Since I switched the plant for a number of years, wondering what the ground pollution might be. We delivered cars loaded with cottonseed, and pulled cars with bales of cotton lint, and tank cars of cottonseed oil. Whatever the processing was, not questioning, just wonder where the pollution comes from.

The vast majority comes from the old, early 20th century oil and gas exploration that occurred on that site. The majority of south downtown OKC was all oil fields and refineries back in the early 1900s. One interesting fact...ODOT had to pay a bundle for remediation just to build the brick town stretch of the OKC Boulevard. They ran into all sorts of contamination. The underground utility corridors had to be specially built to prevent migration of the contamination to other areas of town.

How much would the assessments costs so they can figure out what the cleanup would cost?

A phase 1 and 2 combined would likely be somewhere around $5,000 to $10,000 per commercial lot. Now, that is a standard sized lot. To do this entire site..I would just spitball a price at around $75,000 to $100,000 or more. No prospective developer will pay that price because if the news is bad...then they are out $75,000 to $100,000 or more. The owner doesn't want to do the assessment because once the extent of the contamination is better known...then they are stuck if the news Is bad. No one would touch it then without the owner performing the remediation. I suspect the owners don't want to know or they have a pretty good idea what they are looking at. They may have done a phase I. Shoot, they may have done a Phase II. I haven't heard anything about a Phase II. I did hear they were planning on a Phase I, but I never heard if they ever had it done. If they did...it may have been bad news.

How much would the assessments costs so they can figure out what the cleanup would cost?

One of the things needed in a phase II would be groundwater test wells to determine the contamination of the groundwater. I think each test well will run in excess of $10,000. As large as that site is…I wouldn’t be surprised if it wouldn’t need 10 or more test wells.

^^ Thank you yukong for the extremely informative posts about this issue. I still believe the polluter "should" be required to clean their mess up even if it would be a present day corporate descendant of the entities that created the mess decades ago. But for all the reasons you outlined, I can also see how it would turn into a giant messy legal battle resulting in no change at all. It's a great example of the disconnect between "what should be" and "what is" when dealing with some corporate interests. (That sounds really anti-business, but I'm really not - I'm just very pro-corporate responsibility and greatly appreciate good corporate citizens.)

A phase 1 and 2 combined would likely be somewhere around $5,000 to $10,000 per commercial lot. Now, that is a standard sized lot. To do this entire site..I would just spitball a price at around $75,000 to $100,000 or more. No prospective developer will pay that price because if the news is bad...then they are out $75,000 to $100,000 or more. The owner doesn't want to do the assessment because once the extent of the contamination is better known...then they are stuck if the news Is bad. No one would touch it then without the owner performing the remediation. I suspect the owners don't want to know or they have a pretty good idea what they are looking at. They may have done a phase I. Shoot, they may have done a Phase II. I haven't heard anything about a Phase II. I did hear they were planning on a Phase I, but I never heard if they ever had it done. If they did...it may have been bad news.

Very informative, thank you.

I know this is a loaded question, but would you have a ballpark estimate for the cleanup? Like are we talking $5 million on the low end and $100 million if it's "bad news"?

Very informative, thank you.

I know this is a loaded question, but would you have a ballpark estimate for the cleanup? Like are we talking $5 million on the low end and $100 million if it's "bad news"?


It's hard to spitball that one without knowing the extent of the contamination. But to get the site to residential standards would require removing any and all underground structures, piping, tanks and such. Ask Gary Brooks about that. When he developed the Steel Yards...the cleanup was way more expensive then anyone would have guessed because when they started excavation of the site after remediation had occurred, they found one or more underground oil storage tanks that were not on any maps or historic documents. He has spoken publicly about this. It slowed the development and caused costs that were not planned. There could be such at this site, but no one knows, and it is possible such would not be revealed in a phase I or II. But any and all "hot" soil would have to be removed and taken to approved disposal sites, which could be very expensive. All new soil brought in. If groundwater is contaminated, treatment would be required which is not cheap. So..I would say millions and millions, but without more, no one can say. That is the issue. No one is willing to take the chance. But even if just $5,000,000...if you pay 30,000,000 for the site, and it is still only worth $30,000,000 after cleanup...then it isn't worth buying. Getting financing would be difficult.

