Every article I read about this topic focuses on 3 things; strippers, housing shortages and ..strippers (I'm only half joking). I get the idea of writing an article that will attract clicks and views but I'd like to read more articles that focus on why we're drilling for gas here and what it means for the country in the long term.
Boom towns are full of all kinds of awful, I would imagine many similar articles were written about the gold rush and other mass movements of workers but that situation is only temporary and in the grand scheme of things not very important.
Does America want to be an energy producer? If not are we willing to do business with countries that do, that might also have problems with Americans? Also, ss this the kind of energy America wants to produce?
To me it boils down to national security (or terrorism if you must) and prices. Having the security of energy in your backyard comes with tradeoffs. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but could we all stop focusing on the strip clubs and instead look at the bigger picture?
Alternately, we are more secure as a nation state because oil is a global market. Then, as countries become more reliant on each other for crude, revenue, and finished petroleum products they are less likely to upset the balance. Additionally, in 2012, we imported ~40% of our oil (lowest it's been in a long time), and our biggest import country, by far, is Canada. Here's an EIA link: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6
Terrorism can be a problem of course, but I would be more concerned about the grid than our access to oil.
"countries become more reliant on each other for crude"
If the country that is selling you oil/energy is doing bad things this reliant nature of our relationship also ties our hands when it comes to calling them on their shit. See the Ukraine or pretty much any geo-political matter.
Isolationism isn't the only solution, but inter-dependance has it's own drawbacks.
There was a coal boom on the high plains about 1980. Rock Springs, Wyoming, had been nothing much to notice a few years earlier and suddenly was a boom town. Some very odd stuff happened about then. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Cantrell
It seems to me that it in part was the effect of the boom: the hot local economy drawing a lot of unattached young men with money, the local government expanding too rapidly for controls.
Very good comment. It also boils down to geopolitical economic power. If the US starts exporting LNG to Europe, that completely changes the power dynamic regarding Russia in general and Ukraine / Crimea in particular. Gazprom has always strived for a monopoly on European energy supplies, and the politicians in Brussels would rather not be dependent on one (somewhat abusive) supplier.
They (US & EU politicos) will talk big about climate change in public of course, but their strategy and calculations in private can go a very different direction.
I live in an apartment building in which heat is payed, so I can't be a data point there.
I'm 90% sure it's electric (As opposed to gas, which is quite common in the area, especially the more rural areas).
My sister however does live in an area where gas is common and they have a 1,000 gallon tank for it. It costs them about 4 times what they normally paid for it. What the cost is exactly, I'm not sure. I know it used to be cheap and what what it is now is really expensive.
That said, nearly every kilowatt of power that is actually sourced to ND is coal or hydro.
Also, I'm willing to pay for the cost of advancement away from oil. If my energy bill doubles because the majority of my power is wind, solar, hydro with support from nuclear and gas, then so be it. If I have to pay 6 dollars a gallon to keep the boom away from my home, it's a price I'd gladly pay.
I don't make insane money. I pull in about $44k in a place where a mid-range apartment costs $1,000 / month to rent. I'm not swimming in cash, but I'll make it all work if I can have the home I knew when I was a teenager back.
Much of western ND today has nothing in common with the western ND I grew up in. City populations are tripling, and they often aren't the people you want moving in next door. Violent crime is skyrocketing and stretched thin police departments can't keep up. Schools have trouble finding teachers because they can't offer a salary that matches the absurd cost of living in these cities.
I go back home a couple of times a year and driving through cities like Dickinson is an experience. It's barely recognizable. The roads weren't designed to handle the traffic they're seeing. The expansion these places are seeing is insane.
I'm glad I moved away before the oil boom, it isn't a place I would want to live today.
7.9% increase last year (10.9% increase the previous year) except for rape (which they seriously need to deal with by dropping the hammer on these people).
First, the culture of the state is being 'ruined'. One of the neatest thing about growing up in rural ND with roots in small towns is that your network of people automatically extends about 100 miles in any direction. Just last week I visited a town about 120 miles removed from my own home town and this conversation played out:
"Hi, I'm Tom Becker, I'm here to do X"
"Becker? Do you know Bill Becker?"
"I do! He's my cousin!"
