"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

08/24/2010 12:51 AM To "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>

, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us>

cc

Subj

ect Fw: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection

well sites

Dear State and Federal Environmental Authorities, please oversee this new pilot and test the air near 5601 East First St, 76103 to prove that this new process is not emitting toxins into our air in this high metropolitian area, thanks. Feedback or corrections to my understanding of the process is appreciated. Also we need canister tests on compressor stations in general to look for high formalehyde readings as was reported in the Titan air study recetly at the Quicksilver compression station in Arli ngton TX.



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:44 PM Subject: Fw: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Dear Oil and Gas Associations, FYI on this also any feedback or corrections needed to my understanding of the process o f safely vaporizing produced water is requested.



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

To: Undisclosed

- Recipient:;@smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com;

Cc: Tony Rutigliano ; info@crzo.net ; Andy.Agosto@crzo.net ; Elizabeth Gasca ; doug_agee@xtoenergy.com ; chris.sanders@yahoo.com

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 11:24 PM Subject: Vaporization of pro duced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

# vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor

station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic emissons in delivering to injection well sites

http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary/City_Council/Official_Documents/2010_Ordina

nces/192 34

- 07

- 2010.pdf



### "WHEREAS, the City is continuing its participation in the pilot program with

Chesapeake Operating Company, Chesapeake has now acquired all but two tracts needed for the

Right

- of

- way for the salt water pipelines, and will be installing the re cycling equipment in the

near future. In order to provide staff additional time to evaluate the operations of the salt water

pipelines and the recycling efforts, an extension to July 31, 2011, is advised; and



### WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance would exten d the moratorium from July 31,

2010, until July 31, 2011, and maintain the status quo while the staff continues the pilot program

with Chesapeake at the Brentwood site located on East First Street next to the old Arc Park; and



### WHEREAS, at the direction of the Mayor and City Council, staff is working with the

community to identify a contractor to perform testing to accurately assess the source, area, and

ambient air quality impacts of gas operations within the City of Fort Worth. As part of this

assessment, disposal and recycling operations will be examined. The Brentwood site is currently

the only operational saltwater disposal and recycling site within the City of Fort Worth. By

extending the moratorium, operations will be allowed to continue so that appropriate data can be

collected to determine the impacts from this site and a fact based decision may be made as to

whether the moratorium should be lifted or a complete disposal ban should be enacted within the

City limits of Fort Worth;..." The recycling of produced water will be a pilot program for Ft Worth using the EVRAS (by Intervas) system at the Brentwood compressor station. I heard that site will begin receiving produced water from 3 0 different gas well sites for "safe" vaporization. The remaining, crystallized solid waste will then be trucked to an injection site.

http://www.intevras.com/dow nloads/Evras/technical/EVRAS_

- _ADA_White_Paper.pdf Please go to flow chart and see that the "Humid Air Outlet" does not have a filter or a vapor recovery system. In calling the inventor of the process, Jeff Harris (who lived in Granbury at one time, and ha s experience with this system in California), explained that the Barnett shale VOC averages 30 ppm and has no barium. This is low in comparison to the Marcellus Shale (which is full of barium) and averages500ppm of VOC's. So we are at an advantage starti ng with low voc's. I do not know if the ppm being

quoted includes the fracing fluid flow back chemical vapors.

In taking notes while talking to Mr Harris, the EVRAS system solidifies cold, produced water when it is warmed up by the introduction of an u nmixable "heat transfer liquid" (HTL). The HTL is warmed by the wasted heat from the existing compressor station at the Brentwood site in Ft Worth. The cold, produced water keeps getting recycled from cold to hot to cold until it crystallizes.

The air f low directs the aromatic/pollution/condensate through a thermal reactor air stripper which scrubs the hydrocarbons when it passes through an air column. The extracted VOC's are then blended with the combustion air at a ratio of 100 parts of air to 1part of hydrocarbon condensate. This reduces our original 30ppm down to .03 ppm. This .03ppm is then burned off in the compressor engines that have more efficient catalytic converters than our cars. The crank case captures exhausts like a carburetor functions.

The Nox and Co is burned up in the catalytic engines. The 99.9% clean is better for the environment than the 100lb of Nox and 32 tons of carbons per year due to onroad trucking emissions in delivering produced fluids to an injection site.

Ideally, pi ping the produced water from drill sites to the EVRAS systems would further decrease onroad trucking emissions in bringing the fluid to the evaporation site.

I'm a little squirrelly when it comes to pipelines carrying toxic water and having any kind of ground water leak, but trucks carrying waste water are risky and those trucks aren't even labeled as toxic, hazardous material. The amount of matter going into injection sites would greatly be reduced to the crystallized sludge.

We could use some good n ews of natural gas extraction having a process improvement that others could follow if this is truely more environmental friendly.

I sent Mr Harris a copy of this email so that he can correct any mis interpretations of his verbal explanation to me over t he phone...so more than likely I may have some corrections to this explanation of how the EVRAS is "safely" evaporating produced water for 30 pad sites here within city limits.

Please send comments or corrections to this email, thank

- you.

Kim Feil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e

- 4R4cfaspw music vid "Can't You See It's Acid Raining" dedicated to City Council and Mayor Cluck

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New

- well

- linked

- to

- new

- smell

- in

- Wise

- County

- 101232229.html Ten times the benzene level for ambient readings/Wise county. With one inspector per every 3,300 wells in TX, how do we prevent this in Arlington?

We also need to te st the air for formaldehyde

- TCEQ doesn't.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com:80/local

- news/988

- drilling

- fluid

- spill

- reported

- in

- flower

- mound.html

Drilling fluid spill reported in Flower Mound

- This is the third spill for Williams in the area this year.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/101206889.html " The well, in a relatively isolated sugar cane field north of La. 70 and northwest of Paincourtville, has prompted odor complaints and at least two lawsuits over air emissions and other allegati ons. State Police have also restricted access within a mile of the blowout ."

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

08/30/2010 01:34 PM To "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHon eycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.t x.us>

cc

Subj

ect Why we don't trust and law suits aren't the answer.

I lived for eight years in Norco LA in a town just like this. I tthought I was safe from most of this after I moved to Arlington TX, but now toxic industry is popping up here in our good city for natural gas drilling.

Law suits will not be the answer beca use that doesn't cure cancer and permanent environmental damage,

so what is left to do? When the smoke floats from the stack, we may suffer now or maybe later

- what's important to note is that prevention is the cure

... 1. Industry must NOT co

- exist with res idential neighborhoods. 2. Cities endure enough pollution from roadside emissions which include formaldehyde and benzene which are known carcinogens. 3. Technology exists to prevent industrial emissions

- our cars are mandated to pass emission tests or they are illegal on the road so must the industry be considered operating illegally and be shut down until they are fixed. So BP says they complied with "STATE" rules in reporting this problem. The problem is the state's rules are inadequate.

4. When the state sues the EPA to keep the status quo, it is obvious that the public's health takes a back seat to big business. 5. What is in your power to change this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/us/30bprefinery.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th



### TEXAS CITY, Tex.

— While the world was focused on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a BP refinery here released huge amounts of toxic chemicals into the air that went unnoticed by

resi dents until many saw their children come down with respiratory problems.

Enlarge This ImageMichael Stravato for The New York Times



### Refinery smokestacks tower over homes in Texas City, Tex.

For 40 days after a piece of equipment critical to the refinery’s operation broke down, a total of 538,000 pounds of toxic chemicals, including the carcinogen benzene, poured out of the refinery.

Rather than taking the costly step of shutting down the refinery to make repairs, the engineers at the plant diverted gases to a smokestack and tried to burn them off, but hundreds of thousand s of pounds still escaped into the air, according to state environmental officials.

Neither the state nor the oil company informed neighbors or local officials about the pollutants until two weeks after the release ended, and angry residents of Texas City have signed up in droves to join a $10 billion class

- action lawsuit against BP. The state attorney general, Greg
Abbott, has also sued the co mpany , seeking fines of about $600,000.

BP maintains three air monitors along the fence around the plant and two in the surrounding community, and they did not show a rise in pollution during April and May, the company said.

―BP does not believe there is any basis to pay claims in connection with this event,‖ said Michael Marr, a spokesman for the company.

But scores of Texas City residents said they experienced respiratory problems this spring, and environmentalists said the release of toxic gases ranked as one of the largest in the state’s history.

Neil Carman of the Lone Star Sierra Club said the release was probably even larger than BP had acknowledged, because the company estimated that more than 98 percent of the pollution was burned off by a flare, an overly optimistic figure in the eyes of many environmental scientists.

He also said there were too few air monitors to accurately a ssess what had happened. ―There are huge gaps in the monitoring network,‖ Mr. Carman said.

Dionne Ramirez, 29, who lives about a mile from the refinery, said she had little doubt that elevated pollution harmed her family. Not only have both she and her hu sband had coughs, but all three of their young sons have suffered from severe chest congestion, sore throats and endless coughing since April. Her 4

- year

- old had to be hospitalized for two nights because he could not stop coughing, she said.

When the news of the pollution was made public on June 4, Ms. Ramirez was irate. ―I didn’t know why they were getting sick or what was going on,‖ she said. ―They are healthy little kids.‖

### Her experience was echoed by other families living in the shadow of the jumbled smokestacks,

pipelines, cylindrical tanks and giant globes of the refinery. Nearly every household on one block of First Avenue, just a half

- mile from the BP complex, had someone fall ill during May,

residents there said.

―We all became real sick

— throwi ng up, diarrhea, couldn’t keep anything down

— and we just thought it was something that was going around,‖ said Khristina Kelley, who lives with her husband and four children on the street. ―But then everybody around here got it.‖

Ms. Kelley said the rel ease of chemicals was less troubling to her than the company’s silence. ―I’m worried that one day I’ll take my kids to the doctor and something that could have been prevented wasn’t prevented because we didn’t know to the last moment,‖ she said.

Officials in Texas City said they were not informed of the scale of the release until it was over. BP said it met the requirements of state law by informing state officials of the release in writing on April 7, then filing a final report on June 4, after the equipm ent was fixed.

That final report said the release of chemicals had gone on for 959 hours, until May 16. Among other pollutants, the plant had released 17,000 pounds of benzene; 37,000 pounds of nitrogen oxides, which can cause respiratory problems; and 18 6,000 pounds of carbon monoxide. Another 262,000 pounds of various volatile organic compounds also escaped.

―The state’s investigation shows that BP’s failure to properly maintain its equipment caused the malfunction and could have been prevented,‖ the at torney general’s office said in a statement.

Mr. Marr, the BP spokesman, declined to comment on those accusations.

The trouble started when a fire broke out on the seal of a hydrogen compressor, which traps noxious chemicals and returns them to be used as fuel in other parts of the plant. The compressor was part of the refinery’s ―ultracracker unit,‖ which can process 65,000 barrels of oil per day and mostly produces high

- octane blending components for gasoline. The company sent the gases to a flare at the end of a smokestack, 300 feet in the air, hoping to burn off the hazardous chemicals. But a monitor at the top of t he stack showed that the emissions were far higher than permitted. Many residents of Texas City have joined a class

- action suit.

The attorney general’s office alleges in its complaint against BP that the fire started because

workers had allowed iron sulf ide to build up on the seal of the compressor.

Violations are nothing new at the plant, federal and state officials say. In 2005, an explosion at the refinery killed 15 people and injured more than 170, and BP was fined $87 million by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for safety lapses that led to that blast.
This month, BP agreed to pay $50.6 million, a record.

On air pollution, the refinery has a similarly checkered history, a pattern of breaking limits on air pollution and being slow to report those events, state officials claim in legal complaints. In 2009, Mr. Abbott, the attorney general, sued BP for violating clean

- air standards 72 times in the previous five years.

### Still, the refinery is a major employer in Texas City, a town with about 45,000 residents, modest

frame houses, fast

- food restaurants an d dollar stores on the coastal plains across a channel from Galveston. The refineries dwarf the clapboard abodes of workers here, thrusting up into tropical skies in utilitarian ugliness and painting the azure with smoke. Those smokestacks mean jobs,

and m any people are skeptical about those claiming they have gotten sick.

―This is just money

- hungry money grubbers is all it is,‖ said Pete Fernandez, a longtime resident.

He called the lawsuits ―frivolous

— completely, totally frivolous.‖

Yet some longtime refinery workers are among those suing. Robert L. Sukiennik, 45, has worked at a refinery operated by Valero here for two decades. In early May, he started to cough and felt weak. He finally saw a doctor in mid

- July, who became alarmed at his white blood c ell count. A CT scan a week later revealed abnormal spots on his kidneys, and he was referred to an oncologist for more tests. Leukemia was a possibility, he was told.

It is impossible to know for certain if Mr. Sukiennik’s sudden decline in health is con nected to the emissions from BP, but he says that the refinery has had so many troubles over the years, he is filled with suspicion that it might be the root of his problems.

―Every day they have some problem over there,‖ he said. ―I don’t think BP itself really cares about the community. They are not trying for safety; all they care about is the big bucks.‖

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/01/2010 03:55 PM To "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@nor thtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>,

"Shannon Ethri dge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.t x.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us>

cc

Subj

ect Fw: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers

needed

OK who can help and "reply all" to the others so that you do not duplicate efforts? First one to respond
gets kudo's !!!! Air tests needs on the Arc Park/Brentwood compressor evaporation station for produced water.Stick that canister right there too!

THANKS



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers needed

Mr Harris of Intevras was able to clarify that the air stripper/scrubbers he described to me in the Evras evaporators are available when need ed like in California, but that they are not needed and are not being used here at the Ft Worth Chesapeake Brentwood/arc park site because of the low hydrocarbons associated with the Barnett Shale. Also the air is not blended (as I reported earlier in thi s email string)

unless it comes from the scrubber.

He also mentioned that unconventional shale gas has less VOC concentrations than the standard oil and gas reservoirs and that the Barnett is not heavy in metals.

He said that 50

- 60 ppm is what the Bar nett Shale VOC has been although he's seen an average of 30 ppm and also he sees areas that have little to no hydrocarbons in the produced water.

He said that radon is not a problem here compared to the North East areas of the Marcellus. Mr Harris

didn 't elaborate if there was any detriment to the air in incinerating arsenic, the conversation was limited to that arsenic occurs naturally.

In California, they did air testing on his units (with scrubbers) and found no problems when comparing

baseline air tests to the incineration of hydrocarbons when that (scrubbed) air was run to the engines which was used as fuel for the engine as it is burned off.

We should get TCEQ to measure the air coming from the EVRAS engines before and during the air flow

to b e combusted.

I am still unclear if the flowback water that contains fracturing fluids go to the EVRAS incinerator, so an air test when evaporating flowback water is also in order.

If our air tests prove no detriment to our air, surely this system is to be promoted as a best available technology to take the truck fracing traffic off our highways and get us into Clean Air federal compliance.

I copied Mr Harris so that if he needs to further clarify, he can "reply all" and add comments. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Kim Feil



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sitesTitan’s study did not include a test for NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). Norm has not

been historicall y encountered in drilling this part of the Barnett Shale. The only areas that I am aware of

where NORM has been detected is far north Denton and Wise counties

Also, the first Evras unit was put online in June 2009. While they have been put online and taken off line over the past year (to allow for equipment upgrades and system maintenance), it is my understanding that at least one unit was online during the TCEQ test. I do not know if the unit was online the day of Titan’s sampling.

Brian K. Boerne r, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:06 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

I noticed the Titan air study at this site did not include radionuclides...can you comment on if the Ft Worth

air stud y will test for radon?

Also, was the Evras unit on line at the time of the Titan air study in June? I do not know how long this system has been in place.

Thanks

Kim

----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:28 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Wort h to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Ms. Feil:

I would urge you to revisit the Itevras Website http://www.intevras.com/ . The operations I described are consistent with the operations of this piece of equipment and the program that Chesapeake is operating

at the site.

Regarding the response from the Chemical engineer, I do not know the source of their information so I can not respond as to their opinion. My conclusions are based on the qua lified testing which has been completed around the site. Additionally, the City of Fort Worth’s air quality study will continue to evaluate potential emissions from this site.

Brian K. Boerner, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:18 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sitesI had a similar response from a chemical engineer doubting that the toxins are not being scrubbed

before incinerated. Burning toxic waste went on for decades at our cement factories south of us...how is this any different? Why is your explanation different f rom what I thought I heard from a phone

convesation with the inventor?

Kim

----- Original Message

----- From: jim Ashford

To: Kim & Ken Feil ; eyesondrilling@epa.gov ; NFWMLTF Task Force ; nctca@googlegroups.com

Cc: Undisclosed

- Recipient:;@smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com;; ; Tony Rutigliano ; info@crzo.net ; Andy.Agosto@crzo.net ; Elizabeth Gasca ; doug_agee@xtoenergy.com ; chris.sanders@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:23 AM Subject: Re: V aporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites



### I hope you aren't buying this nonsense. It does't happen that way when evaporating 50,400 gallons of water every day. It p hysically won't be done.

The hydrocarbons still go in the air, the compressors still burn the gas from the ground that contains radium, mercury, lead along with the other hydrocarbons that go into the air as

exhaust.

Jim

On Aug 23, 2010, a

t 11:24 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:



# vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic emissons in delivering to injection well sites

http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary/City_Council/Official_Documents/2010_Ordi

nances/19234

- 07

- 2010.pd f



## "WHEREAS, the City is continuing its participation in the pilot program with

Chesapeake Operating Company, Chesapeake has now acquired all but two tracts needed for the

Right

- of

- way for the salt water pipelines, and will be installing the recycling equ ipment in the

near future. In order to provide staff additional time to evaluate the operations of the salt waterpipelines and the recycling efforts, an extension to July 31, 2011, is advised; and



## WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance would extend the moratorium from July
31,

2010, until July 31, 2011, and maintain the status quo while the staff continues the pilot program

with Chesapeake at the Brentwood site located on East First Street next to the old Arc Park; and



## WHEREAS, at the direction of the Mayor and City Council, staff is working

with the

community to identify a contractor to perform testing to accurately assess the source, area, and

ambient air quality impacts of gas operations within the City of Fort Worth. As part of this

assessment, di sposal and recycling operations will be examined. The Brentwood site is currently

the only operational saltwater disposal and recycling site within the City of Fort Worth. By

extending the moratorium, operations will be allowed to continue so that appropri ate data can be

collected to determine the impacts from this site and a fact based decision may be made as to

whether the moratorium should be lifted or a complete disposal ban should be enacted within the

City limits of Fort Worth;..." The recycling of pr oduced water will be a pilot program for Ft Worth using the EVRAS (by Intervas) system at the Brentwood compressor station. I heard that site will begin receiving produced water from 30 different gas well sites for "safe" vaporization. The remaining, cryst allized solid waste will then be trucked to an injection site.

http://www.intevras.com/downloads/Evras/technical/EVRAS_

- _ADA_White_Paper.pdf Please go to flow chart and see that the "Humid Air Outlet" does not have a filter or a vapor recovery system. In calling the inventor of the process, Jeff Harris (who lived in Granbury at one time, and has experience with this system in California), expla ined that the Barnett shale VOC averages 30 ppm and has no barium. This is low in comparison to the Marcellus Shale (which is full of barium) and averages 500ppm of VOC's. So we are at an advantage starting with low voc's. I do not know if the ppm being

q uoted includes the fracing fluid flow back chemical vapors.

In taking notes while talking to Mr Harris, the EVRAS system solidifies cold, produced water when it is warmed up by the introduction of an unmixable "heat transfer liquid" (HTL). The HTL is wa rmed by the wasted heat from the existing compressor station at the Brentwood site in Ft Worth. The cold, produced water keeps getting recycled from cold to hot to cold until it crystallizes.

