star2city Posted November 30, 2011 Author Posted November 30, 2011 One financial analyst following Bakken companies is predicting ND oil output to triple or possibly quadruple over the next five years: North Dakota, which produces oil from the Bakken field, almost doubled output in the past two years and pumped a record 464,129 barrels a day in September, according to the state government. Production may grow to between 1.5 million and 2 million barrels a day within five years, Katherine Spector, a New York-based analyst with CIBC World Markets Corp., said Nov. 22 at The Energy Forum in New York. Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1fDCJ1jhm At that rate, potentially, ND oil would contribute $50 billion annually to the economy and by itself reduce US oil imports by 25%. With the US now exporting propane, butane, and soon, nat gas, the US seems destined to be energy indenpendent before the decade is over. ND government would be seeing almost $4 billion annually just in oil revenue. That predicted Bakken output is larger than production in the Permian Basin in Texas, although the Permian Basin is also seeing increased production and expects further increases because of horizontal drilling and fracking, so the Bakken may never pass it. As an aside, the counties that make up the Permian Basin (mostly Midland-Odessa in Texas, but also Hobbs, New Mexico) have over 500,000 people. Although the economy of those cities have somewhat diversified beyond oil, in 1930 before the Permian Basin oil rush began, Midland and Odessa were both comparable to Watford City now and have both grown to over 100,000 people. Quote
darell1976 Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Too bad these oil revenues can't pay for everyones property taxes in ND. It would give us more $$$ to spend on oil. Quote
ticklethetwine Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Too bad these oil revenues can't pay for everyones property taxes in ND. It would give us more $$$ to spend on oil. I hear you DL but it would be nice if each resident of ND got a check for at least $1000 tax free each year, much like they do in alaska. Quote
bisonh8er Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 I hear you DL but it would be nice if each resident of ND got a check for at least $1000 tax free each year, much like they do in alaska. I also have heard some rumbling about possibly doing that. I wonder if it is something the state would look into after things start to settle down a bit out west. I would suspect stuff like that is something they would look after the housing settles down and flood recovery situations start getting under control. Quote
Hawkster Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Too bad these oil revenues can't pay for everyones property taxes in ND. It would give us more $$$ to spend on oil. I understand that there is a measure on the ballot in ND next year to eliminate all property tax and have the Legislature replace the funds to local governments from the general fund. Presumably this money would be replaced with oil money. It seems to me that ND state government has done a good job of saving the money coming in I wish that asshat Dayton here in Minnesota would take a lesson. Our property taxes are going up because Dayton wouldn't give in during the government shut down last summer when the GOP wanted to cut spending rather then raise taxes. Dayton insisted on ending the Homestead exemption, which basically lowered your property taxes on your primary residence here. Quote
star2city Posted December 1, 2011 Author Posted December 1, 2011 I hear you DL but it would be nice if each resident of ND got a check for at least $1000 tax free each year, much like they do in alaska. Would be surprised if they did that. North Dakota seems more likely to follow the Alberta model: which has a huge trust fund. Alaska's oil production is falling - unless more drilling is allowed soon on the North Slope region, the Alaska pipeline may have to be shut down as it needs a minimum flow that the North Slope won't be able to provide. I also have heard some rumbling about possibly doing that. I wonder if it is something the state would look into after things start to settle down a bit out west. I would suspect stuff like that is something they would look after the housing settles down and flood recovery situations start getting under control. That property situation could get interesting. No matter what happens with that vote, property taxes and likely income taxes are bound to go down. Minnesota border cities will see no growth or population movement to the west. Quote
darell1976 Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 I understand that there is a measure on the ballot in ND next year to eliminate all property tax and have the Legislature replace the funds to local governments from the general fund. Presumably this money would be replaced with oil money. It seems to me that ND state government has done a good job of saving the money coming in I wish that asshat Dayton here in Minnesota would take a lesson. Our property taxes are going up because Dayton wouldn't give in during the government shut down last summer when the GOP wanted to cut spending rather then raise taxes. Dayton insisted on ending the Homestead exemption, which basically lowered your property taxes on your primary residence here. Just wait til they want Minnesotan's to foot the bill for a new stadium. They are raising taxes, cutting budgets for smaller towns including essential ones like police, fire, and schools so that the rich can have their stadium in Minneapolis. What good does that stadium in Arden Hills do when Junior can't get a good education and his parents are paying through the roof in taxes in a small town like Fisher or Shelly. If Jerry Jones can build a billion dollar stadium without a cent from taxpayers( except Sales, hotel, and rental car taxes)..Ziggy Wolf can do the same. Quote
