Preparation Materialspublichealth.lacounty.gov/eh/...SOC_MeetingMaterial... · 6/18/2020 · Melissa Messer and her family are long-time residents of Granada Hills where she works

Scientific Oversight Committee

Introductory Scoping Meeting June 18, 2020

9:00 – 11:00 AM PST

Via WebEx – information on Outlook invitation

Preparation Materials

Table of Contents

Administration

Introductory Scoping Meeting Agenda

CAG Biographies

Tentative Meeting Schedule (updated)

Answers to Questions from SOC Onboarding Calls

Background

Aliso Canyon Disaster and Response Timeline (updated)


Scoping Questions from the CAG

Summary of Associated Chemical Exposures & Supporting Materials

Administration

Introductory Scoping Meeting Agenda The purpose of this meeting is to allow SOC members to:

• Introduce themselves to the Community Advisory Group (CAG) and members of the community affected by the Aliso Canyon Disaster;

• Review and comment on upcoming Aliso Canyon Disaster Health Research Study (ACDHRS) activities and schedule; and

• Begin the process of providing expert guidance on the Study scope and common research questions.

Agenda Items:

8:45 – 9:00 AM Connect into WebEx Call All Attendees

9:00 – 9:10 AM Opening Remarks

• Welcome from facilitator

• Brief background of the Aliso Canyon Disaster and Health Study

• Overview of the SOC

Facilitator

9:10 – 9:55 AM SOC introductions 2 to 3 minutes per SOC member (30-45 minutes total)

SOC members

9:55 – 10:40 AM Guided Scoping Discussion

• Facilitated Scoping Questions

• Open discussion among SOC

Facilitator SOC members

10:40 – 10:55 AM Open Q&A Session

▪ Solicit questions through chat function

Facilitator SOC members

10:55 – 11:00 AM Closing Remarks Facilitator

Community Advisory Group Biographies

Andrew Krowne, MST A lifelong resident of the north San Fernando Valley, accounting and tax professional with a successful Porter Ranch firm, husband and father of 5, turned activist and inventor. Outside of the CAG, spent three years as Treasurer of the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council, work with multiple community and environmental groups and invented the Environmental Health Tracker (EHT), the only app available to geotrack and crowd-source symptom data. For five years the Aliso Canyon blowout and its aftermath have become my life’s work through volunteerism and activism.

Brian Allen

Bruce Hector, MD

Chad Cheung

Craig Galanti Craig Galanti is a 30-year resident of Porter Ranch, CA, where he raised a family while leading business teams as a senior executive at The Walt Disney Company, GE/NBC Universal Studios, and 20th Century Fox. After 20 years of corporate life, Craig launched his own business consulting practice including clients such as Nintendo, ActiVision and SONOS among many others. A native Californian, he earned his MBA from USC in Marketing and Finance. All of Craig’s free time is spent with his wife and three sons. He has worked tenaciously for 4+ years to ensure his family and community receive the best possible health study, which is community-centric, science-driven and without political agendas. Craig looks forward to working in good faith with all parties to achieve these goals.

Jeff Hammond

Kyungza Namkoong

Lori Aivazian Before I became a stay at home mom to my 21-year-old daughter, I had a 16-year career in various positions in Food & Beverage Management for Four Season Hotels at the Seattle and Beverly Hills properties. I am a 20-year resident of Porter Ranch, living less than 2 miles from the SoCalGas Aliso Canyon storage facility. My family and I suffered horrible health effects, and still suffer lingering effects, from the 2015 blowout of well SS-25 and were forced to evacuate our home for 5 months. I became a member of the CAG to act as a voice for my community in the hopes that the $25M health study of the blowout’s effects on our immediate and long-term health will be a thorough science driven study absent of political influence.

Mary Blair

Melissa Messer Melissa Messer and her family are long-time residents of Granada Hills where she works as a graphic designer. She is an avid horsewoman and member of the Granada Hills equestrian community, riding throughout our beautiful hills for over 30 years. As a cancer survivor, she is committed to ensuring the community's right to a healthy environment.

Michael Benedetto

Mihran Kalaydjian Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council Board Member, Chair Education & Schools, Co-Chair of Sustainability, long-time resident of Porter Ranch. Mihran Kalaydjian is the vice president of Strategy for Aerospace Global Services. This function provides strategic planning and support to the Government Services and Commercial Services businesses and the Supply Chain; Digital Aviation & Analytics; Training & Professional Services; and Engineering, Modification & Maintenance capabilities across Mckinsey & Boeing Global Services. Mihran is responsible for the development and implementation of the function’s strategy and planning activities including alignment to Boeing enterprise strategy, benchmarking, and positioning Boeing Global Services for growth.

Mike Kaiser I am a resident of Northridge and serve as a secretary for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council (NENC). I currently serve as the appointed representative for the Community Advisory Group (CAG) for the NENC. In my professional career, I am a physical chemist who works as the instrument manager for the Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry at California State University at Northridge. Which includes the training of faculty and students to use scientific instrumentation for class and research purposes. In my spare time, I am an avid bicycle advocate.

Patty Glueck As a 24-year resident of the Northridge/Porter Ranch area, I’ve been involved as a volunteer at schools in Northridge, North Hills, and Granada Hills. After the 2015 blowout, as I became aware of how residents in the northern SFV have been affected by the polytoxic emissions from the wells, I decided to get involved in Save Porter Ranch (and helped found the Aliso Moms Alliance to educate the affected communities as to health concerns). I have tried to use my experience in journalism, advertising, and public relations since then to help our area.

