Eagle_Ford_Task_Force_Report-0313

EAGLE FORD SHALE
TASK FORCE REPORT
CONVENED AND CHAIRED BY
RAILROAD COMMISSIONER
DAVID PORTER
MARCH 2013

EAGLE FORD SHALE
EFS_TOC.indd 1 3/6/2013 5:47:47 PM

EAGLE FORD SHALE TASK FORCE
Commissioner David Porter
EFS_TOC.indd 2 3/6/2013 5:47:50 PM

Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 1: Workforce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 2: Infrastructure - Roads, Pipelines, Housing . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chapter 3: Water Quality and Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter 4: Railroad Commission Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Chapter 5: Economic Beneﬁts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Chapter 6: Flaring and Air Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Chapter 7: Health Care, Education, and Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Chapter 8: Landowner, Mineral Owner, and Royalty Owner Issues . .99
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.1
Biographies of Task Force Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . b.1
Acknowledgments
EFS_TOC.indd 3 3/6/2013 5:47:54 PM

EFS_TOC.indd 4 3/6/2013 5:47:54 PM

IntroductionEAGLE FORD SHALE TASK FORCE REPORT
“The Eagle Ford Shale has the potential to be the
single most signiﬁcant economic development in
our state’s history.” Railroad Commissioner David Porter
EFS_Introduction.indd 1 3/6/2013 5:48:17 PM

2
INTRODUCTION
The shale revolution is sweeping the country and revolutionizing energy and the economy, with Texas and the
Eagle Ford Shale leading the way. Texas is the nation’s top oil and natural gas producing state and leads the
country in energy technology and policy. The state is home to a number of prolific oil and gas plays, including
the Eagle Ford Shale, Permian Basin, Barnett Shale, Haynesville/Bossier Shale, and Granite Wash. The Eagle
Ford Shale has the potential to become the most active oil and gas play in North America, with approximately
235 drilling rigs currently running.1
Operators forecast that the play will continue to develop for decades to
come.
Source: Data from U.S. Energy Information Administration/Graphic by the American Enterprise Institute (October 28, 2012)
The Railroad Commission (“Commission”) regulates the exploration and production of oil and gas in Texas.
For more than 120 years, the Commission has played a critical role in the establishment of Texas as an interna-
tional energy leader. In 2011, the Commission led the way in transparency by formally adopting the Hydraulic
Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Rule, one of the nation’s first and most comprehensive rules of its kind, requir-
ing operators to report the type and amount of fluids used to hydraulically fracture wells on a national public
website.2
The Commission continues to review its policies and rules to ensure that they account for current
1 Baker Hughes Rig Count. 2012 Baker Hughes Rotary Rig Count. Retrieved from http://investor.shareholder.com/bhi/rig_
counts/rc_index.cfm
2 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 91.851 (Vernon 2011). (The rule implemented forward-looking legislation enacted by the Texas
Legislature in 2011.)
Daily Oil Production in the Top 4 U.S. Oil-Producing States 2002-2012

3
INTRODUCTION
technologies and environmental and safety needs in a manner that is efficient and consistent with sound market
principles.
These are the Commission’s primary responsibilities relative to oil and gas:
1. Prevent waste of oil and gas resources.
2. Protect surface and subsurface water from contamination by
oilfield operations.
3. Ensure that all mineral interest owners have an opportunity
to recover their fair share of the minerals underlying their
property.
4. Ensure that gas utility rates and service are reasonable and
non-discriminatory.
In performing its responsibilities, the Commission oversees the
following:
1. All aspects of oil and natural gas drilling and production,
including issuing permits, monitoring, and inspecting oil and
gas operations
2. Coal and uranium exploration, surface mining, and reclamation, and issues permits for such
operations
3. Natural gas and hazardous liquids intrastate pipelines to ensure the safety of the public and
integrity of the environment
4. Gas utility rates and service
5. Propane safety and licenses all propane distributors
The Commission no longer has any jurisdiction or authority over railroads, a duty that was transferred to the
Texas Department of Transportation in 2005. Moreover, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over
roads, traffic, noise, odors, oil and gas leases, pipeline easements, or royalty payments.
The Commission is led by three statewide elected officials who serve staggered, six-year terms. The current
Commissioners are Chairman Barry T. Smitherman, Commissioner David Porter, and Commissioner Christi
Craddick. The Commission employs approximately 700 staff, 41 percent of whom are in the Commission’s dis-
trict offices, also referred to as field offices. The field staff performs inspections of oil, natural gas, and pipeline
operations. (See Appendix A.1 for Commission Organization Chart.)
The productivity of the Eagle Ford Shale in South Texas has been unlocked over the past four years with the
application of improved horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques, first honed by producers in
the Barnett Shale. Upon launching the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force (“Task Force”) in 2011, Commissioner
The shale revolution is
sweeping the country
and revolutionizing
energy and the
economy, with Texas
and the Eagle Ford
Shale leading
the way.

4
INTRODUCTION
David Porter observed, “The Ea-
gle Ford Shale has the potential to
be the single most signiﬁcant eco-
nomic development in our state’s
history.”3
Experts’ projections
conﬁrm Porter’s prediction, with
capital expenditure in the Eagle
Ford Shale expected to reach near-
ly $30 billion in 2013.4
In 2011, the Eagle Ford Shale sup-
ported almost 50,000 full-time
jobs in 20 counties and contrib-
uted over $25 billion dollars to
the South Texas economy.5
From
2011 to 2013, daily hydrocarbon
liquid production, including nat-
ural gas liquids, increased from
100,000 to 700,000 barrels per
day.6
These developments have
made South Texas one of the
most prominent energy producing
regions in the United States.
The Eagle Ford Shale takes its
name from the town of Eagle Ford, Texas, approximately six miles west of Dallas, where the shale outcrops at
the surface as clay soil. The wells in the deeper part of the play produce a dry gas, but moving northeastward
3 Porter, D. (2011, July 27). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force introduction and agenda-setting meeting, San Antonio,
Texas.
4 McMahon, C. (2012, December 6). Wood Mackenzie: Total Eagle Ford capital expenditure to reach US $28 billion in
2013. Wood Mackenzie. Retrieved from http://www.woodmacresearch.com/cgi-bin/wmprod/portal/corp/corpPressDetail.
jsp?oid=10950029
5 Center for Community and Business Research, Institute for Economic Development. (2012, May). Economic impact of the
Eagle Ford Shale. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 4-5. Retrieved from http://ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.
php/Download-document/52-Eagle-Ford-Shale-Final-Report-May-2012.html
6 McMahon, C. (2012). Wood Mackenzie: Total Eagle Ford capital expenditure to reach us$28 billion in 2013. In (Press Release:
Energy). Wood Mackenzie. Retrieved from http://www.woodmacresearch.com/cgi-bin/wmprod/portal/corp/corpPressDetail.
jsp?oid=10950029
OIL PRODUCTION
Eagle Ford Shale - Annual Growth
B/D Growth
2008 358
2009 844 136%
2010 11,986 1,320%
2011 126,459 955%
2012 338,911 168%
CONDENSATE PRODUCTION
B/D Growth
2009 1,423
2010 13,708 863%
2011 70,934 417%
2012 72,126 1.6%
GAS PRODUCTION
MMCF/D Growth
2008 8
2009 47 487%
2010 216 360%
2011 959 344%
2012 964 0.5%
DRILLING PERMITS
Permits Growth
2008 26
2009 94 261%
2010 1,010 974%
2011 2,826 180%
2012 4,145 46%
PRODUCING OIL WELLS
Wells Growth
2009 40
2010 72 80%
2011 368 411%
2012 1,262 243%
PRODUCING GAS WELLS
Wells Growth
2008 67
2009 158 136%
2010 550 248%
2011 855 55%

5
INTRODUCTION
out of Commission District 1 and updip, the wells produce more liquids. The core counties include an area that
stretches from north of Gonzales County west-southwest to Webb County at the Texas-Mexico border. Eagle
Ford Shale wells have been tested in Mexico, but results have not been widely reported.
The Eagle Ford Shale contains a high carbonate shale percentage, as high as 70 percent in South Texas. Moving
northwest, the formation depth decreases and the shale content increases. The high percentage of carbonate
makes the play more brittle and “fracable.” The play trends across at least 23 Texas counties, from the Mexican
border to East Texas. It is roughly 50 miles wide and 400 miles long, with an average thickness of 250 feet.
Cretaceous in age (66 million to 145 million years old), it lies between the Austin Chalk and the Buda Lime at a
depth of approximately 4,000 to 14,000 feet. It is the source rock for the Austin Chalk oil and gas producing
formation and the massive East Texas Field. The name
has often been misspelled as “Eagleford.”
The success of the Eagle Ford Shale is primarily due
to its greater productivity of both oil and gas, as com-
pared to other traditional shale plays. Oil revenues and
petroleum liquid production (i.e., oil, condensate, and
natural gas liquids such as ethane, propane, and butane)
across the play support economic development, even
when natural gas prices are relatively low.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration (May 29, 2010)
Average General Properties for
the Eagle Ford Shale Play
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,
“Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale
Oil Plays” (July 2011)
Depth (ft) 7,000
Thickness (ft) 200
Porosity (%) 9
Total Organic Content (% wt) 4.25

