Chronicling the Bureau of Land Management's Methane Hearings: Part IV

IV. 3/3: Dickinson, North Dakota

The final public hearing on BLM's proposed methane standard concluded in the proverbial “belly of the beast,” with the event taking place in Dickinson, North Dakota, one of the fastest-growing small cities in the country, at the Astoria Hotel and Event Center.

More than 200 people packed the forum to voice their opinions, with a clear split between supporters and opponents of BLM's proposed venting and flaring rules. An estimated 70-100 people came to testify in support of BLM's rules in Dickinson, outnumbering by three-to-one those speaking in opposition.

The new rule would require that by the first year of its implementation, a well would be limited to venting 7.2 million cubic feet of gas per month. By the second year, it would decrease to 3.6 million cubic feet, and from the third year on it would be limited to less than 1.8 million cubic feet.

The BLM is presenting an honest forum for debate on both sides. “We've proposed some ideas we want to hear how they feel that would impact them on the ground and if what we are proposing isn't something they feel is appropriate we like to hear what they recommend," said Al Nash, BLM Montana-Dakotas.

Yet in another press interview, Nash seemed to express his support from the positions of the oil and gas industry.

“Our goal here is to sort of set up the idea that we're proposing a rule change...But most importantly, we're here to listen to the people of the Bakken.”

Alternative limits would be allowed for leases issued before the rule’s effective date, as well as for operators deemed susceptible to ceasing production under the rule. A two-year exemption would also be granted under certain outlined factors of inconvenience in capturing and transporting natural gas. Wells would also be routinely inspected for leaks and operators would have to repair leaks within 15 days.

The BLM estimates the net benefits from its measures could be from $115 million to $188 million, with $9 million to $11 million in additional royalties. It also estimates operator costs would be from $27,000 to $36,000 per year, not including captured gas profits, and flared, leaked and vented methane would be reduced between 164,000 and 169,000 tons.

Oil industry leaders from across the state maintain their position of the Flickertail State as having the most complex and comprehensive emissions capture rulings of any state, yet the BLM wants more in the form of specific volume per well catalogued.

The ruling was lauded by environmentalists and some state landowners who feel the harmful effects of profligate gas emissions daily, and are outraged and gravely concerned that it continues.

“When you live in an area that's surrounded by flaring, and all the oil infrastructure, you not only see it visably, but you can smell it”, says Joletta BirdBear, a resident of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation of the Arikara, Hidatsa, and Mandan nations.

After reading of nine oil workers being killed by petroleum gases, three of whom were in North Dakota, she demanded the leaky wells on the reservation be fixed and monitored.

“I want BLM to know that tribal mineral owners like myself value safe and clean air on Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,” Bird Bear said.

Todd Leake of the Sierra Club’s Dacotah Chapter echoes these words, saying “ Flaring and excess gas leaks are a waste of revenue. The royalty owner, they're not getting the royalties from the lease, but that's also a lot of the state agencies, government, school districts, fire districts are not getting the revenue as well from this.”

Vicky Steiner (R), District 37 representative from Dickinson and executive director of the North Dakota Association of Oil and Gas Producing Counties , argued that the new methane rulings would result in a major slash in jobs and economic prosperity, as she and her family are employed by the oil industry.

Asking for a six-month extension on the April 8public comment deadline in order to garner more input from both the general public and the industry itself, Steiner told the Bureau of Land Management, “Your agency will be making a sweeping change that impacts the economics of my legislative district, and I ask you to gather more data,” she said.

While environmental advocates and Native American citizens will cheer at the proposal’s likelihood of decreasing gas and oil production by enough percentage points (20, to be exact) to be deemed economically unfeasible, people like Steiner and Tessa Sandstrom of the North Dakota Petroleum Council will undoubtedly criticize the agency for not listening to the needs of locals stuck in the employment dilemma of destroying their surrounding environment to earn a living.

Conclusion:

April 8 will prove to be one of the key environmental results of the year, with impacts hitting heavily on both sides of the argument. Ultimately, neither side will ever be completely satisfied, so long as the current binds and grinds of capitalism and extraction demands continue.