635.
2 5 2 7 0 .
27 832 .
3 4S162 .
5 17 7 4.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST.,.. f
POST CLOSURE COSTS
LAND AUTHORITY + PROP DEED CST S
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.. *
SOIL CORE COST
EROSION CONTROL COST...,
VEGETATIVE COVER COST . . .
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST
INSPECTION COST .
SU BTOTAL .
ENGINEERING FEE
SUBTOTAL.
CONTINGENCY ....
* ฆ
ซ * m
3 8 6 9 3 7.
4079.
5621 7 .
37 909.
47 0 40 .
3 0 7 577 .
1 04672 .
49 6 2 ,
55 8 457 .
S5 846 .
61 4302 .
92145.
TOTAL POST CLOSURE C C L. .
706 446.
-------
FACILITY 7
REGION 9 , PART 264 ( PCflA]
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 1 2 80 3 . 1 4 IIT/YEAF
WASTE APPLICATION RATE 5 5 . 6 6 MT/DAY
ACTIVE AREA.,.......,.,. 35 .00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 376.36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH..,.. 3 7 6 . 3 6 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH. 1 .00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTCR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 53.SB ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA 76 . 3 8 ACRES
BUILDING AREA. 112. SO M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH 0.00 METERS
GROUNDWATER WELLS 3 6 WELLS
LYS IMETERS ............. 22 LYSIMETE
RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL
BERM VOLU ME
2 83 6 .
CU M
BEAM SURFACE AREA
8 10 9.
SO M
BERM HEIGHT.
0 .60
METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY.
a ฆ
1 47043 1 .
GALLONS
RETENTION POND OPERATING
VOLUME
5 53 6 .
CU M
RETENTION POHD LENGTH...
ซ ฆ
51.21
METERS
RETENTION PONO WIDTH.,..
a ฆ
5 1.21
METERS
RETENTION POND DEPTH....
9 #
2,00
METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPAC ITY . , ,
867 24
. GALLONS
CLOSURE
REVEGETATION SURFACE AREA 35 .00 ACRES
SOIL CORE SAMPLES..... 1 B
SOIL PORE SAMPLES 82
GROUNDWATER SAMPIES .............. . 36
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES. 324
SOIL GORE SAMPLES 162
AREA TO BE MOWED.................. 53.2 6 ACRES
ซ* COST SUMMARY
PART 264
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST . . * 38187B .
-------
LAND CLEARING COST
$
13 8 8 6 5,
UTILITIES SITE WC AK COST...
s
2 7 564.
building cost
i
6 16 2 4.
EQUIPMENT COST
*
s
10 10 8 0.
BERM CONSTRUCTION COST.....
s
19 4 0 7.
BERH REVEGET4TICN COST
s
8 7 5 7 .
RETENTION FO'lC COST...
5
132794,
SCIL 0RAI';AGE SYSTEM COST. .
s
0 .
STORAGE T A ft K COST..,....,..
s
6 7 ฃ70 .
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST
$
12 5 40 0 .
LYS IMETERS COST..
s
4 400 .
WIND DISPERSAL CONTROL COST
ฆ
s
3 0 50 0 .
SUBTOTAL
s
1 06 4482 ,
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
ซ
1
238755.
ENGINEERING FEE
ฆ
$
1 08 448 ,
CONTRACTORS FEE
ซ
%
1 0 6 448 .
INSPECTION ANO TESTING FEE.
t
8 490 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
$
10 6 45,
CONSTRUCTION t FIELD EXPENSE
m
$
53224.
SUBTOTAL. ............
m
$
1586 491.
CONTINGENCY
t
237 97 4.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST...
a
s
1 82 446 4 .
C ANO M COSTS
LABOR COST ซ ....... . ......
$
5 8880 .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
I
12249.
SOIL PORE COST.
s
1843 6.
SOIL CORE COST...,
s
8 442,
MAINTENANCE
$
18245.
UTILITIES. .... ฆ ซ . . . . .. . . . .
$
8 60 S ,
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A..
ซ
s
91223.
TOTAL 0 & M COSTS
$
2 16080.
CLOSURE COSTS
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING
*
$
0 .
REVEGETATION COST
s
1 41 8 45,
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST
ฆ
>
1110 55.
TRANSPORTATION COST
a
$
0 .
CISPOSAL COST.. ............
m
%
0 .
EQUIPMENT OECONTAMINATION..
%
2 62 .
CERTIFICATION COST
ซ
s
6 482 .
TANK CLOSURE COST
$
3 122,
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST ... .
ซ
s
D .
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST
ft
$
62 46 .
SOIL PORE COST
ฆ
s
47 3 7 .
SOIL CORE COST.............
$
43 25 .
SUBTOTAL... ..........
*
.
s
2 7 7 894.
INSPECTION AND TESTING FEE.
s
12 6 3 5.
CONTRACTORS FEE.
ซ
$
2 527 0 .
-------
ENGINEERING FEE
27 7 89,
SUBTOTAL *
CONTINGENCY S
total closure cost
FOST CLOSUflE COSTS
3 43 5 e 8 .
5 15 3 8.
i 27 .
LAND AUTHORITY ~P^P DEED CST S
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . . I
SOIL CORE COST S
EROSION CONTROL COST.. t
VEGETATIVE COVER COST $
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST S
INSPECTION COST $
SUBTOTAL $
ENGINEERING FEE...
4 0 7 9.
5621 7 .
3 7 9 09 .
47 0 40 .
3 0 7 S 7 7 .
10 4672.
49 B2 .
5 5 8 457 .
5 5 8 46 .
