An arsenic corrosion inhibitor named W-41 was used at Lake St. John oilfield in the 1950s. The geochemical signature of the arsenic usage and its migration is preserved in shallow groundwater below the old oilfield pits.
1. Oilfield Pit Groundwater and 1950sOilfield Pit Groundwater and 1950s
Arsenic Corrosion Inhibitor Usage, LakeArsenic Corrosion Inhibitor Usage, Lake
St. John Field, LA: Possible Causes &St. John Field, LA: Possible Causes &
Models for Arsenic and Iron PatternsModels for Arsenic and Iron Patterns
Mary L. Barrett, Ph.D.Mary L. Barrett, Ph.D.
Consulting Geologist & Oilfield HistorianConsulting Geologist & Oilfield Historian
Professor Emeritus of GeologyProfessor Emeritus of Geology
Centenary College of LouisianaCentenary College of Louisiana
Shreveport, LAShreveport, LA
mbarrett@centenary.edumbarrett@centenary.edu
1010thth
Annual Louisiana Groundwater, Surface Water and Water ResourcesAnnual Louisiana Groundwater, Surface Water and Water Resources
SymposiumSymposium
Louisiana State UniversityLouisiana State University
March 24March 24--25, 201625, 2016
2. Oilfield pit groundwater and 1950s arsenic corrosion inhibitor
usage, Lake St. John Field, LA: possible causes and models for
arsenic and iron patterns
Mary L. Barrett, Department of Geology & Geography, Centenary College of
Louisiana, Shreveport, LA 71104: mbarrett@centenary.edu
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
At the Lake St. John (LSJ) Field, Concordia Parish, LA, dissolved arsenic in shallow
groundwater (8 ft to 22 ft below ground surface) occurs in former emergency pit areas associated
with tank batteries and with the saltwater injection disposal system. This study uses publically-
available geochemical and historic oilfield records to examine the possible origins of elevated
groundwater arsenic in three oilfield pits. The study area is composed of two leases historically
known as the Applegate lease and the Pan American Insurance Company lease. They were
developed and produced beginning in 1942 by the California Company (Standard Oil of
California, later Chevron). Both lease areas, in part, have been involved in modern
environmental oilfield (legacy) litigation under LA Act 312 legislation initially passed in 2006.
This legislative act requires involvement and cleanup oversight (along with the court system) by
the Louisiana Office of Conservation (LA OOC) in legacy environmental lawsuits. The
legislation has resulted in a large and rapidly-growing public record of high-quality geochemical
measurements of various media (groundwater, sediment/soil, solid and liquid wastes) performed
by state-certified laboratories. The records (both case files and occasional hearing files) include
paper and digital copies and are available at the LA OOC office in Baton Rouge, LA. The LA
OOC collections of Lake St. John field litigation are used extensively in this study. Geochemical
data were collected by the environmental companies/experts of Pisani & Associates, ICON, and
Geosyntec Consultants.
The three studied pits were used in the 1950s – 1980s as emergency pits (periodic usage) and
were initially closed in the mid- to late-1980s. The study area and the field are located on the
Mississippi River alluvium. The clayey upper section varies from less than 5 ft to over 15 ft in
thickness in the study area. The pits were about 6 ft deep. The lowest dissolved arsenic values
occur at the Applegate (tank battery) pit area, and values range from non-detect to 0.13 mg/l.
Part of this pit’s base was in sand. The highest dissolved arsenic values occur at the Pan
American (tank battery) pit area, and values range from non-detect to 0.915 mg/l. This pit’s base
was underlain by a few feet of clayey sediment. The Wilcox pit was an emergency pit for the
saltwater disposal (SWD) well system, and its dissolved arsenic values range from non-detect up
to 0.517 mg/l. This pit’s base was underlain by clayey sediment, also.
Two models have been put forth in the public record to explain elevated shallow groundwater
arsenic patterns at the LSJ Field. The first model, a reductive-dissolution model, was put forward
by Geosyntec Consultants (2008a, b, c) based on groundwater sampling of one pit six months
after pit re-closure (the Applegate pit, first closed about 1984, re-closed 2007). The Geosyntec
work has been submitted to the LA OOC records from 2008 through March of 2015. In this
model, reducing groundwater conditions related to oily pit wastes or other organics result in
3. 2
adsorbed natural arsenic being released into solution when oxidized iron and manganese species
are dissolved. Expected groundwater model conditions include low oxidation-reduction potential
(ORP) measurements, and elevated arsenic and elevated iron wholly due to solids dissolution.
Published Louisiana studies indicate that sediment redox conditions influence solubility of
arsenic and iron, and this is expected to influence dissolved metal amounts in natural
environments (Guo and others, 1997; Miao and others, 2006). But, some dissolved groundwater
arsenic below the LSJ field pits is elevated above Pisani & Associates’ interpretation of 0.12
mg/l as the highest naturally-occurring dissolved arsenic value, and the pit values are also above
a documented 0.10 mg/l measurement in shallow Mississippi River alluvium groundwater away
from the oil field.
The second model was put forward by the author in meeting presentations beginning in October
of 2014, and it relies on the geochemical data from the three sampled pits (2006-2015) and the
historic record of arsenic corrosion inhibitor usage in the LSJ field. W-41, a patented arsenic-
based corrosion inhibitor of Standard Oil of California, was added to well brines and circulated
through LSJ field’s unit and lease production systems prior to well injection and disposal in the
1950s. Organic-based (no metals) corrosion inhibitors were being used by the early 1960s.
Oilfields require consideration of all possible anthropogenic sources for arsenic, especially
arsenic-based corrosion inhibitors and arsenic-based herbicides. Arsenic was used to inhibit
corrosion in oilfield flow systems in two ways: 1) as a production corrosion inhibitor dissolved
in circulating oilfield waters and used in U.S. fields in the 1950s (Hill and Davie, 1955) and in
the Gulf Coast oilfields from 1949 to at least the late 1950s (Jones, 1955; LA Stream Control
Commission, 1957; Gardner, 1963); and 2) as an acid corrosion inhibitor, used in acid well
treatments from the mid-1930s into the 1970s. Patents held by Standard Oil of California on the
arsenic-based production corrosion inhibitor stated a preferred dissolved arsenic concentration in
produced water at 5 ppm after introduction of 10 to 50 ppm at a well, depending on corrosion
treatment requirements (calculated as arsenous oxide) (Rohrback and McCloud, 1953; Frisius,
1959).
