Lightening Strike caused oil well blow out ? co-existing with O&G at its finest!

KATC reported on Sunday, July 26 2015 “…Residents in the area say they were told by officers that an oil well caught fire following a lighting strike.  The fire is across the Lake Arthur Bridge, in Vermilion Parish, on Highway 717.  There are no reported injuries at this time, but a small area has been evacuated.  Deputies tell us it was a well blow-out, that it is now shut-in and controlled, and they are letting it burn out.”

The video is here, but below is some snap shots in case the video goes away. The smoke is blowing towards the house …Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.49 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.50 AM

Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.05 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.10 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.15 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.18 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.23 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.27 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.29 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.31 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.30.34 AMThe other photos below are in the area of Lake Arthur in Louisiana. Get a load of the shocking pics of what is probably drilling mud? spread all over these drill sites to blow radiation particulates and other heavy metals and other stuff… #testTheMudya’ll!

Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.33.24 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.33.53 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.34.33 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.34.41 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.34.46 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.34.54 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.36.41 AM Screen shot 2015-07-27 at 10.37.28 AM

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

UT Arlington ONE sided panel …. Rusty Ward spews joy of on campus fracking Beverly Hills styled

As Arlington officials set the stage for a grand Dog & Pony Show on providing fracking information on August 1, 2015 (Saturday morning starting at 9am til 11:30 at the Arlington Convention Center), lets revisit another one sided informational meeting on UTA campus a few years back, note one city gas well inspector, Collin Gregory, was also on the panel.

The focus on the “spewing of words event” however relates to Rusty Ward’s one sided version of how campus drilling in California was such a success…… ooops N O T as numerous lawsuits followed from alleged cancer clusters of those exposed…..#premionitionSUX

I looked Rusty in the face a while back and told him that it was wrong to cite the success of the Beverly Hills school wells because so many people claimed having cancer due to those exposures. A horrifying reality is that the court didn’t consider the benzene exposures as a culprit because they were below what was set as a threshold to cause injury, yet with Benzene, PublicIntegrity reported..“In 2004, the NCI released the results of a second study. It found that Chinese shoe makers inhaling benzene in amounts below the OSHA limit had fewer white blood cells than unexposed workers, suggesting the chemical has no safe threshold.”


Comment in video description is as follows to provide the OTHER SIDE info on the Beverly Hills High School Oil Well History…

