The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

Lately, we have been hearing a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the negative affect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken oil field in North Dakota.

The Bakken Shale: Fracking in North Dakota

We have heard a lot about the Dakota Access Pipeline, mostly about the over the effect it will have on the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, but most people don’t know anything about its relationship to the Bakken Oil Field in North Dakota.  It is important to understand the relationship between the two.

For the past several years, there has been an oil boom happening in the state of North Dakota.  This oil boom is because of oil that was discovered in what is called the Bakken Shale, or the Bakken Shale formation.  The Bakken Shale formation is a large deposit of shale containing oil that is in eastern Shale Montana, Western North Dakota, and part of Saskatchewan, in Canada.

Even though the so-called Bakken oil boom has the potential to create jobs and puts more revenue into the economy of North Dakota, it also poses a significant threat to the environment of that region.  To mention that the oil produced in the Bakken Shale formation will create a necessity to lay a pipeline to help transportation of this oil to where it can be refined into different products.  The Dakota Access Pipeline is being built to carriers oil from the Bakken Shale Formation.

As we know, this pipeline threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, and other people living in that particular region because it will be necessary to build this pipeline under the Missouri River, upon which many depend on for their water supply.  Also, this pipeline will also pose a threat to the underground aquifer that is also the supply of a significant amount of water to this region.

To produce oil from the Bakken Shale, it will be necessary for the oil companies to use the controversial and environmentally dangerous technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or just known as fracking.

There has been a huge controversy over fracking, to the point where it has been banned in a couple of states and is the source of large-scale protest across the nation.

Fracking has proven itself to be harmful because it requires the consumption of massive quantities of water and the use of many toxic chemicals, which are pumped underground to force oil from the Bakken Shale.  The use of fracking is a major reason that environmentalists are opposed to further development of the Bakken oil field.

At a time when our nation is trying to end its dependency on fossil fuels, such as petroleum and coal, further developing the Bakken oil field flies in the face of our need to divorce ourselves from fossil fuels.

 

THE DEATH OF THE BAKKEN FIELD HAS BEGUN: Big Trouble For …

Sep 17, 2016 Rune Likvern of Fractional Flow has done a wonderful job providing data on the Bakken Shale Oil Field. Here is his excellent chart showing the …
Bakken Shale News, Wells, Formation, Markets and Resources: Oil …

Bakken Shale Image The Bakken shale is primarily an oil play. It straddles the US border with Canada and runs through two states – North Dakota and Montana …

 

Veterans Stand in Solidarity With Dakota Access Pipeline Protest

Most of the A group of U.S. military veterans has vowed to block the completion of the hotly disputed Dakota Access pipeline.

Source: Standing Rock: Dakota Access battle brews as US veterans, Sioux dig in

Veterans Stand in Solidarity With Dakota Access Pipeline Protest

A group of military veterans, named Veterans Stand,  is standing in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux, in their fight against the Dakota Access Pipeline.  The organization, known as Veterans Stand, is vowing to help the Standing Rock Sioux defend their tribal lands against the incursion of Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the builders of the very controversial pipeline which threatens the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.

A couple of days ago, The Secretary of the Army granted the necessary easement to ETP so that they could continue building the Dakota Access Pipeline.  As if no one would notice, the secretary of the Army does not have the power or authority to order the US Army Corps of Engineers to do anything.  Previously, the US Army Corps of Engineers suggested that the route of the Dakota Access Pipeline could easily be rerouted to avoid going near the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.

Before, when President Obama was still in power, ETP was denied the easement the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  At first, people thought that they had won their struggle against the pipeline.  However, all of that changed when Donald Trump became president. President Trump has reopened this entire mess.

Last week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, saying that the Dakota Access Pipeline will continue to be built.  President Trump is guilty of a direct conflict of interest because it has been shown that Donald Trump owns a financial investment in ETP. This is one detail that the media has unfortunately failed to mention. If he had anything resembling a set of ethics, he would recuse himself from being involved. Even though spokespeople for the Trump administration say that he has divested himself of any interest in the pipeline, there is no proof of any divestment on the part of the POTUS.

