The fight for North Dakota’s fracking-water market

It’s not that they lack water, like Texas and California. They are swimming in it, and it is free for the taking. Yet as the state’s Bakken shale fields have grown, so has the fight over who has the right to tap into the multimillion-dollar market to supply water to the energy sector.

North Dakota now accounts for over 10 percent of U.S. energy output, and production could double over the next decade. The state draws water from the Missouri River and aquifers for its hydraulic fracturing, the process also known as fracking and the key that has unlocked America’s abundant shale deposits. The process is water-intensive and requires more than 2 million gallons of water per well, equal to baths for some 40,000 people.

As in all booms, new players race in to meet the outsized demand. At the heart of this battle is a scrappy government-backed cooperative, conceived to ensure fresh water in an area where its drinkability is compromised.

The co-op has decided to sell 20 percent of its water to frackers to help keep prices low and pay back state loans. That has not gone down well with the Independent Water Providers, a loose confederation of ranchers, farmers and small businesses that for years has supplied fracking water.

Since opening in January, the co-op has tried to limit the power of the confederation with an aggressive legal and lobbying strategy. The Independent Water Providers have fought back, arguing that the co-op shouldn’t be selling fracking water at all. The state legislature stepped in with a law last month designed to quell the tension and nurture competition, but industry observers expect the acrimony to continue.

“When all of us had nothing (before the oil boom), there was nothing to fight about,” said Dan Kalil, a longtime commissioner in Williams County, home to many oil and natural gas wells. “Now, so many friendships have been destroyed because of water and oil.”

Jeanie Oudin, an analyst with energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, predicts the competition could push down North Dakota fracking water prices at least 10 percent in the next few years, or roughly $170,000 per well. That’s a sizeable savings in a state where fracking costs are the highest in the country (remoteness meant there was little infrastructure in place). The water accounts for 20 percent of the roughly $8.5 million it costs to drill a North Dakota oil well.

“Regardless of where operators get their water from, the growth in active water depots should increase the availability of raw water for hydraulic fracturing and ultimately bring down costs,” Oudin said. The depots are where energy companies buy most of their fracking water.

The North Dakota Petroleum Council, a trade group for Statoil, Hess, Exxon Mobil, Marathon Oil and other large energy companies, declined to comment on the fight or to forecast how much water prices could fall. The council acknowledged that it would prefer multiple sources for the state’s 8,300 wells.

Energy companies get most of their water in the state by trucking it from depots to oil and natural gas wells. Some wells require more than 650 truckloads to frack. Companies such as EOG Resources Inc and Halliburton Co are experimenting with ways to reduce their dependence on water.

Fracking water depots, which cost roughly $200,000 to build and can gross more than $700,000 per year, are typically small metal buildings on concrete slabs filled with pumps and small tanks connected to the Missouri River or local aquifers. They can have two to six hookups and fill water trucks with as much as 7,800 gallons of water per visit.

The government-backed co-op has nine water depots to hold the fresh water that is piped from the treatment plant in Williston, about 45 miles north of Watford. It plans to build four more depots throughout the Bakken and hugely expand its pipeline system to bring fresh water to more homes. Small lines from the new pipelines will connect directly to some oil wells.

On the other side, Independent Water Providers member JMAC Resources will build more water depots in the region and a massive pipeline just south of the Missouri River to supply oil wells. Other members of the group have also applied for depot permits.

North Dakota water suppliers do not pay for water, and the state legislature rejected a proposed water tax earlier this year. Each side’s plans will rapidly increase the options that energy companies have to access water, further depressing prices.

DANGEROUS TO DRINK

The co-op, officially known as the Western Area Water Supply Project, was designed to boost the quality of the water reaching western North Dakota homes. State studies for years had identified high levels of sodium, sulfates and magnesium in the aquifers.

In Watford City, a dust-caked community of 2,000 dotted with oil-workers’ run-down RVs, the sodium level of the drinking water had been 18 times higher than the level recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “You would drink (it) and get high blood pressure,” said Mayor Brent Sanford.

The high chemical content convinced Watford City officials in 2010 to support the co-op as it was being organized, Sanford said.

By selling 20 percent of its water to frackers, the government-backed co-op hoped to keep water prices for homes low and generate enough revenue to pay back $110 million in state loans for the project. The co-op sells water to frackers at roughly 84 cents a barrel, compared to 21 cents a barrel for homes. (One barrel equals 31.5 gallons, about 119 liters.)

Denton Zubke, the co-op board’s chairman and a credit union president, has defended the co-op’s right to sell water to frackers as the independent ranchers and farmers decry what they see as government overreach into a private industry.