^^ Thank you yukong for the extremely informative posts about this issue. I still believe the polluter "should" be required to clean their mess up even if it would be a present day corporate descendant of the entities that created the mess decades ago. But for all the reasons you outlined, I can also see how it would turn into a giant messy legal battle resulting in no change at all. It's a great example of the disconnect between "what should be" and "what is" when dealing with some corporate interests. (That sounds really anti-business, but I'm really not - I'm just very pro-corporate responsibility and greatly appreciate good corporate citizens.)

It's possible to go after corporate successors. If they are easily determined. But that in and of itself can get very very costly. But it does happen. It has been done here in Oklahoma. But the normal course of business would be for the current owner to pursue that litigation to recover their cleanup costs. The city or the state isn't going to do that because there is a corporate entity that owns the property and they have resources. Let them seek cost recovery. That is how it usually happens.

It's hard to spitball that one without knowing the extent of the contamination. But to get the site to residential standards would require removing any and all underground structures, piping, tanks and such. Ask Gary Brooks about that. When he developed the Steel Yards...the cleanup was way more expensive then anyone would have guessed because when they started excavation of the site after remediation had occurred, they found one or more underground oil storage tanks that were not on any maps or historic documents. He has spoken publicly about this. It slowed the development and caused costs that were not planned. There could be such at this site, but no one knows, and it is possible such would not be revealed in a phase I or II. But any and all "hot" soil would have to be removed and taken to approved disposal sites, which could be very expensive. All new soil brought in. If groundwater is contaminated, treatment would be required which is not cheap. So..I would say millions and millions, but without more, no one can say. That is the issue. No one is willing to take the chance. But even if just $5,000,000...if you pay 30,000,000 for the site, and it is still only worth $30,000,000 after cleanup...then it isn't worth buying. Getting financing would be difficult.

Looking back on the Steelyard thread, $1.5 million in Brownfields grant for site cleanup and $4.5 in federal stimulus funding. I know TIF was included as well, but don't know how much. Looks like the current land of the Steelyard is just over five acres. The Producers Coop is over 40 acres, if I remember correctly.

Assuming the cleanup cost is the same, all of the funds above were used for cleanup (not more) and adjust + 25% for inflation, the cost for cleanup would be around $60 million ($6 million * 8 times the size(40 acres/5 acres) * 1.25). Not sure if a break is given for a larger project, but just something to think about...

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28942&highlight=steelyard

yukong, since you know more about this than all of us, please let me know if I am wrong.

Looking back on the Steelyard thread, $1.5 million in Brownfields grant for site cleanup and $4.5 in federal stimulus funding. I know TIF was included as well, but don't know how much. Looks like the current land of the Steelyard is just over five acres. The Producers Coop is over 40 acres, if I remember correctly.

Assuming the cleanup cost is the same, all of the funds above were used for cleanup (not more) and adjust + 25% for inflation, the cost for cleanup would be around $60 million ($6 million * 8 times the size(40 acres/5 acres) * 1.25). Not sure if a break is given for a larger project, but just something to think about...

https://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=28942&highlight=steelyard

yukong, since you know more about this than all of us, please let me know if I am wrong.

Two things…1). I do not think the Steelyard received a Brownfields grant. I believe it was a low interest Brownfields loan. Interest of 1-2%. Grants cannot be extended to private developers. 2). Without knowing more it’s hard to guesstimate the total cleanup cost, but I would not discount your math. It could conceivably be that large. But one more point…the Steelyard was all residential, so the MCL (maximum contamination level) was much lower. If the Co-Op property were broken up into commercial and residential projects, then the cost would be less as the MCL for commercial/industrial is higher so it takes less to clean up. One of the prospective developers wanted to build a soccer stadium. The MCL for that would have been industrial. So a lot depends on the different components of the development.

