Book release had my BarnettShaleHell letter posted

And so Mr Holloway put me in his book like he promised…

Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 8.04.45 PM

 

 

Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 7.53.52 PM Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 7.54.03 PM Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 7.54.14 PM Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 7.54.36 PM Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 7.54.56 PMand since we had that LABC loss of well…I’ll post this page…

Screen shot 2015-08-25 at 8.08.47 PM

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Shelter in Place Rules for AISD & Arlington Residents in GASLAND TX?

http://www.leonvalleytexas.gov/government/fire_and_ems/shelter_in_place.php

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

re-Fracking Feeling by Senior Research Scientist Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: JP Nicot <jp.nicot@beg.utexas.edu>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: q on re-fracking
Dear Kim-
No new info, still kind of murky. There have been a number re-frac jobs, probably in the hundreds maybe low thousands but that’s nothing compared the number of frac’ed wells. Service companies try to stir up some business by promising that re-fracs are the thing to do but so far they are still not very widespread. I have the feeling that operators would rather start anew by drilling a new well nearby.
JPN
Jean-Philippe (JP) Nicot, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.
Senior Research Scientist
Bureau of Economic Geology
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Ph: 512 471-6246
Fax: 512 471-0140
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 7:08 AM
To: JP Nicot <jp.nicot@beg.utexas.edu>
Subject: q on re-fracking
Do you have any new info?
—– Original Message —–
From: JP Nicot
To: Jerry Lobdill ; Kim Feil
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 6:32 PM
Subject: RE: re-frack question
Dear Ms. Feil and Mr. Lobdill-
I appreciate your interest in my work. It is true that refracing is the big unknown in terms of water use. Discussing the topic with staff from different companies or different staff members from the same company, I have received conflicting answers. My sense is that only those older wells fraced when the technology was still in development (vertical wells in the Barnett) are being refraced. The next couple of years will tell us if the practice will become systematic as the thousands of horizontal drilled in the Barnett have been producing for several years now. I’ve seen papers on multiple refracing episodes but it doesn’t seem to be the norm. The projections for water use in my report (to be soon posted on the TWDB website) assume no refracing.
I don’t have any specific information about stacked wells but it would make sense to do so only if the formation is thick enough. The oil and gas industry is very innovative and operators are trying out several approaches. That particular approach may or may not work as well as having more closely spaced laterals.  Methane migration would be related to the vertical section of the wellbore, so I wouldn’t expect any change in the odds of that happening.
Besides the point that water is either privately owned (groundwater) or appropriated through a water right system (surface water), increasing its price will likely hurt farmers, municipalities, and manufacturing more than the oil and gas industry for at least 2 reasons: (1) when you add up the numbers, oil and gas operators don’t use that much water, and (2) there are many other costs, such as hauling and disposal, that go into their total cost of water management.
I hope this helps
Best,
JP Nicot
Jean-Philippe (JP) Nicot, Ph.D., P.E., P.G.
Research Scientist
Bureau of Economic Geology
Jackson School of Geosciences
The University of Texas at Austin
Ph: 512 471-6246
Fax: 512 471-0140
From: Jerry Lobdill
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 7:36 AM
To: JP Nicot
Cc: charles.davis@chk.com; Ed Ireland
Subject: Re: re-frack question
Importance: High

Hello,

I’m Jerry Lobdill. I am a chemical engineer  and physicist (retired).  I have been studying the technology used in drilling and completing horizontal gas wells since 2005.

I am unable to find more than a very few wells in the Barnett Shale whose production histories are consistent with even one successful refrack job.

In the gosanangelo.com piece Mr. Nicot suggested that some companies are refracking after, say, five years (quote below)

Nicot said one of the unpredictable variables is “re-fracking.”
“The big question is: Should you come back after, say, five years and refrack the well again, do the same thing to try to get more gas? And it seems like some companies do it, but most don’t ­ but that may change,” Nicot said. “And obviously, that’s a big unknown in terms of water use.”

Mr. Nicot, please tell me what companies are doing this and if possible give me the API number of a refracked well.

I also ask Mr. Davis and Dr. Ireland for the same information if CHK is one of the companies that does refracking every 5-7 years, as was stated several years ago.

Please respond to this request by July 7, 2011 or send me email saying when I may expect an answer.

Thank you very much.

Jerry Lobdill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 11:44 PM 6/29/2011, Kim Feil wrote:

Hello, I saw your name in an article http://m.gosanangelo.com/news/2011/jun/25/one-scarce-resource-for-another-water-151-and-of/
and was wondering if you knew of specific wells that have actually been successfully refracked?