The air flow directs the aromatic/pollution/condensate through a thermal reactor air stripper which scrubs the hydrocarbons when it passes through an air column. The extracted VOC's are then blended with the combustion air at a ratio of 100 parts of air to 1part of hydrocarbon condensate. This reduces our original 3 0ppm down to .03 ppm. This .03ppm is then burned off in the compressor engines that have more efficient catalytic converters than our cars. The crank case captures exhausts like a

carburetor functions. The Nox and Co is burned up in the catalytic engines. The 99.9% clean is betterfor the environment than the 100lb of Nox and 32 tons of carbons per year due to onroad trucking

emissions in delivering produced fluids to an injection site.

Ideally, piping the produced water from drill sites to the EVRAS systems would further decrease onroad trucking emissions in bringing the fluid to the evaporation site.

I'm a little squirrelly when it comes to pipelines carrying toxic water and having any kind of ground water leak, but trucks carrying waste water ar e risky and those trucks aren't even labeled as toxic, hazardous material. The amount of matter going into injection sites would greatly be reduced to the crystallized sludge.

We could use some good news of natural gas extraction having a process improve ment that others could follow if this is truely more environmental friendly.

I sent Mr Harris a copy of this email so that he can correct any mis interpretations of his verbal explanation to me over the phone...so more than likely I may have some correct ions to this explanation of how the EVRAS is "safely" evaporating produced water for 30 pad sites here within city limits.

Please send comments or corrections to this email, thank

- you.

Kim Feil

h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e

- 4R4cfaspw music vid "Can't You See It's Acid Raining" dedicated to City Council and Mayor Cluck

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New

- well

- linked

- to

- new

- smell

- in

- Wise

- County

- 101232229.html Ten times the benzene level for ambient readings/Wise county. With one inspector per every 3,300 wells in TX, how do we prevent this in Arlington? We also need to test the air for formaldehyde

- TCEQ doesn't.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com:80/local

- news/9 88

- drilling

- fluid

- spill

- reported

- in

- flower

- mound.html
Drilling fluid spill reported in Flower Mound

- This is the third spill for Williams in the area this year.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/101206889.html " The well, in a relatively isolated sugar ca ne field north of La. 70 and northwest of Paincourtville, has prompted odor complaints and at least two lawsuits over air emissions and other allegations. State Police have also restricted access within a mile of the blowout ."

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----jim Ashford <jimashford@sbcglobal.ne

t>

09/01/2010 08:49 PM To Kim & Ken Feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

cc "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quin n@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>,

<MA BAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us> Subj

ect Re: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers

needed



### The drilling companies and the ones they are associated with should not be trusted about anything, and I don't. How many times are we told one thing and then when it comes time for it

to be demonstrated, it isn't quite the way we understood it was going to be. It is amazing that everything that has asked about has been explained, "in the the Barnett Shale, it isn't here." I say bull to that, of course it is. There may be more in some place s and less in others, but it is still

here.



## It is important to be aware of different sources that may have an impact on the atmosphere.

For example, the proposed Salt Water Recycle facility in East Fort Worth is where the produced water from numerous wells is to be evaporated into the air using the heat Generated from many Natural Gas Powered Compressor engines.

Even though they call it recycling of produced water, it is not a recycling facility where the produced water is recycled or reused

.

## How much water is recycled? The answer is

- 0

- . There is nothing being reused.

it is simply a way to cheaply dispose of a lot of produced water for the owner Chesapeake,

by putting water vapor and many other chemicals into the air we breath.

The evaporating process simply does not remove an adequate amount of harmful contaminates from the produced water being evaporated, to be harmless or safe.

Chesapeake estimates that 50,400 gallons of water is to be evaporated into the air everyday from the site.

This will increase the humidity in the nearby parks and residential areas, promoting disease carrying insects and mold along with discomfort for residents.

There are other methods for truly recycling and reusing 80% or more of the water.

T hese methods are much more environmentally friendly without the massive pollution.

Some gas drilling companies are already using this process.

The use of electric motors to power all of the compressor stations in Fort Worth to help reduce emissions should be required.

## During the recent gas drilling task force meetings, the industry acknowledged the

use of electric powered compressors would produce fewer emissions than gas powered compressors.

The industry would however prefer to use unprocessed natural gas directly from the wells to run their compressors. It is cheaper for them.

the unprocessed natural gas, when burned as a fuel, like in a gas engine for the compressors, will include many harmful chemicals which go directly into the air as

exhaust.

They do not use the refined natural gas that is advertised as clean burning.

Th e gas from the wells is only filtered enough to protect the gas motor from physical damage.

Since the heat required for this proposed recycling process is being generated from the compressors for evaporation, there is no incentive to use electric powered compressors by the industry, in fact just the opposite.

There will be more need for heat to be generated and therefore more emissions in

the air.

One recent example to illustrate the industries lack of concern about emissions is the "parrot" Natura l Gas compressor station located near my house in East Fort

Worth that was powered by two electric motors.

## When the compressors were enclosed to reduce excessive noise to the nearby

neighborhood, the two electric motors were replaced with three compresso rs that

now use gas

- powered engines.

That doesn’t seem like an industry trying to reduce emissions in the city.

The gas drilling industry will do what it is required to do,

but it has been demonstrated over and over, they will not do more than is required

of them.

It is important the health and quality of life for the residents in Fort Worth be regained.

Jim Ashford

On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:

OK who can help and "reply all" to the others so that you do not duplicate efforts? First one to respond gets kudo's !!!! Air tests needs on the Arc Park/Brentwood compressor evaporation station for produced water.

Stick that canister right there too!

T HANKS



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:51 PM

### Subject: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers needed

Mr Harris of Intevras was able to clarify that the air stripper/scrubbers he described to me in the Evras evaporators are available when needed like in California, but that they are not needed and

are not being used here at the Ft Worth Chesapeake Brentwood/arc park site because of the lo w hydrocarbons associated with the Barnett Shale. Also the air is not blended (as I reported earlier in this email string) unless it comes from the scrubber.

He also mentioned that unconventional shale gas has less VOC concentrations than the standard

o il and gas reservoirs and that the Barnett is not heavy in metals.

He said that 50

- 60 ppm is what the Barnett Shale VOC has been although he's seen an average of 30 ppm and also he sees areas that have little to no hydrocarbons in the produced water.

He said that radon is not a problem here compared to the North East areas of the Marcellus. Mr Harris didn't elaborate if there was any detriment to the air in incinerating arsenic, the conversation was limited to that arsenic occurs naturally.

In Cali fornia, they did air testing on his units (with scrubbers) and found no problems when comparing baseline air tests to the incineration of hydrocarbons when that (scrubbed) air was run to the engines which was used as fuel for the engine as it is burned off

.

We should get TCEQ to measure the air coming from the EVRAS engines before and during the

air flow to be combusted.

I am still unclear if the flowback water that contains fracturing fluids go to the EVRAS incinerator, so an air test when evaporating flowback water is also in order.

If our air tests prove no detriment to our air, surely this system is to be promoted as a best available technology to take the truck fracing traffic off our highways and get us into Clean Air federal compliance.

I cop ied Mr Harris so that if he needs to further clarify, he can "reply all" and add comments. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Kim Feil



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Titan’s stud y did not include a test for NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). Norm has not been historically encountered in drilling this part of the Barnett Shale. The only areas

that I am aware of where NORM has been detected is far north Denton and Wi se counties

Also, the first Evras unit was put online in June 2009. While they have been put online and taken off line over the past year (to allow for equipment upgrades and system maintenance), it is my understanding that at least one unit was onlin e during the TCEQ test. I do not know if the unit was online the day of Titan’s sampling.Brian K. Boerner, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:06 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

I noticed the Titan air study at this site did not include radionuclides...can you comment on if the Ft Worth air study will test for radon?

Also, was the Evras unit on line at the time of the Titan air study in June? I do not know how long this system has been in place.

Thanks

Kim

----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:28 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Wort h to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Ms. Feil:

I would urge you to revisit the Itevras Website http://www.intevras.com/ . The operations I described are consistent with the operations of this piece of equipment and the program that Chesapeake is operating at the site.

Regarding the response from the Chemical engineer, I do not know the source of their information so I can not respond as to their opinion. My conclusions are based on the qua lified testing which has been completed around the site. Additionally, the City of Fort Worth’s air quality study will continue to evaluate potential emissions from this site.

Brian K. Boerner, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:18 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

I ha d a similar response from a chemical engineer doubting that the toxins are not being scrubbed before incinerated. Burning toxic waste went on for decades at our cement factories south of us...how is this any different? Why is your explanation different fro m what I thought I heard from a phone convesation with the inventor?

Kim

----- Original Message

-----From: jim Ashford

To: Kim & Ken Feil ; eyesondrilling@epa.gov ; NFWMLTF Task Force ; nctca@googlegroups.com

Cc: Undisclosed

- Recipient:;@smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com;; ; Tony Rutigliano ; info@crzo.net ; Andy.Agosto@crzo.n et ; Elizabeth Gasca ; doug_agee@xtoenergy.com ; chris.sanders@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:23 AM Subject : Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites



### I hope you aren't buying this nonsense. It does't happen that way when evaporating 50,400 gallons of water every day . It physically won't be done.

The hydrocarbons still go in the air, the compressors still burn the gas from the ground that contains radium, mercury, lead along with the other hydrocarbons that go into the

air as exhaust.

Jim

On Aug 23, 2010, at 11:24 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:



# vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic emissons in delivering to injection well

sites

http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary/City_Council/Official_Documents/20 10_Ordinances/19234

- 07

- 2010.pd f



## "WHEREAS, the City is continuing its participation in the pilot program

with

Chesapeake Operating Company, Chesapeake has now acquired all but two tracts needed for the

Right

- of

- way for the salt water pipelines, and will be installing the recycling equ ipment in the

near future. In order to provide staff additional time to evaluate the operations of the salt water

pipelines and the recycling efforts, an extension to July 31, 2011, is advised; and

## WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance would extend the morat orium

from July 31,

2010, until July 31, 2011, and maintain the status quo while the staff continues the pilot program

with Chesapeake at the Brentwood site located on East First Street next to the old Arc Park; and



## WHEREAS, at the direction of the Mayor and City Council, staff is working with the

community to identify a contractor to perform testing to accurately assess the source, area, and

ambient air quality impacts of gas operations within the City of Fort Worth. As part of this

assessment, disposa l and recycling operations will be examined. The Brentwood site is currently

the only operational saltwater disposal and recycling site within the City of Fort Worth. By

extending the moratorium, operations will be allowed to continue so that appropriate d ata can be

collected to determine the impacts from this site and a fact based decision may be made as to

whether the moratorium should be lifted or a complete disposal ban should be enacted within the

City limits of Fort Worth;..." The recycling of produced water will be a pilot program for Ft Worth using the EVRAS (by Intervas) system at the Brentwood compressor station. I heard that site will begin receiving produced water from 30 different gas well sites for "safe" vaporization. The remaining,

cry stallized solid waste will then be trucked to an injection site.

http://www.intevras.com/downloads/Evras/technical/EVRAS_

- _ADA_White_Paper.pdf Please go to flow c hart and see that the "Humid Air Outlet" does not have a filter or a vapor recovery system. In calling the inventor of the process, Jeff Harris (who lived in Granbury at one time, and has experience with this system in California), explained that the Barne tt shale VOC averages 30 ppm and has no barium. This is low in comparison to the Marcellus Shale (which is full of barium) and averages 500ppm of VOC's. So we are at an advantage starting with low voc's. I do not know if the ppm being quoted includes the fracing fluid flow back chemical vapors.

In taking notes while talking to Mr Harris, the EVRAS system solidifies cold, produced water when it is warmed up by the introduction of an unmixable "heat transfer liquid" (HTL). The HTL is warmed by the wasted heat from the existing compressor station at the Brentwood site in Ft Worth. The cold, produced water keeps getting recycled from cold to hot to cold until it crystallizes.

The air flow directs the aromatic/pollution/condensate through a thermal reactor air stripper which scrubs the hydrocarbons when it passes through an air column. The extracted VOC's are then blended with the combustion air at a ratio of 100 parts of air to 1part of hydrocarbon condensate. This reduces our original 30ppm down to .03 pp m. This .03ppm is then burned off in the compressor engines that have more efficient catalytic converters than our cars. The crank case captures exhausts like a carburetor functions. The Nox and Co is burned up in thecatalytic engines. The 99.9% clean i s better for the environment than the 100lb of Nox and 32 tons of carbons per year due to onroad trucking emissions in delivering produced fluids to an injection site.

Ideally, piping the produced water from drill sites to the EVRAS systems would furt her decrease onroad trucking emissions in bringing the fluid to the evaporation site.

I'm a little squirrelly when it comes to pipelines carrying toxic water and having any kind of ground water leak, but trucks carrying waste water are risky and those t rucks aren't even labeled as toxic, hazardous material. The amount of matter going into injection sites would greatly be reduced to the crystallized sludge.

We could use some good news of natural gas extraction having a process improvement that

others co uld follow if this is truely more environmental friendly.

I sent Mr Harris a copy of this email so that he can correct any mis interpretations of his verbal explanation to me over the phone...so more than likely I may have some corrections to this explan ation of how the EVRAS is "safely" evaporating produced water for 30 pad sites here within city limits.

Please send comments or corrections to this email, thank

- you.

Kim Feil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e

- 4R4cfaspw music vid "Can't You See It's Acid Raining" dedicated to City Council and Mayor Cluck

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New

- well

- linked

- to

- new

- smell

- in

- Wise

- County

101232229.html Ten times the benzene level for ambient readings/Wise county. With one inspector per every 3,300 wells in TX, how do we prevent this in Arlington?

We also need to te st the air for formaldehyde

- TCEQ doesn't.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com:80/local

- news/988

- drilling

- fluid

- spill

- reported

- in

- flower

moun d.html

Drilling fluid spill reported in Flower Mound

- This is the third spill for Williams in the area this year.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/101206889.html " The well, in a relatively is olated sugar cane field north of La. 70 and northwest of Paincourtville, has prompted odor complaints and at least two lawsuits over air emissions and other allegations. State Police have also restricted access within a mile of the blowout ."

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----jim Ashford <jimashford@sbcglobal.ne

t>

09/01/2010 09:07 PM To jim Ashford <jimashford@sbcglobal.net>

cc Kim & Ken Feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>, "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycut t" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq .state.tx.us> Subj

ect Re: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers

needed

The Future of Water Recycling.webarchive



### Why is it that Chesapeake is always the company that always wants to do what is the cheapest for them with little regard for the nearby residents. There are companies that are trying to do some things right, even if it costs a little more. That isn't Che sapeake, even though they are the ones disrupting the residents of Fort Worth the most.

I have attached an article that was published last year about getting rid of produced water. Why can't or won't chesapeake be required to do than better than industry standard, since they tend to be the standard around here? That is best described by saying "quick and dirty".

Jim AShford

On Sep 1, 2010, at 7:49 PM, jim Ashford wrote:

The drilling companies and the ones they are associated with should not be trusted about anything, and I don't. How many times are we told one thing and then when it comes time for it to be demonstrated, it isn't quite the way we understood it was going t o be. It

### is amazing that everything that has asked about has been explained, "in the the Barnett

Shale, it isn't here." I say bull to that, of course it is. There may be more in some places
and less in others, but it is still here.



## It is important to be aware of different sources that may have an impact on the atmosphere.

For example, the proposed Salt Water Recycle facility in East Fort Worth is where the produced water from numerous wells is to be evaporated into the air using the heat Generate d from many Natural Gas Powered Compressor engines.

Even though they call it recycling of produced water, it is not a recycling facility where the produced water is recycled or reused.

How much water is recycled? The answer is

- 0

- . There is nothing b eing

reused.

it is simply a way to cheaply dispose of a lot of produced water for the owner Chesapeake,

by putting water vapor and many other chemicals into the air we breath.

The evaporating process simply does not remove an adequate amount of

harmfu l contaminates from the produced water being evaporated, to be

harmless or safe.

## Chesapeake estimates that 50,400 gallons of water is to be evaporated into

the air everyday from the site.

This will increase the humidity in the nearby parks and resid ential areas, promoting disease carrying insects and mold along with discomfort for

residents.

There are other methods for truly recycling and reusing 80% or more of the

water.

These methods are much more environmentally friendly without the massive pollution.

Some gas drilling companies are already using this process.

The use of electric motors to power all of the compressor stations in Fort Worth to help reduce emissions should be required.

During the recent gas drilling task force meetings, the industry acknowledged the use of electric powered compressors would produce fewer emissions than gas powered compressors.

The industry would however prefer to use unprocessed natural gas directly

f rom the wells to run their compressors. It is cheaper for them.

the unprocessed natural gas, when burned as a fuel, like in a gas engine for the compressors, will include many harmful chemicals which go directly

into the air as exhaust.

## They do not use the refined natural gas that is advertised as clean burning.

The gas from the wells is only filtered enough to protect the gas motor from physical damage.

Since the heat required for this proposed recycling process is being generated from the co mpressors for evaporation, there is no incentive to use electric powered compressors by the industry, in fact just the opposite.

There will be more need for heat to be generated and therefore more

emissions in the air.

One recent example to illustra te the industries lack of concern about emissions is the "parrot" Natural Gas compressor station located near my

house in East Fort Worth that was powered by two electric motors.

When the compressors were enclosed to reduce excessive noise to the nearby neighborhood, the two electric motors were replaced with three compressors that now use gas

- powered engines.

That doesn’t seem like an industry trying to reduce emissions in the city.

The gas drilling industry will do what it is required to do,

b ut it has been demonstrated over and over, they will not do more than is required of them.

## It is important the health and quality of life for the residents in Fort Worth be

regained.

Jim Ashford

On Sep 1, 2010, at 2:55 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:

OK who can help and "reply all" to the others so that you do not duplicate efforts? First one to respond gets kudo's !!!! Air tests needs on the Arc Park/Brentwood compressor evaporation station for produced

water.

Stick that canister right there too!

THANKS



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 2:51 PM Subject: Clarification on Ft Worth evaporation station

- no scrubbers needed

Mr Harris of Intevras was able to clarify that the air stripper/scrubbers he described to me in the Evras evaporators are available when needed like in California, but that they are

not needed and are not being used here at the Ft Worth Chesapeake Brentwoo d/arc park site because of the low hydrocarbons associated with the Barnett Shale. Also the air is not blended (as I reported earlier in this email string) unless it comes from the

scrubber.

He also mentioned that unconventional shale gas has less VOC concentrations than the standard oil and gas reservoirs and that the Barnett is not heavy in metals.

He said that 50

- 60 ppm is what the Barnett Shale VOC has been although he's seen an

average of 30 ppm and also he sees areas that have little to no hydrocarbons in the produced water.

He said that radon is not a problem here compared to the North East areas of the Marcellus. Mr Harris didn't elaborate if there was any detriment to the air in incinerating arsenic, the conversation was limited to that arsenic occurs naturally.In California, they did air testing on his units (with scrubbers) and found no problems when comparing baseline air tests to the incineration of hydrocarbons when that (scrubbed) air was run to the engines which was used as fuel for the engine as it is

burned off.

We should get TCEQ to measure the air coming from the EVRAS engines before and during the air flow to be combusted.

I am still unclear if the flowback wat er that contains fracturing fluids go to the EVRAS incinerator, so an air test when evaporating flowback water is also in order.

If our air tests prove no detriment to our air, surely this system is to be promoted as a best available technology to take t he truck fracing traffic off our highways and get us into Clean Air federal compliance.

I copied Mr Harris so that if he needs to further clarify, he can "reply all" and add

comments. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Kim Feil



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:14 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compr essor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Titan’s study did not include a test for NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). Norm has not been historically encountered in drilling this part of the Barnett Shale. The only areas that I am aware of where NORM has been detected is far north D enton and

Wise counties

Also, the first Evras unit was put online in June 2009. While they have been put online and taken off line over the past year (to allow for equipment upgrades and system maintenance), it is my understanding that at least one un it was online during the TCEQ test. I do not know if the unit was online the day of Titan’s sampling.

Brian K. Boerner, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:06 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

I noticed the Titan air study at this site did not includ e radionuclides...can you comment on if the Ft Worth air study will test for radon?