And immediately everyone is totally disarmed and we have common ground even though we live half a state away. Everyone really does have no more than 1 or 2 social links separating everyone else in a region. Your last name is a really powerful device in a conversation with other people and it's really awesome to have that kind of link to a people in a country that otherwise is completely devoid of that and culture in general.
With the huge influx of people in north western ND, that is no longer true of that area. In fact, my 'regional social bubble' has been effectively cut to about 70% of it's original size because the people that live west of me aren't the same people that used to live west of me.
This brings me to my second problem: People don't want to, or literally cannot stay in their home towns.
It has become very, very expensive to live west of Glen Ullin, and if you are a woman, it has also become very dangerous. Renting in Dickinson costs comically huge amounts of money and if you happened to own a house in Williston, well your property tax has went up by a factor of four so sucks to be you if you can't pay that any more. If you want to purchase gas in Dickinson or any further west, you need to prepay for it, which is an idea that didn't exist in the region before all this, but again, crime has become an issue.
Somehow, Williston is still operating in the red because infrastructure costs money turns out and paying for all the public services required of a city that is growing at the rate it is is crippling, not to mention the police force is way understaffed because the kinds of people that are attracted to these kinds of jobs are also the kind of people that tend to commit a cocktail of felonies in a state where crime may have well used to not exist.
Meanwhile, despite all these problems, the state has decided to play super nice with the oil companies and reduce tax rates for them no less than twice since they've shown up for reasons I can't quite comprehend (again, Williston and other cities still operate in the red because of all of this.)
The existing infrastructure is going to total shit and the roads are incredibly dangerous, especially during the winter months. We have trains that are blowing up in cities 250 miles away for reasons that may or may not be caused by this boom. There are a dozen oil spills every month and the drinking water has become very questionable for cities that are in the Bakken region.
All this on top of what has been done to the environment proper. What used to be rolling plains is now a shitshow of wells and flares. Unlike coal mines, which are required to restore the prairie to a state that was equal to or better than how they found it, no such strict laws exist for oil companies, so guess what it's going to look like 30 years from now. I mean, you literally have coal companies like Great River displaying the state of their mines after restoration and bragging about how much better everything is after they leave with 'before, during, after' picture galleries. That will probably not exist in the oil company's PR portfolio.
Finally, the state was operating in the black before all this. We didn't need this at all. What the state should have said is something to the effect of,
"You can come and drill, but you will pay for everything you do. Any cost of anything, whether it be infrastructure, property taxes of existing citizens, expansion of emergency and civil services, eventual decommissioning costs, spills, accidents and problems and all their associated costs -- those costs are your's to take on, plus taxes. If you don't want to pay all that, then kindly consider your requests denied until a point where you are willing to actually pay for the hell you are about to unleash on the state."
That of course didn't happen, so now we are here. We have a third of the state converted to a total wasteland, their residents effectively told to 'deal with it', all for reasons that almost certainly come back to the almighty dollar that only a select few will actually ever see.
> One of the neatest thing about growing up in rural ND with roots in small towns is that your network of people automatically extends about 100 miles in any direction.
I guess that might be for you. I grew up on a reservation and knew people from other reservations, but I never had that social network you talk of. I did almost get my butt kicked in a small neighboring town, because I had my high school jacket on[1]. This quaint Mayberry stuff wasn't in my experience. I have noticed that the border towns[2] tended to be happy that we spent our money there and liked to raise funds by setting up checkpoints on the days welfare checks were distributed[3].
My perspective is that there are a lot of new people and some are good and some are bad. Its time to rediscover the folks around you. I’ve noticed that quite a few of the new arrivals are pretty nice people.
> This brings me to my second problem: People don't want to, or literally cannot stay in their home towns.
This is a big problem for any boom area (Hi, Silicon Valley folks). The state needs to get on the infrastructure a lot faster than it has been. All these superficial articles are not doing us any favors. God help us if we get another flood year. I can only imagine what the Army Corps of Engineers will screw up this time.
> We have trains that are blowing up in cities 250 miles away for reasons that may or may not be caused by this boom.
Talk to BNSF about deploying the newer railcars or start talking about pipelines[4].
> There are a dozen oil spills every month and the drinking water has become very questionable for cities that are in the Bakken region.
