Updates
May 13, 2012: My understanding of the time line:
- BHI was there first
- the flood came
- a school was lost
- a replacement school was moved near BHI
- the Minot fire marshall said "not to worry." BHI operations were safe
- Minot city council: nixes BHI's operations at their new multi-million-dollar facility
Original Post
Link here.The idea of oil-field chemicals near residences and a proposed school in north Minot didn't sit well with most Minot aldermen Monday.Walking to "work" today, I thought about a comment I posted yesterday regarding "city council" and master planning. I was second-guessing whether I should have posted that comment. This story tells me I was right on. A reader confirms: the Baker Hughes building was planned well before this school site was proposed. Interesting.
The Minot City Council voted 8 to 5 to deny a permit to Baker Hughes to store flammable chemicals in a new warehouse that the company is building along the north portion of the U.S. Highway 83 Bypass. The denial doesn't stop the company from storing chemicals but severely limits the quantity to the point where company officials believe operations will be impeded.
"It would have a significant impact on how we could operate out of the Minot facility," Ron Rowbottom, Baker Hughes safety and health officer, told the council just before the vote.
Chemicals were to make up 15 to 20 percent of the activity at the facility, which Baker Hughes is constructing to primarily handle its technology operations. It is to open for operation July 1. The Minot Fire Department had signed off on the chemical permit because of the proposed safety features built into the warehouse.
For a town that wants to be an oil Hub town, it is sure sending "mixed" signals to the oil industry.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure some companies will have second thoughts about whether Minot is a good place to locate their oil company. You get a permit to build for your business and then the city of Minot changes their mind on what you can do with that property. Minot and Ward county have already said no to a couple of "mancamps" as well. Too bad.
My thoughts precisely. Remember: a) the school project moved toward the BHI building, not the other way around; and, b) the fire marshall certified the building as safe.
DeleteThese folks need to go out to California and see how industry -- the same projects -- are nestled among high-density neighborhoods.
I agree with you. Minot seems to be another Dickinson. I am not impressed.
Minot --> Oilnot?
I think the majority of oil service companies know which towns "are" and "are not" willing to cater to their industry.
DeleteMinot will get a few "branch off" companies, but will definitely not reach the "oil hub"status some of their leaders crave. Just because you having a small presence from some big name industry leaders like Halliburton, Weatherford, Baker Hughes and Hess...gives you some bragging rights, but it is more about the volume and numbers of employees and the size of your facilities that give you the bragging rights.
Williston has already surpassed that. Stanley, Watford and Dickinson can claim "hub" but Minot has a ways to go. In my opinion.
I could not agree more. Simply because of its location (on the edge of the Bakken and closer than Billings and Rapid City), Minot will be a major player in the overall North Dakota oil industry. A lot of developers will do very, very well in Minot.
DeleteBut you are correct: to be called the "capital" or the "hub" of something requires "earning" a reputation for having the right attitude.
Example: there's a reason Tioga is known as the "oil capital of North Dakota." I hope Tioga is able to retain that title. They've earned it and I think they are working to keep it. Williston will rightfully compete. I think Minot city leaders lost their "poker face" when they reneged on the implied promises to Baker Hughes. This resonated (negatively) with the oil industry and will continue to reverberate for awhile. Don't be surprised if the city and BHI come to some sort of compromise.
Dickinson has its reputation but it appears there are two very strong competing communities there: those who want to work with the oil industry; those who want to stop the oil industry at all costs. ("Don Quixote" and tilting at windmills just flashed across my frontal lobe.)
I don't know the geographic layout of the other cities in play, but I do know the layout of Williston very, very well. I grew up there.
Unlike several cities, there is no natural feature (like a river); no man-made structure (like a freeway or a railroad) that cuts the city in half. Left turns where there are no traffic lights are now impossible but other than that it is easy to get across town (considering the huge amount of traffic). No one waits for a 100-unit oil train to pass inside city limits. Ambulances are not delayed by a drawbridge or a stopped train. I see that so many places across the state and so many places across the country.
The three or four industrial parks in Williston are clearly industrial parks and well separated from housing developments. Both the river and the railroad run along the south side of the city and don't interfere with development.
The international (repeat: international) airport will get squeezed and that will be a problem but the airport won't move. It is now surrounded by not less than eight motels/hotels.
The other chokepoint is the two-lane bridge south of town connecting the industrial parks of Williston with the bull's eye of the Bakken, northeast McKenzie County. (I wonder if engineers designed this bridge -- it's a relatively new bridge -- with this amount of oil traffic in mind?)
Williston has some fortuitous advantages unrelated to current city leadership: its geographic layout; its geographic location; and its transportation access.
But yes, back to your original point, to date Williston has not had a headline story that shocked me as much as the Minot story in which BHI was inexplicably dissed.
I am curious why the Williston airport would have to move. I believe they should be able to keep the current one open, and then build a new concrete and longer runway adjacent to the existing ones. I understand the muni golf course may need to be relocated, but there are some really great places to re-build the muni golf course into an 18 hole close by. I agree that all the new hotels built next to the airport is a benefit to both the airport and that entire area, moving the airport would be a lose-lose for the city and the hotels. Just the convenience of an airport in the middle of town is an asset.
ReplyDeleteI wrote: The international (repeat: international) airport will get squeezed and that will be a problem but the airport won't move. It is now surrounded by not less than eight motels/hotels.
ReplyDeleteYes, the airport won't have to move, but it will be squeezed. Access is via an asphalt country road, and parking is so limited at times that vehicles are parking in non-parking areas. The terminal, personnel, and operations may be first rate, but access and parking do not measure up to a city that is in the center of an industry that is pouring $2 billion/month into the area. An airport upgrade is on the "to-do" list but doesn't rank high right now.