Also, was the Evras unit on line at the time of the Titan air study in June? I do not know how long this system has been in place.Thanks

Kim

----- Original Message

----- From: Boerner, Brian

To: 'Kim & Ken Feil'

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:28 PM Subject: RE: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor sta tion in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

Ms. Feil:

I would urge you to revisit the Itevras Website http://www.intevras.com/ . The operations I described are consistent with the operations of this piece of equipment and the program that Chesapeake is operating at the site.

Regarding the response from the Chemical engineer, I do not know the source of their

information so I can not respond as to their opinion. My conclusions are based on the qualified testing which has been completed around the site. Additionally, the City of Fort Worth’s air quality study will continue to evaluate potential emissions from this site.

Br ian K. Boerner, CPM, CHMM Director of Environmental Management

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:18 PM

To: Boerner, Brian Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well sites

I had a similar response from a chemical engineer doubting that the toxins are not being scrubbed before incinerated. Burning toxic waste went on for decades at our cement factories south of us...how is this any different? Why is your explanation different from what I thought I heard from a phone convesation with the inventor?

Kim

----- Original Message

----- From: jim Ashford

To: Kim & Ken Feil ; eyesondrilling@epa.gov ; NFWMLTF Task Force ; nctca@googlegroups.com

Cc: Undisclosed

- Recipient:;@smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com;; ; Tony Rutigliano ; info@crzo.net ; Andy.Agosto@crzo.net ; Elizabeth Gasca ; doug_agee@xtoenerg y.com ; chris.sanders@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 8:23 AM Subject: Re: Vaporization of produced water at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic to injection well s ites



### I hope you aren't buying this nonsense. It does't happen that way when evaporating 50,400 gallons of water every day. It physically won't be done.

### The hydrocarbons still go in the air, the compressors still burn the gas from the ground that contains radium, mercury, lead along with the other hydrocarbons that go into the air as exhaust.

Jim

On Aug 23, 2010, at 11:24 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:



# vaporization of produced wa ter at Brentwood compressor station in Ft Worth to greatly reduce truck traffic emissons in delivering to injection

well sites

http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary/City_Council/Official_Docum ents/2010_Ordinances/19234

- 07

- 2010.pdf



## "WHEREAS, the City is continuing its participation in the pilot program with

Chesapeake Operating Company, Chesapeake has n ow acquired all but two tracts needed for

the

Right

- of

- way for the salt water pipelines, and will be installing the recycling equipment in the

near future. In order to provide staff additional time to evaluate the operations of the salt water

pipelines and the recycling efforts, an extension to July 31, 2011, is advised; and



## WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance would extend the moratorium from July 31,

2010, until July 31, 2011, and maintain the status quo while the staff continues the pilot

program

with Chesapeake at the Brentwood site located on East First Street next to the old Arc Park; and



## WHEREAS, at the direction of the Mayor and City Council, staff is working with thecommunity to identify a contractor to perform testing to accurately assess the source, area, and

ambient air quality impacts of gas operations within the City of Fort Worth. As part of this

assessment, disposal and recycling operations will be examined. The Brentwo od site is currently

the only operational saltwater disposal and recycling site within the City of Fort Worth. By

extending the moratorium, operations will be allowed to continue so that appropriate data can

be

collected to determine the impacts from this site and a fact based decision may be made as to

whether the moratorium should be lifted or a complete disposal ban should be enacted within

the

City limits of Fort Worth;..." The recycling of produced water will be a pilot program for Ft Worth using the E VRAS (by Intervas) system at the Brentwood compressor station. I heard that site will begin receiving produced water from 30 different gas well sites for "safe" vaporization. The remaining, crystallized solid waste will then be trucked to an injection site

.

http://www.intevras.com/downloads/Evras/technical/EVRAS_

- _ADA_White_Paper.pdf Please go to flow chart and see that the "Humid Air Outlet" does not have a filter or a vapor recovery system. In calling the inventor of the process, Jeff Harris (who lived in Granbury at one time, and has experience with this system in California), explained that the Barnett shale VOC averages 30 ppm and has no barium. This is low in comparison to the Marcellus Shale (which is full of barium) and averages 500ppm of VOC's. So we are at an advantage starting with low voc's. I do not know if the ppm being quoted includes the fracing fluid flow back chemical vapors.

In taking notes whi le talking to Mr Harris, the EVRAS system solidifies cold, produced water when it is warmed up by the introduction of an unmixable "heat transfer liquid" (HTL). The HTL is warmed by the wasted heat from the existing compressor station at

the Brentwood site in Ft Worth. The cold, produced water keeps getting recycled from cold to hot to cold until it crystallizes.

The air flow directs the aromatic/pollution/condensate through a thermal reactor air stripper which scrubs the hydrocarbons when it passes throu gh an air column. The extracted VOC's are then blended with the combustion air at a ratio of 100 parts of air to 1part of hydrocarbon condensate. This reduces our original 30ppm down to .03 ppm. This .03ppm is then burned off in the compressor engines tha t have more efficient catalytic converters than our cars. The crank case captures exhausts like a

carburetor functions. The Nox and Co is burned up in the catalytic engines. The

99.9% clean is better for the environment than the 100lb of Nox and 32 tons of carbons per year due to onroad trucking emissions in delivering produced fluids to an injection

site.

Ideally, piping the produced water from drill sites to the EVRAS systems would further decrease onroad trucking emissions in bringing the fluid to the evaporation site.I'm a little squirrelly when it comes to pipelines carrying toxic water and having any kind of ground water leak, but trucks carrying waste water are risky and those trucks aren't even labeled as toxic, hazardous material. The amo unt of matter going into injection sites would greatly be reduced to the crystallized sludge.

We could use some good news of natural gas extraction having a process improvement that others could follow if this is truely more environmental friendly.

I s ent Mr Harris a copy of this email so that he can correct any mis interpretations of his verbal explanation to me over the phone...so more than likely I may have some corrections to this explanation of how the EVRAS is "safely" evaporating produced

water f or 30 pad sites here within city limits.

Please send comments or corrections to this email, thank

- you.

Kim Feil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e

- 4R4cfaspw music vid "Can't You See It's Acid Raining" dedicated to City Council and Mayor Cluck

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/New

- well

- linked

- to

- new

- smell

- in

- Wise

- County

101232229.html Ten times the benzene level for ambient readings/Wise county. With one inspector per every 3,300 wells in TX, how do we prevent this in Arlington?

We also need to te st the air for formaldehyde

- TCEQ doesn't.

http://www.crosstimbersgazette.com:80/local

- news/988

- drilling

- fluid

- spill

- reported

- in

flower

- moun d.html

Drilling fluid spill reported in Flower Mound

- This is the third spill for Williams in the area this year.

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/101206889.html " The well, in a relatively is olated sugar cane field north of La. 70 and northwest of Paincourtville, has prompted odor complaints and at least two lawsuits over air emissions and other allegations. State Police have also restricted access within a mile of

the blowout ."

---- - Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/06/2010 04:08 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp104.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect Fw: Superbowl activity?/ Alternative Free Energy production sent courtesy of oil and gas employee?



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Shipp, Brett

### To: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Superbowl activity?/ Alternative Free Energy production sent courtesy of oil and gas employee?

Tonight at 10, new concerns about the Barnett Shale and a curious persistence of ozone everywhere but
Tarrant/D enton/Johnson and Parker Counties. The EPA Regional Administrator sounds off.

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 12:49 PM

To: "Undisclosed

- Recipient:;"@smtp101.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com Subject: Superbowl activity?/ Alternative Free Energy production sent courtesy of oil and gas employee?



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

To: bigdad2email

- gizmo@yahoo.com

Cc: ken feil

Sent: Monday, September 06, 2010 12:16 PM Subject: Alternative Free Energy production sent courtesy of oil and gas employee?

Mitch, I may have you listed in my oil and gas "not so green" contacts in error.....are you looking for my comments to say..

"ewe I better be careful or I may get exterminated like the guy who invented free energy"? Or R U looking for ac tivists to spin our time promoting this?

I think I have seen this video a long time ago and obviously it hasn't taken off for whatever reason

because either it is not a do

- able realistic technology on a grand scale, or maybe people like the Koch Brothe rs have high radar and keep killing off anybody that is a $$$$ threat to fossil the fuel industry

---- not so far fetched in today's age??

I'm more interested in YOUR comments Mitch as to why you thought "I" needed to see this if your paychecks depend on f ossil fuel energy?

Activists get threats often and I'm sure you never thought I'd take this email as a threat...U look like such a fun, nice guy on facebook if I have the correct Mitch Smith congrats on your new baby? Either way I'll copy my media and university contacts incase they want to promote this magnetic technology

Anyway, looks like U have a nephew in Pennsylvania that should be really concerned with their drinking water over there due to fracturing/contaminated water issues.

Please verify your intent of this email...I wish I was someone special that could take this technology and get people to invest in it if it is real...alas I cannot make my own internet company take off (spending all my time fighting gas wells) and am embarrassed that m y foam product is made with "petroleum products", however, I do have a "gov Perry promoted" business moving into Texas from Canada that has a green foam business that I'm working with.

Have a great Labor Day...see what I'm laboring over ...fighting gas wells. But I'm digging in for the long haul if the Cowboy Stadium/Truman gas site gets approved in my low income neighborhood. I can ramp up my "anti urban and drill right rural" communi cation to our city council/media and other interested or not so interested contacts as an Arlington resident or as an outta town resident. It is becoming clearer now that they are extracting natural gas in urban areas cause they need WATER to FRAC and it isexpensive to haul water in to rural areas to frac. So it looks like they R here 

# in urban areas to

save money getting water and now they R saving money by not trucking 

# out the water to
injection sites and just evaporating the waste water and incineratin g (without scrubbers/filters) at the local compression sites into our air shed. So the urban areas get a double fruc.

I really enjoyed visiting with all the TCU tailgaters Saturday on the sidewalk of the Cowboy Stadium with my mannequin named "Ben Zene" dressed as a cowboy sporting a respirator and holding a "Just Say No to URBAN Gas Drilling" sign. We are gearing up to make alot more stadium appearances for practice for the superbowl and all it's pre

- parties in Dallas and Ft Worth. In fact gasman "Ben Zene" will be making an appearance in Dallas with their activist group next Saturday!

Kim PS I'm on SKPE if you want to set up a conference call time. I like to see eye to eye with folks on things literally.

----- Original Message

----- From: bigdad2email

- gizmo@yahoo.com

To: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 1:14 PM Subject: Alternative Free Energy production



### You must watch this set of v ideos please! And reply with your feedback. This stuff can totally change the paradigm of energy production.. This confirms the monopoly that the oil industry has on the media for decades.

Plus there are dozens if not hundreds of devices that run on virtually little or no stored energy. Free energy is available "out of thin air". It can be harnessed by manipulating of magnetic fields.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWOxnXKB8VQ

Thanks.. Mitch Smith

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/10/2010 02:24 PM To "Becky Marcum" <becky.marcum@tx.rr.com>

cc "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell"

< AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.s tate.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <AT AYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <lizbrannan@tx.rr.com>, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY @tceq.state.tx.us> Subj

ect Re: Truman/Cowboy Stadium Open House/recent developments

Me and another lady have smelled rotten egg (sulfer) smell and diseal from the trucks at the drilling sites, but not gas. This needs to be reported

every time it happens or we could end up like San Fransicso. Can I forward this on to my city council and others people that need to know that this is happening in Denton County?

I will also take the liberty to copy my TCEQ/RRC AND EPA folks as a general FYI , but I left a message for Kijun who is on Barnett Shale duty today, you will need to follow up with a phone call at 888 777 3186 and as for the Barnett Shale duty person. I gave Kijun your email address since I do not have your phone

number.

Thanks



### S incerely,

Kim Feil

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Original Message

----- From: Becky Marcum

To: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 1:00 PM

### Subject: Re: Truman/Cowboy Stadium Open House/recent developments

Kim

I live at 145 Whistling Duck in Double Oak and had an interesting experience yesterday. My daughter & I were sitting out at the pool and all of a sudden huge gas fumes washed over us. I freaked out and looked to see if something was getting ready to explode. We just sat there and it went away and then came back just as strong a second time. As I've mentioned before, I smoke and I honestly think that if I would have flicked the old bick we might have gone up in flames. This is not the only time I've had this happen. About a month ago I was watering my neighbors flowers for him and gas fumes hit me so hard that I turned off the water and went back into my own yard. There was also another time that my other daughter and I smelled it in our kitchen. I know there are several wel ls around here and am quite sure someone was releasing gas or something.

Anyway, just was wandering if you've heard of this before. I've already told (warned) my husband that I

do not want to live in this area and want to check out of here when the ho using market gets better.

We come from the clean air of Portland and you'd better believe they will not allow any half ass unsafe drilling there. I am not anti

- drilling but I sure think Texas is allowing alot of quick & dirty practices.

Becky Marcum gassanfrancisco.jpg

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/15/2010 11:37 PM To "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quin n@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>,

<MA BAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <lizbrannan@tx.rr.com>, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us>

cc

Subj

ect sunset review



### Dear TCEQ

I thought I'd present all my "to do follow up" on one email, you guys/gals can divey this up but I expect a response on all these issues, thanks.

### You do not test for formaldehyde...please start because the BSEEC Titan air study uncovered

126 ppb at the Quicksilver compressor station near Lake Arlington...I've filed a complaint on that

and have received no follow up . I even spoke directly with Mr.Wal ker in person earlier on this and he was going to find out if the suma canisters can test for formaldehyde, but he never got

back with me . I understand those expensive air monitoring systems don't test for it either.

I contacted TCEQ about how the Ft Wo rth/Arc park compressor station thinks they are cleverly using the waste heat from the compressors to quickly and efficiently evaporate produced water, but they are just emitting toxins into our air. They are piping in from 35 pad sites 50,400 gallons

of t oxic water from natural gas drilling D A I L Y. They evaporate without air stripper/scrubbers/filters...then they incinerate the left overs as fuel for the compressors. I asked for help from the EPA, but they never go back with me so I'm asking you now for help, I have copied TCEQ on this many times before though.

In July, Kigune Hong of TCEQ 817 588

- 5800 went to UTA/Arlington drilling site using a flame ionization detector and should have come with a suma canister...I requested him to return and

never had follow up .....we need the suma canister to learn what our long term exposure levels are...I've been three years downwind from these (now) 26 wells!!! Here are your videos

--- w h a t

i s i n t h o s e e m i s s i o n s ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p

- G36wAONc http://blog.uta.edu/sustainability/category/natural

- gas

- wells/

I have asked TCEQ to do heavy metals testi ng on Johnson Creek where there was a spill at UTA that happened almost four months ago. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJ_zDvU9tU still no follow up

- again

.

Also in Arlington, the Rice LOH Carizzo pad site that has recently applied to the Railroad Commission for a spacing exemption permit to add 8 more wells behind a daycare center. I made a youtube video of that site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TkLGN9n__U entitled ―Another Gas Drill Site by Daycare in Arlington TX‖. As it is UTA has gas wells within 300ft

of the YWCA child care center. WHY DOES THE STATE ALLOW THIS INDUSTRY BY

DAYCARE CENTERS? DON 'T TRUST OUR LOCAL GOV TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT

- STATE

STEP IN.

H E L L O anybody out there at TCEQ? When it comes to gas drilling issues....ya'll aren't getting the job of protecting citizens done,

SUNSET REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

409 N Elm St Arlington TX 76011

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/24/2010 09:41 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp102.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect update as to why natural gas is the bridge to hell

Below is the Arlington TX City Council meeting agenda for gas drilling.

The next meeting will be this Tues 9/28 at 6:30 pm please come to speak or sign a card in opposition to every well in this town

- what's left of it.

Be sure to stick to the details of why you would object to a proposed drilling site, is it by a daycare, hospital or school?

They do not want to hear about a property de valued 75% in Denton County near a drilling site. http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_DrillValues_0918.1046e9a 00.ht

ml

Nor do they want to hear about those neighbors of that home who had to evacuate their home in testing
positive for drilling VOC's. 

### http://bit.ly/bHhlly

It is fruitless to site the Cornell University study by Professor Howorth. His preliminary findings debunk the so called "clean burning bridge fuel" because it does not include hydrofracturing emissions, methane leakage at every stage of natural gas produc tion, plus transportation. Once all this is factored in, natural gas equals or probably exceeds the emissions of COAL! 

### http://w ww.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20emissions%20from%20Marcellus%20Shale%20

-- %20April%201,%202010%20draft.pdf The half truth's of clean burning natural gas is exposed

- finally....but they don't want to hear that.

They also don't want to hear about the "swee t spot being a short shale play" cause word on the street is that after one year those checks decrease with the gas production by 75%. They are representing the landowners (not their children) who want to earn royalty checks.

Our leaders were not elected t o lead the people. They were not elected to think about the general public's longterm goals of good health, a livable environment, and their property values. They also don't want to be reminded that they should also be representing renters in this town bec ause renters have no voice.

PS please don't remind them that Arlington's current gas well ordinance is inadequate and that they should wait till the new one is in place. Speaking of "waiting", don't remind them that air and water studies are just getting u nderway cause they have to appease the drilling companies who are on a schedule to break ground before those darn contracts expire. PSS Don't remind them that the evidence of high formaldehyde at the Lake Arlington compressor site and videos of a UTA spill and smokestacks have not been addressed or followed up on...they just move forward and never look back. So much for proof of public detriment detracting them from their rush to get all this in place before big government can mess things up with regulatio ns. http://www.bseec.org/sites/default/files/BSEEC_Final_Report.pdf High formaldehyde at Quicksilver compressor station page

164 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p

- G36wAONc UTA vapors http://blog.uta.edu/sustainability/category/natural

- gas

- wells/ UTA two more vapor vids http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiJ_zDvU9tU UTA spillOne more thang..please stick to Arlington issues as the vaporization of produced water (without

filters/scrubbers) at the Brentwood Chesapeake c ompressor station in Ft Worth does not affect our airshed...right. http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secre tary/City_Council/Official_Documents/2010_Ordina

nces/19234

- 07

- 2010.pdf Worth noting is that Ft Worth's Environmental employee, Brian Boerner, now works for Chesapeake.

Sincerely Kim Feil and Ben Zene

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e

- 4R4cfaspw Kim dedicates song to....."Can’t U See It’s Acid Raining"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0haB0s7ofqU&feature=related WFAA Cowboy Stadiu m

– Kim interviewed on

renters unaware http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHw2SLx3kTY&feature=related City Council Rap 5/18/2010

- went viral

---------------------------------------------- ----------------------------

X. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ORDINANCES FIRST READING AND RESOLUTIONS

Speaker Regulations: Anyone wishing to speak for or against a Public Hearing must fill out a card

at the entrance to the Council Chamber.

A. Public Hearing

– Ordina nces First Reading

1. Zoning Case SUP07

- 9R1 (Carrizo Rolling Hills Drill Site

- 401 East Lamar

Boulevard)

Following the public hearing, consider a request for approval of a revision to a

Specific Use Permit (SUP) for gas drilling on a 3.314

- acre tract of land zoned ―R‖

(Single family residential with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet) and

generally located north of East Lamar Boulevard and east of North Cooper

Street.

ORDINANCE FIRST READING

First reading of an ordinance rev ising the zoning classification on certain property

known as 401 East Lamar Boulevard by the approval of specific use permit

SUP07

- 9R1 for gas drilling and amending the Zoning District Map accordingly.

2. Zoning Case SUP09

- 7R1 (Bruder Drill Site

- 3701 Wes t Interstate 20Highway and 4221 Park Springs Boulevard)

Following the public hearing, consider a request for approval of a revision to a

Specific Use Permit (SUP) for Gas Drilling on a 3.488

- acre tract of land, and the

expansion of the SUP to include an a dditional .877

- acre tract of land both of

which are zoned ―CS‖ (Community Service) and generally located north of West

Interstate 20 Highway and east of Park Springs Boulevard.