Tentative Meeting Schedule – 2020 to 2021 On-boarding

Introductory Scoping Meeting – June 2020 Videoconference call (2 hours) Open to CAG and community attendance Purpose is to introduce the SOC and provide the opportunity for CAG and community members to pose questions.

Follow Up Scoping Meeting – July 2020 Videoconference call (2 hours) Open to CAG and community attendance Continuation of scoping discussion. CAG may present their current concerns and activities. Preliminary results of community concerns survey to be conducted by third party contractor may also be presented. All parties (SOC, CAG and community members) will have the opportunity to pose questions.

SOC COI and Charter Review Meeting – July 2020 Videoconference call (1 hour) Purpose is to have the SOC members discuss amongst the group their (Conflict of Interests) COIs. The

second half of the meeting will the devoted to reviewing a draft of the SOC Charter for SOC input.

ACDHRS Development

SOC Meeting #1 – August 2020 Videoconference call (2 hours) Begin development of draft research goals and objectives as well as a review process.

SOC Meeting # 2 – September 2020 Videoconference call (2 hours) DPH presents detailed outline of draft research goals and objective and gathers additional input. Draft review process and timeline is established.

SOC Meeting # 3 – October 2020 Videoconference call (2 hours) DPH draft research goals and objectives and gathers input. First draft is submitted to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health’s Contracts and Grants Division for review.

SOC Meeting # 4 – May 2021 Videoconference call (1-2 hours) ‘Sign-off’ on RFPs.

SOC Onboarding Calls: Answers to Questions During the onboarding calls that took place earlier this year, several topics of interest arose from discussion among SOC members. These included the impact of the natural gas blowout event on:

▪ Epigenetics

▪ Puberty in teenager

▪ School-aged populations

▪ Psychological stress

SOC members requested follow up information to several questions. Please see the questions and requested information below.

How many homes were cleaned? Please provide a breakdown of homes that had interior and exterior cleaning.

Interior cleaning: approximately 2,000 homes Exterior cleaning: approximately 1,152 homes

How were houses cleaned? Please Provide a fact sheet with guidance on cleaning protocols.

Please refer to the following two documents:

▪ DPH Cleaning Directive and Protocol for SoCal Gas

▪ DPH Guidelines for Home Cleaning and Ventilation

What was the general comfort level with how the cleaning was performed?

In response to community concerns regarding cleaning, DPH conducted a performance review. DPH found non-compliance with the court-mandated cleaning protocol in 65% of the homes visited, of which 16% were found to have critical deficiencies. Serious areas of concerns included lack of training and experience among SoCal Gas cleaning crews, improper use of air scrubber use, incomplete HEPA vacuuming, inadequate cleaning of air ducts, not cleaning drapes, and not cleaning underneath/behind furniture. On June 11, DPH directed SoCal Gas to remedy these deficiencies and this was not done. Due to SoCal Gas’s non-compliance with the DPH cleaning protocol and industry standards of practice, DPH increased oversight from 10% to 20% of the home cleanings and maintained this oversight for the duration of the cleanings. A DPH follow up cleaning survey was conducted and a total of 432 of 1394 contacts (~31%) participated in the DPH follow up cleaning survey. Overall, 43% of the respondents were very or somewhat dissatisfied. Of respondents who continued to experience symptoms, those who were satisfied with cleaning (45%) had lower rates of recurring symptoms compared to those who were dissatisfied with cleaning (66%) and had higher rates of recurring symptoms.

Yes - Symptoms No - Symptoms Don’t Know - Symptoms

Satisfied 45% (55/122) 9% (11/122) 25% (31/122)

Dissatisfied 66% (83/125) 6% (7/125) 18% (22/125)

Neither 63% (31/49) 4% (2/49) 2% (11/49)

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/LACHODirectivetoSCG(w%20Atts).pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/GuidelinesCleaning.pdf

How have property values been impacted?

Please refer to the following two news articles below:

▪ 1 year later

▪ 3 years later

What is the percentage of people that have moved away? Please provide convenience sample from the DPH database of callers.

Preliminary investigations reveal that 16.0-17.7% (2,077/11,715) residential parcels in ZIP code 91326 (Porter Ranch) were sold on, or after, March 01, 2016. This does not take into account people moving out of apartments.

DPH requested a refined analysis from a tax assessor and will follow up with results once available.

How many evaluations over the last 5 years have been conducted? Provide a list of surveys conducted to date.

DPH will follow up with a detailed outline.

How many odor complaints were received? Are people still reporting odors? (SCAQMD data)

Between October 24, 2015 and February 11, 2016, SCAQMD received over 2,300 complaints regarding odors from the leak. The odors were predominantly from compounds added to natural gas (including mercaptans) to identify leaks that can be smelled even at very low concentrations (around or below 1 part per billion - ppb). Community members in Porter Ranch and nearby communities have been reporting odors as recent as mid-May 2020, and additional information on odors in 2020 can be requested from SCAQMD.

Are people still experiencing symptoms and what are other health problems being reported?