Examples of forgotten knowledge about arsenic-based corrosion inhibitors are publications of
the American Petroleum Institute (API)—while a paper published in 1955 described arsenic-
based corrosion inhibitor usage in California fields (Hill and Davie, 1955), publications of 1998
and 2011 did not list this previous arsenic usage as a possible anthropogenic source (API, 1998,
2006). Past arsenic-based herbicide and corrosion usages are also documented in U.S. oilfields
by veterinary studies of poisoned cows (Edwards and others, 1979; Morgan and others, 1984;
Coppock and others, 1996).
Dissolved iron and chlorides are also elevated in the LSJ field pits’ groundwater. Both old LSJ
field brine analyses and published general oilfield corrosion studies indicate that elevated
dissolved iron is common in produced brines due to corrosion. The observed geochemical
patterns around the heavily-sampled Pan American pit indicate that relative ion mobility in the
groundwater is chlorides > iron > arsenic. The ORP values below the pit are slightly reduced as
compared to nearby monitoring wells, but elevated pit groundwater arsenic or iron does not vary
with ORP. Highest arsenic and iron values are associated with chlorides.
4. 3
The Applegate pit, first closed in 1984, was sampled sporadically from 2007 to 2015. The lowest
dissolved arsenic measurements at the pit were in 2008, 6 months after the Applegate pit was re-
closed. Arsenic values suggest an apparent relationship to not only ORP and iron, but also to
conductivity (salinity). The 2008 sampling event is interpreted as impacted by the pit re-closure.
The groundwater sampling from 2012-2015 contained elevated arsenic and elevated chlorides by
the pit, similar to what was present in initial 2007 sampling prior to pit re-closure.
The Geosyntec reductive-dissolution model depends on the presence of oily waste or other
organics in an oilfield setting and no anthropogenic sources of arsenic and iron. Publically-
available oilfield geochemical data in Louisiana oilfields do not show a common pattern of oily
wastes (in pits or otherwise) to elevated dissolved arsenic. This model may be limited in its
ability to explain elevated arsenic in old oilfield pits. However, if the elevated groundwater
arsenic is related to the 1950s usage of arsenic corrosion inhibitors, then prediction of other
potentially-impacted areas is easier. In the LSJ Field, tank battery pits and saltwater disposal
well pits of the 1950s operated by the California Company will be of interest.
A 1955 document addressing SWD wells at LSJ field stated that W-41 circulation from
production wells controlled corrosion for the SWD wells, indicating that both the unit and non-
unit (lease) production systems of the California Company circulated W-41. Thus, the 1950s
tank battery pits and the saltwater well (SWD) pits are expected to have been exposed to waste
saltwater elevated to different amounts with dissolved arsenic corrosion inhibitors. Oilfield
maps and historic aerial photography of 1955, 1959 and 1960 were used to find and map the tank
battery and SWD well pits. Other pits were also noted (reserve/drilling pits, well/burn pits, high-
pressure gas blowdown pits), but these individual well-associated pit types are less-likely to
contain a large saltwater impact. These other pits were not mapped as probably having an
elevated arsenic signature related to 1950s production wells producing saltwater.
SELECTED REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute, 1998, Arsenic: chemistry, fate, toxicity, and wastewater treatment
options; API Publ. no. 4676, prepared under contract by EA Engineering, Science, &
Technology, Inc., 193 pp.
American Petroleum Institute, 2011, API groundwater arsenic manual: attenuation of naturally-
occurring arsenic at petroleum impacted sites; API Publ. no. 4761, prepared under contract by
ERM, Inc., 98 pp.
Barrett, M. L., 2014, Historic oilfield arsenic sources: implications for pit groundwater models;
21st
International Petroleum Environmental Conference, Oct. 14-16, Houston, TX, presentation
<http://ipec.utulsa.edu/Conf2014/Full_Manuscripts_Presentations_Speech/Barrett.pdf>
Accessed March 20, 2015.
California Spray-Chemical Corporation, 1952, Ortho W-41; U. S. Patent Office, trade-mark
serial no. 71629474, application dated 5-10-1952, registered 12-09-1952.
5. 4
Coppock, R. W., M. S. Mostrom, E. L. Stair, and S. S. Semalulu, 1996, Toxicopathology of
oilfield poisoning in cattle: a review; Veterinary and Human Toxicology, v. 38, p. 36-42.
Edwards, V. C., R. W. Cappock, and L. L. Zinn, 1979, Toxicoses related to the petroleum
industry; Veterinary and Human Toxicology, v. 21, p. 328-337.
Frisius, E. N., 1959, Inhibitor solution, and method of inhibiting oil well corrosion therewith; U.
S. Patent no. 2885359, filed 10-12-1954, patented 5-5-1959.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2008a, Groundwater characterization work plan, former June Bug
(Applegate) pit, Concordia Parish, LA, April 2008; LA Office of Conservation Tensas-Poppadoc
hearing docket no. ENV 2001-L-1, Chevron exhibits v. 12, C202-0001 to -0032.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2008b, Groundwater characterization report, former June Bug
(Applegate) pit, Concordia Parish, LA, July 2008; LA Office of Conservation Tensas-Poppadoc
hearing docket no. ENV 2001-L-1, G. Miller reliance documents, v. 28, P-EX-1085, p. 198-424.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2008c, Groundwater characterization report, review and summary,
former June Bug (Applegate) pit, presentation slides, July 2008; LA Office of Conservation
Tensas-Poppadoc hearing docket no. ENV 2001-L-1, Chevron exhibits v. 18, C217-0001 to -
0013.
Gardner, G. S., et al., 1963, Inhibitor composition and method of inhibiting acid attack on metal
in acidizing of wells; U.S. patent no. 3094490, filed 12-27-1960, patented 6-18-63.
Ghosh, R., et al., 2003, Geochemistry, fate and transport of dissolved arsenic in petroleum
hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater; National Groundwater Assoc., Proceedings, 20th Conf.,
Costa Mesa, CA, Aug. 19-22, 2003, pg. 266-280.
Guo, T., R. D. DeLaune, and W. H. Patrick, Jr., 1997, The influence of sediment redox chemistry
on chemically active forms of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and zinc in estuarine sediment;
Environment International, v. 23, p. 305-316.
Hill, P. W., and F. E. Davie, 1955, Corrosion treatment of pumping wells in California, in
Drilling and Production Practice, 1954; New York, American Petroleum Institute, p. 181-186.
Jones, E. N., 1955, The corrosion problem in the Wilcox trend of Texas, in Proceedings, 8th Oil
Recovery Conference, April 4-5, 1955, Texas Petroleum Research Committee, Bull. no. 44, p.
257-269.