bisonh8er Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Just wait til they want Minnesotan's to foot the bill for a new stadium. They are raising taxes, cutting budgets for smaller towns including essential ones like police, fire, and schools so that the rich can have their stadium in Minneapolis. What good does that stadium in Arden Hills do when Junior can't get a good education and his parents are paying through the roof in taxes in a small town like Fisher or Shelly. If Jerry Jones can build a billion dollar stadium without a cent from taxpayers( except Sales, hotel, and rental car taxes)..Ziggy Wolf can do the same. I agree with what you are saying but for the sake of playing devils advocate one could also make the argument that if the state doesn't agree to pay for some stadium cost and the team ends up moving then the state will lose a lot more in the long run than if they just paid some now. I don't know what the numbers are but the Vikings obviously bring in millions upon millions to local businesses and taxes every year. Quote
Goon Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) Just wait til they want Minnesotan's to foot the bill for a new stadium. They are raising taxes, cutting budgets for smaller towns including essential ones like police, fire, and schools so that the rich can have their stadium in Minneapolis. What good does that stadium in Arden Hills do when Junior can't get a good education and his parents are paying through the roof in taxes in a small town like Fisher or Shelly. If Jerry Jones can build a billion dollar stadium without a cent from taxpayers( except Sales, hotel, and rental car taxes)..Ziggy Wolf can do the same. You sound like John Marty from Minnestoa. Edited December 1, 2011 by Goon Quote
Let'sGoHawks! Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 The State of North Dakota should step in and loan MN money at a nice high interest rate. We can be their China. Quote
ScottM Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Too bad these oil revenues can't pay for everyones property taxes in ND. It would give us more $$$ to spend on oil. It would probably make more sense to build an economic infrastructure that makes the state less dependent on the inevitable fall in oil prices/revenue and enables the state to retain more of its young people over time. Most of the people coming into the state for oil-related jobs will probably not stay after the boom crests, or after they've made enough money to move on as the overall economy improves. And if you think property taxes are bad in NoDak move to Minnesota or Iowa. Quote
Hawkster Posted December 1, 2011 Posted December 1, 2011 Today's Herald mentioned that Watford City may grow to 30,000 people. McKenzie County is gaining a huge amount of activity (including building of nat gas processing plants), so that type growth for Watford City may be possible. But if the EPA halting fracking for 15 months or more, as the Bismarck Tribune is reporting, much of western ND could be abandoned again. http://bismarcktribu...1cc4c03286.html Looks like you don't have to worry about fracking coming to a halt. Apparently there are a few common sense people left, even if there aren't any in the EPA. http://www.inforum.c...icle/id/342386/ Quote
Hawkster Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Looks like it just keeps getting better for you guys in ND. Drilling costs are dropping and it takes far less time to drill than it used to. http://www.upstreamo...ticle293103.ece Quote
ScottM Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 An opinion piece talking about US energy security with a few nods towards North Dakota. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204449804577068932026951376.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop Quote
Hawkster Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 An opinion piece talking about US energy security with a few nods towards North Dakota. http://online.wsj.co...Opinion_LEADTop One thing I don't understand is, why are these asshats in the current administration so opposed to the Keystone Pipeline? The pipeline in Alaska undergoes much more extreme conditions than anything would here in the lower 48 and technology is vastly better than it was in the mid 70's when the Alaska line was built. Quote
MoSiouxFan Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 One thing I don't understand is, why are these asshats in the current administration so opposed to the Keystone Pipeline? The pipeline in Alaska undergoes much more extreme conditions than anything would here in the lower 48 and technology is vastly better than it was in the mid 70's when the Alaska line was built. Because they are left-wing extremists catering to that element of their party. It's not about what's best for the country, it's about what's best politically. Quote
ScottM Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Because they are left-wing extremists catering to that element of their party. It's not about what's best for the country, it's about what's best politically. Actually a number of those who opposed XL were Nebraska farmers and ranchers (red staters) worried about potential effects to their aquifer. The "politics" were not just confined to DC's "Prius set". Quote