ORDINANCE FIRST READING

First reading of an ordinance revising the zoning class ification on certain property

known as 3701 West Interstate 20 Highway and 4221 Park Springs Boulevard by

the approval of expanded and revised specific use permit SUP09

- 7R1 for gas

drilling ; amending the Zoning District Map accordingly.

Created 9/23/2010 4 :40:23 PM Page 9 of 10

B. Public Hearing

– Ordinances First and Final Emergency Reading

C. Public Hearing

– Resolutions

2. Public Hearing on Gas Well Permits GW10

- 33 and GW10

- 34 (Legacy Fifth

Generation 1H and Legacy Sixth Generation 1H)

Following the public hearing, consider Gas Well Permits GW10

- 33 and GW10

-

34. An application for two Gas Well Permits on a 3.66

- acre tract of land generally

located west of North Cooper Street and south of Northwest Green Oaks

Boulevard.

RESOLUTION

A resolution authoriz ing the issuance of two gas well permits pursuant to the

―Gas Drilling and Production‖ Chapter of the Code of the City of Arlington.

3. Public Hearing on Gas Well Permit GW10

- 40 (Randol Mill Unit 1H Gas Well

-

2798 Northwest Green Oaks Boulevard)

Following the public hearing, consider Gas Well Permit GW10

- 40. An application

for one Gas Well Permit on a 2.53

- acre tract of land generally located north of

West Randol Mill Road and east of Northwest Green Oaks Boulevard.RESOLUTION

A resolution authorizing the issuance of one gas well permit pursuant to ―Gas

Drilling and Production‖ Chapter of the Code of the City of Arlington.

Created 9/23/2010 4:40:23 PM Page 10 of 10

4. Public Hearing on Gas Well Permit GW10

- 43 (Royal Arch 1HM Gas Well

-

1301 and 1499 West Di vision Street)

Following the public hearing, consider Gas Well Permit GW10

- 43. An application

for one Gas Well Permit on a 7.412

- acre tract of land generally located north of

West Division Street and east of North Davis Drive.

RESOLUTION

A resolution autho rizing the issuance of one gas well permit pursuant to ―Gas

Drilling and Production‖ Chapter of the Code of the City of Arlington.

5. Public Hearing on Gas Well Permits GW10

- 54 through GW10

- 56 (Rolling

Hills 4H, 5H, and 6H

- 401 East Lamar Boulevard)

Following the public hearing, consider Gas Well Permits GW10

- 54 through

GW10

- 56. An application for three Gas Well Permits on a 4.614

- acre tract of land

generally located north of East Lamar Boulevard and east of North Cooper

Street.

RESOLUTION

A resolution authorizing the issuance of three gas well permits pursuant to ―Gas

Drilling and Production‖ Chapter of the Code of the City of Arlington.

6. Public Hearing on Gas Well Permits GW10

- 57 through GW10

- 60 (I

- 20 JV 3H,

4H, 5H, and Colby 6H Gas Wells

- 2300 East Bardin Road)

Following the public hearing, consider Gas Well Permit GW10

- 57, GW10

- 58,

GW10

- 59, and GW10

- 60. An application for four Gas Well Permits on a 4.271

-

acre tract of land generally located south of East Bardin Road and west of South

Wa tson Road.

RESOLUTIONA resolution authorizing the issuance of four gas well permits pursuant

-------------------------------------------------------------------

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

09/27/2010 05:09 PM To "Sandee Clark" < SClark@tceq.state.tx.us>

cc "Darren Groth" <Darren.Groth@arlingtontx.gov>

Subj

ect two fire trucks were at my house last night

Sandy, we have been going back and forth about this sweet smell in addition to the local paint fumes from

the auto paint shops in my neighborhood

- zip 76011. I left you and Darren phonemails today and wanted to follow up with you on this. I called 911 when the odor was at its strongest in the late evening after 9:30 pm. I started smelling it when I got back home from church after noon. I had to shut my windows it was so strong. They came out with two trucks and they asked my neighbors if they were doing their laundry and found a neighbor who had been doing their laundry.

In recognizing this distinct odor....I ratione d just now that I somehtimes smell this odor during the day when no one is home doing laundry next door. Now if I have a slew of neighbors using the same fabric

softener toss

- ins, that is a coincidence.

Since we have gas gathering activities in our good c ity, I want a detector/suma canister/something that I can use the next time I smell this sweet smell. I am not sure that what the fire department uses to detect gas leaks is sensitive enough to catch BTEX aromatic hydrocarbons? These can come from condens ate tanks (which I understand we do not have in Arlington? what about UTA?)

We have 41 glycol dehydrators in our Barnett Shale inventory, but exactly where are those, are they near me? When the TCEQ made public the phase one Barnett Shale emission equipm ent inventory list, I emailed them requesting a breakdown of what equipment is in my area and never heard back.

So I need a few things...

1) a suma canister

2) is the equipment the fire dept uses a detector of BTEX hydrocarbons?

3) Can I get a detailed list of Arlington's equipment inventory list?

Sandy I know I'm asking for alot, but this thing with the sweet smell is not getting resolved anytime soon and because I could smell it so strong last night, I feel it was at or above 5ppm and that could cause permanent damage to me and my family if what I'm smelling is BTEX chemicals.Thanks

Kim

817 274

- 7257

http://www.earthworksaction.org/contaminantpathways.cfm

Glycol Dehydrator emissi ons If the gas wells use glycol dehydrators to remove water from the gas, you may be smelling some aromatic organic chemicals. Regeneration of the glycol solutions used for dehydrating natural gas can release significant quantities of benzene, toluene, et hylbenzene, and xylene, as well as a wide range of less toxic organics. As mentioned above, BTEX have a sweet chemical odor.

Condensate fumes Some natural gas wells produce a semi

- liquid condensate along with the gas. Condensates are hydrocarbons that are in a gaseous state within the reservoir (prior to production), but become liquid during the production process. Condensates are composed of hydrocarbons (typically those containing five or more carbon molecules), as well as aromatic hydrocarbons such as b enzene, toluene, xylenes and ethylbenzene (BTEX).

Condensates may give off a characteristic hydrocarbon or petroleum

- type smell. BTEX give off a sweet, aromatic odor. Most people can smell benzene when it reaches levels of approximately 1.5

- 5 parts of benzene per million parts of air (ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set maximum exposure levels for workers at 1 ppm (over an 8

- hour period) and 5 ppm (over a 15

- minute period). At levels above 150 ppm some people may beg in to experience serious and irreversible health

effects.

The vapors of benzene, toluene and xylenes are heavier than air and may accumulate in low

- lying areas.

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/03/2010 10:29 PM To < "Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp108.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect UTA student notices change in air quality

Gee do ya think it is because there are 22 wells on campus?Nothin $5 million can't cure



### ----- Original Message

----- From: YouTube Service

To: kimfeilgood

Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:21 PM Subject: battlechens sent you a message: great speech at the city council

http://www.yo
utube.com/ 

### help center | e

- mail options | Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

battlechens has sent you a message: great speech at the city council

Hi Kim, My name is Nicki, I am a senior UTA student. I really appreciate how you spoke up for everyone at the city council.

Lately, I've been noticed some changes to the air quality around UTA campus, so I thought to contact city council to address my concerns. Guess what? Mr. Leblanc debunked my views and inferred as if I were bluffing my way through!

I'm trying to get professors and student organizations to conduct air quality and water testings.

At the meantime, please let me know if you have any more soli d testings that can prove adverse effects of the gas wells.

If you need anything, please let me know. I'm so glad to know there are still activists like you to push for environmental awareness in Arlington.

You can reply to this message by visiting your inbox

. © 2010 YouTube, LLC 901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 0 8/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/05/2010 04:48 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

cc "Ed Ireland" <eireland@bseec.org>

Subj

ect For the record

- Sunset Review

Dear Sunset Review Board,

I would like to go and learn more ( 

### TCEQ TO SHOW RESIDENTS HOW AIR IN BARNETT SHALE IS MONITORED,

### o

pen House Scheduled for Oct. 16 in Arlington), but I would also like to ask really good questions that poke holes in their processes or equipment b ecause people do not end up with drilling toxins in their bodies that match what

the TCEQ finds that are suppose to be within safe limits. If it is within safe limits, it should not be traceable in human bodies and making people sick.

Doctors order family to evacuate because tested positive for drilling VOC's. 

### http://bit.ly/bHhlly

http://fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2906:breathers

beware&catid=76:metropolis&Itemid=377 Sandra's story

The TCEQ dragged their feet so much on this that Sandy is now outside of the two year Statue of

Limitations to sue Carizzo.

http://www.thecanaryreport.org/2010/03/10/gas

- well/ Resident near UTA tests positive for VOC’s.. 

### Here

are the chemicals in Sandra's blood: Ethylbenzene

m,p

- Xylene

Hexane

2

- Me thylpentane

3

- Methylpentane

While I appreciate how TCEQ wants to show the public how they test the air, they need to be able to explain why these people are testing positive, and why Sandra has been waiting (since June) for TCEQ to notify Carizzo (UTArl ington drillsite for 22 wells) that they may have violated an air quality rule because of a doctor signing off on a document that points to the drilling activities within 600 ft of Sandy's home.

A response from Carizzo as to how they will correct the si tuation is far past due . I have been living downwind from this site within a mile for three years now.

I have been asking TCEQ and the BSEEC what is in those vapors on the infraed videos

- no

response.

Kim Feil

ps http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/science/earth/05fossil.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th If the military can order our troops off fossil fuels and do it there (overseas), we can do it h ere! Every well we approve puts us further behind other countries in getting off of fossil fuels.

----- Original Message

----- From: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

To: kimfeil@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:01 PM Subject: TCEQ News Release

-- Barnett Shale Open House Scheduled for Oct. 16

You are subscribed to News Releases for Texas Commission on Environmental Q uality. This information has recently been updated, and is now available . Or, see text below.

### FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUESDAY, OCT. 5, 2010

CONTACT: TERRY CLAW SON

PHONE: 512/239

- 0046 CELL: 512/657

- 0738

TCEQ TO SHOW RESIDENTS HOW AIR IN BARNETT SHALE IS MONITORED

Open House Scheduled for Oct. 16 in Arlington

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will host an open ho use in North Central

Texas in October so residents can see first

- hand the type of scientific instruments being used to monitor air quality in and around the Barnett Shale region, as well as see a tutorial on the new interactive map that allows people to se e what sampling results have been collected near where they live and work. TCEQ will join representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Railroad Commission of Texas and the Department of State Health Services to help

residents learn more about efforts underway to study the effects of oil and gas operations in the region.

The open house will be held on Saturday, Oct. 16, 2010, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the offices

of the North Central Texas Council of Governments located at 616 Six Flags Drive, Arlington, Texas, 76005

- 5888

.

―We hope residents will take advantage of this opportunity to visit with our highly skilled staff of scientists and engineers, who work every day to monitor, protect and improve air quality in

North Central Te xas,‖ said Mark Vickery, TCEQ executive director. ―We have an impressive array of state

- of

- the

- art scientific instruments mobilized in the region so that we can monitor air quality in the Barnett Shale around the clock.‖

Sen. Wendy Davis is the co

- sponsor of the event, and said, ―This open house will help empower the public by allowing them to access data on air testing occurring near North Texans’ homes, schools and workplaces. It will provide the opportunity for our state agencies to show what they are doing to ensure the health and safety of families living in the midst of gas drilling in the

Barnett Shale.‖

The workshop was requested by local legislators, and is being coordinated with them.

The Barnett Shale geological formation is in a 23

- county area that lies to the west, northwest and
southwest of the DFW area. Portions of the shale lie under urban and suburban areas, which means that some of the natural gas operations and facilities are close to homes and structures.

Resource s on display at the open house will include:

- A demonstration of the agency’s new interactive air sampling map, which allows a person to see where the agency has conducted sampling and see what the laboratory results and health

effects evaluations are for a given sample.

### - A GasFind Infrared camera, an innovative technology that can remotely detect and visualize

ozone precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from stationary sources. The camera ―sees‖ emissions invisible to the naked eye

.

- A mobile monitoring van equipped to sample for a variety of different air pollutants.

- Several hand

- held samplers that are used as screening tools to assess the need for further sampling, including a Toxic Vapor Analyzer (for organic compounds) and a Jerome Analyzer (for sulfur compounds).

- A canister sampler, used to collect air samples that are analyzed to a high degree of precision at the agency's laboratory.

Staff will also be available to discuss many different topics, including: air toxic s evaluations, air permitting rulemaking, emissions inventory actions, surface casing requirements, drinking water requirements, and local government/small business assistance.

The open house is free and open to the public. For more information abo ut agency efforts in the Barnett Shale go to http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/barnettshale/bshale

- main

.

All TCEQ news releases are available at www.tceq.state.tx.us/

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e

- mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your
Sub scriber Preferences Page . You will need to use your e

- mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com

.

This service is provided to you at no charge by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.

How is our customer service? Fill out our online customer satisfaction survey at www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey

.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality · 12100 Park 35 Circle · Austin TX 78753 · 512

- 239

- 1000

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 0 8/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/08/2010 12:02 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp105.sbc.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect one ounce of diesel to ten gallons of gasoline makes vechicles burn CLEANER by 51%

OMG look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkJxf7hScw0 !!!! He has a provisional patent. All U do is add one ounce of diesel fuel to ten gallons of gasoline and it .....well watch the short video for your

self!!!

No more stinky cars and a peppier vechicle!

This is something we can start doing right now!Sincerely,

Kim Feil

* active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Original Message

----- From: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

To: kimfeil@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:47 AM Subject: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update

TCEQ ANNOUNCES NEW TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (NTRD) GRANTS PROGRAM

ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is pleased to announce that it is now accepting applications for a grant from the New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) Grants Program

.

A Request for Grant Applications (RFGA) and application forms are available from the TERP Web site at : www.terpgrants.org The application deadline for this round of funding is November 22, 2010, at 5 PM

.

This special program differs from the regular TERP grants in that the grants are made to developers of emissi on reduction technologies rather than the users of such technologies. Funding may be used for research, development, testing, demonstration, and certification or verification of emission reduction technologies. Eligible projects may target a variety of e mission sources and equipment, including mobile and stationary sources.

Thank you for your continued interest in the TERP program. Please feel free to contact us toll

- free at 800

- 919

- TERP (8377) or by email at terp@tceq.state.tx.us with any questions. If you have questions about the NTRD program you may also contact us by email at ntrd@tceq.state.tx.us.

************************ www.terpgrants.org ****************************

If you have any questions related to this email, please contact us toll

- free at 1

- 800

- 919

- TERP (8377) or by email at: terp@tceq.state.tx.us

. Ho w is our customer service? www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e

- mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . You will need to use your e

- mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com

.

This service is provided to you at no charge by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.

How is our customer service? Fill out our online cus tomer satisfaction survey at www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey

.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality · 12100 Park 35 Circle · Austin TX 7 8753 ·

512

- 239

- 1000

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/09/2010 12:29 PM To "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quin n@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>,

<MA BAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>, eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <lizbrannan@tx.rr.com>, fracturing hydraulic@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, <sunset@sunset.state.tx. us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us>, Jill Dean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Kijun Hong" <KHong@tceq.state.tx.us>, Dale Selgrath/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, John Blevins/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <mmorris@nctcog.org>, <bames@ci.beaumont.tx.us>, "Marc Shepherd" <Marc.Shepherd@tx dot.gov>, "Lynette Phillips" <Lynette.Phillips@txdot.gov>, "Randy Redmond" <Randy.Redmond@txdot.gov>, "Sandra Parker" <Sandra.Parker@txdot.gov>, <Darla.Laughter@txdot.gov>, "Rhonda Moorman" <Rhonda.Moorman@txdot.gov>, "Amy Loos" <Amy.Loos@txdot.gov>, <Kim. Greener@txdot.gov>, "Danny Massie" <Danny.Massie@txdot.gov>, "Marcus Sandifer" <Marcus.Sandifer@txdot.gov>, "Elaine Parks" <Elaine.Parks@txdot.gov>

cc <robert.cluck@arlingtontx.gov>

Subj

ect Whose job is it?/FOX interested in story/ one ounce of diesel

to ten gallons of gasoline makes vechicles burn CLEANER by

51%

Dear RRC, TCEQ, EPA, NCTCOG, & TxDOT

While I am committed to preventing the destruction of my neighborhood with gas drilling extraction, I responded to a TCEQ broadcast of grant funding and discovered a gasoline formula that could cut hydrocarbon emissions in half.

While company rules dictate that your employees not visit social sites such as youtube and facebook, this is the very media your employees should be interacting with to do their jobs. This brings me to my next question..."Whose job is it in each entity (RRC, TCEQ, EPA, NCTCOG, & TxDOT) to actively search patent records, invention blogspots, and all the search engine capable media out there for BACT?"

I'm not getting paid for this....my interest is that I don't want to have to move away from gas drilling

activities.

Please tell me that each entity has such a job position of a research analyst for Best Available Control Technologies.I need one person from each ent ity to respond.

Thank you

Kim Feil

----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

To: Brandon Todd ; Melanie Sattler

S ent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:09 AM Subject: FOX interested in story/ one ounce of diesel to ten gallons of gasoline makes vechicles burn CLEANER by

51%

Mr. Todd I am excited that FOX may be interested in this story.

I have requested Dr Sattler fro m UTArlington to inquire if the university could take on this study.

Since I just stumbled upon this myself yesterday when responding to the TCEQ alert for grant funding for Best Available Control Technologies, I do not have any personal knowledge of lo cal people using this

formula.

I do know the timing of the press release on this recipe was trumped by the BP oil spill last June.

If I can't get a moratorium on gas drilling, Mr. Mullinix's recipe could be useful in offsetting gas drilling's

strain on our already severe status air quality. Last Friday I attended the monthly NCTCOG Air Quality Steering Committee meeting and was disappointed that Mayor Cluck did not show. I learned that gas drilling was projected to contribute 24% of the emissions by 2012. That figure does not include truck traffic associated with the gas extraction process.

Here are the other articles I researched on the subject of this new gasoline formula.

-------------------------- http://www.dailyregister.com/features/x383298572/Ledford

- man

- claims

- unique

- fuel

- mixture

- reduces

auto

- emissions

John Mullinix of Ledfo rd has acquired a provisional patent on a fuel mixture he says will dramatically reduce the amount of noxious emissions from automotive engines.

The mixture is simple: One ounce of diesel fuel per 10 gallons of gasoline.

Mullinix has reports from John A. Logan College and Southern Illinois University on vehicles tested using his formula that indicate significant declines in hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide.

The study at SIU involved a Ford F

- 150 pickup truck.

Hydrocarbon emissions

-- unbu rned fuel in the form of carbon soot responsible for smog

-- after flowing through a catalytic converter tested at 21.700 parts per million with gasoline. That same gasoline with the 1 oz. of diesel added tested at 10.005 parts per million

-- a 51 percent hydrocarbon emission reduction.

"There is a more complete burn of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and hydrocarbons with a catalytic converter,"

Mullinix said.

Mullinix has been using the mixture in his own vehicles for nearly two years, having stumbled up on it in trying to make a vehicle operate on hydrogen, a method he abandoned because he decided the risk of explosion was too great. Mullinix is trained in fueling systems have worked in pyrotechnics and rocket propellants for Universal Match Corporation a nd for McDonnell Aircraft Corporation working with the Apollo Space Program.

He says the driver using his fuel mixture will notice there is more pep during acceleration, a slight gain in gas mileage and less need for cleaning the exhaust system.

"This is a cleaning method for the entire exhaust system," Mullinix said.Mullinix's provisional patent explains the process this way: The gasoline has oxygen atoms in the molecules within

diesel fuel lending to better ignition for the combustion with the gasolin e engine. This gasoline combustion with the exhaust carbon soot traces into the catalytic converter causing high temperature flashes that burn the oxides continuously along with the upstream flow of oxygen through the tailpipe from the outside atmosphere d epending on the fire's demand within the catalytic converter.