Klinchuch, L. A., et al., 1999, Does biodegradation of petroleum hydrocarbons affect the
occurrence or mobility of dissolved arsenic in groundwater? Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, p.
9-24.
Louisiana Office of Conservation, Baton Rouge, oilfield cleanup files, OC Legacy Project no.
006-007, Tensas-Poppadoc property (Applegate and Wilcox pits), Lake St. John Field.
6. 5
Louisiana Office of Conservation, Baton Rouge, oilfield cleanup files, OC Legacy Project no.
007-007, Tillman property (Pan American Life Insurance pit), Lake St. John Field.
Louisiana Office of Conservation, Baton Rouge, Tensas-Poppadoc, Inc., et al., vs. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc., et al., hearing and file records of Docket no. ENV 2008-L-01 (hearing of Feb. 9-13,
16, 2009).
Louisiana Stream Control Commission, 1957, Proceedings of minutes, June 13, 1957; LDEQ-
EDMS Doc. no. 2986904, p. 40-41 (available at edms.deq.louisiana.gov/app/doc/querydef.aspx).
Miao, S., R. D. DeLaune, A. Jugsujinda, 2006, Influence of sediment redox conditions on
release/solubility of metals and nutrients in a Louisiana Mississippi River deltaic plain
freshwater lake; Science of the Total Environment, v. 371, p. 334-343.
Morgan, S. E., G. L. Morgan, and W. C. Edwards, 1984, Pinpointing the source of arsenic
poisoning in a herd of cattle; Veterinary Medicine, v. 79, p. 1525-1528.
Rohrback, G. H., D. M. McCloud, and W. R. Scott, 1953, Corrosion inhibitor containing
arsenous oxide and potassium hydroxide; U. S. patent no. 2636000, filed 12-22-1951, patented 4-
21-1953.
Rohrback, G. H., and D. M. McCloud, 1953, Method for inhibiting corrosion; U. S. patent no.
2635698, filed 3-16-1951, patented 4-21-1953.
Rohrback, G. H., D. M. McCloud, and W. R. Scott, 1954, Corrosion inhibitor; U. S. patent
2684332, filed 12-29-1950, patented 7-20-1954.
Rohrback, G. H., et al., 1954, Corrosion inhibiting composition; U. S. patent 2684333, filed 12-
29-1950, patented 7-20-1954.
Shock, D. A., and J. D. Sudbury, 1954, Corrosion control in gas lift wells, part II, evaluation of
inhibitors; Corrosion, v. 10, Sept. 1954, p. 289-294.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Recommended methods of reduction,
neutralization, recovery or disposal of hazardous waste, volume VI; EPA-670/2-73-053-f,
August 1973.
Welch, H. L., et al., 2010, Occurrence of phosphorous in groundwater and surface water of
northwestern Mississippi; Proceedings, Mississippi Water Resources Conf., Nov. 3-5, 2010, Bay
St. Louis, MS, p. 142-155.
Yang, N., et al., 2014, Predicting geogenic arsenic contamination in shallow groundwater of
South Louisiana, United States; Environmental Science & Technology, v. 48, p. 5660-5666.
7. Public Record Usage for InterpretationsPublic Record Usage for Interpretations
The Lake St. John Field, LA, has a large public recordThe Lake St. John Field, LA, has a large public record
available due to litigation (four cases settled 9/2014; courtavailable due to litigation (four cases settled 9/2014; court
& OOC hearing records in one case)& OOC hearing records in one case)
This is primarily due to LA Act 312 (2006+) & LA Office ofThis is primarily due to LA Act 312 (2006+) & LA Office of
Conservation (OOC) cleanup oversight of oilfield litigationConservation (OOC) cleanup oversight of oilfield litigation
““legacylegacy”” sites (investigation & closure reports addressingsites (investigation & closure reports addressing
Order 29Order 29--B and RECAP standards; raw data; hearingB and RECAP standards; raw data; hearing
records w/ historic field records)records w/ historic field records)
I was a defense expert retained in two cases thatI was a defense expert retained in two cases that
generated public records; geologist, oilfield historiangenerated public records; geologist, oilfield historian
(environmental companies responsible for analytical data:(environmental companies responsible for analytical data:
ICON;ICON; PisaniPisani & Assoc., some& Assoc., some GeosyntecGeosyntec))
Work on the last case ended Feb. 2014; I have pursuedWork on the last case ended Feb. 2014; I have pursued
this research since then, not retained concerning it, nothis research since then, not retained concerning it, no
discussions with past litigation experts (my opinions)discussions with past litigation experts (my opinions)
8. Presentation ObjectivesPresentation Objectives
Lake St. John Field, Concordia/TensasLake St. John Field, Concordia/Tensas
Parishes, LAParishes, LA
Update my IPEC 11/2015 talk with additional public regulatory daUpdate my IPEC 11/2015 talk with additional public regulatory datata
from two litigation (settled 9/14) lease production sites (Applefrom two litigation (settled 9/14) lease production sites (Applegategate
OOC # 007OOC # 007--006; and Pan American Life Insurance OOC #007006; and Pan American Life Insurance OOC #007--007)007)
Consider multiple hypotheses for origin of elevated shallowConsider multiple hypotheses for origin of elevated shallow
groundwater (GW) arsenic (As), iron (Fe) and chlorides (groundwater (GW) arsenic (As), iron (Fe) and chlorides (ClCl) below) below
pitspits
Arsenic (as corrosion inhibitor) was used in the 1950s field; cArsenic (as corrosion inhibitor) was used in the 1950s field; consideronsider
how this knowledge is important as a model of arsenic impact arehow this knowledge is important as a model of arsenic impact areasas
Consider if data (as of 9/15) reasonably support a 2008 reductivConsider if data (as of 9/15) reasonably support a 2008 reductivee--
dissolution GW pit model to partially or completely explain elevdissolution GW pit model to partially or completely explain elevatedated
arsenic patternsarsenic patterns
Add another litigation (settled 9/14) area (Wagoner OOC # 006Add another litigation (settled 9/14) area (Wagoner OOC # 006--001)001)
where no groundwater wells, just soil data within old pits. Compwhere no groundwater wells, just soil data within old pits. Compare toare to
previouslypreviously--studied pits and related LSJ Field arsenic & pit historystudied pits and related LSJ Field arsenic & pit history
10. Lake St. John Field ExamplesLake St. John Field Examples
Discovered in 1942, Tensas & Concordia Parishes, LADiscovered in 1942, Tensas & Concordia Parishes, LA
Major producing field for The California CompanyMajor producing field for The California Company
(Standard Oil of CA, later Chevron); lease & unit operator(Standard Oil of CA, later Chevron); lease & unit operator
Lease production impacts (Applegate & Pan AmericanLease production impacts (Applegate & Pan American
examples, Wilcox Fm mainly) have the most modern dataexamples, Wilcox Fm mainly) have the most modern data
Unit production example (Wagoner example, CretaceousUnit production example (Wagoner example, Cretaceous
& some Tertiary age) has modern soil geochemical data& some Tertiary age) has modern soil geochemical data
onlyonly
Outline of field study interpretationsOutline of field study interpretations
–– Public records indicate 1950s arsenic corrosion inhibitor usagePublic records indicate 1950s arsenic corrosion inhibitor usage in leasein lease
and unit systemsand unit systems
–– Examine modern groundwater geochemistry around old lease emergenExamine modern groundwater geochemistry around old lease emergencycy
pit areas; interpreted as arsenic corrosion inhibitor impactpit areas; interpreted as arsenic corrosion inhibitor impact
–– Look at Wagoner unit example and closure; probable shallowLook at Wagoner unit example and closure; probable shallow gwgw impact?impact?
