"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, <hqpublicaffairs@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 Arlington 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 of 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 produced 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/19234-07-2010.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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 test 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 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>

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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, 

<jwessel@tceq.state.tx.us>, "Winona Henry" 

<WHENRY@tceq.state.tx.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 because 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 residential 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 

residents until many saw their children come down with respiratory problems. 

Enlarge This Image
Michael 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 thousands 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 company, 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 assess 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 husband 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 — throwing 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 release 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 equipment 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 186,000 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 attorney 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 the 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 sulfide 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 and 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 many 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 cell 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 connected 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

eyesondrilling@EPA, Timothy Herfel/R6/USEPA/US@EPA, 

<jwessel@tceq.state.tx.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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 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@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/2010_Ordi

nances/19234-07-2010.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 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 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 

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 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 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, 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 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 

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 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 test 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 

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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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 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 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. 

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 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. 

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 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" 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, 

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!

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 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@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.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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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-County101232229.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/988-drilling-fluid-spill-reported-in-flowermound.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 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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 Chesapeake, 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 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 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 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. 

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 

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. 

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 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" 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, 

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!

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 

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.

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 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@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_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 now 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 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 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 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 

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, 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 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 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 

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-County101232229.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/988-drilling-fluid-spill-reported-inflower-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 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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/Denton/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 activists 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 Brothers 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 fossil 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 my 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" communication 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 is 
expensive 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 outthe water to 

injection sites and just evaporating the waste water and incinerating (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 videos 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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

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: 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 wells 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 housing 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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.Walker 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 Worth/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 toxic 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 testing 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 devalued 75% in Denton County near a drilling site. 

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_DrillValues_0918.1046e9a00.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 production, plus transportation. Once all this is factored in, natural 

gas equals or probably exceeds the emissions of COAL! 

http://www.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 "sweet 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 to 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 because 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 underway 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 regulations.

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 spill
One more thang..please stick to Arlington issues as the vaporization of produced water (without 

filters/scrubbers) at the Brentwood Chesapeake compressor station in Ft Worth does not affect our 

airshed...right. 

http://www.fortworthgov.org/uploadedFiles/City_Secretary/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 Stadium –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 – Ordinances 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 revising 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 West Interstate 20
Highway 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 additional .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 classification 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 authorizing 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 Division 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 authorizing 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

Watson Road.

RESOLUTION
A 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 rationed 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 city, 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 condensate 

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 equipment 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 emissions

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, ethylbenzene, 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 benzene, 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 begin 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 solid 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 08/23/2011 06:43 AM -----

"Kim & Ken Feil" 

<kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>

10/05/2010 04:48 PM

To <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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, 
open 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 because 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:breathersbeware&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-Methylpentane 

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 (UTArlington 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 situation 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 here! 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 Quality. This information has recently 

been updated, and is now available. Or, see text below. 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

TUESDAY, OCT. 5, 2010 

CONTACT: TERRY CLAWSON

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 house 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 see 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 Texas,‖ 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. 

 

Resources 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 toxics 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 about 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 

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>

10/08/2010 12:02 PM

To <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 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. Eligible 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 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 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>

10/09/2010 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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@txdot.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 entity to respond.

Thank you

Kim Feil 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kim & Ken Feil

To: Brandon Todd ; Melanie Sattler

Sent: 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 from 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 local 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-reducesauto-emissions

John Mullinix of Ledford 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 -- unburned 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 upon 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 and 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 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 tailpipe from the outside atmosphere depending 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 blogger 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 

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

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

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

Subject: 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. Normally, 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, naphtha, 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 vehicles....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%

Kim,

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 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 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. Eligible 

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 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 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, <hqpublicaffairs@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>, 

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

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, 2010 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 

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 buying a multibillion-dollar stake in 600,000 acres 

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-third stake in Chesapeake Energy 

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 roc

As part of the deal, the largest purchase of an interest in U.S. energy assets by a Chinese company, CNOOC has 

the Eagle Ford, a broad oil and gas formation that runs largely from southwest of San Antonio to the Mexican bo

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 market, following a failed 

Intense political opposition over energy security concerns derailed that $18.4 billion deal. But analysts expect few 

―The climate is much more hospitable now,‖ said Juli MacDonald-Wimbush, a partner with Marstel-Day, an ene

Fredericksburg, Va.

