TariqAhmad

May27,2016

FILET}ilAY 3 r 20ffi

SECNETAHY, BOARDOFOlL,0AS å frlhllilG

SecretaryBoard of Oil Gas & Mining1594 WestNorth Ternple #300PO Box 14085

salt Lake ciry, uT 84114-0855

Subject: Request for Hearing/Discrimination

Gentlemen

Over the last 6 years I have filed a number of complaints in reference to discrimination against me personally bythe Division staff. I was informed by Mr. Baza that a particular person was tasked to deal with me to address mycomplaint concerning discrirnination. This worked for a short time but discrimination stafted again in 2014 andhas continued.

Copies of my original complaint to Director are on file. The discrimination has not stopped as stated below:

June2014

I was personally accused by Bart Kettle while drilling a well in Grand County, false accusations were made

against me. Mr. Steve Alder and a couple of others then insulted Mr. Christensen when he approached them toinquire as to what the issues were. Allegations that were later proven to be false. Thereafter, Mr. Kettle issued a

Notice of Violation which included threats and potential fines to my employer. I spent a lot of time in respondingto these false accusations. Later I discovered that Mr. Kettle is apparently friends with Gerald K. Smith and his

Tool Pusher Ray Ash (Ash is a neighbor of Mr. Kettle.)r The Utah Department of Environmental Qualitydismissed Mr. Kettle complaint based upon data and evidence provided by me.

Subsequently I filed a written complaint with DOGM requesting as to what action was taken in regards to the false

Notice of Violation made by Bart Kettle. I did not receive a response.

Sometime last year, Mr. Dean Christensen was asked by me to get a copy of the documents in reference to the

above. The'ü/ell files were devoid of any of the documents as they were apparently illegally removed.

On or about June23,20l4 Mr. Adler, Mr. Rogers and Dustin Doucet without any facts ordered us to wire transfer

5250,000 to a drilling contractor, the same drilling contractor who is friends with Bart Kettle and whose toolpusher is Mr. Kettle's neighbor. This was again discriminatory. Mr. Doucet went so far as to accuse me of lying. Ihappen to be certified as a Professional Engineer by the Society ofPetroleum Engineers and am a graduate oftheColorado School of Mines with over 37 years of experience.

During the legal proceeding in reference to the drilling contractor, the Federal Judge determined that Gerald K.Smith and his company had in fact created false invoices which were against the contract a Federal and State

criminal investigation was instituted in regards to Mr. Gerald K. Smith.

June 2015

' US District Court found that Mr. Smith had fraudulently created invoices and granted judgment for Pacific Energy. Mr. Smith'scompany flled for bankruptcy protection on April 28, 20'16

13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 89511

o Page 2 May 27,2016

June 2015

When the company I work for posted a bond to take over operations, the Division Staff than came up withunprecedented procedures in order to prevent the transfer ofoperations.

June 2016

On April 14,2016I received a letter by email under the signature of an Assistant Attomey General, addressed tome personally, even though I am the Secretary of Pacific Energy and not an executive officer. Mr. Adler either

knew or should have knorr*m this fact. This letter should have been sent to Mr. Dan Green, the President of PacificEnergy.

I called the person who had sent the letter and I was forwarded to Mr. Adler, I had Mr. Dan Green on the

telephone. Mr. Adler than placed my call on the speaker, which I presume was for the purpose of having someone

record the call.

I specifically asked Mr. Adler why is it "that when I asked the Division to have Elk Resources open the pipelinefor natural gas that belongs to us" the division refused to take any action, and now you sent this letter demanding

that Pacific Energy open up their gas line to a third party. Thereafter I informed Mr. Adler that this is seems to me

to be discrimination. After a while Mr. Adler disconnected the telephone call.

On May 27,2016 I received a Notice of Violation under the signature of Mr. Bart Kettle, alleging oil to be in acellar on the Greentown State32-42 1A well. I had personally visited the well location during the week of May 2,

2016. I did not find any oil in the cellar, I had a witness with me during this inspection, a qualifred MechanicalEngineer. There was water in the cellar and it was orange due to rust.

It seems to me that every instance, Mr. Adler and the Division staff take the word of a white person over what Ihave to say. This is racial and religious discrimination. This has to stop. This discrimination has continued overthe years, there were actions taken to alleviate this situation but discrimination rears its ugly head.

By this letter I request a Board Hearing to address the issue of discrimination against me personally by the Staffand in particular by Mr. Steven Adler and Bart Kettle. I want these persons to be placed under oath to answer

during examination.

Tariq13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 8951 1

Cc: DOGMSITLA

-t *..-- ." An "r+' I uñ, ì)-\3x1s S'ri\

A"* ¡tr.,r Ølstt

FeEHt r-¡þÍ.:- :¡i ¡"

2.4 fltjhY ãÊ36. FÈt:

'ffitffwü

¡,'¡i,¡¡ii'¡iii'¡r'iii!iiiiiii¡iiii¡¡i,¡¡¡¡¡ii"';'!,iiii'ii¡r!:i

27 2016

MAY S 1120'16

Ç.rlo'1-=U,

":ri

."î oJ G ^ t rv\

' "QÏft .rL' GAS & MrNrNG

tsl\. u)u¿? N"\ìnìe'P\¿ tø3oo

?o ß.,* rçoES

g*J-þ t-*-\c¿- CtLl' Ú t

*'åå åå';:3i5rg

TariqAhmad

September 15,2016

MichaelS. JohnsonAssistant Attorney GeneralCounselto the Board of Oil, Gas & MiningBoard of OilGas and Mining1594 West North Temple#300PO Box 14085Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0855

Subject Letter dated May 27, 2016

$incerely,,\, (

t-J¿.

Tariq Ahpad

FILEDsEP I 5 2016

SECRETARY BOARDOFOlL, GAS & [,llNlNG

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 7,2016. ln my complaint I had clearly delineated each ofthe actions that were taken by the employees of the Division which violated my rights. ln your letter you

state that the Board is only authorized to look at the actions of the Division.The Notice of violation that was given to me by Bart Kettle in 2014 was clearly improper, the Divisioninsisted that we had violated a bunch of rules, which tumed out to be false,

Again during the month of May of this year Mr. Kettle again íssued a NOV which was again found to befalse. The division and its employees forced us to wire $250,000 to Energy Drilling LLC, which againhappened to be clearly wrong.

Each of these actions complained of was done under the cover of the Division. The board thereforehas jurisdiction to investigate each of the alleged violations of my rights and at the lease investigationwhy employees of the Division have gone out of the way to make up Notices of Vioalation.

As state in your letter the board has jurisdiction over the actions of the Division staff Since the boardhas authority over the actions of the Division, I am hereby challenging the Notice of Violations that wereimproperly issued.

I therefore request a Board hearing. Clearly I am required to finish all administrative procedure prior toseeking redress from the United States Dístrict Court under the relevant statues.

'13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV89511

"'770 \ . 5600 \.\ WI.SI Vr\IIFYCI .Y.LrAIIl!-'118 Fll•.l \\Ill .•••• 1!0 1-211 1-ll'H II

PROOF OF P Cl l T0\1 ER'S COPY

~lc_·t_Js_I_o_~_I_R_N_A_~_.c __ A, __ D_A_v_u_R_c_~~--------------~~ I~ ____ A_c_·c_o_l _· _I_N_'l_J\_ts_r_.R ____ ~ DIY OF OJL-GM & MTNING. ----1594 WNORTH fEM PL ESTE 1210

DATE

SAL r LAKI:. CITY UT 84116 lt3'2017

I A(( Ol ~I ~A\1[

DIV OF OIL-GAS & MINING,

I Tel 1- PH OJ\ 1- I ORDf~R # l'lVOICL L~IBER

801 5385340 0001129375

I PUBI.IC ATION sc_: H_E_o_u_L_E ______________ _.

START OI /Ol t: OI 7 END 01/01120 17

I cus rQMl:.R REFt:RENCE 'UMBER

Docket Nos. 20~ 5-026, 2017-001, 2017-002, and 2017-003

I CAl' liON

STATE OF UT.A H BOARD OF OIL, GAS & MINING HEARING SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 2<

I Sl/E

187 LINES 3 COLUMN(S)

I TIMES I I"OTALCOST

3 947.48

Af+IDAVII 01 PUBLICA 110 '

r Q...nbm r

RECElVED JAN 12 2 \7

OIV. Or OIL, GAS & MINING

A~ \II· \\ \I'API:R AGL:\CY CO~IP '\NY. I Ll' dha L T,\H !Ef)l ,\ (,ROl P I I. GAl. BOOKI:.R. I U RIll \' Til tH THE A I I A( Ill· [) ADVI RIISLM[~I 01 STATE OF UTAH BOARD OF OIL. GAS & ~11NI.\'G HEARING SCHEDULE FOR YEAR 2017 HEARI'\G DAl£ FILI \G DEADLI'£ 01/25/20 17 12112/201602/22/2017 fOR Dl \' OF OI L-GAS & \II l NG, WA', l'll3 ISIII D BY THE ~1"\~SJ>AJ> I R A(iENCY COMPA \'. LLC dba t;·IAII MLDIA GROUP. AGENT FOR DESERI·.I ~EWS AND 1111: SALl LAKE TRIIWNI-.. DAILY

f\\ \P,\1'1 RS PRJN I ED IN ·1111:. ENGLJSI I LA GUAGE WITH GENFRAL CIRCULA'IION IN U"l All. AND PUB I ISHI: D I ' SALT I AKE (.'II Y. ~ALI LAh. I . COl , ~. l'o IN II II.SIA I I: OI l i i AH.NOIICE I SALSOJ>O~ I I .DONliAI ILEGALS.COMOl\ I"II·. SAMEDAYAS IIIEI·IRSI

I.WSI'A I'I: R PLIIILICATION OATE AND REMAINS ON Ll"l A I II.I:GALS.L'OM INDI.:Fl ATE I. Y. <:OMf'L ILS \\' I I'll UTA II I) J(jl l AI. SIGNAruRI: AC I TAI-l COOl: 46-2-101: -'6-3-10-'.

