Up to 17% Methane Leak Rates Found Making NG worse than Coal by 80 Times!

UPDATE  (aerial flyovers? detect less than the drive bys) but still the EPA is off by at least half!

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Roxanne Thalman <roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 2:34 PM
Subject: Ammo 2 fight HB40 – New Study Finds U.S. Oil and Gas Methane Emissions Are 60 Percent Higher Than EPA Reports

Told ya so!
U R frying us!!!!!!!!!!1
This is ammunition to better challenge HB40 in C O U R T !!!!!!
We want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local controlWe want local control!
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Stacy MacDiarmid <smacdiarmid@edf.org>
To: kimfeil@sbcglobal.net 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 1:02 PM
Subject: New Study Finds U.S. Oil and Gas Methane Emissions Are 60 Percent Higher Than EPA Reports


Media Contact: Stacy MacDiarmid, (512) 691-3439, smacdiarmid@edf.org

New Study Finds U.S. Oil and Gas Methane Emissions Are 60 Percent Higher Than EPA Reports
(WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jun. 21, 2018) A study available today in the journal Science finds that the U.S. oil and gas industry emits 13 million metric tons of methane from its operations each year—nearly 60 percent more than currently estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The higher overall methane leak rate underscores a growing business and environmental challenge for natural gas in an increasingly competitive, lower-carbon economy. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over a 20-year timespan. It is also the main ingredient in natural gas.
The new study estimates the current leak rate from the U.S. oil and gas system is 2.3 percent, versus the current EPA inventory estimate of 1.4 percent. Although the percentages seem small, the volume represents enough natural gas to fuel 10 million homes – lost gas worth an estimated $2 billion. The study was led by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) researchers, with support from 19 co-authors from 15 other institutions. They conducted new research and integrated more than half a decade of underlying research on methane emissions. This original body of science was conducted by more than 140 researchers from 40 institutions in cooperation with 50 oil and gas companies that provided site access and technical advice.
“These studies, synthesized in this Science paper, have transformed our understanding of methane emissions from natural gas systems in the United States,” said Professor David Allen, of the Cockrell School of Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, who is a contributor to the new paper and lead author on several of the earlier studies. 

The findings reported feature measurements at over 400 well pads in six basins and scores of midstream facilities, data from component measurements, and aerial surveys covering large swaths of U.S. oil and gas infrastructure. 

“This is by far the most comprehensive body of research of its kind,” said EDF Chief Scientist Steven Hamburg, who is a co-author of the paper. “Scientists have uncovered a huge problem, but also an enormous opportunity. Reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas sector is the fastest, most cost-effective way we have to slow the rate of warming today, even as the larger transition to lower-carbon energy continues.”

The International Energy Agency estimates industry can reduce its worldwide emissions by 75 percent – and that up to two-thirds of those reductions can be realized at zero net cost.
“Although we confirmed that methane emissions are substantially higher than previously thought, the good news is that our new understanding provides a cost-effective path forward to eliminate the waste of this valuable resource,” said Allen Robinson, who is a co-author, professor, and department head of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Leading companies are beginning to recognize the challenge, but action to reduce emissions is only just getting started. In April, BP set its first quantitative methane target. Last month ExxonMobil committed to cut methane emissions and flared gas volumes, following an earlier announcement from its subsidiary XTO Energy that unveiled their methane reduction program. Shell, Qatar Petroleum, and a host of other producers have committed to continuously reduce methane emissions across the natural gas supply chain.
Overall, EDF is calling for a 45 percent reduction in global oil and gas methane emissions by 2025 – a goal that would have the same short-term climate benefit as closing one-third of the world’s coal plants when achieved.
“It’s an impressive collection of work with implications for both mitigation and generating accurate inventory estimates,” said Eric Kort, Assistant Professor of Climate and Space Sciences at the University of Michigan, who is another of the study’s co-authors.
“Federal and state governments must take action – and many states are – but industry leadership remains crucial,” said EDF Senior Vice President Mark Brownstein. “Companies have the ability to lead through operational best practices, comprehensive methane programs, target setting, technology innovation and pilots, and constructively engaging with the regulatory process.”
EDF recently announced plans to launch MethaneSAT, a purpose-built satellite designed to measure and map human-caused methane emissions almost anywhere on earth. Due to launch in 2021, MethaneSAT will help both countries and companies track problem areas, find solutions, and monitor their progress.
EDF, the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative companies, and the UN Environment’s Climate and Clean Air Coalition are also collaborating on a set of peer-reviewed methane studies in locations across the globe, which will complement the data collected by MethaneSAT. These studies are built on the methods pioneered in the U.S.-based studies upon which the synthesis paper is based.
Funding for these studies was provided by the Heising-Simons Foundation, Bill and Susan Oberndorf, Betsy and Sam Reeves, the Robertson Foundation, TomKat Charitable Trust, and others.
Read more about this work at https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-studies.
EDF will host a press briefing on the new study.
Thursday, June 21 at 3pm Eastern.
(866) 575-6539; passcode: 1819592. 
Slide access https://cc.readytalk.com/r/augsi164du28&eom
Environmental Defense Fund (edf.org), a leading international nonprofit organization, creates transformational solutions to the most serious environmental problems. EDF links science, economics, law, and innovative private-sector partnerships. Connect with us on TwitterFacebook, and our Energy Exchange blog.

