# Tanker Truck sitting in the Colorado by Parchute



## gskottbi

Does anyone now why the involved do not make removeal a priority?It has been there for several weeks a local said. Completely submerged till now.
Seems that contaminating the river would be a priority.


----------



## kayakfreakus

I would also find this hard to believe. Even if empty I would assume the removal would be a priority.


----------



## tyaker

bet its from Halliburton.


----------



## Theophilus

I'm trying to figuire how you'd go about it. I know a little about cranes and that's a big load a long way from anything.  How would you get it out?


----------



## stumpster

A diver hooks a cable and then they drag it out..


----------



## Snowhere

Because the fed (in charge of interstate highways) sucks!


----------



## stumpster

Here's a link of the article, it's a water tanker that's been in there a week..
Truck rolls into Colorado River near Parachute | PostIndependent.com


----------



## nmalozzi

stumpster said:


> Here's a link of the article, it's a water tanker that's been in there a week..
> Truck rolls into Colorado River near Parachute | PostIndependent.com


Thank goodness it was a tanker filled with water, and that it seems like the fuel tank was not punctured. Hopefully they will make some sort of effort to empty the fuel tank before dragging it out. Not sure how they could accomplish that though.


----------



## Theophilus

stumpster said:


> A diver hooks a cable and then they drag it out..


You're kidding right? The driver of what? I've rigged and recovered a few heavy vehicles. I don't think that's gonna work.


----------



## Dave Frank

HE said DIVER, not driver, but still seems like a sketch recovery.


----------



## Theophilus

Dave Frank said:


> HE said DIVER, not driver, but still seems like a sketch recovery.


My bad. I'm sorry Stumpster. It will be interesting for sure.


----------



## Jay H

Snowhere said:


> Because the fed (in charge of interstate highways) sucks!



Snowhere--

I'm guessing you're just mindlessly repeating what you hear everybody mindlessly saying about the "government", in an attempt to be humorous--as a transportation engineer for the state though, I definitely have to respond to your post and stick up for us gov't agency reps--and I also have to say, your post is a classic example of the old saying: "you can stay silent and people might think you're an idiot, or you can speak up and remove all doubt" :-D

Just to set the record straight:

1st of all, the state administers the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of interstate highways in CO, not the feds (fhwa) 

2nd, the river is not State highway right-of-way, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the transportation department (I don't know for certain what other state agency might have jurisdiction tho...)

3rd - I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong--this situation is the result of the (excessive, irresponsible, and negligent) water-consumption operations at the oil and gas facility--the oil company and/or the water trucking company is therefore responsible and liable for the recovery/remediation work and any associated resulting damages.

4th--just fyi, a recovery/removal operation of this nature will obviously be extremely difficult and will require planning and resources, and the costs to remove a tanker truck in the middle of a high-water river will be very expensive: a sufficiently large crane would prob cost $10k to $20k PER DAY, minimum; dive staff, containment and remediation work, traffic control costs, emergency response, etc. would run just about as much--this work doesn't just happen when you snap your fingers, and and somebody has to pay for it--I would guess that you are unaware of the logistics and actual costs of such work are or how they're derived, or how funds for such emergency work are appropriated and administered.

I'm also fairly certain that you, like many people, have little or no knowledge of the details of how the highway funds for design, construction, and maintenence are appropriated at the state and federal legislative levels for use by the agencies that "suck", and how little funds are available compared to the work required in the state of CO and around the rest of the country--not to mention now taking the rap for not instantaneously responding to some driver's or mechanic's (or more likely some overly profit-conscious equipment manager's) fuck-up that resulted in a truck in the river

look, I criticize the inefficiencies of our state and local gov'ts as much as the next guy, and I get plenty of good-natured razzing as a gov't employee by my private sector colleagues too--but they and I also know what it takes to administer complex, lengthy design and construction projects, and to navigate complex gov't regulations too. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, but please--take a moment to educate yourself next time before subjecting us all to your mis/uninformed ranting


----------



## stumpster

> You're kidding right? The driver of what?


Put your contacts on man!
They will probably hook more than one line on it but that's how it is usually done!


----------



## tyaker

Jay H said:


> Snowhere--
> 
> 4th--just fyi, a recovery/removal operation of this nature will obviously be extremely difficult and will require planning and resources, and the costs to remove a tanker truck in the middle of a high-water river will be very expensive: a sufficiently large crane would prob cost $10k to $20k PER DAY, minimum; dive staff, containment and remediation work, traffic control costs, emergency response, etc. would run just about as much--this work doesn't just happen when you snap your fingers, and and somebody has to pay for it--


Well, then the idiots who hired the f**k-nut driver who did it need to buck up and recover their s**t. Isn't that what the EPA is all about? Holding commercial companies responsible for keeping their crap out of the river?


