E-version on https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/sc-18172/
|Cause No. SC18172
|KIM TRIOLO FEIL,PlaintiffVS.CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION,Defendant.
||IN THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTPRECINCT NO. 2TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
Plaintiff ‘s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition
Under Texas Justice Courts Rules of Practice RULE 503.2. SUMMARY DISPOSITION part (b) Response, Plaintiff wishes to respond with a preponderance of evidence that supports why the good state of Texas enacted TEX LG. CODE ANN. A§ 253.005 : Texas Statutes – Section 253.005: LEASE OF OIL, GAS, OR MINERAL LAND
“(c) A well may not be drilled in the thickly settled part of the municipality..” In the spirit of what is appropriate and natural in its surroundings, Plaintiff pleads that a high impact, industrial mining process in a densely populated neighborhood, business, and Entertainment District is not appropriate. Plaintiff pleads judge will agree that odors from Urban Drilling operations near civilians are abnormal, unreasonable, and out of place in its surroundings.
In response to Defendant’s I. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY that “Plaintiff’s nuisance claim fails as a matter of law”. To be blunt “law doesn’t matter” in small claims court. Plaintiff pleads for citizens of the jury, being of normal intelligence, to decide if the city and the state BOTH were at fault in not issuing a nuisance violation. Plaintiff prays that the jury gets to view my video testimonies and render this verdict “by the people-for the people” in finding a legitimate nuisance. Plaintiff seeks the blatant revelation of the absence of functioning Urban Drilling Nuisance Law.
Plaintiff’s goal is to have the jury to recognize that it is unjust that operators consider their “normal” operations (previously in rural areas) to be unobjectionable. Plaintiff pleads that urban drilling emissions unfairly escape the law, yet are allowed to trespass and assault our senses and developing and aged bodies. This assault on urban populations can endanger developing fetus’ endocrine systems with chemicals known to be harmful in parts per trillion.
In response to Defendant’s I. INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY statement that the city and the state “concluded that there were no airborne contaminants at the site”, Defendant erroneously leads Judge to believe that said tests are appropriate to the operation, applicable to the constituents, and thereby protective of public health. For example Defendant’s TCEQ Report on Exhibit 2 has a disclaimer on the Laboratory and Assurance Section for their Suma Canister air test that claims, “Please note that this analytical technique is not capable of measuring all compounds which might have adverse health effects.”
Furthermore, TCEQ’s suma canister air test doesn’t look at any of the aldehydes (additives) used in fracking. The suma test only speciates for carbon compounds ending mostly in -anes and –enes, yet doesn’t even test for methane-the main ingredient being extracted in a dry gas shale play.
The traditional testing equipment used on 1/31/2013 focused on finding VOC gases at explosive level conditions. Plaintiff suspects some equipment may be not sensitive enough and not geared to detecting chemicals such as acids, biocides, and corrosion inhibitors, or their chemical reactions when mixed.
Plaintiff acknowledges the impossibility to test for what is not known (therefore not regulated): cumulative, multiple, (possibly synergistically toxic) combinations of chemicals. Plaintiff points out that some of these ingredients are trade secret as in the surfactant found in Plaintiff’s Chesapeake’s MSDS sheet, (Exhibit 1b).
Unknown risks of unknown chemicals in densely populated areas where operators cannot control (feared) trespass odors gives credibility to Plaintiff nuisance claim in mental stress and emotional harm depriving Plaintiff of the enjoyment of her property. Plaintiff pleads for the court to “recognize that an undetected hazard doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist”.
Defendant references a footnote in motion part V. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES that precedence has been set in a higher court, “It is important to note that Texas does not allow a nuisance claim based on fear…from the lawful operation of industries in Texas”. Plaintiff responds pleading an emotional nuisance in “a valid fear of unknown chemicals not being tested for with unknown, multiple, cumulative, and unknown potential for synergistically toxic effects”.
Defendant’s part III. BACKGROUND FACTS, defendant claims “Plaintiff and one other individual made complaints with the TCEQ and/or the City of Arlington claiming an odor…” yet page two of Defendant’s Exhibit 3 of Arlington Fire Department’s Incident #13-0002931 reads, “A related call occurred at 1204 Harwell Dr 09:46 with E8 responding to an odor investigation, Inc#13-0002926”. Plaintiff’s (Exhibit 2b) of Incident #13-0002926 shows dispatch to a THIRD complainant that reads,“Odor investigation, Smell being generated by gas well in district 1”.