I wish Veterans Stand all the best in their efforts to save the water supply of the Standing Rock Sioux.  Veterans Stand has established a GoFundMe page at the following link.  Please contribute!

 

Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 14, 2016 The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline continues to make headlines. Yesterday, Energy Transfer Partners, the developer behind the $3.8 …

Dakota Access Pipeline : NPR

Army Says It Is Expediting Review Of Dakota Access Pipeline Route. Protesters rally … Dakota Access Pipeline Foes: We Aren’t Done Fighting Yet. Hundreds of …

 

 

Could the Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump?

President Barack Obama’s administration is expected to push through long-delayed safety measures for the nation’s sprawling network of oil pipelines in its final days, despite resistanc…

Source: Obama oil pipeline rules face uncertain future under Trump

 

Could The Dakota Access Pipeline Still Happen Under Trump?

During the last days of his presidency, President Barack Obama is trying valiantly to pass legislation that would increase oversight over this country’s system of oil pipelines. Included in these pieces of legislation is the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Recently, the president refused to grant an easement to Energy Transfer Partners (ETP), the company that is trying to build the pipeline.  President Obama, in one of the best decisions made during his presidency, killed the potentially hazardous Keystone XL pipeline earlier this year.

As you probably know, opponents of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline one day major victory when the federal government denied the necessary easement for Energy Transport Partners (ETP) to continue building the pipeline. For now, ETP is stuck in the mud, unless incoming President Trump decides to pull them out, even if by trickery, deception, or just plain lawbreaking.

With a new administration coming into power, I hope people aren’t celebrating victory over the Dakota Access Pipeline too early so that they let their guard down. I don’t trust Donald Trump on anything, especially something done by President Obama. Trump has never shown himself to be a fan of government regulation, unless he benefits from it. He is your typical Republican businessman.

Even though federal oversight and regulation over this nation’s ever-increasing system of oil pipelines should have been years ago, I applaud President Obama’s efforts to protect our environment. There have been an increased number of accidental spills on these pipelines for the past several years, so increase regulation is necessary. The big question is, will Donald Trump derail this regulation and oversight?

 

Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 14, 2016 The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline continues to make headlines. Yesterday, Energy Transfer Partners, the developer behind the $3.8 …
North Dakota Oil Pipeline Battle: Who’s Fighting and Why – The New …

Aug 26, 2016 A look at how the fight over the Dakota Access pipeline has become an environmental and cultural flash point, drawing thousands of protesters …

 

New Interior Secretary, Cathy McMorris Rodgers: An Environmental Disaster

Uh-oh.

Source: Donald Trump’s interior secretary pick doesn’t want to combat climate change

New Interior Secretary, Cathy McMorris Rodgers: An Environmental Disaster

Cathy McMorris RodgersIn case any of you are naïve enough to think that the Trump administration will do anything to combat climate change, you are very wrong. His appointment of Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) as the new Secretary of the Interior implies that our environment will probably get worse, not better.

Any environmental activist will tell you that Cathy McMorris Rodgers is probably one of the biggest climate change deniers in Congress. From what I’ve read, Donald Trump could not have made a worse choice for the cabinet-level position of the person who is supposed to protect our environment. I cannot see this particular person doing anything to protect anyone except the industrialists who make a profit by raping the environment.

Here are just a few of the things that Cathy McMorris Rodgers has said and done that shows that she will probably do very little to protect the environment or fight against climate change.

  • Is quoted as saying, “we believe Al Gore deserves an F in science an A in creative writing.”
  • Was praised by the Americans For Prosperity, a Koch brothers-backed super PAC for opposing a cap-and-trade carbon pricing system for reducing emissions.
  • Voted three times against a resolution acknowledging that “climate change is happening human beings are a major reason for it.”
  • Cosponsored a House bill to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions.
  • Voted against letting the interior secretary consider climate change when setting policy.
  • McMorris Rodgers has a 4% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV)

Considering this list of negative “accomplishments” attributed to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, she is hardly the person who should be in charge of protecting our environment. She has already shown herself to be biased against climate change; something that I consider to be one of the worst problems confronting our planet. Climate change is an issue that has already started affecting people’s lives in a negative way.