Two things…1). I do not think the Steelyard received a Brownfields grant...
Sorry, this info is incorrect. Steelyard received $800K in brownfields grant money (in fairness it came through the City, which was intimately involved in Steelyard’s development): https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/epa-announces-800000-grant-oklahoma-city-support-brownfields-cleanups.html

Sorry, this info is incorrect. Steelyard received $800K in brownfields grant money (in fairness it came through the City, which was intimately involved in SteelyardÂ’s development): https://www.epa.gov/archive/epa/newsreleases/epa-announces-800000-grant-oklahoma-city-support-brownfields-cleanups.html

Actually...my info was not incorrect. If you read the news release...OKC got a grant from the EPA for the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund. The Grant was to OKC for OKC to use in their Revolving Loan Fund. The event where the EPA gave the check to OKC was held at the Steel yards...but the money to developers will be in the form of a low interest loan.

The news release you linked states as follows....The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the city of Oklahoma City held an event today celebrating an EPA revolving loan fund grant of $800,000 to support cleanup at Brownfields sites. Then......Today’s grant will be used to capitalize a revolving loan fund, from which the city can provide loans to support cleanup activities for sites contaminated with hazardous substances and petroleum. Funds will also be used to prepare cleanup plans, oversee site cleanups, market the loan fund, and conduct community outreach.

As I said above...Brownfields grants only go to governmental entities, not private developers. Trust me on this one. I have been involved in several. If the Steelyards got money from the Brownfields office, it was via a revolving loan fund loan. DEQ also has a Brownfields program. Grant money for governmental entities, and low interest loans for developers. One caveat...there is a very finite pool of revolving loan fund money. Once it is loaned out...there is no more until the loans are repaid.

Sorry, that was a lazy read on my part. I knew a brownfields grant was utilized as a part of the financing package for Steelyard, so I stopped reading your earlier post after the line that seemed to indicate to me that you believed no brownfields grant was a part of that project. Clearly it was, and Steelyard could not have happened without it.

But you’re obviously correct in that its usage enabled a low interest loan to the developer rather than a direct award. I’d maintain that is a technicality, however. A brownfields grant was an instrument needed (and utilized) for that project. It was an INCREDIBLY difficult one, for many reasons, most of them environmental.

It is a minor distinction, but one nonetheless. Under the Brownfields program...there are two funding types. All Brownfields money comes from the EPA. The State has a Brownfields division at DEQ and the City has a Brownfields office. Tulsa also has a Brownfields office. EPA provides grant funds to the State to administer to governmental entities. And EPA provides (via grant) revolving loan fund money to the State DEQ and to OKC and Tulsa. DEQ can allot "grants" to governmental entities for cleanups and they are "grants" that do not have to be repaid. Then the State and OKC/Tulsa can issue low interest loans to private developers to remediate blighted properties. That money is not a "grant" in the purest sense of the word. Yes...EPA made a grant to the city or the state for the Revolving Loan Fund...but once in the city or state coffers...it is no longer administered as a "grant." Those funds have to be repaid to then provide for further loans to developers. But it's still a great deal for developers because the interest rate is usually 2%. Cheap money.

Yes, and said cheap money was the only way that project was able to move forward. I do get that it was packaged as a loan, however.

Yes, and said cheap money was the only way that project was able to move forward. I do get that it was packaged as a loan, however.

Cheap money via Brownfields loans have been very important to several projects here in OKC. Grants to smaller cities and towns in other regions of the state have been very important for restoration of blighted government properties.

The $4.5 million grant mentioned in this article was probably also in the back of my mind, though perhaps it was not brownfields money, specifically (though clearly targeted at environmental hazard remediation):


Developers paid $4.4 million Wednesday for the north half of the former Stewart Metal Fabricators plant in east Bricktown as they move forward with a plan to build a $75 million mix of apartments, retail and a hotel.

The development is considered by observers at city hall to be one of the more complicated private/public development efforts since the renovation and reopening of the century-old Skirvin hotel in 2006.

Gary Brooks and Andy Burnett, principles in Bricktown Apartments LLC., first announced plans for the project earlier this year when they successfully obtained $4.5 million in federal stimulus funding.