Plaintiff’s (Exhibit 3a) Google map shows dispatch to be 2 miles away.
Defendant’s Exhibit 2, TCEQ Attachment 1 of survey map shows the wind direction to be heading to the north and east. This is the same direction where the Harwell odor complaint was dispatched. Furthermore, that 2 mile distance from the wellhead is evidence of the extremely, intense nature of nuisance odors even as predominant northeast winds diluted and dispersed the effluents.
In Defendants part III. BACKGROUND FACTS, claim “No other complaints related to odor from the Truman Padsite were made at or around that same time”. Plaintiff again argues that the lack of numerous complaints doesn’t reflect the reality that others were claiming to have breathed nuisance, health-effecting odors. Defendant was absolute in claiming, “…no one – including Plaintiff – was ever exposed to any contaminants that would harm them.” On the contrary, Plaintiff’s key video testimonies collaborate Plaintiff’s nuisance and health effects claims.
Plaintiff’s (Exhibit 4) KEY EVIDENCE VIDEO, http://bit.ly/1Db2EWR, was taken north of the Truman Drill site the first week in February 2013-note Plaintiff’s health effects claim of burning eyes on video as well as others claiming health effects.
Defendants part III. BACKGROUND FACTS, describe the duration of the odor event as “ …a brief period, and the odor was eliminated quickly.” However, Plaintiff contends that the activity took place over a two-day period as the same odor invaded her home with the windows and doors closed the morning of January 30, 2013. Her mother-in-law, Karen Arrington, was visiting Plaintiff, (who has agreed to be a witness if called upon) at the time of the home envision of noxious odors. Plaintiff recalls moving her parrot to a back room in the house when her eyes kept burning.
Plaintiff has video of a next-door neighbor, minor (407 N Elm St). (Exhibit 5) http://bit.ly/1z9NUnj, minor testified of nuisance odors entering their home around the same time and causing (the mother who doesn’t speak English) health effects (dizziness). The minor said her mother lit scented candles to chase away the odor. Had this been a gas release, Plaintiff could have lost her home and possibly her and her family’s lives.
Plaintiff complies with all four points to be met in Texas nuisance law that Defendant outlines in their part V. ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES:
- (Exhibit 6) – Plaintiff owns her home; 2. (Exhibit 7) – letters of evidence that Chesapeake was negligent in intentionally not responding to her emails regarding how to prevent stale water in her family’s air shed; 3. Chesapeake’s conduct resulted in a condition that substantially interferes with Plaintiff’s private use and enjoyment of her land from the emotional and physical drain in working full time without pay to prevent future exposures to fight an industry that violated TEX LG. CODE ANN. A§ 253.005 : Texas Statutes – Section 253.005: LEASE OF OIL, GAS, OR MINERAL LAND
“(c) A well may not be drilled in the thickly settled part of the municipality..”; 4. Defendant (though not of their fault) erroneously said “Plaintiff has already admitted that she cannot prove this fourth element (nuisance caused injury)”. Plaintiff was able to get incident report with erroneous statement corrected (Exhibit 8) on 7/15/15 and Plaintiff notified Defendant (Exhibit 9). “She stated that she had no medical complaint…” has been changed to read, “During our conversation Mrs. Feil made no medical complaint…”
Exhibit 7 Letters
Exhibit 8 Changed Incident report
Exhibit 9 note of change to incident report
In response to Motion, Plaintiff expands her reason for claim on petition, “Nuisance odors in my home and in my car from the Truman Drill Site at 310 N Collins St, Arlington TX on 1/30/13 & 1/31/13 respectively. While the local & state government did not issue any nuisance citation, I am relying on the small claims court to seek justice for the disturbance & stress preventing the enjoyment of my home & quality of life” to include “ and physical harm such as by an assault on senses and health for me and my family relating to all Chesapeake Truman drill site activity phases.”
In the beginning of (Exhibit 10) audio, http://bit.ly/1MtYQmU, Plaintiff recorded part of her complaint to TCEQ on 1/31/2013 asking if other callers had health effects too. TCEQ Interoffice Memorandum of 5/3/13 (Exhibit 11) clarifies Plaintiff’s phone call by stating “… citizen complaint of headache and ammonia/burnt odor”.
