SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

• Page 2 of 4 Let me know so I can put you on my calendar, blocking out those dates for you. Johnny Yoakum From: Tim Cuellar fmailto.,tcuellar advv eoenv,com] Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 10:55 AM To: John Yoakum [EH] Subject: RE: Flag City Shell Thanks Johnny. I'll wait to hear back from you. Tim Timothy J. Cuellar Senior Project Geologist Advanced GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Stockton • Santa Rosa • Monterey • Brea • Spokane • Reno • Dallas 1-800-511-9300 tcuellar a�advgeoem"om www.advgeoenv..com This email/fax message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)and may contain confidential and privileged information.Any unauthorized review,use,disclosure or distribution of this email/fax is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please contact the sender by email/fax and destroy all paper and electronic copies of the original message. From: John Yoakum [EH] mailto:JYoakunr _sjcehd_com Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:41 AM To: tcuellar advoeoenv.com Cc: Nuel Henderson [EH]; Adrienne Ellsaesser [EH] Subject: RE: Flag City Shell Tim, I have been looking at the figures to determine why the new permitting fees seem to be $8000 when we had said your math was correct. This is what I have discovered. Although the original well count was 42 and the number of parcels was 7, the number of wells is now 40 and the number of parcels is 8. Therefore, the 2 less wells means $250 less (permit fee) and the additional (inspection activities fee) is $375 more. This creates an additional charge of$125 for a total of $8000 instead of the $7875 that we had originally calculated. By the way, as I understand it, the well destruction fees are based on well destructions, not on borings, but since this seems to have been agreed upon, I see no reason to change it at this time. The total bill will really be based on hours of inspection and permitting time. These fees are just a good start on what you should expect the total bill to end up as. 9/4/2012