HILCORP - LINDRITH B UNIT 78

Hilcorp Energy Company operates the Lindrith B Unit 78 facility in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico, within the San Juan Basin. EPA ECHO records tie the facility to EPA registry ID 110046349661 and derive a 24-month penalty exposure of approximately $3.76 million, allocated from a five-year enforcement total [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That figure does not stand alone. It sits against a corporate record in which Hilcorp Energy Company entered two major federal Clean Air Act settlements inside a single calendar year: a New Mexico stationary-source settlement announced October 17, 2024 [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-new-mexico-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement], and a $1.275 million Pennsylvania civil penalty resolved just five weeks later on November 21, 2024 [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-pennsylvania-settlement-summary]. Together, those two consent decrees define the compliance backdrop against which the Lindrith unit's own ECHO data must be read.

The Lindrith B Unit 78 sits in the San Juan Basin, a mature gas-producing province where Hilcorp reports 119,000-plus BOEPD net daily production, more than 11,600 producing wells, and 2.047 million gross acres under production as of its 2024 San Juan fact sheet [source: https://www.hilcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SJ-2025.pdf]. Scale matters here. The surrounding Lindrith compressor-station complex carries a Title V federal operating permit history under 40 CFR Part 71, originally issued to El Paso Field Services and administered by EPA Region 6 — not the state — because portions of the basin fall within Indian country boundaries that limit New Mexico's permitting authority [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-08/documents/epfs-lindrith.pdf]. That federal permitting posture has persisted through multiple ownership changes and shapes how violations at area facilities are tracked and adjudicated.

The past 24 months have been defined by two federal consent-decree actions against the parent company. On October 17, 2024, EPA and DOJ announced a Clean Air Act settlement covering stationary sources in New Mexico, resolving alleged violations at oil and gas production operations in the state — a geographic set that directly overlaps the San Juan Basin footprint [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-new-mexico-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement]. The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico alleges violations of CAA Section 7401 et seq. and the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1373861/dl?inline=], and a companion consent decree document accompanies the filing [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1373866/dl?inline=]. Five weeks later, on November 21, 2024, a separate Clean Air Act settlement was lodged in the Western District of Pennsylvania as Case 2:24-cv-01596. That action required Hilcorp to pay a $1.275 million civil penalty and fund compliance and emission-offset projects that EPA estimates will cost tens of millions of dollars beyond the cash penalty [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-11/hilcorp-24-cv-1596-complaint.pdf].

Recent news flow extends the compliance picture well beyond the San Juan unit. On or about April 28, 2026, emergency crews responded to a tank incident and explosion at a Hilcorp facility on the 5000 block of Fairfield School Road in Columbiana County, Ohio [source: https://www.wfmj.com/news/local-news/columbiana_city/crews-respond-to-explosion-near-columbiana-gas-facility/article_e912c6d3-2b82-4b3e-8ec4-9ce88a1fb02b.html], an event corroborated by separate local broadcast coverage [source: https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/fairfield-twp-news/crews-respond-to-incident-at-hilcorp/]. In Alaska, the Northern Journal reported in late April 2026 that Hilcorp would withdraw from the Yukon Flats exploration program after drilling one of two planned wells on Indigenous-owned land, amid sustained tribal opposition [source: https://www.northernjournal.com/with-one-of-two-wells-drilled-hilcorp-to-pull-out-of-yukon-flats/]. On April 13, 2026, the Alaska House rejected legislation that would have extended the state corporate income tax to Hilcorp and other private producers [source: https://www.adn.com/politics/alaska-legislature/2026/04/13/alaska-house-rejects-measure-to-apply-corporate-income-tax-to-hilcorp-and-other-private-oil-companies/]. Each of these developments, taken individually, might read as an isolated data point. Taken together, they sketch a company managing a wide operational footprint across multiple regulatory jurisdictions simultaneously.

Action 1 — New Mexico Clean Air Act Stationary Source Settlement, announced October 17, 2024. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico as United States and New Mexico Environment Department v. Hilcorp Energy Company, the case alleges CAA and New Mexico Air Quality Control Act violations at the company's oil and gas production operations in the state, which include San Juan Basin assets [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-new-mexico-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement]. The complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. as the federal statutory basis [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1373861/dl?inline=]. The companion filing package includes the lodged consent decree [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1373866/dl?inline=].

Action 2 — Pennsylvania Clean Air Act Settlement, lodged November 21, 2024 in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Case 2:24-cv-01596. EPA, DOJ, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection agreed to a $1.275 million civil penalty resolving CAA and Pennsylvania law violations at western Pennsylvania oil and gas production operations. The settlement also carries injunctive relief — compliance upgrades and emissions-offset projects — that EPA's summary characterizes as costing tens of millions of dollars to implement [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-pennsylvania-settlement-summary]. The filed complaint sets out the alleged statutory basis in full [source: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-11/hilcorp-24-cv-1596-complaint.pdf].

Incident 3 — Columbiana County, Ohio tank incident, late April 2026. Local fire authorities responded to an explosion at a Hilcorp facility on the 5000 block of Fairfield School Road; the Columbiana Fire Department and surrounding mutual-aid companies were among the responders. No federal enforcement action had been published as of the ECHO snapshot date of May 4, 2026 [source: https://www.wfmj.com/news/local-news/columbiana_city/crews-respond-to-explosion-near-columbiana-gas-facility/article_e912c6d3-2b82-4b3e-8ec4-9ce88a1fb02b.html]. The ECHO-derived 24-month penalty figure of $3,760,000 for Lindrith B Unit 78 is a time-slice allocation — specifically, total_5yr multiplied by 24/60 — and should not be read as a facility-specific adjudicated penalty. The derivation methodology is explicit on this point [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

1) Lindrith B Unit 78, Rio Arriba County, NM (EPA ID 110046349661). ECHO reports zero quarters in noncompliance over the past 24 months and no active permits on file at the snapshot date of May 4, 2026, with a derived 24-month penalty allocation of $3.76 million tied to the five-year total [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The EJ index average is reported as 0.0 in the ECHO extract, which reflects either a data gap or a sparsely populated census block rather than an affirmative finding of low environmental-justice exposure.

2) Lindrith Compressor Station area, Lindrith, NM. The Title V Part 71 operating permit administered by EPA Region 6 governs stationary combustion and compression sources in the area. Federal — not state — permit authority applies here because of Indian country boundaries [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-08/documents/epfs-lindrith.pdf]. That distinction has practical consequences for how violations are charged and how compliance schedules are negotiated.

3) San Juan Basin aggregated operations, NM. Hilcorp's own 2024 San Juan disclosure attributes more than 11,600 producing wells and $104-plus million in state and local royalties, taxes, and other payments in 2024 to the basin footprint [source: https://www.hilcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SJ-2025.pdf].

4) Western Pennsylvania oil and gas production operations. The facility set covered by the November 2024 consent decree comprises multiple well pads and associated equipment spread across western Pennsylvania. EPA's settlement summary states the injunctive relief package is expected to cost tens of millions of dollars to implement [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/hilcorp-energy-company-pennsylvania-settlement-summary].

5) Columbiana County, Ohio facility, Fairfield School Road. A tank-related explosion was reported in late April 2026. Responders included the Columbiana Fire Department and surrounding mutual-aid companies [source: https://www.wkbn.com/news/local-news/fairfield-twp-news/crews-respond-to-incident-at-hilcorp/]. The cause and any regulatory follow-up remain publicly undisclosed as of the May 4, 2026 snapshot date.

ECHO's top_pollutants field for Lindrith B Unit 78 is empty at the snapshot date, so pollutant context must be drawn from the enforcement complaints and permit record rather than the ECHO extract itself. Three pollutant categories emerge from that documentary record.

First, volatile organic compounds and methane. The New Mexico CAA complaint targets stationary-source emissions from oil and gas production equipment — a category dominated by VOC and methane leakage from storage tanks, dehydrators, and compressors [source: https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1373861/dl?inline=]. Hilcorp's San Juan fact sheet self-reports an 81% reduction in methane emissions from 2023 to 2024 in the basin [source: https://www.hilcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SJ-2025.pdf]. That claim and the concurrent federal complaint cover overlapping geography and the same production vintage.

Second, nitrogen oxides and hazardous air pollutants. The Lindrith Title V statement of basis identifies reciprocating internal combustion engines and gas processing equipment as NOx and HAP sources subject to federal operating permit conditions [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-08/documents/epfs-lindrith.pdf]. Compressor engines running continuously at a facility of this scale generate NOx loads that the Part 71 framework is specifically designed to cap and monitor.

Third, hydrogen sulfide and produced-water constituents associated with tank-battery incidents. The Columbiana County, Ohio tank explosion raises release-pathway questions typical of upstream tank systems, though no pollutant speciation has been publicly released by responders as of the snapshot date [source: https://www.wfmj.com/news/local-news/columbiana_city/crews-respond-to-explosion-near-columbiana-gas-facility/article_e912c6d3-2b82-4b3e-8ec4-9ce88a1fb02b.html]. Exposure pathways in the San Juan Basin include inhalation in sparsely populated but tribal-adjacent census blocks — a factor the Part 71 permit framework explicitly addresses [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2015-08/documents/epfs-lindrith.pdf].

Within the NAICS 2111 peer set, Lindrith B Unit 78's derived 24-month penalty allocation of $3.76 million sits well below the top three peer facilities. Greka Bell Compressor Plant carries the highest allocation at $26.2 million; Red Hills Gas Processing Plant follows at $19.1 million; HP Gas Pad comes in at $16.1 million — all on the same 24/60 allocation basis [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Lindrith also reports zero quarters in noncompliance over the window, versus eight each for Red Hills and HP Gas Pad. That relative positioning deserves a methodological caveat. Allocation-based penalty figures smooth lumpy consent-decree payments across five years and can overstate ongoing exposure at facilities where the underlying penalty was a one-time settlement event rather than a pattern of recurring fines. The peer comparison is useful for relative ranking, but the raw dollar figures should not be read as annualized liability.

Hilcorp Energy Company is privately held (CIK N/A), so no SEC Item 1A risk factor disclosure is available. The closest company-authored forward-looking statement is the Corporate Responsibility framing that oil and gas demand will "plateau and eventually enter a long, slow decline" and that late-life asset operators play a constructive role during that transition — a statement that is strategic positioning rather than an enumerated risk register [source: https://www.hilcorp.com/corporate-responsibility/]. External forward-looking risk inputs pull in multiple directions. On September 6, 2025, the Anchorage Daily News reported that Hilcorp plans to develop a 40,000-barrel-per-day field at Prudhoe Bay to sustain production at the aging North Slope complex [source: https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2025/09/06/hilcorp-plans-to-squeeze-more-life-out-of-prudhoe-bay-with-40000-barrel-per-day-field/]. That expansion ambition sits alongside the April 2026 Yukon Flats withdrawal, where tribal opposition ended the program after just one of two planned wells was drilled [source: https://www.northernjournal.com/with-one-of-two-wells-drilled-hilcorp-to-pull-out-of-yukon-flats/]. The Alaska House's April 13, 2026 rejection of a corporate income tax extension to private producers like Hilcorp adds a fiscal policy variable to the forward picture [source: https://www.adn.com/politics/alaska-legislature/2026/04/13/alaska-house-rejects-measure-to-apply-corporate-income-tax-to-hilcorp-and-other-private-oil-companies/]. Taken together, these inputs suggest a company whose regulatory and political exposure varies significantly by geography and asset type.