PUBLISIII DOl\ ')tart 0 I ·0 112017 End 01101120 l7 ------------------------------DATI I 3t2017 .~M)

~J(J All Rl· ------------

SI AII:.OFl l rAII

SUB~( RIBI:D AND SWORN 1'0 BEf"ORE \llf ON "I IllS 3RD DAY OF JANUARY IN"I I II YI·AR 2017

BY t\ '1\ !)AR I NIJJ........

STATE Of UTAH ICWID Of OL GJ.S & MN'«l HEARtG SOElW: 1'011 YEAR 201 7 ISIIG DATE AUG OEADI.H 01 25/ 2017 12v12J2016 02/ 22, 2017 0 :10, 2017 03/ 22/.2017 02/.10/.2017 04/ 26,'2017 03Z10Z2017 05/ 24 '2017 04/ 10Z2017 00/211/2017 05'/.1 0 / 2017 07'126/2017 06/ 12,'2017 08 23/ 2017 07':'10/.2017 09/ 27'/ 2017 08/ 10/ 2017 10125'12017 o9. 11 '2017 12/06'/2017 10, 20/2017 01 J 24/ 2018 12, 11 '2017

NOnCE C F tEA1!N> IER:lRE ntE ICWID 0 OIL. GJ.S »«> MN'«l

llB'MTMIM Of t A'lliiAL ltflSIOUtCES STATE ::lF UTAH

ntE STATE Of UTAH 10 All PStSClNS INTSti!SlBl N ntE fOUCJWioG MATlBIS fDocbt Nol. 2015-026 2017.001, 201 T-002, cnl 2017-003)o ~IS tEII!IY G'MN !hot the Boord >I on,.~!~ Mining r'Boord.:l._Stote of Utah, will ex>ndul:l a hearin9 on WBlte: l.l.Y, ....,..._r 25, 201 7, AT 1 uouu NA, or as soon thereaf1er as polllble, In the a d 1otkm of the Oepartment of Natural Re­sources, 1 594 W.U Nor1h Temple1 S< 1 Lal<e Oty, Utah: 11le hearing will be streaned liVe on the Department ot Nc v• al Re!OUI'an YouTlbe <hal'rlel at hltps'u youtu.be/rralll(aUISaGl. tHE: IEAIING WU IE CXll'llUCTB> as > fotmal administratiVe ad~ication In ac­cordanct with the rules of the Boord a •I farlh In l/ldl A<*ninlstrative Code R6-41 et seq., ond as provided for In Utah C< l< 1«1. li 40-6-1 et !"Cl-. , Utah Code lvn § -40-8- 1 el seq.,_ ond l/lcft Code 1«1. § Y'..-4-1 01 lhrauli> 601 DOCIIn NO. 2015-026 CNJSE NO. 1 11-141• In the Matter of the /I.HiNJfD Re­-' for Agency Action of CRESaNT I ;>INT INIIGY U.S. CORPORATION for an or­der, Ill partially vacating the Boord's Jrder in Docket No. 201 1 ..() 1 2, Cause No. 142-0S as ta certain Iandt; (2) vacat o; fw Boord's Order in Docket No. 2014-023, Couse No. 1 31 -1 38; and (3) est b i1hing 40-aae, overlapping 640-ocre ond """'lapp~ stand-up 1,280-aae dri . nz l.nllt for the productiOn Of oil, gas ond associated nydrocarf>ons fram fw low· r ..,....., River and Gr_, River-Wasatdl For­mations In portions of T.......,ips 3 one: 4 South, Ranges 1 ond 2 Ecm, U.5.M., U'""""