The grant will help pay for the relocation of a large storm sewer line and remove contamination on the site. Other funding sources include $1.5 million in federal brownfield (contamination removal) loans approved Tuesday by the Oklahoma City Council.
I just recall that there were multiple environmental assistance instruments brought to the project or it never would have happened. That site was a huge mess, with an abandoned century-old sewer line you could drive a truck though, hazards stemming from previous use, plus the remnants of an oil field like few if any alive today have ever seen.

The Bricktown Canal (specifically Lower Bricktown portion) was subject to brownfields cleanup for a couple of years prior to construction, though not certain of the financing back then. I know there was a massive soil swap, and even for a few years after the canal opened that section had dozens if not hundreds of 4” or 6” PVC tubes sticking out of the ground, presumably for soil or water sample extraction (I never knew the exact purpose). Those tubes were still sticking out of the ground until Lower Bricktown began construction about 4-5 years after the canal opened.

I’ll try to find a pic of the oil field in Bricktown circa the 1930s, but it was surreal. A forest of derricks. Plus lots of industrial uses that would probably be all but illegal today.

The Bricktown Canal (specifically Lower Bricktown portion) was subject to brownfields cleanup for a couple of years prior to construction, though not certain of the financing back then. I know there was a massive soil swap, and even for a few years after the canal opened that section had dozens if not hundreds of 4” or 6” PVC tubes sticking out of the ground, presumably for soil or water sample extraction (I never knew the exact purpose). Those tubes were still sticking out of the ground until Lower Bricktown began construction about 4-5 years after the canal opened.

I’ll try to find a pic of the oil field in Bricktown circa the 1930s, but it was surreal. A forest of derricks. Plus lots of industrial uses that would probably be all but illegal today.

I am going to postulate that those pipes sticking up were for remediation purposes for treatment/cleaning of ground water.

This photo doesn’t really do it justice, but gives one an idea of the state of the area during the early oil boom era. It’s hard to know exactly from where this was taken, but my best guess is around where the Lincoln Blvd bridge now crosses I-40 leading to the Boathouse District. Clearly taken east of Bricktown. There’s another photo I’ve seen that was taken closer to the CBD, looking east along Main Street, and the sheer number of wells is stupefying.

18294

I wonder how much public funds have been spent cleaning up old oil fields and old wells.

And you have to know there are still tons of heavily contaminated sites (like the subject of this thread) that are still in need of the same treatment.

I wonder how much public funds have been spent cleaning up old oil fields and old wells.

And you have to know there are still tons of heavily contaminated sites (like the subject of this thread) that are still in need of the same treatment.

I'm sure public funds have been used at times but since 1993 (or some point a few years later as I'm not sure how long it took for them to get their legs under them after being founded) the OERB has handled most of the abandoned oil field cleanup in the state and is funded by contributions from oil and gas companies and royalty owners. They usually step in for cases where a surface owner submits a complaint to the state for well sites that were orphaned/abandoned and which a responsible party no longer exists. To date, they've remediated something like 19,000 sites throughout the state.

https://oerb.com/about/funding/

If there is a responsible party in existence, the corporation commission will give them a few chances to bring the location into compliance (by cleaning up environmental risks and producing the well(s)). If after a period of time, the operator fails to comply, they'll issue a plug or produce order with a strict deadline and if they fail to comply, there are a number of fairly harsh fines and penalties that can be applied. Not sure but I'm assuming they can revoke an operator's license if the situation warrants.

This photo doesn’t really do it justice, but gives one an idea of the state of the area during the early oil boom era. It’s hard to know exactly from where this was taken, but my best guess is around where the Lincoln Blvd bridge now crosses I-40 leading to the Boathouse District. Clearly taken east of Bricktown. There’s another photo I’ve seen that was taken closer to the CBD, looking east along Main Street, and the sheer number of wells is stupefying.

18294

I have an oilfield panorama of this area and can tell you almost exactly where this was taken. It was taken near the turntable/roundhouse at the old Oklahoma City ADA Atoka RR/MK&T railyard east of downtown between the 235/40/35 interchange and Lottie. You can see the old turn table on the oldest google earth images and very clearly in Pete's 1960s OKC aerials (you can even see what I believe is the building at the bottom of the pic). Probably can't see the CO-OP site from here but I'll take a look at my panorama (which should include it) when I head back to Tulsa today and post a pic of it.

