Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Glenn Taylor on March 23, 2010 at 3:47

To add to this: I was concerned about the tanker trucks destroying the roads in my area and visited my Police Jury to express those concerns and see what could be done about the problem. The secretary gave me a copy of a proposed State Constitutional Amendment (No.- Act 541) that will be on the ballot in November. This amendment changes the amount of severance tax money that comes back to the parishes from a cap of $850,000.00 to $1,850,000.00 the first year and $2,850,000.00 the second year without increasing the tax. Also, there is a requirement in the bill to use the excess money received for the same purpose as the Parish Transportation Fund (according to the secretary, this excess money will be dedicated to road improvement). Since this is not a tax increase and will bring more money into our parish, I suggest we vote for this amendment when it comes up on the ballot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 23, 2010 at 4:20

Glenn. It's good to know that there is an effort underway to address this problem. The question that comes to mind; would the increased dollars to a parish be sufficient to cover the costs involved? I would also like to see the E&P companies active in those parishes involved in additional assistance to help stretch those road maintenance dollars. As the development of the HA and also the BO shales will go on for decades, incentives for the transportation of salt water to disposal sites by permanent pipeline would be another means to address the challenge. This will be a rapidly growing problem that if not addressed adequately and soon may cause extreme inconvenience if not out right physical dangers to the residents of parishes with high levels of development activity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Glenn Taylor on March 23, 2010 at 14:58

Skip: That is a good question. IMO we citizens need to stay on top of this with our Police Jury members and insist that they require the companies that are destroying our roads be charged with fixing what they tear up. I understand that in Desoto Parish this requirement is already in effect. However, getting the companies to fix the roads has not been successful. All of us are excited about the gas discovery and what it means to our economy here. But, there is a lot of policing of the O&G companies that has to be done and only if we all insist that our environment is protected will we be able to enjoy the benefits.

I like the idea of having the pipeline structure to transport the waste water and the frac water. Those trucks hauling the waste water are going to be the biggest culprits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Crunchy on March 23, 2010 at 6:55

How would IP selling its wastewater help the roads? Doesn't the water still have to be transported? Last time I heard the temporary lines could only transport up to a 3 mile radius. Wouldn't waste water contain things that you would not want in your water well supply? Just thinking out loud.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on March 23, 2010 at 7:19

Crunchy, did you read the second page of the atricle?

Also, a separate $5 million interconnected system of 10- to 14-inch lines is being completed in an arrangement with Heckmann Corporation, which will allow the transportation of up to 100,000 barrels per day of produced water from gas wells in DeSoto Parish to Heckmann's disposal system in Texas. "In all, these systems will significantly reduce water trucking and the associated noise, dust, and road wear and tear generated by several hundred transports loads daily," Exco's release states.

The biggest driver of industry traffic is dealing with "produced" water (salt water). Much greater than the traffic involved with fracing a well. A permanent pipeline system to handle produced water would take a lot of salt water trucks off the roads.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on March 23, 2010 at 15:10

It doesn't matter if waste water is used in fracturization, being that it is 2 miles below the water table and sealed by numerous inpermiable geologic layers, the frac process in and of itself has nothing to do with damaging ground water, it is the drilling of water wells to obtain frac water that is a concern.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Crunchy on March 23, 2010 at 9:54

Oops. That is what the 2 at the bottom of the page was for...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Belmont Boy on March 24, 2010 at 17:21

Have to wonder what the people who built all the new ponds are thinking right now. Who would have thought a project of such magnitude would be considered feasible and efficient, long-term? I know a couple of guys who are very happy right now they didn't move on building ponds solely in anticipation of selling the water. Will this water be solely for EXCO, or will EXCO sell excess volume to other companies?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ur dern tootin' on March 25, 2010 at 0:26

Hopefully EXCO has established a pattern for others to follow. Pipelining the frac source water into the drilling area and pipelining the produced water out of the production area for disposal has long been recognized as the way to go in solving trucking/road/traffic concerns. In fact, to lessen the footprint companies could even utilize the same pipeline system/ROW with concentric piping. Surface water is plentiful in Toledo Bend and the Red River areas of NW Louisiana. The companies should be congratulated for shifting their source of frac water from ground water to surface water. The latest Office of Conservation statistics show that overall the companies are using 70% surface water and 30% ground water for fracing. And each ground water source well is evaluated by the Office of Conservation in advance of allowing a company to utilize the ground water for facing.

• ▶ Reply