If you would rather not receive future communications from Environmental Defense Fund, let us know by clicking here.
Environmental Defense Fund, 257 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010 United States


Check out this eye opening video! http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/story/chasing-methane/

So when the paid industry liars say the opposite…call them out!

Posted in Methane Leaks Proven up to 17% video, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

SAIS Researchers Find Frack Water Oversight Gaps….clap clap told ya!

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “jcha10@jhu.edu” <jcha10@jhu.edu>; “shurt3@jhu.edu” <shurt3@jhu.edu>; “jhasket1@jhu.edu” <jhasket1@jhu.edu>
Cc: Kevin A. Schug <kschug@uta.edu>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>; “ari1@cornell.edu” <ari1@cornell.edu>; Rita Beving <rita.beving@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:24 AM
Subject: {NCTCA} Texas info on…research relating to Oil & Gas Activity and Impacts
Thank you for the video link, I have updated my blog to add that to my response to Nick’s coverage in the Oil & Gas Journal, where I disagreed that Texas had its act together with fracking rules related to NORM. I also mention the risk to drinking water via spills and how trucks carrying produced water to injection wells need tighter manifest regulations. This can be accomplished by re-classifying O&G waste as TENORM so it becomes regulated under the Clean Water Act to reverse its current exemption from tighter regs via the Halliburton Loophole.  https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2018/04/24/sais-researchers-find-frack-water-oversight-gaps-clap-clap-told-ya/
Additionally (without having seen the video yet) I’m sure you guys covered ?? the risk to drinking water relating to microbes proliferating near drill sites that are ARE resistant to traditional forms of disinfection such as chlorine? I think its our good luck to find this out because chemical attempts to clean up O&G production waste waters worsens the toxicity in TTHMS etc..which I call “frack on crack”. Please take a look at UTA Clear’s work in using what I call “good” microbes (a NON-chemical way) to reduce TOC and prevent frack on crack….https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/erin-brockovich-visited-north-tx-is-the-arlington-connection-to-increased-thms-fracking-induced-microbial-proliferation/
Thank you and please pass this info on as appropriate.
Kim Feil
https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/ 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..” 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.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Joniel Cha <jcha10@jhu.edu>
To: “kimfeil@sbcglobal.net” <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 12:43 PM
Subject: Oil & Gas Activity and Impacts in Colorado
Dear Kim,
Thank you for your interest in my team’s presentation at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in conjunction with SAIS and Clean Water Action (CWA). Nick Snow from the Oil & Gas Journal kindly wrote a news article covering our presentation.
I am Joniel Cha, a graduate Masters Student at Johns Hopkins University studying Economics and Energy, Resources & Environment. In addition to this report, I wrote a White Paper on the Management of Dams with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
I worked with the SAIS/CWA team covering oil & gas activity and impacts in the United States. My focus area covered oil and gas activity in the state of Colorado.
The JHU SAIS staff kindly recorded our presentation. Please find the link here: https://youtu.be/TCp-lHO6xZ8?t=1966
Oil and Gas Retrieval: Environmental Risks and Impacts on Water An overview of conventional vs. unconventional retrieval, waste pits, TENORM, and case study …
If you would like, please feel free to watch the presentation in its entirety, with four presentations:
  • Unconventional vs. Conventional Oil and Gas Activities: Differences in Definition and Regulation
  • TENORM: Analysis of Potential Exposure and Regulation
  • The Prevalence and Dangers of Disposal into Open Pits in Texas
  • Colorado Case Study: Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
Additionally, please feel free to distribute this widely among your networks and colleagues, and anyone who may be of interest.
I am currently finalizing my report, and any feedback you and your colleagues may have would be most helpful.
Hopefully my report will be published, and I will be more than happy to send it to you.
Thank you very much again! I look forward to hearing from you.
Joniel Cha, M.A. Candidate
Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
International Economics and Energy, Resources, & Environment
University of Virginia
Leadership & Public Policy and Foreign Affairs
Yet another love letter to add to my blog ……
To: Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <charlie.parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; “roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov” <roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>; Angela Kilpatrick <kilpatricka@trinityra.org>; Julie Hunt <huntj@trinityra.org>; Cynthia Simmons <cynthia.simmons@arlingtontx.gov>; Jason M. Allen <jmallen@cbs.com>; Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 7:56 AM
Subject: Need local control rule added to gaswell ordinance-SAIS researchers find gaps in unconventional oil, gas regulations
This article makes it sound like Texas has regulations concerning radionuclides, but I’ve blogged on the contrary…
Can someone help me find the report (see article on the report below) that the Oil & Gas Journal reported on entitled, “SAIS researchers find gaps in unconventional oil, gas regulations”.   UPDATE here is a youtube video of the presentation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCp-lHO6xZ8&feature=youtu.be&t=1966 
I have also found a loophole where the truck manifests are laxed in carrying produced water which is exempt from Clean Water Act where Class II O&G related injection wells are not as stringent as others…..by definition ALL O&G produced water that has been brought to the surface by man’s technology contains TENORM and should fall under more stringent regulations for disposal in trucking it to the disposal wells. US DOT = 7 mths response on NORM vs TENORM truck fracking exemptions
Victoria (a responsive councilperson thus far), WE need to reclassify the produced water being trucked out to injection wells as TENORM so as warrant more stringent truck manifest accountability for amounts/truck weight that leave the site and that the same amounts/truck weight arrive at the injection well and no spillage has occurred along the way. Maybe we can amend our gas well ordinance to specify that? It is an above ground activity that is under local control and doesn’t interfere with HB40. Can you get with staff to add this to our ordinance?
Kim Feil
https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/ 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..” 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.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Oil & Gas Journal <news@ogjo-media.com>
To: “kimfeil@sbcglobal.net” <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:26 PM
Subject: SAIS researchers find gaps in unconventional oil, gas regulations