~ Of ntE PIIOCEBlNG wll b~ for the Boord ta hear lhe report of Cres­cent Point fneri!Y U.S. CorJ>c>ration a r ' qui red by the Boord's Order for Docket No. 2015-026 Couse No. 131-14,1.._ • ·· :11 was dated effective March 21, 2016. DOOCET NO. 2017.001 CNJSE N.J. 131-1.a: In the matter of the hquest for Agency Action of CRESaNT POINT It :lOGY U.S. COIIP for on order force pooling llie lnterem of all owners refusing ' agree to lease their inter.sts or otherwise bear lheir proportionate !hare of lho com of drilling operations for the W~ #2-21-3-1 E-Hl Well in the drilling uni· established by the Boord's Order in Cause No. 1 31 - 141 , ~rising Section 21 y -"""~~hip 3 Soulh, llmge 1 East, U.S.M., with­in the Central Randlett Area, Uintcft 0<~.: the procb:lion of oil and gas fram the lower Green River and Wa rr.h • ntE I'UIPOSE Of ntE PIIOCEBlNG ' ;, be far the Board to reaeive le1tilnony ond

~~~r~; ~~:.; ~J': ~:' =~y ~-=~~~~~,~~ ~the l.l\loa:rlable owner spe · ed as "He;,.. ond lor O.vl_, of Hal Floyd Uoo, Jr. who have refined Ia ogre l to lease or otherwise bear their rroportion­a!t' .nare of the costs of dr111tng one o;>eratlonr'for the Wim #2-21-3- £411 welT located in the SW'4SE'ef Section 1 6 T _,ip 3 South, Range 1 fast, U.S.M., in the Orilling !..nit eslablbhed by the Boo ,., Order In Cause No. 131-141 c:anprislng Section 21, Tcownship 3 South, Rang. 1 Ecm, U.S.M.j and 2. Providing for sud\ other ond further relief as _ma_y be lust ..-. ~table una..- the circ.mstanoes. DOCIIn NO. 2017-002 CNJSE I« . 131-1.49: In the matter of the Request for ~oQency Action of CRESCENT POM B..eRGY U.S. CORPORATION for on order (1) Por1ially vacating the Boord's 0. Jer In Docket No. 2014-036, CCMe No. 1 :J1-1 39 as ta certain Iandt; (2) Partie It vacating fw Boord's Order In Clol:bt No. 201 3-025, Cause No. 142-09 as t c.ertain lands; and (3) ...,.,..,.,ing the Boord's Order in Dadcet No. 2015-026, Co .., No. 131-141 lo CJOYer oddltial'allands ond to establish 40-ocre, overlapping ><0-acre and overlappi"'l stand-up 1 ,280-aae drilling units f« ... pn:O.oc:t;on of 0 ' · gas ond a.>daled ~ fram ... Lower G,_, River ond Gr_, Ri"' -Waoald\ Formations in portions of T~ 3 ond 4 Soul!l, Ranges 1 ond 2 Ecm. J. i.M., Uintdl Cony, U!d\.

,'- I

llHE l'liiPOSE a' 1HE I'IIOCI!IDING will be for 1he Boord to - .. -imony and ev-odence r.gc>rdlno o II~ for Agrq Al:tian fl-.! by Cr- Point Energy U.S. Corporation ("CPf"} !hot the Boord enter on Or<Mr, A. PartiallY ¥O<XJiing the Find­ings of Foci, Concluskn of low and Order In Ood<et No. 2014-036. eo...e No. 131-139 doted effective Deoe<mer 22( 2014 ("Boord Order No. 1 :i1-139") m ~ 't:wu~w~~~ ~J ~o~~~3~2'f"~.,.~4~~ ~~ Septerrber 25, 2013 ("Boord Order No. 14~-09") as to the Randlett Woterflood l.a>ds· and C. Confinning and malntolning the continued validity of the Exitting SO­acre ();its established by Boord Order No. 1 42..05, Insofar as the sane covers the Exitting S<klcre U'llt l.a>ds; D. Declorlr:>Q the 500~ Formatkn o "cxmnon source of "-"J>Iy," as oonferr4:>lotec:l by Utah COde Ann. 40-6-2(18 ; E. Amendi Boord Order No. 131 -141 to estobll!h the 40-oae lkll upon the ~lect londs '1exdud­ing the Existing 80-ocre U'llt lands and the Boord Order No. 1 31 -141 t.oncts) for the 5001ect Formations for oil Existing Vertl<:ol Wells and future Verti<:ol Wells~ ~f­fective !he dote of Issuance of any order of the Boord ;.....,d pursuant to this Kl'oA; F. ""*>ding Boord Order No. 1 31 -1 41 to estobll!h the overlapping 640-ocre U'llts upon the SUbfed lands (exdudlng the Boord Order No. 1 31 ~ 1 4 T lands) for the 500fed Formations for all Exlstlno SLrtZ Wells and Mure SLrtZ Wells, effective the dote of luuonoo of any order o( the Boord Issued pursuant to this RAA; G. ""*>d­Ing Boord Order No. 1 31 - 141 to establish the overlapping stand-up 1 .280-ocre lklits upon the Subiect lands for the Subject Fonnotions for oil Existing Llr!Z Wells and Mure l.I.HZ Wells, effective the dote of Issuance of any order of the Boord i$-5Ued pursuant to this RM1 H. Authorizing the drilling, completion and operation of 1 Vertiool Well in each 40-ocre U'llt on the Subject lands, and up to 16 Verti<XII Wells per single govemnental section In the 5001ect Lands (inclusive of Existing Ver­ti<:ol Wells) for the Subiect Fonnotlons; 1. Authorizing the drilling, c;c>rr4>letlon and operation of up to 1 2 SUiZ Wells In eo<h 640-acre Unit (inclusive of both: ( 1 ) any Existing Sl.Hl Well and (2) any future l.I.HZ Wells, drllleo on any lands contained within any sud1 640-ocre Uilit) for the 500Iect Formations; J. Allthorizing the drilling,

~letlon and operation of up to 1 2 l..UiZ Wells In eocn 1 ,280-acre lklil (inclusive ) any Existing LLrtZ Well; (2) any Existing SLrtZ Wel!i_and (31 any futUre SLHZ' drilled on any lands CXJntoined within any sud1 1 .2~~V-ocre ~It) for the 500-

lect ;r.,;;;;.:;,~i K. Providing !hot Futu,. Vertoool Wefis within eo<h 40-acre lklit !hall be drlheo, ~letec:l and operated pursuant to the lDOGM Rules, induding lDOGM Rule R649-3-2, whi<h provides that o Verti<:ol Well mol be lo<XIted In the center of any goverrnwrtol 9""rter..quarter section, with a 400 window of toler­ance and no closer than 920 to my other Vertl<:ol Well producing from the 500-lect Formations absent m exception lo<XItlon approval by the BoOrd pursuant to lDOGM Rule RZ49-3-3; L. Providing for Mure SLrtZ and UHZ Well producing inter­val setbacks of 330' laterally from my Existing Vertical Well or Mure Verti<:ol Well absent an e~lon location approval by tlie Boord ~ to lDOGM Rule R64iS-3-3; M. Provid for producing interval selbockJ of 330' laterally from the north and south rles of eo<h 640-ocre lkllt or ~acre lklit absent m excep!lon loc:otlon approval by the Boord pursuant to Rule R649-3-3; N. Provld"9 for producing interval selbockJ of 560' laterally from the east and west bcx.01doroes of eo<h ~e lklit « 1 280-oae lklit absent m exception loc:otion approval by the Boord po.wsuant to lil5GM Rule R6.49-3-3; 0. Providing for pro­ducing interval selbockJ of 330' laterally from the producing Interval of my Exist­ing SLrtZ « UHZ Well or my Mure SLrtZ or LLrtZ Well, witflin the sane 640-acre U'lit « 1 ,280-ocre Uilt, absent an exception lo<XItian approval by the Boord pur­suant to lDOGM Rule R649-3-3; P. Providing !hot there !hall be no lnlerwell pro­ducing intervcl setback dlstancle laterally within my 640-<Jcre U'lit or 1 ,280-oae U'lit ~ Stodced SLrtZ and LLrtZ Wells absent an ex~ian 1oc:ot1on approval by the Boord pursuant to lDOGM Rule R64~-3-3; 0. Provid for producing inter­val setbacks of 1 00' vertically from the producing interva of another Stodced SLrtZ « LLrtZ Well within such 640-ocre lklit « ~-<Jere U'llt, absent an excep-

t:;' ~J:' ~~lontheofS:~d~rt~l Well 0::: ~~3-31 ~~~: elUding the Exist;ng 80-ocre U'llt Lands and the Boord Order No. 1 ~1 .oil l.a>ds) may be loCXIted pursuant to lDOGM Rule R649-3-2 or pursuant to the provlskn of Boord Order No. 1 42..05, as oppli<:oble; S. Providing that the IUf'foal location of any future SLrtZ or LLrtZ Well may be looated anywhitre within any 640-acr. U'llt or 1.28<klcre U'llt~, ablwl on exception 1oc:ot1on approval by the lloord punuant 1o Rule 649- 3-3, and abject to the acqJiSition of ~r IUf'foal and sublurfoce estate outhorlzotkn and the CXJSing/ oenw>ting of my futUre SLrtZ or LLrtZ Well to the 330' setback set forth in Paragraph L above, both of which to be eviderad by a self-certlf'oCOIIOII of the some exeoJhld by the operator of sud1 640-ocre l.Wt « 1.280-acre Unit and fi-.1 with the Division, and provided !hot lw other setbacks let forth above ore otherwise maintolned; T. Providing !hot · the IUf'foal loc:otK>n of any future SLrtZ « UHZ Well may be looated outside Of such 640-acr. U'llt or 1 ,280-oae U'llt nespecti,..ly, absent m exc:eptlon location appro-

! val by the Boord punuont to lJi6GM Rule R649-3-3, and abject to the ~ion of pr r surfO<ll and subsurfoc:e - outhorlzotkn and the cmlng/ '*'*11ing of any 1:2:., SLrtZ or LLrtZ Well to 1he 330' setback let forth In Paragraph L above, both of whi<h to be eviderad by o self-certlfl<:otlon of the sane exe<Uied by ..,.,....

I operolor of sud1 640-ocre U'lit « 1 .280-ocre lklit and fl-.! with the Division, and f'rovlded !hot 1he other selbockJ set forth above ore olherwlse maintained. U. Md<­'11!1 sud1 flndinCIS and orders In c:onnectSan with this RAA CIS it deems otherwise ,__ oory; and V. ,.rovidlng for sud1 olher and fur1her ... lief as may be just and equi-table l.nder the dra.mstonc:es. . DOOCE'r NO. 2017-403 CAUSE NO- 283-01• In the matter of the Request for Agen­cy Al:tian of TARIQ Nw.N> <hollenging certain Notices of Violation Issued by the 01-voslon of Oil Gas & Mining. -1HE ~ a' M I'IIOCIIIliNG will be for the Boord to receive testimony and evidence regord'!>9 the appeal of Mr. Tariq Ahmad regarding Notices of Violation ls>ued by the Dlvlsoon of Oil. Gas & Mining as outlined In the letters doted May 27, 2016 and September 1 5, 2ll16 filed by Tariq Aimed with the Boord In this Couse. Objections to the Request(s) for Agency Al:tlon must be filed with the Secretory of the Boord at the address (lsted below no later than January 1 0, 2017. A party must file a timely written abiectlon or other response In order to partldpate CIS a party at the Boord hearing. ~!lure to portldpote oon result In a default judgment. Natural persons may appear and ... present themselves before the Boord. Air other representation of parties before the Boord will be by attorneys licensed to practice low in the State of Utoh1 or attorneys licensed to practice low In another jurisdiction whi<h ~Mel the rules ot the Utah State Bar for practldng low before the Utah Courts. Persons Interested In this matter may participate pursuant to the procedural rules of the Boord. The Request(s) for ~ A.ctlon, and any subsequent plead­ings, may be if1s!>ecled at the offa of lhot undersklned, and ~.online at the Utah/ lloprd of OJI, Gas and MlnlnQ's website at h!.!.2UJogm.utah. gov amrfboordtenpj~jbocjc:.html. PUnuont to the Nn8ri<:ons with Disabilities AI:!, ~nons requiring auxiliary ~ aids and services to enable them to partiCipate In lhls hearing sho<Jid <XIII Julie Ann Corter at (801) 538-5277, at least three WOI1<ing days prior to the heanla claN. OATED thi> 23rd cloy of~. 20f6. STATE OF UTAH BOARD OF OIL. GAS N-fJ MINING Ruland J Gill, Jr., Cholnnon l si Julie Ann Corter lloard Secretory

11 594 West Nor1ll T ...,ref Suit. 1 21 0 Salt Lolce City. Utah 841 6 \Sf~8-S277

NOTICE OF HEARINGAEFORE THE BOARD OF OIL.

G,AS AND MININGDEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCESS,TATE OF UTAH

THE S'IATE OF UTAH TO ALLPERSONS INTERESTED IN THE

FOL.LOWING MATTER(Oocket No. 2017-003):

NOT CE IS HEREBYGIVEN that the Board of Oil, Gasand Minirg ("Board"), State ofUtah, will conduct a hearing onWEDNES DAY JANUARY 25,2017. AT l0:00 AM, or as soonthereafter as possible, in the audi-torium ol the Department of Natu-ral Resources, 1594 West NorthTemple, Sialt Lake City, Utah.The hearing will be streamed liveon the D€oartment of NaturalResources YouTube channel athttps://youtu. be/m utKe LJl5aQ.