DPH is still receiving reports form members of the Porter Ranch and nearby communities of strong gas smells. These reports are as recent as mid-May 2020. Accompanying symptoms include: headaches; nausea; nose bleeds; inflammation surrounding nostrils; burning, watery, and stinging eyes; and skin irritations.

https://www.dailynews.com/2016/10/25/aliso-canyon-1-year-later-porter-ranch-housing-market-weathers-massive-gas-leak/

https://www.dailynews.com/2018/10/22/3-years-after-the-aliso-canyon-gas-leak-why-are-more-people-than-ever-moving-to-porter-ranch/

Background

JanuaryPublic Health received multiagency approval of their Expanded Air Monitoring Plan to include more community air sampling locations, expand testing for additional chemicals, and increase sample collection times.

2015 2016 2017

November Public Health initiated the Expanded Air Monitoring Plan Workgroup to more comprehensively assess chemical air emissions from Well SS-25.

October 23Uncontrolled gas release flowed from Well SS-25.

October 28Public Health was notified of uncontrolled gas release from Well SS-25.

November 19Public Health directed the Southern California Gas Company to expedite efforts to seal Well SS-25 and provide free, temporary relocation to affected residents.

December 16Public Health directed the Southern California Gas Company to work with Los Angeles Unified School District to assist in relocating affected schools.

February 11The Southern California Gas Company reported the flow of gas from Well SS-25 had ceased.

February through AprilApproximately 300 house-holds reported headaches,migraines, nausea, nosebleeds and respiratory health issues.

February 18The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources confirmed Well SS-25 had been permanently capped and sealed.

AprilPublic Health completed a rapid household survey to assess community health and indoor environmental testing for over 250 chemicals in indoor air and household dust.Public Health tested soil and oily residue at Well SS-25.

May 16Public Health directed the Southern California Gas Company to pay for the cleaning of homes of relocated residents, monitored by Public Health.

FebruaryPublic Health issued a statement against allowing the Southern California Gas Company to resume injection operations pending further review and studies, including the long-term health research study.

Public Health continued recording health reports from area residents.

Public Health participated in ongoing litigation with the Southern California Gas Company.

Disaster and Response Timeline

June through JulyPublic Health tested three outdoor pools in the Porter Ranch area.

September 27 Public Health began working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to assemble an independent panel of scientific experts to define the components of a potential health research study.

September 6 In collaboration with UCLA and UC Berkeley researchers, Public Health sampled outdoor air during periods when the gas facility was unpressurized in order to improve understanding of baseline conditions.

July 19The California Public Utilities Commission announced that the Aliso Canyon Storage Facility could reopen in a limited capacity to prevent energy shortages.

May 20The Los Angeles Superior Court ordered the Southern California Gas Company to clean homes of residents who were still relocated at that time.

May 22Public Health issued a Stop Work Order to the Southern California Gas Company because their cleaning activities did not follow the Public Health protocol.

May 25Public Health deployed over 100 staff to oversee and monitor the Southern California Gas Company’s home cleanings.

February 25The Los Angeles Superior Court approved the Aliso Canyon Disaster Settlement with the Southern California Gas Company.

2018 2019 2020

August 8The LA County, California Attorney General and LA City Attorney announced a $119.5 million settlement with the Southern California Gas Company, including $25 million for a health study and $3 million for community air monitoring.

March 16 & 19Public Health hosted two Aliso Canyon Disaster Health Research Study Orientation Sessions at California State University, Northridge. These Orientation Sessions provided the community with an update on the health research study and kicked off a new campaign to collect and catalog the community’s feedback and priorities.

July 8Public Health presented at local Neighborhood Council meetings and held the preliminary meeting of the Community Advisory Group.

August 29Public Health held the first monthly Community Advisory Group meeting.

October 5Public Health attended the Granada Hills Street Faire to share updates about the health study with the community.

JanuaryPublic Health received 20 nominations for experts to serve on the Scientific Oversight Committee.

February 24Public Health began to collaborate with Community Advisory Group to plan a Town Hall.

OctoberPublic Health began researching best practices and planning for the multi-year health research study, now named the “Aliso Canyon Disaster Health Research Study.”

SeptemberPublic Health began recruiting scientific experts for the Scientific Oversight Committee.

March 6 & 13Public Health held on-boarding conference calls with the Scientific Oversight Committee.

Disaster and Response Timeline


Scoping Questions from the CAG Please familiarize yourself with the questions below which were put forth by CAG members. These questions serve to spark discussion about the Study and possible directions it can take. They will be posed to the SOC during the meeting.

Opening questions to be answered during introductions:

1. What do you feel you can contribute to the Study? 2. What do you see as the most difficult issues?

Additional questions to spark scoping discussion:

1. Based on what you know about the Aliso Canyon Disaster, what concerns do you have for the impacted population?

2. What do you hope will be gained by the study? 3. Do you know the history and composition of other petrochemical disasters? How was that

information obtained? 4. What steps do you think should be done to reassure the residents, who have a well-founded

mistrust of public agencies when it comes to SoCalGas, that a science-driven, community-involved study will be conducted?

5. From your scientific perspective, would you agree that the pending study would be significantly enhanced with full knowledge of the chemicals, quantities and duration the community was exposed? Would you also agree every measure should be taken to get that information to enhance the accuracy and thoroughness of the current and potential health impacts to the community?

6. If there is ever a situation where you feel that science is not the driver of decisions or choices, how would you like that to be raised so the community or CAG may weigh in on those decisions?