11. Basic Model: Reductive Dissolution of Iron OxidesBasic Model: Reductive Dissolution of Iron Oxides
Fe oxides common in ourFe oxides common in our
LA sedimentLA sediment
As released into GW withAs released into GW with
““reductive dissolutionreductive dissolution””
when some cause for awhen some cause for a
reducing environmentreducing environment
(organics, oil, clay(organics, oil, clay……))
Fe oxides reFe oxides re--precipitate asprecipitate as
GW move into oxidizingGW move into oxidizing
zone, rezone, re--absorb Asabsorb As
Model looks for relationsModel looks for relations
between ORP, Fe, Asbetween ORP, Fe, As
Does not addressDoes not address
anthopogenicanthopogenic As, FeAs, Fe
Does not address AsDoes not address As
desorption (phosphates)desorption (phosphates)
(Diagram modified from
petroleum refinery & oil spill
example, Ghosh et al., 2003)
12. Groundwater Arsenic GeochemicalGroundwater Arsenic Geochemical
Models & Oil Field SitesModels & Oil Field Sites
TheThe GeosyntecGeosyntec 2008 reductive2008 reductive--dissolution model/reportdissolution model/report
has been submitted to the OOC public record from 2008has been submitted to the OOC public record from 2008--
2015 by defendant environmental experts2015 by defendant environmental experts
This and published arsenic models are useful, but mustThis and published arsenic models are useful, but must
consider Gulf Coast oilfield regions of different geology &consider Gulf Coast oilfield regions of different geology &
hydrogeology, and oilfield knowledgehydrogeology, and oilfield knowledge
WasteWaste ““oilfield chemistryoilfield chemistry”” has a history, & pits oftenhas a history, & pits often
record this historyrecord this history
Any oilfield groundwater model which uses naturallyAny oilfield groundwater model which uses naturally--
dissolved iron & arsenic must consider their possibledissolved iron & arsenic must consider their possible
anthropogenic sources as wellanthropogenic sources as well
13. Amorphous Iron Precipitates: Long History of Study inAmorphous Iron Precipitates: Long History of Study in
Oilfield Chemistry (Hydrous ferric oxidesOilfield Chemistry (Hydrous ferric oxides——HFOsHFOs))
1950s Oilfield Water Treatment (Powell & Johnson, 1952)
14. Iron Analyses, LSJ Field Produced WaterIron Analyses, LSJ Field Produced Water
1945 analysis, 141945 analysis, 14 ppmppm ((ClCl 13,82013,820 ppmppm))
1959 analysis, 901959 analysis, 90 ppmppm ((ClCl 80,90880,908 ppmppm))
1970 analysis, 2151970 analysis, 215 ppmppm ((ClCl 101,135101,135 ppmppm))
1995 analysis, 21 mg/l (1995 analysis, 21 mg/l (ClCl 59,44959,449 ppmppm))
GENERAL OBSERVATION: Many oil fields had decades (into
1970s, esp.) of elevated dissolved iron in produced water, and thus
potentially into pits
(LA OOC, Tensas Poppadoc hearing files, 2009;
Norman reliance documents, v. 52-53)
16. OilFieldOilField Arsenic Corrosion InhibitorsArsenic Corrosion Inhibitors
Historic U. S. SummaryHistoric U. S. Summary
Acid Corrosion InhibitorAcid Corrosion Inhibitor
–– 19321932, Michigan oilfield acid, Michigan oilfield acid
job, limestonejob, limestone
–– 19341934, arsenic is important acid, arsenic is important acid
job inhibitor, but organics nowjob inhibitor, but organics now
availableavailable
–– Early 1960sEarly 1960s, decrease As, decrease As
usage, but good for highusage, but good for high--TT
wellswells
–– In 1970sIn 1970s, arsenic inhibitor, arsenic inhibitor
phasephase--out in acid jobsout in acid jobs
Production Corrosion InhibitorProduction Corrosion Inhibitor
–– 19491949, Reported first usage in, Reported first usage in
Wilcox of Texas (Jones, 1955)Wilcox of Texas (Jones, 1955)
–– 19501950, LSJ Field considers As, LSJ Field considers As
–– 19541954, CA survey, 17 fields;, CA survey, 17 fields;
65 % pumping wells used65 % pumping wells used
inorganic inhibitors (arsenicalinorganic inhibitors (arsenical
compounds and chromates)compounds and chromates)
(Hill & Davie, API, 1955)(Hill & Davie, API, 1955)
–– 19551955, LSJ Field using As, LSJ Field using As
–– 19571957, LA Stream Control, LA Stream Control
Commission minutes reportCommission minutes report
phasephase--out of oilfield arsenicout of oilfield arsenic
corrosion pellets, strippercorrosion pellets, stripper
fieldsfields
–– 19601960, general end of U. S., general end of U. S.
oilfield arsenic corrosionoilfield arsenic corrosion
inhibitors (Gardner, 1963);inhibitors (Gardner, 1963);
move to organicsmove to organics
17. Iron & 1950s Arsenic Inhibitor in ProducedIron & 1950s Arsenic Inhibitor in Produced
Water (Wilcox Trend, Texas)Water (Wilcox Trend, Texas)
Jones (1955)
(Jones, 1955)
18. LSJ Field Public Documents, ArsenicLSJ Field Public Documents, Arsenic
Corrosion InhibitorsCorrosion Inhibitors
(LA OOC Tensas Poppadoc hearing, 2009; Miller/ICON
reliance documents, v. 28;Tensas/Miller 02469-02470)
19. WW--41 History41 History
WW--41, an arsenic corrosion inhibitor patented by41, an arsenic corrosion inhibitor patented by
Standard Oil of CA, is one example of arsenicStandard Oil of CA, is one example of arsenic
corrosion inhibitors used in some 1950s oilfields ofcorrosion inhibitors used in some 1950s oilfields of
the U.S.the U.S.
