Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by North LA on August 15, 2011 at 3:25

"Part of the problem, Police Juror Greg Baker explained, is the three oil and gas companies that are primarily using the road to service their wells have refused to chip in for new asphalt because "they feel the road is in adequate condition." The companies — Chesapeake, Petrohawk, EXCO — are willing, however, to cover maintenance costs."

 

This comment makes me sick!

 

O&G companies pay taxes don't they? I don't understand why the O&G company would be treated any differently than any other industry. If any other company said they would bring in 4,000+ jobs and over a billion $$ worth of investments into LA I'm sure the state would be willing to shell out over a $100million in incentives to get them to locate here. So what's the difference with spending $21million to maintain infrastructure? Maybe the state or local government should use taxes collected to rebuild the roads to keep this economic engine running smooth OR maybe these 3 companies should pack up and leave so that those precious DeSoto parish roads can remain pristine.

 

Sorry for the soap box. I just hate complaining and whining. Some people would complain if you gave them a billion dollars, a new house, a hot wife, and ten genius children. They just don't know how NOT to be miserable. I understand most people in DeSoto parish probably don't feel this way. Just please understand how blessed you are and don't start killing the golden goose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 15, 2011 at 3:46

I doubt that you would have a similar opinion if I tore up your roads and then said, oh by the way take it out of all those taxes I paid you.  The taxes paid have no relation to the fact that the industry has damaged roads and imposed hardships on residents.  The industry didn't pay a road tax, they paid sales and use taxes largely unrelated to the upkeep of roadways.  The industry would rather make donations such as the amphibious vehicle for the Sheriff's Department recently in the news than to assist with the larger costs of something of much greater importance.  The Police Jury has the responsibility to keep up the roads and should invest tax dollars however IMO the industry should have made a good faith effort to recognize the problem and cooperate with the Police Jury as opposed to saying it's not our job to participate in the cost of replacing the roads we have damaged but we will pay you something in the future to maintain the rebuilt roads.  This has nothing to do with whether appreciation is warranted for development.  It has to do with the industry stepping up to the plate and cooperating with local governments on an issue that should bear no debate.  The industry needs good roads and their operations have severely damaged the public roads of the parish.  If the industry desires good public relations they should step forward and make arrangements to augment taxes invested in roads.  Not wait until after the damage is done and say, you rebuild them and will help maintain them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on August 15, 2011 at 4:03

My question is, what type of condition were these roads in prior to these companies arrival?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by essay on August 15, 2011 at 4:19

truth.  i suspect there's blame to go around for tearing up some roads but also a fair bit of scapegoating going on too.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Scott on August 15, 2011 at 4:19

Then I don't believe these companies should bear the full cost of replacing the roads. Of course this is only my opinion. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on August 15, 2011 at 4:36

The industry is paying nothing toward the replacement of the roads.  They are offering some unknown contribution to the maintenance of the rebuilt roads.  Much of the roads in question were rural parish roads and were in less than ideal condition.  The industry should not be expected to pick up the entire cost of bringing them up to a higher standard.  However the roads were usable "as is" prior to industry traffic and did not require rebuilding to a higher standard.

Many things have changed with the new era of unconventional reservoir development.  In the past an operator was using only a small portion of a road system to drill a well and there was no continuation of road use whenever wells proved non-productive.  In the Haynesville Play operators individually and the industry as a whole knew two things:  that all wells successfully completed would be productive to some degree, and require continuing maintenance, and that the layout of surface locations would be in an orderly, repeated pattern.  They could look at the map of DeSoto and know with little doubt what roads would be needed to support the Play.  Instead of negotiating a minimal participation after the fact, IMO the industry should have taken the lead and offered greater assistance in the improvements required to support their activities.  Much of that assistance could have been in-kind:  planning and surveying, dirt work, cheaper materials bought through the companies but paid for by the parish and coordination of roadwork to facilitate industry activities and spare the residents as much inconvenience as possible.

 

At at time when the industry's image is less than stellar and politics tend to hinder pursuit of development opportunities, a little more cooperation and regard for the rights of surface owners is not setting a bad precedent as many in the industry appear to believe.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on August 15, 2011 at 5:35

In my opinion one of the jobs of the govt is to maintain infrastructure so that industry is attracted and production is streamlined so that jobs are created and maintained so that the population is employed creating wealth.

 

I would like to see a town or region try this shakedown with a car plant, steel mill, dock, etc. I believe it's unconstitutional for a govt to single out one entity as a culprit if that entity breaks no laws and maintains all govt requirement like everyone else. 

 

The govt can't single out one industry unless there is law that allows it. The people of DeSoto parish can do whatever they like but they better make laws which don't select out one industry. e.g. they should create toll roads so that all have to pay or make a requirement that for any trucks operating over a certain tonnage over a certain period have to pay for a graduated fee based off of hours of operation.  

 

The people of De Soto parish can do as they please but in my opinion it would be foolish to punish those who are bringing so much prosperity where there was nothing but poverty before. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FXEF on August 15, 2011 at 5:37

 

I agree with Skip on this one.

+1

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by North LA on August 15, 2011 at 5:58

It's really up to the people of De Soto parish. In my opinion it would be idiotic. With the price of gas so low these companies have a choice... On second thought I hope the people of DeSoto tax the crap out of them so maybe they'll move over here faster and start drilling for oil.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on August 15, 2011 at 6:02

Back in the late 1990s or early 2000 when Ron Bean was still a state senator, he secured funding to widen Stonewall Frierson Rd. from Stonewall to I-49. If you will remember, the state started purchasing land from adjacent landowners and even went so far as to start clearing the land. Then Ron died and the project died with him. Where did those funds go?  Then Encana said they were willing to share some of the costs in widening Stonewall Frierson (they were going to be concentrating on the Holly & Caspiana Fields) because they were afraid for their workers to travel it as it was so narrow and dangerous. Never heard anymore on that except that work is now being done. Maybe Encana did help on that

Other roads in the parish are definitely in need of assistance and a lot of the problems are caused from heavy trucks; however, look at what the state and parishes offer as incentives to get businesses to relocate to their areas. I can't even remember what incentives GM got, but at the time it was enormous just to get them in and once in the area, they were given tax incentives to stay. SO, I have to say it is up to the state and parishes who are benefiting from all this job growth, tax revenue growth to repair their roads--most of which were not in the best of shape to begin with. Just my opinion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on August 15, 2011 at 15:15

Very excellent points!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on August 15, 2011 at 9:38

They  (the companies) could look at the map of DeSoto and know with little doubt what roads would be needed to support the Play.  Instead of negotiating a minimal participation after the fact, IMO the industry should have taken the lead and offered greater assistance in the improvements required to support their activities.  Much of that assistance could have been in-kind:  planning and surveying, dirt work, cheaper materials bought through the companies but paid for by the parish and coordination of roadwork to facilitate industry activities and spare the residents as much inconvenience as possible."  (by Skip)

 

I like this.  The roads may not have been in  good shape before the drilling BUT most of us know that heavy trucks cause road damage.  Maybe the companies are worried about other towns and parish/counties also asking for road money??

 

However, I think they could have done a better job of working with the police juries.  These companies pay very little in local taxes.  Sure they pay to the feds and state but those monies seldom trickle back down to a small road in your parish.  IMO, it's very reasonable to ask a company to help pay for the road damage their trucks do. Since this will happen almost anywhere they drill wells it seems like there should be an better way to assess damages.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page