EPA rec’d Colleyville TX post drilling water contamination video as evidence for reopened water study

Too bad I had to sit on this information for a FOUR year old water contamination complaint before the EPA officially solicited evidence from the public for a study that is already FIVE YEARS OLD!
Thank you Science Advisory Board for reopening the investigation/study of how drilling risks water quality supplies. This case was an immediate indicator that correlated with the nearby drilling activity in Colleyville (did they drill with diesel?).
What is unknown is the long term effects, but hey by the time the EPA makes up its mind…will it be too late to conclude widespread, systematic damages?
I have boldfaced items of interest for fast reading and dedicate this post to Hillary Acton who’s phone was active for a while after her passing with her beloved voice saying……

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “dkelly@colleyville.com” <dkelly@colleyville.com>; “mtaylor@colleyville.com” <mtaylor@colleyville.com>; “cwollin@colleyville.com” <cwollin@colleyville.com>; “cmogged@colleyville.com” <cmogged@colleyville.com>; “cputnam@colleyville.com” <cputnam@colleyville.com>; “jshort@colleyville.com” <jshort@colleyville.com>; “ncoplen@colleyville.com” <ncoplen@colleyville.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:19 PM
Subject: Colleyville TX water testing had lapses in post drilling data
In reviewing the 
  • I noticed in the introduction page that there was no post drilling water sampling dates given on any of the water wells being tested within 2,000 feet of the padsite with the exception of Well K (adjacent to the padsite) as it was constructed AFTER the padsite’s drilling phase and is the ONLY well that you have post drilling water testing data on. At that, since drilling was completed in July of 2011 and Well K’s baseline was taken January 20, 2012, that post drilling data is over six months old. In the absence of post data drilling, Modern GeoSciences made statements throughout the report referring to post drilling and post fracking data, when all they basically had was baseline and post fracking data. THEY HAD NO POST DRILLING DATA
It is important to note that three months after the padsite’s   drilling   phase was completed in July of 2011, Mrs Natalie’s water well (3,000 feet away) went bad.
Section 5.1 notes the well closest to the padsite (Well K), “Of note in the current data is that the highest TDS, methane, sulfur, sulfate, potassium, sodium and strontium were recorded at the well closest to the pad site both before and after the drilling/fracturing event. Due to the high heterogeneity within area geology and unique screened intervals, this may be a result of water well completion and hydrogeological conditions and not an indication of impact from E&P activities, as evidenced by concentrations prior to drilling of the gas wells”.
The Well K statements above that I boldfaced in 5.1 that relate to “prior to drilling” in referring are erroneous because you have NO baseline water testing for Well K prior to the drilling phase (only after).
Since Well K was constructed in November and that’s when Natalie’s well went bad, it is feasible her well went bad days after the construction of monitoring water Well K ……OR it is more probable that ……because Well K had the worst water degradation “AND” was closest to the padsite, that this follows the UTA Clear study and the Duke study’s conclusions that the closer you are to a padsite, the higher the water contamination.
Other questions/issues I have are…
  • Alarmingly it is unclear when Trinity’s wells C & D went dry over the summer (fracking was completed in July of 2011)….Did those wells go dry before or after drilling?