SAIS researchers find gaps in unconventional oil, gas regulations

Differences in terminology and oversight approaches have created marked gaps in government regulation of growing unconventional oil and gas activity in the US, a research team of four graduate students at Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies reported on Apr. 19.
Continue Reading »

View online | April 23, 2018 | Forward to a Fri

Posted in Arlington 4th Worst Water Quality in US, avner vengosh, Barnett Shale, Bioremediation with frack on crack-who'daTHUNK it?, COLLOIDS, disposal, drilling mud, endocrine disruption, flooded drill sites, frack on crack, groundwater, injection wells, land farming, Microbes & Bacteria Growing Resistance to Antibiotics & Chlorine, msd, pathogen, produced water, purified, radioactive piping, radon, recycle, spill, statewide rule 36, storage tank lack of rules, superfund, TENORM, trwd, tthm, Uncategorized, water contamination, water pollution | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

UTA Clear on the path to kill pathogens without chemicals

Background to this post is here. I boldfaced for emphasis in UTA Clear’s publication and share with you that of most concern is Lastly, these data identified a number of unique
organophilic bacteria that exhibited resilience to traditional disinfection
modalities. This phenomenon has recently been documented in chlorinated
groundwater (Martin et al., 2018), albeit the precise mechanism
and physiology for this survival under disinfection conditions remains
to be determined.”

Volume 634, 1 September 2018, Pages 1519–1529

Characterizing variable biogeochemical changes during the treatment of produced oilfield waste

Abstract reads as follows:

“At the forefront of the discussions about climate change and energy independence has been the process of hydraulic fracturing, which utilizes large amounts of water, proppants, and chemical additives to stimulate sequestered hydrocarbons from impermeable subsurface strata. This process also produces large amounts of heterogeneous flowback and formation waters, the subsurface disposal of which has most recently been linked to the induction of anthropogenic earthquakes. As such, the management of these waste streams has provided a newfound impetus to explore recycling alternatives to reduce the reliance on subsurface disposal and fresh water resources. However, the biogeochemical characteristics of produced oilfield waste render its recycling and reutilization for production well stimulation a substantial challenge. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of produced waste from the Eagle Ford shale region before, during, and after treatment through adjustable separation, flocculation, and disinfection technologies. The collection of bulk measurements revealed significant reductions in suspended and dissolved constituents that could otherwise preclude untreated produced water from being utilized for production well stimulation. Additionally, a significant step-wise reduction in pertinent scaling and well-fouling elements was observed, in conjunction with notable fluctuations in the microbiomes of highly variable produced waters. Collectively, these data provide insight into the efficacies of available water treatment modalities within the shale energy sector, which is currently challenged with improving the environmental stewardship of produced water management.”

“4. Conclusion
Collectively, these findings are the result of a unique collaboration
between scientists and engineers in an effort to comprehensively assess
the reusability of produced oilfield waste from UD, for the sake of environmental
stewardship. Shale energy extraction is a thirsty, multifaceted
process that is heavily reliant on consistent, and ideally
predictable chemistry, whereby a complete understanding of PW biogeochemistry
is required prior to it being considered a viable resource
for production well stimulation. As such, the exhaustive nature of the
measurements presented here, to assess the treatment of highly variable
industrial waste, clearly indicates that multiple treatment technologies
are required in order to remove pertinent organic, inorganic, and
biological contaminants below their respective reuse thresholds. The
organic fraction of PW (produced water) appears to be the easiest to remove, with a significant reduction in TOC and nearly complete elimination of prominent
hydrocarbons and VOCs being accomplished by ozone-induced flocculation,
particulate filtration, and passage through a primary carbon medium.
However, the persistence of several multivalent metal ions
throughout the different treatment modalities indicates that their removal
may require ionically-rich PWs be treated with a range of clay
matrices, which demonstrate high cation exchange capacities. In particular,
the retention of elevated levels of boron and iron indicate that additional
treatment modalities, beyond the scope of those evaluated in
this study, are required for complete removal of these potentially disruptive
ions. Lastly, these data identified a number of unique
organophilic bacteria that exhibited resilience to traditional disinfection
modalities. This phenomenon has recently been documented in chlorinated
groundwater (Martin et al., 2018), albeit the precise mechanism
and physiology for this survival under disinfection conditions remains
to be determined.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.