----------



## stumpster

lol.. didn't read page 2, No worries Theophilus!


----------



## gskottbi

The accident happened on a public ramp access just above the bridge. The oil field water trucks have been backing down to the river for a few years now. Since then they have placed a row of the concrete barriers there as a band-aid. The tanker in the river was washed downstream 500'+ past the bridge. Trucks back down to the river 3 or 4 wide, 24/7 at this location. We put-in here last year to float to Debeque, for a day trip, it was a challenge to stay out of the way to unload and launch.


----------



## RealitySheriff

A little off topic but food for thought...does anyone know if the owners of these trucks who are filling their tanks 24 hours a day have water rights to do so. And assuming they do (which I won't) how much are they entitled to and I wonder if anyone is actually monitoring their consumption (besides themselves of course and who would question the integrity and honesty of oil and gas interests?)


----------



## Brushfire830

They were all set to remove it but the Sheriffs department stop them and wouldn't lend any assistance from SAR so the companies pulled off till the Sheriffs department say's it is safe.


----------



## Snowhere

Hey Jayh, you are certainly right I was just busting without any real knowledge of the situation. I just assumed that any domestic endeavor is starving for funds under the current administration. I also assumed that it becomes the feds responsibility once it involves the river. Something about navigable waterways that cross state lines just smacks of federal jurisdiction. 

I certainly do not blame the state or the transportation corps for this and I completely agree that the oil and gas company whose water truck it is, should be held responsible for the clean up. Where I disagree is that the fed has the force behind them to get the responsible parties rolling quickly. Money talks and I expect a operation like this to run $50,000 easily. I am used to renting cranes for $250/hr, but would double that assuming they would need larger cranes then what we use, and most likely more then one. I know that if you need a crane fast during the busy summer construction season, you have to pull strings and it is not easy. I would just think that any incident involving a truck in the river would be dealt with as quick as possible.


----------



## Jay H

Snowhere--

No worries mate--just needed to represent the civil servants!

I understand the ire though--It is certainly unnerving to see a truck just left in the river, no matter the cargo--I hadn't even heard of it till reading this thread. What if that was a petro or chemical tanker? Is there even a response protocol for that?

--and you're right, the agency budgets are starved under this administration what with the tax cuts and half-billion in Iraq, but even the state budgets have been decimated--CDOT just lost ~$80 million in SB 1310 funds for FY '08, so a ton of design and construction projects that were set to go this fiscal year just got shelved, probably indefinitely ...:roll: 

Although, I have to say though, that as far as the federal gov't getting parties rolling quickly, one need only look at the leadville mine dewatering situation, and the bickering b/t the BLM, congress, etc. over responsiblity--not setting any speed records on that response!

syotr!

Jay


----------



## st2eelpot

*Insurance*

I would think (meaning I don't know) that part of the trucking companies insurance would pay for some of the clean up fees, if they're charged any by the government anyway. 
A buddy of mine is a trucker. He said most of the larger trucking companies run either $1 million or $5 million per truck. I forget which. Of course, I doubt that is all for cleanup, but I'd think it'd chip in.

Just a thought.


----------



## basil

Yea, getting that truck out would be real tricky. It's not worth risking anyone's life, since noone has practice doing this. 

The water rights question is a good one. But, tanker trucks probably can't take a significant amount of water. Those trucks probably aren't taking more than 5-10 cfs on average. 10 cfs will probably fill a tanker truck in 10-30 minutes. 

Yea, this is negligence and the company should pay to pull that sucker out.


----------



## caspermike

Somebody go splat it and get some pictures..... tire splat would be sick


----------



## COUNT

How many Z-drags does it take to pull a tanker out?


----------



## DownValleyTrash

basil said:


> The water rights question is a good one. But, tanker trucks probably can't take a significant amount of water. Those trucks probably aren't taking more than 5-10 cfs on average. 10 cfs will probably fill a tanker truck in 10-30 minutes.


dosen't matter how much or how little water tanker trucks take...they need a water right to do so. Hell, you need a water right to collect rainwater in Colo. 
Some drillers & support companies have water rights, some don't. Needless to say, if there isn't a call on the river - and even if there is - enforcement is pretty lax. That's not to say water commisioners dont do a good job most of the time, but the drillers are running those water trucks 24/7, literally. 