My understanding is that every 5 to 7 years that horizontal wells need to be refracked in order to keep the 20 to 30 year promise of well production for natural gas.

In speaking with Charles E Davis, a Chesapeake employee last night, I thought he said that Chesapeake doesn’t plan on refracking their wells.

I heard that a well can be re-fracked up to ten times, but I never came across a well that has been refracked yet.

I also want to know about stacked wells (Carrizo has experience with this).  Can stacked wells also be refracked? Are stacked wells more likely to have methane migration?

The water intensive fracking process is worsened by the alleged need to be refracked at a later date and with the drought conditions, I wonder just how profitable drillers can be if the price of water increases for everybody?

Thanks for at least answering my refrack question-if you have the well(s) name or lease number, that would be great.

Sincerely,
Kim Feil

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

MSS = Maintenance StartUp & ShutDown-HOW STANKY IS IT?

Here are the stages of emissions
Site prep-truck emissions
Drilling Rig engine, compressor, & vehicle emissions
Fracking engine, compressor & vehicle emissions
Flowback top flow VOC’s and water truck hauling emissions
Drilling out the plugs/production emissions & vehicle emissions
Post Production storage tank flask emisions & vehicle emissions
DAILY produced water truck evacuation emissions
Maintenance, restimulation/refrack, compressor blowdown emissions & vehicle emissions
UNPLANNED/upset emissions


Here is an email I sent to NCTCOG to find out who can request PIR’$ now that these MSS records are being focused on being reported as of Jan 5 2014.


Here is a helpful email on containing flowback (I boldfaced FYI)…I hope this includes topflow before the green completion devices are used.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Rob Lawrence <Lawrence.Rob@epamail.epa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:58 PM
Subject: What is being done about flying frack silica dust?

From: Rob Lawrence <Lawrence.Rob@epamail.epa.gov>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>; swilson@earthworksaction.org
Cc: Ruben Casso <Casso.Ruben@epamail.epa.gov>; Bruce Moore <Moore.Bruce@epamail.epa.gov>; Donald-M Smith <Smith.Donald-M@epamail.epa.gov>
Sent: Thu, August 23, 2012 3:36:58 PM
Subject: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Oil and Gas Sector

Sharon and Kim – In general, EPA’s newly published air quality regulations for Oil & Gas Sector will not take effect until October 15, 2012, at the earliest.  However, after they take effect, in most cases, until January 1, 2015, the gases from a completion operation will either have to be recovered or flared – unless a local prohibition exists against flaring.  After January 1, 2015 “green” or reduced emission completions will be required – in most cases – for completion operations.  

The published regulation and specific excerpts from the regulatory text are included below for your convenience. We hope this information is helpful.

On August 16, 2012, the New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Oil and Gas Sector, signed last April, were published in the Federal Register.  Here is the summary of today’s action, taken from the Federal Register:

This action finalizes the review of new source performance standards for the listed oil and natural gas source category.  In this action the EPA revised the new source performance standards for volatile organic compounds from leaking components at onshore natural gas processing plants and new source performance standards for sulfur dioxide emissions from natural gas processing plants.  The EPA also established standards for certain oil and gas operations not covered by the existing standards.  In addition to the operations covered by the existing standards, the newly established standards will regulate volatile organic compound emissions from gas wells, centrifugal compressors, reciprocating compressors, pneumatic controllers and storage vessels.  This action also finalizes the residual risk and technology review for the Oil and Natural Gas Production source category and the Natural Gas Transmission and Storage source category.  This action includes revisions to the existing leak detection and repair requirements.  In addition, the EPA has established in this action emission limits reflecting maximum achievable control technology for certain currently uncontrolled emission sources in these source categories.  This action also includes modification and addition of testing and monitoring and related notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, as well as other minor technical revisions to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants.  This action finalizes revisions to the regulatory provisions related to emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.