From: Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: “Schug, Kevin A” <kschug@uta.edu>; Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>; Angela Kilpatrick <kilpatricka@trinityra.org>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Jay Warren <jay.warren@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: Frack Water recycling and unintended worsened byproducts?

Hello Kim,

Thank you for you inquires. Collectively, we now have a handful of studies indicating that traditional disinfection modalities (ie., chlorination, ozonation, UV) are not 100% effective in killing off resilient bacteria. We have seen this in both contaminated groundwater, treated city water, and produced oilfield waste. In the presence of contaminants and disinfection agents, bacteria can alter their membrane structure so that they become less permeable and harder to kill. As such, we are currently developing novel chemical-free technologies that will be targeted towards the lysis of particular pathogenic species.
Additionally, we have found a number of bacteria that can be utilized for in situ biodegradation of chemicals in water. Unfortunately we are just scratching the surface with this science but there will be a way for these helpful bacteria to survive in the face of the aforementioned targeted treatment, so that theoretically we could be metabolizing chemical contaminants and killing pathogenic bacteria simultaneously.
All the best,

Zacariah Hildenbrand, Ph.D.
Inform Environmental, LLC

6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
Dallas, Texas 75206
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “Schug, Kevin A” <kschug@uta.edu>
Cc: Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>; Angela Kilpatrick <kilpatricka@trinityra.org>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Jay Warren <jay.warren@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: Frack Water recycling and unintended worsened byproducts?
Thanks for the response.
I am on the steering committee for the Lake Arlington Village Creek Water Protection Plan and was trying to articulate UTA Clears work to both TRA and City Council members and have two more questions.
* UTA Clear’s work is in “developing therapies for the treatment of harmful bacteria (with the most common being Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Aeromonas hydrophila-Bacillus cereus group) in the water that are resistant to traditional forms of disinfection” such as chlorination. As these unwanted bacteria (biofouling) can create biofilms and corrosive agents that affect well production and can deteriorate infrastructures.
My new question is if your non-chemical treatments against biofouling agents are to be cultivating Pseudomonas stutzeri and Acinetobacter haemolyticus? As these being two specific microbes that “could be exploited for the bioremediation of groundwaters that are contaminated with chemical solvents. The two bacteria showed a capacity to degrade toluene and chloroform, opening up the possibility that they can be potentially used in the bioremediation of spills”. https://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2017/11/Schug%20new%20papers%20bacteria.php
It could be the proprietary nature of your contract may prevent you in the disclosure of exactly which microbes can degrade biofouling agents, but in all I applaud your work to refrain from chemical related produced water recycling that can worsen the toxicity (frack on crack).
Last year at EarthX map of events, I could not find where your presentation was being held until it was almost over but I caught the end of the female UTA Clear student’s presentation relating to microbes…I am just trying to clarify….
1) UTA Clear’s work with CWS (1st contract) was to vet their 5 fold system of cleaning up produced water that is to be re-used for production well stimulation does NOT contain added chemicals and
2) *CWS’ financial assistance (2.nd contract) is to further UTA Clears work in preventing biofouling with the use of microbes?
My confusion arises in thinking that the unwanted microbes that cause the biofouling can serve to clean it up can co- exist together? If so is it just a matter of adding more of the good bacteria (organic degrading microbes) to counter the bad?
Kim Feil


From: “Schug, Kevin A” <kschug@uta.edu>
To: ‘kim feil’ <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>; Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 12:53 PM
Subject: RE: Frack Water recycling and unintended worsened byproducts?


Based on our measurements, the total organic carbon was greatly diminished through the treatment procedure, and this measurement would include such compounds.  However, we are still working to add methodology specifically for such compounds to our routine repertoire, and they were not targeted specifically in that work.
Kevin A. Schug, Ph.D.
Professor, Associate Dean
Director, CLEAR (http://clear.uta.edu)
Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry
The University of Texas at Arlington
(ph) 817-272-3541
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2018 6:41 PM
To: Ph.D. Avner Vengosh <vengosh@duke.edu>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Schug, Kevin A <kschug@uta.edu>
Subject: Frack Water recycling and unintended worsened byproducts?
I was wondering how TTHMs and Halogens and any other frack-on-crack byproducts are doing with your non chemical water recycling treatments? 


Text Box:

UTA expands efforts to develop water recycling technologies

The Collaborative Laboratories for Environmental Analysis and Remediation at the University of Texas at Arlingto…

“Trihalomethanes (THM) are a group of four chemicals that are formed along with other disinfection by products when chlorine or other disinfectants used to control microbial contaminants in drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic matter in water”. 