There is no way that I will ever believe that it is a coincidence that our air is getting increasingly more polluted, we are experiencing droughts in parts of the world that have never been prone to droughts, and places like Alaska have experienced heat waves. It has been proven that our planet is getting warmer, and 97% of the scientific community attributes climate change to human activity.

Having someone who is so obviously biased against, or who is unwilling to consider these points are valid is hardly someone we need as Secretary of the Interior.

 

Trump to pick Rep. McMorris Rodgers for Interior secretary | TheHill

3 days ago Tags Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Donald Trump, Susan Brooks, Sally Jewell, Diane Black, Paul Ryan. Please enable JavaScript to view the …
Cathy McMorris-Rodgers: Republican Partisanship Instead of People

Partisanship instead of people: McMorris is a career politician who chose advancement in the Republican Party over jobs & healthcare for Eastern Washington.

 

UPDATE: A Small Victory for Activists Against the Dakota Access Pipeline

“It’s the first glimmer of hope, of good news, that we’ve had out here for weeks—months.”

Source: Activists say Dakota Access Pipeline could be put on hold for 30 days

A Small Victory for Activists Against the Dakota Access Pipeline

Activists who oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline, in North Dakota, have won a small but significant victory.  The US Army Corps of Engineers, the primary governing body for this controversial project have ordered a 30-day halt in any further construction of this potentially very harmful project that activists have opposed for years.

The activists, composed largely of members of The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and many other supporters have fought this project for years, saying that the current route of the Dakota Access Pipeline desecrates sacred tribal locations and burial grounds.  Most importantly, they also claim that the pipeline threatens their water supply because the present route of the pipeline is upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation.

So far, Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline hasn’t received the necessary easement that would allow it to dig under the Missouri River.  Col. John W.  Henderson from the US Army Corps of Engineers says he will wait thirty days to grant the easement.  President Obama stated that he would urge the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider the present route of the pipeline, rerouting it away from the Standing Rock tribe’s reservation to make sure that the tribe’s water supply not be put in danger.

Many people, especially activists, say that this delay will cost the company enough money to stop the project entirely and make it obsolete.  Energy Transfer Partners claims that they are only five days away from starting to dig under the Missouri River.  As one can imagine, stockholders and others who stand to make a profit from the building of this pipeline are not pleased.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that the activists give a damn about whether Energy Transfer Partners makes a profit.  I know I sure don’t!  Given that this oil that the Dakota Access Pipeline will transport has been under the earth’s surface for thousands of years already, it will be just fine, if he stays there forever.

UPDATE: Since this story was first written, the US Army Corps of Engineers has refused to grant the necessary easement to the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline. This means that the oil company will not be allowed to build the pipeline across the Standing Rock Sioux land, which will protect their water supply from potential harm.

Some people are questioning whether or not President-elect Donald Trump will allow the halting of the easement to happen.

However, this should be viewed as a major victory for not only the Standing Rock Sioux but for anyone who cares about protecting the environment. GOOD NEWS!

 

The Super Twisted History Of The Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 23, 2016 The Super Twisted History Of The Dakota Access Pipeline. “They’ve been using backdoor process to get the pipeline approved,” an activist …

The Obama Administration and the Bakken Oil Field

The Obama Administration And the Bakken Oil Field The environmental policy of the Obama administration has always been a mystery to me.  On the one hand, the president says that we must end our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, yet when it comes to controversial issues like …

 

A Small Victory for Activists Against the Dakota Access Pipeline

“It’s the first glimmer of hope, of good news, that we’ve had out here for weeks—months.”