Mullinix hopes oil companies take note of his findings and produce cleaner

- burning gasoline using his method, but is not optimistic.

-------------- http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental

- discussion/81758

- little

- diesel

- in

- gas

- reduces

- emissions

- 51

- a.html While the concern for diesel to harm the catalytic converter, one blogg er says that the hydro carbons are mostly burned by the time they get to the converter anyway. blog...'Mullinix's provisional patent explains the process this way: The gasoline has oxygen atoms in the molecules within diesel fuel lending to better ignition for the combustion with the gasoline engine. This gasoline combustion with the exhaust carbon soot traces into the catalytic converter causing high temperature flashes that burn the oxides continuously along with the upstream flow of oxygen through the

ta ilpipe from the outside atmosphere depending on the fire's demand within the catalytic converter."

-----------------------------------------------

http://yarchive.net/car/diesel_mix_expl.html

Su bject: Re: Cetane rating in Diesel Fuel Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:58:14

- 0500

"It is dangerous to mix gasoline into diesel, kerosene, fuel oils etc because the vapour space above the liquid fuel in the tank becomes explosive at normal ambient temperature. Nor mally, the vapour space in a diesel tank is mostly air, and the mixture is too lean (not enough fuel) to burn. Gasoline is the other way around. It is very volatile, and the vapour space is mostly fuel vapour and is too rich to burn or explode. These are the only two conditions under which it is safe to handle either fuels. If you mix gasoline and diesel fuels together, the vapour space becomes explosive, and any ignition source such as static, wiring etc. could cause the tank to explode.

gasoline, na phtha, solvents etc should never be mixed with diesel fuels, fuel oils, kerosene etc. "

---------------------------------------------------- Brandon and Melanie, I emailed the above author, Mr Falkiner, to have him comment on the safety of

John Mullinix' s recipe in having a mixture of .078125% diesel to gasoline and hope he responds and will forward the info to ya'll.

So if it doesn't blow us up, or harm our engines, and a UTA second opinion proves to cut hydrocarbons in half in gasoline powered vehicle s....this is promising.

The obstacle will be the convenience factor of handling diesel ounces at a time without vapor recovery protection at the pump.

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

817 274

- 7257----- Original Message

-----

From: Brandon Todd

To: Kim & Ken Feil
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:16 PM Subject: RE: one ounce of diesel to ten gallons of gasoline makes vechicles burn CLEANER by 51%

K im,

Do you know of anyone here in DFW who is using this formula for mixing their gasoline? I'd love to do a story on this and talk to someone who's doing it, and who can attest to whether it works.

Thanks,

Brandon Todd

From: Kim & Ken Feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 10:57 AM Subject: one ounce of diesel to ten gallons of gasoline makes vechicles burn CLEANER by 51% Importance: High

Media...if U don't run with this story.................oh please do the right thing.

OMG look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkJxf7hScw0 !!!! He has a provisional patent. All U do is add one ounce of diesel fuel to ten gallons of gasoline and it ..... well watch the short video for your

self!!!

No more stinky cars and a peppier vechicle!

This is something we can start doing right now!

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

* active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Original Message

----- From: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

To: kimfeil@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 9:47 AM Subject: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update

TCEQ ANNOUNCES NEW TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (NTRD) GRANTS PROGRAM

ACCEPTING APPLICATION S

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is pleased to announce that it is now accepting applications for a grant from the New Technology Research and Development (NTRD) Grants Program

.

A Request for Grant Applications (RFGA) and application form s are available from the TERP Web site at: www.terpgrants.org The application deadline for this round of funding is November 22, 2010, at 5 PM

.This special program differs from the regular TERP grants in that th e grants are made to developers of emission

reduction technologies rather than the users of such technologies. Funding may be used for research, development, testing, demonstration, and certification or verification of emission reduction technologies. El igible projects may target a variety of emission sources and equipment, including mobile and stationary sources.

Thank you for your continued interest in the TERP program. Please feel free to contact us toll

- free at 800

- 919

- TERP (8377) or by email at terp@tceq.state.tx.us with any questions. If you have questions about the NTRD program you may also contact us by email at ntrd@tceq.state.tx.us.

************* *********** www.terpgrants.org ****************************

If you have any questions related to this email, please contact us toll

- free at 1

- 800

- 919

- TERP (8377) or by email at: terp@tceq.state.tx.us

. How is our customer service? www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey

Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e

- mail address, or stop subscri ptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . You will need to use your e

- mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please contact support@govdelivery.com

.

This service is provided to you at no charge by Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

.

How is our customer service? Fill out our online customer satisfaction survey at www.tceq.state.tx.us/goto/customersurvey

.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality · 12100 Park 35 Circle · Austin TX 78753

· 512

- 239

- 1000

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/12/2010 03:00 PM To "Linda" <yarb2007@yahoo.com>

cc "Anne Inman" <ainman@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Annette Maxwell" <AMaxwell@tceq.state.tx.us>, CCG

- ONG@EPA, David Bary/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, David Gray/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeannine Hale/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, Edward Hanlon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, <hq

publicaffairs@usace.army.mil>, <info@northtexasair.org>, "Michael Honeycutt" <MHoneycu@tceq.state.tx.us>, <michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us>, Nick Parsons/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Sid Slocum" <SSLOCUM@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Walker, Tony" <TWALKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, <bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Shannon Ethridge" <SEthridg@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Alyssa Taylor" <ATAYLOR@tceq.state.tx.us>, <MABAKER@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Danielle Nesvacil" <dnesvaci@tceq.state.tx.us>, <kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us>,

eyeso ndrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, <lizbrannan@tx.rr.com>, fracturing hydraulic@EPA, <jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, <sunset@sunset.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" <WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.us>, Jill Dean/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Kijun Hong" <KHong@tceq.state.tx .us>, Dale Selgrath/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, John
Blevins/R6/USEPA/US@EPA Subj

ect RRC undermined by Chesapeake

He needs alot and that is why he did this. He owes so much money it is funny. My hope in this is that when the general public don't see royalties on that deal (just China and Chesapeake benefitting), maybe they will say..."hey that's our gas

- just cause they own the land doesn't mean they can take our natural resources"...in fact the RRC has a commission to safeguard the states natural resources

- Chesapeake is undermining that goal.

Sincerely,

Kim Feil



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Linda

To: texas.ogap@earthworksaction.org ; donyoungglass@earthlink.net ; Becky Belcher

- Flower

Mound ; kimfeil@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 201 0 1:22 PM Subject: China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas

### Bet you folks read this but in case not, see below.

Geez, could U.S. oil and gas get any more frightening! California said no to China but good ole Chesapeake is on the take...h ow much money does McClendon need anyway?!

Linda

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www. mysanantonio.com/business/local/China_stakes_claim_to_S_Texas_oil_gas_104753969.html

China stakes claim to S. Texas oil, gas

By Monica Hatcher

- Houston Chronicle

Web Posted: 10/12/2010 12:48 AM CDT

HOUSTON

— State

- owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is b uying a multibillion

- dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing the political waters for further expansion into U.S. energy reserves.

With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a one

- thi rd stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent.

It also might pick up some American know

- how about tapping the hard

- to

- get deposits trapped in dense shale rock formations, analysts said.

As part of the deal, the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company, CNOOC has agreed to pay about $1.1 billion for a chunk of Chesapeake’s assets in the Eagle Ford, a broad o il and gas formation that runs largely from southwest of San Antonio to the Mexican border.

CNOOC also will provide up to $1.1 billion more to cover drilling costs.

The deal represents China’s second try at making a big move into the U.S. oil and gas mar ket, following a failed bid five years ago to buy California

- based Unocal Corp.

Intense political opposition over energy security concerns derailed that $18.4 billion deal. But analysts expect few politica l or regulatory hurdles to the CNOOC

- Chesapeake de al.

―The climate is much more hospitable now,‖ said Juli MacDonald

- Wimbush, a partner with Marstel

- Day, an energy and environmental security consulting company in Fredericksburg, Va.

Amid low natural gas prices and a largely difficult drilling climate, s he said highly liquid Chinese companies will find willing partners among onshore oil and gas companies hurting for capital to drill.

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/21/2010 07:47 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp128.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect P&Z SUP for Arl south compressor station passedDear EPA/RRC/TCEQ FYI when all the calls start coming in about compressor station activity in

Arlington on the Grand Prairie line.

----------------------------------- This reminds me of when I was a teenager and my dad said "go ask your mom" and then I ran to my mom

and said " dad said to go ask you cause it's OK with him" I knew that it was wrong, but I got away with it...that is how our system works to approve hi impact industrial activity in and near residential neighborhoods in Arlington TX.

During public comment for phas e II gas drilling ordinance at yesterday's P&Z meeting, I pointed out where the proposed air quality gapping holes were in protecting our airshed from gas extraction activities. Even with that being said, P&Z chairman Vandergriff made a statement minutes later that all gas drilling voting in the evening session will not be based on air quality concerns because council is already working on steps to protect air quality though the new ordinance.

For the evening session, I spoke in opposition to SUP10

- 21 re minding P&Z that our ordinance does not have any provisions for compressor stations and their blowdown events/schedules/equipment. I posed many technical questions about compressor stations thanks to a quick call from TxSharon minutes before the meeting s tarted. I reminded P&Z that these were important questions that they didn't even know they should have been asking. Why didn't Darren Groth at least ask these questions during the work session?

Fast forward when City Council goes to vote for this SUP. I can see it now...the presenter will remind the council how P&Z unanimously voted for this and he will "forget" to remind council that air quality was not addressed in this vote. Let us not "forget " then that all of this is on public record, and that citizens WILL keep track of these details. The eventual largest class action lawsuit will be about how urban gas gathering activates endanger citizens in close proximity.

Dr Sattler of UTArlington's Civil & Environmental Engineering Dept. attended the work session and asked to speak. Since she was not allowed to speak and could not attend the night session, the vote did not include her valuable input. Dr Sattler specializes in the field of air quality as it relates to natural gas

extraction activities.

I spoke on behalf of Dr Sattler to echo an earlier request she made to council on 9/28 to enact a

moratorium until the Ft Worth air studies are available. I mentioned to P&Z that earlier in the day a r epresentative from Senator Harris' office said that everybody seems to be playing catch

- up, that the laws on our books were written for rural areas and that Carrizo was being fined for poisoning a resident living within 600ft of the UTArlington site.

I mentioned how I went to the proposed compressor station site Monday and suggested to the business owner sharing the same fence line to get a geiger radiation counter for all the used pipes at that site. As the buzzer went off I pointed to the map and said that these compressor stations sound like jet engines and to not subject that to the nearby residential neighborhood. The presenter did not take a rebuttal opportunity to address my questions or concerns and the vote carried to pass it unanimously.

http://www.ingaa.org/File.aspx?id=10219 pg 8

----- Original Message

----- From: TXsharon
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 12:00 PM Subject: Emissions VIDEO: Devon Compressor in Justin, Texas



## Emissions VIDEO: Devon Compressor in Justin, Texas

### This is an infrared video showing fugitive emissions at Dev on Energy's Barnett Shale

Compressor station in Justin, Texas on Jim Baker road. This video is brought to you by ShaleTest.org

.

Also see: Williams Production Barn ett Shale Compressor Station on Scenic Dr. in Flower
Mound, Texas

Sharon Wilson Blog http://txsharon.blogspot.com/ In North Texas on top of the Barnett Shale

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This morning, one of my radiation naysayers sent me a link complaining about folks that believe in global warming and so I responded........ http://volokh.com/2010/01/28/the

- sec

- calls

- for

- climate

- related

- disclosures/ The Securities and Exchange

Commission voted 3

– 2 to issue an interpretive guidance to publicly traded companies on when they should disclose information to investors on the potential impact of business or legal devel opments relating to the issue of climate change. According to the Washington Post , the vote was along party lines, and the Republican commissioners “vehemen tly” opposed the decision.

Feil writes...So if hydraulic fracturing in the natural gas industry is found to harm drinking water supplies, we don't have to wait to see if the world is really warming by what man does, it won't matter who is right. One per cent of our world's water supply is drinkable. If the FRAC ACT passes to protect that 1%, then those invested in the natural gas industry will loose money because currently, this questionable technology is the edge to cheaply extract these unconventional e nergy sources. If this (relatively new) horizontal/chemical laden technology is banned or "finally becomes" regulated, the investors need to know about this risk. Likewise, investors need to know the role that companies play like Bayer Scientific,

Monsan to, Dow & DuPont that endanger the pollinators of 1/3 of our world's food supply.

I am aware that one volcano can undo generations of air pollution prevention efforts, so why try so $ hard to prevent greenhouse gases? The very loving and logical reaso n is that ground level pollution contributes to smog and has quality of life consequences such as lung ailments and cancer especially in urban areas. Having clean air strategies for healthy workers will naturally address the controversial issue

of man

- mad e global warming if indeed it does exist.

The common goal for clean air, water, & sustainable/safe food supplies relies on the gatekeepers who have a balancing act of keeping companies financially healthy AND the general public physically healthy.

With out jobs and affordable energy sources we would starve and freeze. HOWEVER, the reality of the "80/20 income rule" is PROOF that the few in charge tip the balancing scale in the interest of corporations. I've seen this at work in the local city leadership levels with City Council and Planning & Zoning members approving special use permits for industrial polluters in residential areas in our already taxed airshed because the money is good. Sure the money is a blessing to the hard pressed economy, city budget s, and allows citizens who own urban mineral rights here in Texas to profit. But the unfair tip of the balancing act comes at the expense of its very own citizen's right to a peaceful neighborhood, clean air, food and water.

When greed trumps, the absence of protective environmental regulations (that would otherwise erode the profit maker's bottom line) are essentially bought and paid for by lobbyists at all levels of government. Thus polluters legally hide behind laxed or non existent regulations. We continue to march in pursuit of

non

- sustaining, dirty fossil fuels that keep us rooted in quicksand. So we are marching towards the cliff and into the abyss of human extinction because the gatekeepers have failed us; we have run am uck.

WE are harming future generations by apathetically allowing greed and NOT exposing this truth. I believe that justice will be served when these cowards arrive at the heavenly gate keepers doorstep and NOT beallowed in His mansion for those who cho ose to hide in darkness while on earth. An effective, active

Christian or other spiritual believer should be advocating environmental "strength in numbers" by firing that gate keeper who is not preserving the gift of life on earth. God places such a great value on being fruitful and multiplying for future generations

- yet he allows man's free will (greed/power over love) to dictate how this will play out.

Since hydrofracturing is occurring in 34 of the United States and is growing worldwide, this 20 minu te video teaches about the process of gas extraction that started in Colorado and also presents the health risks at each phase of gas extraction activities. The educational oil and gas sponsored videos do not cover the endocrine disrupter aspect of human e xposure to this industry. You can listen to the video while you multi task. http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.video.php

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what

- is

- benzene ....The best scientific opinion says any amount of exposure (BENZENE) is dangerous and more exposure is more dangerous. Industry thinks you can expose people to a f air bit safely and environmental scientists are worried about even low levels of exposure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU approaching 11million hits on the documentary called "Home".

Sincerely

Kim Feil

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/26/2010 02:39 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp105.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect Dallas Councilwoman, Angela Hunt welcomes Gasland Movie

to Dallas

October 26

Fort Worth, TX

Venue: Lander's Machine Shop Art Gallery

217 E. Broadway

Reception at 6:30 PM; Screening at 7:00 PMQ&A with Josh Fox and Mayor Calvin Tillman

-----------------------------------

October 27

Highland Village, Texas

Venue: Celebrations

2380 FM 407

7:00 PM

Q&A with Josh Fox and Mayor Calvin Tillman

---------------------------------

Opening October 29 (see flyer below)

Dallas, TX

Angelika Film Center

Q&A with Josh Fox

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A,
Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely

affect human he alth or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and reque st on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged



### ----- Original Message

----- From: People to Notify for Political Action

To: Action

- list@dfwairplan.org

Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:04 AM Subject: Angela Hunt Welcomes Gasland to Dallas

- the readable version

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here(Our apologies for the unreadable e

- mail sent earlier. The Tech Gremlins are out in force today.)



### COUNCIL WOMAN ANGELA HUNT TO WELCOME

JOSH FOX AND "GASLAND" TO DALLAS....



## With a possible council vote on XTO/Exxon gas wells by December?

We're proud to announce that Dallas City Councilwoman Angela Hunt, one of the city's best known environmentalists who also holds elected office, will be giving welcoming remarks for the Premiere of "Gasland" at the Dallas Angelika Theater this coming Frida y.

Hunt's appearance is particularly timely because the Dallas City Council may be voting on the western Dallas XTO/Exxon gas wells permits turned down by the Dallas Planning Commission last week as soon

as December.

The hearing leading up to that DPC vo te was the debut of Downwinders at Risk Director Jim Schermbeck arguing against specific gas well permits. He used his time to tell Commissioners that the City should slow down and study the impacts of new wells in Dallas County for a variety of reasons, i ncluding their impact on regional smog levels.

Downwinders' Safe and Legal Air Project is targeting the on

- going process to write two new "State Implementation Plans (SIPs) by 2013 to advocate regional reductions of 90% in gas operations
emissions, alo ng with similar reductions in emissions from old coal plants and the cement kilns in Midlothian. Friday's filmmaker reception specifically benefits the Safe and Legal Air Project.

Besides Councilwoman Hunt, Wise County property

- owner Tim Ruggiero , who rec ently had his family's $275,000 home reassessed to $75,000 because of drilling activity on their property, will be speaking briefly before filmmaker Josh Fox introduces his film.

After the screening, Josh will be joined in an audience Q&A by:

- DISH May or Calvin Tillman , certainly the most fearless local elected official when it comes to taking on the gas industry,

- Sharon Wilson , Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project organizer for Texas and author of the

### Barnett's Shale's most read website, "Blueda ze,"

- Cherelle Blazer , DFW organizer for the Environmental Defense Fund,

- Peter Wilson , staff organizer for the Sierra Club, and

- Raymond Crawford of Dallas Area Residents for Responsible Drilling, fresh off last week's remarkable victory over XTO/Ex xon at the Planning Commission.

Then everyone gets a chance to continue the conversation at the post

- screening reception Downwinders is hosting at the Angelika Theater cafe on the first floor.

Please remember that you must purchase tickets for the film from the Angelika Theater box office or using its website , while tickets for the reception can be purchased only from Downwinders at

our website , through board members, or at the theater that night



## .

Some Facts about Gas Drillin g in North Texas:

- Research at UT's Center for Energy and Environmental Resources indicates DFW has 15 to 30% more

smog

- producing pollution than the state can account for in it's official inventory, which is coming from

under

- regulated Barnett Shale gas operations.

- Every gas well releases toxic poisons like benzene, methane and formaldehyde into the atmosphere. Authorities insist that these emissions are "below regulatory concerns" despite testing showing otherwise and research indicating that there m ay be no safe level of exposure to many of the chemicals released.

- Every well can use from 2 to 7 million gallons of water per "frack" job. A well be be fracked numerous times. There are approximately 17,000 wells now permitted in the Barnett Shale.

- In Texas, wells have been contaminated to the point that residents can turn on the tap, light a match and watch what is supposed to be their drinking water actually burn.

Why It's Important to Attend the Dallas Screening and Reception

And now drilling is advancing eastward into Dallas. Citizens have a chance with the on

- going XTO/Exxon well permit fight to halt this march and send a message to the gas industry that it needs to do more to protect public health and the environment.

Your presence this Fr iday tells Dallas City Council members you're serious about your concerns over this issue and want them to take a pause to re

- write city ordinances to reflect all these facts.

The parallels between the state's response to health complaints from those livi ng near gas wells and it's response to Midlothian area residents' complaints about the cement kilns are long and depressing. Downwinders' mission is "reducing toxic pollution in North Texas" and gas drilling now represents a real and present toxic pollutio n threat to the entire region. Please come out and support your neighbors who are fighting back.