Following that call is the conversation of Plaintiff asking Arlington fireman if any chemicals were tested for and Plaintiff articulated that we are not testing for chemicals only explosive situations. During conversation with the fireman, Plaintiff was noticing her throat felt raw. Other Plaintiff notes, “My neighbor’s daughter said they lit some candles to chase off the odor in their home…I opened a north window and shut off the central unit…my mother-in-law- smelled it with me (on 1/30/13) and she immediately came down with a respiratory thing she is still fighting. (Feb 20 2013)”.
(Exhibit 12), Plaintiff had chest pains that came on when viewing the open records of the terror caused to her neighborhood of the Medic Dispatch on incident #13-0002937. Plaintiff took a “cry myself to sleep nap” and it took a few hours for the chest pains to go away.
City of Arlington Gas Well Inspector, Jessica Minley’s field notes, (Exhibit 13) “Noted burnt oil odor in air (strong offensive)” is helpful as well as her TVA readings of 4.68 ppm Toxic Vapor Analyzer TCEQ reading of 1/31/13 taken at Truman site being over 3 times more than a prior TVA reading (Incident #176817) at that site back in 12/4/12.
(Exhibit 14) video, http://bit.ly/1Mut7C9, of Plaintiff’s home in proximity to very visible diesel emissions during the
drilling (fracking) phase
(Exhibit 15) Truman drill site July 2012 city gas well inspectors report (page 139), http://bit.ly/1OgzrhS, and February 2013 fireman’s inspection report (Defendant’s Exhibit 3) totaling six violations found at that site
Exhibit 15 1of5
Exhibit 15 2of5
Exhibit 15 3of5
Exhibit 15 4of5
Exhibit 15 5of5
(Exhibit 16) Audio of 1/31/13 911 calls, http://bit.ly/1J1FUNy
- burnt odor complaint by Cecelia French,
- business owner complaint/medic dispatch, and
- Plaintiff’s call stating a health effect/concern for area’s air shed
Plaintiff & her family’s time stamped diary (one sample on Exhibit 17)
Before the Truman site event, Plaintiff had experience with another Chesapeake (Lynn Smith) drill site in Arlington having stale water exposures. That event caused Jean Stephens severe health effects (vomiting, high blood pressure) resulting in medical dispatch and yet no city/state nuisance was found, (Exhibit 18) http://bit.ly/1f4mwU0. Note David Poole, VP of Range Resources, responded to me that the odor was probably a biocide.
(Exhibit 19) Video of Chesapeake MSDS sheets at city hall http://bit.ly/1LeJFAY
(Exhibit 20) Correspondence from Julie Wilson, VP of Chesapeake, unwilling to use diesel-less hybrid engines. Best Available (emission) Control Technologies are only mandated if they are “reasonable” in Arlington’s ordinance.
Exhibit 21 Julie Wilson
Plaintiff’s short tem memory loss and diagnosis (5/29/15) of cataract, and other health issues in addition to suffering through her family member’s health and mental health issues compels her to beg the court to let the people decide her nuisance case.
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Plaintiff prays and requests the Court to deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiff opportunity to present additional evidence to the jury.
Plaintiff respectively requests Judge to order Defendant to resend their January 27 email (Answer) by forwarding it from the original email string to verify that the email was sent. Plaintiff in advance apologizes in admitting she may have inadvertently deleted the email. Plaintiff requested court clerk to document her request for the court to mail her a copy of Answer document.
Respectively Submitted, July 17, 2015
Kim Triolo Feil,
409 N Elm St. Arlington Texas 76011 817 274-7257 email@example.com
|Cause No. SC18172
|KIM TRIOLO FEIL,PlaintiffVS.
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION,
|IN THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE COURTPRECINCT NO. 2TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
Plaintiff ‘s Additional Supporting Documents and Pleadings
Under Texas Justice Courts Rules of Practice RULE RULE 502.7. AMENDING AND CLARIFYING PLEADINGS Plaintiff respectfully submits additional evidence for the court and copies this information to the newly appointed lead counsel representing Chesapeake at the Kelly Hart law firm.
Plaintiffs response on page 10 refers to Exhibit 13 comparing Truman site TVA reading of 4.68 ppm (w/odors) on 1/31/2013 to (new Exhibit 21) Truman site TVA reading of 1.49 ppm on 12/4/2012 when “no odors’’ were noted by TCEQ inspector.
Exhibit 21 (supplement to Exhibit 13)
Plaintiff wishes to provide examples to show that regardless of VOC readings and regardless of reported health effects from inspectors, that the trend is to not find violations. Example one at another location (DWG Midstream Compressor Station) Ref TCEQ ACL# 1108073 (new Exhibit 22) on 8/18/11 where citizen health complaints and one vomiting cat in the car brought TCEQ investigator to take a TVA readings that was 1,229 ppm due to stuck valve. Investigator, Kijun Hong, admitted to Plaintiff (when questioned on the phone) of sore throat and burning eyes.
