Subject: Re: TW N. Crawar Remediation
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:38:00 -0800 (PST)

it's possible that we could get pulled into the chevron matter but with our 
limited usage - i doubt it.  i would not look any further.  

Duke probably is required to facilitate the TW remediation but likely is not 
required to maintain the lease...roger - is it possible to contact Duke and 
find out what their plans are and if they intend to abandon - possibly get 
them to assign or sublease a portion of the site to us??? 

   

	From:  George Robinson                           11/01/2000 07:11 PM

To: Louis Soldano/ET&S/Enron
cc: Roger Westbrook/OTS/Enron@ENRON, Larry Campbell/ET&S/Enron@ENRON, Cutty 
Cunningham/OTS/Enron@Enron 

Subject: TW N. Crawar Remediation

Lou,

In advance of installing several off-site wells for a remediation system at 
the N. Crawar site, Roger Westbrook has contacted the property owner in order 
to obtain off-site access for the installation of wells and other associated 
activities. I believe Roger offered $2500 for a five year term. The property 
owner has indicated that Duke Energy (the current facility owner) has 
indicated that Duke plans to release the property lease since they no longer 
utilize this facility. Furthermore, the property owner has put off entering 
into an access agreement with TW pending further information regarding Duke's 
plans for the lease. Roger suspects that the property owner wants more for 
damages to replace the lost revenue that was generated by the lease. This 
brings up the following questions. Does Duke have an obligation to maintain 
the lease until TW is done with remediation activities? If Duke releases the 
lease, does TW need to obtain a lease for remediation activities? 

Another issue related to this site. The property owner asked Roger about the 
quantity of water that would be recovered in the course of remediation at 
this site. Apparently the town of Crane, Texas owns the water rights in this 
area and has a pending suit against Chevron and the property owner for 
contamination of the aquifer. I have noticed several monitor wells in the 
area just east and northeast of the TW site. These wells are spaced out over 
quite a large area. My best guess would be that Chevron had a problem with 
one or more injection wells to create such a widespread problem. We've got 
good monitoring data that shows that the lateral extent of affected 
groundwater at the TW site is very limited. Do we run the risk of getting 
pulled into something bigger just for being there? Is this an issue that 
needs to be investigated further? Last year sometime I asked someone at the 
RRC District 8 office about the Chevron monitor wells and they were not 
familiar with them.