## PART 1. The Screening of "Gasland" 7:00 to 9:30 pm Angelika Theater

Cost $10

Tickets Here

PART 2. Reception for Josh Fox Benefiting Downwinders at Risk 9:30 to 11pm Angelika Theater Cafe

Cost $40

Includes free drink and food, face time with Josh, Dallas area elected officials, representatives from every major environmental group in Dallas,

and more special guests.

DON 'T WAIT. ONLY A LIMITED NUMBER OF

RECEPTION TICKETS ARE AVAILABLE.

https://www.paypal.com/cgibin/webscr?first_name=&last_name=&undefined_quantity=1&business=
breakfieldsandy040@gmail.com&imag e_url=&return=&cancel_return=&item_name=Tickets%20for%
20Josh%20Fox%20Reception%20Benefiting%20Downwinders%20at%20Risk&amount=40&shipping=0

¤cy_code=USD&item_number=&cmd=_xclick



### Thanks. We appreciate the support.

Your contribution for the reception g oes directly to pay for the costs of this event and fund our Safe and Legal Air Project, working to bring a regional solution to the problem of gas industry emissions with a new DFW clean air plan.

Please come join us for what is going to be an historic n ight

for Dallas area environmentalists.Forward email



### http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?llr=bqalb7cab&v=001dbhkIZY57

- CG7M9OxFHoC7DMM2WR27JKFblzr9IWrkFiQFCQaS 5zzA%3D%3D&p=un

This email was sent to becky.bornhorst@gmail.com by info@downwindersatrisk.org

. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe TM | Privacy Policy

. Email Marketing by 

### http://www.constantc
ontact.com/index.jsp?c

c=TEM_News_216

Downwinders At Risk | P.O. Box 763844 | Dallas | TX | 75376



### "In destroying wildness, we deny ourselves the full extent of what it means to be alive." Dr. Ed Wayburn

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/27/2010 02:36 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp102.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect Workers report to track illnesses/gas drilling



### From: Kim & Ken Feil

Cc: eje1@cdc.gov ; abellfield@pmaa.org ; abowers@ooga.org ; ben@loga.la ; bennis@txoga.org ; bhickman@ooga.org ; bjarvis@ipaa.org ; brussell@ipaa.org ; bsebree@txoga.org ; bwright@pmaa.org ; cece@loga.la ; conference@coga.org ; dgilligan@pmaa.org ; dhastings@txoga.org ; dnaatz@ipaa.org ; dwelker@ooga.org ; dyergin@cera.com ; Ed Ireland ; flawrence@ipaa.org ; foundation@texasalliance.org ; info@cera.com ; info@coga.org ; info@pmaa.org ; iogcc@i ogcc.state.ok.us ; jeshelman@ipaa.org ; jgear@cera.com ; jodee@loga.la ; jsierra@txoga.org ; karl@leedfab.com ; khawthorne@ooga.org ; kleis@laramie

- energy.com ; kstrauch@jwoperating.com ; lfuller@ipaa.org ; llucero@txoga.org ; mbarrett@pgei.com ; media@coga.org ; membership@coga.org ; naro@naro

- us.org ; ppercival@fwbog.com ; rullman@ipaa.org ; runde rwood@pmaa.org ; ruthr@txoga.org ; scabrera@pmaa.org ; sginsberg@ipaa.org ; sisard@pmaa.org ; stewart@ooga.org ; tlock@ooga.org

Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:58 PM Subject: Workers report to track illnesses/gas drilling

To: You CC: CDC contact and some oil and gas a ssociations

### Who out there reading this can help? Please ask the drilling companies to test those

workers who have been involved with gas extraction using this relatively new hydraulic fracturing technology. We need their involvement to include workers f rom the last ten years and report results to the CDC at this link. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010

- 130/pdfs/2010

- 130.pdf

I read about one man who died; his job was to clean fracki ng fluid off of the tanks. OSHA mandates reports of worker accidents, but it is voluntary at this time for workers to participate in this CDC project. I also read a nurse almost died from treating a worker exposed to the secret receipe of chemicals used i n fracing fluid. I personally know of three people in Arlington TX having nosebleeds that live in close proximity to drilling.

This information is critical to track cancers, respiratory illnesses/birth defects for/from

these workers so we can relate tha t risk to the general public being made to co

- exist with gas gathering activities. We are getting doses of "non

- worker related exposures" now that this industry has invaded our neighborhoods/schools and permeates our

air/land/water shed!

All I want is the truth...what are our risks

- how healthy are these workers and their offspring?

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5839/ "With every well drilled

— and thirty

- two thousand wells per year are planned

— a couple million gallons of fresh water are transformed into toxic fracking fluid. Some of that fluid will remain underground. Some will come flying back out of the hole, bringing with it other monsters: benzene, brine, radioactivity, and heavy metals that, for the past 400 million years, had been safely locked up a mile below us, estranged from the surface world of living creatures. No one knows what to do with this lethal flowbac k

— a million or more gallons of it for every wellhead. Too caustic for reuse as is, it sloshes around in open pits and sometimes is hauled away in fleets of (diesel) trucks to be forced under pressure down a disposal well. And it is sometimes clandestinely dumped". (Kim writes..and in Ft Worth TX it is evaporated without scrubbers) "By 2012, 100 billion gallons per year of fresh water will be turned into toxic fracking fluid. The technology to transform it back to drinkable water does not exist. And, even if it did, where would we put all the noxious, radioactive substances we capture from it?"

We need more citizens to be involved like these people at this city council meeting.... http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=_fWMjft0yck forward to 10:30 minutes into the video for this testimony

- I can't get through it without tearing up.

http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/10/2 2/n_pa_gas_fracking_sherry.cnnmoney/ video of natural gas

lease

- bad pay off.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/benzene

- lin ked

- to

- neural

- tube

- birth

- defects/ "Pregnant women living in Texas neighborhoods with higher air levels of benzene..more likely to have

babies with neural tube defects." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/photogalleries/101022

- energy

- shale

- gas

- drilling

pictures/#/energy

- marcellus

- shale

- environment

- hallowich 01_27145_600x450.jpg "And in September, the DEP requested that one of the largest gas producers, Chesapeake Energy , inspect 171 well casings in

northeas tern Pennsylvania because natural gas had been found in six private water wells."http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.video.php Since hydrofracturing is occurring in 34 of the

United States and is growing worldwide, this 20 minute video teaches about the process of gas extraction that started in Colorado and also presents the health risks at each phase of gas extraction activities. The educational oil and gas sponsored videos d o not cover the endocrine disrupter aspect of human exposure to this industry. You can listen to the video while you multi task.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what

- is

- benzene "The best scientific opinion says any amount of exposure (BENZENE) is dangerous and more exposure is more dangerous. Industry thinks you can expose people to a fair bit safely and environmen tal scientists are worried about even low levels of exposure."

UTArlington's Dr Sattler's http://arlingtontx.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=675 citizen

ca ll for drilling moratorium/comments are at 02:07:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p

- G36wAONc UTArlington vapors

High formaldehyde at Quicksilver Compressor Station near Lake Arlington Texas page 164 http://www.bseec.org/sites/default/files/BSEEC_Final_Report.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU a pproaching 11million hits ....watch this beautifully filmed documentary with your family.

How many of those jobs Gov Perry brags about are related to gas drilling? Please vote with your conscience....green jobs will follow.

Sincerely Kim Feil, a conc erned mother feeling trapped in her own home in Arlington TX

817 274

- 7257 Proverbs 22:23 "The lord will defend them in court and will take away the life of those who take away their rights."

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

11/03/2010 10:04 AM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp101.sbc.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect Sweet smell?/ Barnett Shale Health Impacts

- 4 Case Studies



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

To: TXsharon

Cc: AQSC FW ; april.nixon@arlingtontx.gov ; Bill Brown ; bob.lowry@arlingtontx.gov ; Boerner, Brian ; Chris Klaus ; contacthank @hankgilbert.com ; cory.hoffman@mansfield

- tx.gov ; dale.fisseler@fortworthgov.org ; Darren Groth ; darryl.haynes@mansfield

- tx.gov ; darryl.westbrook@arlingtontx.gov ; david.neuman@dallascityhall.com ; District2 ; District3@fortworthgov.org ; District4 ; District5 ; District6 ; District7 ; District8 ; District9 ; Douglas Cooper ; ecodev@arlingtontx.gov ; Fiona Allen ; Gene Pa trick ; gilbert.perales@arlingtontx.gov ; james.rudnicki@mansfield

- tx.gov ; Jay Doegey ; jgmiller5594@sbcglobal.net ; jhill@dallascowboys.net ; jim.holgersson@arlingtontx.gov ; Jim Parajon ; Jimmy Bennett ; Jerry McCullough ; Julie Hunt ; jyl.miller@arlingtontx.gov ; Kathryn.Wilemon@arlingtontx.gov ; kweaver@nctcog.org ; Lana Wolff ; larry.broseh@mansfield

- tx.gov ; Lyndsay Mitchell ; mary.suhm@dallascityha ll.com ; mary.supino@arlingtontx.gov ; mayor@ci.southlake.tx.us ; mdickey@dallascounty.org ; Mel

LeBlanc ; Michelle.Hardin@arlingtontx.gov ; mike.leyman@mansfield

- tx.gov ; Moncrief, Mike

; Patricia Guthrie ; place1@ci.southlake.tx.us ; place2@ci.southlake.tx.us ; place3@ci.southlake.tx.us ; place4@ci.southlake.tx.us ; place5@ci.southlake.tx.us ; Place 6 ; Rick.Trice@fortworthgov.org ; robert.cluck@arlingtontx.gov ; Robert Rivera ; Robert Shepard ; Roger Venables ; Fullenwider, Sarah ; Sheri Capeharts ; specialevents@texasrangers.com ; steven.salazar@dallascityhall.com ; stew art.milner@arlingtontx.gov ; survivalstore@gmail.com

; Susan Alanis ; thermalsystems@verizon.net ; theron.bowman@arlingtontx.gov ; Tom.Edwards@fortworthgov.org ; tom.leppert@dallascityhall.com ; trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov ; Veronica.Mosley@houstontx.gov ; bridgett.white@arlingtontx.gov

Sent: Wednesd ay, November 03, 2010 8:15 AM Subject: Barnett Shale Health Impacts

- Four Case Studies/what is that sweet smell in the air all

the time?

Last nights success of Governor Perry with his pro drilling agenda was hard. Watching our Arlington City Council on cable TV without participating was even harder...one man spoke about how grumpy the mayor/council treats the citizens at the meetings...I kn ow he was at least talking about me if he has been following I don't think I'll ever get over Dr Cluck turning off my mic when I was giving medical testimony on a case related to the horsefarm site regarding the elevation aspect of that drilling location.

They approved in a unified fashion ALL gas agenda items except for the nature preserve

- even though a

concession was made and the site was moved

- it was still close to another site and some citizens spokeof the duplicate reach of another drilling site n earby. The new site prompted a business owner to speak in

opposition. He is worried for his employees and pleaded to not put it any closer than what the Rail Road Commission recommends which is 300 ft. It still passed by two votes though. There was an orga nization called (I think) CATS. They had about 7 (obviously uniformed of the health risks) speakers in favor of getting their royalty checks. Several Chesapeake employees who probably were paid to attend last nights meeting signed in favor of all their sit es.

Seven more wells were added to the Carrizo/Rice site across from Hutchinson Junior High. This site
backs up to the daycare center 

### http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TkLGN9n__U . While I was trying to visit the daycare to speak with the manager (who wasn't there) the sweet, detergent aromatic (BTEX hydrocarbons?) odor was in the air. I smelled that during a football game not too long ago at that location. A man parked next to me at the daycare was in a really deep sleep. I tried to make noise to get his attention so maybe we could talk about how he felt about drilling in the city

- but he was out of it. As I drove to New York street, a man and a woman was walking their toddler near the fence line an d I felt like screaming, but I didn't want to breathe in any more than I had to and I was trying to get out of the area to minimize my exposure.

Once the new gas drilling ordinance goes in, I understand that adding wells to existing sites will be an

adm inistrative task and will have no citizen involvement. Most pathetic was the lack of citizen involvement against gas drilling in general

- no speakers at the end of the meeting. They either do not know a proposed site is coming in (which is true

- I drove ar ound a few of the sites on Monday and when questioning those in the general area

- they were unaware) OR the other population who signed leases are patiently waiting for their royalty checks with their head in the sand

about environmental and health risks.

Yesterday I was gonna stand near the polls with Ben Zene, but I had to grab my last chance to say goodbye to a lady who is in my Sunday school with cancer (who lives near Lake Arlington and all those toxins (high formaldehyde) in the air). I spent the mor ning with her, her family, and my guitar. It was so sad, before she succumbed, I promised her that I would see this thing (educating the public) through.

Seeing the cancer steal the life out of a mother, wife, nurse

- a vibrant woman taken too soon has put a new fire in me that I need to keep Ben Zene on street corners (I hate the exhaust exposure though). Ben Zene is my Cowboy mannequin who wears a respirator. We greeted those going to the final World Series games and those attending the Cowboy game on Sunday.

Today we will try to go to the fracking protest behind the Gaylord from 3

- 7 pm, but tonight we need to be at the Ranger stadium for the fan celebration from 6

- 7pm in parking lot L.

Monday we greeted those that bought high dollar tickets to the Chamber of Commerce's "State of Arlington" luncheon/meeting. It was neat to have a photographer getting our picture just as the Chesapeake fleet pulled up. The reporter said the pic he liked the best was the one with the Arlington

Environmental Services truck in the back drop. Whether we got the coverage

- I dunno, but it feels like I'm doing the right thing and I hope more people will show up with signs at public gathering so we can plant a seed of "the royalty money ain't worth your health bills".

Mos t people are just unaware that drilling poses all these dangers. I spoke with a teenager who said that he lives across the street from the I20 and Pleasant Ridge drilling site. He thought it was just a construction project. When I told him what was goin g on behind those screens, a light went off in his head and he was eager to tell me that sometimes he is outside and it smells really bad. I though him to spread the word to not stay outside and to call TCEQ or the EPA immediately.

I keep coming back to this article every time I want to reinforce what scares me most about all of this...http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what

- is

- benzene

.... 

### The best scientific o pinion says any amount of

(benzene) exposure is dangerous and more exposure is more dangerous. Industry thinks you can expose people to a fair bit safely and environmental scientists are worried about even low levels of exposure.



### Sincerely,

Kim Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,

or property.

*a ctive contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

----- Original 

### Message

----- From: TXsharon

Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:33 PM Subject: Barnett Shale Health Impacts

- Four Case Studies



## Please share information and these documents with your City Council and P&Z members. Share it with your decision makers and elected officials. Barnett Shale Health Impacts

- Four Case Studies
Sharon Wilson, Texas OGAP Organizer was flown to EPA headquarters in North Carolina to present four case studies of healt h impacts caused by natural gas extraction in the Barnett Shale. She met with the top rule makers in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards who are working on new rules for the oil and gas industry.e

For six years, Sharon has been documenting im pacts in the Barnett Shale. The following are

four case studies out of hundreds.

Bob and Lisa Parr

- Bob, Lisa and Emma Parr live in Wise County Texas surrounded by 21 gas

wells.

Deborah Rogers

- Deborah lives in Fort Worth where industry claims the gas is dry so the

### emissions are less harmful.

Sa ndra DenBraber

- Sandra also lives in a "dry gas" part of the Barnett Shale. Her home in Arlington is 600' from UTArlington's Carrizo facility.

Tim and Christine Ruggiero

- On Septemb er 16, 2009, Aruba Petroleum began drilling 2 wells on Tim and Christine Ruggiero's property

-- Sharon Wilson, Organizer Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project http://earthworksaction.org/Texas_O GAP.cfm

EARTHWORKS

940

- 389

- 1622 texas.ogap@earthworksaction.org
twitter: earthworksrocks, txsharon blog: http://txsharon.blogspot.com

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

11/10/2010 01:37 PM To "Jay Doegey" <Jay.Doegey@arlingtontx.gov>

cc <kpetroff@petroffassociates.com>, <srmorgan@reedmorganpc.com>, "David T. Ritter"

< dritter@toase.com>, <vam@vamlawfirm.com>, <chris.harris@senate.state.tx.us>, "chris turner" <chris.turner@house.state.tx.us>, "Craig Adair" <Craig.Adair@house.state.tx.us>, "Charles Boswell" <Charles.Boswell@senate.state.tx.us>, <charlie.geren@house.state. tx.us>, <James.Russell@house.state.tx.us>, "Joe Cress" <joe.cress@rrc.state.tx.us>, "Lon Burnam" <lon.burnam@house.state.tx.us>, "Marc Veasey" <marc.veasey@house.state.tx.us>, "Mary Edwards" <mary.edwards@house.state.tx.us>, <matthew.geske@house.state.tx.u s>, "Wendy Davis" <wendy.davis@senate.state.tx.us>, <thomas.kurth@haynesboone.com>, <jbrazell@brazelllaw.com>, "James D. Runzheimer" <runz

law@swbell.net>, <jason@texasenvironmentallaw.net> Subj

ect Drilling/Texas health code vs city health code



### Mr. Doegey, please view the Texas health code and then underneath TxSharon's signature (she sent me this doc), please review the language on our Special Use Permit for the Truman/CowboyStadium at 310 N Collins for natural gas drilling. Please comment on ho w the two documents work or do not work together.

### I have proof with four related Barnett Shale medical cases of gas drilling being a danger to the

public health. One of these cases is near me htt p://txsharon.blogspot.com/search?q=sandra . My family has been downwind almost 3 years now from the UTArlington site which has at least 22 wells with more possibly more being planned.

Since the protections for public health and safety are written in stat e and local code, I need your direction on who to contact for the complaint as I am trying to pull the Truman/CowboyStadium public hearing to permit the first well on that site off of the December 7 agenda.

Councilman, Mel LeBlanc, said the emissions fro m the GM plant were astonishing. Since the TCEQ does not regulate cumulative and multiple source emissions, for the best interest of public health, we should NOT permit any new emission sources in that area until further information is known about mixing the GM emissions with gas drilling operations in residential areas. Especially in the Entertainment District in a city with limited public transportation that is overloaded with vehicle emissions and has 37% of the city's vehicular idling establishments.

I have requested that TCEQ perform a baseline air test during extreme traffic stadium events to make my case to council that this area cannot withstand another emission source. The next appropriate opportunity would be for the Superbowl. Then in March, the Ft Worth air test results will be made public. This is not an unreasonable request to have council wait to permit this well

until late March of 2011.

Baseline air testing should occur prior to the P&Z giving their blessing on a proposed dri ll site

this should be mandated in our new gas drilling ordinance.

Thank you

Kim Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source w hatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or

as to interfere wi th the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or

*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouraged

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/legal/rules/rules/pdflib/106a.pdf , 106.8(b) and (c): 

### (b) ... Upon request from the commission or any air pollution control pro gram having jurisdiction, claimants must provide information that would demonstrate compliance with §106.4

### of this title (relating to Requirements for Permitting by Rule), or the general requirements, if any,

in effect at the time of the claim, and the PBR under which the facility is authorized. (c) Owners or operators of all other facilities authorized to be constructed and operate under a

PBR must retain records as follows: (1) maintain a copy of each PBR and the applicable general conditions of §106. 4 of this title or the general requirements, if any, in effect at the time of the claim under which the facility is operating. The PBR and general requirements claimed should be the version in effect at the time of construction or installation or changes t o an existing facility, whichever is most recent. The PBR holder may elect to comply with a more recent version of the applicable PBR and general requirements; (2) maintain records containing sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with the

fo llowing: (A) all applicable general requirements of §106.4 of this title or the general requirements, if any, in effect at the time of the claim; and (B) all applicable PBR conditions; (3) keep all required records at the facility site. If however, the facility normally operates unattended, records must be maintained at an office within Texas having day

- to

- day operational control of the plant site; (4) make the records available in a reviewable format at the request of personnel from the commission or any air pollution control program having jurisdiction; (5) beginning April 1, 2002, keep records to support a compliance demonstration for any

consecutive 12

- month period. Unless specifically required by a PBR, records regarding the

q uantity of air contaminants emitted by a facility to demonstrate compliance with §106.4 of this title prior to April 1, 2002 are not required under this section; and (6) for facilities located at sites designated as major in accordance with §122.10(13) of this title (relating to General Definitions) or subject to or potentially subject to any applicable federal requirement, retain all records demonstrating compliance for at least five years. For facilities
located at all other sites, all records demonst rating compliance must be retained for at least two years. These record retention requirements supercede any retention conditions of an individual

PBR Inspections : Section 382.111, Tex. Health & Safety Code, gives a local government

– a "municipality" (ci ty or town), a "county" or a Chapter 121 "health district"

- the authority to enter, review records and inspect for violations, similar to the authority of TCEQ under 382.015, but limited to facilities within the jurisdiction of the local government. (Ch. 382 is the Texas Clean Air Act.)