I would need to see stats and actual enviormental reports, not the fakery done in PA.
> Finally, the state was operating in the black before all this. We didn't need this at all.
Yes, we did. North Dakota was dying and nothing was bringing people back.
More importantly from my perspective, the tribe nearest the oil fields now has a source of money that the state cannot force into “social programs”. The casinos were a moral compromise and the draconian restriction of not being able to pay tribal members with the money as a dividend on a tribally run business was vicious. Besides, reservations were located in places that are not next to the bigger cities[5]. I don’t know what the state is charging for taxes[6], but the tribe is doing fine with its fees.
Better, most tribal members are making money for themselves and not stuck in welfare.
1) I’m white, my biological dad is a enrolled member of a tribe
2) bordering the reservation
3) Without public transit, poor people drive cars that often are not well maintained and often have safety violations
4) amazing about the billionare friend of POTUS that owns a railroad
5) when placing a population that could stage an uprising, it is best to keep it away from the “good folks”.
6) I understand it might be a bit more than Texas which could be a problem with Texas moving to fracking
I'm getting a little sick of the stripper articles. Can we please get an article talking about why the housing is still not adequate. It has mostly to do with sewage and not a lot of innovation in housing. If there ever was a place to experiment with rapid or innovative housing methods, its ND.
I went out to western North Dakota a couple weeks ago. I've been in Chicago during rush hour, but I've never experienced that type of traffic. It was unreal.
Williston has always been a shhole. I am getting a little sick of the "oh, it was such a nice town". I lived in a small town near there in the late 70's and it always had a dark side.
> The sudden abundance of natural gas has drastically reduced American energy bills while curbing greenhouse-gas emissions, since gas is cleaner than coal.
This is the key point worth acknowledging, in my opinion. It's difficult to maintain a balanced perspective when sources like these emphasize almost entirely positive effects and sources like OP emphasize almost entirely negative effects.
Lets be clear: Burning natural gas (CH4) still puts carbon into the atmosphere. It's true that natural gas put less "black carbon" and other things into the atmosphere. It's much more clean than coal. But it will still enhance the greenhouse effect that is warming the planet. It is still a fossil fuel.
If it's used as a drop-in replacement for dirtier sources, and doesn't stop any cleaner sources from being developed or used, isn't it a strict win?
Maybe switching to a somewhat cleaner source would slow down movement towards green sources, but it seems like using CH4 is an overall win given what it's a substitute for.
Natural Gas being deployed instead of solar or wind? Bad.
Natural Gas being deployed along side solar and wind? Best case.
One day the price of natural gas is going to rise again and people are going to be stuck with combined cycle natgas generators that are too expensive to run.
I wouldn't mind wind if we started protecting the birds. I'm fond of solar, but until wind power is less destructive, I don't see why we should deploy it anywhere but off the coasts.
Really? How many friggin house cats can kill eagles? Hawks? Hell, a goose can damn near kill a human much less a cat. How about you find a cite for super cat the eagle slayer.
That's got to be a damn big, atypical cat. Eagles take out foxes. Wind energy needs to address the problem it causes because it sure isn't good for the birds.
Raptors typically pounce on prey and kill it quickly. A bird on the ground (eating, say) that is surprised is far less lethal than a bird attacking. Like I said, though, probably not eagles.
I don't think you can find one bit of statistical evidence that cats kill more hawks than windmills. Windmills should be limited to places with no birds or be redesigned to not kill off the birds. Put them offshore.
Fine, the total bird death from cats is not a reason to give a pass to windmills for killing large birds that cats cannot kill. It is a "well, their meaner than me" argument.
Once you get a certain distance you out of a birds normal range. Migration patterns are easy to track and plan for.
I don't follow why "large birds that cats cannot kill" are obviously more valuable than small birds that cats can kill.
I agree that the effectiveness of the argument "cats kill more birds, so windmills can kill up to that amount" is quite limited - I wasn't the one who made that argument in the first place. It's effective only to the degree that it means if what we care about is reducing bird deaths, we might be able to make a bigger difference by looking at cats.