“Free enterprise was never going to bring potable water supply to rural parts of North Dakota,” said Zubke, who also operates a private water depot. “The only way we foresaw putting these water pipes in the ground was to pay for them with industrial (fracking) water sales.”

More than 230 million gallons of water flow every day past the Williston plant, and the co-op itself doesn’t expect water demand from homes to exceed capacity until at least 2032, calming any shorter-term concern about fracking’s taking water away from human uses.

CLOSEST IS BEST

Steve Mortenson, the Independent Water Providers’ chairman, says he supports the co-op’s clean-water mission but believes private industry is best equipped to provide fracking water. “We don’t feel we should have state-backed competition,” he said. “We never expected they would use the leverage of government to oppose private business.”

Confederation members can chose at what price to sell their water; most sell at 50 cents to 75 cents per barrel. Mortenson sells at 65 cents per barrel at his depot in Trenton, a bedroom community on the state’s western edge.

Mortenson, a soft-spoken rancher, offers washers, dryers, showers and free snacks at his depot as a gesture to the truck drivers who bring him business. Energy companies typically choose water depots closest to well sites to save on fuel costs, even if the price is higher than rival sites farther away. That has driven the building of even more water depots around the Bakken.

Zubke disputes the Water Providers’ claim to be any better at selling fracking water. He fears expansion by the independents could jeopardize the co-op’s ability to pay off its debt. Using a complex Depression-era federal law known as 1926(b), he and other co-op officials have been sending cease-and-desist letters to some confederation members throughout North Dakota. They’ve also lobbied state officials – so far, unsuccessfully – to deny water permits to some independents.

Despite the contentiousness – call it fracktion – the Independent Water Providers and the co-op are sticking with their plans.

“We don’t want to profit from the water,” JMAC owner Jon McCreary said. “We want to profit by selling the infrastructure to deliver the water.”

Story By: Earnest Scheyder

Orignal Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/20/us-water-bakken-insight-idUSBRE94J02120130520

U.S. Rethinks How to Respond to Nuclear Disaster

WASHINGTON — Two years after the Fukushima nuclear accident in northern Japan, the United States government is using lessons from that disaster to rewrite its plans for responding to radiation contamination, focusing on long-term cleanup instead of emergency response. But the proposals have set off vehement opposition from critics of nuclear power.

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency expects to publish in the Federal Register a draft document that would change its long-standing advice to state and local governments about how to limit long-term exposure to radiation after a reactor accident or a “dirty bomb” attack. By reducing the projections for how much radiation exposure is likely in the years after such an episode, the proposal could also reduce the amount of contaminated land that would have to be abandoned.

A federally chartered research group will close its comment period on Monday on a draft report that it has prepared for the Department of Homeland Security and that lays out long-term cleanup standards.

In March 2011, a large earthquake and tsunami damaged the Fukushima nuclear plant, causing fuel at three of its reactors to melt and forcing the evacuation of 160,000 people from their homes. The Japanese are still debating how much cleanup is needed and when the level of radiation will drop enough for people to return.

Since the accident, governments have started paying more attention to long-term questions in addition to the emergency response. Experts say that one lesson of Fukushima is that in an accident, there will be no dispute over evacuating affected areas; the question, instead, will be how soon people will be able to return, if at all.

Authors of the two documents emphasize they are not seeking to change existing standards on radiation levels that are considered safe. The E.P.A. document does, however, change the assumptions about how much dose people in a contaminated area will receive.

“We are not in any way relaxing advice about cleanup standards or allowable doses,” said Jonathan D. Edwards, the director of the Radiation Protection Division of the E.P.A. On the question of how clean is clean enough, yardsticks used for programs like the Superfund will continue to be used, and “are not being changed in any way,” he said.

But groups that oppose nuclear power said that the E.P.A. document, called Protective Action Guidelines, and the report prepared for the Department of Homeland Security would allow a sharp increase in the amount of radioactive contamination allowed in food and water, and the allowable doses from irradiation by radioactive particles that would be deposited in an accident.

Some of the changes are not in the documents but are in other reports that are mentioned in footnotes, said Daniel Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a California group. The E.P.A., he said, was “trying to bury the bad stuff in footnote references to a whole series of other documents.”

One clear change in the protective action guidelines, which are being updated for the first time since 1991, was to change the assumption of how much radiation people might be exposed to over time in an affected area. That is because after Fukushima, Mr. Edwards said, it became clear that the initial radiation level could be reduced significantly by cleanup.