Last December in 2017 I sent our Arlington City Council information about UTA Clear’s research work in shale areas having a proliferation of microbes that were getting in to private water wells…https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/bacteria-in-barnett-shale-evolving-to-being-antibiotic-chlorine-resistant-oh-and-biocides-risk-failure-too/

Now that north Texans are hearing about Trihalomethanes, it is time to go history digging into each town’s water records and look at the upticks and see if all upticks are related to the timing of those towns embracing urban drilling….we need to parse out urban drilling if this is happening in non-urban drilling towns and chock it up to population explosion and the need for adequate water resources that don’t need heavy cleaning up (chloramination) in the first place.

WHO WILL UNDERTAKE THIS? Any UT Arlington graduate students need a thesis?

It would take open records of raw data so as to note important info lost in averaging methods.

Posted in arlington, Barnett Shale, Bioremediation with frack on crack-who'daTHUNK it?, chemicals, cityofarlington, Co-Existing Near Frack Wells, endocrine disruption, ft worth, gasland, golfcourse, Herbicide Use at Padsites, lake arlington, Microbes & Bacteria Growing Resistance to Antibiotics & Chlorine, NCTCOG North Central Texas Council of Governments, pathogen, The Arlington Experience by City Water Director of Utilities, THM and TTHM Erin Brockovich visits Plano TX, Uncategorized, water contamination, water pollution, water world | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Drinking Water HDPE Piping not Benzene Resistant use larger diameter or composite in our MSD & Urban Drilling Arlington TX town

pe piping can be more protective from fracking

While more expensive, a composite pipe would give more protection against soil contaminants. Video link

Arlington TX allows MSD’s to forever forgive clean up of known groundwater and soil contamination (like where the old gasoline stations used to be). MSD is a Municipal Setting Designation where our Good Arlington TX Council People vote to forever forgive known groundwater and soil contamination (like from an old gasoline station) in the interest of economic development. That we have 60 or so padsites littered all over our Good City that are potential future MSD’s is kinda worrisome in that we have bought into allowing the Houdini of Hydrocarbons to risk our drinking water in HDPE applications for our Arlington TX drinking water.

Where our good City is using Pre-chlorinated HDPE piping to replace water mains, at the very least we should be using larger diameter HDPE piping because this study, https://manuscriptpro.com/profile/article/Modeling-benzene-permeation-through-drinking-water-high-density-polyethylene-(HDPE)-pipes, claims “The simulated permeation curves of benzene for SIDR 9 and SIDR 7 series of HDPE pipes indicated that small diameter pipes were more vulnerable to permeation of benzene than large diameter pipes, and the breakthrough of benzene into the HDPE pipe was retarded and the corresponding permeation flux decreased with an increase of the pipe thickness. HDPE pipes exposed to an instantaneous plume exhibited distinguishable permeation characteristics from those exposed to a continuous source with a constant input”.

Abstract from the ASCE Pipelines 2017 library wrote (I boldfaced for emphasis)… “The Arlington Water Utilities selected pre-chlorinated pipe bursting to install new HDPE in place while reducing customer impacts, minimizing capital spending and reducing operational costs. Murphy Pipelines, who specializes this technology, was awarded the project. To date, work has progressed replacing more than 13,000 linear feet of existing 6-in AC water main with new 8-in HDPE pipe“. 

This article shows the vendor Arlington has contracted with has a range of 2″ to 16″ piping, https://www.murphypipelines.com/pre-chlorinated-pipe-bursting.

This article that speaks of how the U.K. has been using plastics piping historically and coincidentally has a quote from our Arlington TX representative.

So are we leader in the Benzene-leaching-experiment in using 8-inch HDPE in our Urban Drilling town? 


How did I come to question if plastic was a good material in piping? Well just read about the cancer cluster along a known pipeline that was PE-100 and was carrying wastewater from fracking (produced water) and where Benzene was found in the soil!

As usual, here are my love letters proving I give a shit…

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Betsy Price <betsy.price@fortworthtexas.gov>; Betsy Price <betsy.price@fortworthgov.org>; “bradley.hodges@ftworthgov.org” <bradley.hodges@ftworthgov.org>; Fort Worth District2 <district2@fortworthtexas.gov>; “allison.grey@fortworthtexas.gov” <allison.grey@fortworthtexas.gov>; Jim Bradbury <jim@bradburycounsel.com>; “tom.edwards@fortworthtexas.gov” <tom.edwards@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district2@fortworthgov.org” <district2@fortworthgov.org>; “district3@fortworthgov.org” <district3@fortworthgov.org>; “district3@fortworthtexas.gov” <district3@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district4@fortworthtexas.gov” <district4@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district4@fortworthgov.org” <district4@fortworthgov.org>; “district5@fortworthgov.org” <district5@fortworthgov.org>; “district8@fortworthgov.org” <district8@fortworthgov.org>; “district5@fortworthtexas.gov” <district5@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district6@fortworthtexas.gov” <district6@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district6@fortworthgov.org” <district6@fortworthgov.org>; “district7@fortworthtexas.gov” <district7@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district8@fortworthtexas.gov” <district8@fortworthtexas.gov>; “district7@fortworthgov.org” <district7@fortworthgov.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:44 AM
Subject: Can we test soil above the plastic piping holding frack wastewater to Brentwood Compressor Station?
 Please watch this video and then go to my comment….”
We need to do soil tests and investigate if the polyethene? piping from 30 padsites? that go to the Chesapeake pilot “vaporization of produced water” at the Brentwood/arc park Compressor Station in Ft Worth has internal aluminum or other lining in the pipes so that benzene doesn’t permeate/diffuse through the pipes.”
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Kevin A. Schug <kschug@uta.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:39 AM
Subject: Can we test soil and end user water where an old gasoline station & new HDPE is in?


