TIGER 12 PRODUCTION FACILITY

Tiger 12 Production Facility is a private natural gas extraction operation (NAICS 211130) headquartered in Farmington, New Mexico, operating a single EPA-registered site (FRS ID 110041347806) within the San Juan Basin. EPA ECHO data, as of 2026-05-04, shows zero formal violations recorded in the trailing 24 months. A derived penalty exposure of $3,760,000 is allocated from five-year aggregate penalty data — a pro-rata calculation, not a fresh assessment [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No active permits appear in the ECHO export as of the same date. No top-pollutant categories populate the facility profile, which limits granular emissions benchmarking [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The facility is privately held with no CIK on file. That means no SEC 10-K or 10-Q disclosure stream exists against which to cross-check EPA figures. No sustainability report issued by the operator surfaced in Brave SERP, Exa neural search, or NGO litigation databases. Peer-set context from the same NAICS code places Tiger 12 well below the penalty totals of Greka Bell Compressor Plant ($26.2M), Red Hills Gas Processing Plant ($19.1M), and HP Gas Pad ($16.1M) over the same 24-month derivation window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Regional regulatory pressure on San Juan and Permian Basin gas operators is documented in Title V proceedings before the New Mexico Environment Department and EPA Region 6, including the 2022 WildEarth Guardians petitions against Lucid Energy compressor stations [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. That enforcement climate shapes the operating context for every extraction facility in the basin, Tiger 12 included.

Tiger 12 Production Facility appears in the EPA Facility Registry Service under ID 110041347806, classified under NAICS 211130 (Natural Gas Extraction). The ECHO exporter snapshot dated 2026-05-04 records zero quarters with noncompliance in the trailing 24 months, producing a violation_count_24mo of 0 [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The penalty exposure figure of $3,760,000 is derived algorithmically — total_5yr multiplied by 24/60 — indicating that historical penalties are concentrated outside the current 24-month observation window but allocated pro-rata for comparison purposes [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The past 24 months, running May 2024 through May 2026, show no new formal administrative orders, consent decrees, or judicial actions against the facility. Exa court-record searches of CourtListener, PACER, and vLex databases returned nothing. Two name-similar cases require explicit disambiguation. A 2012 Washington State matter — State of Washington, Dep't of Ecology v. Tiger Oil Corp., 271 P.3d 331 — involves an unrelated Tiger Oil Corporation entity and is not attributable to the New Mexico facility under review [source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/state-of-washington-dep-886256253]. A 2007 EPA Administrative Settlement Agreement against Tiger Truck, LLC of Dallas, Texas, concerning 76 alleged Clean Air Act Section 203(a) and 213(d) violations, similarly involves an unrelated entity [source: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/sites/static/files/2014-03/documents/sa-imports-tigertruck-101607.pdf]. No OSHA citations referencing the Farmington facility surfaced beyond an unrelated Tiger Enterprises, Inc. record [source: https://www.osha.gov/ords/imis/establishment.violation_detail?citation_id=01001&id=113616510].

The regional enforcement climate is not abstract. New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau proceedings during 2022 and 2023 — including the Targa Northern Delaware Road Runner permit modification (AQB 23-58) and the Lucid Energy Frac Cat and Big Lizard compressor station Title V petitions (VI-2022-5, VI-2022-11) — define the current expectations for San Juan and Permian Basin gas-extraction operators [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/public-notices/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/10/2023-10-16-AQB-23-58-Targa-Road-Runner-Hearing-Officers-Report-20231016.pdf] [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. EPA's partial grant of the WildEarth Guardians objection petitions signals elevated federal scrutiny of Title V monitoring, recordkeeping, and flaring provisions across the basin. That scrutiny applies to Tiger 12's operating context even absent a direct action against the facility [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. Tiger 12's ECHO record lists zero active permits. Given that gas extraction activity in New Mexico generally requires New Source Review authorization, this may indicate the facility operates under a general permit not itemized in the ECHO exporter, or that the state-issued authorization is not mapped to the FRS record in the current snapshot [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Formal enforcement actions against Tiger 12 Production Facility (FRS 110041347806) in the 24-month window ending 2026-05-04: zero, per the ECHO exporter [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $3,760,000 penalty_total_24mo figure is a pro-rated allocation derived as total_5yr multiplied by 24/60 — not a sum of fresh assessments. The underlying total_5yr value implies approximately $9.4M in cumulative penalty assessments across the prior five years. The composition and program attribution of those assessments — whether under CWA, CAA, or RCRA — is not itemized in the exporter snapshot reviewed [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No Clean Water Act NPDES noncompliance quarters, Clean Air Act Title V deviations, or RCRA corrective-action milestones appear against the facility ID in the current ECHO pull [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Exa neural-search queries against CourtListener, vLex, and EPA enforcement archives returned no docketed matter naming Tiger 12 Production Facility or its Farmington operating entity within the 24-month window [source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/state-of-washington-dep-886256253]. No NGO complaints, citizen-suit notices of intent, or state attorney general referrals surfaced in Brave or Exa searches targeting New Mexico violations and litigation activity.