“We are assuming it won’t just lay fallow for 50 years,” Mr. Edwards said.

The debate over the appropriate response to a nuclear incident tracks with the larger divide over the safety of nuclear power. Within the industry, many experts say that current standards are overly protective, prohibiting exposures that are smaller than the ones that a member of the public would incur by moving to a location with higher natural levels of radiation from the sun and other sources.

But the industry has dedicated opponents who ascribe a far higher risk to a given dose of radiation, and say that the risk is not worth the effort.

“The document is admitting that nuclear power is a dangerous industry,” said Diane D’Arrigo of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, an antinuclear group. “Should industries be allowed to operate that could put us into that condition?”

However, Rod Adams, a former engineering officer on a nuclear submarine who favors nuclear energy, cited studies that argued that areas around Fukushima should be reoccupied, and wrote on his blog that while the new proposed limits are virtually unchanged, “the limits could be relaxed by a factor of 50 and still keep the public safe.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Nicole Stickel, said that her department had not yet reviewed the report.

Story by:  Matthew L. Wald

Original Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/science/earth/new-rules-for-us-nuclear-disaster-response.html?_r=0

EPA – Fracking #2 Emitter of Greenhouse Gases

Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, the government said, emboldening environmentalists who say tighter measures are needed to curb the emissions from hydraulic fracturing. Read more.

Link Between Low Birth Weight and Fracking

This research suggests the health of newborn babies is adversely affected in areas close to sites undertaking natural gas extraction by way of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking; the method of obtaining natural gas by blasting shale with a solution of water and chemicals conducted by Elaine L. Hill, from Cornell University.

Hill’s paper looked at birth measures, including birth weight and premature birth, for those born in Pennsylvania starting in 2003, before fracking began. The study used data through 2010 and focused on those living up to 1.5 miles from gas development sites. Pennsylvania increased its unconventional natural gas wells from 20 in 2007 to 4,272 by the end of 2010. Read more.

If You Can’t Sway Them – Buy Them

Constitution Pipeline Company today announced the recipients of their inaugural Community Grant program, awarding nearly $300,000 to local communities within the counties their pipeline project would cross and impact.

Although I am sure these are upstanding good organizations it is unlikely that the Pipeline Company would have given them a grant if they didn’t want lay pipe in the area.

2012 Grant Recipients

• New Milford Borough Blue Ridge Parks Association (Susquehanna County, Pa.) – Repairs to the New Milford Town Pool. Grant award: $25,000
• Big Brothers / Big Sisters (Susquehanna County, Pa.) — Youth mentor program. Grant award: $10,000
• Broome County Soil & Water Conservation District – To purchase a post driver for the counties farms. Grant award: $15,500
• Broome County– To rehabilitate & improve Otsiningo Park. Grant award: $25,000
• The Greater Afton Chamber of Commerce (Chenango County, NY) – To create a chamber of commerce for businesses, residents and the community. Grant award: $20,000
• The Bainbridge Community Foundation Walking Trail (Chenango County, NY) – To improve and pave walking trail around General Clinton Park. Grant award: $25,000
• Boys and Girls Club Sidney (Delaware County, NY) – Support youth development by working with young people from disadvantaged economic, social and family circumstances. Grant award: $23,500
• Pindars Corners Volunteer Fire Department (Delaware County, NY) – To purchase updated turnout gear to replace outdated and close to outdated gear. Grant award: $23,955
• Masonville Fire Department (Delaware County, NY) – To replace turnout gear and gas meters. Grant award: $22,995
• Village of Franklin (Delaware County, NY) – Renovations to make the Village Hall handicap accessible. Grant award: $5,200
• Sidney Municipal Swimming Pool (Delaware County, NY) – Purchase and install pool lift to comply with ADA revised requirements. Grant award: $6,900
• Franklin Community Educational Foundation (Delaware County, NY) – Send students to the American Museum of Modern History in New York City. Grant award: $3,715
• Town and Village of Sidney (Delaware County, NY) – To develop a regional ambulance service. Grant award: $25,000
• Richmondville Volunteer Fire Project (Schoharie County, NY) – Emergency communication enhancement. Grant award: $23,717
• Summit Fire Department (Schoharie County, NY) – Help fund Summit Fire Department expansion. Grant award: $22,000
• Scho-Wright Ambulance Service (Schoharie County, NY) – Purchase Power Load system for Ambulance. Grant award: $25,000

“The Story of Change,” Climate Change, and PVC-Free Schools

Two great new pieces of activist reporting came out last week, and both dovetail perfectly with our work to get PVC, the poison plastic (a k a vinyl), out of NYC schools. Check them out!