Published on Apr 21, 2012

“@ 03:15 Start of Meeting
@ 12:50 Rusty Ward – Carrizo Oil & Gas – NASDAQ CRZO
(WIKI) Beverly Hills High School & Oil Well history
A cluster of 19 oil wells in a single “drilling island” on Beverly’s campus, owned by Venoco Oil Company, can easily be seen by drivers heading west on Olympic Boulevard toward Century City. The oil wells have pumped much of the oil from under Beverly’s campus, and many have been slant drilling into productive regions of the western part of the Beverly Hills Oil Field under many homes and apartment buildings in Beverly Hills for decades.[15]
As of May 2006, the Beverly Hills High School wells were pumping out 400 barrels (64 m3) to 500 barrels (79 m3) a day, earning the school approximately $300,000 a year in royalties.[16]
In the mid-1990s an art studio volunteered to cover the well enclosure, which at that time was solid gray in color, with individual tiles that had been painted by kids with cancer.[17] The studio created the design and drew the lines on the tiles, but children painted the tiles in between the lines. The studio made the design rather abstract: the design consists of random shapes on different-colored backgrounds. A ceremony inaugurating the design was held in 2001.
Beverly gained more notoriety when Erin Brockovich and Ed Masry announced having filed three lawsuits in 2003 and 2004 on behalf of 25, 400, and 300 (respectively) former students who attended Beverly from the 1970s until the 1990s. In April 2003, the Texas-based lawfirm of Baron & Budd partnered with the law office of Masry & Vititoe to lend its expertise in lawsuits related to health risks of volatile chemicals.[18] The number of actual cancer claims filed in Santa Monica was ninety-four.[19]
The lawsuits claimed that toxic fumes from the oil wells caused the former students[20] to develop cancer. The oil wells are very close to all of Beverly’s sports facilities, including the soccer field, the football field, and the racetrack. Beverly students—not just athletes but students taking required physical education classes from the 1970s until the 1990s—were required to run near the oil wells.
The city, the school district, and the oil companies named as defendants disputed this assertion, claiming that they had conducted air quality tests with results showing that air quality is normal at the high school.[21][22] In 2003, the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine published a “Community Cancer Assessment Regarding Beverly Hills, California” which failed to support Masry’s claims.[23]
After receiving complaints about Beverly’s oil installation, the region’s air-quality agency investigated Venoco Oil (doing business as Venoco, Inc)[24] and in 2003 issued three Notices of Violation regarding the operation of the drilling island. Venoco, Inc’s penalty settlement included requirements that the company maintain continuous air quality monitoring at the high school, and prevent any oilfield gas (which is primarily methane gas) from being released into the atmosphere.[25]
On December 12, 2006, the first 12 plaintiffs (of over 1000 total) were dismissed on summary judgment because there was no indication that the contaminant (benzene) caused the diseases involved and the concentrations were hundreds to thousands of times lower than levels associated with any risk.[26] In Fall of 2007, the plaintiffs agreed to pay the School District and the City up to $450,000 for expenses from the lawsuits.[27] This payment of expenses is without prejudice to any of the plaintiffs in the case, which is on appeal.
The oil wells may have inspired a 1991 episode of the sitcom Saved By the Bell titled “Pipe Dreams.” In it, oil is discovered at fictional Bayside High School in Pacific Palisades, California. There’s excitement about the financial possibilities, but when a company comes in to drill, the character of Jessie realizes that it could be detrimental to the local environment.
In June 2004 Beverly Hills Courier Editor Norma Zager was named “Journalist of the Year” in the Los Angeles Press Club’s Southern California Journalism Awards competition for her coverage of the Erin Brockovich-Edward Masry lawsuit.[28] Two books about the oil wells and lawsuit have been published, “Parts Per Million: The Poisoning of Beverly Hills High School” by Joy Horowitz was published in July 2007 and “Erin Brockovich and the Beverly Hills: Greenscam” by Norma Zager was published in October 2010.…

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

Siemens Wind Songs, Solar Stock Index & Obsolete Fossil Fuels

Another Siemens commercial I heard this morning was “America the Beautiful” (I believe was the name of the song)-it literally brought me to tears. Because it was a commercial, I cannot find the link, but am sure you all will see it soon enough.

Now a blade-less turbine technology exists too, but I’ve read some concerns of feasibility with their claims and so we wait…but one thing the frackers can’t do is sit around waiting for better technologies…they are still stuck in a shale fossil fuel play and are becoming more extinct as I type these letters on my petro based keyboard that could one day be replaced with hemp-oil/plastics based products….if we don’t destroy our water resources with fracking…it takes water to grow hemp ya know.


Here is the Bloomberg Solar Energy Index performance over the last five years….

Screen shot 2015-07-21 at 4.50.11 PMScreen shot 2015-07-21 at 4.56.26 PM

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

CHK FAIL ON DIVIDEND / City should acquire Chesapeake pad sites 4 public safety’s sake


—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <>
To: Stuart Young <>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 8:40 AM
Subject: Stuart what throughput pipeline production quantities are Arlington gas well operators obliged to?
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <>
To: Roger Venables <>; Carolyn Mentesana <>
Cc: Sheri Capehart <>; Jimmy Bennett <>; Lana Wolff <>; Charlie Parker <>; Robert Shepard <>; Robert Rivera <>; Michael Glaspie <>; Kathryn Wilemon <>; Trey Yelverton <>; Don Crowson <>; Jim Parajon <>; Cindy Powell <>; Collin Gregory <>; “” <>; “” <>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 11:51 AM
Subject: Roger how to compare Arlington Chesapeake asset valuations with this 4Point Deal in OK?
I bet the TAD’s minerals valuation group could assist…
Feasibly…would the Tomorrow Funds be able to take out the risk of (foreign) second tier drillers materializing with a “Chesapeake’s pen swipe”? I firmly believe we should lead the way and have Arlington own and contract out/or expand GW Division to include specialized maintenance workers until production peters out. Then WE will be in control of preventing future Brownsfields sites. Our longterm goal would then be to “correctly” plug and abandon our urban wells and focus on redevelopment. I imagine with the GM expansion…that pad site has to go?