6
INTRODUCTION
Over the past four years, the production of oil, gas, and petroleum
liquids in the Eagle Ford Shale has accelerated at a record pace, al-
though the growth in natural gas production has been deleteriously
affected by lower natural gas prices. Correspondingly, the volume
of drilling permits issued by the Commission and the number of oil
and gas wells in the region have surged to previously unseen levels.
Petrohawk Energy drilled the first of the Eagle Ford wells in 2008,
discovering in the process the Hawkville (Eagle Ford) Field in La
Salle County (Commission District 1). The discovery well flowed
at a rate of 7.6 million cubic feet of gas per day from a 3,200-foot
lateral (first perforation was at 11,141 feet total vertical depth) with
10 fracture stages. Originally there were over 30 fields. Due to field
consolidations, the current number of fields has been reduced to
21 active fields located within Commission Districts 1 through 6.
The two largest fields, the Eagleville (Eagle Ford-1) in District 1 and the Eagleville (Eagle Ford-2) in District 2,
contain only oil wells. Many of the larger Eagle Ford Shale fields are governed by a number of special rules.
Currently, these are the top 20 operators for oil production in the Eagle Ford Shale from largest to smallest:7
1. EOG Resources
2. Burlington Resources (a unit of ConocoPhillips)
3. Chesapeake Energy
4. GeoSouthern Energy
5. Anadarko
6. Plains Exploration & Production
7. EP Energy
8. Marathon Oil
9. Murphy Oil
10. Pioneer Natural Resources
7 Railroad Commission Production Data-Query (02/25/2013)
11. Carrizo Oil & Gas
12. Goodrich Petroleum
13. Penn Virginia Corporation
14. Hilcorp Energy
15. Petrohawk Energy (a unit of BHP Billiton)
16. Comstock Oil & Gas
17. Rosetta Resources
18. Cabot Oil & Gas
19. Newfield Exploration
20. Matador Resources
The Eagle Ford Shale has
the potential to become
the most active oil and
gas play in
North America, with
approximately 235
drilling rigs currently
running.

7
INTRODUCTION
11. Swift Energy
12. EP Energy
13. Plains Exploration & Production
14. XTO Energy
15. Marathon Oil
16. Talisman Energy
17. Paloma Resources
18. Hilcorp Energy
19. Murphy Oil
20. Carrizo Oil & Gas
Currently, these are the top 20 operators for gas production in the Eagle Ford Shale from largest to smallest:8
1. Anadarko
2. Petrohawk Energy (a unit of BHP Billiton)
3. Burlington Resources (a unit of ConocoPhillips)
4. EOG Resources
5. GeoSouthern Energy
6. Chesapeake Energy
7. SM Energy
8. Rosetta Resources
9. Lewis Energy
10. Pioneer Natural Resources
Railroad Commissioner David Porter took office in 2011 believing that many of the divisive and challenging
issues that arose during the development of the Barnett Shale could have been alleviated if the local communi-
ties and other involved parties had a forum for open and constructive dialogue. To ensure that development in
the Eagle Ford Shale is not hindered by a lack of communication, Commissioner Porter formed the 24-member
Task Force, assembling a group of stakeholders from various interests and areas of expertise. He has led the
Task Force with a belief in the importance of protecting the health and safety of Texans and properly managing
the state’s precious natural resources, while encouraging the oil and gas industry to efficiently and economically
produce the energy needed to support the Texas and U.S. economies.
The Task Force is comprised of a diverse group of community leaders, local elected officials, water represen-
tatives, environmental groups, oil and gas producers, pipeline companies, oil services companies (including a
hydraulic fracturing company, a trucking company, and a water resources management company), landowners,
mineral owners, and royalty owners.
8 Ibid.
Commissioner Porter has led the Task Force with a belief in
the importance of protecting the health and safety of Texans
and properly managing the state’s precious natural resources,
while encouraging the oil and gas industry to efficiently and
economically produce the energy needed to support the Texas
and U.S. economies.

8
INTRODUCTION
These are the Task Force members, in alphabetical order:
• Greg Brazaitis
Energy Transfer, Chief Compliance Ofﬁcer, Houston
• The Honorable Jaime Canales
Webb County Commissioner, Precinct 4, Laredo
• Teresa Carrillo
Sierra Club, Executive Committee Member, Lone Star
Chapter, Treasurer, Coastal Bend Sierra, Corpus Christi
• James E. Craddock
Rosetta Resources, Senior Vice President, Drilling and
Production Operations, Houston
• Steve Ellis
EOG Resources, Senior Division
Counsel, Corpus Christi
• The Honorable Daryl Fowler
DeWitt County Judge, Cuero
• Brian Frederick
DCP Midstream, Senior Vice President, Southern
Region, Houston
• Anna Galo
ANB Cattle Company, Vice President, Laredo
• The Honorable Jim Huff
Live Oak County Judge, George West
• Stephen Ingram
Halliburton, Technology Manager,
Houston Business Development &
Onshore South Texas, Houston
• Mike Mahoney
Evergreen Underground Water
Conservation District, General Manager, Pleasanton
• Leodoro Martinez
Middle Rio Grande Development
Council, Executive Director, Cotulla
• James Max Moudy
MWH Global, Inc., Senior Client Service Manager,
Houston
• Terry Retzloff
TR Measurement Witnessing, LLC, Founder,
Campbellton
• Trey Scott
Trinity Mineral Management, LTD, Founder,
San Antonio
• Paula Seydel
Dimmit County Chamber of Commerce, Carrizo
Springs
• The Honorable Barbara Shaw
Karnes County Judge, Karnes City
• Mary Beth Simmons
Shell Exploration and Production Company,
Senior Staff Reservoir Engineer, Houston
• Kirk Spilman
Marathon Oil, Regional Vice President-Eagle Ford
• Susan Spratlen
Pioneer Natural Resources, Vice President,
Sustainability & Communication, Dallas
• Glynis Strause
Conoco Phillips, Community Relations Advisor
for the Eagle Ford Shale, and former Dean of
Institutional Advancement, Coastal Bend College,
Beeville
• Chris Winland
Good Company Associates, Associate; The Univer-
sity of Texas at San Antonio, Assistant Director,
San Antonio Clean Energy Incubator, Austin/San
Antonio
• Paul Woodard
J&M Premier Services, President, Palestine
• Erasmo Yarrito, Jr.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Rio
Grande Watermaster, Harlingen

9
INTRODUCTION
d
r-
o
The Task Force established its three major priorities at its first monthly
meeting, held at Luciano’s on the River in San Antonio on July 27, 2011:
(1) Open the lines of communications among all parties
(2) Provide recommendations and advisements for
developing the Eagle Ford Shale in a responsible
manner
(3) Promote the economic benefits of the Eagle Ford
Shale locally and statewide
The Task Force met 10 times from July 2011 to November 2012 to study
the following issues:
• Workforce Development
• Infrastructure - Roads, Pipelines, Housing
• Water Quality and Quantity
• Railroad Commission Regulations
• Economic Benefits
• Flaring and Air Emissions
• Health, Education, and Social Services
• Landowner, Mineral Owner, and Royalty Owner Issues
Chapters reporting on each of these topics follow.

1 WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT
In 2011, when the nation’s unemployment rate
was above nine percent, South Texas was
generating a windfall of high-paying jobs
— and the oil and gas industry’s demand for
skilled labor in the Eagle Ford Shale will
remain strong.
EFS_Chapter_1.indd 11 3/6/2013 5:35:51 PM

12
CHAPTER 1 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Eagle Ford Shale production has far surpassed previous growth projections. Consequently, job openings direct-
ly and indirectly related to the oil and gas industry have exceeded all forecasts. The challenge facing the prolific
Eagle Ford Shale is clear: How do we maintain the manpower needed to supply the growing shale play, and how
do we ready the local workforce to take advantage of the near limitless job opportunities presented by the play?
In 2011, the Eagle Ford Shale supported 38,000 full-time jobs in its core 14 counties: Atascosa, Bee, DeWitt,
Dimmitt, Frio, Gonzales, Karnes, La Salle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Webb, Wilson, and Zavala.1
That
year, the average income of an oil and gas industry job was $117,000, an 18 percent increase from 2010.2
At
a time when the nation’s unemployment rate was above nine percent,3
South Texas was generating a windfall
of high-paying jobs. However, the oil and gas industry is grap-
pling with an acute shortage of well-trained, experienced labor in
the region. The existing workforce has a finite capacity to meet
industry needs.4
1 Center for Community and Business Research, Institute for Economic Development. (2012, May). Economic impact of the Eagle
Ford Shale. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 4. Retrieved from http://ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.php/
Download-document/52-Eagle-Ford-Shale-Final-Report-May-2012.html
2 Wood, R. (2012, April 18). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on economic benefits, Gonzales, Texas.
3 Hall, K. (2011, August 5). Statement of Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics before the Joint Economic Com-
mittee, United States Congress. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.
release/archives/jec_08052011.pdf
4 Spilman, K. (2011, August 24). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on workforce development, Beeville, Texas.
12
Source: Fuel Fix, “Salaries Surging in Oil and Gas Industry”
June 2012
“Strategic alliances
among industry,
community colleges,
universities, and
non-profits are
essential for supplying
an adequately trained
workforce in the Eagle
Ford Shale.”
(Glynis Strause, Eagle Ford Shale
Task Force member and Community
Relations Advisor for the Eagle Ford
Shale, Conoco Phillips; Former Dean
of Institutional Advancement, Coastal
Bend College)
OIL AND GAS AVERAGE SALARIES
Geologist $161,000
Geophysicist 184,000
Engineering Technician 91,000
Geological Technician 89,000
Petrophysicist 176,000
Landman 131,000
Land Technicians 72,000

