Colorado oil and gas regulators are alleging multiple violations connected to a major blowout at a Chevron well pad in Galeton last April. The allegations, formally submitted by staff at the state鈥檚 Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC), are the first step in a legal process that could lead to hefty fines for the oil and gas operator.
It鈥檚 been nearly three months since a massive blowout at Noble Energy鈥檚 in rural Weld County sent a geyser of well bore fluids spraying into the air. Fourteen homes were evacuated, and a nearby elementary school building was closed for two weeks as workers hired by Chevron, Noble Energy鈥檚 parent company, scrambled for four days to bring the blowout under control. Four households remain evacuated from the area.
At an ECMC on June 26, agency staff opened formal allegations, in the guise of a (NOAV) that Noble Energy/Chevron broke six different state rules, ranging from safety requirements to pollution control. The NOAV accuses Chevron and its subsidiary of failing to take all reasonable precautions to prevent the uncontrolled release of oil and gas. It says the company also erred on several other fronts, including using equipment improperly, failing to keep workers safe, polluting the surrounding air, water and soil and illegally venting natural gas from the well.
At the hearing on Thursday, ECMC鈥檚 interim deputy director Greg Deranleau said penalties imposed by his agency are only one way Chevron could be held financially accountable for the accident.
鈥淭here may be civil settlements for damage,鈥� Deranleau said. 鈥淭here's a possibility for other agencies to enforce their regulations. And of course, there's the cost of the response and clean up.鈥�
On June 10, Chevron wrapped up its investigation into the of the accident, ultimately blaming human error for equipment that was improperly assembled and installed at the well head.
Deranleau said his agency based their allegations, in part, on the outcome of that investigation.
鈥淓CMC has reviewed the root cause analysis that we've received. We do not dispute its findings, and we believe there is a broader conversation to be had surrounding the on-site operations and contributing factors,鈥� he said during prepared remarks. 鈥淪pecifically, if in the future, there are operations in similar situations, such as during the changing of well heads, we can and should collectively discuss what other protocols, on-site operations or other protective barriers could and should be implemented.鈥�
Chevron has 28 days to respond to the allegations. ECMC commissioners will then make a decision in the case. If they accept the recommendations of their staff, Chevron will face penalties, which will be calculated according to statutory formula and negotiated. The process could take months to play out.