Its history is available in public documents.Its history is available in public documents.
20. WW--41 History41 History
California ResearchCalifornia Research
CorpCorp (As & oilfield corrosion)(As & oilfield corrosion)
–– Dec 1950, 2 patents,Dec 1950, 2 patents,
RohrbackRohrback et al (1954)et al (1954)
–– Mar 1951, 2 patents,Mar 1951, 2 patents,
RohrbackRohrback et al (1953)et al (1953)
–– Dec 1951, patent,Dec 1951, patent,
RohrbackRohrback et al (1953)et al (1953)
–– Oct 1954, patent,Oct 1954, patent,
FrisiusFrisius (1959)(1959)
California SprayCalifornia Spray--
Chemical CorpChemical Corp
–– 1952, trademark1952, trademark
application granted forapplication granted for
““Ortho WOrtho W--41,41,”” also used isalso used is
““WW--41,41,”” for arsenicfor arsenic
corrosion inhibitor (42 %corrosion inhibitor (42 %
sodiumsodium arsenitearsenite) (EPA,) (EPA,
1973)1973)
(My Opinion from the public record: W-41 was used in the LSJ Field
in the 1950s; organic inhibitors were used after that)
21. The Lease Study Area: TankThe Lease Study Area: Tank BatterysBatterys andand
SWD Emergency PitsSWD Emergency Pits
22. Mississippi RiverMississippi River
Alluvium & Aquifer atAlluvium & Aquifer at
LSJ FieldLSJ Field
–– Braided stream gravels atBraided stream gravels at
base; cuts into underlyingbase; cuts into underlying
Catahoula Fm sandsCatahoula Fm sands
–– Mostly pointMostly point--bar sandsbar sands
–– FiningFining--up into levee, overbank,up into levee, overbank,
floodplain deposits (clay/silt)floodplain deposits (clay/silt)
–– This nearThis near--surface unit issurface unit is
aquiferaquifer’’s confining layer, ands confining layer, and
–– It varies from 2It varies from 2 –– 18 ft in18 ft in
Applegate/Pan Am areas, (22Applegate/Pan Am areas, (22 ––
34 ft in Wagoner area)34 ft in Wagoner area) (Typical near-surface
section from Pisani &
Assoc., 2008; LA OOC
file # 006-007)
23. 1968 Pit Descriptions, Study Area1968 Pit Descriptions, Study Area
Applegate PitApplegate Pit (closed ~ 1984; re(closed ~ 1984; re--closed 2007)closed 2007)
–– 7070’’ x 150x 150’’ x 8x 8’’ (include 2(include 2’’ levee)levee)
–– UsageUsage ““only in emergencyonly in emergency””
Wilcox PitWilcox Pit (closed 1990)(closed 1990)
–– 100100’’ x 100x 100’’ x 8x 8’’ (include 2(include 2’’ levee)levee)
–– UsageUsage ““well backwashingwell backwashing”” (and emergency)(and emergency)
Pan American PitPan American Pit (closed ~ 1984; re(closed ~ 1984; re--closedclosed
2010)2010)
–– 150150’’ x 200x 200’’ x 8x 8’’ (include 2(include 2’’ levee)levee)
–– UsageUsage ““only in emergencyonly in emergency””
(LA OOC Tensas-Poppadoc hearing; exhibit Tensas/Miller 2455-56)
24. FineFine--grained Unit Thicknessgrained Unit Thickness
(data from all soil boring descriptions of ICON, Pisani & Assoc., and
Geosyntec; meander & swale lines after Saucier, 1967)
26. Shallow Groundwater Data (8Shallow Groundwater Data (8’’ to 22to 22’’ belowbelow
surface) From Lease Study Areassurface) From Lease Study Areas
The analyses fromThe analyses from PisaniPisani & Associates, ICON& Associates, ICON
(G. Miller), are numerous and of high(G. Miller), are numerous and of high--qualityquality
((GeosyntecGeosyntec data are limited but of highdata are limited but of high--quality)quality)
Shallow groundwater data are most reflective ofShallow groundwater data are most reflective of
potential old oilfield impacts & possiblepotential old oilfield impacts & possible
controlling influences in pit areascontrolling influences in pit areas
Groundwater wells at deeper depths (60Groundwater wells at deeper depths (60’’--8080’’, +, +
below surface) do not have total arsenic valuesbelow surface) do not have total arsenic values
above natural variability range; deeper alluviumabove natural variability range; deeper alluvium
waters are a variation within the largerwaters are a variation within the larger
sediment/water geochemical systemsediment/water geochemical system
27. What is the LSJ Field AreaWhat is the LSJ Field Area’’s Dissolveds Dissolved
Arsenic Natural Variability?Arsenic Natural Variability?
