Metric: water being released from Garrison Dam. Dynamic link.
UPDATES
April 26, 2013: The Dickinson Press is reporting that there could be a water shortage due to fracking. Long term readers know I completely disagree. See post of December 28, 2012. The amount of water required to frack 2,000 wells in the Bakken represents about one-tenth of one percent:
Maximum water storage of Lake Sakakawea is 23,800,000 acre-feet. 30,000 acre-feet represents 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent) of the volume of Lake Sakakawea.As usual, my disclaimer. The math could be wrong. But I've been posting these numbers since 2011, and no one has corrected me on them.
I doubt that any of the other regional papers (Montana, North Dakota, or South Dakota) have yet picked up on this story, and probably won't.
Golf courses use a whole lot more. I can't speak to water issues outside the Bakken but the concern about the Missouri seems ill-placed based on earlier analyses. Here's an excerpt from linked article:
A scathing report issued Thursday by the Western Organization of Research Councils says water used in the process of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is reaching a crisis point in Western states.The regional network of organizations’ 37-page report, titled “Gone for Good,” warns of continued diminished water supplies in areas that have been hit hard by drought in recent years. The report also states that the data currently available and processes used to track energy industry water used for fracking are not sufficient, and that the “current level of water use for oil and gas production simply cannot be sustained.Let's compare amount of water used for agriculture in the west compare to the amount of water used for fracking. Something tells me we are going to see a lot of flooding stories in North Dakota this year, both in the Red River, and the Missouri River.
August 27, 2012: US Army Corps of Engineers' plan to charge for upstream water is criticized by South Dakota governor. Upstream folks pay for the water; downstream folks get flood protection for free. The Corps can't have it both ways. By the way, if the Corps says they own the water, they are then responsible for the 2010 spring flooding when they did not keep their water under control. Again the Corps cannot have it both ways. Much of the water in the North Dakota and South Dakota state reservoirs comes from run-off water from the state.
Gov. Dennis Daugaard argued that upstream states have the right to manage the river's natural flows, or water that would flow through the system without the reservoirs. States should continue to have authority to manage that water by granting water rights to users, he wrote in a letter read at a Corps of Engineers hearing in Pierre.
The corps' plan also appears to propose requiring contracts and payments from users who take water from the reservoirs, while people downstream of the dams would not pay anything while benefiting from flood control, water supplies and electricity generated by the dams, the governor said.May 7, 2012: US Army Corps of Engineers wants to charge for water coming from Missouri River; same old story. My position hasn't changed. More than enough water. If the army wants to charge a storage fee, then the army should be held accountable for the water they failed to keep within their storage system last spring, 2011.
May 7, 2011: There is so much water in the river, that the US Army Corps of Engineers is going to release more water. No word on where the plans stand for the Corps to charge storage fees to consumers of water from the river. Meanwhile, there is so much water in northeastern South Dakota, it looks like the Everglades. This is making it difficult to get crops in the ground this spring.
James River Water Development District Manager Darrell Raschke says if you fly over Brown County, it looks like the Everglades.
The Agricultural Statistics Service says that as of May 1, only 22 percent of the spring wheat crop had been planted statewide, compared to 68 percent on a five-year average.
April 30, 2011: Rise in water level of Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea one of the highest on record. US Army Corps of Engineers releasing water at twice the rate. Still, Missouri River at Mandan/Bismarck will rise five (5) feet this spring and remain at that level all summer.
March 25, 2011: The issue of water from Lake Sakakawea is still unsettled. This article is full of subjective comments; this blog has the objective data. There is more than enough excess water in the reservoir to frack the wells. In fact, the US Army Corps of Engineers has released enough water for 10,000 wells/year FOR A FEE -- the legality of the fee is being contested. A record number of wells will be drilled in North Dakota this year; the estimate is 2,000. The water released is five to ten times more than needed. A Sierra Club representative made unsubstantiated comments with no scientific background related to waste water.
