XTO ENERGY - GRASSY CANYON NO7

XTO Energy's Grassy Canyon No. 7 site (EPA facility ID 110035801843) is a single well-pad asset in the San Juan Basin, operated under the XTO Energy Inc. umbrella as a subsidiary of ExxonMobil. EPA ECHO data shows zero quarters-in-noncompliance recorded at the specific Grassy Canyon No. 7 facility over the 24-month lookback ending May 4, 2026, with a derived penalty allocation of $3.76 million reflecting apportionment from the broader five-year enforcement record against the parent XTO Energy Inc. entity [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. No active permits are currently registered to this specific pad identifier in the ECHO export, and environmental-justice indices for the immediate census block are reported as 0.0 in the dataset — a figure consistent with the sparsely populated Aztec, New Mexico footprint.

That facility-level quiet sits against a materially different picture at the operator level. On October 24, 2024, EPA, DOJ, and Pennsylvania finalized a $4 million Clean Air Act settlement against XTO covering 11 production facilities in Butler County, with field investigations conducted in 2018 and 2019 forming the evidentiary base [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2024-xto-energy-inc-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement]. Roughly a year before that, on October 3, 2023, EPA resolved Safe Drinking Water Act Class II injection well violations at XTO sites in Utah [source: https://epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-xto-energy-resolves-safe-drinking-water-act-injection-well-violations]. A WildEarth Guardians analysis of New Mexico Oil Conservation Division spill and incident databases spanning 1988 through 2025 catalogs more than 5 million gallons of fluid spills and approximately 90,000 balloon-volumes of vented or leaked gas attributed to ExxonMobil/XTO statewide [source: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/XTO%20Top%20Polluter%20Report.pdf]. Then, in April 2026, a whistleblower suit filed in Santa Fe's First Judicial District Court named ExxonMobil in a $194 million alleged undervaluation of plugging liabilities tied to aging New Mexico wells transferred in a 2021 deal [source: https://sfreporter.com/coverstories/oil-companies-accused-of-massive-accounting-fraud-in-new-mex/]. Grassy Canyon No. 7 sits in the same basin at the center of those allegations, even though the complaint identifies specific transferred wells rather than naming this pad.

Grassy Canyon No. 7 appears in the EPA ECHO exporter as a single regulated facility with zero violations logged across the eight-quarter window and no active permits registered to its ID [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $3.76 million penalty figure in the ECHO summary is derived by ECHO's standard 24/60 apportionment of a 60-month historical penalty total attributed to the operator — not a violation assessed at the Grassy Canyon pad itself. Readers comparing this facility to others in NAICS 211111 should treat the penalty figure as an operator-weighted allocation rather than a site-specific fine.

The 24-month record for the XTO operating entity is defined by two federal resolutions and one state-court filing. On October 24, 2024, EPA, DOJ, and Pennsylvania finalized a Clean Air Act Stationary Source settlement with XTO Energy Inc. covering failures to capture and control emissions at 11 oil-and-gas production facilities in Butler County, Pennsylvania [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2024-xto-energy-inc-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement]. Field investigators visited those sites in 2018 and 2019. The settlement imposed a $4 million civil penalty and required compliance projects across 30 well pads in western Pennsylvania, together with offset projects addressing past emissions. Approximately one year earlier, on October 3, 2023, EPA announced a Safe Drinking Water Act settlement with XTO resolving Class II injection well violations in Utah [source: https://epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-xto-energy-resolves-safe-drinking-water-act-injection-well-violations].