I’m still mad that no one from the City in Ft Worth responded to me that we need to test the soil that runs along the plastic pipeline at the Brentwood compressor station where other fracking padsites pipe their wastewater to.
If Benzene is leaching in the soil along the way, we need to know that.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:36 AM
Subject: Can we test soil and end user water where an old gasoline station & new HDPE is in?


Kim Feil
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Buzz Pishkur <Buzz.Pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Can we test soil and end user water where an old gasoline station & new HDPE is in?
We consider pipe material when designing main replacement projects. This is also a consideration for servicelines as well as the water main. 

Sent from my iPhone
Posted in HDPE issues with leaching Benzene, plastics, Plumbing Issues in the Shale, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Arlington TX Top 4 WORST Tap Drinking Water Score in US…by Calif safe-from-cancer-standards

arlington top 4 worst drinking water

FB link of picture of flyer that an Arlington resident received in the mail

Arlington (Frackland) TX got the top 4th worst tap water ranking in the US of the top 200 biggest cities (which represents the most number of people getting exposures).

(22 out of top 25 worst)
Arlington, TX

Number of Contaminants: 9
Other Detected Contaminants: 21
Rank of Number of Manufacturing Establishments/Sq. Mile:30
Rank of the total Farm Ag. Chemical Expenses: 6
Dirty Water Score: 56.01

Add your zip code to this link, https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=TX2200001#.Wq6lq-jwbIU,  and see what’s in your drinking water.

I blogged about how Arlington’s Total Trihalomethanes almost tripled AFTER we started urban drilling/fracking.

More recently I blogged about how it is becoming increasingly harder to treat our water. I also shared first hand communication from a Trinity River Authority official that said bacteria at the wastewater treatment plants were becoming Chlorine resistant….


All this at a time when our water director’s job is up for grabs....this is very concerning that we and other fracking loving urban drilling towns in TX get the worst ratings in the top largest cities for drinking water quality…and if we didn’t have all the fracking nasties risking our water, (like the herbicides used at all these drilling sites, https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/when-frack-on-crack-meets-herbicide-harry/) the less disinfectants we’d need. The less disinfectants we need, the less cancer causing by-products of water treatments risk ……now to research how bad our bad our bladder cancer rates are.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <charlie.parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; “roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov” <roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:19 PM
Subject: Myers quoted in sales pitch / FYI Arlington 4t5h worst drinking water quality (not taste) results
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1865309610177181&set=p.1865309610177181&type=3&theater&ifg=1 posted a pic of a flyer he got in the mail from FB You Know You Are From Arlington…this Smart Aqua Life flyer quotes the EPA saying, “Did you know the public water in your Arlington community was rated by the EPA as unsafe for human consumption with a dirty water score of 56.01 because of high levels of contaminants?
mis-statement water quality
This is incorrect…Arlington passed fed guidelines…it was the state of California that has more protective against cancer standards. https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=TX2200001.
I emailed Smart Aqua Life asking them to cease and desist these mailings misquoting the EPA. I told them that the states and cities can choose to be more protective, but they at least they have to be in federal compliance. What Arlington’s water failed was California’s thresholds for what is considered safe for human consumption.  Example Arlington’s 2015 arsenic….
  • “The health guideline of 0.004 ppb for arsenic was defined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a public health goal, the level of a drinking water contaminant that does not pose a significant health risk. This health guideline protects against cancer.”
I received a similar sales pitch to call a number about my last attempt to pick up a package…but it was a water purification company offering Arlington homeowners relief from bad water and free home testing.
I wanted Councilwoman Myers to be aware of this misquote from this company that has also decided to quote her from a Star Telegram article.
myers drinks water bottle
But I also want to let you know that by California standards…Arlington ranks 4th worst water quality in the the US among the largest top 200 cities.
Kim Feil


Posted in Arlington 4th Worst Water Quality in US, Barnett Shale, Bromate, chemicals, cityofarlington, Co-Existing Near Frack Wells, exposure, frack on crack, groundwater, Herbicide Use at Padsites, Microbes & Bacteria Growing Resistance to Antibiotics & Chlorine, msd, ozone, pathogen, Pics of Arlington Pad Sites, Plumbing Issues in the Shale, Pregnancy Near Fracking, radon, spill, TENORM, The Arlington Experience by City Water Director of Utilities, Uncategorized, water contamination, water pollution, water world | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sugarcoating THIS as planned flaring….