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <>
To: Don Crowson <>; Charlie Parker <>; Lana Wolff <>; Robert Rivera <>; Robert Shepard <>; Jimmy Bennett <>; Michael Glaspie <>; Sheri Capehart <>; Kathryn Wilemon <>; Trey Yelverton <>; Jim Parajon <>; Cynthia Simmons <>; “” <>; Cindy Powell <>; Collin Gregory <>; “” <>; Tony Rutigliano <>; Roger Venables <>; Maria Carbajal <>
Cc: Brett Shipp <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 9:53 AM
Subject: Chesapeake Cuts Dividend/ ripe for take over
2nd tier driller here we come? China owned Arlington pad site(s) operator?
None of this sounds healthy to the neighborhoods when maintaining these sites become harder as they age. What to do about this?
1) challenge HB40 at Supreme Court
2) the city should buy out Chk’s Arlington sites and we maintain these for eventual shut in


—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Seeking Alpha <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 7:02 AM
Subject: CHK: Chesapeake Cuts Dividend, Confirms Details Of FourPoint Transaction
Chesapeake Cuts Dividend, Confirms Details Of FourPoint Transaction by Dallas Salazar
This article was published on Tue, Jul. 21, 8:00 AM ET

“Chesapeake Energy is finally out with an update on its recent transaction and on its dividend. Neither are good for investors new or investor old.
Chesapeake largely confirmed what my sources had put together in regards to the FourPoint Energy LLC transaction.
Moving to the marquee item of business, Chesapeake has announced that it will cut its common dividend.
Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK) is finally out with an update on its recent transaction and on its dividend. Neither is good for new or old investors.

Chesapeake largely confirmed what my sources had put together in regards to the FourPoint Energy LLC transaction which we expressed to Seeking Alpha readers in an exclusive article. Chesapeake will, “eliminate approximately $75 million in annual preferred dividend payments, the 3.75% overriding royalty interest payments associated with the properties and all related future drilling and override conveyance commitments. Additionally, Chesapeake signed a definitive agreement to sell noncore adjacent properties centered in Roger Mills and Ellis counties in Oklahoma to FourPoint for approximately $90 million in cash”.

Again, this proves out our sources were dead on in their hearing of the deal and their piecing the details of the deal together. While I did confirm these with an IR rep at Chesapeake at the time of the deal being announced it is only today, weeks later, that Chesapeake has issued an official confirmation press release.

Moving to the marquee item of business, Chesapeake has announced that it will cut its common dividend.

Chesapeake has received board approval to cut the dividend with the cut being applicable to the third quarter 2015. Chesapeake CEO Doug Lawler noted, “The elimination of the common stock dividend will save approximately $240 million annually. This, along with the redemption of the preferred shares in our CHK Cleveland Tonkawa subsidiary, is part of a broader disciplined approach that began two years ago to decrease the company’s financial complexity and increase our liquidity”.

Now, while the $240 annual cost savings from the dividend cut along with the $75 million in annual preferred dividend payments and the 3.75% ORRI savings are meaningful this will absolutely crush Chesapeake common over the next few weeks. My guess is 10% today and 20% over the next few weeks in aggregate. Chesapeake has exampled that, rightly so for the company, it is willing to do anything and without warning.

Chesapeake’s FourPoint transaction netted it negligible total structural gain on a massive divestiture – exampling just how bad some of the ventures on the books really are. Chesapeake’s dividend cut will have a large part of the investor base selling off as its 3.41% yield (as of most recent close) was a primary reason to “wait for the turnaround” in energy pricing, a turnaround that looks more and more bleak by the day.