Tiger 12 Production Facility, Farmington, San Juan County, New Mexico (FRS 110041347806) is the sole operating site on record. ECHO lists facility_count=1, ej_index_avg=0.0, and zero top pollutants. That combination indicates the facility either sits outside the EJScreen block-group overlays used by ECHO, or that the demographic index fields were not populated in the current exporter snapshot [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The Farmington location places the facility within the San Juan Basin, a mature gas-producing region. EPA EJScreen methodology referenced in New Mexico Title V proceedings documents a concentration of Navajo Nation and Hispanic communities within three-mile exposure radii of extraction and processing infrastructure across this basin [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. Because the operator reports only one facility, the conventional top-five site ranking does not apply. The single-facility profile is the complete operating footprint on file with EPA, and every data point in this briefing — penalty totals, violation counts, permit listings — refers to that one site [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

The ECHO exporter returns an empty top_pollutants array for Tiger 12 Production Facility. TRI, NEI, and DMR emissions inventories either are not reported for the facility or fall below applicable reporting thresholds for NAICS 211130 gas extraction operations [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. That data gap does not eliminate sector-level exposure context. EPA and NMED Title V documentation for comparable compressor and processing operations in the San Juan Basin identifies three pollutant categories that define the air-quality profile of upstream gas extraction in this region.

Volatile organic compounds — principally methane co-emitted with ethane, propane, and BTEX fractions — are the dominant regulated air contaminant for upstream gas operations. They form the basis of EPA's NSPS Subpart OOOOa and OOOOb methane rules cited throughout the Lucid Energy Title V record [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. Nitrogen oxides from compressor engines and flares are the second category. They contribute to regional ozone formation in the San Juan and Permian nonattainment areas and are specifically identified in the Targa Road Runner hearing officer's report for AQB 23-58 [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/public-notices/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2023/10/2023-10-16-AQB-23-58-Targa-Road-Runner-Hearing-Officers-Report-20231016.pdf]. Hazardous air pollutants — principally benzene and formaldehyde — represent a third exposure pathway. They are tracked under 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart HH for oil and gas production facilities and figure in the WildEarth Guardians objection record [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. Environmental justice implications follow from proximity. San Juan County tribal and Hispanic populations have been documented as receiving elevated exposure to cumulative basin emissions in NMED administrative records, though Tiger 12's individual contribution to that cumulative load is not quantified in the current ECHO snapshot [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Within the NAICS 211120/211130 gas-extraction and processing peer set ranked by 24-month penalty exposure, Tiger 12 Production Facility's $3.76M derived penalty total sits roughly an order of magnitude below the three top-ranked peers. Greka Bell Compressor Plant carries $26.2M, Red Hills Gas Processing Plant $19.1M, and HP Gas Pad $16.1M [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Tiger 12 matches Greka Bell on violation count — both at zero for the 24-month window. Red Hills and HP Gas Pad each carry eight noncompliant quarters, a meaningful divergence. All four facilities show ej_index_avg of 0.0 in the current ECHO snapshot. That uniformity is consistent across the NAICS subset rather than a facility-specific finding, and it reflects a likely data-population gap in the EJScreen overlay fields of the exporter rather than a substantive environmental justice determination [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Tiger 12 Production Facility is privately held with no CIK and no SEC filings on record. No Item 1A risk factor disclosure exists for direct citation [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Forward-looking environmental risk for the operator is therefore best framed through the applicable regulatory trajectory documented in New Mexico Environment Department proceedings. EPA's partial objection to Lucid Energy Title V permits VI-2022-5 and VI-2022-11 tightens monitoring, flaring, and leak-detection expectations for San Juan and Permian Basin gas operators. That tightening increases the probability of permit-reopening actions against similarly-situated extraction facilities — a category that includes Tiger 12 by geography and NAICS classification [source: https://www.env.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2023/12/AQB-23-70-Targa-Northern-Delaware_Frac-Cat.Administrative-Record_Part1.pdf]. The $9.4M five-year cumulative penalty baseline implied by the ECHO derivation adds a second dimension to that forward risk picture. Clean compliance records in the current 24-month window do not erase that historical figure, and any escalation in basin-wide enforcement activity would be measured against it.