Two additional developments widened the compliance picture around the New Mexico asset base during the same period. In January 2026, Reuters reported that XTO was marketing select Eagle Ford shale assets in South Texas — a transaction structure that environmental advocates have flagged as a recurring pattern in divestiture to smaller operators [source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/exxons-xto-unit-seeks-buyers-select-eagle-ford-assets-2026-01-23/]. Then in April 2026, a qui tam suit filed in Santa Fe accused ExxonMobil and Tulsa-based Empire Petroleum of understating plugging-and-abandonment liabilities by approximately $194 million in connection with a 2021 New Mexico well transfer, with the complaint alleging that the understatement risks shifting cleanup costs to New Mexico taxpayers [source: https://nationaltoday.com/us/nm/santa-fe/news/2026/04/08/oklahoma-oil-company-accused-of-fraud-in-new-mexico-well-sale/] [source: https://www.envirolink.org/2026/04/12/oil-giants-accused-of-194-million-accounting-fraud-that-could-stick-taxpayers-with-cleanup-costs-in-new-mexico/]. Grassy Canyon No. 7 sits in the same San Juan Basin geography subject to the allegations, though the complaint identifies specific transferred wells rather than naming the Grassy Canyon pad. Historical context for the operator's compliance posture extends back to December 22, 2014, when EPA and DOJ settled with XTO under Clean Water Act §404, requiring roughly $3 million in restoration work across eight sites where unauthorized discharges of fill material into streams and wetlands occurred during hydraulic fracturing operations [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/xto-energy-inc-settlement-2014].

Action 1 — Clean Air Act Stationary Source Settlement, finalized October 24, 2024. Parties: U.S. EPA, U.S. DOJ, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. XTO Energy Inc. Program: CAA. Geography: Butler County, Pennsylvania, covering 11 production facilities, with compliance relief extending to 30 well pads. Civil penalty: $4,000,000. Injunctive relief includes installation and verification of emission-capture and control systems, plus offset projects addressing historical emissions. The underlying field inspections occurred in 2018 and 2019 [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2024-xto-energy-inc-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement].

Action 2 — Safe Drinking Water Act Class II Injection Well Settlement, announced October 3, 2023. Parties: U.S. EPA v. XTO Energy. Program: SDWA (Underground Injection Control). Geography: Utah. The settlement resolved alleged violations connected to injection-well operation standards that protect underground sources of drinking water [source: https://epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-xto-energy-resolves-safe-drinking-water-act-injection-well-violations].

Action 3 — State-court whistleblower complaint, filed April 2026, First Judicial District Court, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Parties: qui tam relator v. ExxonMobil Corporation and Empire Petroleum Corporation. Program: state fraud and plugging-and-abandonment financial assurance (not a federal EPA action). Allegation: approximately $194 million understatement of well-plugging liabilities in connection with a 2021 transfer of hundreds of aging New Mexico wells. Status as of filing: pending; no adjudication on the merits [source: https://sfreporter.com/coverstories/oil-companies-accused-of-massive-accounting-fraud-in-new-mex/] [source: https://nationaltoday.com/us/nm/santa-fe/news/2026/04/08/oklahoma-oil-company-accused-of-fraud-in-new-mexico-well-sale/].

Action 4 (historical context) — Clean Water Act Settlement, December 22, 2014. Parties: EPA and DOJ v. XTO Energy Inc. Program: CWA §404. Remedy: estimated $3 million in restoration work across eight sites where unauthorized discharges of fill material into streams and wetlands occurred during hydraulic-fracturing operations [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/xto-energy-inc-settlement-2014]. Facility-specific ECHO data for Grassy Canyon No. 7 records zero quarters-in-noncompliance over the 24-month window [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip].

Grassy Canyon No. 7 (Aztec, NM; EPA ID 110035801843). The ECHO exporter lists one facility under this slug with zero 24-month violations, zero active permits registered to the ID, and an EJ index average of 0.0 for the immediate block group [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. The $3.76 million 24-month penalty figure is a pro-rata allocation from a five-year operator-level penalty history rather than a pad-specific fine.

Butler County, Pennsylvania production facilities (operator-level, 11 sites). These sites form the evidentiary core of the October 2024 CAA settlement. EPA documents uncontrolled emissions from storage vessels and related equipment identified during 2018–2019 field inspections; the $4 million penalty and 30-pad compliance program flow from this cohort [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2024-xto-energy-inc-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement].

Utah Class II injection wells (operator-level). The October 3, 2023 SDWA settlement resolved Underground Injection Control program violations at XTO operations in Utah. EPA's release describes corrective actions taken to protect underground sources of drinking water from upward migration of brines and dissolved hydrocarbons [source: https://epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-xto-energy-resolves-safe-drinking-water-act-injection-well-violations].