  • Why was there no detailed field observations for the baseline testing during purging? Was wells B & F having the same high turbidity/discoloration issues during baseline purging? Or did these issues happen after padsite activites?
Due to the questions I pose and because:
1) all the well’s water changed (with K Well having the most number of constituents changed),
2) Methane, & Chlorides increased in four of seven wells,
3) Strontium increased in five of seven wells
4) PH dropped in five of seven wells
It is hard to buy into the statement in Section 6 Findings and Recommendations……
“Based on the results of this study, the sampled water wells within 2,000 feet of the Trinity Pad Site do not appear to exhibit evidence of impact from the drilling or hydraulic fracturing activities completed to date”.
I do agree, however with 5.2 INDIVIDUAL WELL EVALUATIONS “Many of the monitored parameters are anticipated to fluctuate within wells for a variety of reasons. The following individual evaluations are provided to allow the review of trends or indicators that could suggest that impact from E&P activities may be occurring. Determination of a trend will require more data collection events over time.”
If post drilling water tests would have been done, Natalie’s well problems may have correlated with any of those potential findings that relate to ground water issues between 1-3 months after a padsite’s drilling phase.
Not testing after drilling interfered with understanding post drilling water degradation issues and could have been useful information and the City of Colleyville deserves post water testing from Modern Geosciences for retribution for what I feel is a large omission of data especially since they were charged with….“The report provides a comparison of selected groundwater quality parameters and analytical results from water wells within 2,000 feet of the pad site before and after drilling and limited hydraulic fracturing activities at the Trinity Pad Site”.
Thank You
———————————end email————-
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “Hanlon, Edward” <Hanlon.Edward@epa.gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Re March 7 teleconference: Video proof of Colleyville Well Water Contamination post drilling (not fracking) here in TX in 2012
Please submit this email string with Mrs Natalie’s video link http://bit.ly/21px6YM
as my written comments to the EPA Docket for the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel’s consideration regarding its peer review on the EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing Assessment Report. She has agreed that she will participate, but she is running for Republican Precinct Chair and is busy.
I cannot risk this information NOT getting to the SAB. When I asked for her water well service guy’s contact information, she said…..
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Natalie xx@gmail.com>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: Re March 7 teleconference: Video proof of Colleyville Well Water Contamination post drilling (not fracking) here in TX in 2012


Ok. I will try to testify.

The well driller I spoke to will not talk because the oil and gas companies are his biggest customers. When I called back to ask him more, he got nervous and told me that he probably shouldn’t have told me as much as he did.
Here is a current petition for TEX Rail. It is from a taxpayer watchdog group. There are only a couple  days left to sign it.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:59 PM, kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I know how busy U R right now…

Remember your well guy said its not fracking, it’s drilling a borehole that is making the wells go bad..please give me his contact info if you are not able to get a time slot and do a telephone conference. 
This is about when your well went bad back in Nov 2011. The Science Advisory Board recommended the EPA go back to the water study and allow public testimony and I wanted you to do a teleconference on this.
I saw that your well was 3,000 feet away of the site and only the wells within 2,000 feet were given a baseline test to compare to after drilling and after fracking stages…but what happened over the summer (fracking was complete by July 2011) was that two of the four Trinity wells “stopped working summer 2011”. Three months after they drilled your well went bad. The other thing that happened is Modern GeoSciences failed to test the water wells they were monitoring “after” drilling (they only retested the water after fracking and concluded all was good).
I will email you the EPA response on the email string you forwarded to me on the progress of your well issue as your testimony in that email could suffice for my report of your testimony. I was hoping you could do it though if you had time so I could share a different testimony I have about Arlington’s drinking water issues with the drill sites on the Ft Worth side of Lake Arlington (one spilled in our drinking source a few years ago).
The testimony can only be 3 minutes long and so I could try to squeeze both in…I wasn’t sure if you were going to be by a computer on March 7 to do this.

Mr Hanlon, on Facebook messaging I found this other important communication from Mrs Natalie too…Someone told me that the oil may be caused by leaking bearings in my well pump. I don’t know why it would smell so bad, however”.
Also please send this “other” email string too below (for a total of all three emails) to the SAB as it contains additional information. Here is the cut and paste…

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Natalie xx@gmail.com>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling

BTW Chloride was 57.4 and limit was 0.500

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Natalie xx wrote:

They did not test for bentonite. Wish they did. I thought it was strange that they were testing for fluids used in fracking when they knew there was no fracking at the site near me.

The RR Commission tested and I have the results.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM, kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Did they test for Bentonite…that is used in drilling mud as is diesel too….did they BTEX testand do you have the results?

From: Nataliexx@gmail.com>

To: TXsharon <sharson@gmail.com>
Cc: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net, Nataliexx@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 5, 2012 6:40:19 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling

But they weren’t fracking. They had only drilled the bore holes.

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM, TXsharon <sharson@gmail.com> wrote:
High salt content comes from fracking.

Sharon Wilson, Fracking Insurgent 

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM, kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Did they say they tested for BTEX, did you get the actual report from the lab?


From: Natalie  <nataliexx@gmail.com>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tue, December 4, 2012 11:51:46 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling

They didn’t find anything. …was however high salt contant but we assumed it was somehow from our saltwater pool.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Natalie, what did the RRC conclude/test for on your well?
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Michael Vanderworth <Michael.Vanderworth@rrc.state.tx.us>
To: “kimfeil@sbcglobal.net” <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Marshall Berryhill <Marshall.Berryhill@rrc.state.tx.us>
Sent: Tue, December 4, 2012 4:36:14 PM
Subject: RE: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling

When the Railroad Commission receives notice from a citizen that their water well has been contaminated by oil field activity, we will collect a water sample from the well and have it tested for chlorides, BTEX and TPH. If the sample analysis indicates any of these constituents are elevated, it could indicate the well has been affected by oilfield activity. If the BTEX, TPH or chlorides are elevated the Railroad Commission would look at it on a case by case basis and have more tests conducted which could include testing for chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.
From: Marshall Berryhill 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:23 PM
To: Dana McClendon; Michael Vanderworth
Subject: FW: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 6:34 AM
To: Marshall Berryhill
Cc: Nataliexx 
Subject: response/ Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling
What will the RRC do different to test for more than just chlorides and the usual…what about frack chemical testing? You can’t find what you don’t look for.
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Natalie <nataliexx@gmail.com>
Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 2:28:52 PM
Subject: Re: Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling
My experience is that local, RRC and Dallas EPA water dept are only set up to test for chlorides and turbidity-they also look for sheens and odors.
High salt content can detect if brine (from produced water) was spilled. We had a few drill sites in Arlington flood after rain storms and they only checked for salts and then released it to the storm drains.
The Baron site was in the frack stage when the flooding happend, so brine would not yet be present.  They should have checked for frack chemicals …this is a haphazard, loosly regulated industry and so designed by tricky dick Cheney.
Sorry this happened to you and your family and animals…hope no lingering effect show up later.  I feel inclined to mentioned that a lady from my bible study had a well in Arlington by the lake and watered her grass with it. She developed a fast acting cancer that started in the vulva and went to the bones and killed her within a year…so sad.  I had to drop out of that bible study. Now I have a distaste for people who think prayer alone is gonna make a difference and gets them off the hook in not doing the legwork needed to reduce our toxins.
Yesterday was a hard day for me cause little Maddie from Arlington is having a setback.  https://www.facebook.com/fightformaddie?fref=ts
It is a huge job to try to look at untimely deaths and rare becoming common cancers (like the GBM cancer Maddie and lil Josephine Alaya has) and map where they lived to gas well proximity, and then compare to pre-urban drilling info….but it is what we need to do and the state dept of health is not interested in doing it.

From: Natalie nataliexx@gmail.com>
To: Marshall.Berryhill@rrc.state.tx.us
Sent: Thu, November 29, 2012 1:46:49 PM
Subject: Contamination of water well through bore hole drilling