7. What additional research (articles, news articles) have you used to learn about what has happened here?

Other questions and concerns

8. Have you ever done any work or research for an oil/gas company? Specifically, have you done work or research with the support or funding of oil/gas industries?

Summary of Existing Data Regarding Aliso Canyon SS-25 Gas Blowout

Table 1. Technical summary reports of data published to date

Title Author Published Notes

Public Health Assessment: Indoor Environmental Study and Community Assessment for Public Health Response (CASPER)

Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LACDPH)

April 2016 DPH Indoor Environmental Study (source soil samples, indoor air samples, indoor wipe samples). Sampling focused on the possibility of the intrusion of pollutants (especially metals) from outdoors to indoors, including the drill mud that was sprayed out of the well in early attempts to plug the leak.

Results of Air Monitoring and Assessments of Health - Four Volumes

LACDPH Jan - Feb 2016

Expanded Air Monitoring Report (Jan 31, 2016) - Overview of onsite and community sampling from Oct 30 to Jan 23. Figure 1 below (and in the report) shows the location of 6 real-time methane monitors in the community. Air Monitoring and Assessments of Health (Feb 5, 2016) - Summary data and map of reported symptoms (Table 6 on pg. 17 and Figure 5 on pg. 21) Figure 2 below (and on p. 22 in the report) provides a visual of symptom report density. Supplemental Report (Feb 13, 2016) - Air sample results upwind and downwind of SS-25, Table 3 on pg. 14 Second Supplemental Report (Feb 19, 2016) - Syndromic surveillance analysis and pet health summary

Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak: Air Monitoring Results

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)

January 2018

Compilation of SCAQMD air monitoring efforts during and after the Aliso Canyon gas blowout, including stationary and mobile air measurements in and around the Facility, the Porter Ranch residential neighborhood and other nearby communities.

Determination of Total Methane Emissions from the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Incident

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

October 2016

Documents CARB’s determination of the total methane emissions from the Aliso Canyon natural gas incident and the amount needed for full mitigation of the climate impacts. Includes inventory method for calculating leak and tracer release method.

Potential Chemical Hazards Associated with the Well SS-25 Well-Control Materials at the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Storage Facility

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA)

May 2018 Evaluation of potential health hazards to nearby residents arising from well-control materials, including a review of onsite environmental sampling data to further understand the potential for exposure from air emissions of these materials.

http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/PublicHealthAssessment.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/SummaryFieldSamplingReport.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/CASPERFinalReport.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/CASPERFinalReport.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/gasleak/reportpress.htm



http://www.publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/GLAirMonitoring.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/AlisoAir.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/AlisoAir.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/SUPPLEMENTAL%20-Aliso%20Canyon%20Gas%20Leak-%20Results%20of%20Air%20Monitoring%20and%20Assessments%20of%20Health%20-%202-13-16.pdf

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/docs/SUPPLEMENTAL%202%20Gas%20Leak%20Results%20of%20Air%20Monitoring%20and%20Assessments%20of%20Health%20Feb19.pdf

https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/aliso-cyn/report/air-monitoring-results-final-report-jan-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=15

https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/compliance/aliso-cyn/report/air-monitoring-results-final-report-jan-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=15

https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aliso_canyon/aliso_canyon_methane_emissions-arb_final.pdf?_ga=2.109960141.913776568.1591631536-1849372680.1591631536



https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/air/document/oehhaalisowellcontrol052218.pdf





Title Author Published Notes

Blade Root Cause Analysis Report, Video, and Natural Gas Analyses Report (attached)

Blade Energy Partners

May 2019 Independent analysis of the root cause of the SS-25 well failure, including timeline of associated events.

Ensuring Safe and Reliable Underground Natural Gas Storage

Interagency Task Force, co-chaired by Department of Energy and Pipeline Hazardous Materials and Safety Administration

October 2016

Chapter 2 (pg. 18) - The Aliso Canyon Incident, provides a comprehensive summary of incident events, observations and available data.

ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/News_and_Outreach/SS-25 RCA Final Report May 16, 2019.pdf

ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/News_and_Outreach/SS-25 RCA Final Report May 16, 2019.pdf

https://youtu.be/Z3D1DvqBcgU

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/10/f33/Ensuring%20Safe%20and%20Reliable%20Underground%20Natural%20Gas%20Storage%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf



Figure 1. Map of Fixed Monitoring Locations

Figure 2. Map of Symptoms by Respondent’s Address: Report Density

NATURAL GAS ANALYSES

Chain of Custody 84422

REPORT PREPARED FOR:

BLADE ENERGY PARTNERS, LTD

Dr. Ravi M. Krishnamurthy

March 22, 2017

by

For:

Texas Oil Tech Laboratories, Inc.