THE HEARING WILL BECONOUCTED as a formal admin-istrative adjudication in accor-dance with the rules of the Boardas set for:h in Utah Adminisha-tive Code R641 et seo.. and asprovided br in Utah Code Ann. S40-6-1 et seq-, Utah Code Ann.

S 40-8-1 et seq., and Utah CodsAnn. S 63G-4-101 through 601.

DOCKET NO. 2017-003CAUSE I\lO. 283-01: ln lhe mattorot the Rerluest for Agency Actionof TARIQ AHMAD challenging certain Notices of Violation issuad bythe Division of Oil, Gas & Mining.

THE PURPOSE OF THEPROCEEDING will be lor theBoard to receive testimony andevidence regarding the appealot Mr. Tarq Ahmad regardingNolices of Violation issued by theDivision of Oil, Gas & Mining asoutlined in the letters dated May27, 2016 .md September 15, 2016filed by Tariq Ahmad with theBoard in this Cause.

STATE OF UTAH,

County of Grand,

Notary PublicResiding in Moab, Utah

My Commission Expires

ss.

was published on Utahlegals.com on the same day as thefirst newspaper publication and the notice remained onUtahlegals.com throughout the period a.nd time of printpublication.

PublisherSubscribed and sworn before me this

, ,,lrt')\--,/tl<_ -----\

Rhiqnr: Noel MedinoNototy Fubli. Stoie ol Utoh

^\), Commission Exp;ret on:Jonuorl, 16,2019

Comm. Number: 681l lO

Proof of Publica.tigp

e/a/t7

Zane W. Taylor, being first dul1. sworn accord-ing to law deposes and says: That he is the pubisher ofThe Times-lndependent, a weekly newspaper of generalcirculation, published every Thursday irt Moab, GrandCounty, State ofUtah, and a designated agent ofthe UtahPress Association; that the notice atta<:hed hereto andwhich is a copy of a

Utah Division of Oil Gas & MiningNotice of Hearing

which is made a part of this Affidavit of Publication, waspublished in said newspaper for a periocL of 1 consecu-tive issues, the first publication date having been made

Januan 5. 2017

; and the last on; and the said notice was published in each and every copyof said newspaper during the period and time of publica-tion, and that it was published in the nt:wspaper properand not in a supplement thereof, and that said notice

/

ffino raw uetore t11-t1913o;5r,6^-da imAteg€(l I

ryrf:Tll#;:H;;:"rr'"E:H;;-;;Ac{ion, afd

rtuffi$Iiffi}$tuil'll^;"T"mn" at htF:/ogm'''l'l'J Y^i,,^-'lr-'".*emo/€d6'

uuu$*rrfl#ix"aalii^"ir"" ilas anc seMcasGa,rlllrrurr|w-'- -- -Lr- .|^ai l^ ?rtlll(toaut |ll

ili'frffi"'-4qgUJ"E1*tb'li,ifr rb;i tt*eq' "'*"o|tcsll*ts16i**to'Jcomb€],2016

STATE OF UTAH

BOARD OFOILGAS

""'-o 1$'l;iil i?ltl"^1]Boar<t SecraarY

1 5g4 W€st Norih T€mPl€'

,*.*";$',j$rllll?

-"lsffi:.tr1:TFjl8:'n17.

Julie Carter <juliecarter@utah.gov>

DOCKET No. 2017­003­01. Request for continunace 

Tariq Ahmad <taroil@yahoo.com> Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:04 AMReply­To: Tariq Ahmad <taroil@yahoo.com>To: "juliecarter@utah.gov" <juliecarter@utah.gov>

I would like to request a continunace of the hearing as I was in surgery for aneurysms, due to thissurgery I will am not well enough to attend the hearing Tariq I. Ahmad SPEC  PH       775 333 6626FAX     775 333 0225

Notice: This e­mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential andprivileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not theintended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e­mail and destroy all copies of the original message.Please, virus check, all attachments to prevent widespread contamination and corruption of files and operatingsystems. The unauthorized access, use, disclosure, or distribution of this e­mail may constitute a violation ofthe Federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 and similar state laws. The communication doesnot reflect an intention by the sender or the sender’s client or principal to conduct a transaction or makeagreement by electronic means. Nothing contained in this message or in any attachment shall satisfy therequirements for a writing, and nothing contained herein shall constitute a contract or electronic signatureunder the Electronic Signatures Global and National Commerce Act, any version of the Uniform ElectronicTransaction Act or any other statute governing electronic transaction. 

Meg Osswald (No. 16125)Fredric J. Donaldson (1.{o. 12076)Assistant Attorneys GeneralSean D. Reyes (No. 7969)Utah Attorney General1594 W. North Temple, Suite 300Salt Lake City, Utah 84116Tel: (801) 538-7227

Attorneys þr Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

FILEDJAN I 0 2017

SECRETARY BOARD OF

OIL, GAS & MINING

BEFORE THE UTAH BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MINING

IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUESTFOR AGENCY ACTION OF TARIQAHMAD CHALLENGING CEKTAINNOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED BYTHE DIVISION OF OIL, GAS &MINING.

THE UTAH DIVISION OF OIL, GAS ANDMINING'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Docket No. 2017-003

Cause No. 283-01

The Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Division") respectfully submits the

following Motion to Dismiss in response to the letters submitted by Mr. Tariq Ahmad to the

Board of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Board") which the Board has allowed to be filed and

considered as a Request for Agency Action (the "Request"). The Division asks that the Request

be dismissed for two reasons. First, Mr. Ahmad claims violations of his civil rights, and the

Board does not have subject matter jurisdiction over such claims. Second, to the extent the letters

can be construed to question the Division's application of the oil and gas statutes and regulations,

the letters fail to identify a particular omission or effor by the Division and otherwise fail to

comply with the procedural rules of the Board outlined in the Utah Administrative Code. The

Request does not state what relief is requested from the Board, nor does it provide legal authority

for the Board's jurisdiction or legal authority for a substantive claim itself as required by the

Board's procedural rules. Furthermore, questions concerning the Division's application of oil

and gas statutes and regulations are claims of the companies that are the operators, not of Mr.

Ahmad, and therefore must be filed by counsel.

If the Board does not dismiss petitioner's claim, the Division asks that Mr. Ahmed or the

affected entities be required to obtain counsel and file an amended request outlining the Board's

jurisdiction, legal authority for the claims, and the relief requested from the Board.

Concurrently with this Motion, the Division is filing a Memorandum in Support of its

Motion to Dismiss that more fully sets forth the Division's bases for its Motion.

Respectfully submitted on the 10th day of January 2017.

Ures Oprrce ArroRNpv GeNeRRI-

MegFredric J. DonaldsonAssistant Attorneys GeneralTel: (801) 538-7227Em ail : mo sswald@utah. gov

freddonaldson@utah. gov

2

Meg Osswald (No. 16125)Fredric J. Donaldson (No. 12076)Assistant Attorneys GeneralSean D. Reyes (No. 7969)Utah Attorney General1594 W. North Temple, Suite 300Salt Lake city, utah 84116Tel: (801) 538-7227

Attorneysfor Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

FILEDJAN I 0 2017

SECRETARY BOARD OFOIL, GAS & MINING

BEFORE THE UTAH BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MINING

IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUESTFOR AGENCY ACTION OF TARIQAHMAD CHALLENGING CEKTAINNOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUEDBY THE DIVISION OF OIL, GAS &MINING.

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEUTAH DIVISION OF OIL, GAS ANDMINING'S MOTION TO DISMISS

Docket No. 2017-003

Cause No. 283-01

The Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Division") hereby files this Memorandum in

Support of its Motion to Dismiss the above entitled Request for Agency Action ("Request") of

Tariq Ahmad. This Memorandum outlines the substantive and procedural deficiencies in Mr.

Ahmad's Request and asks the Board to dismiss Mr. Ahmad's claims or, alternatively, to require

that Mr. Ahmad file a more definite and complete request through counsel as required by the

Rules.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Ahmad's Request concems his interactions with the Division on behalf of two oil

companies for which he is a company representative-Pacific Energy and Mining Company

("Pacific") and Mar/Reg Oil Comparty ("MarlReg") (collectively "the Companies"). Mr.Ahmad

1

claims that the Division has violated his civil rights by issuing Notices of Violation and directive

letters to the Companies that he believes were not justified by violations of Utah Code Title 40

and corresponding regulations, but rather based on discriminatory bias against him personally.

On May 27,2016, Mr. Ahmad wrote a letter to the Board Secretary requesting a hearing

to address the Division's alleged discrimination. Specifically, the letter outlined an alleged

history of discrimination against Mr. Ahmad by Division staff. Mr. Ahmad claimed that

Division Inspector Bart Kettle made false accusations against him, and eventually issued a

Notice of Violation ("NOV") in May 2016 based on those false accusations.

Mr. Ahmad also alleged that Division employees John Rogers and Dustin Doucet, as well

as Assistant Attorney General Steve Alder, ordered him to wire $250,000 to a drilling contractor

who Mr. Ahmad alleged is friends with Bart Kettle. Mr. Ahmad also alleged that the drilling

contractor created false invoices that were somehow connected to the Division. Mr. Ahmad also

accused the Division of discriminatory behavior for addressing correspondence conceming

Pacific Energy to him, rather than the president, for ordering him to open a pipeline when it has

not ordered other companies to do so, and for allegedly calling him a liar. Ultimately, Mr.

Ahmad concluded that the Division's alleged disparity in how it treated him relative to other

operators amounts to racial and religious discrimination that he requests a Board Hearing to

address. The letter lacked any factual support for the allegations, and the Division has denies that

there are facts that support the claims.

The Board, through its counsel, advised Mr. Ahmad by letter on September 7,2016 that

it did not have jurisdiction to hear and address complaints regarding discrimination alleged by

Mr. Ahmad. Specifically, the letter advised Mr. Ahmad that actions of Division employees are

not within the jurisdiction of the Board to review, and that the Board's jurisdiction was limited to

2

specific violations of oil, gas, and mining statutes and rules. In response, Mr. Ahmad wrote a

second letter on September 15,2016 in which Mr. Ahmad again alleged civil rights violations by

Division employees and referred to NOVs and other actions by the Division against the

companies. His letter did not specifically set out the facts surrounding alleged the

discrimination, the error by the Division, or the remedy sought from the Board. The Board