As it happens, though, I'm not convinced wind turbines do that much more harm than other methods of power generation. Mining for coal destroys habitat and generates pollution, &c... And wind turbines do not seem to kill all that many birds. The high end of estimates seems to be 600k (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-many-birds-do-w...) in the US. Per https://www.awea.org/Resources/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5059 the "total number of operating utility-scale wind turbines at the end of 2012" was more than 45,100. If we assume the (conservative) 600k is actually 1 million (even more conservative), that's just a little over 22 birds per turbine per year - most of which aren't the large birds you're concerned about. I've certainly no objection to considering flight paths when placing turbines, though.
97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic carbon emissions are the cause of very significant changes in our global climate. They probably also agree that it's an economic and social problem (as do I!), but they have no privileged perspective on that aspect of things (beyond an acceptance of scientific reality, which is unfortunately rarer than one might hope).
That's not actually true. There are plenty of atheist priests as it's a job just like any other. More to the point if you survey the worlds religions you don't actually find much consensus of any kind. Just ask a shinto priest how the world was created and compare that with the native Australia dream time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamtime Even more enlightening 'God' as a concept aka a supreme higher power does not even translate into every language.
Existence of god is largely a question of belief and faith, not scientifically verifiable data, and I suspect nearly all priests would agree to that as well.
Of course it doesn't, but how that consensus was reached is. New data indicating otherwise would eventually change minds in the scientific community, as it did then. But it starts with data, not belief, or political agendas.
I'm probably one of the very few in this community that has actually worked in Williston. Worked for the largest (worldwide) upstream service company for a couple years. I didn't see myself working in the industry while attending school, but I graduated at a bad time, job market wise. It was really interesting work, got to understand the industry better than most people who just read superficial information, and it paid off the student loads in little over a year. It probably would have required less if I didn't freely spend the money on toys and party (Work hard, party hard is the industry motto).
Williston is what I would consider to be the Wild West. Instead of horses, everyone has trucks. Heck, I had a company truck as well. And it is dirty. People always have a mouthful of chew. Last time I worked out there (2011), housing was expensive and in shortage. The major players at the time were in the process of building up man camps to circumvent this. For those who are unfortunate in not finding a place, you would sleep in a truck. There was this shower service that was started up this entrepreneurial kid; trailers that were outfitted with private shower stalls that were charged by an hour. It's definitely different than the pampered lifestyle one is used to.
Reading from the comments, some people have talked down the blue collar workers that work in this industry. Yes, they may not hold the same education as many of us, but they are some of the most down-to-earth, dependable, hard working people I have met. They are definitely more "real" than many of the people I've met in the city. This is the type of industry where you have to go in and prove yourself out of greenhorn status. Once you do that, you earn yourself great coworkers and friends. Otherwise you are going to have a bad time. You also need a thick skin and able to dish back, since this is the oil patch after all.
The two things that were good about Williston: Walmart (I know, I didn't appreciate Walmart unti l I lived in the inner West states. They are your only and best option you have) and the 24-hour diner nearby it.
> but they are some of the most down-to-earth, dependable, hard working people I have met. They are definitely more "real" than many of the people I've met in the city.
They also have managed to bring in a crime problem that didn't previously exist. As 'real' as they people may be, there is a larger portion of them that are prone to committing felonies it seems. That's the problem people have with them.
And it's not a function of population either. Looking at Fargo, Metro area population 220k~, we see a crime rate significantly lower than that of Williston and even Dickinson.
I am just giving an account of my experience. The company I worked for is proactive in screening hirees and current employees, so I've been surrounded by law-abiding individuals. Although what you say has truth to it, since it isn't hard to notice the troublemakers. One of the main issues, I think, is that there isn't much to do in these towns after a long day out in the field (You can work an insane amount of hours). Pretty much the only option of entertainment is going out to drink or.... strip clubs.
As for me, I used my downtime to rest up and count the days that I am rotated out of Williston.
I lived close to that area for a while and know people that have moved to North Dakota to work. They're coming right out of high school and immediately making tons of money. A lot of it is wasted on motorcycles, TVs, trucks, alcohol and drugs. The work itself can be very hard, taking a toll on even the youngest and strongest of them. It's put a strain on a lot of marriages as husbands have moved away to work leaving their wives and children behind in communities that can provide decent homes, schools and safety.