PisaniPisani & Associates (2012 report; LA OOC file& Associates (2012 report; LA OOC file
# 007# 007--007) interpret the natural range from non007) interpret the natural range from non--detect (ND)detect (ND)
up to 0.12 mg/lup to 0.12 mg/l
A study in shallowA study in shallow allluviumallluvium across the River in Mississippiacross the River in Mississippi
has an As range of ND to 0.10 mg/l (Welsh et al, 2010; alsohas an As range of ND to 0.10 mg/l (Welsh et al, 2010; also
phosphorous)phosphorous)
ICON data from Tensas Parish landfill, ND up to 0.16 mg/lICON data from Tensas Parish landfill, ND up to 0.16 mg/l
(~ 25 mi away, 1994 to 2014 data, LDEQ EDMS # AI 43506)(~ 25 mi away, 1994 to 2014 data, LDEQ EDMS # AI 43506)
The LSJ field study area has localized shallow groundwaterThe LSJ field study area has localized shallow groundwater
measurements (total arsenic) above these valuesmeasurements (total arsenic) above these values
Limited arsenic species measurements at LSJ field; bothLimited arsenic species measurements at LSJ field; both
arsenic species were present (As III and As V) in similararsenic species were present (As III and As V) in similar
amountsamounts
28. Arsenic in Pit Soils, Sediment, & WatersArsenic in Pit Soils, Sediment, & Waters
55 years after alleged As usage, modern pit solids of usually ha55 years after alleged As usage, modern pit solids of usually haveve
arsenic ranges within Parish soil ranges (from 1 to 10 mg/kg)arsenic ranges within Parish soil ranges (from 1 to 10 mg/kg)
–– Pits modified, rebuilt 2Pits modified, rebuilt 2--3 times during usage3 times during usage
–– Pan Am & Applegate pit closure ~1984; both rePan Am & Applegate pit closure ~1984; both re--closed (Applegate 2007;closed (Applegate 2007;
Pan Am 2010); Wilcox pit closed in 1990; Wagoner pits closed ~19Pan Am 2010); Wilcox pit closed in 1990; Wagoner pits closed ~198484
–– One Wilcox pit sample (Applegate lease) at 16.9 mg/kg; three samOne Wilcox pit sample (Applegate lease) at 16.9 mg/kg; three samplesples
from Wagoner pit areas at 12.3from Wagoner pit areas at 12.3--16.9 mg/kg, and two samples at 55.1 and16.9 mg/kg, and two samples at 55.1 and
35.9 mg/kg35.9 mg/kg
A 1984 G & E study found dissolved arsenic in brackish pit waterA 1984 G & E study found dissolved arsenic in brackish pit waterss
within the Applegate (0.04 mg/l) and Pan Am (0.05 mg/l) pits. Awithin the Applegate (0.04 mg/l) and Pan Am (0.05 mg/l) pits. A
““central battery #1central battery #1”” pit, possibly a Wagoner pit, was at 0.19 mg/l. Thepit, possibly a Wagoner pit, was at 0.19 mg/l. The
2 ft of bottom sludge ranged from 3 to 4.5 mg/kg As2 ft of bottom sludge ranged from 3 to 4.5 mg/kg As
The use of soil analyses alone does not predict whether pitThe use of soil analyses alone does not predict whether pit
groundwater arsenic will be elevated above background valuesgroundwater arsenic will be elevated above background values
(LA OOC Tensas(LA OOC Tensas PoppadocPoppadoc hearing, exhibits Tensas/Miller 00152hearing, exhibits Tensas/Miller 00152--00510;00510;
LA OOC file # 006LA OOC file # 006--007, reports of ICON 2008,007, reports of ICON 2008, PisaniPisani & Assoc., 2008 & 2012;& Assoc., 2008 & 2012;
LA OOC file # 007LA OOC file # 007--007, reports of007, reports of PisaniPisani & Assoc., 2010 & 2015& Assoc., 2010 & 2015
LA OOC file # 006LA OOC file # 006--001,001, PisaniPisani & Associates, 1& Associates, 1--55--2015 report)2015 report)
29. Wilcox & Pan Am Pit Areas, 1974Wilcox & Pan Am Pit Areas, 1974
Wilcox
pit
PA pit
(oil wells in green, SWD wells in blue)(oil wells in green, SWD wells in blue)
30. Pan Am Pit Area, GW Data Ranges (in mg/l)Pan Am Pit Area, GW Data Ranges (in mg/l)
from Jan. 2010from Jan. 2010-- Sept. 2015Sept. 2015
(data from LA OOC, Tillman file #007-007, Pisani & Assoc. reports 2012-2015)
31. Pan Am Pit Area, ORP & GW ElevationPan Am Pit Area, ORP & GW Elevation
2010 – 2015 data
32. Pan Am Pit GWPan Am Pit GW
20102010--20142014
–– Higher iron w/Higher iron w/
chlorides under pit;chlorides under pit;
probable oilfield waterprobable oilfield water
source impactsource impact
–– Higher arsenic w/Higher arsenic w/
chlorides under pit,chlorides under pit,
probable oilfield waterprobable oilfield water
source impactsource impact
33. Pan Am Pit GWPan Am Pit GW
20102010--20142014
–– As vs. FeAs vs. Fe
varies in relation to pitvaries in relation to pit
proximityproximity
–– ORP v. FeORP v. Fe
There is not an obviousThere is not an obvious
relationship betweenrelationship between
ORP variability and FeORP variability and Fe
34. Pan Am Pit, Iron & ChloridePan Am Pit, Iron & Chloride
Boundaries if Related to PitBoundaries if Related to Pit
35. Applegate LeaseApplegate Lease
PisaniPisani (2008, 2015)(2008, 2015)
contours 250 mg/lcontours 250 mg/l
chloride (yellow line)chloride (yellow line)
–– I labeled highestI labeled highest
dissolved arsenicdissolved arsenic
(total) hits over 0.10(total) hits over 0.10
mg/l (2006mg/l (2006--2015 data)2015 data)
–– Occurs In SWD &Occurs In SWD &
tank battery pit areas;tank battery pit areas;
in limited nonin limited non--pit areaspit areas
(Pisani 2008, 2015 chloride contour maps
From reports in LA OOC file #006-007)
36. Applegate Pit Area, GW AnalysesApplegate Pit Area, GW Analyses
(in mg/l) from 2006(in mg/l) from 2006--0707
(ICON analyses plotted on ICON base map, 1974 aerial; LA OOC
Tensas-Poppadoc hearing, ICON 2008 report)
37. Applegate PitApplegate Pit
–– GeosyntecGeosyntec GW data, AprilGW data, April
of 2008 (only ORP dataof 2008 (only ORP data
ever acquired)ever acquired)
–– Sampled six months afterSampled six months after
partial pitpartial pit digoutdigout/new fill/new fill
–– and during high GWand during high GW
elevation, reverse GWelevation, reverse GW
movement towards the lakemovement towards the lake
–– If apparent As relationshipsIf apparent As relationships
with ORP and Fewith ORP and Fe……..
–– Then apparent relationshipThen apparent relationship
of ORP and conductivityof ORP and conductivity
(salinity) ?(salinity) ?
38. Applegate Pit Area, GW Data Ranges (inApplegate Pit Area, GW Data Ranges (in
mg/l) from 2008mg/l) from 2008--20152015
Data from OOC Poppadoc file # 006-007; Geosyntec Report, 2008, Pisani 2012-2015
39. Applegate PitApplegate Pit
–– All data, 2007All data, 2007--15 (no15 (no
ORP except 2008)ORP except 2008)
–– TheThe GeosyntecGeosyntec 2008 data2008 data
are generally lower valuesare generally lower values
compared to 2007 andcompared to 2007 and
20122012--1515
–– The April 2008 samplingThe April 2008 sampling
was 6 months after pit rewas 6 months after pit re--
closureclosure
–– MWMW--3 has elevated Fe,3 has elevated Fe,
why?why?