13
The Eagle Ford Shale play encompasses a 20,000 square mile landmass that is primarily comprised of sparsely
populated rural communities.5
In 2008, the entire region had less than one million inhabitants,6
and a very
small minority among this modest population possesses oil and gas industry experience or relevant formal edu-
cation. The Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research (“CURPR”) at The University of Texas at San
Antonio (“UTSA”) conﬁrms that, “… jobs created in the Eagle Ford Shale area require higher skills and educa-
tion than the average skill-level currently found in the area.”7
5 Ibid.
6 Center for Community and Business Research, Institute for Economic Development. (2011, February). Economic impact of
the Eagle Ford Shale. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 10. Retrieved from http://www.anga.us/media/
content/F7D1441A-09A5-D06A-9EC93BBE46772E12/files/utsa%20eagle%20ford.pdf
7 Kamal, A. College of Architecture, Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research. (2012, July). Strategic housing analy-
sis - sustainable choices for the growing demand for housing in the Eagle Ford Shale area of South Texas. San Antonio, TX: The
University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 4. Retrieved from http://web.caller.com/2012/pdf/EFS-Housing-Study_-July-2012.pdf
Source: The University of Texas at San Antonio, “Strategic Housing Analysis” (July 2012)

14
The shortage of qualified local candidates forces many companies to hire employees from outside the region
and relocate them.8
This influx of transient workers has led to a housing shortage. The supply of temporary
housing and hotel rooms is limited. Workers tend to reside in recreational vehicle parks or barracks-style, short-
term housing units – also known as “man camps.”9
For additional information regarding Eagle Ford Shale play
housing, see Chapter 2: Infrastructure.
Research indicates that oil and gas industry demand for skilled labor will continue to remain strong.10
According
to the Center for Community and Business Research (“CCBR”) at UTSA, as the play matures, the composition
of its labor force will evolve, requiring a workforce capable of accommodating the play’s growth:
The development of the Eagle Ford Shale has distinct phases, during which individual industries
will experience varying levels of labor demand and evolving types of labor demanded. Thus,
education and training requirements for workers will need to remain flexible enough to accom-
modate the vacillating needs of industry. For example, during the exploration phase counties
will see a rise in the need for occupations dealing with mineral leasing, site construction/management, drill-
ing rig support, and material transport. As companies shift into the production and processing
phase of operations, they require a workforce composed of business management, administrative support
and the processing of gas, oil and condensates occupations.11
For the Eagle Ford Shale region to establish and maintain a local workforce capable of meeting industry de-
mand, area residents must acquire technical skills and training.12
Most of the rural communities within the
region rely on local community colleges for affordable training and vocational education, but decreases in en-
rollment and funding have hindered the ability of these institutions to expand oil and gas-related programs.13
8 Ibid.
Eagle Ford Shale. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 56. Retrieved from http://ccbr.iedtexas.org/index.
11 Center for Community and Business Research, Institute for Economic Development. (2012, October). Workforce analysis for
the Eagle Ford Shale, executive summary. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 3.
13 Strause, G. (2011, August 24). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on workforce development, Beeville,
Texas.

15
The Eagle Ford Shale Task Force (“Task Force”) met to discuss the play’s urgent labor demand, the opportunity
to satisfy that demand with local labor, and the challenge of meeting and sustaining industry’s diverse workforce
needs.
TASK FORCE MEETING
At the Task Force meeting on workforce development, held at Coastal Bend College in Beeville on August 24,
2011, the following people made presentations:14
Glynis Strause, Community Relations Advisor for the Eagle Ford Shale, Conoco Phillips;
Former Dean of Institutional Advancement, Coastal Bend College
Genetha Turner, Attorney, Board Certified in Labor & Employment Law, Locke Lord LLP
Manuel Ugues, Business Service Director, Workforce Solutions of the Coastal Bend
Larry Demieville, Deputy Director, Workforce Solutions of the Coastal Bend
Kirk Spilman, Regional Vice President-Eagle Ford, Marathon Oil
Susan Spratlen, Vice President, Sustainability & Communication, Pioneer Natural Resources
Task Force member Glynis Strause of Conoco Phillips, who formerly served as Dean of Institutional Advance-
ment for Coastal Bend College, described colleges’ assessments of gaps in workforce training, the resources
necessary to sustain a qualified force for at least 20 years, and the importance of addressing long-term workforce
issues.
Strause identified four notable, industry-supported programs that will help meet the long-term employment
goals of the energy sector in the Eagle Ford Shale. These programs are: (1) dual credit (concurrent enrollment
in high school and college courses); (2) National Energy Education Development project (“NEED”); (3) Texas
Alliance for Minorities in Engineering (“TAME”); and (4) the Danielle Dawn Smalley Foundation’s (“Smalley
Foundation”) safety education programs.
Strause stated that strategic alliances among industry, community colleges, universities, and non-profits are es-
sential for supplying an adequately trained workforce in the Eagle Ford Shale. The Texas Workforce Commis-
sion and consortia of Workforce Investment Boards, Strause added, are already implementing joint efforts in
the Eagle Ford Shale area.
14 This was the second Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting. An introductory and agenda-setting meeting was held on July 27,
2011 in San Antonio. Elected officials in attendance at the introductory meeting: Senator Carlos Uresti, State Representative
Tracy King, and State Representative Geanie Morrison. Elected officials in attendance at the workforce development meeting:
U.S. Congressman Rubén Hinojosa and State Representative Jose Aliseda.

16
Manuel Ugues of Workforce Solutions of Coastal Bend presented his organization as a collaborative statewide
network that assists both employers and employees during the recruitment and hiring process. Ugues described
Workforce Solutions’ efforts to connect employers with skilled workers in the Eagle Ford Shale. He urged em-
ployers to reach out to the organization for recruiting assistance.
Task Force member Kirk Spilman of Marathon Oil addressed recruitment issues from an industry perspective.
Marathon Oil has quickly scaled its workforce to match the increased activity in the Eagle Ford Shale, where
only a few years ago they had no employees.15
Spilman described best practices to meet workforce challenges,
such as recruiting locally, partnering with educational institutions, recruiting from untapped or underutilized
sources, and remaining competitive. Much of the play’s success, Spilman said, can be attributed to the com-
munities within the region, who have embraced the opportunities
the play offers by helping the oil and gas industry meet its needs.
Recruitment
Spilman reiterated the recruiting difficulties for companies in the
region, including small rural populations, the shortage of experi-
enced labor, and the various issues that arise when relocating work-
ers. According to Spilman, companies must explore previously
untapped or underutilized recruitment sources to meet immedi-
ate labor needs. For example, Marathon Oil has increasingly hired
military candidates. The proximity of the Eagle Ford Shale to San
Antonio, a military hub, is conducive to this practice. Marathon
Oil’s Eagle Ford Asset Team has successfully used military hiring
initiatives for recruiting positions in health, environment, and safe-
ty; engineering; construction; instrumentation and electrical; and
other positions. Marathon Oil values military candidates for their
discipline, transferable trade skills, and aptitude for leadership.
Marathon Oil has also increased its emphasis on traditional recruitment methods, including local and national
advertising, career fairs, the use of recruiting agencies, and retained searches. In order to remain competitive
in the recruiting and retention arenas, Spilman said companies must remain alert to shifting market conditions,
respond quickly, and make adjustments regularly. Salary surveys show upward trends in base pay for petroleum
and reservoir engineers, geologists, and other key field positions. Spilman said that company benefits, such as
restricted stock and enhanced vacation, have increasingly become part of general employee and new hire pack-
ages, as have work schedules that allow work/life balance.
15 As of November 2012, Marathon Oil had 180 employees and an estimated 3,000 contractors working in the play. (Spilman, K.
(2012, November 13). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force re-cap meeting, San Antonio, Texas.)
“Energy companies
must explore
previously untapped or
underutilized
recruitment sources, for
example the military, to
meet immediate labor
needs.”
(Kirk Spilman, Eagle Ford Shale Task
Force member and Regional Vice
President-Eagle Ford, Marathon Oil)

17
Ugues expanded upon Spilman’s endorsement of recruiting agencies and networks. He provided details of
the ongoing efforts to identify and recruit candidates capable of meeting industry’s qualifications. Workforce
Solutions of the Coastal Bend, for example, offers job seekers free training, financial assistance for childcare,
and education incentives. The organization serves employers as well, by recruiting, screening, and matching ap-
plicants.16
Spilman and Ugues each reported on how pre-employment screenings, while important, often further narrow
the pool of qualified candidates during the hiring process. Spilman cited a lack of adequate medical facilities for
pre-employment testing/physicals. Ugues noted that many truck drivers and rig workers fail pre-employment
screenings, such as drug tests, making these positions more difficult to fill. In 2011, Workforce Solutions sur-
veyed 10 Eagle Ford Shale employers and determined that one in four applicants failed a company screening.17
16 Workforce Solutions of the Coastal Bend. (2010). About us. Retrieved from http://www.workforcesolutionscb.org/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=55
17 Ugues, M. (2011, August 24). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on workforce development, Beeville, Texas.
Source: The University of Texas at San Antonio, “Strategic Housing Analysis” (July 2012)

18
Finding qualified truck drivers with Commer-
cial Driver’s License (“CDL”) certification is
a struggle for employers, according to Ugues.
Spilman agreed that drivers are highly sought
after in the Eagle Ford Shale, as every phase
of development requires their services. Ac-
cording to the CCBR, in 2011, truck drivers
had the most significant occupational im-
pact, representing almost five percent of the
38,000 industry jobs supported by the 14 top
producing Eagle Ford Shale counties.18
Concurring that properly licensed drivers are
a crucial component of industry’s ability to
operate safely and efficiently, Strause reported that most of the colleges in the Eagle Ford Shale play have ex-
panded their CDL course offerings.
Sustainable Workforce Development
Given the obstacles that Eagle Ford Shale-area communities are facing as they attempt to satisfy current labor
demand, meeting industry’s long-term workforce needs will present similar challenges. To foster sustainable
sources of skilled, local candidates, Spilman said Marathon Oil and some industry peers partner with local
educational institutions. Spilman explained that these partnerships may not yield immediate results, but they
are an integral long-term investment in the region’s future workforce. For example, Marathon Oil currently of-
fers scholarships for petroleum technology certificate and degree programs at Coastal Bend College in Beeville,
Texas.
A number of colleges in the Eagle Ford Shale region are offering oil and gas-related classes and field training,
including: Alamo Colleges, Coastal Bend College, Del Mar College, Laredo Community College, Southwest
Texas Junior College, Sul Ross Rio Grande College, The University of Texas at San Antonio, Victoria College,
and Texas A&M International University (“TAMIU”). After a successful Eagle Ford Shale Stakeholder’s Sum-
mit, at which Senator Judith Zaffirini (District 21) stated that TAMIU would be the ideal home for a petroleum
engineering program, TAMIU accelerated its plans to launch a petroleum engineering degree program.19
18 Center for Community and Business Research, Institute for Economic Development. (2012, October). Workforce analysis for
the Eagle Ford Shale, executive summary. San Antonio, TX: The University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 7.
19 Senator Judith Zaffirini held an Eagle Ford Shale Stakeholders Summit in Laredo on October 23, 2012.
Finding qualified truck drivers
with Commercial Driver’s
License certification is a struggle
for employers; in response, most
colleges in the Eagle Ford Shale
have expanded their CDL course
offerings.

