So, I am thinking about buying a house, but it is located in Woodwind Lakes in Houston.

The problem is that it was built right on top of an old oilfield, and a previous owner in the subdivision filed a lawsuit against the builder, and the subdivision has a checkered past now. I'm not really worried about living close to a former oil production site; people have oil wells drilled close to their homes all the time. However, I'm not sure about the amount of potential contamination in the subdivision, and I want to know what I am getting into.

I was wondering, and thought that the OB experts might know, of a way to get soil samples tested prior to closing the deal? Maybe the ag extention agency has something?

Let me have it.

contact the soil lab at A&M.

soiltesting.tamu.edu

If you'd like to seek the advice and expertise from an environmental services company let me know.

Have a Phase 1 environmenal survey performed.
It will probably cost between $1k to $2k.
There are tons of firms that can provide this survey for real estate transaction

You could negotiate in your offer that the seller provides this survey.

If you do negotiate this, make sure your earnest money contract has an "out" for you to object to any negative findings so you can recover your earnest money.

If you buy a contaminated site, there is all kinds of risk you could be inheriting.

http://www.houstonpress.com/2007-04-12/news/woodwind-lakes-subdivision-built-on-oil-and-gas-field-turns-on-neighbor-who-pointed-out-the-contamination/full

A Phase I Environmental Site assessment (ESA) is all but required fare for commercial transactions. It is not required for residential. Also it is typically required by the lending institution.

The main reasoning behind this disparity is that in commercial properties, there is always the risk that the new tenant can get blamed for existing problems. In Texas, at least, if you buy a problem, you own the problem. The exception is when the buyer has done their 'due diligence' prior to purchase. A quality Phase I ESA can protect you from blame should something be found AFTER the purchase. The reason the lenders force the buyer to get a phase I, is in case the buyer defaults on the loan and the lender gets stuck with the property. They dont want to own a piece of property that has negative value.

A second reason, I think, is that the majority of properties are residential, and then become commercial. Since commercial properties are the big problem makers when it comes to environmental issues, properties trending FROM residential TO commercial are overlooked and nobody cares.


This situation is different in your case, kind of. While the property was likely not commercial trending to residential, it was oilfield.

If it were me, I would want to spend the cost of a phase I ESA, or skip the background check and go straight to sampling via a Limited Subsurface Investigation (LSI).

I used to work with these guys. The president, Bryan, is an Ag. Class of '98, if I recall correctly.
http://www.esepartners.com/
They do Phase I's and LSIs and can probably tell you if either is even warranted in your case.

[This message has been edited by 35chililights (edited 5/17/2011 1:02p).]

buster shoot me an email.

boswellaw@gmail.com we can def. work something out for you.

someone beat me to it. Get a phase 1 done by a good reputable firm. My company does this, but we are a little to far away to be of help. if you get any questions on the results, I'd be happy to talk to you.

Im pretty sure a phase 1 would require some testing to be done. The home is less than a quarter mile away from 4 old oil/gas wells, and about a half mile away from an old oil refinary that TCEQ has already said leaked some benzene.

That was over 50 years ago, however.

What I am thinking is that some soil tests should give me some cover regarding resell value, and it would be better to get the seller to pay for it. Of course, if the test come back with anything close to scary results, the deal is off.

Thanks for the suggestions in this post. I have contacted a couple of companies, and weighing different options.

quote:

---

Im pretty sure a phase 1 would require some testing to be done.

---

Just a semantics issue, but a "Phase I ESA" is limited to historical research and present day records. Any sample collection at all, falls outside the scope of a "Phase I ESA".

I only bring this up so you know what to expect if someone states they can do a ESA for you.

[This message has been edited by 35chililights (edited 5/17/2011 10:05p).]

35 is right. A phase 1 is just research of the records of the property. They will give you a report that has a bunch of stuff in it and it will either recommend to do a phase 2 or it will say no further investigation is necessary. I just had one of these done in college station. I had a phase one done and did a partial phase 2 ( basically soil and water samples). It was 1000 bucks for the phase 1 and I think it was 1200 for the soil samples and testing.

Just to back up what others have said, a phase 1 is only going to tell you what you already know.

If you want to know what the soil is like at your site have samples run, then you will have quantitative data showing your place is clean.

ttt for nlforeman04, if he has anything to add.

I'd take it a step further or two, go with phase 3. You don't want to meddle in mud ya know. Know before you go.

wth, 35? pimp out another company but dont pimp out the one that you most recently worked for?