This site pinpoints the location of the turntable if anyone wants to find it on Pete's aerials: https://www.steamlocomotive.com/roundhouse/?state=OK .

I wonder how much public funds have been spent cleaning up old oil fields and old wells.

And you have to know there are still tons of heavily contaminated sites (like the subject of this thread) that are still in need of the same treatment.

A lot of money has been spent. And a lot more will be spent. In fact...there are still a fair number of contaminated sites here in the central part of town. Some very close to Okana. Of course the Co-op site. Some along Reno. The city had to do quite a bit to build Scissortail Park. There was a fair amount of remediation done there. Along Reno where there were former, and still current metal recycling facilities...with heavy metal contamination. Until 20-30 years ago...no one considered the environmental impact of lots of industrial facilities. There is a lot we still don't know. A current topic of concern in environmental circles is PFAS...a group of synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications, from the linings of fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware to fire-fighting foams and other purposes have now determined to pose significant risks to human health and the environment. That stuff is everywhere. Another is the old degreaser...Perchloroethylene (PERC) A man-made, non-flammable, colorless chemical that was used in dry cleaning and in manufacturing and in auto repair shops. That stuff can be crazy bad. A single drop or two of Perc could migrate through a cement floor of a shop or cleaners, and contaminate ground water. And think of how many dry cleaners and auto shops there were back in the day. PERC was the substance of choice for degreasing and cleaning. That has been a major issue for many years and there is a ton of it still in the ground here in OKC.

A lot of money has been spent. And a lot more will be spent. In fact...there are still a fair number of contaminated sites here in the central part of town. Some very close to Okana. Of course the Co-op site. Some along Reno. The city had to do quite a bit to build Scissortail Park. There was a fair amount of remediation done there. Along Reno where there were former, and still current metal recycling facilities...with heavy metal contamination. Until 20-30 years ago...no one considered the environmental impact of lots of industrial facilities. There is a lot we still don't know. A current topic of concern in environmental circles is PFAS...a group of synthetic chemicals used in a wide variety of common applications, from the linings of fast-food boxes and non-stick cookware to fire-fighting foams and other purposes have now determined to pose significant risks to human health and the environment. That stuff is everywhere. Another is the old degreaser...Perchloroethylene (PERC) A man-made, non-flammable, colorless chemical that was used in dry cleaning and in manufacturing and in auto repair shops. That stuff can be crazy bad. A single drop or two of Perc could migrate through a cement floor of a shop or cleaners, and contaminate ground water. And think of how many dry cleaners and auto shops there were back in the day. PERC was the substance of choice for degreasing and cleaning. That has been a major issue for many years and there is a ton of it still in the ground here in OKC.

Very interesting read. So when they remediate these areas, do they basically just scoop out the bad layers of dirt and bring in good dirt? That's probably an oversimplification but I'm not sure what else they could actually do...

Very interesting read. So when they remediate these areas, do they basically just scoop out the bad layers of dirt and bring in good dirt? That's probably an oversimplification but I'm not sure what else they could actually do...

I know it is a different business and cleaning but I was once a transportation supervisor and we had a truck spill diesel (pretty much 2 full tanks) into the ground along I40. Ended up having to pay to have the dirt collected, cleaned and then put back. Its been 20 years but I remember it was crazy expensive.

I wonder if something like sound stages, outdoor filming sets/back lots, etc. would require the same amount of remediation. Maybe we could encourage a mini Hollywood area there.

I wonder if something like sound stages, outdoor filming sets/back lots, etc. would require the same amount of remediation. Maybe we could encourage a mini Hollywood area there.

Because socially-conscious and virtue-signaling celebrities will go anywhere near contaminated land like that? I don't think so. I think until someone decides to actually see the cost of remediation, we are stuck with this right on a key area of downtown.

Very interesting read. So when they remediate these areas, do they basically just scoop out the bad layers of dirt and bring in good dirt? That's probably an oversimplification but I'm not sure what else they could actually do...