19
Coastal Bend College partners with several organizations to provide what Strause described as “world-class”
field training to students, who can currently enroll in courses such as drilling industry introduction (elementary
drilling), corrosion basics, petroleum safety and environmental hazards (H2S Training), technology/technician/
management (supervisory skills), focused oil spill response training, and CDL/driving safety courses.20
The efforts of the region’s institutions of higher education do not stop there, Strause reported. Most of the col-
leges in the Eagle Ford Shale play have expanded the following courses: CDL; Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and SafeLand courses for safety training and new hire orientation; HazMat and HazWhopper
training; instrumentation and electricity; supervisory leadership skills; and gauging. Strause also highlighted that
Pioneer Natural Resources has partnered with Coastal Bend College to provide safety and driver training and
helped fund the college’s Petroleum Industry Training Room.
However, according to Strause, securing funding for community colleges and other programs that train Eagle
Ford Shale employees is an ongoing struggle. Many students choose to directly enter into occupations that re-
quire minimal education and training, instead of pursuing a higher-level degree. When students do not enroll in
workforce-related courses, state funding for community college workforce education, as well as financing from
tuition, are limited.
Continuing the discussion regarding education and training, Strause and Spilman pointed out that many high
schools, such as Pleasanton High School in Pleasanton, Texas, are implementing industry-specific course cur-
ricula. Strause endorsed dual credit programs, which offer concurrent high school and college enrollment. Stu-
dents enrolled in such programs receive simultaneous high school and college credit, fast-tracking them toward
industry careers or allowing them to enter college with up to 62 hours of college credit. Strause said dual credit
programs will help meet the long-term employment needs of industry operating in the shale play.
Strause spotlighted three additional industry-supported, education-based programs that will help facilitate the
goal of sustainable employment in the Eagle Ford Shale region: (1) NEED; (2) TAME; and (3) the Smalley
Foundation safety education programs.
Strause lauded oil and gas industry companies, such as ConocoPhillips, who have helped fund the NEED Proj-
ect, which offers an energy-related curriculum and aims to identify and inspire Science, Technology, Engineer-
ing, and Math (“STEM”) students from kindergarten through high school.21
Spilman noted that Marathon Oil
currently partners with the Karnes City Independent School District Foundation to promote STEM throughout
all grade levels.
20 Strause, G. (2011, August 24). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on workforce development, Beeville, Texas.
21 National Energy Education Development Project. (2013). About NEED. Retrieved from http://www.need.org/About-NEED

20
TAME promotes minority interest and participation in the engineering, science, and computer science profes-
sions.22
Strause explained how these initiatives nurture opportunities for future engineers. For example, third
through seventh grade students may be offered an educational precursor to help them distinguish between dif-
ferent types of engineering and acquire a sense of what it means to be an engineer from a professional stand-
point.23
Strause praised the efforts of the Smalley Foundation, a memorial non-profit formed to promote safety aware-
ness and training for those who live, work, and play near our nation’s oil and gas sites and pipelines.24
The
Smalley Foundation indoctrinates first responders in emergency protocols for natural gas leaks and petroleum
product spills, as well as the fires that may result from either incident.25
The foundation also trains industry
contractors, such as excavators, and partners with civic and student groups to promote appropriate behaviors
and necessary precautions to exercise when encountering oil and gas-related equipment, pipelines, and storage
tanks.26
22 Texas Alliance for Minorities in Engineering. (2013). About us. Retrieved from http://www.tame.org/about
23 National Energy Education Development Project. (2013). Trailblazer. Retrieved from http://www.tame.org/programs/trail-
blazer
24 Danielle Dawn Smalley Foundation, Inc. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.smalleyfnd.org
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
A number of colleges in the Eagle Ford Shale are offering oil
and gas-related classes and field training, including Alamo
Colleges, Coastal Bend College, Del Mar College, Laredo
Community College, Southwest Texas Junior College, Sul Ross
Rio Grande College, The University of Texas at San Antonio,
Victoria College, and Texas A&M International University.

2
INFRASTRUCTURE -
ROADS, PIPELINES,
HOUSING
The increase in Eagle Ford Shale drilling and
production is the source of remarkable economic
beneﬁts. At the same time, the increased activity
has heightened infrastructure challenges for the
region’s communities. Truck trafﬁc and road
quality, pipeline placement and safety, and a
shortage of affordable housing are top concerns.

22
CHAPTER 2 INFRASTRUCTURE - ROADS, PIPELINES, HOUSING
Truck Traffic and Road Quality
Increased drilling and production in the Eagle Ford Shale, compounded by the limited number of existing
pipelines, has resulted in an unprecedented amount of truck traffic on state and county roads. According to a
study conducted by the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”), in Webb and La Salle Counties from
2009 to 2012, traffic increased in the least affected areas of Interstate Highway 35 (“IH-35”) by 24 percent; it
increased in the most affected areas of IH-35 by 86 percent.1
Until an adequate pipeline network is in place,
trucks will be responsible for transporting the vast majority of the region’s oil and condensate to market.2
The
need for these heavy transport vehicles throughout the region, particularly in Dimmit and La Salle Counties, has
led to an increase in traffic, premature deterioration of roads and bridges, and public safety concerns.
Pipeline Placement and Safety
Pipelines are normally the preferred method for transporting
oil, natural gas, petroleum liquids, and refined products be-
cause of their transportation efficiency. In addition, pipelines
greatly reduce truck traffic and air pollution and have the low-
est spill rate of any other type of carrier (e.g., ships, barges,
trucks, and railcars).3
Currently, Texas is home to more than
350,000 miles of pipelines.
Increases in oil and gas production have created an urgent de-
mand for pipelines in the Eagle Ford Shale, and the Railroad
Commission (“Commission”) projects significant growth as
shale play production expands. Already, several billion dollars-
worth of energy pipeline projects are under development in
the Eagle Ford Shale.4
Local communities have expressed concerns about how the development of these mas-
sive projects will affect them.
1 Texas Department of Transportation, Laredo District. (2012, October 23). Eagle Ford Shale: impacts to the transportation
system. Presented by Melissa Montemayor at the Eagle Ford Shale stakeholders summit, Laredo, Texas. Available at http://www.
tamiu.edu/adminis/vpia/events/documents/102312TxDOTEFSSSumiitPresentationMMontemayor.pdf
3 American Association of Pipelines. (2012). Why pipelines? Retrieved from http://www.aopl.org/aboutPipelines/?fa=pipelinesI
nTheUS
Pipelines are normally the preferred method for transporting
TEXAS PIPELINES
Pipeline Commodity
Natural Gas
Crude Oil
Product
Other

23
Housing
The surge in drilling activity has resulted in a housing shortage across the region. Throughout Eagle Ford Shale
counties, there is consistently not enough housing (temporary or permanent) to accommodate the inﬂux of oil
ﬁeld workers. This shortage has led to higher demand for both permanent and temporary housing, such as ho-
tels, apartment complexes, recreational vehicle parks, and barracks-style, short-term housing units – also known
as “man camps.”5
As a result of such demand, rent has increased across the Eagle Ford Shale.6
The Eagle Ford Shale Task Force (“Task Force”) met with representatives from trucking and pipeline industries,
the oil and gas industry, state and local governments, and a private developer to engage in a dialogue about these
issues and to discuss reasonable solutions.
Housing Stock by County in 2000
Housing Stock by County in 2010
5 Ibid, p. 58.
University of Texas at San Antonio, p. 4. Retrieved from http://web.caller.com/2012/pdf/EFS-Housing-Study_-July-2012.pdf.
Source: The University of Texas at San Antonio, “Economic Impact of the Eagle Ford Shale” (October 2012)