10630 Fallstone Road, Houston, TX 77099

Mr. Damien Terry, MSc

Table of Content EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………….. 4

1 INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………........4

2 SAMPLES …………………………………………………………………. 5

3 RESULTS ………………………………………………………………. 6-25

3.1 P-69E (4819,4287,4242) 03/01/17

(84422-01)…………………………………….…………………… 6-12 3.1.1 Composition of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, extended,

3.1.7 Volatile Organic Compounds, Purge-and-Trap,

3.1.8 Anions in water by Chemically Suppressed Ion Chromatography,

3.2 P-68A (4293,5291) 03/01/17

3.2.1 Composition of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, extended,

ASTM D 1945.b………………………………………………………..13

3.2.2 Specific Gravity of Gases, ASTM D 3588 …………………….………..14

3.2.3 Calculated Heating Value of Gaseous Fuels, ASTM D 3588 ……………14

3.2.4 PCB in Gas by GC/ECD, TOL 6061……………………………………..14

3.2.5 Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas by GC, ASTM D 5504m…………15-16

3.2.6 Siloxanes in Gas by GC/MS, TOL-7081…………………………………16


GC-MS EPA 8260B.a………………………………………………..17-18


ASTM D 4327.a…………………………………………………………19

3.2.9 Trace Metals by ICP/MS, ASTM D 5673.c……………………………..19

(84422-04)……………………………………………………….13-19

ASTM D 1945.b……………..………………………………………….....6

3.1.2 Specific Gravity of Gases, ASTM D 3588 …………………….………...…7

3.1.3 Calculated Heating Value of Gaseous Fuels, ASTM D 3588 ……….......7

3.1.4 PCB in Gas by GC/ECD, TOL 6061…………………………………….....7

3.1.5 Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas by GC, ASTM D 5504m………….…8-9

3.1.6 Siloxanes in Gas by GC/MS, TOL-7081……………………………..…….9

GC-MS EPA 8260B.a……………………………………………..…..10-11

ASTM D 4327.a…………………………………………………………..12

3.1.9 Trace Metals by ICP/MS, ASTM D 5673.c…………………………..…..12

Table of Content

3.3 P-72A (5259,4290,4233) 03/01/17

3.3.1 Composition of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, extended,

ASTM D 1945.b……………………………………………………........20

3.3.5 Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas by GC, ASTM D 5504m…………22-23

3.3.6 Siloxanes in Gas by GC/MS, TOL-7081…………………………………23


GC-MS EPA 8260B.a………………………………………………..24-25


ASTM D 4327.a…………………………………………………………26

3.3.9 Trace Metals by ICP/MS, ASTM D 5673.c……………………………..26

3.3.2 Specific Gravity of Gases, ASTM D 3588 …………………….………...21 3.3.3 Calculated Heating Value of Gaseous Fuels, ASTM D 3588 ……….....21

3.3.4 PCB in Gas by GC/ECD, TOL 6061………………………………….….21

3.4 Sampling Point Picture……………………………………………...…27

(84422-07)………………………………………………………20-26

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains results for samples taken from three natural gas wells on the SoCal

Gas Aliso Canyon site. The three wells are P69E, P68A, and P72A. The samples include a

natural gas sample, activated carbon sample and an impinged water sample for each site.

The purpose for the analysis is to obtain a relatively full chemical composition of the

natural gas from each well. Generally, the gases from each well were similar in chemical

composition. However, there were some slight variations in the types and concentration

some sulfur containing compounds.

INTRODUCTION The gas sample from each well was used for the Natural Gas Composition (ASTM

D1945), Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas (ASTM D5504), Volatile Organics by GC/MS

(EPA 8260) Gaseous Fuels Heating Value (ASTM D3588) and PCB’s in Gas by GC/ECD

(TOL 6061). The activated carbon sample was used for the analysis of siloxanes (TOL

7081) and any other heavy chemical compounds present in the gas. The impinged water

samples were used for analyzing Trace Metals by ICP/MS (ASTM D5673) and Anions in

Water by Ion Chromatography (ASTM D4327).

Page 4 of 27

SAMPLES

Thirteen different samples were tested. Table 1 lists the samples used in this report for

results discussion.

Table 1— Sample Identification Phases Tested

84422-01 P-69E (4819,4287,4242)

03/01/17

Natural Gas

84422-04 P-68A (4293,5291)

03/01/17

Natural Gas

84422-07 P-72A (5259,4290,4233)

03/01/2017

Natural Gas

Respectfully submitted For Texas OilTech Laboratories, L.P.

A. Phillip Sorurbakhsh

Director of Laboratory Operations

Page 5 of 27

Certificate of Analysis

10630 FALLSTONE RD. HOUSTON, TEXAS 77099

P.O. BOX 741905, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77274 SINCE 1985

Quality Controlled Through Analysis TEL: (281) 495-2400

FAX: (281) 495-2410

TEST RESULT

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025

Quality Management System Certified to ISO 9001:2008, and ISO 17025:2005

These analyses, opinions or interpretations are based on material supplied by the client to whom, and for whose exclusive and confidential use this report is made. Results related only to the items tested. Texas OilTech Laboratories, L.P. and its

officers assume no responsibility and make no warranty for proper operations of any petroleum, oil, gas or any other material in connection with which this report is used or relied on. This report may not be reproduced, except in full without prior written

approval by Texas OilTech Laboratories, L.P.

CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-001 Page 1 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-69E (4819,4287,4242) 2017-03-01 01:30

3.1.1 Composition of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography, extended, ASTM D 1945.b

Results, Mol % Hydrogen 0.0000 Oxygen 0.0690 Nitrogen 0.4738 Carbon Dioxide 0.6374 Methane 94.3644 Ethane 3.0960 Propane 0.8380 iso-Butane 0.1373 n-Butane 0.2073 iso-Pentane 0.0675 n-Pentane 0.0579 Hexanes 0.0158 Heptane 0.0161 Octane 0.0104 Nonane 0.0042 Decane 0.0016 Undecane 0.0000 Dodecane 0.0000 Tridecane 0.0000 Benzene 0.0010 Toluene 0.0014 Ethylbenzene 0.0001 m,p-Xylene 0.0006 o-Xylene 0.0002 Propylbenzenes 0.0000 Butylbenzene 0.0000 TOTAL 100.000

Natural gas is introduced into a gas chromatograph filling the sample loop. The light gases are separated from

the heavier gases on a molecular sieve column and detected by TCD. The heavier gases are separated from the

lighter gases on a capillary column and detected by FID.