Yes...soil removal and replacement is very common when the soil is contaminated. It is quite common for dig and replace to happen. The removed soil has to be disposed of in an approved landfill, and depending on the contamination, it may have to go to a hazardous waste landfill, which we only have one in Oklahoma. But, a lot depends on the planned use of the property. If it is a commercial development, then a structure or parking lot could serve as a protective cap. If residential, and there is a risk of vapor intrusion, then removal of the soil may be more appropriate. Dig and haul has happened quite a bit around here.

Take the Co-op...if part of the development is residential, and the rest industrial...the soil could be removed from the residential, but might not have to be removed for the commercial. And...in some cases, soil can be removed from part of the development, and buried in a part that will be a parking lot, or a green space, and then covered with a cap of fresh soil, or parking lot, slab floor of a big box store, etc.

I wonder if something like sound stages, outdoor filming sets/back lots, etc. would require the same amount of remediation. Maybe we could encourage a mini Hollywood area there.

No. Again, the deciding factor is Residential vs. Commercial/Industrial. Those have different MCL criteria. An outdoor stage, filming site, back lot...etc would all likely be industrial levels. Even such facilities that are indoor. Unless people will be staying there for 24 hours a day for an extended time. Basically...if a person will be located at the site for 24 hours a day over an extended time...it is residential. Unless there is a daycare, or elder care type facility. Then those are rated at residential levels. Even if they are just limited hour sites like a daycare. Because of the fragility of the health of children and elderly.

I wonder how much public funds have been spent cleaning up old oil fields and old wells.

And you have to know there are still tons of heavily contaminated sites (like the subject of this thread) that are still in need of the same treatment.

the entire OERB oil field clean up in oklahoma is funded by the Oil and Gas industry

Because socially-conscious and virtue-signaling celebrities will go anywhere near contaminated land like that? I don't think so. I think until someone decides to actually see the cost of remediation, we are stuck with this right on a key area of downtown.
What a bunch of political crap spew there.

Agree 1000% - why not make the polluter responsible for cleaning up their mess?

If much / most/ all the real pollution was a result of early 20th century oilfields and/or a refinery that hasn't been there for 60+ years, how do you propose to make the polluter responsible?

If much / most/ all the real pollution was a result of early 20th century oilfields and/or a refinery that hasn't been there for 60+ years, how do you propose to make the polluter responsible?

Same thing with reparations. Hard to hold the true culprit responsible.

What a bunch of political crap spew there.

You missed the sarcasm. Got it.

I have an oilfield panorama of this area and can tell you almost exactly where this was taken. It was taken near the turntable/roundhouse at the old Oklahoma City ADA Atoka RR/MK&T railyard east of downtown between the 235/40/35 interchange and Lottie. You can see the old turn table on the oldest google earth images and very clearly in Pete's 1960s OKC aerials (you can even see what I believe is the building at the bottom of the pic). Probably can't see the CO-OP site from here but I'll take a look at my panorama (which should include it) when I head back to Tulsa today and post a pic of it.

This site pinpoints the location of the turntable if anyone wants to find it on Pete's aerials: https://www.steamlocomotive.com/roundhouse/?state=OK .
I’d be interested in seeing that for sure. I will say however that I’m pretty sure the turntable was a few blocks north of this location; I’ve seen photos of it before and I believe it was around the current location of the Bricktown fire station, east of Steelyard beyond the end of Main Street.

This photo location is pretty clearly south of Reno, if you follow the street emanating from near the Biltmore, which should be Grand Avenue (now Sheridan). The orientation of the recognizable buildings on the skyline would indicate this vantage point is in the SE corner of Bricktown, or most likely a bit beyond the modern boundaries of the district.

You missed the sarcasm. Got it.

Sarcasm should be obvious based on who says it.

I’d be interested in seeing that for sure. I will say however that I’m pretty sure the turntable was a few blocks north of this location; I’ve seen photos of it before and I believe it was around the current location of the Bricktown fire station, east of Steelyard beyond the end of Main Street.

This photo location is pretty clearly south of Reno, if you follow the street emanating from near the Biltmore, which should be Grand Avenue (now Sheridan). The orientation of the recognizable buildings on the skyline would indicate this vantage point is in the SE corner of Bricktown, or most likely a bit beyond the modern boundaries of the district.

