Ness spoke before oil industry officials and wildlife conservation representatives on Tuesday to address some of the concerns.  A spokesman for the state chapter of The Wildlife Society believes that oil development in general is damaging wildlife and its habitat.  While development of the pipeline infrastructure was high on the list of solutions, other voluntary measures included locating oil wells, related facilities and roads in “clustered configurations” outside of wildlife sensitive areas to lessen disturbance to animals and curb the amount of habitat lost to oil exploration.

It’s the director of the state Game and Fish Department, Terry Steinwand’s belief that wildlife and hunting opportunities can coexist with oil production in North Dakota; although some of the conference believed that more stringent regulations in place — that are not voluntary — need to be in place to protect the state’s wildlife and land.  According to Steinwald, “Is it a perfect scenario? No it’s not, but it is a workable scenario.”

North Dakota’s Game and Fish Department has actively been mapping sensitive wildlife habitat areas (mule deer, bighorn sheep, sage grouse, and pronghorn antelope) for over a year in the oil patch.  The North Dakota Petroleum Council, which represents over 400 companies working in te Bakken states that a majority of the employees in the energy industry are sportsmen and that most of their companies would adopt measures to protect wildlife.

Tulsa, Oklahoma based Oneok Partners LP reported this week that their proposed $1.8 billion oil pipeline from North Dakota to Oklahoma, known as the Bakken Crude Express Pipeline, has been derailed due to the company’s inability to secure enough commitments to transport Bakken crude.  While the overall outlook for crude oil supply is healthy from the Bakken Shale in western North Dakota and eastern Montana, Oneok was unable to secure enough long term commitments from producers for the 1,300 mile pipeline.  The Bakken Crude Express would have transported 200,000 barrels per day.

In spite of this, Oneok still has forward movement on $4.8 billion of announced natural gas & natural gas liquids projects; with the majority of those projects in the Bakken.

Not that long ago (although admittedly longer for some than others), most of us in this part of the world believed in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. As children it was culturally acceptable to operate in “a world of make-believe”.  Simply put, truth is limited by one’s ability to reason. Broken down a bit further, reason is systematically built on experience and understanding both of which develop with age. Beliefs, which were unquestioned as children, are measured with a much greater level of scrutiny as we move into adulthood.

Yet, somewhere along the line, we all reach a point wherein we are confronted with new tales of wonder that stir something deep in our hearts. Suddenly, a challenge is put to our minds in a way that stirs a childlike excitement and tests the limits of our ability to reason for ourselves. Amazingly, if a story is told with a full measure of passion, a half-cup of restorative justice and a mere 1/4 teaspoon of truth all to many of us return again to the same childish ways that we once abandoned.

Each and every day we draw conclusions from a collection of information, which lead us to action based exclusively on our ability to reason. This is life.

If this is life, why then is there so much written, spoken, and taught based on an understanding that is absent of reason. One area where this pattern of reaching conclusions apart from reason is becoming increasingly evident is in the global discussion regarding energy.

This article is not a scholarly argument based on carefully conducted studies or tenable scientific positions. Rather, it simply seeks to challenge those involved in the discussion at the local level to allow reason to be our guide.

Far too many times in the past few months I have listened to arguments that have no basis in reason whatsoever. This is not a blanket statement, decrying any and all positions that differ from my own thoughts on the need for conventional energy. Nor am I arguing that a global shift to less conventional or currently unknown forms of energy will one day become necessary. My point is simple, for discussion on any complex issue to be productive it must be based on reason rather than emotion and supported by specifics rather than sweeping statements.

Over the past few months I have had the privilege to be part of numerous discussions on several topics regarding the impact of energy development in the region. Several of those conversations have centered on the impact of coal development in Montana. Although I could produce a long laundry list of arguments supporting my position to do so would fall outside the scope of this article. The point I want to make is this, discussions about future of coal as viable resource are well worth having. However, the value of the conversation is immediately diminished when unsupportable assertions are the basis of the conversation.