§ 60.5375 What standards apply to gas well affected facilities?
If you are the owner or operator of a gas well affected facility, you must comply with paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, for each well completion operation with hydraulic fracturing begun prior to January 1, 2015, you must comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) of this section unless a more stringent state or local emission control requirement is applicable; optionally, you may comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

For each new well completion operation with hydraulic fracturing begun on or after January 1, 2015, you must comply with the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) For the duration of flowback, route the recovered liquids into one or more storage vessels or re-inject the recovered liquids into the well or another well, and route the recovered gas into a gas flow line or collection system, re-inject the recovered gas into the well or another well, use the recovered gas as an on-site fuel source, or use the recovered gas for another useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve, with no direct release to the atmosphere. If this is infeasible, follow the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(2) All salable quality gas must be routed to the gas flow line as soon as practicable. In cases where flowback emissions cannot be directed to the flow line, you must follow the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

(3) You must capture and direct flowback emissions to a completion combustion device, except in conditions that may result in a fire hazard or explosion, or where high heat emissions from a completion combustion device may negatively impact tundra, permafrost or waterways. Completion combustion devices must be equipped with a reliable continuous ignition source over the duration of flowback.

(4) You have a general duty to safely maximize resource recovery and minimize releases to the atmosphere during flowback and subsequent recovery.


§ 60.5430 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Reduced emissions completion means a well completion following fracturing or refracturing where gas flowback that is otherwise vented is captured, cleaned, and routed to the flow line or collection system, re-injected into the well or another well, used as an on-site fuel source, or used for other useful purpose that a purchased fuel or raw material would serve, with no direct release to the atmosphere.

This webpage includes the factsheets and summary of the requirements.  http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html

Rob Lawrence
Senior Policy Advisor – Energy Issues

lawrence.rob@epa.gov

214.665.6580 (Desk)
214.665.7263 (FAX)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Pad site = 40.3 tpy of Carbon Monoxide says Dr Michael Blatt

Wonder if the good doc has any updated info from this 2012 article?
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Don Crowson <Don.Crowson@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Cluck <Robert.Cluck@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <Robert.Shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Rivera <Robert.Rivera@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <Lana.Wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <Sheri.Capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <Kathryn.Wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <Charlie.Parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Jimmy Bennett <Jimmy.Bennett@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <Michael.Glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <Charlie.Parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <Trey.Yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Stuart Young <Stuart.Young@arlingtontx.gov>; Roger Venables <Roger.Venables@arlingtontx.gov>; Theron Bowman <Theron.Bowman@arlingtontx.gov>; cynthia.simmons@arlingtontx.gov
Cc: Susan Schrock <sschrock@star-telegram.com>; “tips@wfaa.com” <tips@wfaa.com>; “ok@arlnnews.com” <ok@arlnnews.com>; SWAPO 2011 <dharthomes@gmail.com>; DJ Zitko – ArlingtonVoice.com <dj@arlingtonvoice.com>; carolyn.mentesana@arlingtontx.gov
Sent: Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:16 PM
Subject: Pad site will emit 40.3 tons per year of Carbon Monoxide on padsite says Dr Blatt

“I have worked in this community for 30 years and I’m very cognizant of the respiratory disease issues that will be compounded by the addition of these emissions to the atmosphere,” Blatt wrote recently in an objection letter to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection regarding Chesapeake Energy’s permit application to emit several air pollutants from the Dytko well pad, located along Stone Church Road.

The “potential to emit” amounts of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and other chemicals that may be released at the sites can vary, depending on the type of operations involved, according to legal advertisements posted by Chesapeake. In addition to the pollution from the well sites, Chesapeake also will release emissions from its local compressor stations. One of these is just off the Interstate 70 Dallas Pike exit near The Highlands, while another is in the Sand Hill area near the Marshall/Ohio County border.

Chesapeake confirmed the potential to discharge various amounts of these materials on an annual basis from their compressor operations: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, methane, carbon dioxide equivalent, benzene and formaldehyde. There will also be various amounts of volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, acetaldehyde, acrolein, ethylbenzene, methanol, n-hexane, toluene, xylenes and nitrous oxide.

“In particular, carbon monoxide of 40.28 tons per year will be produced by this well pad. This is of grave concern because the exposure to respiratory disease and creation of the ozone layer are toxic to lung disease,” Blatt continued regarding the Dytko well.

Stacey Brodak, senior director of corporate development for Chesapeake, emphasized the proposed emission levels “meet the same stringent requirements as any other facility and are within the allowable emission limits.”

“We support the role of the DEP to regulate the emissions at our facilities, including asking for and receiving public comments. We trust in the DEP’s ability to evaluate those comments and place them in the appropriate context,” she added.

Even if the emission levels fall within the DEP’s standards, Blatt said public officials need to consider the possible negative impacts.