24
TASK FORCE MEETING
At the Task Force meeting on infrastructure, held at the Chisholm Trail Heritage Museum in Cuero on
September 28, 2011, the following people made presentations:7
Paul Woodard, President, J&M Premier Services
Brian Schoenemann, Area Engineer, Texas Department of Transportation
James Mann, Partner, Duggins, Wren, Mann & Romero, LLP
Brian Frederick, Senior Vice President, Southern Region, DCP Midstream
Greg Brazaitis, Chief Compliance Officer, Energy Transfer
Christian Noll, Manager of Multifamily and Single Family Development Programs, Texas
Department of Housing & Community Affairs
Bob Zachariah, Founder, President and CEO, HotelWorks Development, LLC
Truck Traffic and Road Quality
Oil and gas development has significantly increased road traffic by heavy trucks in rural areas, where most roads
were originally built for light-duty use. The traffic and specialized equipment associated with drilling and pro-
duction puts a strain on local roads that leads to premature asphalt wear and tear, ripples, potholes, and torn
shoulders. To illustrate the scope of the challenge, Brian Schoenemann, Area Engineer for TxDOT, presented
research indicating that almost 1,200 loaded trucks are required to bring one gas well into production; over 350
are required per year for maintenance of a gas well; and almost 1,000 are needed every five years to re-fracture
a well.8
Source: Texas Department of Transportation, “Roads for Texas Energy” (December 2012)
7 State Representative Tracy King and State Representative Geanie Morrison attended the meeting.
8 Barton, J. (2011, September 28). Energy sector impacts to Texas’ transportation system. Presented by Brian Schoenemann at
the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on infrastructure, Cuero, Texas.
LOADED TRUCKS PER GAS WELL
Activity Number of Loaded Trucks
Bring well into production 1,184
Maintain production (each year) Up to 353
Refracturing (every 5 years) 997

25
The service life of highway systems and Farm-to-Market (“FM”) roads has been reduced by an average of 30
percent due to natural gas well operations and an average of 16 percent due to crude oil well operations.9
The
original estimated annual impacts are: over $1 billion for the FM road system; $2 billion for the state highway
system; and over $1 billion for local roads.10
To further illustrate the breadth of this issue, the TxDOT study
focused on rigs and wells. The infrastructure impact of ancillary activities, notably pipeline construction (as de-
tailed later in this chapter), was not included in these calculations.
At the meeting, Task Force members discussed concerns about the legal, financial, and political limits on the
ability of county property tax increases to finance road repair. Some members voiced their support for a plan to
return severance tax revenue to the counties to address infrastructure needs.
9 Ibid.
10 Texas Department of Transportation, Task Force on Texas’ Energy Sector Roadway Needs. (2012, December). Report to the
Texas Transportation Commission, p. 2. Retrieved from http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/energy/final_report.pdf
The activity in the Eagle Ford Shale has also seen a dramatic
increase in heavy truck traffic, with a resulting strain on roads and
bridges, along with congestion and safety issues.
Several methods of financing road needs have been
discussed:
“Severance taxes could be used as a self-regulating funding source, almost
immediately available to meet road-financing needs in oil and gas
producing areas of the state.”
(Judge Daryl Fowler, Eagle Ford Shale Task Force Member and DeWitt County Judge)
“An alternative funding proposal would be to biennially appropriate a
portion of the Rainy Day Fund for a grant-in-aid program to counties,
based on need. One measure of need could be oil and gas activity in
local counties.”
(James LeBas, fiscal consultant to the Texas Oil & Gas Association and other
industrial taxpayers)

26
According to Task Force member and DeWitt County Judge Daryl Fowler, DeWitt County’s experiences with
truck traffic and road quality are a typical example of what is occurring throughout the Eagle Ford Shale play.
From 2000 to 2007, prior to the drilling of the first Eagle Ford Shale horizontal well, the Commission issued
an annual average of 69 new and amended drilling permits to operators in DeWitt County. The annual permit
volume jumped to 355 in 2011 and to 449 in 2012.11
Fowler explained that the most significant and visible change occurring with horizontal drilling is the size of the
drilling pad. Drilling pads are now larger, in order to support rigs capable of drilling to depths of 18,000 feet
(combined vertical and lateral lines) and to utilize hydraulic fracturing completion methods. A typical county-
maintained road is within a 40-foot right-of-way and constructed of four to six inches of gravel base. These
county roads were not adequately built to handle the present volume of traffic needed to build a pad site, which
requires between 270 and 315 loads of gravel, and the weight of transporting a drilling rig, which may reach
three million pounds per movement.12
According to a 2012 study conducted by Naismith Engineering, Inc. of Corpus Christi, the anticipated oil field
traffic demand, including public usage, will require the construction of stronger and wider roads in DeWitt
County.13
The cost of providing a county road system designed to meet the anticipated traffic demand arising
from drilling another 3,250 wells in DeWitt County at 65-acre spacing is approximately $432 million.14
Some
roads require annual maintenance at $70,000-80,000 per mile.15
However, other roads need basic reconstruction
at a cost of up to $920,000 per mile, and roads that already handle the traffic meant for an FM system can cost
up to $1.9 million per mile to rebuild when the costs of additional right-of-way, engineering, fence building, and
utility moving are considered.16
Fowler contended that infrastructure costs far outpace a county’s ability to raise revenue from a local property
tax, even with the increasing tax base created by the new mineral wealth. The Property Tax Code is designed to
push property tax rates lower when the tax base increases,17
thus local tax rates (though not tax revenues) have
11 Search results at www.rrc.state.tx.us for Karnes County and DeWitt County P-4 drilling applications.
12 Fowler, D., Afflerbach, C., Oliver, J., Kuecker, D., & Pilchiek, J. DeWitt County Commissioners Court, Naismith Engineering,
Inc. (NEI). (2012). Road damage cost allocation study - DeWitt County. Retrieved from website: http://web.caller.com/2012/pdf/
DeWitt-County-Road-Damage-Cost-Allocation-Study.pdf
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 See Tex.Tax Code § 26.04(c) (describing formula for determination of a county’s effective tax rate); also see Texas Comptroller
of Public Accounts (2012), Truth-in-Taxation Guide 9–12. Retrieved from http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/proptax/tnt11/
pdf/96-312.pdf

27
tended to decline with the development of oil and gas fields.18
Road and bridge maintenance budgets doubled
or tripled in many counties and forced elected officials to exceed tax rollback ceilings in order to meet expanded
maintenance needs.19
The question has been raised whether the county property tax, under current calculations
and limits, can or should continue to shoulder such a large share of the burden for financing local road needs.
According to the most recent Biennial Revenue Estimate of the Texas Comptroller (“Comptroller”), sales taxes
(including motor vehicle sales taxes) and oil and gas severance taxes will provide the largest sources of tax rev-
enue for fiscal year (“FY”) 2015.20
Severance taxes are imposed on the first sale of every barrel of oil or liquids
and every thousand cubic feet (“Mcf”) of natural gas.21
The Comptroller indicates that $323 million was col-
lected on production from 24 Eagle Ford Shale counties in FY 2011.22
According to Fowler, there is very cogent reasoning behind arguments favoring the use of severance taxes to
fund repair of the county road system and the state highway system. The severance tax correlates with the vol-
ume of wells drilled and completed, which in turn corresponds to the damage inflicted upon area road systems.
Thus, as the volume of new permitted wells eventually declines, so should the rate of road damage and the
revenue from severance tax collections. Also, Fowler noted that the severance tax is collected immediately upon
the sale of the taxed oil and gas product, without a delay of up to 23 months, as is the case with the collection
of property taxes. Therefore, Fowler said, severance taxes could be viewed as a self-regulating funding source
that is almost immediately available to meet road financing needs in oil and gas producing areas of the state.
Oil and gas severance taxes are deposited in the state’s General Revenue Fund, but 75 percent of the annual
severance tax revenue that exceeds the level of severance tax collections in 1987 is transferred to the Economic
Stabilization Fund, also known as the “Rainy Day Fund.”23
Under a proposal being advanced by Fowler, a pro-
portional share of the severance tax revenue would be returned to the counties where the tax was derived and
provide timely funds for road repairs at the county level.24
18 Fowler, D. (2012). Testimony before the House County Affairs Committee. Retrieved from
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/handouts/C2102012102410001/e5650987-5d8e-4aad-8c33-e7f7f8d225fd.PDF
19 DeWitt County. (2012). Fiscal year (“FY”) 2013 proposed budget - DeWitt County, Texas. Retrieved from http://www.
co.DeWitt.tx.us/ips/export/sites/DeWitt/downloads/Fiscal_Year_2013_Proposed_Budget.pdf
20 Total state tax collections in the 2014-2015 biennium are estimated to be $96.9 billion. Of this, the sales and motor vehicle
sales taxes comprise $63 billion, and oil and gas production taxes comprise $7.1 billion. Retrieved from http://www.window.state.
tx.us/finances/Biennial_Revenue_Estimate/bre2014/BRE_2014-15.pdf
21 Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 202001 et seq. (West 2012) (Oil Production Tax).
22 State Comptroller data obtained by open records request (on file with Judge Daryl Fowler, DeWitt County Courthouse). Ac-
cessed via personal interview with Fowler. (2012, November).
23 The legislature created the Economic Stabilization Fund in 1988 by adding Section 49-g to Article III of the Texas Constitu-
tion; For other statutory provisions governing the Fund, see Tex. Educ. Code ch. 42; Tex. Tax Code §§ 201.404, 202.353.
24 Fowler, D. (2012). Testimony before the House County Affairs Committee. Retrieved from
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/handouts/C2102012102410001/e5650987-5d8e-4aad-8c33-e7f7f8d225fd.PDF

28
An alternative proposal (which would not disturb the century-long arrangement under which counties tax oil
and gas in place underground while the state taxes oil and gas when it is produced) would be to biennially ap-
propriate a portion of the Rainy Day Fund for a grant-in-aid program to counties, based on need. One measure
of need could be oil and gas activity in local counties.
According to Fowler, local property taxes are the only real revenue source available to local governments seeking
funds for infrastructure investment and repairs. However, statutory provisions limit the ability of local govern-
ment to increase revenue.25
Fowler explained that over the last two years in DeWitt County, the tax base has
doubled in value and the effective tax rate has been cut in half.26
Using the statutory formulas, DeWitt County
would have been limited to a $472,000 increase in tax revenue for its FY 2013 budget, if the tax rate were set at
the rollback limit, which yields an eight percent revenue increase.27
Knowing that their financial needs were greater than the $472,000 rollback rate calculation, the DeWitt County
Commissioner’s Court, led by Fowler, elected to hold the county’s maintenance and operating tax rate at the
previous year’s rate, in anticipation of raising $3.6 million new tax dollars.28
That additional tax revenue repre-
sents a 53 percent increase from FY 2012 to FY 2013.29
This decision resulted from several public hearings and
a final vote by the county commissioners to exceed the rollback tax rate.30
Following the vote, taxpayers have a
90-day window within which to gather signatures on a petition calling for a rollback election.31
The election, if
successful, forces the county to withdraw the higher tax rate and restructure its budget to reflect the limit placed
on county revenue collection – an amount no more than eight percent greater than the previous year’s revenue
collection.32
Fowler explained that amid these unique fiscal challenges, the combined road and bridge precinct budgets for
DeWitt County will exceed $5 million in FY 2013 – consuming 35 percent of total county appropriations. A
decade ago, Fowler noted, the county road and bridge budget was only $1.4 million, comprising less than 26
percent of the county budget.
25 Notes from November 2012 interview with Judge Daryl Fowler, DeWitt County. (on file with the Railroad Commission).
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Tex. Tax Code § 26.07 (West 2013) (describing procedures for a rollback election).
32 Notes from November 2012 interview with Judge Daryl Fowler, DeWitt County. (on file with the Railroad Commission).

