North Dakota Should Lead The Way In Regulating Fracking, But The Media Needs To Be Less Hysterical

Hydraulic fracturing is vital to North Dakota’s economy. Without fracking, oil production in North Dakota would be shut off like a light switch. The state government, which has grown the budget by over 125% over the last decade based on tax revenues from oil production, would have to slash the budget. The state’s economy would stagnate as investment and employers left.

Unfortunately, fracking is also very controversial due less to concerns over safety than the left’s desire to see oil production and use ended in America altogether. But there is legitimate need for oversight and regulation of fracking, and when the Grand Forks Herald calls for leadership on those issues to come from the state level, I agree. With the Obama administration fighting a war on oil at the national level, the state needs to take this issue into its own hands.

That being said, North Dakota shouldn’t allow itself to be bullied into regulating just for the sake of satisfying political whims. And it seems as though the folks at the Herald aren’t putting a lot of time into putting some of the more sensational environmental claims about fracking into context.

For instance, in the Herald editor Tom Dennis highlights several very scary-sounding concerns about fracking. Such as the number of oil waste pools that overflowed this last year:

Some 900 of these swimming-pool-sized pits now dot the western North Dakota landscape, and as the Great Plains Examiner recently recalled, 50 of them overflowed last spring.

Of course, last spring saw unprecedented amounts of precipitation and flooding in western North Dakota. That 50 of those 900 “swimming pools” of oil waste overflowed is just over a 5% failure rate. Given just how bad flooding was in this year, that sounds like a fairly sound success rate.

Dennis also mentions “radioactive waste” from fracking:

One new challenge should be tackled right away: radioactive waste. “The Williston Landfill has been using a Geiger counter, an instrument used to detect ionizing radiation, in order to determine if waste material — much of which is hauled in by oil companies- is radioactive,” the Williston Herald reported last week.

And due to high reads on the Geiger counter, “23 loads from multiple companies have been rejected by the land fill since June 2011.” North Dakota should take the lead in addressing this and other fracking-and-drilling issues.

Any time you use the word “radioactive” people get scared, but if you actually read the Williston Herald article you find out that the loads were just turned away as a precaution. Officials are having testing done to find out of the radioactive material is even dangerous, and what has been found in other areas where fracking is used is that the radiation is naturally-occurring (the same sort of radiation you’d find while digging a basement for a house) and not present at levels harmful to humans.

So yes, we’re talking about “radioactive waste.” But “radioactive” is a subjective term. Not all radioactivity is cause for concern. Unfortunately, Dennis did see fit to provide that context in his column.

That’s pretty irresponsible, and concerning in that the reporting on oil issues in the state from North Dakota’s largest media company – Forum Communications – is going to be based (inexplicably) out of Grand Forks by Herald publisher Mike Jacobs.

If this is the sort of misleading, hysterical commentary and reporting we can expect on oil issues from Forum Communications, it’s going to do a lot of harm.

Tags: , , , ,


«
»
  • borborygmi

    What happens when you take things out of context:    ”there is legitimate need for oversight and regulation of fracking, and when the Grand Forks Herald calls for leadership on those issues to come from the state level, I agree.”     Rob  you closet progressive.  The flinty veneer of anti Gov’t regulation is chipping away .    TSkTSkTSk  . 

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m a federalist.

      Do you know what federalism is?

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Of all people you should not be challenging people to define words, Rob.  (see post below)

        Unless the word “Federalist” means “dumb ass” to you, I doubt anyone takes you seriously when you make the claim.

      • borborygmi

        I thought you were a LIbertarian.    Federalism is the support of several gov’t entities working in cooperation with each other, the Federation being controlled by a central power in which the power is also divided.  Since you are for the least amount  of  Fed power I would think that you would deem yourself as a Confederate.  
             The Federalist Papers were predominantly written by Hamilton who was for a more powerful central gov’t , so much that He and Jefferson were at odds to each other .  Jefferson felt that Hamilton would be happy to have the country ruled by nobility.  

           If you would have read the first line “What happens when you take things out of context:”   I was just poking fun at how someone can take something out of context .

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          You’ve clearly been done a disservice by your history teachers.

          • borborygmi

            I will send you my book on Jefferson’s papers and the Federalist Papers if you would like or hey, type in Hamilton vs Jefferson in google and please read to your hearts content.
                 I had very good history teachers. I am wondering if you even listened to yours.

  • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

    Officials are having testing done to find out of [sic] the radioactive material is even dangerous,

    Hey, why measure the radioactivity at all, what’s the worst that could happen?

    So yes, we’re talking about “radioactive waste.” But “radioactive” is a
    subjective term. Not all radioactivity is cause for concern.

    No!  The word “radioactive” is not subjective.  It’s either radioactive or it’s not.  You can’t articulate what you seem to suggest, that not all “radioactive waste” is harmful and therefore, the words “radioactive waste” is subjective.

    ra·di·o·ac·tive  (rd–ktv)adj.1. Of, exhibiting, or caused by radioactivity.

    • Camsaure

      It should be no more dangerous then the levels of radon you are recieving from living in your mothers basement………Oh wait….maybe we do need to check closer, look what has happened to you.

    • Anonymous

      Did you know that your low sodium table salt is radioactive?

  • Guest

    The only media that get’s hysterical is Rob

  • Anonymous

    Know what else sets off radiation meters?  Potassium chloride…..  Don’t they use salt water in fracking?

    • Eric Nelson

      are you trying to discredit radioactivity?

      • Anonymous

        if discredit is due…..

  • http://www.fakeoakleysunglasses4u.net/ oakleys

    HUJLKUADAXWM
    Welcome to Oakley Sunglasses Hut to buy cool and cheap oakleys sunglasses.

  • Wesley Fargo

    So what does the 900 reserve pits have to do with fracking? This is a red-herring that should be shut down ASAP.  The swimming pool size reserve pits are water pits used for the drilling process, it contains water, drilling mud, and the tailings of the ground up rock that comes up the drilling column and has to go somewhere.  These pits are so called dangerous only when other things get dumped in the pits like waste oil and cleaning solvents. 

     But they are there, and a dead bird in one poses a nice picture.  Many of the newer drilling rigs are going to a closed circuit, which uses tanks for the water and then big steel boxes for the rock and shale tailings which are ether buried on the site or hauled to a landfill designed for that purpose (more trucks on the road).  

    The fracking scare is about fake as anything the global warming tree huggers can come up with.  The furthest cracking of the shale reserve is at most 200 feet in a horizontal direction from the 5000 foot horizontal well bore. this is under a mile of overlaid rock. If I told you I was going to set off a explosive charge but you would be separated from that charge by a 5000 foot thick concrete wall would you be worried?  

     As I have said many times follow the money:  Who stands to gain if fracking could be banned?  Perhaps: The OPEC countries, Canada, China, anyone that wants our country weakened. and OH yes, all those companies pieing for the green energy grants and dollars. For unless the price of gas and oil is so high their pie in the sky projects cannot be economically  feasible.

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development