“My major concern is for the health and welfare of the children of Stone Church Road as well as for the elderly who have chronic debilitating diseases as the result of living and working in the Ohio Valley. Exacerbation of this health crisis is, I believe, an eminent danger,” he said.

Kim Feil

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Black Smoke Health Effects Vantage Energy Complaint near Arlington Drinking Water Source

“CALLER IS REPORTING THAT AN OIL RIG IS RELEASING A HEAVY BLACK SMOKE AND UNKNOWN CHEMICALS INTO THE AIR. THIS IS CAUSING PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE AREA TO HAVE BREATHING PROBLEMS.”
Screen shot 2015-08-19 at 12.56.58 PM
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Rivera <robert.rivera@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Clark H. Rucker <clark.rucker@kellyhart.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:46 PM
Subject: URGENT VOC test request- recent black smoke Chesapeake health complaint near Lake Arlington
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Robert Rivera <robert.rivera@arlingtontx.gov>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 12:12 PM
Subject: $72 Open Records Raw Water test Request :: W023021-081715
Does this information not exist in a spreadsheet to compare the raw water intake year over year?
Below is a copy of a recent communication….

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Buzz Pishkur <Buzz.Pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
To: ‘kim feil’ <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> 
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: At Arlington sponsored gas well forum “cement rot” came up in the discussion
Kim:  We monitor raw water at our intake on Lake Arlington twice per year. The testing includes VOC’s, metals, pesticides, and phosphate. We routinely monitor for Ph, temperature, etc.  The raw water sample information is not on our website but is provided when requested by a resident.
 
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Buzz Pishkur
Subject: At Arlington sponsored gas well forum “cement rot” came up in the discussion
Hello Mr Pishkur below is an article from WWI…with the last round of Arlington flooding at Lake Arlington (and it being a piping issue on the Ft Worth side) of the sewer breach, I’m not sure how relevant this article is about a product that helps concrete be waterproof, but the subject of cement rot did come up as a concern for gas well casings at the Arlington sponsored gas well forum…no one was able to answer any water quality concern questions. Here is the video in its entirety. It is two hours long but if you can let it run while you work you can then see how and why we fear the worst for eventual long term liveablity issues in Arlington’s Urban Drilling embrace. Collin Gregory may not have passed on those questions to you, but it would be appreciated if the city webpage from the water department had a link covering concerns of having surface and subsurface gaswell infrastructures near/under Lake Arlington.
Perhaps a list of what we have started to screen for since the advent of Urban Drilling?
A link to those “passed” test results.
Anything that shows we are not “business as usual” post urban drilling and maybe something that shows pro activeness like…new detectors added-what they screen for etc.
Thanks
Kim
 
END CUT & PASTE
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2015 Arlington Budget Fracking FAIL 4 Answers

Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 7.51.04 PM Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 7.44.55 PMKelly Canon to the rescue as I didn’t get the footage of my questions that only yielded one answer…that first question being “Does the budget include the $2,400 fee per gas well”? The answer by Chief Crowson was “NO we haven’t been collecting it”.

I asked if we could budget for better air emission detecting equipment for these drill sites and how for the last five years I’ve asked for a FLIR camera. I gave examples after naming off the equipment we currently use (PID’s, 4GasRae, AreaRae, and TVA)  which effluents our equipment isn’t capturing like Benzene below 100 ppb, formaldehyde, possibly hydrogen cyanide, and how we don’t screen for fracking chemicals like hydrochloric acid. I asked for spectrometer equipment that speciates the effluents on the spot rather than having the air tests sent to a lab and finding out seven weeks later what the first responders and the neighborhood was breathing.

I also said we need to ramp up our semi annual testing of Lake Arlington for VOC’s and heavy metals because of 50-100 drill casing laterals under our reservoir. I commented that the LABC well control event was explosive to the underground and we don’t know if there was any damage to those casings even though that was a mile away and those laterals are about 7,000 feet deep. I said that the science isn’t settled as to how the faults and fractures may communicate with ground water supplies. To which our City Manager thanked me for the comments and moved on to the next person’s question about the budget. So I left mumbling about how my questions weren’t answered.

Maybe next year we’ll get the proper equipment?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

NCTCOG: Each Fracking (related) Truck idles 6hrs/DAY

Update I have videos at the City of Arlington council room where TCEQ held a workshop for the industry to learn how to comply with new reporting requirements. I have some footage of “pushback” like they never keep any MSS records?..The date in my archives is 10/5/12.

Almost 11 million hrs of idling trucks spewing diesel carcinogens in Barnett Shale in 2012!