allowed the letters to be filed as a Request for Agency Action and included the Request on the

docket for its January 2016 hearing.

The Division has filed its Motion to Dismiss and this Memorandum in Support in

response to Mr. Ahmad's letters, which ask the Board to dismiss his Request without a hearing.

Alternatively, the Division asks the Board to require Mr. Ahmad to file a proper request that

specihcally outlines his allegations, such that the Division and the Board have sufficient

information to properly respond.

ARGUMENT

I. TARIQ AHMAD'S REQUEST SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TOSTATE A CLAIM, LACK OF SUBJECT MATER JURISDICTION, ANDFAILURE TO FOLLOW THE BOARDNS PROCEDURAL RULES.

The Board should dismiss Mr. Ahamad's Request because it does not provide adequate

information to state a claim, does not concern subject matter over which the Board has

jurisdiction, and fails to follow the Board's procedural rules. The Oil and Gas Conservation Act

(the "Act") provides that the Board has jurisdiction over all persons necessary to enforce the Act

and to adopt rules as necessary to address specific provisions identified in the Act. Utah Code $$

40-6-4 and 5 (2016). Among the rules adopted are the Procedural Rules of the Board that outline

specific procedures that the Board and parties seeking a hearing before the Board must follow.

Utah Admin. Code R641-100 through 119. Thus, the Act and corresponding rules outline what

aJ

the Board has the power to address and how the Board, and parties appearing before it, should

address those specific matters.

In this case, Mr. Ahmad's Request should be dismissed because A) it fails to provide

sufficient facts and legal basis to state a claim on which relief could be granted; B) the Board

lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the Request, even when read with a generous degree of

deference, continues to ask the Board to address allegations ofpersonal prejudice, and does not

allege violations of a specific statute or rule related to oil and gas production or extraction that

are within the jurisdiction of the Board; C) the Request is untimely; and D) the Request fails to

comply with the Board's procedural rules.

A. A Board hearing is not proner to address Mr. Ahmad's Request because Mr.Ahmad's letters fail to provide facts or legal authority necessary to state a claim.

Mr. Ahmad's Request should be dismissed without a hearing because the Request lacks

sufficient factual information and legal basis to state a claim, making it impossible for the Board

or the Division to prepare for a hearing or respond to the merits of the Request. The Board's

procedural rules require that Requests for Agency Action include a statement of legal authority

and jurisdiction under which the Board action is requested, a statement of relief sought, and facts

and reasons forming the basis of relief. Utah Admin. Code R. 641-104-133. Moreover, the

petitioner has the burden of proof to set forth facts and law relevant to the relief requested when

seeking a review of a Division decision . Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Division of Oil,

Gas, and Mining, Docket No 2001-027, Cause No. C/007/013-SR98(1) at 3 (Dec. 2001). In the

administrative context, petitioners must not only provide facts sufficient to state a claim, the

petitioner must also show that the Division's administrative decisions were uffeasonable,

arbitrary, or contrary to law. Id; see qlsoUtah Code $ 40-10-30(3). The Utah Rules of Civil

Procedure also require petitioners to state a claim with enough specificity to make the court and

4

the defendant aware of what allegations petitioner is making. Rusk v. University of Utah

Healthcare, 2016 UT App. 2ß n 5-7 (holding that oÎague and conclusory terms," which merely

state elements of claimed causes of action were insufficient meet petitioner's burden, and that

under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a statement of a claim, the court or defendants

were not required to review extraneous materials to "identify facts to support a plaintiff s legal

theories.").

Here, Mr. Ahmad does not specify the facts on which he bases his claim with sufficient

clarity. Mr. Ahmad's letters state that the Division has engaged in generally discriminatory

behavior. The Board's letter through counsel to Mr. Ahmad informed him that it only has

jurisdiction to address specific regulatory actions by the Division. Mr. Ahmad addresses some

specifics when he discusses NOVs issued by the Division, but does not clearly state how the

NOVs could be considered improper. Specifically, Mr. Ahmad alleges that a 2014 NOV was

improperly issued but does not specify what the NOV was issued for. He also alleges that a May

27,2016 was improperly issued for oil in a cellar because he did not find any oil when he visited

the well. The NOV that the Division issued (on May 25) for oil in a cellar required only that the

operator correct the problem. The NOV did not deprive the company of any resources, permits,

or otherwise result in unfair treatment. All of the NOVs issued by the Division provided a

statutory or regulatory basis for the violation alleged. Thus, the lack of factual information in Mr

Ahmad's letters leaves the Division and the Board in the dark about which Division actions he is

calling into question, what rights he was deprived of, or what relief he is seeking.

Mr. Ahmad also fails to provide legal authority for the merits of his claim, in that his

letters fail to explain what rules or statutes were not properly applied and why. There is no

question that the Division has been delegated authority to inspect the operations to assure

5

compliance with the rules established by the board. Mr. Ahmad's letters fail to explain how the

Division violated a rule or statute or improperly applied it in the specific instances in question.

In addition, the letters fail to set forth the legal remedy that he is asking the Board to provide. He

asks only for a Board hearing to "address the issue of discrimination" against him by Division

employees.

In order to properly respond to his Request, the Board and the Division need legal and

factual information required by the Act and corresponding regulations but not provided by Mr.

Ahmad. General claims of prejudice do not satisfy the regulatory requirements with good reason

because the Division cannot address potential issues or provide a defense without facts and

reasons that justify relief. Likewise, the Division cannot provide a defense to all possible

arguments that might exist to invalidate an NOV and does not legally have the burden of proof to

do so. Unlike a procedural error that could be easily resolved and does not affect the Division's

ability to respond to a Petitioner's claims, the lack of information provided by Mr. Ahmad

completely inhibits the Division's ability to respond to potentially serious claims concerning

employee behavior. Likewise, the lack of information provided concerning jurisdiction, legal

basis, or requested relief prevents the Board from providing relief.

Thus, the Request does not properly equip Division and the Board to respond, and the

Board should dismiss the Request. The Board should not permit the hearing to go forward on the

basis of the documents f,rled and should not permit Mr. Ahmad to ask questions of the Division's

employees to try and establish a claim that he has failed to plead. Such a fishing expedition

would be an opportunity for baseless accusations and would not be productive in light of the

unsupported allegations and failure to cite applicable legal defects with specificity.

6

B. The Board lacks subiect matter iurisdiction over Mr. Ahmad's discriminationclaim because it does not concern oil and gas operations, statutes. or rules.

Mr. Ahmad's claim is improper because it asks the Board to determine whether his civil

rights have been violated, not whether he or the Division are in violation of statutes and rules

relating to oil, gas, and mining. Under Utah Code $ 40-6-5 the Board has jurisdiction over

persons and property necessary to enforce the Act. Specifically, the Board has authority to

regulate operations related to the production of oil and gas, spacing of wells, operations to

increase recovery, disposal of oil field wastes, storage of oil, gas, or related products, and flaring.

Utah Code $ 40-6-5(3). Utah Code $ 40-6-5 also requires the Board to create rules to administer

the Act. For oil and gas; those rules are found in Titles R641 and R649. The Division is

required to implement policies and orders of the Board and perform duties delegated by the

Board. Id. S 40-6-15. The Board's counsel informed Mr. Ahmad of these restraints on its

jurisdiction in the September 7,2016letter. .

Mr. Ahmad alleged that because actions done "under the cover of the Division" or by

Division employees amounted to civil rights violations, the Board has jurisdiction to investigate

his civil rights claims. However, the Act does not give the Board jurisdiction over actions of

Division employees not related to the oil, gas, and mining matters listed in Section 40-6-5, and

consequently, does not give the Board jurisdiction over civil rights claims. Rather, the

legislature limited the Board's jurisdiction and authority to specific matters related to oil, gas,

and mining. Thus, a hearing before the Board concerning the legal merits of Mr. Ahmad's

discrimination claims is not proper. Because the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims, it

should dismiss Mr. Ahmad's Request without a hearing.

7

C. The Board lacks iurisdiction to consider Mr. Ahmadts claims hecause thev werenot filed within the time required.

Even if the Request attacked the validity of a Division order, rather than making a civil

rights claim, only the April 28,2016 NOV issued to Mar/Reg and the ll4ay 25,2016 NOV issued

to Pacific have the potential to be reviewable because the statute of limitations as set by the

Board is 30 days. Utah Admin. Code R. 649-10-6.1. Under Utah Administrative Code R649-10-

6, requests for review of Division orders "shall be filed with the secretary to the Board within 30

days of issuance of the order . . ." Id.

Mr. Ahmad's first letter to the Board Secretary is dated May 27,2016 and was received

May 31,2016. The NOVs issued most recently before Mr. Ahmad's letter \ryere served on April

28,2016 and May 25,2016. Therefore, the complaints in Mr. Ahmad's letter concerning money

wiring, pipeline opening, and a years-long history of personal attacks/discrimination are

untimely. Further, the claim related to the April23 NOV is timely only if R649-10-6.1 is

interpreted broadly, because Mr. Ahmad's letter may have been written within the 30 day time

limit, but was not received by the Board secretary until more than 30 days after the NOV was

issued. Mr. Ahmad's letter does not address the April2016 NOV, thus, a future claim

concerning that NOV would also be untimely.