Source: Activists say Dakota Access Pipeline could be put on hold for 30 days

A Small Victory for Activists Against the Dakota Access Pipeline

Activists who oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline, in North Dakota, have won a small but significant victory.  The US Army Corps of Engineers, the primary governing body for this controversial project have ordered a 30-day halt in any further construction of this potentially very harmful project that activists have opposed for years.

The activists, composed largely of members of The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and many other supporters have fought this project for years, saying that the current route of the Dakota Access Pipeline desecrates sacred tribal locations and burial grounds.  Most importantly, they also claim that the pipeline threatens their water supply because the present route of the pipeline is upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation.

So far, Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline hasn’t received the necessary easement that would allow it to dig under the Missouri River.  Col. John W.  Henderson from the US Army Corps of Engineers says he will wait thirty days to grant the easement.  President Obama stated that he would urge the Army Corps of Engineers to reconsider the present route of the pipeline, rerouting it away from the Standing Rock tribe’s reservation to make sure that the tribe’s water supply not be put in danger.

Many people, especially activists, say that this delay will cost the company enough money to stop the project entirely and make it obsolete.  Energy Transfer Partners claims that they are only five days away from starting to dig under the Missouri River.  As one can imagine, stockholders and others who stand to make a profit from the building of this pipeline are not pleased.

On the other hand, I seriously doubt that the activists give a damn about whether Energy Transfer Partners makes a profit.  I know I sure don’t!  Given that this oil that the Dakota Access Pipeline will transport has been under the earth’s surface for thousands of years already, it will be just fine, if he stays there forever.

 

The Super Twisted History Of The Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 23, 2016 The Super Twisted History Of The Dakota Access Pipeline. “They’ve been using backdoor process to get the pipeline approved,” an activist …
The Obama Administration and the Bakken Oil Field

The Obama Administration And the Bakken Oil Field The environmental policy of the Obama administration has always been a mystery to me.  On the one hand, the president says that we must end our dependency on fossil fuels, particularly oil and natural gas, yet when it comes to controversial issues like …

 

Dakota Access Pipeline: Threat to Native American Rights

The Dakota Access pipeline is the latest threat to Native American sovereignty that has happened in quite a while.

Dakota Access Pipeline: Threat to Native American Rights

dakota-access-pipelineThe Dakota Access Pipeline is the latest threat to Native American sovereignty that has happened in a while.  Unfortunately, the “mainstream media” has failed to give it much attention.  As usual, when they do give out any information about the Dakota Access Pipeline, the information comes out too late to do much good.  The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued a green light for construction of this controversial pipeline, and most members of the public have no idea that this injustice is happening.

The reason the Dakota Access Pipeline is a threat to Native American rights is that a significant part of this pipeline is built on Native American land owned by the Standing Rock Sioux tribe.  This pipeline, also known as the Bakken Oil Pipeline, threatens to destroy traditional tribal burial grounds and holy sites.  It is also a potential threat to the environment because The Standing Rock Sioux say that the construction of this pipeline will ruin their water supply.  In this aspect, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a direct threat to the environment of mouse right this region, in North Dakota.

dakota-access-pipeline_02It seems like the Great Sioux Nation, which is also threatened over the last few years, by the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, has had more of their fair share of threats to their Native American sovereignty than anyone deserves.

This just goes to show that corporate America, composed mostly of white men of European extraction, don’t give a damn about the rights of the Standing Rock Sioux or any other Native American tribe.  Once again, the words of the white government in Washington DC are meaningless.

 

Understanding the Controversy Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline …

Sep 14, 2016 The controversial Dakota Access Pipeline continues to make headlines. Yesterday, Energy Transfer Partners, the developer behind the $3.8 …
The big fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline, explained – The …

Sep 20, 2016 Last week, the federal government temporarily blocked construction of the 1,134 miles. Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) which was supposed to …

 

Related articles

Chalk One up for the Environment: Obama Finally Kills Keystone XL

The move follows months of widespread expectations that Obama would kill the pipeline.