And if you think they steal a lot of water now (and make no mistake, they do) jus wait 'til oil shale ramps up.


----------



## SummitAP

You don't need a diver or a crane. It's flowing 11K. Just wait until it goes down to <5K in September and you'll be able to have surface personnel attach multiple heavy tow cables from multiple heavy tow trucks, then just winch it out very slowly. Unless some governmental agency tells them they must remove it immediately because it is a hazard to navigation or something...


----------



## SummitAP

DownValleyTrash said:


> And if you think they steal a lot of water now (and make no mistake, they do) jus wait 'til oil shale ramps up.


We can only hope oil shale ramps up, but for now, it is still banned by law.


----------



## wcrocket

*truck in the river*

Okay... I am bored so I will contribute.

1) If the truck in the River was hauling fresh water for the Oil and Gas Industry. It probably belongs to a Water Hauling Company not an Oil or Drilling company. The company that owns the truck will be on a Vendor approved list maintained by the Oil Company or the the Drilling Company. Oil Companies do not use Vendors unless they are on their vendor approved list. You do not get on that list unless you prove that you have enough insurance to cover liability from accidents, and demonstrate that you operate safely. The Oil Companies do not want to pay for accidents that their Vendors can not afford to remedy.

2) Water is cheap, even river water. The revenue potential derived from hauling it for the Oil and Gas industry far exceeds the cost to buy it from anyone with a water right. There is no reason to steal water for Oil and Gas operations. The cost to haul it will be by far the major expense. Stealing water will not significantly reduce water hauling costs.

3) If the truck posed a hazard there would be a response team on location 24/7. When it is safe to remove the truck it will be removed.

Maybe before they move it is will shift and create a nice play spot :-D .


----------



## RealitySheriff

*water consumption adds up quick*



basil said:


> The water rights question is a good one. But, tanker trucks probably can't take a significant amount of water. Those trucks probably aren't taking more than 5-10 cfs on average. 10 cfs will probably fill a tanker truck in 10-30 minutes.


Lets do some fuzzy math

Full size tanker truck = 7000 gallons
1 acre foot of water = 325,851 gallons

Let's be conservative and say an average of 20 (I'd bet it's closer to 30-40) trucks per day fill from the river that equals 140,000 gals per day. 
Say they fill their trucks 350 days per year, that equals almost 50,000,000 gals of water per year.
That is 153 acre feet of water, or enough water to supply apx 765,000 average person user days or more than 2000 years worth of water for a single person. (Residential Water Use) or approximately 3% of Boulder's residential water consumption for an entire year. (www.ci.*boulder*-city.nv.us/FYIColumns/March%2022%202007.pdf) 

I don't know about you but I think that is a lot of water. I just thought a little fuzzy math on water usage might be useful for water aware boaters.


----------



## wcrocket

*more math*

Ok... Lets do some more math based on the link below. The State of Colorado used 5.35 million acre-ft of water to irrigate the top 5 crops in 1995 verse the estimated 153 acre-ft that maybe hauled from the river by those trucks.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/artemis/ag/AG92IR71999INTERNET.pdf

So....

153/5,350,000,000 * 100 = .0029% of the amount used for ag. 13 years ago. I am gonna guess they will use more water for crops in 2008.

I am not sure what the city of Boulder allows the typical household but I have a well on my property and have the right to withdraw 1 acre-ft per year. So those trucks are taking the equivalent of 153 domestic wells supplying 153 homes. So how many domestic water wells do you think they have in Colorado?

I do understand your concern but 153 acre-ft is not a lot of water usage in Colorado compared to other applications. We should all conserve water but suggesting that 152 acre-ft it is being wasted by one group seems unfair to me.

I think if we can get everyone in the state to not take a shower tomorrow or not water their lawn we can make up more than the 152 acre-ft that provide a way for a few families to make a living on the western slope.


----------



## RealitySheriff

Never said water was being wasted. I only pointed it out as a point of reference, and asked if this company in question actually has a water right to be extracting from the river in any quantity.

Besides your "right" to extract 1 af from your domestic well doesn't mean that the water actually exists (now or in the long term). Most Western states regulate their water based on optimistic estimations about aquifers and surface water that are 100 years old and were never been proven and are in fact at present being dis-proven at a rapid pace.

Yes I may be a water Nazi to a degree living in the SW my whole life but when you are strapped for a resource that is the essence for life you come to appreciate it a great deal more than others.