Amid low natural gas prices and a largely difficult drilling climate, she said highly liquid Chinese companies wil

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

cc

Subj

ect

P&Z SUP for Arl south compressor station passed
Dear 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 phase 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 reminding 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 started. 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 representative 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 Devon 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 Barnett 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 developments relating 

to the issue of climate change. According to the Washington Post, the vote was along party lines, and the 

Republican commissioners “vehemently” 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 percent 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 energy 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, 

Monsanto, 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 reason 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-made 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. 

Without 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 budgets, 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 nonexistent 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 amuck. 

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 be 
allowed in His mansion for those who choose 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 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 do not 

cover the endocrine disrupter aspect of human exposure 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 fair 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 PM
Q&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 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

----- 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 Friday.

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 vote 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, including 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, along 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 recently 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 Mayor 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, "Bluedaze," 

- 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/Exxon 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 Drilling 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 may 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 Friday 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 living 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 pollution 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&image_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 goes 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 night 

for Dallas area environmentalists.
Forward email

http://visitor.r20.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?llr=bqalb7cab&v=001dbhkIZY57-

CG7M9OxFHoC7DMM2WR27JKFblzr9IWrkFiQFCQaS5zzA%3D%3D&p=un

This email was sent to becky.bornhorst@gmail.com by info@downwindersatrisk.org.

Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribeTM | 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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@iogcc.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 ; 

runderwood@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 associations 
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 from 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 fracking 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 in 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 that 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 flowback—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/2010/10/22/n_pa_gas_fracking_sherry.cnnmoney/ video of natural gas 

lease -bad pay off.

http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/benzene-linked-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-drillingpictures/#/energy-marcellus-shale-environment-hallowich01_27145_600x450.jpg "And in September, the 

DEP requested that one of the largest gas producers, Chesapeake Energy, inspect 171 well casings in 

northeastern 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 do 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 environmental 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 

call 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 approaching 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 concerned 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 Patrick ; 

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@dallascityhall.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 ; stewart.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: Wednesday, 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 know 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 spoke 
of the duplicate reach of another drilling site nearby. 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 organization 

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 sites.

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 and 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 

administrative 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 around 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 morning 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".

Most 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 going 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 opinion 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.

*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: 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 health 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 impacts 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.

Sandra 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 September 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_OGAP.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.us>, "Wendy Davis" 

<wendy.davis@senate.state.tx.us>, 

<thomas.kurth@haynesboone.com>, 

<jbrazell@brazelllaw.com>, "James D. Runzheimer" <runzlaw@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 how 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 http://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 state 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 from 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 drill sitethis 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 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

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 program 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 to 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 

following:

 (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 

quantity 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 demonstrating 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" (city 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 governing 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 commission.

§ 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 reasonable 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 concerning 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 Chapter 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 issued 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 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.

(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 local 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 even 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 considers 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

recommendation 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 has 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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/coverstory/the-fire-down-below

http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/30/steven-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 are 
happening 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 her 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 drill 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 

Bowen/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 February'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 

industrialized 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 longer-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. Whether 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 stories 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....until 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 pure 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 been 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-looksat-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 the 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/petitions/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 lithiumion batteries. Metal-air batteries 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 vechicles".

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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 

SKYLINES!

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 entitled "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 dioxide
2007 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 

Tons 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 quick 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 and 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 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.

TO UNSUBSCRIBE- just 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" <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 theirs"

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 continue. 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 proximity 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 water 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 opposed 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 cannot 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 "active" 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 

posted. 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 injustice 
of 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 expose 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 Alliance 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 impossible 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 national 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 prophetic 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 the 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 has 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 80'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 hope we can prevent the worst from happening (i.e. 60% of 
the 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 they 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 richest 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". For 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 ensure 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 or 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 love 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 <"UndisclosedRecipient:;"@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 jobs 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 pollution 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 ordinances. 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 free, 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 it 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, 

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.
To op-out 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 fossil 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 funding 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 incentive 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 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" ........."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, the 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 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-out 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: 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 available. 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 municipal 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 storage 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 will 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 Merkel
James 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 corruption in 

transmission 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. 

Relying 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 should 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 guard 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 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.

To op-out 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: 943 - Krysten Jeter

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 the 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 down 
and the gathering line pressure increased. XTO's pressure relief system at the site operated as is was 

designed to do so. When pressure 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 any 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 Feil [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.epa.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; 

hanlon.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.state.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.state.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 provide 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 last 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 compressor 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. 

Sincerely, 

Kim Feil