Page 4 of 27

Page 4 of 27

Page 6 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

TEST RESULT

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





Calculated Gross Heat Value (HHV) (Btu/ft

3)…..………………………………..

1,047.65

Calculated Net Heat Value (LHV) (Btu/ft3)…..……………………………………

944.57


3.1.2 Specific Gravity of Gases, ASTM D 3588, 14.696 psig, 60ºF:

Specific Gravity at 60°F (air=1) Ideal Gas 0.5942

.

3.1.3 Calculated Heating Value of Gaseous Fuels, ASTM D 3588, 14.696 psig, 60ºF:

Calculated Gross Heat Value (HHV) (Btu/lb)…..………………………………… 23,102.35

Calculated Net Heat Value (LHV) (Btu/lb)…..…………………………………… 20,828.08

Calculated Molecular W eight (grams/mole)…..…………………………………

17.21 Total Hydrogen Sulfide Content, ASTM D 4810, ppm ……………………………………. 1

Water Content by Length of Stain, ASTM D4888, lbs/MM scf ………………………………… 7

Mercaptans by Length of Stain, ASTM D 1988, ppm ……………………………………. <0.5

Carbon Monoxide Content by Length of Stain, Draeger # 67 33 051, ppm <2.0 Mercury Content by Length of Stain, Draeger # CH23101, mg/m

3 <0.05

3.1.4 PCB in Gas by GC/ECD, TOL 6061

Results Reporting Limits

PCB, ppmwt <0.1 0.1

A known amount natural gas sample is impinged into hexane. This hexane is then introduced into a gas chromatograph, separated

on a capillary column, and the polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), if present, are detected by ECD.

Page 7 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST

3.1.5 Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas by GC, ASTM D 5504(m)

RESULT

Results, ppm Hydrogen Sulfide <0.1 Carbonyl Sulfide <0.1 Sulfur Dioxide 0.8 Methyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethylsulfide <0.1 Carbon Disulfide <0.1 Isopropyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylene Sulfide <0.1 Tert-Butyl mercaptan 1.7 Propyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylmethylsulfide <0.1 Propylene sulfide <0.1 Methyl-isobutyl Sulfide <0.1 Sec-Butyl mercaptan <0.1 Diethylsulfide <0.1 Thiophene 0.1 Isobutyl Mercaptan <0.1 n-Butyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethyldisulfide <0.1 Methyl isopropyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-t-butyl Sulfide <0.1 Ethyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl sec-butyl Sulfide <0.1 2-Pentyl Mercaptan <0.1 2-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 3-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 Tetra-Hydro Thiophene 2.5 Ethylthiophene <0.1 Ethyl Methyl Disulfide <0.1 Methyl Ethyl Thiophene <0.1 Methyl isopropyl disulfide <0.1 Propyl methyl disulfide <0.1

Page 8 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST


RESULT

Results, ppm Diethyldisulfide <0.1 Methyl-t-butyl disulfide <0.1 Ethyl isopropyl disulfide <0.1 Ethyl propyl disulfide <0.1 Methyl sec-butyl disulfide <0.1 Ethyl sec-butyl disulfide <0.1 Tert-butyl disulfide <0.1 Tris(Methylthio) methane <0.1 Benzothiophene <0.1 Methylethylsulfide <0.1 Isopropyl disulfide <0.1 Isopropyl n-propyl disulfide <0.1 Dibenzothiophene <0.1

An aliquot of the natural gas sample is introduced into a gas chromatograph as received and separated on a capillary column. Sulfur compounds, if present in the gas, are detected by chemiluminescence.

3.1.6 Siloxanes in Gas, by GC/MS, TOL –7081

Approximate Concentration

mg/Kg in Gas

Hexamethyldisiloxane <1.0 Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane <1.0 Decamethylcyclopentasiloxane <1.0 Other silicon containing chromatographable compounds <1.0

On site, a sampling apparatus is constructed so that the natural gas sample under pressure flows through a bed of activated

carbon for a prolonged period of time. The hydrocarbon components of the gas are extracted from the activated carbon using

carbon disulfide and analyzed by GC/MS for siloxanes.

