Skip to main content

Big Oil has a stranglehold on North Dakota's Agriculture commission. Oil drilling permits are currently controlled by three republican shills who make up the three member agriculture commission.

35,000 new oil wells over the next 15 years is the plan for North Dakota. A plan with zero resistance from the "deciders" in charge.

 In 2013:

 • there were 153 pipeline leaks

 • with 291 other reported oil spills

  Also:

 • Nearly 300 Oil Spills Went Unreported In North Dakota In Less Than Two Years

 • radioactive oil waste sites

 • Oil flares spewing toxic chemicals that can be seen from outer space

 • vital bodies of water threatened

Ed Schultz has a report in this video report (apologize that I am unable to embed the player platform HTML) introducing Ryan Taylor (D), a 4th generation North Dakota rancher running against one of the three RWNJ Big Oil shills on the commission, Doug Goehring (R)

So although Reuters is reporting that this is all about oil, this race is about something deeper - imo - it is about the land, not just about the short term Oil Boom.

Will we be able to stop Big Oil from buying control and sucking the life out of this land, leaving it poisoned for many generations to come, maybe irreparably, or will there be a future?

This:
 

A gas flare is seen at an oil well site on July 26, 2013 outside Williston, North Dakota. Gas flares are created when excess flammable gases are released by pressure release valves during the drilling for oil and natural gas. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)
wasteland
Or this:
beauty

Some more pictures of the destruction North Dakota

Note: I don't Know much about Ryan Taylor but what I have recently read in these few links/reports. If he wins there will still be a 2/3rds RWNJ Big Oil majority on the commission, but at least there will be a voice that can speak out against the free for all destruction that's happening now; a voice for much needed regulation

Here is Ryan Taylors website for those who would like to support his candidacy

Thx for stopping by :)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S. If we regular Daily Kos members could embed MSNBC videos with the newer  'player platform', in fact every different kind of video embeds, we'd all be happier - okay.. I'd be happier, and it would be fun and cool too - imo - un- subtle hint, hint, hint :)

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, they will. A recent article explains how (5+ / 0-)

    fossil fuel companies are spending good money after bad.  Basically, "the low hanging fruit has been picked & the costs are ratcheting up".

    As fossil fuels become more costly to locate and extract (because the easy pickings have already been used), the companies will start trying to lower costs where possible, even if their decisions threaten public safety.  We definitely need more regulation to protect our health and water supply, which is becoming more scarce due to climate change (from dirty fossil fuels).

    Canada has a proposal to store nuclear waste on the shores of the Great Lakes, which holds 21% of the planet's fresh water!  Here's a great article from David Suzuki about how crazy the debate has become...

  •  Y:ou said: (0+ / 0-)
    • Oil flares spewing toxic chemicals that can be seen from outer space
    Those are not 'oil flares' and saying that such flares spew toxic chemicals is not correct as that is not the purpose of the flare.

    No oil is burned in these flares at all.  The flares are used to burn waste gases produced incidentally to liquid hydrocarbon reduction.   The reason that no oil in burned in these flares is that a device called a 'knock-out' pot is typically installed to remove all liquid aerosols from the gas flowing in the closed vent manifold system leading to the flare.   If a 'knock out' pot is not used then the flare would be very smoky and will not likely comply with state visible emission rules (opacity).

    Flares do not spew toxic chemicals to the air.  The flare is there to control hydrocarbons, hazardous air pollutants and volatile organic compound process related emissions by open air combustion for the most basic flare types.

    EPA generally considers hydrocarbon combustion efficiency for flares at a 98% control factor.  However, research in Canada shows that certain elevated wind conditions can lower the control efficiency far below that for an unenclosed open air flare.   There are different kinds of flare equipment that can most likely achieve a high level of control, and this has been a recent matter of dispute at time in some air quality permitting actions.

    •  Thanks for this explanation, LS. (0+ / 0-)

      In my area (south Louisiana) we are used to seeing these, but visitors are not. This will help me explain. There is enough to worry about without worrying about the flares. To me, they are just the visible indicators of the really bad stuff.

      The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right. Mark Twain

      by BlueMississippi on Wed Jul 23, 2014 at 07:54:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When you see a refinery with all of the site (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueMississippi

        flares going intensely and generating large amounts of smoky particulate matter, that usually means that the plant has lost electrical power and the flare operation in that circumstance automatically occurs for safety purposes.  

        When there is no electrical power that will frequently mean no power for pumps and compressors, which in turn means that gases are present in the process equipment that have to be directed out of that equipment to avoid explosions.   The entire idea with combustible gas flow is to maintain the speed of forward flow through gas conveyance systems at a forward speed that exceeds the flame propagation velocity rate for a given composition of process gas.

    •  Not really the focus of the post but here is.. (0+ / 0-)

      ..some info on a wide variety of volatile organic compounds (VOC): benzene. toluene and many other compounds known to cause cancer and other serious illnesses from The Weather Channel | Inside Climate News | The Center for Public Integrity  

      Big Oil, Bad Air & Earthquakes

      •  If you don't operate flare control for waste (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlueMississippi

        gases, then you have uncontrolled release of the process generation of those, hazardous air pollutants, volatile organic compounds, ethane and methane contained in the process gases.

        If the flare achieves good combustion there is minimal particle emissions and high levels of destruction efficiency for the hydrocarbon compounds contained in the gases.

        For purposes of carcinogenic risks from oil/gas emissions from extraction operations, benzene and ethylbenzene will  have the highest carcinogenic risk-potency for airborne exposures expected from oil/gas production operations.....and that is why it is important to combust these emissions in flares for emission control purposes.  

        Substances contained in formulations of hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into wells (apart from diesel which is infrequently used) do not cause or contribute to any significant amount of atmospheric emissions from extraction sites, even if they are contained in produced water.  

        Toluene is not a carcinogenic compound.

        •  "If you don't . . . . " (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlueMississippi

          So -- what you are saying is if gas is flared off CORRECTLY, the release of hazardous air pollutants is minimized.

          And that, my friend, is the problem.  What proof do you have that the companies doing the flaring are doing so in accordance with best practices?

          The whole point is that what's going on in ND is not very well regulated.  Complying with regulations costs money and the energy companies are not in business to comply with regulations -- they are in business to make money and anything they can do to minimize costs makes them more money.  

          I suspect any serious inspections of wells, waste treatment, flaring and the like in ND would find most operations are spewing lots and lots of poison into the air, soil, and water.

          The fact that the ND energy boom is being overseen by a commission comprised of three Republicans tells me that regulations about air, soil, and water protection went out the window long ago.

          •  Whether flaring achieves good combustion depends (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlueMississippi

            on site specific conditions and operations, and the type of flare used.   The most common type of flare equipment in use will not maintain 98% hydrocarbon control under all wind conditions.   Other flare technology that is available will have less problem with high winds, but the application and use of more advanced flares isn't commonly done in the U.S.

            There are other issues, such as ensuring a pilot flame or continuous igniter is available to ensure the flare is always lit.

            What best management practices are used and/or required depends on air permitting requirements that vary from state to state, and on EPA's rules covering flaring from the oil and gas extraction sector.   The only element of all this that guarantees specific environmental control elements, such as flare BMPs, will be contained in air permits and air pollution control rules that are in effect for the area in question.   For North Dakota, there are state rules in effect and EPA has promulgated oil/gas extraction emission control rule requirements on the Fort Berkhold Indian Nation lands.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site