Additionally, because Mr. Ahmad did not file a claim according to the prescribed format,

and only sent a letter, considering the letter as a filing within the 30 day time period also requires

broad interpretation of the 30 day time limit. In all, without a broad interpretation of the filing

deadline, and the contents of a sufficient filing, Mr. Ahmad's request is untimely. Even if the

Board chooses to adopt a broad reading of the Rule, only the May 25 NOVs should be

considered.

8

D. Mr. Ahmad's Reouest fails to comnlv nrocedural rules that must sovernBoard hearings.

If there is reviewable claim based on an NOV issued to one of the Companies, that claim

should still be dismissed because Mr. Ahmad failed to comply with the Board's procedural rules

in that he is not represented by an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Utah. Utah

Administrative Code Rules 641-102 through 106 outline the administrative procedures required

to initiate a Board hearing. Specifically, the Rules describe appearance and representation

requirements, content of pleadings, filing requirements, service requirements, and notice

requirements.

Under Utah Administrative Code Rule R641-102-200, except as provided in 641-102-100

which allows a natural person to appear on his or her own behall "representation at hearings

before the Board will be by attorneys licensed to practice law in the state of Utah. . ." Here,

because the NOVs were issued to Mar/Reg and Pacific, if Mr. Ahmad is requesting the Board to

review the substance or merit of an NOV, the Companies must be represented by counsel. If Mr.

Ahmad is not requesting review of an NOV issued to one of the Companies, his Request

concerns subject matter over which the Board does not have jurisdiction.

Thus, if Mr. Ahmad's Request is not dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction or untimeliness, it

should be dismissed for failure to comply with procedural rules, or, in the alternative, he should

be required to amend and submit a new request that does comply with the Rules.

9

CONCLUSION

In sum, Mr. Ahmad's Request should be dismissed. Mr. Ahmad fails to state a claim with

enough specificity to allow the Board or the Division to respond. Furthermore, the Board lacks

jurisdiction because Mr. Ahmad requests review of personal discrimination claims, not a

regulatory action by the Division. To the extent that any claims might be within the Board's

purview, Mr. Ahmad's request is untimely because, with the possible exception of one NOV, his

complained of actions are outside the 30 day statute of limitations. Last, Mr. Ahmad failed to

comply with the procedural requirements to request a Board hearing in that the companies are

not represented by counsel. Thus, Mr. Ahmad's Request should be dismissed. In the altemative,

he should be required to amend his Request, if he can, to set forth facts to show the Division

contradicted oil and gas statues or rules in issuing the NOV.

Respectfully submitted on the lOth day of January,2017

Fredric JAssistant Attorneys GeneralTel: (801) 538-7227Email: mosswald@utah.gov

freddonaldson@utah. gov

Attorneysfor the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining

10

Addresses Required by Rule

Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining:Ruland J Gill, Jr.Chairman of the BoardBoard of Oil, Gas and Mining1594 V/est North Temple, Suite 3710Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5610(801) 538-7200

Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining:John R. BazaDivision DirectorDivision of Oil, Gas and Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 3710Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5610(801) s38-7200

11

I certify that I caused to be served the above Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum inil

Support to the following parties on the l/ y' auy of January, 2017.

By email and mail:

Mr. Tariq Ahmad13495 South Hills DriveReno,NV 89511taroil@yahoo.com

By mail:

Mar/Reg Oil CompanyP.O. Box 18148Reno, NV 89511

Mar/Reg Oil Company1108 E. South Union AveMidvale, UT 841074

Pacific Energy and Mining Companyl7 V/est Main St.

P.O. Box 149

Green River, UT 84525

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

X

12

TariqAhrnad

February6,2017

Julie Ann CarterSecretaryUtah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210PO Box 145801Salt Lake City, UT 84114

{-}^^,*l

Tariq Ahmad

Cc: Meg OsswaldAttorneyfor DOGM

FILEDFEB 0 6 201?

SECRFTARY BOARD OFOIL, GAS & MINING

Docket No 2017-003Cause No.283-01

Dear Secretary:

I would like to request a continuance for the hearing scheduled in above matterduring the month of February. This request is based upon my health which doesnot allow me to travel.

I have discussed the continuance with counsel for the Division and counsel hasagreed to the continuance.

Sincerely,

Y

13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 8951 1

TariqAhrnad

FILEDFebruary 16,2017 FEB I ô 2017

SECRFTARY BOARD OFOIL, GAS & MINING

Julie Ann CarterSecretaryUtah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210PO Box 145801Salt Lake City, UT 84114

DocketNo 2017-003Cause No. 283-01

Dear Secretary:

Reference the filing by counsel for Division of Oil Gas and Mining, requesting a prehearingconference, petitioner has no objection to having a prehearing conference.

The division has insisted that the Board has no jurisdiction on petitioner's claim ofdiscrimination as the board only has jwisdiction to adjudicate relative interests of the parties.The Division is clearly incorrect in its interpretation of the Rules.

These rules will be liberally construed to secure just, speedy, and economicaldetermination of all issues presented to the Board.

Rule64l-100-300

"Adjudicative proceeding" means a Board action or proceeding that determines the legal righta duties, privileges,immunities, or other legal interests of one or more identifiable persons, including all Board actions to gran! den¡revoke, suspend" modify, annul, withdraq or amend an authority, right, or license; andjudicial review ofall suchactions.

Rule 641-100-200

Petitioner here is clearly an identifiable person who has been injured by the illegal actions ofthe employees of the Division. Counsel for Division is insisting that the NOV was issued tocompanies and not individually to petitioner, therefore petitioner cannot ask for review of theNOV by the Board. Pursuant to Rule 641-100-300 the board is to construe the rules liberally,thus petitioner has the right to proceed with his complaint to the Board, as the Division hasrefused to respond to petitioners complaint.

13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 8951 1

o Page2 February 16,2017

Based upon the above petitioner requests that the petitioner be allowed to continue with hispetition with the Board.

Sincerely,

-\d$*"-lY

Tariq Ahmad

Cc: Meg OswaldCounselfor Division

FILEDMAR I 5 20t7

SEGRETARY BOARD OFOIL, GAS A MINING

BEFORE THE BOARD OF OIL, GAS AND MININGDEPARTMENT OF NÄTURAL RESOURCES

STATE OF UTAH

IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FORAGENCY ACTION OF TARIQ AHMADCHALLENGING CEKTAIN NOTICES OFVIOLATION ISSUED BY THE DIVISION OFOIL, GAS & MINING.

Cause No. 283-01

Respondent Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (the "Division") on January 10,2017

filed a Motion to Dismiss the above-referenced case (the "Motion"). For the reasons discussed

beloW the Board grants the motion and dismisses the claims asserted in this matter.

Facts and Procedural Historv

1. Petitioner TariqAhmad initiated this case via a letter, dated }l4ay 27,2016 (the ooFirst

Letter"), directed to the Board of Oil, Gas & Mining (the "Board"). The First Letter, attached

hereto as Exhibit A, references alleged instances of discriminatory conduct on the part of the staff

of the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining ("Division"). Much of the conduct described was directed

against Mr. Ahmad personally, and, it is alleged, constituted racial and religious discrimination.

2. The First Letter also alleges that the Division, as part of its alleged pattern of

inappropriate conduct, took action against companies with which Mr. Ahmad is employed

concerning the companies'compliance with oil and gas regulations. This included the issuance

of two different Notices of Violation ("NOVs"), one issued in20l4, and another in May of 2016.

ORDER GRANTINGMOTION TO DISMISS

Docket No. 2017-003

3. The First Letter ultimately requests that the Board conduct a hearing to address the

issue of alleged discriminatory conduct by Division staffdirected at Mr. Ahmad personally.

4. Following review and deliberation concerning the First Letter, the Board

responded to Mr. Ahmad via a letter written by Board counsel dated September 7,2016 (the

"Board Letter"), attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Board Letter summarizes the limited powers

and jurisdiction of the Board, and notes that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear civil

rights claims based upon racial or religious discrimination. The Board Letter clarifies that if the

Division's complained-of conduct resulted in the issuance of an otherwise appealable NOV

concerning oil and gas operations, the Board would indeed have jurisdiction to hear a proper

challenge to such NOV.

5. Mr. Ahmad responded to the Board Letter via letter dated September 15,2016

(the "Second Letter"), attached hereto as Exhibit C. In the Second Letter, Mr. Ahmad again

references actions taken by the Division which he alleges violated his personal civil rights.l

Importantly, however, he also references the 2014 and2016 NOVs, argues that the NOVs were

improper, and states that he is challenging their issuance. Given Mr. Ahmad's clarification that

he intended, at least in part, to challenge the issuance of NOVs that are within the Board's

jurisdiction review, the Board in mid-December assigned this matter Docket and Cause numbers

and placed it upon its hearing calendar.

6. The Division then filed its Motion seeking dismissal of this matter on January 10,

2017. Mr. Ahmad's only responsive filing was a February 16,2017 letter (the "Third Letter,"

attached hereto as Exhibit D), discussed below.

I Mr. Ahmad indicates in the Second Letter that a desire to exhaust any administrative remedieshe may have before proceeding against the Division in federal court may in part form the basis ofhis request for a Board hearing.

Analvsis

The Board is a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal with the power to conduct hearings

and adjudicate certain limited types of disputes and claims. S¿e Utah Code Ann. $40-6-10

through 12 (setting forth the Board's hearing powers and procedures). As a statutorily-created

administrative Board, the Board's jurisdiction is limited to that granted by the legislature in

statute. See SME Inc. v. Kirlcrnan,843P2d 531, 533 (Utah Ct.App.1992) ("As a statutorily

created agency, the Industrial Commission has only those powers expressly or impliedly granted