29
Fowler offered a cautionary hypothesis of changes likely to occur in the near future. If market forces create
a renewed demand for natural gas drilling within the next few years, an additional 250,000 acres of DeWitt
County will be attractive to exploration, subjecting 347 more miles of county road to the forces of rapid decline.
Engineers are already developing secondary methods of recovery for extracting the estimated ultimate recovery
of 500,000 barrels of oil per drilling unit in the known reservoirs. Methods to reach even deeper formations
capable of yielding more hydrocarbons are likely to be discovered as well. Fowler concluded, “Although we
cannot know when things will occur, it is apparent to county government officials that the financial needs of
providing a public road system capable of supporting the industry and the local needs are far greater than what
DeWitt County’s $15 million total annual revenue can provide.”33
In addition to road quality and funding, Task Force members discussed how irresponsible driving behavior,
combined with poor road conditions, has impacted public safety. The Houston Chronicle reported a significant rise
in traffic accidents in the Eagle Ford Shale:
In the counties most directly affected by Eagle Ford drilling, the biggest jump in fatal traffic ac-
cidents has involved commercial vehicles, according to an analysis of TxDOT numbers, increas-
ing from six in 2008 to 24 last year [2011] … At first glance, the increase in crashes - and fatal
crashes - appears to be easily explained by math. More people equals more crashes. But officials
say there is more to the upswing. It’s fatigued drilling workers, driving home after a long shift,
sometimes on unfamiliar roads. It’s people in a hurry. It’s not paying attention. It’s bad roads.34
At the meeting, the Task Force expressed support for trucking companies partnering with TxDOT to develop
a program that will alert companies when their drivers receive moving violations or driver’s license suspensions.
The Task Force also endorsed the creation of road usage agreements, or trucking plans, between operators and
local authorities, which include the following commitments by operators:
1. Avoid peak traffic hours, school bus hours, and community events.
2. Establish overnight quiet periods.
3. Ensure adequate off-road parking and delivery areas at all sites to avoid lane and road blockage.
Subsequent to the meeting, the Task Force voiced its support for the TxDOT Task Force on Texas’ Energy
Sector Roadway Needs (“TxDOT Task Force”). TxDOT created the task force in March 2012, “…to find ways
to address the impact on the state’s infrastructure of increased energy exploration and production.”35
The
33 Ibid.
34 Konnath, H. (2012, July 9). Traffic deaths soar in Eagle Ford Shale areas. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.
chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Traffic-deaths-soar-in-Eagle-Ford-Shale-areas-3691999.php
35 Texas Department of Transporation. (2012). Roads for Texas energy. Retrieved from http://www.roadsfortexasenergy.com/

30
TxDOT Task Force was comprised of representatives from
counties and other state agencies and organizations, including
the following:
The Railroad Commission
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Department of Public Safety
Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
America’s Natural Gas Alliance
Association of Energy Service Companies
Midland-Odessa Transportation Alliance
Texas Alliance of Energy Producers
Texas Competitive Power Advocates
Texas Farm Bureau
Texas Independent Royalty Owners Association
Texas Motor Transportation Association
Texas Oil and Gas Association
Texas Pipeline Association
The Wind Coalition36
The TxDOT Task Force was composed of four subcommittees: (1) Safety; (2) Innovation and Prevention; (3)
Public Awareness; and (4) Funding.
Stacie Fowler, the Commission’s Director of Government Affairs, and Polly McDonald, the Commission’s
Pipeline Safety Director, represented the Commission on the TxDOT Task Force, serving on the Safety and
Public Awareness Subcommittees. As a result of this partnership, the Commission shares geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) information on permitted wells so that TxDOT is better equipped to predict future strains
on infrastructure. The Commission has also developed a partnership with DPS, through which Commission
inspectors and State Troopers patrol together to find drivers who violate regulations, such as illegal waste haul-
ing (which can cause oil slicks and potentially leads to accidents). The Commission’s proposed amendments to
Statewide Rule 8 would strengthen requirements for waste hauler vehicle operation, design, and maintenance, in
order to prevent leaks during transportation. (See Chapter 5: Railroad Commission Regulations.)
Pipelines
At the Task Force meeting, Task Force member Greg Brazaitis, Chief Compliance Officer for Energy Transfer,
disclosed that the construction of one, 20-inch crude oil pipeline running 50 miles would displace 1,250 tank
truck trips per day.37
Although the pipeline industry is building pipelines at a record pace, demand still outpaces
36 Ibid.
37 Brazaitis, G. (2011, September 28). Stated at the Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on infrastructure, Cuero, Texas.
Pipelines are normally the
preferred method for
transporting oil, natural
gas, petroleum liquids, and
refined products because
of their transportation
efficiency. Texas is home to
more than 350,000 miles
of pipelines.

31
supply. Brazaitis added that pipeline construction timetables are impacted by new federal permitting regulations
and further hampered by the uncertainty surrounding the recent Texas Supreme Court decision in Texas Rice
Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC.38
Common carrier pipelines in Texas have a statutory right of eminent domain, subject to the “public use” re-
quirement articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Denbury.39
Common carrier pipelines may include those
that transport oil, oil products, gas, carbon dioxide, salt brine, sand, clay, liquefied minerals, or other mineral
solutions. For example, a pipeline transporting hazardous liquids could be a common carrier, and as such,
would have the right of eminent domain. Natural gas pipelines (other than certain gathering lines) are generally
classified as gas utilities, which also traditionally have the power of eminent domain. The Legislature defines
“common carrier” and “gas utility,” and the Commission applies the Legislature’s definitions when exercising
its jurisdiction.40
The Commission does not regulate any pipelines with respect to the exercise of their eminent
domain powers.
Generally, all pipelines operating in Texas must have a T-4 pipeline permit, issued by the Commission. (See Ap-
pendix A.2 for Application.) There are two exceptions: lines that never leave an oil or gas production lease, and
distribution lines to homes and businesses that are part of a natural gas or LP-gas distribution system.41
An
application for a T-4 Permit must be filed by an operator with an approved Organization Report (“P-5”) on file
with the Commission. (See Appendix A.3 for P-5 Form Application.) The T-4 Permit application must include
a digitized map of the pipeline(s) to be covered by that T-4 Permit. A P-5 and financial security (e.g., bond, let-
ter of credit, cash deposit, or well-specific plugging insurance policy) are required of all companies performing
operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission.42
The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Denbury has created a level of uncertainty regarding the process to de-
termine a pipeline’s common carrier status. In its opinion, the Court stated that the filing of a T-4 permit and
self-designation as a common carrier alone did not conclusively establish Denbury Green’s status as a common
carrier and thus confer the power of eminent domain.43
The Court pointed out that it has long held that “the
ultimate question of whether a particular use is a public use is a judicial question to be decided by the courts.”44
38 Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, L.L.C., 363 S.W.3d 192 (Tex. 2012) (holding that a pipeline
company had to show a “public use” in order to exercise the power of eminent domain and that obtaining the designation of
“common carrier” from the Commission was not conclusive, at least under present procedures ).
39 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 111.019(a).
40 Tex. Nat. Resources Code § 111.001–111.003.
41 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.70. (2013) (Railroad Comm’n of Tex., Pipeline Permits Required).
42 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.78. (2013) (Railroad Comm’n of Tex., Fees and Financial Security Requirements).
43 Denbury, 363 S.W.3d at 198.
44 Ibid.