The panorama I have also has the wells names listed so when I received it, I spotted all the wells using the well spotting component of an oil and gas service I used at the time (either IHS or drillinginfo, can’t remember) which took the locations from the OCC and refined them so they should be pretty accurate. All the named wells were east of where the I-235 alignment runs now. I then stuck that into google earth, added the 3D imagery of downtown and took a look at it from several points of view. That put it right near that turntable which I then was able to see more clearly in the 90s historic imagery and later double confirmed when Pete posted his from the 60s. Probably would've been useful to mention this before but the turntable is in the center of my picture just south of where your picture was taken.

Could always be wrong, but based on all that data and the maps, I’m 99.99% sure that’s where my picture was taken (just north of Reno) and I can see the same building from the lower part of your picture in mine. I’ll try to find a way to take a good picture of it today without the glare from the glass messing it up but below is a comparison between Pete’s 60s pics and google maps. You can still see the faint outline of the turntable today. That said, from Pete's pictures there does appear to have been another turntable in Bricktown a block west of the fire station that was torn out before the 60s.

From looking at my picture, I can also see the Climb Up grain elevator so you can get at decent idea of where the CO-OP is.


182991830018301

The locations of wells that were drilled and plugged long ago isn't always super accurate and there are likely others that they don't have record of, but per the OCC, these are the wells drilled in and around the Co-Op site. All have been plugged with exception to the Walnut Grove SWD #1 (Originally the Community 6) which you can see when heading down to the boathouse district.

18302

Here's the panorama and a map that shows the (very) approximate location of the wells. The MK&T #5 looks pretty close but others are a little off. You can see the Climb Up Silo in the 2nd and 3rd pics so the Co-Op is somewhere back in those two.

18303

1830418305183061830718308

1830918310

To honor the contamination, I think a complex of history museums should be built that documents the history of oil and gas in Oklahoma with a section of the land dedicated to being an accurate reproduction of how the lands might’ve looked during the earliest and boomiest years of production.

Here’s a shot of just the section that would include the Co-Op.
18311

To honor the contamination, I think a complex of history museums should be built that documents the history of oil and gas in Oklahoma with a section of the land dedicated to being an accurate reproduction of how the lands might’ve looked during the earliest and boomiest years of production.

I’m sure there is definitely some oilfield contamination in the Co-Op site but most of those wells were plugged and at least remediated to some extent between the 40s and 80s (You can't really more than one or two of the locations in the 1960s aerials). A bunch of the contamination is likely due to the additional industrial uses that took up much more of the surface area up until the co-op was torn down.

Very interesting read. So when they remediate these areas, do they basically just scoop out the bad layers of dirt and bring in good dirt? That's probably an oversimplification but I'm not sure what else they could actually do...Back around 1995ish I was in charge of facilities at the Kerr-McGee R&D lab. There were aerial pictures from the early days of the facility that showed a 20' by 60' ditch by the back fence line of the property. There were accusations that it was used to dump chemical waste. The EPA made us dig up a much larger area and everything was tested, put in 55 gallon drums and trucked to a certified handling facility. Then we refilled the hole with fresh dirt. We were required to have a number of monitor wells drilled around the area to be monitored by the EPA. It cost a fortune! And BTW, the tests on the removed soil showed no indication of anything but dirt.

Man, that panoramic is super cool. Thanks for sharing. And I learned something new in that there were two roundhouses in the Bricktown area, but that makes total sense as there were multiple railroads converging here.

Man, that panoramic is super cool. Thanks for sharing. And I learned something new in that there were two roundhouses in the Bricktown area, but that makes total sense as there were multiple railroads converging here.

Anytime! There was also one in the current rail yard south of the river across from the boathouses.

if you’re ever interested in old OK pics, the guy I bought that from usually sets up shop at the state fair and sells prints of a ton of old OK pics and panoramas. Very cool stuff at his booth.

I’m sure there is definitely some oilfield contamination in the Co-Op site but most of those wells were plugged and at least remediated to some extent between the 40s and 80s (You can't really more than one or two of the locations in the 1960s aerials). A bunch of the contamination is likely due to the additional industrial uses that took up much more of the surface area up until the co-op was torn down.