UPDATE to industry knee-jerk reaction to say it (the upset) was planned….and the media should be ashamed repeating their crap too…their headlines should be more factual and not so forgiving of the industry! Now they are saying it was an accident during a shift change….“Algero added that some liquid found its way into another of the refinery’s flares, one that was designed only to handle gas. That caused that flare to shut down, and all remaining materials were shunted into the one operational flare, causing the fireball”


https://twitter.com/search?q=chalmette%20flaring&src=typdhourse flare

The Advocate NOLA regurgitates sugar coated headline…

“No explosion, just heavy flaring at Chalmette Refinery late Saturday, official says”

NO NO NO…when others thinks it a nuke….

No then it’s NOT a planned maintenance kinda thang…and NO that was NOT a legal discharge….others were commenting it was just them burning off (cheap way to discharge) product in the middle of the night…but if it was an unplanned upset…it “was” the lesser of two evils to not to flare……Chalmette would’ve most likely have been blown off the map if they didn’t let her go through those smoke stacks.

Here is another person’s comment…

AND DON’T let the company PR person lie  “…no impact to the community, Frost said” cause that was an emission event from hell and a release to the environment and there was fall out.

Maybe related or not, here is what Reuters reported as recent activity at this plant… https://www.reuters.com/article/us-refinery-operations-pbf-chalmette/pbf-chalmette-refinery-gasoline-unit-to-shut-by-weekend-sources-idUSKCN1GB25V

Here is a poster sent to the surrounding community for a heads up on some “preventative maintenance” planned…oh so that is? pfffh!…

When people this far away start to shelter in place and ask if it’s safe to breathe….https://twitter.com/TatumNeill/status/972829993930764288

Why do I care about this emission event being downplayed when I live in Texas? To reasons…

  1. I remember living in Chalmette as a baby and wondered when my mom was pregnant for me if we were downwind to the refineries…https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10215574041927069&set=a.1512633618722.2067617.1320864445&type=3&theater

kim connie refinery

2. Since my son told me he woke up sick last night and has been puking every ten minutes or so I had to see how the winds were blowing to him on Dante Street by the Mississippi River in New Orleans…dante st to pbf refinery

Charles Frazier of PFB said Saturday nights flare event occurred 3/10/18 around 11pm and meteorological conditions were: winds 180 degrees meaning they originated from the south/southwest and blew to the north/northeast (thank God away from my son) at around 2.5 mph, temp was 64 degrees, no rain (I could hear dispatch radio in the background says that at Gate 27 was a news crew).

This consumed me today…it sux

Sing with me now…..fossil fuels R old SKOOL…makes a few rich and the rest of us fools!


Posted in Flaring pics that are normal, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why Barnett Shale URBAN Drilling is ba a c c k

So if you live by a gas drilling padsite in Arlington, it could become active again due to Chesapeake walking away from its pipeline provider debt and the new owners (Total E & P Burnett LLC) committing to production throughput starting in 2019….(https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2018/01/30/why-barnett-shale-urban-drilling-is-ba-a-c-c-k/) by either opening existing shut in wells and refracking (see video on this post) or drilling new wells and fracking…

belvin frack dust flying….either way…silica dust flying ladened with NORM isn’t good for the lungs…..send council an email asking them to uphold our 600 ft buffer in our ordinance so that future wells (ask them to deny drillzones) may not be approved on those numerous padsites where they allowed up to 300 ft….here are their email addresses… Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <charlie.parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; “roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov” <roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>

they're back

They’re Ba a a c k

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <charlie.parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; “roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov” <roxanne.thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Jason M. Allen <jmallen@cbs.com>; “tips@wfaa.com” <tips@wfaa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 8:50 AM
Subject: Total midstream (pipeline) commitments/peer reviewed health studies on fracking/tonight’s Cornerstone vote near Cravins park

It was reported that Chesapeake left the Barnett Shale to “escape almost $2 billion in onerous pipeline contracts”. Bloomberg reported that Williams Partners plan to revitalize drilling in the Barnett Shale by a conditional gas gathering arrangement in “tying the monthly fees it charges for gathering and delivering fuel to the price of gas traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange”.
This is a reminder to council that once you approve the drillzone that all other subsequent wells that could fit on that property will be administratively approved with no more public input. While HB40 purports that Home Rule Cities can have the discretion to control above ground actions, the rejection of this drillzone/three more wells will set the tone that Arlington is serious about having local control and adherence to our 600 ft setback as specified in our ordinance. Thalman and Parker have made statements to such effect as well as another councilperson recently acknowledging to me “nobody likes fracking”. 
Inline image
Please see attached in what appears to be playground equipment just over 200 feet from the storage tank battery and downwind from predominant wind directions….
Inline image
Please support our 600 ft setback ordinance, thank you. What follows is the cut and paste from the pipeline/midstream company, Williams which explains why they are ba a c c k…
Barnett Agreements (boldfaced for emphasis)
“The conditional Barnett agreements provide accelerated upfront cash payments to Williams Partners totaling $754 million, as well as new terms and conditions under which Williams Partners will provide gas gathering services to a new Barnett producer customer (Chesapeake’s successor in the Barnett) through 2029.
Williams Partners expects the combination of $754 million in up-front cash proceeds and the on-going cash flows generated by gathering services provided to the new Barnett producer customer, to represent equivalent net present value of cash flows as compared to Williams Partners’ expectations of Chesapeake’s performance under the existing agreement. Cumulative undiscounted cash flows for the years 2016-2019 are expected to be approximately $240 million lower, and higher thereafter, as a result of the conditional agreement.
By eliminating Chesapeake’s MVC payments and establishing monthly gathering rates at a percentage of NYMEX Henry Hub settlement prices through the end of 2029, the conditional gas gathering agreement will bring drilling back to the Barnett Shale and return wells determined to be uneconomic under earlier gathering rates to production. The Barnett gathering area is expected, therefore, to realize additional drilling and improved volumes, enhancing Williams Partners’ long-term competitive position. Importantly, the new Barnett producer customer will commit to an annual $40 million drilling commitment through 2018, as well as a commitment to fund all incremental well connects and growth capital.
It is expected that Williams Partners’ existing gathering agreement including MVC (Minimum Volume Commitment) obligations with a third-party producer, who has a 22 percent working interest in the Barnett production, will remain unchanged through mid-2019 and then may be adjusted thereafter”.
Kim Feil https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/ 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..” 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.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Ryan at Halt the Harm Network <ryan@halttheharm.net>
To: Kim <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 6:18 PM
Subject: Wednesday, How to find peer reviewed health studies on fracking (TEDX)