It's a difficult situation for me because I know a lot of people that rely on this work to support themselves and their families. Without oil, gas and coal many of these communities would collapse. At the same time, I know the effect this has on the environment and I support us moving towards cleaner, renewable energy sources. I don't have a solution for any of this, just a lot of empathy for everyone involved.
Most of the communities that existed before the oil boom would have been fine without it. Some small towns were slowly dying, but the major players and what was effectively their suburbs (South Heart's relationship with Dickinson for example) left the region stable.
For those that were slowly circling the drain of death, they've been handed a fate even worse.
Yes, heaven forbid some beefy blue collar workers make an honest living extracting useful resources from the ground.
No, let's all become Warby Parker wearing hipster app-developers in Brooklyn and SF.
I figured someone would take this tack (hipster warby parker bloggedy blog) in response to revulsion at this scene. But I agree with GP, it's gross and sounds like a living nightmare.
It's ridiculous to suggest that someone's statement to that effect is necessarily true for anyone else, particularly in a place as big as the USA. The economy varies widely between towns, let alone between states.
America is going to hell in plenty of ways... along with most of the rest of the world. This story isn't exactly a big contributor or indicator of those progressions, though.
Case in point, Texas (because of it's size) is #1 in almost every economic category. #1 per capita energy consumption but also #1 in green (wind) energy.
> Case in point, Texas (because of it's size) is #1 in almost every economic category.
Texas is neither the largest state by area (that's Alaska, Texas is #2) nor population (that's California, Texas is, again, #2). Nor is it #1 in most economic categories (e.g., by GDP California is #1 and Texas, again, #2 [1]; by GDP per capita, Texas is #19 -- #20 if DC is included as a "state" -- and Delaware -- or, if DC is included, DC -- is #1. [2])
> #1 per capita energy consumption
Size doesn't really justify being #1 in per capita anything, but then again, according to the US Dept. of Energy [3], Wyoming is #1 per capita energy consumption overall, and Texas is #6.
EDIT to add:
> but also #1 in green (wind) energy.
Texas is actually #1 in wind energy (probably not #1 in "green" energy, which normally means renewables; Texas has a very high ratio of wind to total renewables.)
Uhg, I should have chosen my words more carefully. Thanks for the reference links, and the point by point break down of my anecdotal comment (I love HNers...really)
If we take a breather, and look at the parent comment, it was about how large America is and how in this one area things might be very wrong, but many other areas of the US there are things that are going very right. The American dream is not tied completely to the drilling for gas in ND.
My point was not to debate the specific points (which is why I didn't provide reference URLs), only illustrate that the US is physically large, and has many different regional economies. Even contradicting economies within the same state. Your point about CA only reenforces this.
But I get it, CA is awesomely green in every way... great for them. I'm not fan of Texas but the shear size of the state and population means they have several economic "identities".
It's true. I live in Cleveland and I met a guy on public transit a couple years back that I struck up conversation with because he was wearing a cowboy hat and boots and was clearly out of his element. He told me he was in town for an oil conference and told me all about the Bakken region and the mad rush of companies looking to get a piece of the pie.
Essentially, once the oil basin was discovered, all the major US oil producers stormed the region and immediately began setting up shop. As a result, they also offered massive salaries for anyone willing to come up and work, especially young guys. He told me the major draw at first was truck drivers, who were making six-figures easily (side note: the roads in and out of town were decimated due to the amount of trucking passing through). Obviously the first ones to get established are going to get the most benefit from fracking the region, so it's easy to see why they offered such outrageous salaries.
Likewise, I remember him telling me about how there was absolutely nothing to do up there besides hit the bar, so that also pushes salaries higher.
I know software (and its wages) is the all-powerful blood of the Earth, according to HN, but don't be so skeptical of the power of supply and demand.
Boom towns are full of all kinds of awful, I would imagine many similar articles were written about the gold rush and other mass movements of workers but that situation is only temporary and in the grand scheme of things not very important.
Does America want to be an energy producer? If not are we willing to do business with countries that do, that might also have problems with Americans? Also, ss this the kind of energy America wants to produce?
To me it boils down to national security (or terrorism if you must) and prices. Having the security of energy in your backyard comes with tradeoffs. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but could we all stop focusing on the strip clubs and instead look at the bigger picture?