32
As noted above, the Commission does not regulate the exercise of eminent
domain by pipelines and does not have authority to determine property
rights. Therefore, rather than the final determination resting solely with the
Commission, the issue of a pipeline’s common carrier status could be sub-
ject to challenge in one or more of the 456 district courts across the state.
This means that a pipeline traversing several counties may face challenges
to its status as a common carrier in multiple district courts. Whether or not
a pipeline is for public use is an essential determination for right-of-way ac-
quisition where eminent domain must be used. The determination must be
made in a timely manner. The Commission is committed to working with
the Legislature to create a remedy for this issue that is fair and reasonable
for pipeline companies and landowners alike.
Task Force members, including representatives of pipeline companies,
agreed that while it is imperative to build pipelines, local communities must
be protected throughout the process. The Task Force members discussed
guidelines and adopted the following advisements:
1. The placement of pipelines should avoid steep hillsides and watercourses
where feasible.
2. Pipeline routes should take advantage of road corridors to minimize surface
disturbance.
3. When clearing is necessary, the width disturbed should be kept to a mini-
mum, and topsoil material should be stockpiled to the side because retaining
topsoil for replacement during reclamation can significantly accelerate suc-
cessful re-vegetation.
4. Proximity to buildings or other facilities occupied or used by the public should be considered, with particular
consideration given to homes.
5. Unnecessary damage to trees and other vegetation should be avoided.
6. After installation of a new line, all right-of-way should be restored to conditions compatible with existing land
use.45
Housing
The final item on this Task Force meeting’s agenda was to address housing issues, such as rent increases and the
lack of temporary housing – issues that affect many residents in the Eagle Ford Shale. Christian Noll, Manager
of Multifamily and Single Family Development Programs for the Texas Department of Housing & Community
Affairs, provided an overview of state and federal programs that are available to offset rent increases and assist
45 (September 28, 2011). Eagle Ford Shale Task Force meeting on infrastructure in Cuero, Texas
Whether a pipeline is for
public use is often an
essential determination
for right-of-way
acquisition. The
determination must be
made in a timely manner.
The Railroad Commission
is committed to working
with the Texas Legislature
to create a remedy for this
issue that would allow
landowner and pipeline
interests to be resolved at
the Railroad Commission.

33
displaced families. For example, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, funded by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development, is a program that expands the supply of decent, safe, affordable housing
and strengthens public-private housing partnerships between units of general local governments, public hous-
ing authorities, non-profits, and for-profit entities.46
Several Task Force members expressed a desire to see builders foster community development by placing more
emphasis on permanent housing, rather than relying on short-term, temporary, and semi-permanent structures.
Bob Zachariah, HotelWorks Development, LLC, a developer in the Eagle Ford Shale region, reported that many
developers are reluctant to build permanent housing in certain areas because they are wary of boom and bust
cycles. He also spoke about the ways in which local governments and communities can spur private investment
in the region.
The Task Force lauded the launching of the Housing and Land Use Analysis study that will be conducted by the
Institute for Economic Development and the Center for Urban and Regional Planning Research within the Col-
lege of Architecture at The University of Texas at San Antonio (“UTSA”).47
The study will analyze 15 counties
in the Eagle Ford Shale region and provide them with a Land Use, Infrastructure, and Housing Plan Guide for
the upcoming decade, which will include the following:
1. Economic analysis and projections
2. Population analysis and projections
3. Land use studies
4. Housing studies
5. Circulation and transportation
6. Infrastructure (utility systems, school systems
production and midstream infrastructure)
7. Administrative controls
8. Quality of life and sustainability indicators
The Task Force also endorses the UTSA-sponsored Municipal
Capacity Building Workshop, which began in February 2013.
The workshop helps Eagle Ford Shale government officials de-
velop the capability to create comprehensive plans of action for
developing sustainable, stable communities amid the fast pace
of expansion precipitated by the oil and natural gas boom.
46 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. (2012.) HOME division. Retrieved from http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/
home-division/index.htm.
47 The comprehensive study will cost $100,000 in professional and student labor, supply and data costs, and travel for research
and presentations. UTSA anticipates that the project will commence in March 2013.
The housing shortage in
the Eagle Ford Shale
region has led to a higher
demand for both
permanent and temporary
housing, such as hotels,
apartment complexes,
recreational vehicle parks,
and “man camps.”

3
WATER QUALITY
AND
QUANTITY
Railroad Commission records do not include a
single documented groundwater
contamination case associated with hydraulic
fracturing − a process that has been employed in
Texas for more than 60 years. Unlike many
other states in the nation, Texas has a
comprehensive and mature regulatory
framework in place to ensure the protection of
usable quality groundwater.

36
CHAPTER 3 WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY
Water is an essential part of energy production. Water is used in exploration, drilling, stimulation (including
hydraulic fracturing), and enhanced recovery processes.
While the oil and gas industry uses both surface water and groundwater for exploration and production activi-
ties, the latter is used more frequently.1
For example, in the Eagle Ford Shale, groundwater constitutes almost
90 percent of the new (i.e., not reused or recycled) water used for hydraulic fracturing.2
According to the most recent data from the Texas Water Development Board (“TWDB”), as presented in the
2012 State Water Plan (“State Water Plan”), “mining water use” (i.e., the water used in the exploration, develop-
ment, and extraction of oil, gas, coal, aggregates, and other materials) represents 1.6 percent of the state’s total
water use.3
In comparison, irrigation and municipal water use collectively represent 82.8 percent of water use
in the state.4
1 Surface water generally refers to rivers, streams, lakes, bays, and other bodies of water; while groundwater generally refers to
subterranean water.
2 Nicot, J., Reedy, R. C., Costley, R. A., & Huang, Y. (2012, September). Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geosci-
ences. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, p. 56.
Retrieved from http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830939_2012Update_MiningWa-
terUse.pdf
3 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2012 State water plan, Ch. 3, p. 137 (Table 3.3). Retrieved from http://www.twdb.
state.tx.us/publications/state_water_plan/2012/03.pdf
4 Ibid.
WATER DEMAND 2010
Municipal 26.9%
Manufacturing 9.6%
Mining 1.6%
Steam Electric 4.1%
Livestock 1.8%
Irrigation 55.9%

37
In 2011 (the latest year with complete data), the oil and gas industry used approximately 102,500 acre-feet5
of
water.6
This water use includes approximately 81,500 acre-feet for hydraulically fracturing wells7
and approxi-
mately 21,000 acre-feet for other oil and gas industry purposes.8
According to the State Water Plan, water demands for municipal use, manufacturing, and steam-electric power
generation are expected to increase over the next 50 years, while water demand for oil and gas and other mining
purposes is expected to remain relatively constant and then decline.9
By 2060, mining water use is projected to
decrease slightly, from 1.6 percent currently, to 1.3 percent of Texas’ total water use.10
5 One acre-foot is the amount of water needed to cover one acre of land with one foot of water and equals 325,851 gallons.
6 Notes from February 2013 interview with Leslie Savage, Chief Geologist, Railroad Commission of Texas.
7 Nicot, J., Reedy, R. C., Costley, R. A., & Huang, Y. (2012, September). Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geo-
sciences. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, p. i.
Retrieved from http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830939_2012Update_MiningWa-
terUse.pdf
9 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2012 State Water Plan, Ch. 3, p. 137 (Table 3.3). Retrieved from http://www.twdb.
10 Ibid.
WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS BY USE CATEGORY (Acre-Feet Per Year)*
Source: Texas Water Development Board, “Water for Texas 2012 State Water Plan” (January 2012)
* Water demand projections for the livestock and mining water use
categories are similar enough to be indistinguishable at this scale.

38
The state’s growing population – which is expected to nearly double in the next 50 years, from 25.4 million to
46.3 million people11
– and the state’s climate are signiﬁcant factors in projecting future water demand.12
Ac-
cording to the State Water Plan, the state does not have enough existing water supplies today to meet the de-
mand for water during times of drought:
In the event of severe drought conditions, the state would face an immediate need for additional
water supplies of 3.6 million acre-feet per year with 86 percent of that need in irrigation and
about 9 percent associated directly with municipal water users. Total needs are projected to in-
crease by 130 percent between 2010 and 2060 to 8.3 million acre-feet per year. In 2060, irrigation
represents 45 percent of the total needs and municipal users account for 41 percent of needs.13
Though total mining water use (which includes hydraulic fracturing) represents 1.6 percent of statewide water
use, percentages can be larger in localized areas where there is signiﬁcant oil and gas production, for example,
in the Eagle Ford Shale, in Webb, Karnes, Dimmit, and La Salle Counties.14
According to Oil and Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report (“Update”), water use in
Texas has increased as a result of the hydraulic fracturing boom.15
The Update reports that from 2008 to 2011,
the total water use for hydraulically fractured wells in Texas increased from approximately 36,000 in 2008 to
81,500 acre-feet in 2011.16
However, there was a corresponding increase in the amount of recycling and reuse
and the use of brackish17
water for hydraulic fracturing (approximately 17,000 acre-feet, or 21 percent, in 2011),
an approach that conserved a substantial amount of fresh water.18
11 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2012 State water plan, Executive Summary, p. 2. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.
12 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2012 State water plan, Ch. 4, p. 145. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/
publications/state_water_plan/2012/04.pdf
13 Texas Water Development Board (TWDB). 2012 State water plan, Executive Summary, p. 4. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.
15 Nicot, J., Reedy, R. C., Costley, R. A., & Huang, Y. (2012, September). Bureau of Economic Geology, Jackson School of Geo-
sciences. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report. (Dir.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas,
p. i. Retrieved from http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830939_2012Update_Mining-
WaterUse.pdf
16 Ibid.
17 Brackish water has more salinity than fresh water, but not as much as seawater. The TWDB defines fresh water as any wa-
ter with a total dissolved solids (TDS ) content of less than 1,000 mg/L and brackish water as any water with a TDS content of
between 1,001 and 35,000 mg/L.
ences. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, p. i-ii.
Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830939_2012Update_MiningWaterUse.pdf

39
According to the Update, in 2011, hydraulic fracturing water use in the Eagle Ford Shale was approximately
24,000 acre-feet, of which 20 percent was brackish.19
The Update predicts that hydraulic fracturing water use
will gradually increase over the next 10 years, peaking at approximately 35,000 acre-feet and then decreasing as
water recycling technologies improve.20
Hydraulic Fracturing
As stated above, mining water use has increased due to hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is the stimula-
tion of a well by the application of pressurized hydraulic fracturing ﬂuid. Such stimulation initiates or propa-
gates fractures in a target geologic formation, in order to enhance production of oil and natural gas. Hydraulic
fracturing ﬂuids contain sand or other “proppant” material, which hold open the fractures created by the hy-
draulic fracturing process. The diameter of these fractures is minute – generally half the size of a human hair.
19 Ibid, p. 11.
20 Ibid, p. 67.
Source: The University of Texas, “Oil and Gas Water Use in Texas: Update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report” (September 2012)