Page 6 of 27

Page 9 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST

3.1.7 Volatile Organic Compounds, Purge-and-Trap, GC-MS, EPA 8260B.a

RESULT

Results, ppb Dichlorodifluoromethane <10 Chloromethane <10 Vinyl chloride <10 Bromomethane <10 Chloroethane <10 Trichlorofluoromethane <10 Methyl Ethyl Ketone <10 2-Propanone <10 1,1-Dichloroethene <10 Methylene chloride <10 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 1,1-Dichloroethane <10 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 2,2-Dichloropropane <10 Bromochloromethane <10 Chloroform <10 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <10 1,2-Dichloroethane <10 1,1-Dichloropropene <10 Benzene 110 Carbon Tetrachloride <10 1,2-Dichloropropane <10 Trichloroethene <10 Dibromomethane <10 Bromodichloromethane <10 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Toluene 90.3 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <10 1,3-Dichloropropane <10 Dibromochloromethane <10 1,2-Dibromoethane <10 Tetrachloroethene <10 Chlorobenzene <10

Page 10 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






TEST


RESULT

Results, ppb 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 Ethyl Benzene <10 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <10 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <10 m&p-Xylene 27.9 Bromoform <10 Styrene <10 o-Xylene <10 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <10 isopropylbenzene <10 Bromobenzene <10 2-Chlorotoluene <10 n-Propylbenzene <10 4-Chlorotoluene <10 tert-Butylbenzene <10 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <10 sec-Butylbenzene <10 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <10 p-Isopropyltoluene <10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <10 n-Butylbenzene <10 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane <10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <10 Naphthalene <10 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <10 Hexachlorobutadiene <10

An aliquot of natural gas is introduced into the purge and trap chamber of a gas chromatograph and purged with helium. The purged compounds are then desorbed and separated on a capillary column to be detected by GC/MS.

Page 11 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-001 Page 7 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-69E Impinged Water (100psi 20%flow 5minutes) 2017-03-01 01:30

3.1.8 Anions in Water by Chemically Suppressed Ion Chromatography, ASTM D 4327.a

Results, ppm Fluoride <1.0 Chloride <1.0 Nitrite <1.0 Bromide <1.0 Nitrate <1.0 Phosphate <1.0 Sulfate <1.0

Natural gas, under pressure, was impinged into DI water for a known amount of time on site. The anions in this water

sample, if present, are separated by a packed column and detected by a conductivity detector.

3.1.9 Trace Metals by ICP/MS, ASTM D 5673.c

Results, PPMwt Aluminum <0.05 Arsenic <0.05 Barium <0.05 Cadmium <0.05 Cobalt <0.05 Copper <0.05 Iron <0.05 Mercury <0.05 Manganese <0.05 Molybdenum <0.05 Lead <0.05 Antimony <0.05 Selenium <0.05 Strontium <0.05 Vanadium <0.05 Nickel <0.05

Natural gas, under pressure, was impinged into an aqueous nitric acid solution for a known amount of time on site. The preserved sample was digested in Nitric acid (HNO3) and analyzed utilizing an Inductively Coupled Plasma, Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS). The characteristics elemental light wave emissions are measured to determine the relative concentrations of the elements.

Respectfully submitted

For Texas OilTech Laboratories, L.P.



Page 9 of 27

Page 12 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-004 Page 1 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-68A (4293,5291) 2017-03-01 03:00






Page 13 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






3)…..………………………………..

1,032.17


930.17




.





17.00 Total Hydrogen Sulfide Content, ASTM D 4810, ppm ……………………………………. 0.5




3 <0.05



PCB, ppmwt <0.1 0.1



Page 14 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST


RESULT

Results, ppm Hydrogen Sulfide <0.1 Carbonyl Sulfide <0.1 Sulfur Dioxide 0.4 Methyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethylsulfide <0.1 Carbon Disulfide <0.1 Isopropyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylene Sulfide <0.1 Tert-Butyl mercaptan 2.8 Propyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylmethylsulfide <0.1 Propylene sulfide <0.1 Methyl-isobutyl Sulfide <0.1 Sec-Butyl mercaptan <0.1 Diethylsulfide <0.1 Thiophene 0.2 Isobutyl Mercaptan <0.1 n-Butyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethyldisulfide <0.1 Methyl isopropyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-t-butyl Sulfide <0.1 Ethyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl sec-butyl Sulfide <0.1 2-Pentyl Mercaptan <0.1 2-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 3-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 Tetra-Hydro Thiophene 3.6 Ethylthiophene <0.1 Ethyl Methyl Disulfide <0.1 Methyl Ethyl Thiophene <0.1 Methyl isopropyl disulfide <0.1 Propyl methyl disulfide <0.1

Page 15 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST


RESULT





mg/Kg in Gas


On site, a sampling apparatus is constructed so that the natural gas sample under pressure flows through a bed of activated carbon

for a prolonged period of time. The hydrocarbon components of the gas are extracted from the activated carbon using carbon disulfide

and analyzed by GC/MS for siloxanes.

Page 16 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST


RESULT

Results, ppb Dichlorodifluoromethane <10 Chloromethane <10 Vinyl chloride <10 Bromomethane <10 Chloroethane <10 Trichlorofluoromethane <10 Methyl Ethyl Ketone <10 2-Propanone <10 1,1-Dichloroethene <10 Methylene chloride <10 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 1,1-Dichloroethane <10 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 2,2-Dichloropropane <10 Bromochloromethane <10 Chloroform <10 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <10 1,2-Dichloroethane <10 1,1-Dichloropropene <10 Benzene 196.3 Carbon Tetrachloride <10 1,2-Dichloropropane <10 Trichloroethene <10 Dibromomethane <10 Bromodichloromethane <10 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Toluene 197.6 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <10 1,3-Dichloropropane <10 Dibromochloromethane <10 1,2-Dibromoethane <10 Tetrachloroethene <10 Chlorobenzene <10

Page 17 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






TEST


RESULT

Results, ppb 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 Ethyl Benzene 15.9 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 11.5 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <10 m&p-Xylene 80.4 Bromoform <10 Styrene <10 o-Xylene 19.6 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <10 isopropylbenzene <10 Bromobenzene <10 2-Chlorotoluene <10 n-Propylbenzene <10 4-Chlorotoluene <10 tert-Butylbenzene <10 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <10 sec-Butylbenzene <10 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <10 p-Isopropyltoluene <10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <10 n-Butylbenzene <10 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane <10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <10 Naphthalene <10 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <10 Hexachlorobutadiene <10

An aliquot of natural gas is introduced into the purge and trap chamber of a gas chromatograph and purged with helium. The purged

compounds are then desorbed and separated on a capillary column to be detected by GC/MS.