Days later, (8/22/2011) another TCEQ investigator, Jonathan Powell, responded to the same facility for the same issue of stuck valve. Said investigator also reported unspecified health effects on ACL# 1108078, (new Exhibit 23).
The odor was described as glycol/brine odor. Reminder to the court that brine is in stale water and what was claimed to be the source of the Truman site odors on trial here. To recap from examples: two different investigators experienced health effects and in both cases-no violations were found.
Another incident, (new Exhibit 24a) on TCEQ Investigation# 914402 on 3/4/2011 at Pantego, Carrizo padsite (near Plaintiff’s son’s school) during Nitro Lift had TVA readings of 1140 ppm. Suma canister Ethane reading was 2,600 ppb on ACL 110336, (Exhibit 24b), yet again no violation was found.
By the time they finished fracking five consecutive wells by Bailey Jr High in 2011, Plaintiff’s son was diagnosed as having asthma. By end of that school year, music teacher had 4th stage triple myeloma. By mid summer break, special education teacher died of an aneurysm. Plaintiff provides these examples not related to Chesapeake Truman operations, but to show Plaintiff‘s experience with questioning exposures to health events starting with her son’s health issues correlating with possible exposures around the Carrizo site near his school 2,000 feet away, and from the UTA pad site/compressor station one mile away from Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff’s teen was in was sickened for ten days when he played near his home during a school cancellation due to a snow white-out event. Plaintiff’s home is a mile from the Carrizo UTA site near when they had their onsite compressor station (now replaced with electric compressors due to TCEQ pressure). Plaintiff’s home is also 1.5 mi west of the Chesapeake/GM pad site. Plaintiff’s son did not spend much time outside usually and Plaintiff believes a cooling inversion pushed hydrocarbons down to the ground and exposed him. The night following when Plaintiff’s son played for hours outside, he took ill and was seen by pediatrician several times thereafter with no diagnosis. The doctor said the dilated eyes, lethargy, headaches, dizziness, imbalance, stomach aches that came in waves were symptomatic of some type of mysterious exposure…my son relapsed weeks later when I took him to ride bikes by the Pantego well near where his friend lived. I forbid him to get out of the car when I saw the active derrick was up seemingly in their backyard, but he jumped out and ran away to his friend. Plaintiff recalls the frustration of not being able to retrieve son fretting “whats a mom to do when the kid is bigger than you”. Within a couple of hours he was crying & begging for me to pick him up. He was saying that his ear drum was about to burst. Plaintiff sought an attorney to take case back in 2011 with Turley Law Firm against Carrizo and then in 2013 for both Carrizo and Chesapeake with Matthew & Associates without success, (Exhibit 25a & 25b).
Plaintiff son’s health story and resulting lawyer contacts is in response to Defendant questioning why Plaintiff waited almost two years to file Nuisance petition with Exhibits 25; Plaintiff had been trying to find any brave Texas attorney to take Barnett Shale related cases and even contacted The McDonald Company (who is suing Chesapeake on the class action royalty shoring case) prior to filing nuisance claims in small claim court, but was again rejected.
Plaintiff is grateful in retrospect that her long awaited day in court is not exposing her family’s financial liability to the HB 274 “loser pays attorney fees” law enacted in 2011. Fortunately HB 274 was amended to exclude cases in small claims court,(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.42.htm ). Furthermore Plaintiff is not agreeable to Chesapeake’s decision to have involved four attorneys unnecessarily at their expense. Plaintiff pleads for Judge to agree that in a small claims court case, professional representation is optional; any local representative such as Jason Conway, who was deposed by Defendant, would have sufficed.
Plaintiff pleads that in lieu of Exhibits presented that densely populated neighborhoods in our Barnett Shale urban drilling “experiment” should be awarded nuisance claims even if a violation by a legal operation has not been found. If nuisance award is only considered if a violation is found, Plaintiff claims to have then revealed the absence of a nuisance deterrent. Plaintiff cries out to court that citizens of Tarrant County are being made to co-exist with Urban Drilling’s trespass effluents to suffer risks of health effects without any recourse to justice. Operators then have no incentive to contain their emissions especially as rates of pad site accidents are set to increase as infrastructures age and require more maintenance.