Chesapeake, even with its liquidity is now simply another commodity player that’s on the clock and begging for a commodity pricing recovery. Worse, at what could be an under $6 billion valuation in the next few weeks Chesapeake, I believe, is now an attractive target for a take-private transaction (if allowed) by foreign, state-owned entities or a massive PE that would be interested in cutting up the company and selling it off piece by piece. The premium paid would not be substantial in my opinion as Chesapeake should now be a victim of valuation “decay” – meaning the market understands the lower commodities go or the longer the commodity pricing environment goes without substantial uptick the worse off Chesapeake will be.

I tried to reach out to Chesapeake IR in an effort to get anything of commentary, even a “no comment”, in regards to the dividend a few days ago believing that a dividend cut was imminent and anything but an outright denial would essentially be an admission. Chesapeake obviously did not respond and now it’s clear why.

Good luck everybody.



FEIL post on Facebook 7/24/15….

I THINK I see Arlington Chesapeake (dry gas) gaswell padsites will continue to be taking a breather from finishing the fracking build out here because of this statement by CEO Lawler who commented on dividend scrap: “The company paid out 35-cents on an annualized basis, or approximately $240 million, funds that now can be plowed into revenue producing oilfields”….he also hints at other announcements forthcoming (selling off more assets probably) “We continue to move forward with multiple opportunities that will strengthen our cash flow generation capabilities, and I look forward to future announcements regarding the ways we are creating additional value in the months ahead,” Lawler added. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND….they may be forced to stimulate production at petering out Arlington gas wells or add new wells to existing Arlington sites because of transport contract commitments (to pipeline companies).……”As per a Forbes article on July 21, 2015, by Antoine Gara, expensive oil and gas transport contracts weigh down on Chesapeake’s finances. These contracts cannot be tweaked to be in line with falling production volumes. Thus, the firm is forced to maintain its output even in times of weaknesses in commodity prices.”

So even if pie in the sky happens that Arlington moves to own the operator status of these drill sites, that someone has to be accountable to the pipeline companies production quotas…..oh what a tangled web we’ve weaved….solar and wind exists to never deceive…ya’ll.

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

SC 18172

E-version on

Cause No. SC18172



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).

Exhibit 1a MSDS Bobcat

Exhibit 1a

Exhibit 1c MSDS Bobcat

Exhibit 1c

Exhibit 1b MSDS Bobcat

Exhibit 1b

Exhibit 1d MSDS Bobcat

Exhibit 1d


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”.

Exhibit 2a Harwell 13-0002926

Exhibit 2a

Exhibit 2b Harwell 13-0002926

Exhibit 2b

Plaintiff’s (Exhibit 3a) Google map shows dispatch to be 2 miles away.

Exhibit 3a Harwell map

Exhibit 3

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,, 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), 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:

  1. (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 6 TAD

Exhibit 6

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 lifeto 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,, 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”.

Exhibit 11 TCEQ Memo

Exhibit 11


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.

Exhibit 12 Medic Dispatch

Exhibit 12


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 13 Field Notes

Exhibit 13


(Exhibit 14) video,, 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),, and February 2013 fireman’s inspection report (Defendant’s Exhibit 3) totaling six violations found at that site

Exhibit 15 GW City Inspection Report a

Exhibit 15 1of5

Exhibit 15 GW City Inspection Report b

Exhibit 15 2of5

Exhibit 15 GW City Inspection Report d

Exhibit 15 3of5

Exhibit 15 GW City Inspection Report f

Exhibit 15 4of5

Exhibit 15 GW City Inspection Report g

Exhibit 15 5of5


(Exhibit 16) Audio of 1/31/13 911 calls,

  1. burnt odor complaint by Cecelia French,
  2. business owner complaint/medic dispatch, and
  3. 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)

Exhibit 18 sample diary

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) 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


(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.



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

Cause No. SC18172






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 suppliment to Exhibit 13

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.