One example of this is the ongoing discussion on coal trains expected to pass through the state. As a long time resident of Montana I am convinced that this is a must have discussion. Yet, for the discussion to produce a sustainable solution the conversation must be based on foundation of factual information.

For the purpose of this article I will speak only to the issue of the specific number of coal trains required to ship Montana coal to out of state domestic and overseas markets. If a solution is to be reached doesn’t it make sense to know the parameters of the problem?

If someone asked me to cook a meal for a large banquet one of the first questions I would ask would be how large is large? In other words how many do you want me to prepare for? Should I plan the meal for 50 or 500? The meal plan, the supplies needed, and preparation details would vary greatly depending on how many people were expected to attend.

Thus, developing appropriate solutions for each challenge that might arise would be dependent on the attendance expectations. In the same manner, meeting the challenges presented by an increase in coal train traffic would depend heavily on the number of coal trains actually expected to be put into service.

I have seen numbers in print that range from 30 to 60 additional trains a day moving through Billings. At a recent State Oil and Gas Board hearing, it was purported that 90 additional trains would soon be running through the state. In reality, the numbers will be determined by rail capacity. As such, organizations like BNSF and MRL are far more accurate sources of information than studies, which reach conclusions based on speculation without any input from the companies responsible for rail operation through the state. According to MRL, total capacity through Montana could be increased by 16 trains a day if a significant investment was made in the additional infrastructure.

A prosperous future is only possible when productive conversations lead to productive solutions. Productive conversations are only possible when reason prevails.

R.L. (Bud) Andersen, spokesman for TransCanada, informed members of Montana Association of Oil, Gas, & Coal Counties, Inc. last week in Lewistown, MT that the Calgary based pipeline giant has divided the Keystone XL in two and is moving forward with the $2.3 Billion proposed pipeline running from Cushing, Oklahoma to Nederland, Texas; projected an in service date in late 2013.

On Friday, June 15^th, the US State Department filed plans to prepare a new supplemental environmental impact statement for TransCanada Corp’s Keystone XL pipeline.  The State Department plans to make its decision on the Keystone XL by the first quarter of 2013.  Russ Girling, TransCanada’s CEO remarked, “The fact the Department of State has reaffirmed its timeline for making a decision on a Presidential Permit for Keystone XL early next year is an important development.”

The proposed $7.1 Billion, 1,700 mile project will deliver an initial capacity of 830,000 barrels per day of Canadian oil sands crude to Gulf Coast refineries.  Construction is slated to begin first quarter of 2013, with an estimated completion date of late 2014 or early 2015.

After a lengthy public comment and review process, President Obama rejected the TransCanada crude transportation system on January 18^th stated that he couldn’t make a decision under the tight, “politically motivated” time frame set by Republicans in Congress.  Since rejection, the company has proposed a number of differing routes through Nebraska, bypassing the environmentally sensitive areas.  Nebraska’s Sand Hills was a major sticking point for environmentalists on the pipeline project.

By the time a final decision is reached in early 2013, the Keystone XL will be well into

its 5th year of studies.  According to Girling, this has been “the most extensive review for a cross-border pipeline ever.”  It’s TransCanada’s position that the final review should focus solely on the realigned route that avoids the controversial Nebraska Sandhills.  Girling further commented, “The rest of the Keystone XL route remains the same. The geology of the route remains the same. The environmental conditions remain the same. Nothing else has changed since the FEIS was approved.”

Phillips’ plans were revealed last week by CEO Greg Garland at the Citi Global Energy Conference this past week.  According to Garland, “We’re considering buying a couple thousand more rail cars so we can get Bakken crude either east or west”.  Phillips 66 has refineries on the East, West, and Gulf coats. The company currently refines about 100,000 BPD of shale crude; with a goal of @ 500,000 BPD of shale production.  With the purchase of rail units, Phillips’ initial goal is to increase delivery of shale crude to its’ refineries from 100,000 BPD to 150,000 BPD within the next two years.  A typical rail car tanker capacity is 32,000 gallons (750 BBLs of crude), so the proposed purchase of 2,000 tank cars would translate to @ 100,000 BPD of additional capacity.