§ 382.111. Inspections; Power to Enter Property (a) A local government has the same power and is subject to the same restrictions as the commission under Section 382.015 to inspect the air and to enter public or private property in its territorial jurisdiction to determine if: (1) the level of air contaminants in an area in its territorial jurisdiction and the emissions from a source meet the levels set by: (A) the commission; or (B) a municipality's gove rning body under Section 382.113; or (2) a person is complying with this chapter or a rule, variance, or order issued by the commission.

### (b) A local government shall send the results of its inspections to the commission when

requested by the commissi on.

§ 382.015. Power to Enter Property (a) A member, employee, or agent of the commission may enter public or private property, other than property designed for and used exclusively as a private residence housing not more than
three families, at a reason able time to inspect and investigate conditions relating to emissions of air contaminants to or the concentration of air contaminants in the atmosphere. (b) A member, employee, or agent who enters private property that has management in residence

shall: (1) notify the management, or the person then in charge, of the member's, employee's, or agent's presence; and (2) show proper credentials. (c) A member, employee, or agent who enters private property shall observe that establishment's

rules concern ing safety, internal security, and fire protection. (d) The commission is entitled to the remedies provided by Sections 382.082

- 382.085 if a member, employee, or agent is refused the right to enter public or private property as provided by this section.

Enforcement : Section 7.351

- .353, Tex. Water Code, provides that a local government is authorized to sue for injunctive relief and penalties for violations by facilities within the jurisdiction of the local government in the same manner as TCEQ could sue. TCEQ is a necessary party. The local government must pass a resolution authorizing the suit. Investigation and attorneys' fees are recoverable, as are 1⁄2 the penalties.

§ 7.351. Civil Suits

(a) If it appears that a violation or threat of violation of Ch apter 16, 26, or 28 of this code, Chapter 361, 371, 372, or 382, Health and Safety Code, a provision of Chapter 401, Health and Safety Code, under the commission's jurisdiction, or Chapter 1903, Occupations Code, or a rule adopted or an order or a permit i ssued under those chapters or provisions has occurred or is occurring in the jurisdiction of a local government, the local government or, in the case of a violation of Chapter 401, Health and Safety Code, a person affected as defined in that chapter, may i nstitute a civil suit under Subchapter D in the same manner as the commission in a district court by its own attorney for the injunctive relief or civil penalty, or both, as authorized by this chapter against the person who committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit the

violation.

(b) If it appears that a violation or threat of violation of Chapter 366, Health and Safety Code, under the commission's jurisdiction or a rule adopted or an order or a permit issued under that chapter has occurred or is occurring in the jurisdiction of a local government, an authorized agent as defined in that chapter may institute a civil suit under Subchapter D in the same manner as the commission in a district court by its own attorney for the injunctive relief or civil penalty, or both, as authorized by this chapter against the person who committed, is committing, or is threatening to commit the violation.

### § 7.352. Resolution Required

In the case of a violation of Chapter 26 of this code or Chapter 382, Health and Safety Code, a local government may not exercise the enforcement power authorized by this subchapter unless its governing body adopts a resolution authorizing the exercise of the power.

§ 7.353. Commission Necessary Party

In a suit brought by a loc al government under this subchapter, the commission is a necessary and indispensable party.

Common law tort litigation : Comment: City governments may abate nuisances. Loc. Gov't Code, sec. 217.002 sets this out. It does not really say that the city eve n has to go to court to do this. However, I bet there are constitutional reasons why the city cannot just send the police out to shut down a compressor station, for example.

§ 217.002. Nuisance

The governing body of the municipality may:

(1) abate and remove a nuisance and punish by fine the person responsible for the nuisance;

(2) define and declare what constitutes a nuisance and authorize and direct the summary
abatement of the nuisance; and

(3) abate in any manner the governing body co nsiders expedient any nuisance that may injure or affect the public health or comfort.

Sharon Wilson Blog http://txsharon.blogspot.com/ In North Texas on top of the Barnett Shale

http://arlingtontx.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=626&meta_id=70043



### "WHEREAS, after notice and public hearing, and upon consideration of the

recom mendation of the Commission and of all testimony and information submitted

during the public hearing, the City Council has determined that the use will: complement

or be compatible with the surrounding uses and community facilities; contribute to,

enhance or promote the welfare of the area of the SUP and adjacent properties; not be

detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare ; and conform in all other

### respects to all applicable zoning regulations and standards; and

WHEREAS, the City Council h as determined that it is in the best interest of the

public and in support of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the citizens that

the zoning amendment be approved. Now therefore

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARLINGTON,

TEXAS:

1.

A Specific Use Permit for gas drilling is hereby granted for the property known as

310 North Collins Street...."

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

12/05/2010 01:44 PM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect lady by the compressor station

Dec 2 article/video from Texas Observer on pipelines/fracking http://www.texasobserver.org/cover

story/the

- fire

- down

- below



### http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/30/steve n

- chu

- our

- sputnik

- moment/ In an address to the National Press Club, Energy Secretary Steven Chu sounded an alarm about America’s slipping technological leadership in the critical strategic area of renewable energy.

---- Original Message

----- From: Jeff Prince

To: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 11:48 AM Subject: Re: lady by natural gas compressor station

I did speak to the woman. She didn't want to say much because she was afraid of information being printed that would make it hard for her to sell her house. I'm still planning on following up

more for an upcoming story.

On 12/3/2010 11:27 AM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:
In following up with you Mr. Jeff Prince of the Ft Worth Weekly, "brave reporter of the truth", the lady by the compressor station told me yesterday that now her grand daughter's nosebleeds a rehappening 3 times a day instead of 3 times a year. She says she goes into her room and sometimes smells the fumes, but since she is north of the compressor station and south of a drill site, she cannot identify the source. I just called her and asked h er to put up a wind sock and gave her TCEQ's phone number to report what has been happening. I asked her to tell the state that she had 4 emergency visits to the hospital in November, three for her and one for her grand daughter all respiratory distressed related!

I know of three more health effect stories U can follow...one is a man near her who plans on getting VOC blood tested in January when his insurance kicks into a new year. He told me about

his nosebleed and how his bedroom is within 300 feet of a well. Another lady on the south east side of town told me that both her daughter AND her husband started having nosebleeds since the drilling. She is in the area where compressor station #2 is being planned. Her neighbor, who

is the closest to that dril l site on the service road, had her daughter move in with her. One night the fumes were so bad that they had to flee in the middle of the night to a hotel. Ever since they moved in with their grandmother, the kids are now ill with respiratory problems (my son goes to school with that girl). I am blind copying these two contacts for you so they can let me know if it is OK to put you in touch with them.

I'm still trying to find the Pantego families that testified at their city council meeting about the

Bow en/303 wells that sickened their kids. This lovely drill site is by my son's junior high school. How ironic that I drive him across town because I thought that was the best school for him. My own son was sickened three times, once really bad during last Fe bruary's snow storm event when he played a lot outside (cooling inversion exposure?). We live downwind from 22 on campus wells by UTArlington. His eyes were dilated, he was lethargic for ten days, and he was dizzy, nauseous & had headaches. Our insurance didn't perform the VOC testing that his pediatrician ordered, and we never received a call back from the city health department. Two rounds of CBC blood testing and chest x

- rays uncovered nothing.

When he recovered, I let him ride bikes with his friends who live near the Pantego wells, he called me crying. I had to rush him to a doctor

- he had a severe sinus pressure attack that almost burst

his eardrum.

Hydrofracking for natural gas is happening in 34 states. If I have no choice but to stay in this

i ndustrialized town that "was" known for it's Entertainment District, I can surely do the PR damage to all those "royalty wanting suckers" with scientific information from Dr Theo Colburn who just released a PEER REVIEWED document for publication entitled " Natural Gas Operations from a Public Health Perspective". http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/NaturalGasManuscriptPDF09_13_10.pdf Please jump to

the fourth page entitled ". 

### An Unexpected Side Effect: Air Pollution". My NIOSH contact was interested in peer reviewed studies because he felt those are unbiased and scientifically sound.

I may not be pushing Ben Zene (my dummy wearing a respirator) around much lo nger

- you may have seen me protesting in the streets by the stadium or at the Rangers' World Series game, the festivals, the Turkey

- Trot or by First Methodist Church, who is unresponsive $$$??? to help us protest a planned nearby well in my neighborhood. W hether you've seen the spectacle of us or not, I think Ben Zene has been outlawed with a new "itinerant/peddler" city ordinance... (yeah free speech).

I spoke with TX Sharon this morning, and like the lady by the compressor station, she gets the

same sto ries about people not wanting their address revealed until AFTER they sell their property and move some place safer. The "safer" part is the question because Dr Theo says that these emissions from natural gas drilling operations can travel up to 200 miles . So today the winds are coming from the north and I'm getting all the plumage from the Denton county wells.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Shale is interesting reading, I encourage it....un til that site is taken down... Google is outta control with the control thang.While nearby cities are calling for a moratorium, our city is tightening up their gas drilling ordinance, and has recently released this statement that I personally feel is pu re lip

- service..... "The litany of questions including impact of industrial drill sites on the long

- term development

prospects of the city, road damage from heavy truck traffic, dust, noise and potential

environmental impact on the air and water have not b een settled. When the answers

to these

questions have been settled, perhaps years from now, we would like history to

record that the

City of Arlington took all appropriate precautions and adequately protected its

citizens and the

long

- term economic viability of the City."

see my comments...... 

### http://www.star

- telegram.com/2010/11/23/2655021/arlington

- looks

at

- other

- ways.html#ixzz16PGZgrow

In closing, I know the majority of you never asked to be contacted by me...I'm an intrusive, email stealing (got 7,000) cold caller with an agenda to educate t he parents of the elementary students that I fell in love with over the last eight years when I was a substitute teacher. Please know that I have spared the majority of you from over 200 pages of info sharing on this subject...the local city

councils have not been so lucky though. I say that with a smile :) and a request for you to sign my online petition now..thank

- you.



### http://www.change.org/petiti ons/view/say_no_to_natural_gas_drilling_near_dallas_cowb oy_stadium

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

817 274

- 7257

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or

as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.

*active contact list,

*intermittent contact list or*unsubscribe

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text.

Feedback is encouraged

P. S.Since we have a 12 year supply of extracted natural gas reserves thanks to the influx of natural gas drilling, I'm betting that by the time natural gas goes to a profitable $7/tcf (been hovering at $4tcf), that renewable energy will be a strong contender..check out http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/30/steven

- chu

- our

- sputnik

- moment/ "• Revolutionary Electric

Vehicle Batteries

— 500 Miles on a Single Charge. With the help of Recovery Act funding,

Arizona

- based Fluidic Energy is working with Arizona State University to develop a new generation of ―metal

- air‖ batteries that can store many times more energy than standard lithium

ion batteries. Metal

- air batterie s contain high energy metals and literally breathe oxygen from the air, giving them the ability to store extreme amounts of energy. To date, the development of these batteries has been blocked by the limitations of using unstable water based solutions that break down and evaporate out of the battery as it breathes. Fluidic Energy’s innovative approach involves ionic liquids

– extremely stable salts in liquid form

— using no water at all. If successful, the effort could yield batteries that weigh less, cost less, and are capable of carrying a four passenger electric car 500 miles without recharging, at a cost competitive with internal combustion engines."

O U C H...."Take that Mr. Aubrey McClendon (Chesapeake) we know why you NEED natural gas powered vechi cles". Natural gas is the dinosaur dead weight step child of fossil fuels. It is as dirty or dirtier than coal says Professor Cowarth from Cornell University

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/GHG%20emissions%20from%20Marcellus%20

-- %20November%202010.pdf

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

01/17/2011 07:25 PM To < "Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp127.sbc.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect churches mineral interests harm innocent/drilling summer stats pollution explosion

Urban drilling for natural gas is a growing, (not yet profitable) industry. While I won't go into detail as to how we can debunk the excuses for pro drillers (follow the money) in saying that natural gas is cleaner

and that we need to do this for national security...which respectively are half truths and were convenient excuses that no longer apply

- email me back for more info on those subjects and I'll be glad to elaborate

further.
WE ARE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION WITH OUR AIR QUALITY

- LOOK AT OUR BROWN

S KYLINES!

I took the data from Al Armendariz, Ph.D. whos is now our region 6 EPA head http://www.edf.org/documents/9235_Barnett_Shale_Report.pdf table 21 on page 24.

For the line e ntitled "Condensate and Oil Tanks", I took the difference between the 2009 and the 2007 figures and divided it by the 2007 starting figure to see the growth in average Tons Per Day as a decimal change and then multiplied by 100 to get the percent increase.

VOC is volatile organic compounds HAP is hazardous air pollutants CH4 is methane (is 20 times more warming to the environment than CO2)

CO2 is carbon dioxide2007 to 2009 TPD ave VOC increased 58%, HAP 54%, CH4 58%, CO2e 57%

I took the same calculation of getting the difference between the ave tpd and the summer peak tpd and divided it by the ave tpd to see the exponential growth in peak summer time...s c a r e y !!!

Condensate/Oil tpd for VOC increased 389%, HAP 1746%, CH4 233%, C02e 224%

I checked these figures to be reliable by using table 10

- 1 and 10

- 2 where the breakdown is by condensate tanks and then by oil tanks in lbs/bbl units.

Condensate Tanks lbs/bbl VOC increased 380%, HAP 1750%, CH4 229%, CO2 278%

Oil Tanks lbs/bbl VOC increased 369%, HAP 1823%, CH4 223%, CO2 286%

These are very similar, ball park numbers considering the figures are given in two different unit of measure. One is in pounds per barrel (lbs/bbl) and the other for combined Condensate plus Oil tanks is in

T ons Per Day (tpd) units.

We need to stress to our state and local representative to push for gas drilling ordinances and new legislation to have provisions for air quality protections such as mandating best available emission control technologies.

The qu ick fix is to ask your council to only approve drill sites with safety measures attached. Other stipulations could be to have the drillers buy already grown trees and surround these tanks ASAP to absorb the CO2. They also need to put manmade canopy shades on these tanks to prevent direct sunlight causing evaporation and try to mitigate summer OZONE. For those sites already "grandfathered", the city needs to spend it's gas drilling funds on these trees and canopies.

------------ There are two emails below about how church leaders are being either actively aggressive to the detriment of our environment or passively aggressive due to the inaction to protect our environment and the people in close proximity to toxic drill sites.

Tomorrow night, Jan 18 at 7pm, the Arlington City Council will vote on many gas drilling sites, come and sign opposition cards on all of these.

Thursday, Dallas City Council will vote on it's first drill site, also become involved there if you can. Email's

work too!

Grand Prairie a nd other towns in the DFW area have drilling moratoriums. Please get involved by at least signing this petition.

http://environment.change .org/petitions/view/say_no_to_natural_gas_drilling_near_dallas_cowboy_stadiu

m

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance No person shall discharge from any s ource whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or

as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE

- just hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text. Feedback is encouragedAsk your driller if they use http://lamnipipe.com/Home.html for a less radioactive flow back.

----- Original Message

----- From: "Kim & Ken Feil" < kimfeil@sbcglobal.net > To: "Gary Stuard" < garstu@mymailstation.com > Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 10:53 AM

Subject: Re: The End of the Interfaith Environmental Alliance

Jonah 2:8 "Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be thei rs"

I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT church leaders allow their members to be so unknowingly passive aggressive by belonging to congregations who financially benefit at the expense of others getting exposed to carcinogens. But hey they can pray for you

- just get on their prayer list.

In the Truman/Chesapeake case, two of Arlington's biggest churches have misguided idols in their pursuit of a heavenly provision for royalty checks so that plenty is consumed, more is built, members are entertained, and the missions co ntinue. These churches expect to be blessed at the expense of those who have the misfortune of being near URBAN, TOXIC drillsites. They have not responded to my pleas to come to the aid of the poor people in our neighborhood that would suffer the close pr oximity of gas drilling. Their leadership may have not made the members aware of the dangers to those near these drill sites. The general public is busy with their lives and this topic was probably never sermonized to get the membership input on this topic . Most folks still do not even know that they should be researching the horrors that await their townships. Later they may wonder how the leadership of the town, churches, state and federal government failed them when even more cancers surface or when wate r and food becomes

scarce or tainted.

The leaders of Mount Olive Baptist Church have actively pursued the money and have spoken out at two city council meetings to approve this site. The members of First Methodist have ignored my cries to publicly oppose this site, and First Baptist Church accepts the UTA Carrizo money and may be unaware or is silent on the fact that a resident living within 600 ft of that drillsite has tested positive for BTEX

chemicals.

In my Bible study at First Baptist Chruch, (I opp osed the drillsite in Grace Lutheran's backyard years ago too), I asked for prayers that our council people would make good decisions to protect the health of our people. The churches position is to not get involved with "political" prayers....that I canno t use the bible study email contacts for personal, political reasons. And so I responded that I was removing the church contacts off my email list and how they should be ashamed to just be "reactive" in praying for those with cancer, when they should be "a ctive" Christians to work to prevent cancer by fighting polluters. I stated to my city council recently in an email that after these Christians "pray", and when these people die like Ann did (she lived near high formaldehyde levels by Lake Arlington), that we then go around saying it was

God's will.

I posted an Interfaith Environmental Alliance invitation to my church facebook site to attend one of the North Central Texas Council of Governments Air Quality Steering Committee meeting, but it did not get

p osted. Wow I guess that too was "political".

These big Christian churches stand to gain "blood" money by allowing toxic, urban drilling to happen. In contrast, the Buddha meditation temple near my home has refused to sign the initial lease, yet if this drillsite is approved, they will probably be forced to have their minerals taken. They have "had" to come speak at the city council meetings to defend their requests to be left alone, they did not want any publicity on this. They just do not want drilling to occur under their sacred temple.

I was told by a devout Catholic, "If we defeat the well by the Cowboy Stadium near this temple, it might be because their god (Buddah) has listened". Christians in general are passively allowing the social injusticeof pollution in our towns by their inaction. Their church leaders take their queue from civic leaders who

have been snowed by the money of the corporate leaders that deny any threats to our health. The media is another passive player who does not fully expos e the risks on a regular basis. An example is the Star Telegram has an energy reporter who regularly writes positively about drilling, rarely does he present the pollution side cause he is an energy writer...so where is the pollution writer?

The Seventh Day Adventists were about to be the victims of having this drillsite in their backyard until I stepped in and told them what was happening. They cared enough about this that they rescinded their waiver. The low income, small Hispanic church near the Boys and Girls Club all signed my petition in opposition once they realized other people could be harmed. While the Boys and Girls Club was unresponsive

- follow the money.

Those that follow the money follow it straight to the author of lies.