Exhibit 22a

Exhibit 22a

Exhibit 22b

Exhibit 22b

Exhibit 22c

Exhibit 22c

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).

Exhibit 23a

Exhibit 23a

Exhibit 23b

Exhibit 23b

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.

Exhibit 24a

Exhibit 24a

Exhibit 24b full page

Exhibit 24b

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).

Exhibit 25a

Exhibit 25a

Exhibit 25b

Exhibit 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,(  ). 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






Hydrogen Sulfide


Natural Gas Condensate with Hydrogen Sulfide

Natural Gas

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.

DSCN2072 DSCN2073 DSCN2074 DSCN2075 DSCN2076 DSCN2077 DSCN2078 DSCN2079 DSCN2080 DSCN2081 DSCN2082 DSCN2083 DSCN2084 DSCN2085 DSCN2086 DSCN2087 DSCN2088 DSCN2089 DSCN2090

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.

Exhibit 28

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)



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

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

As GM expands its ( pollution ) for bigger cars…its Chesapeake Gas gagged me last Sunday

Sunday, July 12 around 7:45 pm-ish I was picking up kids at Six Flags and was on Division St in front of the Chesapeake drill site at GM and was hit with a gaseous odor that took my breath away and stung my eyes (my windows were closed too). I immediately called 911 and was some disoriented as I tried to give my location…I was parking at Six Flags by the time we got off the phone…no rush is the feeling of urgency from that dispatcher…and then after sitting in the car for about 15 minutes and then the kids showed up, on the way home traveling back west on Division, low and behold a fire truck passed us, no sirens…nada…lovely response time…20 plus minutes?…Maintenance (called blowdowns) occurs once or (twice a month?) on those compressor units at that drill site….they open up whats left in the piping to the atmosphere (after they may attempt to bleed down the gas to the storage tanks to silently vent from there)…so the start up and shut down (in addition to unplanned) emissions…are blowing straight to the Entertainment District…get to mix and compete with all the existing VOCs from the GM plant… yeah great? more GM paint shop emissions with this new planned expansion….woot woot… Arlington isn’t Liveable ya’ll…it surely isn’t the dream city..its a nightmare from the gas patch we now live (and may die early) in.

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

Perry’s ‘Loser Pays ‘ ( atty fees ) doesn’t apply to Small Claims Court & Class Action Suits


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

If trains derail twice in 1 week in rural TX, does anybody hear bout’ it? Mother Nature Has Cancer

Screen shot 2015-07-09 at 8.46.15 AM

…ironically the derailment occurred near a road called …Sand Mountain!…far away from where it was mined in W Virginia and was destined to San Antonio.

Screen shot 2015-07-09 at 11.42.15 AM

In looking up something totally unrelated, I read where WKTX reported that there were TWO train derailments in ONE WEEK that were about 10 miles apart from each other.… RURAL teXass of course.

#hateThatIstudiedStatistics #fear=NOTanomaly

“BREMOND (June 30, 2015) Fourteen cars of a Union Pacific train derailed early Tuesday in a rural area south of Bremond in Robertson County.

The cars, which were hauling sand, derailed at around 5 a.m. Tuesday along state Highway 14 … train was bound from Wisconsin to San Antonio.

The derailment was the second in a little more than two weeks.

On June 12 ten cars loaded with corn derailed in Kosse, about 10 miles north of Bremond in neighboring Limestone County.

No one was hurt.

Heres a pic that hurts just to look at….

train derail residential area

On a side note to the above NONmainstream news media worthy item(S)…..In response to the heart breaking decision to mine response is…

The cancerous greed for unsustainable economic growth lands mother nature with surgery after surgery …like cancer treatments, Her hair falls out (scorched earth)… chemo, Her body is poisoned with chemicals to extract our fossil fuels and precious metals……the radiation (therapy) is next as our ozone is destroyed by all our NOX & VOC emissions that will only worsen with Global Warming…..Mother Nature is fracked. We must change our consumption & procreation habits. If we have to mine/rape Her, chose the lesser of two evils by switching to renewables. Our lithium batteries should be replaced with hemp based carbon super capacitors (instead of expensive carbon graphite capacitors). If we have to frack, only do it to grab the methane hydrates under the seabed sediments before they release to the atmosphere from all our ice melts. We engineered Her demise, WE need to restore Her using every technological advance and spare no money to do it. For what is money with no one around to spend it?