Oil field proliferation through US shale plays such as the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara and Permian have forced the transporters to turn to rail, trucks, even barges to haul crude due to pipeline development delay.  It’s Garland’s belief that, ”the E&P side will develop faster than infrastructure to take it away over the next five to 10 years”, so the acquisition of 2,000 tank rail cards appears to be a “good investment” with a relatively “quick payback”.

Source: Bloomber, Matthew Staver

The answer, “1,012″ ! 

Okay – where’s the punch line ? Well (no pun intended) there isn’t one. The answer really is “1,012″ truck loads.  And that’s just one way !

• 80 truckloads of sand
• 400 truckloads of fresh water
• 200 truckloads of waste water
• 100 truckloads of Frac tanks
• 50 truckloads of rig equipment
• 50 truckloads of drilling mud
• 4 truckloads of chemicals
• 15 truckloads of cement
• 10 truckloads of pipe
• 80 truckloads of scoria/gravel
• 7 truckloads of fuel
• 15 truckloads of Frac/Cement pumper trucks
• 1 truckload – work-over rigs

Put that level of commercial, oil industry truck traffic on the existing road system in western North Dakota and its easy to see why communities are straining under the weight of bringing Bakken to market.  Roadway demand will continue to grow as the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources estimates that more than 20,000 new oil wells could be drilled in Western North Dakota over the next 20 years.

According to a January 2011 article in Bloomberg Businessweek, “roads battered by heavy truck traffic in western North Dakota’s oil country are already hampering development and driving up shipping costs”.  North Dakota transportation analysts estimate that it will cost at least $907 million over the next 20 years to rebuild or maintain roads that are essential to carrying oil industry traffic in 17 counties.  Factoring in an annual inflation rate of 5%  into road construction costs, and that could translate to @ $1.3 billion.

2011 reports estimated that over 68 miles of paved roads utilized heavily by the oil industry were in poor or very poor condition; and that 334 miles were considered to be in fair condition, but were in jeopardy of rapid deterioration from heavy over use.  Without aggressive repair and maintenance, the oil industry could become further constrained in terms of transportation distribution and logistical costs.

In direct response to this impending need, state agencies set out to address the very real transporation infrastructure concerns in 14 western North Dakota communities with a series of on site meetings with local leaders in order to gain their perspective, update them on the status of the state’s progress, address safety concerns due to traffic congestion, and collaborate on planning throughout the region.

Near future plans are to create truck reliever routes or bypasses to assist in moving truck traffic out of  city centers; thereby alleviating traffic congestion.  It’s the ND Department of Transportation (NDDOT) to intent to expedite truck reliever routes, currently planned, for the most impacted cities.

For indepth details click and go to page 2 of  the report issued by the state of North Dakota – Tour Findings and State Response.

So the replay, “how many truckloads does it take to develop an oil well in North Dakota?” The answer, “1,012″.  Okay – where’s the punch line ?  Well (no pun intended) there isn’t one.  The answer really is “1,012″ truck loads.  No doubt that a oil well site under development is a hub of activity, but just how much truck traffic does it take to……?

• 80 truckloads of sand
• 400 truckloads of fresh water
• 200 truckloads of waste water
• 100 truckloads of Frac tanks
• 50 truckloads of rig equipment
• 50 truckloads of drilling mud
• 4 truckloads of chemicals
• 15 truckloads of cement
• 10 truckloads of pipe
• 80 truckloads of scoria/gravel
• 7 truckloads of fuel
• 15 truckloads of Frac/Cement pumper trucks
• 1 truckload – workover rigs

I’m waiting for, “and a partridge in a pear tree”!

If, the number of “1,012″ isn’t daunting enough – that’s “1,012″ truckloads into a site, and “1,012″ truckloads back out.