Hello Kim,

This week we’re hosting a webinar to show you how to access studies on the health impacts of fracking.

Our guest is Kim Schultz, Oil and Gas Program Coordinator for the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, and she’s going to show us the FrackHealth database, a new new tool by TEDX for finding peer-reviewed health studies on fracking.
The database goes beyond citations to include details on health effects, exposure routes, chemicals, and more as reported in the article.
Join us for this live webinar on Wednesday, 1:00pm – 1:30pm EST (lunchtime depending on where you are) to see how it all works.
Kim studies the potential health impacts from exposure to chemicals introduced and released during oil and natural gas extraction and production. She has extensive experience aggregating, managing, and analyzing data from diverse sources. Kim has worked for TEDX in the Colorado office since 2009.
NEW: Using the FrackHealth Database from TEDX w/ Kim Schultz
Wednesday, January 31st from 1 – 1:30pm E.T.
Click Here to Register for the Webinar
Once you register, you’ll be able to see the live webinar and access the replay.
I hope to see you there!
Ryan Clover
Visit www.halttheharm.net to access the services, trainings, organizing tools, and the leader directory provided by Halt The Harm Network.
Unsubscribe | 1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor, District of Columbia, District of Columbia 20009

Posted in Children's Risks to Permanent Brain Damage in Urban Drilling, christian, church, cityofarlington, Co-Existing Near Frack Wells, Pipeline Committments, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Parker County Grass Fire Evacuations Caused by Old School Power Line Whipping in da Wind

Power line break whipping in the wind caused the fire….dedicated grids with local renewable power sources is looking better by the… drought.

Today is 1/22/2018 and it is 1:50 pm and WFAA is saying some evacuations are happening as I type this.

parker county grass fire 1 22 2018

For those wondering if the smoke could drift into the metroplex and make breathing miserable like on 10/19/2017 where TCEQ did not do an investigation, lets take matters into our own hands and look at the map and then the current wind map

willow park map

wind map jan 22 2018 willow park fire evacuation in progress

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

“Patterson 219 red mountain Quinton ok they where drilling second hole” Rig Fire FIVE Men Missing

“Patterson 219 red mountain Quinton ok they where drilling second hole” was one of the comments by Ethan Snyder that I read….on the live feed.

Here are a couple of snippet pics I stole…

rig fire 2 ok 5 men missingok drill rig fire 5 men missing jan 22 2018

Posted in Drilling Rig Fires, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When mud fails to be NORM tested? LABC story

Screen shot 2016-03-11 at 11.50.35 AMScreen shot 2016-03-11 at 11.49.38 AMScreen shot 2016-03-11 at 11.44.49 AMScreen shot 2016-03-11 at 11.26.02 AMHere is the link to the original LABC reports/blog on the frack spill that contained top flow and some produced waters…. the well control team had mud brought in to kill the well and when it was all under control, Terracon tested the mud and the top soil was removed and pending the disposition of the mud, sent to the land fill called Tervita in Larado in Johnson County.

Testing was said to include TPH using EPA method 1005

RCRA for 8 metals using EPA method 6010/7471

The RCRA 8 metals are,

  • Arsenic (As),
  • Barium (Ba),
  • Cadmium (Cd),
  • Chromium (Cr),
  • Lead (Pb),
  • Mercury (Hg),
  • Selenium (Se), and
  • Silver (Ag).


Total Chlorides using EPA method 9056A and

SPLP (Synthetic Precipitation Leach Procedure) Chlorides using EPA method 9056A/1312


In looking at the Terracon results…I don’t see NORM results.. and remember that MUD was brought IN to the site to kill the well….what was the mud testing results?

Screen shot 2016-03-11 at 12.17.57 PM

Enter a caption

Here is the link to the Terracon report to the LABC water tests


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