by statute") (citing Bevans v. Industrial Comm'n, 790 P.2d 573 , 57 6 (Utah App. 1 990)). The

Board's governing statute, found within Title 40 of the Utah Code, grants the Board jurisdiction

to hear cases pertaining to a number of specific oil and gas development matters, see Utah Code

Ann. Section 40-6-5 through 9.5, hardrock mining matters, see lJtah Code Ann. Section 40-8 et

seq., and coal mining matters. SeeUtah Code Ann. $40-10 et seq.

The Board's jurisdiction over oil and gas development includes initial jurisdiction to

grant certain types of relief such as well spacing and compulsory pooling. See lJtah Code Ann.

$$ 40-6-6 and -6.5. The Board also has jurisdiction and rulemaking authority over a host of

operational oil and gas activities such as drilling, testing, disposal of wastes, gas flaring,

underground storage, and the plugging of wells. See lJtah Code Ann. $ 40-6-5(3). The Board

has administrative appellate jurisdiction to hear challenges of Division actions where the

Division has the power to make the initial decision. SeerJfahAdmin. Code R.649-10-6. This

appellate jurisdiction includes the power to review NOVs of the type referenced in the First and

Second Letters.

As noted by the Division in its Motion, the deficiencies in Mr. Ahmad's claims as stated

in the First and Second Letters are three-fold.

First, to the extent Mr. Ahmad's claims seek redress for the Division staff's alleged

discriminatory attitudes, statements and actions themselves, they are civil rights claims beyond

the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. Although the alleged conduct involved the Division,

unlike the state's district courts, the Board is not a court of general jurisdiction with authority to

hear all claims pertaining in any way to the Division and its staff. The Board's jurisdiction is

statutorily limited to oil and gas regulatory matters as set forth above. Mr. Ahmad argues in his

Third Letter that the Board has jurisdiction over his discrimination claims. He cites Utah Admin.

Code R641-100-300 (which states that the Board's regulations "will be liberally construed to

secure just, speedy, and economical determination of all issues present to the Board") and R641-

100-200 (defining the term "adjudicative proceeding"). These procedural rules of the Board do

not enlarge the Board's jurisdiction as granted by statute, however, and do not permit the Board

to adjudicate Mr. Ahmad's civil rights discrimination claims.

Second, to the extent Mr. Ahmad's claims ultimately seek review of the identified NOVs

pertaining to oil and gas operations, and are therefore within the Board's subject matter

jurisdiction, such claims belong not to Mr. Ahmad personally, but to the companies to which they

were directed. Mr. Ahmad indicates in his First and Second letters that the NOVs were issued to

companies by which he is employed, rather than to Mr. Ahmad himself.2 He further states, at

least with respect to Pacific Energy, that he is not an executive officer of the company to which

Division correspondence should be directed. While the Division's issuance of NOVs may be

appealed to the Board, the entity receiving the NOV must file such an appeal. The First and

2 Although not identified by Mr. Ahmad in his letters, based upon the representations of theDivision in the memorandum supporting its Motion, the second company with which Mr. Ahmadis affiliated (and which may have received one of the two referenced NOVs) appears to be Mar/RegOil Company.

Second letters are written by Mr. Ahmad himself on personal letterhead, set forth his own

personal arguments and allegations, and to the extent they address whether Mr. Ahmad should be

treated as an authorized representative of the companies, clarify that he should not. If Mr.

Ahmad intends to raise claims on the companies'behalf, the Board reiterates that the companies

themselves must act as petitioner,3 and under the Board's procedural rules corporate petitioners

must be represented by legal counsel. seelJtahAdmin. code R. 641-102-200.4

Finally, even if the preceding deficiencies were overlooked, the First and Second Letters,

insofar as they take issue with the referenced NOVs, fail to adequately set forth the factual and

legal basis for Mr. Ahmad's challenge. The Board's rules require that a Request for Agency

Action include "a statement of the legal authority and jurisdiction under which Board action is

requested," utahAdmin. code R. 641-104-133.500, "a statement of the relief sought from the

Board," UtahAdmin. Code R. 641-104-133.600, and"astatement of the facts and reasons

forming the basis for the relief." Utah Admin. Code R. 641-104-700. As noted on pages 4-6 of

the Division's memorandum supporting the Motion, the letters do not identify what the 2014

NOV was issued for, or set forth the factual or legal basis for Mr. Ahmad's challenge of that

NOV. Mr. Ahmad does briefly describe the subject matter of the }y'ray 27,2016 NOV, but only in

cursory terms, and he does not describe how he was injured by its issuance or what relief he

3 In the Third Letter, Mr. Ahmad cites the liberal wording of Utah Admin. Code R.641-104-300(which states the rules will be "liberally construed to secure just, speedy, and economicaldetermination of all issues") in support of his right to assert claims on behalf of the companies.But this general statement concerning liberal construction of the procedural rules in the conduct ofhearings does not alter the fundamental standing requirement that an appropriate party file thepetition in the hrst instance.a The Board also notes that any appeal of the 2014 NOV even utilizing the Mray 27,2016 date ofthe First Letter as the filing date of Mr. Ahmad's petition, would be time-barred by well over oneyear. See Utah Admin. Code R. 649-10-6.1 (establishing a thirty-day period for the f,rling ofappeals seeking review of Division orders).

seeks. These deficiencies make it impossible for the Division to meaningfully respond to the

letters or prepare for a hearing, and cause Mr. Ahmad's petition as embodied in his letters to fall

short of adequately stating a claim.

For the above reasons, even accepting the factual allegations made in the First and

Second Letters as true, the Board concludes they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted, and hereby dismisses the petition pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Section 63G-4-102(4Xb)

and Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 12(bX1) and 12(b)(6). This dismissal is made without

prejudice to the right of the affected companies themselves to challenge the referenced NOVs to

the extent such NOVs can be timely appealed. Insofar as Mr. Ahmad expresses a desire to

exhaust all administrative remedies he may have with respect to his civil rights claims, the

Board, in ruling that no such remedies exist, considers Mr. Ahmad to have met this exhaustion

requirement.

Dated this 15th day of March,2ïl7.

STATE OF UTAHBO OIL, GAS AND MINING

J GiII, Jr

/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certifr that, on this 16th day of March, 2017,I caused a true and correct

copy of the foregoing order to be mailed, postage pre-paid, to the following

Meg Osswald, Esq.Frederic J. DonaldsonAssistant Attorney GeneralAttorney for the Division of Oil, Gasand Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 300P.O. Box 145801Salt Lake City, Urah 84114-5801

Mar/Reg Oil CompanyP.O. Box 18148Reno, NV 89511

TariqAhmad13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 89511

Mar/Reg Oil Company1108 E. South UnionAveMidvale, UT 841074

Pacific Energy and Mining Company17 V/est Main St.P.O. Box 149Green River, UT 84525

EXHIBIT A

TariqAhmad FILEDMay27,2A16 l,tAY 3 I 20t6

SECRETAffY, BOANDOFoL,oAs t irNtilo

SecretaryBoard of Oil Gas & Mining1594 West North Ternple #300PO Box 14085Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0855

SubjecÍ Request for Hearing/Discrirnination

Gentlemen:

Over the last 6 years I have filed a number of complaints in reference to discrirnination against me personally bythe Division staff. I was informed by Mr. Baza that a particular person was tæked to deal with me to address mycomplaint concerning discriminatiotr. This wo*ed for a short tinie but discrimination stafted again in 2014 andhas continued.

Copies of rny original complaint to Director are on file. The discrimination has not stopped as stated below:

June2014

I was pet'sonally accused by Bart Kettle while drilling a well in Grand County, false accusations were madeagainst me. Mr, Steve Alder and a couple of others then insulted Mr. Christensen when he approached them toinquire as to what the issues were. Allegations that were later proven to be false. Thereafter, Mr. Kettle issued aNotice of Violation which included threats and potential fines to my employer. I spent a lot of time in respondingto these false accusations. Later I discovered that Mr. Kettle is apparently liiends with Gerald K. Smith and hisTool Pusher Ray Ash (Ash is a neighbor of Mr. Kettle,)r The Utah Department of Environmental Qualitydismissed Mr. Kettle complaint based upon data and evidence provided by me.

Subsequently I filed a written complaint with DOCM requesting as to what action was taken in regards to the falseNotice of Violation made by Bart Kettle. I did not receive a response.

Sometime last yeaq Mr. Dean Christensen was asked by me to get a copy of the documents in referencç to theabove. The'Well files were devoid of any of the documents as they were apparently illegally removed.

On or about June 23, 2014 Mr. Adler, Mr. Rogers and Dustin Doucet without any facts ordered us to wire transferS250,000 to a drilling conffactor, the same drilling contractor who is friends with Bart Kettle and whose toolpusher is Mr. Kettle's neighbor. This was again discriminatory. Mr, Doucet went so far as 1o accuse rne of lying. Ihappen to be certified as a Professional Errgineer by the Society ofPetroleum Engineers and am a graduate oftheColorado School of Mines with over 37 years of experience.

During the legal proceeding ín reference to the drilling contractor, the Federal Judge determined that Gerald K.Smith and his company had in fact created false invoices which were against the contract a Federal and Statecriminal investigation was instituted in regards to Mr. Gerald K. Smith.

June_201I

' US District Court found that Mr. Smith had fraudulently created invoices and granted judgment for Pacific Energy. Mr, Smith'scompany fled for bankruptcy protection on April 28, 2016

'13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 89511

. Page 2 May27,2416

June 20 I 5

rWhen the company I work for posted a bond to take over operations, the Division Staff than came up withunprecedented procedures in order to prevent the kansfer ofoperations.

June 2016