I was mostly jesting but do appreciate the clarification. I wasn’t trying to relate the contamination to the oilfield insomuch as throwing out an unserious but maybe interesting idea of how to utilize the land in a way that mitigates cleanup costs.

Also, loving the pictures and history you’ve been sharing.

It seems like the EPA would have some sort of program where they pay for drilling core samples and testing for contamination - even on privately owned land.

It seems like the EPA would have some sort of program where they pay for drilling core samples and testing for contamination - even on privately owned land.

They do not unless the site is declared a super fund site or there is an eminent threat to human health or the environment. If declared an eminent threat, EPA can come in and do a “removal” action to remove that which is causing the threat. But that is primarily for situations where there are barrels of hazardous waste sitting out in a field or abandoned warehouse. Not cases like this. And this site would not be of a nature as to trigger placement on the super fund list. It’s all on the owner.

Again…the government is not going to step in and clean this site. It fits no criteria for such. Not the feds, not the state, not the city. It’s going to sit like it is until the current owner cleans it up, or a purchaser with enough money to take the risk buys it and cleans it up. The only thing the owner might get from the government is a low interest loan. But that will likely be small compared to the actual cost. Most of the Brownfield loans are no more than 1 to 2 million.

I hear you. It just seems kind of contradictory since the EPA likes to control virtually every other aspect of owning land.

I hear you. It just seems kind of contradictory since the EPA likes to control virtually every other aspect of owning land.

EPA has delegated authority over most matters to the State of Oklahoma. They rarely get involved here, except on Indian Land. But even still, when there is an identifiable owner, and there is no imminent threat to human health or the environment, the cleanup is on the owner's dime.

https://www.oklahoman.com/story/news...t/74586676007/

To summarize:

- Mark Beffort and Christian Canady to develop Coop property for over $1 billion
- To be built around the MAPS 4 multi-purpose stadium
- Trying to acquire Mazaheri's parking lot along OKC Boulevard
- Also trying to acquire the Silos climbing gym and office complex to the east
- Recently bought the Mose Tal land
- Wants to tie into the Bricktown canal
- Mid-rise development with entertainment, housing, retail, and hospitality (usually means hotels)
- Minimal parking with some structures tied into the rest of the development
- Funding in place "this is going to happen"

HTTP://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/coop080124.jpg

As I've mentioned, the Olympics in the summer of 2028 provides a great hard date to shoot for regarding big development plans.

Add this to the ever-growing list.

Another Game Changer. Just like OKANA.

So cool! Wonderful to see the momentum OKC has.

How would they connect it to the canal? Would it be an actual extension that goes through the site? That would be incredible if they do extend the canal. I can only imagine the number of people who would use the canal during events at the stadium to travel between it and Bricktown.

How would they connect it to the canal? Would it be an actual extension that goes through the site? That would be incredible if they do extend the canal. I can only imagine the number of people who would use the canal during events at the stadium to travel between it and Bricktown.

As you can see from the aerial I posted, the canal is just east of this property, with no real barrier to extend it to the west and through this development.

As you can see from the aerial I posted, the canal is just east of this property, with no real barrier to extend it to the west and through this development.

Would this be something the developers intend to pay for? Or would they expect/need city involvement? Apologies for my ignorance.

Would this be something the developers intend to pay for? Or would they expect/need city involvement? Apologies for my ignorance.

I am very sure there will be a huge ask for public assistance; expect several hundred million $.

I love this! The only worry is them spending a ton of time and extra capital trying to acquire the rest of those areas. Mazaheri seems to have a lot of pull/capital, so that may be a fruitless endeavor.

Any sense of a timeline for plans? Not sure if that was discussed in meetings.

Exciting to see this area develop. Does this mean that the climbing gym's days are likely numbered? Granted "trying to buy" does not mean "bought," but sounds like economic winds are blowing that way. I am biased because I use the gym, but really hoping they find a way to integrate it into the future development of the area and not destroy it, as it feels like a unique thing-to-do for downtown. Plus, I like the mural on silos.