Sincerely,

Kim Feil

----- Forwarded Message

----- From: Gary Stuard < garstu@mymailstation.com > Sent: Jan 16, 2011 2:59 PM

Subject: The End of the Interfaith Environmental Alliance

Dear members and friends of the Interfaith Environmental Alliance (IEA), I have been meaning to write to you all for some time, at least since the beginning of November of last year, but I needed some time to recuperate from exhaustion and to collect my thoughts. I am saddened and disappointed to have to inform you all that, after committing much of my time and energy for the past 6 years to the creation and expansion of IEA and the mission of religious advocacy for "the ecological common good", I am shutting down the Interfaith Environmental Allia nce for good. In spite of much hard work by myself and many others from a number of different congregations in and around the Dallas/Ft. Worth area (even going as far as Sherman and Waco), it has become painfully clear to me and to others that it is imposs ible to bring together religious congregations in this state to create a statewide alliance of locally based alliances of congregations committed to greening themselves and to advocate for progressive environmental policies at the local,

state and nationa l levels.

Seven years ago, I rediscovered my passion and concern for the Earth and it's ecosystems during a retreat on spiritual and ecological simplicity. It was so clear to me at that time that one of the main missions of religious congregations had to be turning people of faith away from the consumeristic culture that, because it's being fundamentally based on violence and injustice, is destroying our communities and our planet. I felt convinced that all the religions had an important role to play as p rophetic voices for ecological non

- violence and justice and that they could advocate for sound environmental policies in a spirit of non

- partisanship . It was that faith that kept me going the past 6 years, even when I became increasingly discouraged at th e lack of response from, not conservative congregations, but "liberal" and

"moderate" ones.

However, the lack of interest, even concern, from "progressive" congregations about the ecological catastrophy that is rapidly engulfing Earth and human society h as demolished whatever hope I had that the religions could be a powerful force for planetary and human healing. Quite simply, my friends, we the religious have failed in preventing what could have been prevented. I knew of global warming back in the

late 8 0's and early 90's. Even in the 90's, some of the leaders of the various world religions became aware of the danger posed to humanity and the Earth by our rape and dispoiling of the planet and it's lifeforms. Tragically, however, important statements

made by religious leaders on this matter in the end became no more than statements. What actions some religious leaders called for never were enacted on a large scale at the local level. Now, it is too late to stop climate change. While there is still some hop e we can prevent the worst from happening (i.e. 60% ofthe Earth's species going extinct), terrible things will still happen and are already happening, with much

loss of life, both human and nonhuman. The sacred book of Nature is being torn to shreds, with "words" from the "Eternal Word" being lost forever.

While I still believe that there is hope that some truly ecological religion/s can evolve to meet the spiritual needs facing humanity, I am now convinced that the present established religions, as the y are currently structured (i.e. being primarly geared to provide emotional "comfort", group identity, religious showmanship" or entertainment and, due to committment to facilities requiring large amounts of money to maintain, are forever beholden to the r ichest members of their congregations who overwhelmingly support society's status quo), are incapable of meeting the ecological challenges we are facing. I no longer wish to waste what time I have left in my life in "pouring new wine in old wine skins". Fo r now on, I will continue my environmental activities but only in a secular context, as well as exploring the possibility of becoming a full

- time environmentalist, if any environmental organization will have me.

At this time, I feel that I must apologize to you all, especially to those many individuals who gave of their time, efforts and finances to make IEA work. Since I was IEA's chief organizer, I have to take responsibility for any failure on my part. Passion, committment and hard work alone do not en sure the success of an organization and I know that I lacked the experience, savvy and know

- how that were

needed to make IEA a success.

As I told one minister, I perhaps was acting like a sow's ear trying hard to be a silk purse. Please forgive my folly . While my experience was lacking, my heart was never absent in my efforts. Thank you again for all the support you gave me and IEA through these past 6 years. If any of you wish to continue to receive

e

- mails from me about important environmental events o r actions you could participate in, please let me know; I will be happy to keep you informed. I wish you all much peace and joy; however, the best thing I could possibly wish for you all is that you, like me and countless others, will burn with a fierce lo ve for this Earth and all her children and that that same love will compel you to work tirelessly for a just, peace

- filled and ecological healthy world.

Peace, Gary Stuard

Former Executive Director IEA

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23 /2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

02/10/2011 12:11 AM To <"Undisclosed

Recipient:;"@smtp102.sbc.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

cc

Subj

ect local cities can collect $$$ if TCEQ won't



### We are missing revenue streams from those businesses that pollute under the PBR. This welfare/PBR program comes at the expense of Texan's environmental health.

Mandating BACT for a zero emissions goal can be carried out at the local, state or federal level. Environmental quality enforcement job s can be self supporting through fines in non

- compliance.

You can't find what you don't look for. You can't $$ FINE what you don't look for.

### In a time of budget cuts...finding revenue streams beats finding dirty water streams.

Let's be proactive in preventing pollution...

----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:56 PM Subject: local cities can collect $$$ if TCEQ won't

Hey local council people wanna make some cash?

As the drilling starts to slow down and the royalty checks/production starts to diminish, the risks go up in maintaining the aging drill sites. As people realize their property values are not worth the taxes and try to move away from polluti on sources and "ugly" sites, revenues are needed during the downward decline of the town due to drilling...so....how to continue to make money off these drillers?

Well if the state won't step in and make money off of their pollution (see below), then why not the city enforce strict, appropriate, urban air quality rules and charge fines?

I bet you can figure out ways to make those existing drill sites profitable by denying future well permits until they agree to your new air quality local drilling ordina nces. That would mean start working now to mandate Best Available emission Control Technologies for a goal of zero tolerance emissions.... ie NO DIESEL anything and zero methane leakage!

They either play your game or get out of town....if they play your game, make sure you have the manpower to police them and start raking in the BIG cash so as to detract them from polluting again and there you go...the city has created more jobs!

R&D will follow the demand for the fossil fuel industry to be emission fr ee, then methane leaks will be a thing of the past and more product can be sold to market and NOT vented into our atmosphere which shorts royalty checks to mineral holders.

I know I've indirectly asked you to put a price on carbon pollution...hey if i t gets us off of foreign oil and onto real sustainable energy development...whoopee maybe the human race won't be in such a race to

it's own extinction.

Better to collect the carbon "tax" at the local level than at the federal level...?

Sincerely,

Ki m Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A

, Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentratio n and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,
or property.To op

- ou t from blind copied emails, hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text.

Feedback is encouraged.

Ask your driller if they use http://lamnipipe.com/Home.html for a less radioactive flow back.



### ----- Original Message

----- From: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 4:18 PM Subject: The solution to TCEQ fines...file under PBR!

Dear Media, someone suggested you cover this story.



### ----- Original Message

----- From: B.B.

To: Kim & Ken Feil

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 3:40 PM Subject: Re: The solution to TCEQ fines...file under PBR!

Hope that's a letter to the editor of the big Texas newspapers. Instead Perry wants to make poor people give up their health care, education and food stamps.

On Feb 9, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Kim & Ken Feil wrote:

Governor Perry is short changing Texans by thinking deregulation helps businesses be profitable therefore jobs are

available. WRONG!

Carbon pollution has a price and sustainable jobs await while we get off of fossil fuels....enabling polluters to be profitable via the Permit By Rule sustains only the status quo.

Carbon pollution has a price society pays in environmental costs, health costs, and loss of our country being able to globally compete in sustainable energy jobs.

The very existence of the PBR is symbolic of state welfare to the fossi l fuel economy to the wealth of a few at the expense of the health and jobs of MANY.

We have the power to make a strong $$ state environmental agency with teeth to generously fine those that pollute. Additional TCEQ jobs added with field personnel fun ding their own salary (with commissions?) on violations found, has the potential to clean up Texas! The extra money made in fines could put more math and science

teachers to work in our schools!

We are walking away from huge revenue streams by allowing the PBR to exist in a time of economic trials. There needs to be a zero tolerance on emissions where Best Available Control Technologies Exist and where they don't,

the fines need to be the incenti ve to seek innovation, or cease to exist

.

The cash cow of environmental fines is fenced in because of the likes of Perry and the Koch Brothers!

### We need to start milking that cash cow NOW!

Chant with me now........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW " ........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW"
........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW"
........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR,

milk the cash cow NOW"

........."Kill th e PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR,

milk the cash cow NOW"
........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR,

milk the cash cow NOW"
........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR, milk the cash cow NOW" ........."Kill the PBR,

milk the cash cow NOW"

http:// www7.tceq.state.tx.us/uploads/eagendas/Agendas/2011/2

- 9

- 2011/1221air.pdf

"....The Executive Director recognizes that the Respondent has implemented the following

corrective measures at the Plant:

a. On February 2, 2009, voided New Source Review ("NSR") Permit No. 104 and

obtained authorization to operate the Plant through the issuance of Permit by

Rule Registration No. 87096; therefore, the Respondent is no longer required to

maintain monthly records of all flow rates and total sulfur content of gas

processing streams and combustion fuel streams and measure the firebox

operating temperature; and

b. On November 3, 2009, voided Federal Operating Permit ("FOP") No. 0

- 0725 and

General Operating Permit ("GOP") 514; therefore, t he Respondent is no longer

required to maintain a daily flare operation log and an observation log for

stationary vents from emission units."



### Sincerely,

Kim Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A,
Rule 101.4, Environmental Quality, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more
air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely

affect human he alth or welfare, animal life, vegetation, or property, or

### as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,

or property.

To op

- out from blind copied emails, hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the

sub ject text. Feedback is encouraged.

Ask your driller if they use http://lamnipipe.com/Home.html for a less radioactive flow back.

----- Original Message

----- From: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

To: kimfeil@sbcglobal.net

Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 2:09 PM Subject: TCEQ News Release

You are subscribed to News Releases for Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. This information has recently been updated, and is now availa ble . Or, see text below.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MEDIA

CONTACT: LISA WHEELER WEDNESDAY, FEB. 9, 2011 PHONE: 512

- 239

- 5003/PAGER: 512

- 606

- 3681

TCEQ APPROVES FINES TOTALING $778,967 Penalties assessed against 94 entities today The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality today approved penalties totaling $778,967 against 94 regulated entities for violations of state environmental regulations. Agreed orders were issued for the following enforcement categories: two agricultural, 16 air quality, two Edwards Aquifer, three industrial or hazardous waste, two industrial waste discharge, two licensed irrigators, four multimedia, two muni cipal solid waste, 12 municipal waste discharge, 21 petroleum storage tank, 14 public water system, four water quality, and one water right. In addition, default orders were issued for the following categories: Two licensed irrigators, two petroleum stor age tanks, and one public water system.

There were four field citations. Information on today’s agenda items is available for viewing: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/comm_exec/agendas/comm/current /2011/110209.pdf The TCEQ's next agenda meeting is scheduled for Feb. 23, 2011. Agenda meetings are webcast live through TexasAdMin.com, www.texasadmin.com , where archived meetings
are also available.

### Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e

- mail address, or stop subscriptions at any

time on your User Profile Page . You wi ll need to use your e

- mail address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, e

- mail support@govdelivery.com

.

This service is provided to you at no charge by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Visit us on the Web at www.tceq.texas.gov

.

How is our customer service? Fill out our online customer satisfaction survey at www.tceq.texas.gov/goto/customersurvey

.

GovDelivery, Inc. sending on behalf of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality · 12100 Park 35 Circle · Austin TX 78753 · 512

- 239

- 1000



### "In destroying wildness, we deny ourselves the full extent of what it means to be alive." Dr. Ed Wayburn

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"James Merkel" <MerkelJ@rpsgroup.com>

03/31/2011 12:07 PM To CCG

- ONG@EPA

cc

Subj

ect Environmental

- Barnett Eagle Ford

Subject: Environmental

- Barnett Eagle Ford



### Hi
Does the RRC have an environmental packet of sorts that would be comprehensive as to environmental
rules and regulations for the Barnett Shale and Eagle Ford Shale.
For example if a new operator came into the plays and did not know all the requirements, is there and
information package that would be complete in this regard?

Thanks

Jim MerkelJames Merkel

Principal Reservoir Analyst

- RPS

4849 Greenville Avenue, Suite 1150, Dallas, Texas , 75206.

USA

Tel: +1 214 987 1042

Fax: +1 214 987 1047

Email: MerkelJ@rpsgroup.com

www: www.rpsgroup.com

This e

- mail message and any attached file is the property of the sender and is sent in confidence to the addressee only.

Internet communications are not secure and RPS is not responsible for their abuse by third parties, any alteration or corrupt ion in

tra nsmission or for any loss or damage caused by a virus or by any other means.

RPS Group Plc, company number: 208 7786 (England). Registered office: Centurion Court, 85 Milton Park Abingdon Oxfordshire

OX14 4RY.

RPS Group Plc web link: http://www.rpsgroup.com

----- Forwarded by Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/23/2011 06:43 AM

-----

"Kim Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

04/28/2011 01:39 PM To "Kim & Ken Feil" <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

cc < AskChesapeake@chk.com>, <aubrey.mcclendon@chk.com>, "Tony Rutigliano" <tony.rutigliano@chk.com> Subj

ect video/ Dalworthington Gardens XTO explanation 4/11 event similar to Fulson/Chesapeake

Here is the Dalworthington Gardens statement from XTO on why there was venting the night the storm caused a power loss on 4/11/2011.

There should not be a failure of the primary safety equipment to auto shut in a well when the pressure

increases. Relyi ng on secondary safety equipment (burst plate) is one step away from a full blow out if that one

fails?

Once the burst plate goes, venting causes VOC's and methane to be emitted to the citizens and in our ever warming atmosphere.

Mineral holders sho uld not get shorted when so much is wasted that could have gone to market.

Why can't drillers use a manual remote device to shut in the well when the automated one fails?

Yesterday Lafayette LA had a gas well blow out and it affected a one mile radius and the familes that evacuated were told to take 5 days worth of clothing and to leave the area like there were evacuating for

a hurricane.Precious time is wasted waiting for a drilling rep to drive to a site to shut these wells in!

Either keep a gua rd at all sites 24/7 that can perform this duty, or train our firemen to do it (they need their own suma canisters or First Detect Spectrometers too!).

If we are allowing urban drilling, we have to reduce the exposure time when an "auto well shut in fails" . Otherwise folks who are still patiently waiting for their royalty checks...when that doesn't pan out, and these emission events keep happening, you could have a public backlash from hades.

PS I know about how newly fracked wells have a tendency to have inital valve failures because the fracking sand that flys back up the hole does one heck of a sandblast job on those valves. Can't we put new valves on these things AFTER we are done fracking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =EBp8Y83iq3Q I took this video this morning 

### Sincerely,

Kim Feil

Texas Administrative Code, Title 30, Part 1, Chapter 101, Subchapter A, Rule 101.4, Environmental Qual ity, Nuisance

No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever one or more air contaminants or combinations thereof, in such concentration and of such duration as are or may tend to be injurious to or to adversely affect human health or welfare, a nimal life, vegetation, or property, or as to interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of animal life, vegetation,

or property.

To op

- out from blind copied emails, hit the reply button and request on the subject line or in the subject text.

Feedba ck is encouraged.

Ask your driller if they use http://lamnipipe.com/Home.html for a less radioactive flow back.



### ----- Original Message

----- From: 943

- Krysten Jet er
To: Kim Feil

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:25 AM Subject: RE: open records recquest for drilling emission coincidences

Mrs. Feil,

A response to your previous email regarding the event that occurred on March 3, 2011 was emailed to you on March 21, 2011. Below is the only information I have relating to the event that took place on April 11, 2011 as there were no 911 calls related to t he event on April 11, 2011. I am also going to print and try to mail these two responses to you as I am not certain you are receiving

these emails.

Thanks, Krysten Jeter Deputy City Secretary City of Dalworthington Gardens

This is the explanation that was given by XTO:

Because of the storm and loss of power DFW Midstream's electrically powered compressors shut downand the gathering line pressure increased. XTO's pressure relief system at the site operated as is was

designed to do so. When pres sure builds in the gas gathering line our pressure relief system relieves or vents the pressure between the wellhead and our separators. This is the whooshing sound when the gas is vented into the atmosphere. Venting or pressure relief is done to prevent a ny type of equipment malfunction and not increase design pressure on lines, valves or vessels. The emergency shut in valve did not activate as it was clogged with sand so an XTO employee received an automated dispatch and went to the site to manually shut in the wells.

a similar incident happened in February when ice created a similar power disruption. We are working on our pressure and noise actuated shut in devices so the releases will be shorter in duration if this event occurs again.

From: Kim Fe il [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 11:58 AM

To: 943

- Krysten Jeter

Cc: Anne Inman; Annette Maxwell; Andrew.Keefer@rrc.state.tx.us; Armendariz A; John (Andrew) Sullivan; Alyssa Taylor; Bary.David@epamail.epa.gov; becky.marcum@tx.rr.com; bengtsonm@tx.rr.com; Bill Harrison; Bill.Black@rrc.state.tx.us; Blackman.Jerome@epamail.ep a.gov; blevins.john@epa.gov; bosskoss@tx.rr.com; briskin.jeanne@epa.gov; bshaw@tceq.state.tx.us; Carol.Treadway@rrc.state.tx.us;

ccg

- ong@epa.gov; Betty Collins; david.flores@rrc.state.tx.us; David.Pollard@rrc.state.tx.us; Dean.Jill@epamail.epa.gov; Denise. Hudson@rrc.state.tx.us; Darrell McCant; Danielle Nesvacil; edlund.carl@epa.gov; Elizabeth.Jones@rrc.state.tx.us; eyesondrilling@epa.gov; fespino@tceq.state.tx.us; flores.miguel@epa.gov; foster.rebecca@epa.gov; gray.david@epa.gov; hale.jeannine@epa.gov;

han lon.edward@epa.gov; herfel.timothy@epa.gov; hq

- publicaffairs@usace.army.mil; hydraulic.fracturing@epa.gov; InfoCtr@eia.gov; Jessica.Markl@rrc.state.tx.us; jewett.david@epa.gov; jhanson50@tx.rr.com; jodie.kurl@rrc.state.tx.us; Joe Cress; john.tintera@rrc.st ate.tx.us; julianfernandez@tx.rr.com; jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us; Kari.King@rrc.state.tx.us; kathy.way@rrc.state.tx.us; kcauble@tceq.state.tx.us; Kijun Hong; Lawrence.Rob@epamail.epa.gov; lizbrannan@tx.rr.com; lorenzo.garza@rrc.state.tx.us; MABAKER@tceq.stat e.tx.us; Martinez.Omar@epa.gov; mary.moloney@atmosenergy.com; Matt Baker; mckenzie.susie@epa.gov; Michael Honeycutt; michael.o'quinn@rrc.state.tx.us; Michael.Williams@rrc.state.tx.us; Miles Whitten; Nancy Ragland; okpala.maria@epa.gov; parsons.nick@epa.gov ; Perez.Nelda@epa.gov; puls.robert@epa.gov; quinones.shirley@epa.gov; Rachel.Hampton@rrc.state.tx.us; selgrath.dale@epa.gov; serrano.linda@epa.gov; Shannon Ethridge; shagle@tceq.state.tx.us; sjablonski@tceq.state.tx.us; sklein@tceq.state.tx.us; Sid Slocum; sunset@sunset.state.tx.us; tchenowe@tceq.state.tx.us; Tabitha Kirkland; Tonya Presley; Walker, Tony; Victor.Carrillo@rrc.state.tx.us; Winona Henry; wiley.adina@epa.gov Subject: open records recquest for drilling emission coincidences

Hi, please email pr ovide any information about the two events with the XTO natural gas drill site near the Pappy.. lake in Dalworthington Gardens TX.

The first one was in the first week of March 2011 (valve malfunction? released frac sand?) and the other was during the las t storm on April 11 in the early am hours?

The reason I ask is there seems to be coincidences of events with the Chesapeake Fulson drill site at Sublett and 360 in Arlington TX.

Maybe they are on the same pipeline? I do not think they share the same co mpressor station/pipeline? so maybe these events/releases have nothing to do with each other.I do not like coincidences when it comes to urban drilling, yet these two sites seem to have had them at

very similar times and I need to verify that.

Sincer ely,

Kim Feil