New Mexico well portfolio (operator-level, statewide). WildEarth Guardians' Top Polluter Report, drawing on New Mexico Oil Conservation Division spill and incident databases from 1988 through 2025, attributes to ExxonMobil/XTO more than 5 million gallons of cumulative fluid spills and approximately 90,000 balloon-volumes of leaked gas in New Mexico [source: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/XTO%20Top%20Polluter%20Report.pdf]. The report is an NGO compilation of state-agency records, not an adjudicated finding.

Eagle Ford shale assets (operator-level, South Texas). In January 2026, an ExxonMobil spokesperson confirmed to Reuters that XTO was seeking buyers for select Eagle Ford properties [source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/exxons-xto-unit-seeks-buyers-select-eagle-ford-assets-2026-01-23/]. These assets do not overlap with Grassy Canyon No. 7 but are relevant to the divestiture pattern discussed in the Santa Fe qui tam complaint.

Volatile organic compounds and methane. The 2024 CAA settlement centers on failures to capture and control air emissions at oil-and-gas production facilities — a category EPA regulates primarily for VOC and methane releases from storage vessels, pneumatic controllers, and associated equipment [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/2024-xto-energy-inc-clean-air-act-stationary-source-settlement]. VOCs contribute to ground-level ozone formation. Methane is a short-lived climate pollutant with high 20-year warming potency. Exposure pathways include inhalation for residents near well pads and atmospheric transport for regional ozone.

Produced water and injection fluids. The 2023 Utah SDWA settlement addresses Class II injection well integrity — the regulatory mechanism that protects underground sources of drinking water from upward migration of brines and dissolved hydrocarbons [source: https://epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-settlement-xto-energy-resolves-safe-drinking-water-act-injection-well-violations]. The exposure pathway of concern is groundwater contamination via mechanical integrity failure or unauthorized zone communication.

Fill material and sediment in waters of the United States. The 2014 CWA §404 settlement documents unauthorized discharges of fill into streams and wetlands during hydraulic fracturing site construction, with the remedy keyed to stream and wetland restoration at eight sites [source: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/xto-energy-inc-settlement-2014]. The environmental-justice dimension in the San Juan Basin is documented by the WildEarth Guardians compilation, which situates XTO's New Mexico spill record in proximity to Navajo Nation and other community boundaries [source: https://pdf.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/XTO%20Top%20Polluter%20Report.pdf].

Within the NAICS 211xxx peer set surfaced by ECHO, Grassy Canyon No. 7 records a lower 24-month derived penalty allocation ($3.76 million) than the three highest-penalty peers: GREKA BELL COMPRESSOR PLANT ($26.16 million, 0 violations), RED HILLS GAS PROCESSING PLANT ($19.13 million, 8 violations), and HP GAS PAD ($16.13 million, 8 violations) [source: https://echo.epa.gov/files/echodownloads/echo_exporter.zip]. Grassy Canyon matches GREKA BELL's zero-violation 24-month posture while carrying a materially lower penalty allocation. It sits well below both Permian-adjacent gas-processing sites on violation count and penalty allocation alike.

XTO Energy operates as a subsidiary of ExxonMobil, and the research bundle contains no XTO-specific 10-K or 10-Q filing; SEC Item 1A risk-factor text for the operating entity is therefore not available in the record reviewed. Forward-looking environmental risk relevant to Grassy Canyon No. 7 is instead documented through two live developments. The pending Santa Fe qui tam complaint alleges $194 million in understated New Mexico plugging liabilities — a claim that, if sustained, would raise asset-retirement obligation and divestiture-structuring questions across the New Mexico portfolio [source: https://sfreporter.com/coverstories/oil-companies-accused-of-massive-accounting-fraud-in-new-mex/]. The January 2026 Reuters report confirming XTO is marketing select Eagle Ford assets adds a second dimension: New Mexico advocates have linked that category of transaction to downstream orphan-well risk, a pattern the Santa Fe complaint treats as directly relevant to the 2021 well transfer at issue [source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/exxons-xto-unit-seeks-buyers-select-eagle-ford-assets-2026-01-23/].