SUBTOTAL < 61 4302
CONTINGENCY S 92145
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST *
706 448.
FACILITY S
REGION 10, PART 264 [ RCRA )
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
WASTE APPLICATION RATE............ 12003.14 MT/YEAR
WASTE APPL ICATION RATE 49 .2 4 MT/OAY
ACTIVE AREA.. ........... .......... 35.00 ACRES
ACTIVE AREA LENGTH 3 7 6 . 36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA WIDTH........... 376 .36 METERS
ACTIVE AREA DEPTH 1.00 METERS
INORGANICS LIMITING FACTOR: BARIUM
CLEARED AREA 5 3 . 9 6 ACRES
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA.......... 77.81 ACRES
BUILDING AREA i .. i ..... i i i . i i i i i i ฆ 112. S Q M
DRAINAGE TILE LENGTH.... 0.00 METERS
GROUNDWATER WELLS 36 WELLS
LYS I MET ERS 22 LYSIMETE
RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROL
BERM VOLUME............. 2869 . CU M
BERH SURFACE AREA. 8 2 0 2 . SO M
BERM HEIGHT............ 0.60 METERS
RETENTION POND CAPACITY 1 9 9000 8 . GALLONS
RETENTION POND OPERATING VOLUME 7 533. CU M
-------
RETENTION POND LENGTH 5 7.6 3 METERS
RETENTION PQNO WIDTH 5 7 , 6 3 METERS
RETENTION PONO DEPTH 2.00 METERS
STORAGE TANK CAPACITY... S50<3 . C A I L 0 f. S
CLOSURE
SEVEGETATICM S0PFACE AREA. ....... 35.CO ACRES
SCIL COPE SAMPLES 1 8
SOIL PORE SAMPLES.... 22
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 36
POST CLOSURE
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES 3 2 4
SOIL CORE SAMPLES 162
AREA T 0 BE MOWED 53 .3 5 ACRES
# COST SUMMARY ป
PART 264
CAPITAL COSTS
LAND PURCHASE COST
1
3 860 7 5 .
LAND CLEARING COST
...
t
14067 4,
UTILITIES SITE WORK COST . .
...
J
2 7 584.
BUILDING COST.............
...
i
618 2 4.
EOUIPHENT COST
1010 88.
BERM CONSTRUCTION COST ... .
...
19629.
BEAM REVEGETATION COST ... .
ป
27 89 .
RETENTION POND COST
...
t
1497 92.
SOIL DRAINAGE SYSTEM COST .
...
s
0 .
STORAGE TANK COST .
...
1
57 B4B .
GROUNDWATER WELLS COST....
...
s
1 25 40 0 .
LYS IMETERS COST
...
s
4400 .
WINO DISPERSAL CONTROL COST..
s
3 87 80 .
SUBTOTAL. . ป . . i.. . i . .
...
s
10 B8296 .
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
s
23 87 55.
ENGINEERING FEE
i
10 B 830 ,
CONTRACTORS FEE
s
10 B B30 .
INSPECTION AND TESTING PEE
R . i
$
6 490 .
SPARE PARTS INVENTORY
...
1
10883.
CONSTRUCTION + F I ELO EXPENSE.
I
5 4 41 5 .
SUBTOTAL. .... . . . ฆ . . .
...
$
1 6 1 6 498 .
CONTINGENCY
s
2 42474.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
...
$
10 5 8970.
0 A NO M COSTS
*
LABOR COST........... 1 7 6 5 2 B .
-------
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST,.
SOIL PORE COST...
SOIL CORE COST .
MAINTENANCE
UTILITIES
INSURANCE TAXES AND G & A.,..
TOTAL 0 & f COSTS....
CLOSURE COSTS
CONTAMINATED SOIL EXCAVATING.
REVEG6TAT ION COST
RETENTION POND CLOSURE COST..
TRANSPORTATION COST..........
DISPOSAL COST ...
EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION, . . .
CERTIFICATION COST
TANK CLOSURE COST
WASTE PILE CLOSURE COST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST . .
SOIL PORE COST. ..............
SOIL CORE COST
SUBTOTAL. . ... .. g. . . . . .
INSPECTION ANO TESTING FEE...
CONTRACTORS FEE
ENGINEERING FEE
SUBTOTAL.
CONTINGENCY . ป . . . . . . . . . . . . . ซ.
TOTAL CLOSURE COST
POST CLOSURE COSTS
LAND AUTHORITY + PROP 0 E E 0 CST
GROUNDWATER MONITORING COST.,
SOIL CORE COST...............
EROSION CONTROL COST
VEGETATIVE COVER COST
PARTIAL REVEG COVER COST
INSPECTION COST.. ............
SUBTOTAL. . ฆ . I . a . . mm m m m
ENGINEERING FEE
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY . . . . . . ซ . . . . .
TOTAL POST CLOSURE COST
* 12 2 49.
ป 1943 6.
ป 3 4 4 2.
S 18390.
3 9 119.
S 9 2 9 49 .
S 2 36311.
J 0 .
* 1416 45.
* 13 4058.
S 0 .
* 0 .
s 2 82 .
S S 462 .
S 2 406.
S 0 .
* 6246 .
S 4737 ป
S 4325.
* 3 0 D 9 B 1 .
S 13825.
$ 27850 .
S 3 0 0 S 8 .
J 372554.
$ 35883 .
$ 42843 B.
S 4330 ,
S 5 6 2 1 7 .
ซ 3 7 9 B9 .
* 470 40 .
$ 3 10 153.
S 10 5354.
S 4986.
$ 5 617 3 9.
S 5 617 4.
S 617 9 12.
$ 926 87.
I 7 1 0599 .
------- |