More than half of the United States is currently in drought

“Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” a feature article in Rolling Stone by Bill McKibben, lays out three numbers that may well define the future of our planet: how much warmer we can “safely” allow the climate to get; how much carbon we can burn without going over; and how much carbon is currently planning to be burned by the oil and gas industry. (Hint: that last one is about five times larger than the second one.)

McKibben’s frightening conclusion is that unless the international community (i.e. we) demands that Exxon, Chesapeake, and the other oil, gas, and coal giants keep about 80% of their current reserves in the ground, unused, uncontrollable climate destabilization is inevitable. Problem is, that would mean about $20 trillion in losses for these companies, giving them roughly unlimited financial (if not human) incentive to block legislation forcing them to do it.

In short, we have our work cut out for us. Enter the latest installment from Story of Stuff Project:

The animated web-comic “The Story of Change” by Annie Leonard and her team takes viewers through a six-and-a-half minute tour of how citizens can bring about the environmentally sustainable, people-centered, non-toxic, socially equitable economy that we want.

Her prescription? [Big idea] + [people] + [action] = CHANGE. It’s a convincing argument, and one that we’ll need to take to heart if we’re going to keep the fossil fuel industry’s equation from stealing the future.

So what’s the connection to PVC-free schools for New York City?

Dow Chemicals Vinyl Plant in Freeport, TX.Photo: Greenpeace USA 2011

First, it can save energy.

The vinyl 3-ring binders, floor tiles, and examination gloves found throughout the NYC school system don’t just release harmful toxins into the air. They also take enormous amounts of energy to produce. PVC plastic is made up of about 40% chlorine, and chlorine production is one of the most energy intensive (not to mention dangerous) industrial processes in the world. According to Joe Thornton, PhD, of the Healthy Building Network, “Chlorine production for PVC consumes an estimated 47 billion kilowatt hours per year — equivalent to the annual total output of eight medium-sized nuclear power plants.”

By spending its multi-million dollar purchasing budget on safer, cost-effective alternatives to PVC, the NYC school system can better protect its students, teachers, and staff, and help drive producers away from this costly, energy-intensive material.

Second, we’re using a big idea, building people power, and taking action!

We’re bringing together parents, teachers, students, doctors, environmental justice activists, labor unions, and more to stand behind a clear message: PVC is the wrong choice for NYC school supplies and construction materials. Click here to join the effort!

Know Nukes Y’All Summit

Learn about all aspects of nuclear energy and network with activists by attending the Know Nukes Y’All Summit in Chattanooga, TN from June 28th to 30th.  National experts, such as David Freeman and Dave Lochbaum, will be speaking at this Southern regional grassroots gathering.  The event is sponsored by 15 national and regional groups.  To register ($40 including meals), go to knownukesyallsummit.org or call 828-252-8409.

Newspapers Get Support In Fighting Fracking Secrecy

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Observer-Reporter are seeking to overturn a court order sealing the record in a case in which a Pennsylvania family sued several gas companies over health impacts related to air and water pollution from nearby natural gas development operations. The companies are fighting to keep the records out of the public eye.

Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Dr. Walter Tsou, Dr. Jerome A. Paulson, Dr. William Rom, Dr. Mehernosh P. Khan, Dr. Sandra Steingraber, Dr. Simona Perry, Dr. Robert Oswald, Dr. Michelle Bamberger, Kathryn Vennie, and Earthworks—filed an amicus brief (PDF) today supporting the newspapers. The newspapers also filed briefs in the case today. More . . .

Fracking Rally in Washington, DC 7/28

The “Stop the Frack Attack,” rally will bring thousands to the nation’s capitol to demand greater government responsibility and corporate accountability for harm that existing oil and gas development causes. This event will be the largest of its kind and will take place in on the West Lawn of the United States Capitol, Washington, DC from 10am to 2pm on July 28th, 2012.

For more information and list of endorsing organizations and members of the citizen-based advisory council, please visit www.stopthefrackattack.org

Fracking Jobs Overestimated

The huge discoveries of natural gas and oil just starting to be tapped in eastern Ohio are expected to generate jobs — but only a fraction of the number that the industry forecasts, according to a report led by an Ohio State University professor.

The study predicts that the boom in drilling will lead to 20,000 new jobs over the next several years, far fewer than the 200,000 that the industry has predicted will come from drilling in shale formations for oil and gas. The 20,000 jobs would be those created both directly and indirectly from drilling.