(note that the 9/15 values were not(note that the 9/15 values were not
plotted in time, but show slightplotted in time, but show slight
increase in MWincrease in MW--1 arsenic (0.15)1 arsenic (0.15)
40. Interpretation of PatternsInterpretation of Patterns
GW under the Pan Am pit moderately reduced, but no clearGW under the Pan Am pit moderately reduced, but no clear
relation of ORP & Asrelation of ORP & As
Areas of oily waste impacts do not always have elevated AsAreas of oily waste impacts do not always have elevated As
Highest Fe values (interpreted as added) have elevatedHighest Fe values (interpreted as added) have elevated
arsenic, and associatedarsenic, and associated ClCl indicate oilfield impactsindicate oilfield impacts
Other Fe sources besides soil available (produced water,Other Fe sources besides soil available (produced water,
rusty oldrusty old flowlinesflowlines, etc), etc)
WW--41 arsenic corrosion inhibitor usage in the 1950s likely41 arsenic corrosion inhibitor usage in the 1950s likely
source of elevated dissolved arsenic in pits at LSJ fieldsource of elevated dissolved arsenic in pits at LSJ field
In addition, arsenicIn addition, arsenic--based herbicides & rust inhibitors possiblybased herbicides & rust inhibitors possibly
used in the past around oilfield facilitiesused in the past around oilfield facilities——this usage and itsthis usage and its
modern impacts usually not consideredmodern impacts usually not considered
TheThe GeosyntecGeosyntec 2008 interpretation of a reductive2008 interpretation of a reductive--dissolutiondissolution
model to explain elevated GW arsenic & iron is not supportedmodel to explain elevated GW arsenic & iron is not supported
by the additional data; plus, no followby the additional data; plus, no follow--up ORP data acquired,up ORP data acquired,
Fe measurements ended 2014Fe measurements ended 2014
41. A Possible ModelA Possible Model
Observed ion mobility in GW from PA pit:Observed ion mobility in GW from PA pit: ClCl > Fe > As> Fe > As
HFOsHFOs added to emergency pits from produced wateradded to emergency pits from produced water
over decades; As usage in 1950s, strongly absorbed byover decades; As usage in 1950s, strongly absorbed by
HFOsHFOs when presentwhen present
In pit bottom, oily sludge and sometimes stagnantIn pit bottom, oily sludge and sometimes stagnant
saltwater above this, reducing; GW below reducingsaltwater above this, reducing; GW below reducing
Movement of reducing water withMovement of reducing water with ClCl, Fe (, Fe (++ As) where pitAs) where pit
seepage, into sediment with Fe grain coatingsseepage, into sediment with Fe grain coatings
GW away from pit more oxidizing, see Fe frontGW away from pit more oxidizing, see Fe front
Added As stays within or close to pit or source originsAdded As stays within or close to pit or source origins
One monitor well (MWOne monitor well (MW--3) in Applegate area has elevated3) in Applegate area has elevated
Fe (and possibly As) that is not related to the pit; the FeFe (and possibly As) that is not related to the pit; the Fe
is a clue that another source is responsibleis a clue that another source is responsible
42. Wagoner Pits are part of LSJ UnitWagoner Pits are part of LSJ Unit
* Aerial photo
of 1959; yellow
property outline
* Site remediation
rpt (2015; OOC
file # 006-001)
stated no SWD
well on property
(p. 3)
* No anthropogenic
arsenic sources
considered in
remediation rpt
* Pit soil borings to
15 ft; scattered oily
impacts; a few high
As values
+
Boring of 24’:
clay then wet
silt @ 22.5’
43. Wagoner PitsWagoner Pits
22 soil samples; composite22 soil samples; composite
intervals of 0intervals of 0--3 ft, 33 ft, 3--6 ft, 66 ft, 6--
9 ft, 99 ft, 9--12 ft12 ft
LeachateLeachate chlorides rangechlorides range
of 106 to 532 mg/l (oneof 106 to 532 mg/l (one
sample over 500 mg/l)sample over 500 mg/l)
No GW monitor wellsNo GW monitor wells
About 16 ft of clay belowAbout 16 ft of clay below
original pits; closure ~1984original pits; closure ~1984
LA OOC, 10/2015,LA OOC, 10/2015, ““NoNo
further action at this timefurther action at this time””
(NFA(NFA--ATT)ATT)
20 soil samples;20 soil samples;
composite intervals samecomposite intervals same
LeachateLeachate chlorides rangechlorides range
of 71 to 568 mg/l (oneof 71 to 568 mg/l (one
sample over 500 mg/l)sample over 500 mg/l)
GW monitor wells,GW monitor wells,
elevated arsenic to 0.915elevated arsenic to 0.915
A few ft of clay belowA few ft of clay below
original pit base; closuresoriginal pit base; closures
~ 1984 and July 2010~ 1984 and July 2010
Pan American Pit
44. ConclusionsConclusions
A reductive dissolution model for elevated arsenic and iron beloA reductive dissolution model for elevated arsenic and iron beloww
oilfield pits must consider all anthropogenic sources to be viaboilfield pits must consider all anthropogenic sources to be viablele
TheThe ClCl association is critical, althoughassociation is critical, although ClCl mobility is greater and thusmobility is greater and thus
relatively reducedrelatively reduced
Shallow pit soils and their geochemical measurements do notShallow pit soils and their geochemical measurements do not
appear reflective of shallow GW impacts which occurred from pitappear reflective of shallow GW impacts which occurred from pit
leakage waters with chlorides,leakage waters with chlorides, ++ As (Pan Am pit, probably WagonerAs (Pan Am pit, probably Wagoner
pits)pits)
Lease pit modern excavations/closings may affect oily and saltyLease pit modern excavations/closings may affect oily and salty
impacts of shallow GW, but apparently not arsenicimpacts of shallow GW, but apparently not arsenic
However, historic knowledge concerning SWD well and tank batteryHowever, historic knowledge concerning SWD well and tank battery
pits, and arsenic usage, should be publically recorded (in Fieldpits, and arsenic usage, should be publically recorded (in Field pitpit
closure plans ?). Does such knowledge play a part in RECAPclosure plans ?). Does such knowledge play a part in RECAP
work?work?
Next Steps of 2016+: extrapolate this knowledge to field, find tNext Steps of 2016+: extrapolate this knowledge to field, find the oldhe old
tank battery and SWD pits of the 1950s. Give the map to the LAtank battery and SWD pits of the 1950s. Give the map to the LA
OOC and get knowledge to the landownersOOC and get knowledge to the landowners
45. DATE: April 1, 2016
TO: See Attached List
CC: See Attached List
FROM: Mary L. Barrett, Ph.D.