40
The fracture length is designed to serve the specifics of the reservoir and area characteristics. Depending on
the magnitude of the operation, the length of these fractures can range from hundreds to thousands of feet.
Water and proppant material generally constitute 99.5 percent of hydraulic fracturing fluid, and additives gener-
ally represent less than 0.5 percent of the total fluid volume. Although there may be more than 200 compounds
that can be used in hydraulic fracturing fluid, a single fracturing job may use only a handful of the available ad-
ditives. Each additive serves a specific, engineered purpose.
Fracture treatments in shale plays predominantly utilize “slick water” fracturing fluids – water-based fluids
mixed with friction reducing additives (primarily potassium chloride, a common table salt substitute). The addi-
tion of friction reducers allows fracturing fluids and proppant to be pumped to the target zone at a higher rate
and lower pressure than if water alone was used. In addition to friction reducers, other additives may include
biocides, which prevent micro-organism growth and reduce biofouling of the fractures; oxygen scavengers and
other stabilizers, which prevent corrosion of metal pipes; and acids, which are used to remove drilling mud
buildup within or near the wellbore area.
Source: The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, “Shale Gas: Applying Technology to Solve
America’s Energy Challenges” (March 2011)

41
In the Eagle Ford Shale, companies such as Marathon Oil have moved from high volume slick water hydraulic
fracturing operations to gel fracturing (also known as gel fracs) that can carry the same amount of proppant
with much less water. Since 2007, this operational change in the play has contributed to a sharp decrease in
water intensity, decreasing the amount of water needed to hydraulically fracture a well by almost half to approxi-
mately 850 gallons per foot.21
This translates to a decrease in water use of approximately five million gallons
per well.22
Common concerns expressed about hydraulic fracturing and its associated activities include the following:
1. Potential stress on surface water and groundwater supplies, resulting from the withdrawal of
water used in oil and gas operations
2. Potential contamination of drinking water aquifers, as a result of faulty well construction or
completion activities
3. Potential compromised water quality due to challenges of managing surface activities and dis-
posing of contaminated wastewaters (i.e., flowback fluid and produced water), which could con-
tain organic chemicals, metals, salts, and naturally occurring radionuclides
While there are concerns, it is important to note that Railroad Commission (“Commission”) records do not
include a single documented groundwater contamination case associated with the process of hydraulic fractur-
ing in Texas. The process has been employed in the state for more than 60 years. Unlike many other states in
the nation, Texas has a comprehensive and mature regulatory framework in place to ensure the protection of
usable quality groundwater.
Any time a well (including an oil, gas, injection, or disposal well) is drilled in Texas, Commission rules require
that the well’s surface casing be set and cemented through all usable quality water to protect water resources.
Because the base of usable quality water varies throughout the state, the Commission’s Groundwater Advisory
Unit determines specific groundwater protection depths for each new well.
The Commission’s strict well construction rules require several layers of steel casings and cement to protect
groundwater. The first layer of protection for usable quality groundwater in a well is the surface casing – a steel
pipe encased in cement that extends from the surface to below the base of the deepest usable quality ground-
water. Cement surface casing serves as a protective sleeve through which deeper drilling occurs.
ences. Oil & gas water use in Texas: update to the 2011 Mining Water Use Report. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, p. 12.
Retrieved from
http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/reports/contracted_reports/doc/0904830939_2012Update_MiningWaterUse.pdf
22 Ibid, p.12.

42
The second protective layer for usable quality groundwater is the production casing, which is a steel pipe placed
in the wellbore that extends to the well’s total depth and is permanently cemented in place.23
In addition, Com-
mission rules require the placement of gauges at the surface to monitor these casings so that any downhole
problem can be easily and quickly identified. For fracturing fluid to escape the wellbore and affect the usable
quality water, the fluid would have to go through several layers of steel casing and cement.
The Commission remains steadfast in its determination to protect the state’s water resources and is amending
its rules to focus on the following (as detailed in Chapter 5: Railroad Commission Regulations):
1. Well casing, cementing, and completion standards
2. Surface operations; injection, disposal, and abandoned wells
3. Water recycling and reuse
In addition to strict well construction requirements, the Commission administers one of the nation’s most com-
prehensive rules for disclosure of chemical ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.24
The rule is based
on historic legislation – House Bill 3328 (“HB 3328”), passed during the 82nd Regular Legislative Session in
2011. State Representative Jim Keffer, Chair of the House Committee on Energy Resources, authored the bill,
and Senator Troy Fraser, Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, was HB 3328’s Senate sponsor.25
The Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and the oil and gas industry championed the legislation.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Disclosure Rule requires operators to list the specific fluids and additives used in
hydraulic fracturing treatments on the FracFocus website, a public website hosted by the Ground Water Protec-
tion Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.26
Additionally, the Railroad Commission
requires Texas oil and gas operators to disclose the total amount of water used in hydraulic fracturing treatments
on FracFocus. Prior to passage of the disclosure rule, Texas operators were voluntarily reporting to FracFocus
the hydraulic fracturing chemical ingredients used in almost half of all Texas wells undergoing hydraulic fractur-
ing.
In addition to the Commission’s strict well construction requirements and rigorous regulatory oversight, the
state’s geology is conducive to groundwater protection during oil and gas exploration and production activities.
23 Some operators inject fracturing fluid in the production casing. In some wells, operators also install and cement an interme-
diate casing string between the surface casing and the production casing. Depending on the fracturing pressure needed, other
operators use a third protection layer by injecting fracturing fluid in a tubing string that conducts the fracturing fluid to the zone
to be perforated and fractured.
24 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.29 (West 2013) (Railroad Comm’n of Tex., Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Require-
ments).
25 Texas Natural Resources Code §91.851.
26 The GWPC is a national organization comprised of state groundwater regulatory agencies. The IOGCC is a national commis-
sion of state oil and gas regulators.

43
Hydraulic fracturing in Texas typically occurs a mile or more below the base of the deepest usable quality water,
with many thousands of feet of isolating rock in between fresh water zones and the hydrocarbon-bearing zones
to be hydraulically fractured. For example, in the Eagle Ford Shale, the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer can be found
in a range varying from the surface to a depth of approximately 6,000 feet. Between the aquifer’s base and the
zone that is undergoing tight shale hydraulic fracturing (which occurs at depths between 8,000 and 15,000 feet),
there is 3,000 to 8,000 feet of isolating layers of rock. The extent of this intervening rock makes it extremely
unlikely that the fractures would ever reach fresh water zones.
The Eagle Ford Shale Task Force (“Task Force”) was concerned about the effect of oil and gas production on
water quality and quantity in the Eagle Ford Shale region of South Texas – an arid part of the state comprised
of many rural communities needing large amounts of water for agriculture and ranching. The Task Force met
twice to discuss water quality and quantity. The first meeting took place on November 2, 2011, at The Univer-
sity of Texas at San Antonio (“UTSA”), with presentations regarding the legal and regulatory landscape, water
quantity and use, and water recycling and reuse. A second meeting was held on December 7, 2011, at Los Pa-
tios in San Antonio. During the second meeting, Task Force members deliberated whether the Carrizo-Wilcox
Aquifer contains enough water to support oil and gas drilling and completion activities, while meeting all other
projected uses. In addition, at this second meeting, the Task Force discussed localized impacts on aquifer water
levels and discharges to streams and springs, as well as Commission rules regarding injection and disposal wells.
TASK FORCE MEETING
At the Task Force meeting on water quality and quantity, held at UTSA on November 2, 2011, the following
people made presentations:27
Dr. Les Shepherd, Director, Texas Sustainable Energy
Research Institute, The University of Texas at San Antonio
Ken Ramirez, Managing Partner, Law Offices of Ken Ramirez
Dr. Darrell Brownlow, Principal, Intercoastal Inland Services
Stephen L. Jester, P.E., Senior Principal Environmental
Engineer, ConocoPhillips
Mike Mahoney, General Manager, Evergreen Underground
Water Conservation District
Erasmo Yarrito, Jr., Rio Grande Watermaster, Texas Commis-
sion on Environmental Quality
Brent Halldorson, Chief Operating Officer, Fountain Quail
Water Management
27 Senator Carlos Uresti was in attendance at the meeting.
Water used in the
exploration, development,
and extraction of oil and
gas, including hydraulic
fracturing, accounts for 1.6
percent of the state’s total
water use. Irrigation and
municipal consumers
combine for 82.8 percent
of water use in the state.

44
Legal and Regulatory Landscape
To enhance their understanding of the regulatory environment as it relates to the protection of groundwater
quality, the Task Force spent time reviewing state water law and regulations governing surface water and ground-
water. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (“TCEQ”) serves as the state’s primary environmen-
tal regulatory agency. The Railroad Commission protects surface and subsurface water from contamination
by oil ﬁeld operations. Groundwater Conservation Districts (“GCDs”) are local units of government that are
created to manage groundwater resources within their boundaries, with rules providing for conservation, pres-
ervation, and protection of groundwater.28
28 Tex. Water Code Ann. § 36.0015 (Vernon 2011).
GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICTS IN TEXAS
Source: Texas Water Development Board, “Water
for Texas 2012 State Water Plan” (January 2012)

Eagle_Ford_Task_Force_Report-0313

Eagle_Ford_Task_Force_Report-0313

Related slideshows

More Related Content

Eagle_Ford_Task_Force_Report-0313