MoSiouxFan Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Actually a number of those who opposed XL were Nebraska farmers and ranchers (red staters) worried about potential effects to their aquifer. The "politics" were not just confined to DC's "Prius set". Good point. Thanks, Scott. Quote
star2city Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 Actually a number of those who opposed XL were Nebraska farmers and ranchers (red staters) worried about potential effects to their aquifer. The "politics" were not just confined to DC's "Prius set". Let's follow the money trail on this stopping Keystone decision. What industry benefits most by stopping the Keystone pipeline? Railroads (A number of railroad sidings are being built in western ND that will load unit trains of oil.) What railroad benefits most by stopping Keystone? Burlington Northern Sante Fe - will gain hundreds of millions in profits annually Who owns Burlington Northern Santa Fe now? Berkshire Hathaway Who is the primary owner of Berkshire Hathaway? Warren Buffett Who is a major donor to the current administration's reelection? Warren Buffett Who often obtains private meetings in the White House? Warren Buffett Who was sponsoring the Nebraska environmental groups? Warren Buffett Which is the more hazardous form of transportation: railroads or pipelines? Railroads, by far. Now, you have the rest of the crony capitalism story. http://www.americant...capitalism.html 1 Quote
ScottM Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 http://www.americant...capitalism.html I'd believe Obama pandering to his base more than some conspiracy involving Buffett, but whatever gets the OWS crowd through the night. 2 Quote
star2city Posted December 14, 2011 Author Posted December 14, 2011 I'd believe Obama pandering to his base more than some conspiracy involving Buffett, but whatever gets the OWS crowd through the night. No way to get around this: Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, and Burlington Northern Sante Fe are huge beneficiaries of the Keystone Decision, adding hundreds of millions annually to their profits and Buffett is a huge donor to this administration. Investment U: Bakken Boom and Keystone Decision will make railroads hugely profitable http://www.investmentu.com/ Investor's Business Daily: Buffett's Bakken Boom http://news.investors.com/article/591960/201111161602/Billionaire-Buffetts-Bakken-Boom.htm In the meantime, Iran begins war games to close the Strait of Hormuz Crude oil prices surged on Tuesday on reports that Iran was set to begin war games in the Strait of Hormuz to practice closing down the key chokepoint which concentrates 30% of global seaborne oil shipments. Prices retracted a little after Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed the Strait remained open, and as OPEC cut its 2012 demand forecast by 100,000 barrels per day to 1.1 million daily barrels given a cooling global economy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/12/13/oil-irans-hormuz-strait-threats-could-wreak-global-economic-havoc/ Why the Keystone Pipeline isn't approved just based on national defense is mind boggling. Quote
ScottM Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Why the Keystone Pipeline isn't approved just based on national defense is mind boggling. I don't really buy some grand conspiracy involving Buffett. However, I think I provided the answer to the "why" in the Keystone decision in my earlier reply, and it had nothing to do with national security. And we wonder why our allies sometimes doubt our veracity and fortitude ... Quote
BobIwabuchiFan Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Seriously, we have to delay the construction until after the election so the tree-huggers from the Democratic party feel connected to their President??? What happen to whatever it takes to get shovel-ready projects and jobs going in America? Oh yeah, it was just more BS....Can't wait until a Republican becomes President and they start creating jobs in Fossil Fuels with little or no regulation....If its 4 more years of Change, we'll all be selling apples on the sidewalk.... Quote
darell1976 Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 Seriously, we have to delay the construction until after the election so the tree-huggers from the Democratic party feel connected to their President??? What happen to whatever it takes to get shovel-ready projects and jobs going in America? Oh yeah, it was just more BS....Can't wait until a Republican becomes President and they start creating jobs in Fossil Fuels with little or no regulation....If its 4 more years of Change, we'll all be selling apples on the sidewalk.... I hate to have this get political but if congress isn't a full Republican congress (which the senate is not) it isn't going to matter who is president. IMO the president is worthless if congress of the opposite party isn't going to help the president. I say disband the party system and see this country get back to its feet. Quote
star2city Posted December 14, 2011 Author Posted December 14, 2011 The next major infrastructure challenge in the Bakken looks to be schools: District 8, the rural school district that surrounds the city of Williston, will likely see its enrollment quadruple next year (600 more students) due to new developments coming on line. http://www.willistonherald.com/articles/2011/12/14/news/doc4ee78758481d3948475829.txt Williston itself is expecting up to 1200 new students next fall http://www.willistonherald.com/articles/2011/12/02/news/doc4ed9035bbd547181020048.txt Watford City as well as other Bakken towns will likely continue to see substantial enrollment growth, too. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.