SCOTT 102S & SCOTT 5A TWINNED PRODUCTION

Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production is a single-facility natural gas extraction operation (NAICS 211130) headquartered in Aztec, New Mexico, with one EPA-registered facility (ID 110056289993) carrying a derived 24-month penalty total of $3,760,000 and zero formal violations recorded in the trailing eight quarters per EPA ECHO's exporter snapshot dated 2026-05-04 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The operator is privately held. It has no SEC CIK, and therefore discloses no 10-K Item 1A risk factors or 10-Q environmental contingencies that would otherwise be read against regulatory exposure. EJ Screen index averages report as 0.0 in the ECHO summary — a reflection of absent computed index values at the facility, not a confirmed low-exposure community profile [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The $3.76M figure looks different when placed alongside NAICS peers. The top three operators in the 211120/211130 peer set — GREKA BELL COMPRESSOR PLANT at $26.16M, RED HILLS GAS PROCESSING PLANT at $19.13M, and HP GAS PAD at $16.13M — each carry substantially larger derived 24-month penalty totals over the same window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That gap matters for contextualizing the Scott facility's historical enforcement footprint. None of the news results surfaced in the research bundle concern this operator. Hits for "Scott" resolve to unrelated entities: Scout Motors, Scott Jennings, Travis Scott, Rodney Scott's BBQ, and Scott Equipment Company [source: https://www.prweb.com/releases/scott-equipment-company-celebrates-60-years-of-excellence-in-the-manufacturing-and-processing-industry-302745517.html] [source: https://wach.com/news/local/scout-motors-to-open-new-training-facility-south-carolina-ready-sc-gov-henry-mcmaster-sc-technical-college-system-rep-joe-wilson-production-center-cars-ev-blythewood]. No sustainability report, NGO complaint, or state violation document was located for this specific San Juan Basin operator in the assembled corpus.

EPA ECHO's exporter snapshot as of 2026-05-04 records one facility tied to Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production under facility ID 110056289993, with zero quarters of non-compliance flagged across the eight most recent quarters and zero active permits on file [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The derived 24-month penalty figure of $3,760,000 is generated by the ECHO pipeline as a proportional share of a five-year total — specifically, total_5yr multiplied by 24/60 — meaning the figure reflects historical enforcement assessments prorated to the trailing 24 months rather than a distinct recent order [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Treat it as a derivation. It is not a litigated settlement sum.

Over the roughly two years spanning May 2024 through May 2026, the research bundle surfaces no EPA press release, no state NMED enforcement docket, no CourtListener civil action, and no NGO complaint naming this specific operator. The Exa neural-search sweep for court and EPA enforcement records returned hits on unrelated parties: a 1999 EPCRA citation against Scott Manufacturing Inc. in Ferrum, Virginia for toxic chemical reporting violations with a proposed $25,000 penalty [source: https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/caaa29645eac81e0852570d60070f98d.html]; a 2016 TSCA consent agreement against Scott Brothers Windows and Doors in Bridgeville, Pennsylvania (EPA Docket No. TSCA-03-2016-0151) [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-11/documents/scottbrothers.pdf]; and a 2022 RCRA expedited settlement agreement with Scott's Industrial Coatings LLC in Green Bay, Wisconsin (Docket RCRA-05-2022-0006, complaint filed 02/17/2022, closed 08/17/2022) [source: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/7b598669425eac47852575400050b7e2/ef066c9885917266852587ec0064136c!OpenDocument]. None of those dockets involve the Aztec, NM natural gas production site.

The compliance record available to external readers is therefore thin. Between Q2 2024 and Q1 2026 there are no ECHO-flagged quarters of significant non-compliance against this facility [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau has been publicly active on emissions enforcement in other contexts — including the Associated Asphalt permit dispute in Santa Fe County — but none of that NMED activity touches the Scott 102S / 5A twinned pads in San Juan County per the materials on hand [source: https://www.sfreporter.com/news/2020/12/02/targeted-for-pollution/] [source: https://sfreporter.com/news/air-supply/]. Absence of documented recent violations is, standing alone, a data point about disclosure surface rather than operational performance. Upstream natural gas production in the San Juan Basin commonly generates methane, volatile organic compound (VOC), and hydrogen sulfide emission questions regulated primarily through state-level air permitting and optical gas imaging inspection programs — channels that may not flow into federal ECHO indicators at all. The $3.76M derived penalty total signals legacy federal enforcement activity within the five-year window even where no recent quarter is flagged [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

For the 24-month window ending 2026-05-04, ECHO's exporter file reports zero quarters of non-compliance and zero formal enforcement actions attributable to facility 110056289993 — the single registered site for Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. There are therefore no discrete Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, or RCRA action rows to enumerate by date, program, or outcome within the trailing 24 months based on the bundle supplied. The $3,760,000 figure in the facility summary is a pipeline-derived prorated share of a five-year penalty total; the underlying multi-year actions are not itemized in the exporter summary pulled for this briefing [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Readers seeking per-action line items should pull the facility's ECHO detail page directly and cross-reference the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) alongside state NMED air and water enforcement dockets. The Exa neural-search results returned no court filings or consent agreements tied to this specific Aztec, NM operator. The EPA enforcement hits that did surface belong to unrelated "Scott"-named entities: Scott Manufacturing Inc. in Virginia (1999), Scott Brothers Windows and Doors in Pennsylvania (2016), and Scott's Industrial Coatings LLC in Wisconsin (2022) — none attributable to the twinned production pads [source: https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/caaa29645eac81e0852570d60070f98d.html] [source: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-11/documents/scottbrothers.pdf] [source: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/7b598669425eac47852575400050b7e2/ef066c9885917266852587ec0064136c!OpenDocument].

Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production — facility ID 110056289993, Aztec, San Juan County, New Mexico. ECHO lists this as the operator's sole registered facility under NAICS 211130 natural gas extraction. The exporter snapshot shows zero violations over the past eight quarters, zero active permits reported in the summary extract, and a derived 24-month penalty allocation of $3,760,000 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. EJ Screen index averages report as 0.0 — in this data pull, that reflects missing computed demographic index values rather than a confirmed low-exposure community profile. San Juan County carries a documented Navajo Nation adjacency, and oil-and-gas-sector environmental justice literature for the region is extensive; external readers routinely consult that body of work separately from the ECHO record [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Because the operator runs a single site, no secondary, tertiary, or lower-ranked facilities exist to profile; the top-five format collapses to this one entry. No state NMED docket, federal consent decree, or NGO complaint naming this facility was located in the Brave or Exa results assembled for this briefing [source: https://www.sfreporter.com/news/2020/12/02/targeted-for-pollution/].

The ECHO exporter summary lists no top_pollutants values for facility 110056289993. The TRI and DMR release fields returned empty in the pull — empty, not zero, which is a meaningful distinction [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. For NAICS 211130 natural gas extraction in the San Juan Basin, the pollutants most commonly surfaced in external literature and regulatory inspections are methane (a short-lived climate forcer carrying roughly 80 times the 20-year warming potential of CO₂), volatile organic compounds (VOCs — ground-level ozone precursors co-emitted with natural gas from pneumatic controllers, storage tanks, and dehydrators), and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S — an acute inhalation hazard at elevated concentrations near sour gas production). None of those pollutants appear as confirmed top release streams for this facility in the supplied ECHO extract, so the exposure-pathway narrative below is framed as sector-typical context rather than site-specific reporting [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Exposure pathways for upstream gas production emissions are primarily inhalation-dominant at the fenceline. Secondary ozone formation can affect regional airsheds tens of miles downwind. New Mexico air-quality journalism has documented how permitting decisions at the state NMED Air Quality Bureau level — rather than federal CAA enforcement — often govern which communities bear cumulative loading [source: https://www.sfreporter.com/news/2020/12/02/targeted-for-pollution/]. Environmental justice framing in New Mexico has been extensively developed in reporting by the Santa Fe Reporter and in community-expert commentary from former NMED Air Quality Bureau staff [source: https://sfreporter.com/news/air-supply/].

For this specific operator, the absence of top_pollutants data in ECHO means a reader cannot quantitatively rank methane versus VOC versus H₂S releases without pulling Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program Subpart W filings — if applicable to the well count — and state NMED emission inventory forms. That data gap is the most concrete pollutant-context finding in this bundle. It is a gap in disclosure surface, not necessarily a gap in emissions [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Within the NAICS 211120/211130 peer set supplied by ECHO, Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production's $3.76M derived 24-month penalty total ranks well below the top three operators: GREKA BELL COMPRESSOR PLANT at $26.16M with zero flagged quarters, RED HILLS GAS PROCESSING PLANT at $19.13M across two facilities with eight flagged quarters, and HP GAS PAD at $16.13M with eight flagged quarters [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The contrast between Scott's record and those of RED HILLS and HP GAS PAD is worth isolating. Both of the latter carry the maximum eight-of-eight quarters of non-compliance under the ECHO derivation rule. Scott's facility shows zero flagged quarters — even though its penalty share confirms historical enforcement activity within the five-year window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. EJ index averages report as 0.0 across all four operators, which again reflects missing computed demographic values in the exporter extract rather than confirmed low-exposure siting for any of them [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Scott 102S & Scott 5A Twinned Production has no SEC CIK and files no 10-K. The supplied research bundle contains no Item 1A risk-factor text and no Item 7 MD&A excerpts for this operator. Forward-looking environmental risk disclosure typically found in public-company filings — methane-rule compliance cost exposure, produced-water handling under RCRA and SDWA, decommissioning and plugging liabilities, and New Mexico state-level ozone non-attainment permitting tightening — cannot be quoted here from first-party SEC sources because none exist for this private entity [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Readers requiring forward risk language should consult state NMED permit conditions and industry-wide SEC filings from comparable NAICS 211130 public operators as proxy references.