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

Gov Abbott blessed with renewable wind & Facebook


CBSDFW reported that Google Facebook is opening up one of three planned data centers in Ft Worth that “will have its own wind-generating farm constructed in Clay County, near Wichita Falls.”

Our governor took off his fossil fuel hat and squeezed out some statements bragging about how Texas leads the nation in wind energy and how that fact  “…was one of the pivotal reasons that Facebook chose this location for this project.”

Dallas Morning News posted this rendering pic…

Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 10.29.27 PMAnd so score one for renewables today!

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

Arlington Library Replacement Facade: go log cabin look ….#mostTalkedBout

Hey if we can frack in people’s back yards, then we could slam the worlds largest log cabin looking building smack dab downtown as yet another tourist attraction destination…prefab wood of course!

Pictured below is a 1964 photo from …notice in one of the pics what looks like our old library in the background….a good omen.  Plus it would tie in the wooden electricity polls in the area.

Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 7.58.22 AM

Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 7.57.32 AM

Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 8.18.20 AM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 8.18.08 AMScreen shot 2015-07-07 at 8.20.08 AM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 8.21.44 AMScreen shot 2015-07-07 at 8.21.15 AM

I wonder if the prefab’s rubber grout would be frackquake friendly?

Yesterday I took this footage of how much care goes into our airshed…they were wetting down the wrong stuff…people standing about and allowing that…just  like a fracker ya know….

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Keith Melton <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: request for asbestos remediation reports on Arlington Library project


This is a developer project so I’m not directly involved. I have been trying to provide you the direct contacts on the project who can provide the specific answers. Nathan who works for Reed Engineering prepared the report identifying the locations of the asbestos. Terracon is the actual contractor removing the asbestos. This is a very normal process to have a different entity actually removing the asbestos.  If Nathan can’t confirm the status of the asbestos removal he should be able to give you the contact person at Terracon who can provide that information.

Hope this helps.

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: kim feil <>
To: Keith Melton <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 3:50 PM
Subject: Fw: request for asbestos remediation reports on Arlington Library project
I thought you said the asbestos was already removed, but Nathan is saying its still there left….
sounds like Reed contracted the asbestos work out to another entity (see attached asbestos license)…and yet he refers to Catalyst Urban as his client…these layers of accountability are confusing me…at the end of the day all I want to know is…was/is the asbestos remediation being done correctly?
Who could I forward this email string to that would know about asbestos remediation?
PS why does the physical signage by the library sidewalk benches say Terracon if Reed-Environmental is doing the work?
PSS Why isn’t Reed-Environmentals asbestos inspector, Fernando Gomez involved in this?

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: Nathan Holm <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: request for asbestos remediation reports on Arlington Library project

Attached is Teams license, I couldn’t find it earlier…

Nathan Holm, IAC, CESCO

 Screen shot 2015-07-09 at 3.22.29 PM

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Nathan Holm <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: request for asbestos remediation reports on Arlington Library project

Hi Kim-

The plastic that is flapping in the wind is solely for rain protection. We don’t want a rain storm or other wet event washing our materials onto the ground. The asbestos that is being removed is contained within the plastic wrapped along the scaffolding. Attached are some photos of wrapped materials from a few days ago, as well as text messaging regarding the rain protection aspect. Also attached is my license for the consulting aspect. We don’t not do the actual abatement.

This is a link that tells you who can do what. And here is a link that you can search and see our listing on the state website as well as the abatement contractor (Hester Environmental) dba Team Environmental.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you the reports or other information without our clients permission (Catalyst Urban), and the final report won’t even be completed until the project is completed (maybe 2 more weeks?). If there is something in the report you need to know about, you can feel free to call me and I will be happy to talk to you about it. Or I will be back onsite at some point between 1 and 3 today if you want call or I can come by.

Nathan Holm, IAC, CESCO

Environmental Specialist

Reed Engineering Group, Ltd.

 asbestos2asbestos3 asbestos1
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <>
To: “” <>
Cc: “” <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 10:12 AM
Subject: request for asbestos remediation reports on Arlington Library project
Hi, my name is Kim Feil and I live on the other side of the railroad tracks downwind from when all that asbestos remediation was taking place. One thing I observed was that the plastic always seemed to be flapping in the wind. Do you have any photos of when the plastic was ever tightly in place?
Also please send me a copy your DSHS license to remediate asbestos, your initial survey report, and subsequent diaries and final report for the asbestos remediation.
Thank you
Kim Feil
 Screen shot 2015-07-09 at 9.48.51 AM
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Keith Melton <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: Reed Engineering contact

It is my understanding they have made site visits and Reed sends them reports. You can verify all of that with Reed Engineering.

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: kim feil <>
To: Keith Melton <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: Reed Engineering contact
 Thanks for the info, but why did you say TCEQ regulates this when they say they don’t?

From: Keith Melton <>
To: “kim feil (” <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:35 AM
Subject: FW: Reed Engineering contact

Below is the information you requested on Reed Engineering.
Nathan Holm, IAC, CESCO
Environmental Specialist
Reed Engineering Group, Ltd.
214.350.5600 phone

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: kim feil <>
To: “” <>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 9:14 AM
Subject: Fw: PIR on Arlington Library demolition for asbestos remediation
Please send certification and inspection reports of asbestos remediation of the Arlington TX Public Library at 101 E Abram St
Arlington, TX 76010
32.736077, -97.106478
to my email, thanks.
Kim Feil

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: kim feil <>
To: Keith Melton <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 2:49 PM
Subject: Fw: PIR on Arlington Library demolition for asbestos remediation
Do you have the Reed Engineering’s contact name?
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Tammy Glasscock <>
To: kim feil <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 1:46 PM
Subject: RE: PIR on Arlington Library demolition for asbestos remediation
Kim, the TCEQ does not regulate that. I suggest you contact the Texas Department of State Health Services.

—- Forwarded Message —–

From: kim feil <>
To: Tammy Glasscock <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 11:50 AM
Subject: PIR on Arlington Library demolition for asbestos remediation
Please send certification and inspection reports of asbestos remediation of the Arlington TX Public Library at 101 E Abram St
Arlington, TX 76010
to my email, thanks.
Kim Feil
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Keith Melton <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Library Demo Dust
Reed Engineering who works for the Developer of this project has to certify to TCEQ that the asbestos was removed. TCEQ also has an inspector in the area who I assume made periodic site visits to ensure compliance.
Hope this helps.
From: kim feil []
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 11:41 AM
To: Keith Melton
Subject: Re: Library Demo Dust
Is there a way to know if they got it all?

From: Keith Melton <>
To: ‘kim feil’ <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2015 8:26 AM
Subject: RE: Library Demo Dust
The asbestos removal occurred over the last several months, prior to the demo work.
From: kim feil []
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:59 PM
To: Keith Melton
Subject: Re: Library Demo Dust
When did they mediate the asbestos? It seems that every time I saw that plastic that it was flapping in the wind….made me feel like it was supposed to be air tight?

From: Keith Melton <>
To: “kim feil (” <>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 4:26 PM
Subject: Library Demo Dust
Got your phone message and I have contacted CD&P about the need to ensure this site is being watered down to minimize the dust.
Hope this helps.

So I did an Open Records Request W022394-070715 for… “A certification document from the asbestos remediation company of the % removed from the Arlington library prior to the demolition. Any correspondence on the success or failure of the plastic containment sheets that seemed to always be flapping in the wind.”

Thanks twitter world for this… Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.27 PM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.29 PM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.30 PM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.30 PM 1 Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.34 PM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.33 PM Screen shot 2015-07-07 at 2.16.35 PM

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