.

Page 18 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-004 Page 7 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-68A Impinged Water (700psi 10-20% flow 5min 2017-03-01 03:00












Page 19 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-007 Page 1 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-72A (5259,4290,4233) 2017-03-01 04:00






Page 20 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






3)…..………………………………..

1,027.27


925.62




.





16.94 Total Hydrogen Sulfide Content, ASTM D 4810, ppm ……………………………………. 1




3 <0.05



PCB, ppmwt <0.1 0.1



Page 21 of 27

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025









FAX: (281) 495-2410


TEST


RESULT

Results, ppm Hydrogen Sulfide <0.1 Carbonyl Sulfide <0.1 Sulfur Dioxide 0.3 Methyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethylsulfide <0.1 Carbon Disulfide <0.1 Isopropyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylene Sulfide <0.1 Tert-Butyl mercaptan 1.3 Propyl Mercaptan <0.1 Ethylmethylsulfide <0.1 Propylene sulfide <0.1 Methyl-isobutyl Sulfide <0.1 Sec-Butyl mercaptan <0.1 Diethylsulfide <0.1 Thiophene <0.1 Isobutyl Mercaptan <0.1 n-Butyl Mercaptan <0.1 Dimethyldisulfide <0.1 Methyl isopropyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl-t-butyl Sulfide <0.1 Ethyl-n-Propyl Sulfide <0.1 Methyl sec-butyl Sulfide <0.1 2-Pentyl Mercaptan <0.1 2-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 3-Methyl Thiophene <0.1 Tetra-Hydro Thiophene 0.9 Ethylthiophene <0.1 Ethyl Methyl Disulfide <0.1 Methyl Ethyl Thiophene <0.1 Methyl isopropyl disulfide <0.1 Propyl methyl disulfide <0.1

Page 22 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






TEST


RESULT





mg/Kg in Gas


On site, a sampling apparatus is constructed so that the natural gas sample under pressure flows through a bed of activated carbon

for a prolonged period of time. The hydrocarbon components of the gas are extracted from the activated carbon using carbon disulfide

and analyzed by GC/MS for siloxanes.

Page 23 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






TEST


RESULT

Results, ppb Dichlorodifluoromethane <10 Chloromethane <10 Vinyl chloride <10 Bromomethane <10 Chloroethane <10 Trichlorofluoromethane <10 Methyl Ethyl Ketone <10 2-Propanone <10 1,1-Dichloroethene <10 Methylene chloride <10 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 1,1-Dichloroethane <10 cis-1,2-Dichloroethene <10 2,2-Dichloropropane <10 Bromochloromethane <10 Chloroform <10 1,1,1-Trichloroethane <10 1,2-Dichloroethane <10 1,1-Dichloropropene <10 Benzene 121.1 Carbon Tetrachloride <10 1,2-Dichloropropane <10 Trichloroethene <10 Dibromomethane <10 Bromodichloromethane <10 Cis-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene <10 Toluene 95.4 1,1,2-Trichloroethane <10 1,3-Dichloropropane <10 Dibromochloromethane <10 1,2-Dibromoethane <10 Tetrachloroethene <10 Chlorobenzene <10

Page 24 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025






TEST


RESULT

Results, ppb 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 Ethyl Benzene <10 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene <10 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene <10 m&p-Xylene 31.7 Bromoform <10 Styrene <10 o-Xylene <10 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane <10 1,2,3-Trichloropropane <10 isopropylbenzene <10 Bromobenzene <10 2-Chlorotoluene <10 n-Propylbenzene <10 4-Chlorotoluene <10 tert-Butylbenzene <10 1,3-Dichlorobenzene <10 sec-Butylbenzene <10 1,4-Dichlorobenzene <10 p-Isopropyltoluene <10 1,2-Dichlorobenzene <10 n-Butylbenzene <10 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane <10 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene <10 Naphthalene <10 1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene <10 Hexachlorobutadiene <10

An aliquot of natural gas is introduced into the purge and trap chamber of a gas chromatograph and purged with helium. The purged

compounds are then desorbed and separated on a capillary column to be detected by GC/MS.

.

Page of 25 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





CLIENT: Blade Energy Partners, Ltd REQUESTED BY: Mr. Brent Sherar CLIENT PROJECT: PURCHASE ORDER NO: .SCG-001_12 LABORATORY NO: 84422-007 Page 7 of 7 REPORT DATE: March 22, 2017 SAMPLE: P-74A Impinged Water (700psi 10-20%) 2017-03-01 04:00












Page 26 of 27





FAX: (281) 495-2410

Cert. No.: 0005085, 17025





Sampling Point

This sampling point (1/2-MPT) was used at all

sites including P-69E, P-68A, and P-72A.

Page 27 of 27