----------



## DownValleyTrash

wcrocket said:


> 2) Water is cheap, even river water. The revenue potential derived from hauling it for the Oil and Gas industry far exceeds the cost to buy it from anyone with a water right. There is no reason to steal water for Oil and Gas operations. The cost to haul it will be by far the major expense. Stealing water will not significantly reduce water hauling costs.


Even if you are correct on costs, you aren't factoring in the time it takes to get a water right decreed. Garfield County had a 50% increase in drilling permits issued between 2004 and 2005, and has had 20-25% increases in each subsequent year. Its naive to think that decreed water rights are keeping pace with the rate of new gas exploration and development. Plus, if there is little to no enforcement, why would a hauler bother with a water right?


----------



## wcrocket

DownValleyTrash said:


> Even if you are correct on costs, you aren't factoring in the time it takes to get a water right decreed. Garfield County had a 50% increase in drilling permits issued between 2004 and 2005, and has had 20-25% increases in each subsequent year. Its naive to think that decreed water rights are keeping pace with the rate of new gas exploration and development. Plus, if there is little to no enforcement, why would a hauler bother with a water right?


Do you really believe the Water Hauling Companies providing water for the Oil and Gas Industry are stealing water because they did not have time to acquire the proper decree? I do realize that someone can put a pump in the river and take water but I do not think a lot of very large trucks with Company Logo's and Names on them are illegally pumping water out of the River every day. That is just an opinion, I have no facts to prove otherwise. I personnally would never do that and I would like to think others also would not.

I do think the number of wells being permited and the rate of drilling in this State is way to high. The Industry does not have the resources to continue at this pace and they are making mistakes that would not occur if more time were taken to plan and drill each well. Lets all advocate a slow down.

The amount of fresh water required for drilling operations is very small compared to other industries and residential consumers. I am not worried about that issue. I am worried about the amount of produced water from Oil and Coal Bed Methane wells. They produce millions of barrels of water and almost all of it is classified as waste water. Some of it is not and could be used by others. They are wasting more produced potable water than they are using because it easier to classify all of it as waste water and dispose of it. They inject waste water into reservoirs located below the fresh water aquifers. If the casing in an injection well leaks then it can contaminate those fresh water aquifers. The regulatory agencies make each operator file reports proving those injection wells are not leaking so each operator is required to find and fix the leaks. But you have to have a leak and contaminate a given radius around the wellbore before you can fix the problem. Lets address that issue.


----------



## caverdan

This is a little off topic...Butttt...how many of you have heard of Project Rulison?

High Country News -- March 7, 2005: Drilling Could Wake a Sleeping Giant


----------



## Andy H.

Regarding Crocket's highly conservative estimate of 150 acre-feet per year for the oilfield support trucks

A couple of things to consider:

1) Senior Western Slope water rights probably go for $10K - $15K per acre-foot (This isn't the cost of each af of water, its the cost the right to take that much water from the river each year)

2) Oil companies have already been buying up senior water rights all around the Western Slope for years in anticipation of the massive amounts of water they'll need when oil shale extraction goes into high gear. 

Its highly doubtful that they're taking the water without a decree.

-AH


----------



## wcrocket

Actually that was not my estimate. I have no idea what is being pumped out of the river or who is pumping it.

As far as water rights. Chevron donated a substantial amount of water from the Gunnison basin about 10 or 15 years ago when they made a decision to get out of that area. 

Chevron, Exxon, BP and Shell have substantial mineral and water rights in this state. Chevron's date back to the 1940's. I suspect the others do also. The Federal Government needed oil for World War II. As an incentive to get oil Companies to develop it they made concessions.

I would not be surprised to here that Ecana, Noble and other large independents are buying water but the majors have owned it for many years.


----------



## DownValleyTrash

Boy has this gotten off topic....

you guys sure have a lot of faith and goodwill toward the energy industry....easier to do if they're not drilling in your backyard, I suppose.

if you're going to assume that water isn't being stolen because the industry has been buying up water rights in anticipation of future use, ask someone who knows Colorado water law about "use it or lose it" and the "anti-speculation doctrine"

fwiw: I've actually never seen a tanker truck with a company logo on it...they're usually all white.


----------



## basil

Is that tanker still there?


----------



## Brushfire830

should have been removed last week!!


----------



## durangowingnut

*Photo Op*

Someone needs to get down there and pull a couple of splatwheels on that bad boy!! I would love to see a picture of just one boof


----------



## caspermike

durangowingnut said:


> Someone needs to get down there and pull a couple of splatwheels on that bad boy!! I would love to see a picture of just one boof


I was screaming this earlier as well. somebody geta splat pic.


----------



## pinemnky13

It's gone


----------