Plaintiff’s wishes to support previously submitted, Exhibit 19, video of Chesapeake MSDS sheets with (new Exhibit 26) enumerating those constituents.
Exhibit 26 MSDS
Exhibit 26 MSDS (non hydrofracturing phase) Chesapeake Trumans Site
data enumerated from supporting video exhibit 19
Petroleum Crude Oil
Natural Gas Condensate with Hydrogen Sulfide
Petroleum Crude Oil with hydrogen Sulfide
Produced Water/Oil Water/Formation Water (to include Benzene, Naptha, Petroleum Distillates)
Produced Water with Hydrogen Sulfide (to include Benzene, Petroleum Distillates)
(end Exhibit 26)
Plaintiff also wished to revisit concerns for what TCEQ Suma does not detect is the –ines. Brines coming into contact with oxidizers like bleach (sodium hypochlorite) may produce free chlorine or bromine. Workers are to wear respirators if brine water is misting. If brine is of the zinc bromide nature that is a high acid. One of the young attorneys is versed on acidizing and may be able to agree that this brine can absorb the moisture out of leather boots and may be what was causing scratchy throats where the medic was dispatched to on 1/31/2013. Since the TCEQ tests the air, Plaintiff is remorseful that no one called the RRC to test the water to see what effluents was there aerosolizing. Unknown is that which was NOT tested for that could explain why Plaintiff’s eyes were burning and had a headache. Plaintiff seeks to understand why her concerns of stale water in her neighborhood was not acted upon in advance to prevent such operations to cause others such health effects claimed to irritate throats, cause headaches, flu like symptoms and dizziness.
Plaintiff cites the response on 1/31/2013 to remove stale water (odors) at Chesapeake’s expense with an evacuation truck that then drove noxious effluents to an injection site for proper disposal as negligence in not having this protocol in place prior to operating at the Truman cite. Even with Plaintiff pleading and warning earlier in letters about the risk of stale water odors in her neighborhood.
Another complaint of Plaintiff on evidence of inadequate air testing equipment claims is regarding the Toxic Vapor Analyzer. If a TVA 1000 was used, it’s minimal detectible level of Benzene starts at 100 ppb which is not protective of public health. Please refer to Exhibit 26 of MSDS where Benzene is mentioned in produced waters (stale or not).
Plaintiff performed due diligence in collecting on foot almost 500 petition signatures, (Exhibit 27), against this Truman drill site selection. Innocent (non-land) business owners, workers, renters in the immediate area objected to the (eventual due to gerrymandering and buying off owners within 600 feet) plans for Special Use Permit for Chesapeake Truman site. Signatures of workers in and near the drill site are noted on the petitions as being closer than 600 ft setback . Padsite selection was clearly in violation of the City of Arlington’s gas drilling ordinance.
The owner of the Collins St Apartments delivered a $500 refund check to Chesapeake in rescinding their approval to be closer than 600 feet. Plaintiff was able to collect two more land owner rescinds to waiving the 600 ft setback, and gerrymandering then took place by Chesapeake to change position of the first Truman 1H well a few feet
to the north so as to gerrymander out those opposed (Truman 1H was denied and replaced by Bobcat 1H). Over the December holidays, council allowed Chesapeake requests to table hearing and was paying off more business owners to sign rescinds to the 600 ft waiver. They were successful to pay off one of the landlords who helped me collect about twenty signatures, the owner of the restaurant next to the hotel who originally was opposed and even reversed one rescind of waiver from California duplex owner. Plaintiff therein gives Judge necessary information to show a history of nuisance bullying by Chesapeake that has taken its toll on Plaintiff mental and physical capacities to not be able to enjoy her homestead or be employed in a full time job due to the effort undertaken to remove nuisance operators from her neighborhood.
Evidence of Plaintiff speaking at most every City Council meeting can be found on most every agenda topic item and most budget meetings on public record. Plaintiff critical of emergency response equipment submits (Exhibit 28) hand notes preparing to address council begging them to budget for infrared camera and Detecto Spectrometer so as to be able to speciate effluents on real time equipment being helpful for such events as occurred on 1/30 and 1/31 2013.
Plaintiff also wishes to provide transcript of video in the event it is not able to play in the courtroom, (new Exhibit 29).