RE: The Occurrence of Elevated Shallow Groundwater Arsenic Below Old Chevron Oilfield
Pits, Lake St. John Field, LA, w/ Specific Notes Concerning Remediation/Closure
Report, Wagoner Property, Tensas Parish, LA (LA OOC file # 006-001)
Dear Commissioner of Conservation Ieyoub, Environmental Division Director Snellgrove, and
Chevron Counsel Ferratt,
I was a defendant (Chevron) expert in two oilfield legacy cases from Lake St. John (LSJ) Field
(LA OOC legacy files #007-006 and #007-007) from January 2008 to February 2014 and served
as an expert in oilfield waste history and as a geologist. I was not the defense’s expert
environmental company, as that is Pisani and Associates and briefly Geosyntec Consultants.
There are two other legacy case files (# 006-001 and #003-001) from the LSJ Field, and I did not
serve as an expert in those two cases. One of the cases, the Tensas-Poppadoc litigation (OOC
legacy file # 007-006), was tried in district court (in which I testified) and then there was also an
OOC hearing (docket no. ENV 2008-L-01). The Tensas-Poppadoc case and hearing generated
substantial public oilfield records on the LSJ Field. Publically-available paperwork included a
1955 Chevron document (attached) that stated that W-41, a Chevron-patented arsenic corrosion
inhibitor, was used and circulated in the field’s production system. Since October of 2014, I
have used the public scientific and LSJ oilfield records to discuss that the reason for elevated
groundwater arsenic below the sampled old oilfield pits is due to past usage of arsenic-based
corrosion inhibitors. Generally, the groundwater arsenic in shallow sands has not migrated much
from below the clay-based pits.
It is my understanding that a settlement was reached between defendants and plaintiffs on these
four cases in September 2014. Obviously, you all understand better than I as to the delicate
nature of what party, if any, admitted responsibility for particular impacts, versus a settlement
where this admitted responsibility may not occur. It is not my role to know this.
But as a scientist and citizen of the State, I have a professional and ethical duty to report to you
the fieldwide use (as a possible reasonable 1950s oilfield operator action) of this arsenic
corrosion inhibitor in the 1950s LSJ Field operations of Chevron, so that any RECAP analysis
conducted on these sites will have knowledge of W-41’s usage and its possible shallow
groundwater impact. I have carried out this duty by presenting my review and on-going findings
at four scientific meetings and providing copies of these presentations and abstracts to: 1) the LA
OOC Environmental Division (through Stephen Pennington); and 2) the attorneys representing
Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
46. With this letter and the attached presentation (on CD) at last week’s 10th
Annual LA
Groundwater, Surface Water & Water Resources Symposium (sponsored by the LA Geological
Survey and the LA Water Resources Research Institute), this will be the last time that I contact
the OOC Environmental Division and the Chevron attorneys with a copy of meeting powerpoint
presentations/abstracts on this subject matter.
The latest presentation of March 24, 2016, caused me to review the LSJ Field public legacy
records-to-date about 10 days prior, including the Wagoner case file # 006-001. In the file was
the following: The Site Remediation Plan dated January 6, 2015, by Dave Angle of Michael
Pisani & Associates. The OOC correspondence dated October 8, 2015, gave the two Wagoner
emergency pits (SWD & tank battery) the closure status of “No further action at this time”
(NFA-ATT). However, for your records, the Angle report either incorrectly or incompletely
stated some important information which I give below:
1) The report stated (pg. 3) that no saltwater disposal (SWD) well was located on this property.
That is incorrect. The first SWD well drilled in LSJ field by Chevron was on this property—
it was the Pasternack #2 well, SN #30108, converted to a SWD well in 1947 and P & A’d in
1983 (see SONRIS records and OOC records in Baton Rouge);
2) The report considered the underlying clay as protective of groundwater, but the report
documents their observation of scattered visible oil within the clay to the bottom of their
borings, indicating that there was past leakage from the pits through clay imperfections;
3) The SWD well (Pasternack #2) on the Wagoner property was listed on the publically-
available 1955 Chevron document (attached) that stated that the W-41 corrosion inhibitor
was being used in the field and providing corrosion protection for all the listed SWD wells.
This document is the one in my presentations since October 2014;
4) The Angle/Pisani report made no mention of any possible anthropogenic sources of arsenic
to the pits, yet there is elevated groundwater arsenic above their background levels at the
other case site pits used during the 1950s and which have groundwater monitoring wells;
and
5) It is unclear to me whether this significant information would have affected the associated
ERM report which gave the RECAP analysis for the Wagoner site. That is for you to
consider and decide, not me. Please see the last few slides of my included presentation for
my technical observations concerning the public Wagoner data.
My next steps are as follows. I am, of course, doing this work on my own and am not being paid
by anyone to do this. There is little more I can do to help the LA OOC and Chevron in the four
cited cases above, and I wish you the best in determining the next steps in fulfilling your
responsibilities to protect all affected parties. I know that it is the landowners who are
empowered to protect their land, not I. I am probably the most qualified person to identify and
locate the other potentially-impacted Chevron 1950s pits (specifically the SWD and tank battery
emergency pits). This I can do through publically-available data (specifically 1950s aerial
photography and oilfield documents). I have begun this work and to date have found about 7
pits; there may be a few more. Once I complete this, I will get the information to the landowners,
and then they can take it from there. If you want a copy of this mapping, let me know and I will
give a copy to you. I think it may take the year of 2016 for this to happen.
47. I have copied this letter and presentation to the following: 1) to Victor Gregoire, the Chevron
outside attorney who requested that I send him my public presentations concerning this, and 2) to
the LA DEQ groundwater team so that they will know of these arsenic occurrences and studies.
Regards,
Mary L. Barrett, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Geology, Centenary College of Louisiana
Consulting Geologist and Oilfield Historian
Address:
639 Stephenson St.
Shreveport, LA 71104
Mailing List w/ CD Attachment:
TO: Richard P. Ieyoub Gary Snellgrove
Commissioner of Conservation Environmental Division Director
LA Office of Conservation LA Office of Conservation
P. O. Box 94275 P. O. Box 94275
Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Jennifer L. Ferratt
Counsel, Litigation Management Unit
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
100 Northpark Blvd., Rm N4258
Covington, LA
CC: Victor Gregoire LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Outside Senior Counsel for Chevron Office of the Secretary
Kean Miller, LLP Aquifer Eval. & Protection Unit
P.O. Box 3513 P. O. Box 4301
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4301