“…(NCTCOG) staff estimated that on average, each truck idles for approximately six hours. Although most respondents were water haulers, an assumption was made that loading and unloading activity is consistent regardless of the type of cargo (e.g. water, rock, mud, or equipment), so this estimate of six hours per day was held constant across all phases and for all analysis years.”

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/am/contracts/reports/mob/5821113174FY1101-20120831-NCTCOG-BarnettShale_oil_gas_mobile_ei.pdf

page 28…Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 3.30.18 PM

And on page 34 for Tarrant county, here is the per day emissions…

Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 3.37.32 PMAnd then add the IDLING emissions on page 34….

Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 3.52.08 PM

And keep in mind this is just the “truck fracking traffic” related emissions…it does not include the other Barnett Shale emission sources (engines, compressors, tank flashes,  etc.) during the pre and post production phases of gas drilling & compression …which include MSS emissions (maintenance, start-up & shut-down) activities….and of course can not possible include the unplanned upsets (accidents) emissions……in our Arlington airshed.


 

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Chris Klaus <cklaus@nctcog.org>
Cc: “chris.turner@house.state.tx.us” <chris.turner@house.state.tx.us>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 6:13 PM
Subject: SIP plan NCTCOG submitted to TCEQ for ozone compliance
Chris, this report you did showed the traffic piece related to our Barnett Shale emissions…
But the other areas where emissions need to be accounted for from Urban Drilling are in post production and MSS (maintenance, start-up, & shut-down) emissions.
Could the NCTCOG request PIR on MSS for drill sites and our electric compression station (blowdowns) for our area?
The 2011 TCEQ Barnett Shale Emission Inventory (EI), I recall, was only for post production equipment emissions consisting of approximations of emissions based on company spec sheets (for properly working engines). But see below where as of Jan 5 2014, the oil & gas sector had to start reporting the MSS.
I was thinking there is now some new info out there worth PIRn’ (alas I cannot afford some of the costs for large open records requests)…….

Inline image

Texas Sharon says the operators have had to keep track of MSS all along and only have to give up this info in two situations..
1) if exceeded the reporting threshold
2) if requested via PIR (which she says she has never been able to get that info even when it was requested).
For the COG to effectively help on the SIP (State Implementation Plan) for the Barnett Shale emissions, we need the whole Barnett Shale emissions picture.
Will the COG please try to get the non-mobile pre & post production Barnett Shale emissions numbers …ie site set up, drilling, fracking, flowback, drillouts/getting wells into production, storage & flash tank emissions, etc.?
Will the COG also try to get the maintenance emissions projections (blowdowns, methanol piping treatments, acidizing treatments, nitrogen lifts/re-stimulations etc.?
If this falls into another department of the NCTCOG, please forward this email on as appropriate.
The drillers can opt out of the TCEQ annual emissions inventory if they are under the emissions thresholds…

Inline image

Inline image

Not to be confused with the NSPS quado rules that basically say any new gas wells completed have to capture the gas……

image

eCFR — Code of Federal Regulations

  Electronic Code of Federal Regulations View past updates to the e-CFR. Click here to learn more. e-CFR data is current as of August 12, 2015
Preview by Yahoo
So my hope is that if (this NEW?) MSS reporting makes some drill sites go above the emissions thresholds, then the operators HAVE to get the PROPER Standard permit from the state (not an honor system PBR).
This information will not help in those cases where two different operators are close in proximity yet their emissions are not aggregated, but maybe next legislative session someone can tackle this?
With that said I hope that the TCEQ Emissions Inventory includes MSS emissions and not just post production equipment emissions. And if the NCTCOG undertakes finding out the complete emissions profiles, it would be a way to check to make sure all the operators have the proper permits. This would not duplicate the work of the TCEQ who currently uses an honor system in reporting emissions.
Prime example is the Lake Arlington Compressor Station used a PBR from 2007-2009 (possibly longer prior to the PIR) before it changed ownership (a couple/few) times and was finally operating under a Standard permit….https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/lacs-handly-compressor-station-permit-info/
Thanks Chris for helping us understand the true emissions numbers for these padsites and compressor stations in our neighborhoods. Where was the NCTCOG or the State Dept. of Public Health with offering to assist in any health and environmental impact studies when Urban Drilling was being discussed?
Sincerely,
Kim Feil
From: TXsharon <
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: was this a profracking stance or did I imagine that?