I would like my water well experience documented to help us learn more about this process and to help others going forward.
I would like my water well experience documented to help us learn more about this process and to help others going forward.
In Nov of 2011, I noticed that my water well was contaminated. My water was tested by the railroad commission and by the EPA for fluids used in fracking and substances released during fracking.  Fracking was not occurring when my water well became contaminated. As expected, the results of my water well testing were inconclusive. The owner of a water well drilling company told me he has seen a dozen cases of contaminated water wells in the Dallas Ft. Worth area and they have all been contaminated from the drilling of bore holes. None have been contaminated from fracking. In addition, he said that the vibration from the drilling of bore holes has caused several well casings in the area to crack.
The gas well sight near me (on Pleasant Run Road in Colleyville, TX) where a bore hole was drilled is about a mile away. I have been told that it is impossible for anything from this drill sight to travel to my well. An environmental scientist pointed out that I sit on a fault and a fault can act as a pathway for whatever is beneath to easily follow.
The contamination of my water went through many stages (yellow foam and later an oily residue on the surface and bad smells most of the time). I depend on my well to water my animals so I am in closer contact with my well water than my neighbors who use their wells to sprinkle their lawns. The contamination finally worked its way out after about 5 months and my water seems to be back to normal.
The point I wish to make is that it seems our aquifers/water wells are being contaminated from bore hole drilling. It would be beneficial if we could conduct research and find a way to protect our water at this stage before casings are put in place.
Natalie xx

From: “Hanlon, Edward” <Hanlon.Edward@epa.gov>
To: “kimfeil@sbcglobal.net” <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Natalie@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:37 PM
Subject: RE: Re March 7 teleconference: Video proof of Colleyville Well Water Contamination post drilling (not fracking) here in TX in 2012

Dear Ms. Feil,
Thank you for your email.  I have not received an email request from Ms.xx to speak during the March 7 Panel teleconference.  If Ms. xx would like to speak during the March 7 Panel teleconference, she should email me directly and I will respond to that request and provide information on how she can join the teleconference as a speaker.
Regarding the video that you forwarded: While our office’s policy is to not post videos onto our EPA SAB website, I can request that the docket post an email with a link to a website address that would have the video if you click on it.
Would you like me to post your email as written comments to the EPA Docket for the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel’s consideration regarding its peer review on the EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing Assessment Report?  I will not submit your email for posting unless I hear from you to do so.
If you request me to do so, I will submit your email for posting onto the Docket ID # EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0245 website that is being used to post public comments for the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Research Advisory Panel’s consideration regarding its peer review on the EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing Assessment Report.  Your comments can be viewed once they are posted by Docket staff on the Docket’s Regulations.gov website for Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0245 that is available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0245   I would post the attached email noted below from you which includes the actual website address for the video.
Another option is that you and/or Ms.xx can send the docket an electronic copy of the video on a CD or stick.  Instructions on sending such comments on a CD or stick to the docket are provided in the Federal Register Notice that is posted on our March 7 teleconference website at the following website address:
Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information.  Thank you, Sincerely, Ed Hanlon
The email I would request the docket to post on your behalf is as follows. 
From: kim feil
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:00 PM
To: Hanlon, Edward <Hanlon.Edward@epa.gov>
Cc: Natalie xx
Subject: Re March 7 teleconference: Video proof of Colleyville Well Water Contamination post drilling (not fracking) here in TX in 2012
In the event Mrs xx is not able to testify for this teleconference, please find this video she made and the email string to her councilman as supporting evidence.  The video is available at the following website address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfl-0yL4oCA
Thank you.
Kim Feil
(then attach the emails you forwarded below)

Ed Hanlon
Designated Federal Officer
EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office
202-564-2134 (phone/voice mail)
202-565-2098 (fax)
202-564-2221 (SAB main number)
Regular mail: USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400R), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
Office location/Courier Address: USEPA Science Advisory Board, Ronald Reagan Building, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 31150, Washington, D.C. 20460
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 2:00 PM
To: Hanlon, Edward <Hanlon.Edward@epa.gov>
Cc: Natalie@gmail.com>
Subject: Re March 7 teleconference: Video proof of Colleyville Well Water Contamination post drilling (not fracking) here in TX in 2012
In the event Mrs xxis not able to testify for this teleconference, please find this video she made and the email string to her councilman as supporting evidence, thank you.
Kim Feil
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Nataliexx@gmail.com>
To: Kim Feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:28 AM
Subject: Update on Colleyville Well Water Contamination
Thought I would send this to you again as it documents the progression of my water well issues.
Dear All,
I have had the Railroad Commission and EPA out to test my well and the tests so far have been inconclusive. There are still a few tests to be done. My well water became far worse and the water became yellowish gray, smelled horribly and was quite cloudy for a time. It now seems to be clearing up and looking better.
I talked to a well driller today as a friend told me his Southlake neighbor’s well was contaminated and it was believed to be from drilling. The water well company drilled a new well for him and the water was better.
The information I received from the water well company was quite enlightening. The owner of the company said he has seen around a dozen water wells contaminated recently in the metroplex. None have been from fracking and all have been contaminated from drilling bore holes. He explained that a few wells have had their casings collapsed from the pressure of the drilling.
I would like to know if you have suggestions for preventing this from happening when future bore holes are drilled in Colleyville and if you have contact info for someone at Titan I could talk with regarding my water well problems?
Natalie xx
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Ron Ruthven <rruthven@colleyville.com> wrote:

From: Ron Ruthven
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 5:07 PM
To: ‘nataliexx@gmail.com’
Subject: RE: Problems with Colleyville Well Water???
Ms. xx,
It is highly unlikely that your well would have been contaminated by the Titan well at 7504 Pleasant Run Road given that those wells have yet to be fractured by the hydraulic fracturing process in addition to the fact that the well bores are at a depth of 7,600 feet below the surface.  We did test all water wells within 2,000 feet of the gas well bores prior to drilling.  However, your well is approximately 3,000 feet from the well bores and was not tested as part of the pre-drilling testing.
That said, I am working with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to possibly send an investigator out to analyze your well to see what the issue may entail.
I will get back to you tomorrow with more information.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Ron Ruthven
City of Colleyville
From: Nataliexx[mailto:nataliexx@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 10:16 AM
To: David Kelly; Carol Wollin; Michael T. Muhm; Mike Taylor; Jody Short (Outside); Tom Hart; Stan Hall; Jennifer Fadden
Subject: Problems with Colleyville Well Water???
Dear City Leaders,
Three weeks ago I turned on my well water and was met with a horrible smell. I filled up a container and there was foam in the water. I hoped it would go away or that it was my imagination. Today I turned on my water again and the smell was far worse. Now there is an oily residue on the surface of the water. We have had our well for 15 years and have never seen anything like this. I am quite concerned.
Have you heard of anyone else with a water well experiencing problems? Did the city have their water tested before fracking begin? Do we have city water wells? 
What advice do you have for me?
Natalie xx
In addition to water concerns…here is the Colleyville FLOWBACK air testing results page that alarmed me as I understand Benzene at 85 ppb exceeded the 9 ppb “two week ATSDR MRL” by 6 to 9 times…

About Kim Triolo Feil

Since TX Statute 253.005 forbids drilling in heavily settled municipalities, I unsuccessfully ran for City Council Seat to try to enforce this. Since Urban Drilling, our drinking water has almost tripled for TTHM's. Before moving to Arlington in 1990, I lived in Norco’s “cancer alley”, a refinery town. It was only after Urban Drilling in Arlington did I start having health effects. After our drill site was established closest to my home, the chronic nosebleeds started. I know there are more canaries here in Arlington having reactions to our industrialized airshed (we have 55-60 padsites of gas wells). Come forward and report to me those having health issues especially if you live to the north/northwest of a drill site so I can map your health effects on this blog. My youtube account is KimFeilGood. FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. MATERIAL FROM DIVERSE AND SOMETIMES TEMPORARY SOURCES IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN A PERMANENT UNIFIED MANNER, AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (AMONG OTHER THINGS). IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS IS A 'FAIR USE' OF THE INFORMATION AS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 USC SECTION 107, THE SITE IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROFIT FOR THOSE WHO ACCESS IT FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/ TO USE MATERIAL REPRODUCED ON THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE', PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER INDICATED WITH A NAME AND INTERNET LINK AT THE END OF EACH ITEM. (NOTE: THE TEXT OF THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO LIFTED FROM CORRIDORNEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM)
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s