‘Times’ for an oil change

Our opinion/ The New York Times’ “Downside of the Boom” provides an alarming wake up call to ND.

This week’s New York Times release of an exhaustive, nine month investigative look at the oil boom and its effects in North Dakota should be a wakeup call to state citizens. Quickly dismissed by state oil-boom cheerleaders, the two-part report, “The Downside of the Boom,” provides alarming, thorough detail about concerns raised by those who are willing to confront the good as well as the bad in the boom.

Some of us aren’t content with having the “largest-producing Cinnabon anywhere in the world” in Williston as a result of the boom, as Ron Ness of the North Dakota Petroleum Council told the Times. Some of us are more concerned that North Dakota has less regulations and oversight than states like Texas, which produces tons of oil and is not exactly a liberal oasis.

For one of the nation’s top newspapers, with millions of readers, to devote this many resources to this story is significant. To ignore its shocking findings (more exhaustive than any newspapers in the state has discovered) on regulation, environmental and oversight issues would be akin to putting our heads in the sand. These issues will rise to the surface as they have in the past, such as in 2011, while oil spills became commonplace across the state, resulting in more public reporting than had been done to that point.

It is a bit disconcerting that the oil boom’s chief cheerleader and top regulator, Governor Jack Dalrymple, chairman of the ND Industrial Commission, did not give an interview to the New York Times and only released written statements on its findings. Sure, he may not agree with their conclusions, but why not offer your side of the story? What are you afraid of?

As we near a very important legislative session in 2015, where many of the past mistakes on oil boom oversight can be corrected, there are a number of things exposed in the New York Times’ article we believe should be approached or considered.

For one, oil and gas regulators in North Dakota must take a cooperative path toward oversight and choose to work collaboratively with the industry on these matters rather than punitively. The result is that heavy fines often get reduced to slaps on the wrist as time goes on. Penalties are not the norm, they are rarity.

Yet for all its talk of success, the numbers aren’t getting better; they are getting worse. One environmental incident for every 11 wells in 2006, became one for every six in 2013 according to the paper. Companies reported 3.8 million gallons spilled through October of 2014, nearly as much as in 2011 and 2012 combined, the paper found.

And it is difficult to get accurate numbers because the state relies on companies to self-report them, many of whom underestimate or inaccurately report them initially.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission has also imposed its stiffest penalties on smaller companies, not on the larger ones. Continental Resources, one of the state’s largest producers, for instance, has reported more environmental incidents and a greater volume of spills than most other companies, yet is being fined less and less.

One case in point highlighted by the Times article is last fall’s oil spill in Tioga, now considered the largest on-land oil spill in recent American history. The company responsible for the spill, Tesoro Logistics, has yet to be fined for the incident. The potential cause for the spill is, according to initial reports, a hole in the pipeline from a lightning strike. However, the hole and 20,000 gallons of oil that flowed through it went undetected by the company for two months. That’s something that baffles even state regulators yet no fines have been levied to this point.

Of course, there are also matters such as the enormous political contributions a lot of the oil and gas companies’ contributors pay to members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, including the Governor, Attorney General and Ag Commissioner. In other states, the top regulators are appointed by the Governor; they are not actually the Governor. Call us crazy, but we think elected officials with direct oversight to these companies shouldn’t be receiving contributions from them. And it’s possible many of them would win re-election without it, so why put that level of smoke there?

There are also matters of land deals that benefit elected officials. When approving land ownership changes to mega unit ownership, anyone with direct benefit from the change should not be allowed to participate in any votes on the matter.

The North Dakota Industrial Commission is often nothing more than a rubber stamp to what the industry wants without much dissent, disagreement or debate among them. In a review of commission meeting notes, the Times found no failed motions concerning oil and gas. That is quite hard to believe with the proliferation in activity in recent years.

So what to do about it? The North Dakota Legislature can continue to take a blind eye to these matters or they can take control and set about a change in the way the state handles these matters. How many more spills and environmental incidents does it take? Sure the economic benefits have been plenty, but where will it leave us in 10 to 20 years? And do state officials want that as a potential part of their legacy?

We can continue to look in the short term or take a look at the big picture, as the Times has done, and realize it’s not as rosy as state leaders would have us believe. Let’s fix the problems before they get worse. Let’s lead the nation in proactive regulation that changes behaviors of these companies, not makes them worse. The regulation and oversight we have now isn’t working; it’s time for that to change. The nation now knows this. Let’s hope the state finally acts to do things differently.