On April 14,2016I received a letter by email under the signature of an Assistant Attorney General, addrcssed tome personally, even though I am the Secretary of Pacific Energy and not an executive ofücer. Mr. Adler eitherknew or should have knor¡rn this fact. This letter should have been sent to Mr, Dan Green, the President of PacificEnergy.

I called the person who had sent the letter and I was forwarded to Mr. Adler, I had Mr. Dan Green on thetelephone. Mr. Adler than placed my call on the speaker, which I presume was for the purpose of having someonerecord the call,

I specifically asked Mr. Adler why is it "that wheu I asked the Division to have Elk Resources open the pipelinefor natural gas that belongs to us" the division refused to take any action, and now you senf this letter demandingthat Pacific Energy open up their gas line to a third party. Thereafrer I informed Mr. Adler that this is seems to meto be discrimination. After a while Mr. Adler disconnected the telephone call.

On May 27,2016 I received a Notice of Violation under the signature of Mr. Bart Kettle, alleging oil to be in acellar on the Greentown State 3242 l{well. I had personally visited the well location during the week of May 2,2016. I did not hnd any oil in the cellar, I had a witness with me during this inspection, a qualified MechanicalEngineer. There was water in the cellar and it was orange due to rust,

It seetns to me that every instance, Mr. Adler and the Division staff take the word of a white person over what Ihave to say. This is racial and religious discrinlination, This has to stop, This discrimination has continued overthe years, there were actions taken to alleviate this situation but discrimination rears its ugly head.

By this letter I request a Board Hearing to address the issue of discrimination against me personally by the Staffand in particular by Mr. Steven Adler and Bart Kettle. I want these persons to be placed under oath to answerduring exarnination,

Tariq13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 89511

Cc: DOGMSITLA

J*^---.,1 AU."*¡l3*1s S'J4h n.\tr i)-A* {r..¡ Ø{:-tt

REH(} $þf.È !,

2A.MåY ?ta6. Pût:

27 2t16

l".r"f o''1

É;-:-d d G^ tP\Ls1þ vi*'r ù\u'\in le'P\'?,: ß.,- \ço8s

-gJl ¡*!a Õ!1' Ú t

MAY $ 1'2ûlfr

* ^QLY",0F

oll, GAS & MINING

)t¿ 3oo

Bçrt¿+ -O Bs f

Ê.3i åå€:3i=.t ¡:r¡i,¡¡iiliiir¡i,i¡¡¡ii¡ii;ir!;iir¡i'¡¡ ii¡¡¡", ;'i' iiii,ii¡ri¡i

EXHIBIT B

STATE OF UTAHONFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

SEAN D. REYESATTORNEY GENERAL

Spencer E. AustinChlef Cdmiñal Deputy Fedeml Solicìtor & Generêl Counsel

Tyler R. GreenSol¡citûr Ge¡rêral

Parker Douglas Bridget K. RomanoChief Civil Ðeputy

September 7,20ï6

Tariq Ahmad13495 South Hills DrReno, NV 89511

Re: Your letter dated May 27, 2016.

Mr. Ahmad:

Thank you for your letter dated llllay 27,2016 directed to the Board of Oil, Gas & Miningconcerning alleged instances of discriminatory conduct on the part of the staffof the Division of Oil,Gas and Mining ("Division"). According to the letter, this alleged conduct includes the Division staffmaking false accusations, on the basis of race, against you and the company with which you are

employed concerning your compliance with oil and gas reguiations and other matters. The Board has

reviewed your letter, discussed it among the Board's members, and analyzed whether the conduct

alleged falls within the jurisdiction of the Board. The Board has requested that I, as the Board's counsel,

respond to you with this letter explaining the Board's analysis and conclusions.

The Board serves as a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal with the power to conduct hearings to

adjudicate certain types of disputes and claims. See Utah Code Ann. $40-6-10 through 12 (setting forththe Board's hearing po\¡rers and procedures). As an administrative Board (and not a court), the Board'sjurisdiction is limited to that granted by the legislature in statute. See SMP, Inc. v- Kirhnan, 843 P.2d

Slfflfffmh Cl¿pp.l l ("As a statutorily created agency, the Industrial Commission has onlythose po\¡rers expressly or impliedly granted by statute.") The Board's goveming statute, found withinTitle 40 of the Utah Code, grants the Board jurisdiction to hear cases pertaining to a number of specific

oil and gas development matters, seeUtahCode Ann. Section 40-6-6 through 9.5, hardrock mining

matters, see Utah Code Ann. Section 40-8 et seq., and coal mining matters. SeeUtahCode Ann. $40-10et seq.

The Division actions detailed in your letter pertain to oil and gas development. The Board'sjurisdiction over oil and gas development includes initial jurisdiction over certain types of oil and gas-

related relief such as well spacing and compulsory pooling. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. $$ 40-6-6 ar'd -

6.5. The Board also has administrative appellate jurisdiction to hear challenges of certain types of

1594 WEST NoRrH TEMPLE, #300 . P.O. BoX 140855, SALr LAKË Crrv, UT 841 14-0855 . PHoNE: (801)'538-7227 . FAX: (801) 538-7440

decisions by the Division where the Divisíon has the power to take the initial action (such as in the areas

of surety bonding, the plugging of wells, etc.). Seø Utah Admin. Code R.649-10-6. Unlike the state's

district courts, the Board is not a court of general jurisdiction with the power to hear all actionable

complaints or grievances pertaining in any way to the Division or its employees.

After reviewing yoru ietter, the Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to hear claims

conceming the discrimination alleged. If the complained-of discrimination resulted in an otherwise

appealable action being taken by the Division (such as the decision to grant or deny a permit, or issue an

administrative order), then timely review of thar decision would indeed be within the Board'sjurisdiction. But if the subject of your grievance is allegedly discriminatory attitudes, statements and

actions themselves (and not an otherwise appealable agency decision), the Board would not havejurisdiction to hear the claims.

This letter does not constitute advice regarding which forum, if an¡ would be the appropriate one inwhich to pursue your claims. It merely addresses the Board's conclusion that the Board itself does nothave jurisdiction and is therefore not the appropriate forum. An attorney may be able to advise you

concerning how best to pursue your claims.

Sincereiy,

ohnsonAttorney General

Counsel to the Board of Oil, Gas & Mining

EXHIBIT C

TariqAhmad

September 15,2016

MichaelS, JohnsonAssistant Attorney GeneralCounselto the Board of Oil, Gas & MiningBoard of OilGas and Mining1594 West North TempÞ#300PO Box 14085Salt Lake City, UT 84114-0855

FILEDsEP I 5 2016

SECRETARY, BOARD OFOlL, CAS & [,llNlNG

Subject Letter dated May 27, 2016

Dear Mr. Johnson:

I am in receipt of your letter dated September 7,2016. ln my complaint I had clearly delineated each ofthe actions that were taken by the employees of the Division which violated my rights. ln your letter youstate that the Board is only authorized to look at the actions of the Division.The Notice of violation that was given to me by Baft Kettle in2014 was clearly improper, the Divisioninslsted that we had violated a bunch of rules, which tumed out to be false,

Again during the month of May of thís year Mr. Kettle again issued a NOV which was again found to befalse. The division and its employees forced.us to wire $250,000 to Energy Drilling LLC, which againhappened to be clearly wrong.

Each of these actions complained of was done under the cover of the Division. The board thereforehas jurisdiction to investigate each of the alleged violations of my rights and at the lease investigationwhy employees of the Division have gone out of the way to make up Notices of Vioalation.

As state in your letter the board has jurisdiction over the actions of the Division staff Since the boardhas authority over the actions of the Division, I am hereby challenging the Notice of Violations that wereimproperly íssued.

I therefore request a Board hearing. Clearly I am required to finish all administrative procedure prior toseeking redress from üre United States Dístrict Court under the relevant statues.

,fl'¡*t't'u,l*Tariq Ah¡nad

13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV89511

EXHIBIT D

TariqAhmad

FILEDFebruary 16,2017 FEB I 6 2017

SECRETARY BOARD OFOIL, GAS & MINING

Julie Ann CarterSecretaryUtah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining1594 West North Temple, Suite 1210PO Box 145801Salt Lake Ciry, UT 94114

DocketNo 2017-003Cause No. 283-01

Dear Secretary:

Reference the filing by counsel for Division of Oil Gas and Mining, requesting a prehearingconference, petitioner has no objection to having a prehearing conference-

The division has insisted that the Board has no jurisdiction on petitioner's claim ofdiscrimination as the board only has jwisdiction to adjudicate relative interests of the parties.The Division is clearly incorrect in its interpretation of the Rules.

These rules will be liberally construed to secure just, speedy, and economicaldetermination of all issues presented to the Board.

Rule64l-100-300

"Adjudicative proceeding" means a Board action or proceeding that determines the legal rightg duties, privileges,immunities, or other legal interests of one or more identifiable personq incluriing all Bìard actions to graurg den¡revoke, suspen4 modiÛ, annul, wilhdraw, or amend an authority, right, or license; and judicial revieliof all suchactions.

Rule 641-10G200

Petitioner here is clearly an identifiable person who has been iqjured by the illegal actions ofthe employees of the Division. Counsel for Division is insisting that the NOV was issued tocompanies and not individuatly to petitioner, therefore petitioner cannot ask for review of theNOV by the Board. Pursuant to Rule 641-100-300 the board is to construe the rules liberally,thus petitioner has the right to proceed with his complaint to the Board, as the Division hasrefused to respond to petitioners complaint.

13495 South Hills DriveReno, NV 8951 1

r Page2 February 16,2017

Based upon the above petitioner requests that the petitioner be allowed to continue with hispetition with the Board.

Sincerely

-\{-ln*"-lY

Tariq Ahmad

Cc: Meg OswaldCounselfor Division

4/3/2017 State of Utah Mail ­ Legal Notice ­ Publish on Wednesday, January 4, 2017, San Juan Record ­ Docket No. 2017­003

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=b7686d3585&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15b267d3125e8aac&siml=15b267d3125e8aac 1/1

Julie Carter <juliecarter@utah.gov>

Legal Notice ­ Publish on Wednesday, January 4, 2017, San Juan Record ­ DocketNo. 2017­003 

Bill Boyle <sjreditor@frontier.com> Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 4:29 PMTo: Julie Carter <juliecarter@utah.gov>Cc: SJR Ads <sjrads@frontier.com>

Julie,

I am afraid that this ad did not run in the San Juan Record.  Our sincere apologies, but we had a holiday­relatedbreakdown.  Feel fee to email me or call 435­587­2277 if there is anything that we can do to help address this issue.

Thanks,Bill BoyleSan Juan Record[Quoted text hidden]