Exhibit 29 key evidence descriptions
Exhibit 29 Enumerated notes & health effects claimed on Key Evidence Video of testimonies in Arlington Entertainment District following the events of 1/3 & 1/31 2013 at Chefsapeake Truman drill site…
At 1:26 into the video, several men at Discount Motors….
first speaker “it was pretty bad”
second speaker “it was evergreen (odor)…bad…it smelled real bad”
Plaintiff “…was in my house my eyes were burning.. It was like a strong amonia”
Second speaker “sulfer….thats what I thought it was… I smelled it right when I got off ….. see I come from Ft Worth, so I got off the freeway right here on…right when I was going to turn on Collins, and I had my windows open. I could smell it and I thought the car was burning some kind of”
Third speaker “I know exactly what it smelled like now…I used to be in the roofing business and I know the smell aah you know they are doing like a flat roof that tar, that smell that come off (burning tar) exactly what that smelled like.
Third Speaker “Juan was feeling dizzy and he thought it was because of that.”
Fourth speaker (Juan Rivera) “I got sick”. “…(felt) bad I I (threw up? In audible)…when I come home I got fever, next day I got a kinda like…was catching like a flu…a cold-something like that”.
Plaintiff “My mother in law got sick right afterwards she smelled it with me and I live on Elm Street. It got in our house and she’s still trying to get over her cold”.
Fourth speaker (Juan) “Yeah that’s what I got..a cold”
At 3:22 African Fiesta Mart speaker “ it smelled like oil…no I didn’tfeel bad…I was coming to work. So when I got out of my car I smelled it”
At 3:48 female speaker from restaurant “it wasn’t like how do I say like a smell that I really (recognize) yeah yeah… it was just like you know when something’s been closed for a while, it was something like that…when I walked in I smelled it, but afterwards it just went away..I think it was eleven and the girl two doors down she’s the one who asked do you smell something? And I’m like opened door and its smells funny but it wasn’t bad bad…
Plaintiff “Ok. I smelled it when I left the Walmart around12:30 quarter to 1:00 and that was two days in a row that I smelled something so that was about the same time I called it in”
Female speaker from restaurant “Yeah shes two doors down and she did smell something and to me it went away and didn’t (shrug) all I feel its cause we had opened and I don’t know”
At min 4:43 at the Firestone
Speaker 1 It smelled like their grease trap
At 5:12 at Car Fox
First Speaker “everybody smelled it…it came for the ladies restroom-we thought it was probably a pigeon or something”
At 5:44 Cecila French “ I reported something I thought it was that gas thing…it strong, strange,,its like a strange gassy smell…ahh I call the fire department because I was worried cause I got a little one I’m like ok where’s this smell coming from?…..(Plaintiff speaks about 500 signatures and now following up on the accidents)……What do you mean accident what happened ? (Plaintiff –they act like its business as usual) I was just concerned cause that ain’t the first time I went over there and complained I its like the seco…well the first time I went over there I smelled like diesel gas. And I went up there personally there my self…well my daughter’s been suffering from sinuses in the morning which is very weird. I don’t know hopefully that wasn’t the cause of it but none of us….we’re OK….but sh’e havin.g sinus issues.”
At 7:12 patron at convenience store “its been like three times that I see people over there talking bout it”
Owner at convenience store “its just ya smell terrible bad like gas or something…when I was here it was all gone…..when they (employees) went outside (they smelled it.)
Collins Apartments 7:50
Female office manager “yeah we smell it…some people were saying when they come into my office and they were talking about getting sick and it was making them sick cause they thought it was coming from my property..its not my property…this was blowing this way what ever it is……yep I smelled it…I knew it was Chesapeake
Male office worker Yeah it was just like light headed the lady from the gas station..yeah people thought it was gas.”
Female office manager “I came into my office when I smelled it I didn’t know what it was right at that time, but when everybody started coming asking me, I knew it had to be coming from over there (drill site). The fire department was here measuring something the air..people thought it was as gas smell is what people thought it was.”
8:50 Resident at Claremont senior center near the stadium
“And she was cleaning the house and she was saying there is a gas smell in here and I said to her I don’t have anything gas in here it is all electric and she said well there gas leak somewhere…I live down here at the apartment by the gate and you can smell the stuff in the air … I just have to get the oxygen out on me because anytime I smell anything like that in I got oxygen there and I use it all the time.”
Plaintiff asked resident if she had to get oxygen when she smelled that
Resident at Claremont “yeah”
(end Exhibit 29)
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Plaintiff prays and requests the Court to deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and grant Plaintiff opportunity to present additional evidence to the jury.
Respectively Submitted, July 22, 2015
Kim Triolo Feil,
409 N Elm St. Arlington Texas 76011 817 274-7257 k