February 2, 2011: North Dakota state official says the US Army Corps of Engineers plan to charge fees for use/storage of water from the river is "illegal."
February 2, 2011: Background: first the US Army Corps of Engineers said there was not enough water in the river to meet the needs of the ND oil industry. I was one of the first to point out that was incredibly wrong. Subsequently, the Corps agreed there is much more water than necessary to meet those needs, but they would charge for the "use" of that water. The state noted that much of the water that runs in the Missouri River comes from North Dakota run-off, and thus the state residents should have access to that water based on North Dakota rules, regulations, and fees (in this case: free).
ORIGINAL POST
Incredible story. I was one of the first to point out that Missouri River had more than enough water for fracking ... over a year ago.
Enough water set aside for 10,000 wells a year.
Here's my original post regarding the water in the Missouri River regarding fracking. The amount of water needed by the oil industry in North Dakota is estimated to represent about two-tenths of one percent of the Missouri River flow. That's flow. The river is not a static body of water.
This is not rocket science. Two-tenths of one-percent, and at one time the US Army Corps of Engineers wanted to prohibit any water from coming out of the river for fracking.
As I said then, anything to destroy the domestic oil industry.
For years Devils Lake has been raising and there have been many suggestions as to how to divert the water. Why don’t we utilize the need for the water for fracking and tap Devils Lake via pipeline; thus, solving two problems at once. By utilizing the demand the cost to the State of ND and Devils Lake is minimal and will be virtually paid for by the oil companies. We can then use water from the Missouri to offset whatever Devils Lake cannot provide.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100 percent but something tells me the cost for the pipeline and time required for all the easements/rights of way to lay the pipeline will prevent that from happening. The Missouri River runs right through (or over) the Bakken.
ReplyDelete@ Bruce Oksol Let Me See You Drink Water From The Missouri Or Shut Up !! Do You Know How Many Cities Get There Water From The Missouri !! If Think Fracking Is Safe You're An IDIOT !!!!!!
ReplyDeleteThank you for stopping by.
ReplyDeleteprivate groups are already using the missouri and the lake to provide water for fracking. all of the wells drilled in the state of north dakota in one year could be fracked with the water that flows by the Williston bridge in 100 minutes.
ReplyDeletei know that there are private groups with plans to use the missouri river.
the state wants to install a pipeline to provide water for fracking at a cost of $150,000,000 to the tax payer when there are private citizens willing to do it for no cost to the tax payer.
also,
ReplyDeletethe coe just released a study which was designed to force industrial water users from lake sakakawea to pay a tax for each acre foot of water that they used.
there was a public hearing on this last thursday in bismarck in which the coe was told by everyone in attendance, including the govenor, that the plan to put a tax on the water will not be accepted.
You are correct about more than enough water in the Missouri for fracking: you put it very nicely -- all the wells in the state of North Dakota could be fracked with the water that runs under the Williston bridge in 100 minutes.
ReplyDeleteIt's always interesting to me how quickly governments rush in to tax citizens for projects that private citizens are willing to take on.
Thank you for commenting.
Thanks. Looks like a "money grab" by the US Army Corps of Engineers.
ReplyDeleteA tax would be very, very hard on the farmers.
I have great respect for the Army Corps of Engineers having worked alongside them overseas. But in this case, I have some concerns. The Corps does not seem to be forthcoming. First, it says there is not enough water for fracking; now they agree there is so much they can allocate enough for 10,000 wells/year (5 to 10 times more than needed) but they want taxes/fees for the water.
It has been pointed out that the water taken from the Missouri for fracking would be less than the water that drains into the Missouri from North Dakota soil. The Army Corps of Engineers appears to be unwilling to quantify the amount of "North Dakota water" draining into the Missouri.
If the Corps is not helpful, folks are clever enough to find water elsewhere, but creating all kinds of new problems for everyone.