If you know the history of the site I dont know that I would even bother with a Phase I. Jump straight to a Phase II. That is when the sampling comes in. If you arent for sure then a phase I will get you all the historical research including old topos, aerials, city directories, etc. With as much oil and gas business as there is right now both of the main database research companies have now started adding an option for oil and gas well locations in their standard searches.

If you already know that the house is built on a oil field and maybe even directly on an old well then great.

Im guessing that the oil field cleanup (if there was any) was cleaned up to the Railroad Commission standards which is barely at all and their standards are not the most human-health friendly standards.

We have a Houston office and do this stuff all the time. if you have any questions or anything like that feel free to let me know.

my email is
my texags handle(<---) at hotmail.com

TAG'Em04 - he's a dentistry student now. And maybe you're the reason he made that career change.

oh yeah... I keep forgetting he is better than me now...

quote:

---

We have a Houston office

---

How did I forget that?

A phase I will be a waste of time. It does not require any testing be done. Phase 1's are only visual inspections of the property and environmental data base references.

Phase II Env. Assessments is where the testing is done.

Phase III is the remediation, if needed.

No, I did not stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I have been doing Phase I ESA's for 16 years.

I wouldn't touch that house. Sure you could have it tested and find out you're all good, I'm just looking at it from a buyer's perspective down the road. The stigma associated with that neighborhood is going to hamper your efforts to sell, no matter how many "good to go's" you get from env. testing.

Hell that article linked above said something like 8 realtors refused to list a house in the subdivision because they didn't want to deal with it.

That article is scary as hell by the way......I know it's a sensationalist piece but the thought of being in that situation is frightening. Not only becuase of the constant worry about health issues and financial reprecussions, but the fact that every organization involved seems to be content to do the bare minimum and cover up the issue.

quote:

---

but the fact that every organization involved seems to be content to do the bare minimum and cover up the issue.

---

this is the norm, not the exception.

Oh I fully realize that, chili.
I just figured in this litigious and environmentally conscious era we're living in that the response wouldn't have been so "blatant", for lack of a better word.

Thanks for all the input guys. Texags really did help me here, and I appriciate the people that are in the environmental industry that contributed.

My biggest problem has been seperating actual science from sensationalism, however. Yes, there was some bad groundwater pollution problems over the refinery site. Yes, there are a thousand oil wells beneath the ground in that area. Will either of these impact the health of the people who live away from the old refinery? It's hard to tell.

As far as living on an old oil field, well, I have lived closer to an active well than any of the old wells that are less than 1/4 mile from the house.

We are still considering what to do, but I want to take an educated course of action. The houses in the area are still moving pretty well, although I do think prices out there would be a bit higher if it wasn't for the stigma attached to the area. It's hard to tell whether that stigma is going to get better or worse over time, though. I could see one sensational lawsuit filed that could really devastate property values there again, but I'm not sure if anyone has any recourse left in the area.

Odds are we will pass on the house. If the seller will agree to a plan to have the soil tested out of their pocket, and provides a price that I think adequately compensates for the PR risk, we might bite.

Any additional educated feedback is appriciated.

[This message has been edited by BusterAg (edited 5/19/2011 3:48p).]

I'm looking for companies that do Phase Is in the College Station area?

OnlyForNow and Thanksandgigem04, where do your firms/contacts operate?

WE can do CS.

Email me boswellaw@gmail.com

I have a question Buster. Any time I've bought a house or property, I've always thought about resale first and foremost. If the subdivision has a "checkered past" as you put it, are you willing to deal with the consequences of that being public knowledge? What if a bigger problem is found in the future that could further devalue property?

I didn't read the enitre article but coming from an employee at an environmental consulting firm it sounds like the developer and his environmental outfit are to blame for this one.

We do quite a bit work for developers and homebuilders building on or around oilfields and doesn't seem to be a big deal as long they perform their due diligence and have all the documentation available to potential home buyers. The norm is to not build until any contamination is cleaned up and the environmental costs are passed on to the seller of the property or knocked off the price of the land. Sounds like this never happened or was done poorly.

There are many statemnents in the article that imply that no one builds or should build on industrial/oilfield land and that is BS. If that were the case construction would have stopped in Houston a long time ago.

To the OP...I agree that a simple Phase II would be the way to go.

To RMC..we are in Houston and can do Phase I ESAs anywhere. Shoot me an email and let me know if you want more info. sanwaldjf at gmail dot com

Emails sent to OnlyForNow and Ag_07. Thanks.