|
I was going to lead this month’s column with the announcement that North Dakota is now producing a million barrels of crude per day, except that, as of this writing, it’s not quite true. According to this week’s American Petroleum Institute numbers, the Peace Garden State* produced an estimated 971,000 bopd during April, up 6,000 bopd in one month and up 20,000 bopd in the past year. The upward trajectory of Bakken shale has been relentless, if not entirely even, and the chances are good that, by the time you read this, the million-bopd milestone will have been achieved.
All that crude has to move. Transportation of the Bakken oil has mostly kept up with galloping production, but just. Historically, the bulk of the oil surge has been carried by pipelines. At the beginning of 2012, roughly 75% of the oil produced in the region was transported by pipe, with most of the balance carried by railcar. Enbridge Energy, the largest owner and builder of pipelines in the Bakken, has managed to increase its pipeline capacity in North Dakota and Montana, doubling the amount of crude that can be moved out of the region. Other expansion projects are planned, including the 225,000-bopd Sandpiper Pipeline, which will transport about 20% of the Bakken shale’s crude oil production, when it’s finished in 2016. Even so, the “North Dakota bottleneck” is a persistent, growing problem.
Unfortunately, for the past few years, pipelines have been the public demon of the upstream. Major ruptures of pipes, many of them older than me, have shed an unflattering light on an infrastructure in serious need of upgrading. Ironically, public opposition to pipeline construction has slowed the development of a safer, more modern system, and put greater pressure on other forms of transportation, particularly rail. TransCanada’s Keystone XL has taken the brunt of the controversy, but proposed new pipelines in Canada have also been challenged. (Last fall, British Columbia blocked the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline for environmental reasons.)
Bakken blitz. Except for a small contribution by trucks rumbling down U.S. Highway 85, the difference between production and transportation capacity has been made up by rail. The pipe-to-rail ratio has almost completely flipped in two years, so that now roughly 75% of North Dakota crude is shipped out by train. This has brought on a fresh debate about cost and safety trade-offs.
Very early in the morning, on July 6, 2013, in the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, a 74-car freight train carrying Bakken crude ran away and derailed, causing the catastrophic explosion of multiple tank cars and resulting in 47 deaths. Similarly, an oil train crashed and burned after a collision near Casselton, N.D., on Dec. 30, 2013, fortunately with no deaths.
The federal government responded to these and other rail incidents with “Operation Classification” (or “Bakken blitz”), consisting of unannounced spot inspections of oil tanker cars by the Federal Railroad Administration, to make sure that oil trains from the Bakken region are compliant with all federal safety regulations. Regulators are also examining the question of whether Bakken crude oil is more hazardous, due to its volatility. The pressure to upgrade and modernize the tanker car fleet has grown considerably.
Cheaper and safer. Multiple studies in the U.S. and Canada have shown that pipelines are a far safer and more efficient way to transport crude oil. While spills from pipelines do occur, they are infrequent and have a smaller impact on the environment than do tanker car ruptures, and are far less likely to cause public harm. In addition, transportation costs are one-fourth to one-half that of rail. And one thing that makes pipelines unique as a transportation system—they stay put. Only the product moves. As an inherent advantage, this one is the dealmaker.
Frac this. I realize it’s mostly pointless minutia from the department of “who cares, really?”, but last week the publishers of the Miriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary announced their annual addition of new words—150 made the cut this year. Along with “selfie,” “paywall,” “hashtag” and other such gems, “frack” and “fracking” are included, defined as acceptable short variants of the term “hydraulic fracturing.” As anyone who’s been paying attention knows, a contentious divide has grown between the popular press on one side, and the industry (along with its trade press) on the other, over the spelling of these punchy little words.
It is not uncommon in letters that we get from readers of this magazine to include a small aside saying something like “and by the way, thank you for spelling the darn word right.” The fact is, “frac” with no “k” has been the standard jargon spelling for decades. It’s only when it entered the popular lexicon that writers started adding the extra letter to assist the under-educated with pronunciation.
“Frac” is not the problem per se, but the noun form “fracing,” which looks like it ought to rhyme with “tracing.” In that, the revisionists have a point. However, “frack” is unnecessary and, frankly, looks kind of … nasty. Among detractors of the technology, that’s the whole idea. Who could possibly be in favor of something denoted by such an ugly word?
Last year, I participated in a discussion panel at Southern Methodist University concerning public relations and the petroleum industry. During one session, I facetiously suggested changing the name of the technology to “hydrotickling,” which not only sounds more benign, but can be shortened to a noun— “tickle” (as in “we’re looking at a six-stage tickle on that lateral”).
But, unless this catches on, here’s a suggestion, AP, Reuters and Chicago Manual, if you’re listening: “Frac” as a verb and “frac’ing” for a shorthand noun, if you must. Or better, just to say “fracturing.” They’ll know what you mean. 
*Really
|