 

Operators are required to report REPORTABLE emission events to the TCEQ within 24 hours.
SUBCHAPTER F: EMISSIONS EVENTS AND SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE,
STARTUP, AND SHUTDOWN ACTIVITIES
DIVISION 1: EMISSIONS EVENTS
§101.201
Effective January 5, 2006
The non-reportable events are kept by the company but the code says they have to submit that information upon request from TCEQ. MSS emission reporting is not new. I don’t think they have enforced it but the industry is supposed to keep a record of all start up, shut down and emergency emission events. Some are reportable and some are not but the record keeping has been a requirement for a long time. I read your comment on the ST article.

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 9:01 AM, kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

RE: maintenance startup shutdown  I did find new studies but they were in California

I attended a 2012? TCEQ workshop in Arlington at city hall to help industry guys learn how to do state and federal required record keeping…I videoed some push back to the (MSS reporting?) process cause it was new… I have lots of footage of that event. I posted that on your facebook…here is my comment on that star telegram article about cutting corners …Since Chesapeake, the predominant driller in Arlington, is poised to be piece-mealed out or taken over, I’ll enjoy my biannual $20 royalty check even more if its signed by a foreign owned company…like China..(boom). California learned the hard way to become environmental savy and decades later when they started the unconventional fracking over there…you betcha 13 impressively resumed authors got together and released this document. I only read 1/3 of it and when they got to the how deep do they need to drill so it doesn’t communicate with ground water and bantered back and forth about the pathways and other moving targets like fault lines (natural and now man-made) I had to stop reading cause it only proved that we are truly guinea pigs in this whole quest for cash in our dash for gas. No wonder DicK Cheny created that Halliburton loophole with its fracking exemptions to the Clean Air & Water federal laws…”nope dat dere weren’t no accident” (no pun). But if you drink water and suck air in the Barnett Shale, you might want to read that document….https://ccst.us/publications/2014/2014wst5.pdf

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Arlington Shale Shock Event – Whats in Your HOME Air Test Coming Soon

So my mad dash for the camera and my respirator along with my banging heart and surging blood pressure was for naught THIS TIME. The media outlets need to be sensitive to those who live in the gaspatch and are awake to the risks….Turns out the BIG RIG they were talking about was an 18-wheeler on fire…not a drilling rig…I’m so SHALE SHOCKED.

Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 9.00.30 AMI thought that the big rig they were talking about was on Randoll Mill Rd. Last week I snapped this pic when I took the young biologist* who interviewed me on what effluents affecting air quality were concerning to me.

So I took her to the BIG RIG near Lamar High School at the Rolling Hills Country Club (yes they named the padsite after the club)….DSCN2282

DSCN2284So when that location was not ablaze, I headed to the other drill site near 360 and Randall Mill near Six Flags at Ave H but nothing there either….

Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 10.49.40 AM

UPDATE here’s the twitter pic of the BIG RIG..

Speaking of Shale Shock…..and I thought I could not see anything more shocking…..imagine living here….(this is in Mansfield TX)…Screen shot 2015-08-18 at 8.50.35 AM*IAD-X.com air quality study info here…

DSCN2345DSCN2348

*Natasha M. Kreitals Ph.D.

Visiting Postdoctoral Research Fellow
International Forensic Research Institute
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
Florida International University
11200 S.W. 8th St. CP194, Miami, FL, 33199
Phone: 1 (786) 253 9766
Email: nkreital@fiu.edu
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Natasha Kreitals <nkreital@fiu.edu>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Almost needed the IAD-X at that drill site I took you to

Kim,

Thank you for the links. We are still in the lab trying to work on the technology. Our focus is primarily volatile compounds in enclosed spaces (so those that get trapped in your home). Talking to people like yourselves is helping us identify what the needs are so we can hopefully meet them. With your suggestions we will go back to the lab and work on the flexibility. So thank you for the follow up and suggestions.

Regards,

Natasha

Natasha M. Kreitals Ph.D.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

My First Fracking Protest in Ft Worth Range Resources VS Rising Tide North Texas

Harriet Irby & I attended the 2011 Rising Tide North Texas fracking protest. That would be me in the respirator.Screen shot 2015-08-16 at 10.51.41 AM

kim first protest my sign I made

I brought that sign…put the SOS in it too

Benzene, my respirator sporting mannequin that Harriet named, wasn’t yet born…..here he is at the Levitt Pavilion in Arlington….

IMG_6334

BTW Benzene has his own Facebook page.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment