Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> From: Jim Barton Ubarton@waterboards.ca.gov] <br /> Sent: Tuesday, May H] 2008 Nuel <br /> Henderson <br /> AM <br /> To: Mike Infurna [EH]; Nuel Henderson [EH] � (/�l•�/',�W1/�y�1'�,�•y� <br /> Subject: Fwd: RE: FCC well abandonments n� <br /> FYI <br /> James L.L. Barton, P.G. <br /> Engineering Geologist <br /> California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central valley Region, 11020 Sun Center <br /> Drive, Suite 200, Rancho Cordova, CA 95670 office (916) 464-4615 <br /> fax (916) 464-4704 <br /> >>> "Tim Cuellar" <tcuellar@advgeoenv.com> 5/13/2008 10:32 AM >>> <br /> The Geoprobe machine you saw is owned by AGE and the operator was an employee of AGE. The <br /> only communication I have with Geoprobe was several months ago I had discussions with <br /> Geoprobe rep. to obtain an appropriate diameter Geoprobe point that we could push down the <br /> CMT casing. <br /> Based on my observations last week during the abandonment of MW-13, pushing more rod down <br /> well MW-13 is not feasible. We will most certainly push the well down even further and <br /> lose the top of the casing and cause even more damage to the situation. I also believe we <br /> run a high risk with this well of pushing through the casing since their appears to be so <br /> much resistance. <br /> Although it is possible that we could be successful at well MW-10 utilizing Geoprobe <br /> technique, I am fairly certain that the technique will not work at wells MW-8, MW-9 and <br /> MW-11 due to the significant grout seals (approx. 35 ft) . Their will be to much resistance <br /> as we push down on the casing and the casing will once again be pushed down the hole. <br /> I have been negotiating with Water Well Technology (i.e. well abandon by explosives) , and <br /> I have been able to convince them to drop their initial estimate from 6K per well to <br /> approx. $3500/well. This would seem more reasonable, and given the fact that we should be <br /> able to destroy 2-3 wells per day, I am inclined to abandon wells MW-8/9/10&11 by this <br /> method given the fact that EHD will allow it. <br /> Although I have personally never abandoned a CMT well by hollow stem augers, I do not <br /> totally agree that the casing (or the entire casing) will be turned to mush. If we are <br /> able to push down the borehole, most of the well materials should be trapped inside the <br /> augers as we push down the bentonite and filter pack sand. If by chance the augers stray <br /> outside the borehole, the CMT casing will still wrap around the augers, essentially <br /> removing the well. <br /> I am by no means saying this is the ideal method to abandon a CMT well. <br /> Given the situation, I think this is the best solution to decommission this well. <br /> Thanks - Tim <br /> Timothy J. Cuellar <br /> Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. <br /> Stockton . Santa Rosa . Monterey . Brea <br /> 1-800-511-9300 <br /> tcuellar@advgeoenv.com <br /> 1 <br />