Source: Obama rejects Keystone XL pipeline

Chalk One up for the Environment: Obama Finally Kills Keystone XL

 

I am very pleased that Pres. Barack Obama finally decided to kill the Keystone XL pipeline. By doing so, it guarantees that some of the most productive farmland and delicate ecosystems is protected against a potential disaster. For now, the Ogallala aquifer is safe from possible destruction.

This entire issue has been going on for way too long. Not being one who looks a gift horse in the mouth, I really don’t know why he didn’t do what many of us were hoping he would do a long time ago; oppose the Keystone XL pipeline.  Perhaps, Pres. Obama did not feel safe taking a position against the Keystone XL. Maybe, since he is now considered to be a “lame duck” president with only about a year left in office, Pres. Obama finally felt safe enough to take a solid position against the pipeline. For all we know, Pres. Barack Obama may have been against this very controversial project from the very start of his administration. Maybe one day, Pres. Obama will share this information with us, perhaps in his memoirs.

Pres. Barack Obama really did not say anything that many of us have known for quite a while; the Keystone XL pipeline did not serve the United States. If the president would have listened to most environmentalists, he probably would have been against the Keystone XL pipeline for quite a while.

I’m sure that the bigwigs at TransCanada is just about ready to jump out the window, but who really cares? I sure as hell don’t! As far as I’m concerned, this is a huge victory for those of us who consider ourselves to be environmentalists. Finally! Chalk one up for our side!

Environmentalists Cheer Keystone XL Pipeline Decision As ‘Decisive Moment’

NPR’s Kelly McEvers interviews environmentalist Bill McKibben, who founded 350.org, about why he’s celebrating Obama’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, even though the next president can reverse it.
Obama Rejects Keystone XL Oil Pipeline – Gizmodo

After seven years of political wrangling, President Obama has finally rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline, a proposed infrastructure project that would have carried 800000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian oil sands to …

More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens

More Dangers of Fracking: Two More Carcinogens

Fracking_hidden dangersTwo more chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) have been discovered to be carcinogenic, or causing cancer.  It is becoming increasingly obvious the dangers of fracking far outweigh its benefits.  Recently, two more chemicals used in fracking and been linked to cancer.  These two chemicals are ammonium and iodide.

Ammonium is produced from regular waste water and agriculture.  In other words, waste water from feedlots, which has become the primary method used in raising cattle, pigs, chickens, and just about every other form of livestock is the culprit for ammonium pollution.  Since it is a well-known fact that agribusiness is notorious for not disposing of feedlot waste water in a proper way, it’s very easy to see how ammonium is introduced into our ecosystem.

Iodide, on the other hand, is a chemical commonly used in water purification.  However, when iodide is combined with other chemicals, such as, bromide, fluoride, and chlorine, it can become harmful when introduced into the environment.  Both of these chemicals, ammonium and iodide in combination have been shown to cause cancer.  The environmental impact of fracking is showing itself to be dangerous enough to make the argument that banning fracking is necessary.

Info graphic that shows how fracking contaminates underground water.Other dangers of fracking are already well known.  Fracking is known to be a source of water contamination in groundwater.  I have an example of this groundwater contamination in my own family.  During the mid-eighties, there was a gas well about 200 yards from my parents home.  After the well was fracked , my father was forced to drill another water well because the existing well was unusable.

Another negative impact of fracking is how fracking also consumes huge quantities of water, which is combined with the chemicals used in fracking.  At a time when it’s been proven that our planet is running out of potable water, using any process which consumes huge amounts of water is unacceptable.

In dry states, like California, Arizona, and other deserts states fracking wastes huge quantities of water, which is already in short supply, because this part of the country has been suffering from a drought for nearly 3 years.  We can ill afford to waste water because we need to irrigate in order to grow the necessary fruit and vegetables for the population of this country.

The way I look it, feeding people is far more important than extracting natural gas, especially when the chemicals used in this process have been proven to be highly toxic.  Not to mention the disastrous effects if these chemicals contaminate existing groundwater.

Fracking should be banned immediately.
.