Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Routes Available | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Bakken oil boom

Parshall Field credited with current oil boom in North Dakota

June 2, 2014

PARSHALL – The discovery of the Parshall Field is largely responsible for the current Bakken oil boom in North Dakota. EOG Resources drilled the Parshall 1-36H well eight years ago....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-03-14 2:25 PM

Where do get this number 15 and seventeen, you said "26,000 cfs" I broke that down for you the simplest way possible and yet you still struggle! I told you that 26,000 cfs would fill darling in about 6 hours, which is probably about right! They haven't started any flood protection because of the monumental scale and costs of a project like that, that's the problem with you libtards, you think things just should appear, don't care where from or how much it costs or WHO PAYS FOR IT!! Obamaphone, obamacare, Medicaid for prisoners, free everything for all why not?!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-03-14 9:16 AM

At 15' per second you must divide by 15 to get the 1 cubic foot in place at any moment. Darling would not do the job dry. In 1969 the flow was 4mph and it covered minot for 40 days. Darling is only 26' in the channel with the remainder tapering to the shore. I estimated the capacity of lake Darling passed thru minot a minimum of once every two hours in 69. We had 5 times that much in 2011.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-03-14 9:01 AM

Sometimes the disgust the right has 4 education is too much 2 bear. After the bladders were in place, except 4 a trickle under the RR bridge, it was contained in the channel. Filter socks should not be eaten 4 breakfast.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-03-14 6:37 AM

All of Idaho that's downstream from them! Go back to the pictures from above minot and then assess how much water it actually was legend! Extra rain in the spring didn't help here but bad planning was more to blame! Oh and the formula for volume is width x heighth x depth, so.......260x100x1= 26,000 cubic feet, passing by any particular spot every second, speed (you say 10mph) so the first 26,000 cfs seen would be through town in a little over an hour!! Like I said, you don't understand what 26,000cfs looks like in a confined area, but you did see what it looks like spread out from Burlington all the way through velva and downstream, so your channel would have to be able to hold all that water!! Do you get it now?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-03-14 6:14 AM

It flowed over the bypass dink! From Burlington All through town, thats about 15 miles! that's how much water we're talking about, that all could have been controlled by the three dams, the river channel through town is plenty deep to handle the runoff if there's proper "early" forecasting and water release prior to runoff! A couple reservoirs in Jackson, WY, this year were taken down to record low levels, Jackson lake staying at 40% of capacity the next downstream is called palisades reservoir, it was taken to 5% this year! Why? Record late season snowpack! Downstream from palisades, is called the south fork of the snake river with million dollar homes right near the banks where it never floods, due solely to good planning, that river sees 26,000 cfs alot in the spring, had they not released water prior to runoff the number would probably be closer to 40,000 cfs and risk blowing over the dam, much like darling, in which case all those homes would be destroyed not to mention

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 11:37 PM

BBL: It all flowed under the west bypass, the Darling gates and Grano and Greene crossings. It was moving at 10 mph so u can't do just width X depth. I get 15 feet per second. 26,000 divided by 15 = 1733. 100 feet by 17 feet is a rough guess and a close guess to the flow under the three bridges. Grano is approx. 26' deep in the center 4 about 40' then tapers up to the sides. The flood channel would look like the river channel under the west bypass.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 4:51 PM

To the lib who disagreed with me, you just disagreed because I wrote it, not because you have a valid argument or you would've have voiced it!!' Cowards, don't disagree with something that you don't understand!!'

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 1:26 PM

For me and a lot of others it would mean no ice fishing for us much on darling, but at least there would a place for runoff to collect, the other two (alameda, rafferty) need to follow suit! If not, no matter what the city of minot build constructs is going to stand little chance against another runoff comparable to the 2011 snowpack runoff, and LEGEND since you minored in "math" figure out exactly how big your channel would need to be to harness 26,000 cfs for a period of about three weeks (typical mountain snowpack runoff) I'm thinking the channel would be 300 ft wide 100 ft deep by 15 miles long, and tell me if I'm close!! I know you got time old man I'm working though

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 12:49 PM don't understand how that flood took place, your anger needs to be directed at our great neighbors to the north, as well as the army corp. for not forecasting better!! See when you have record snowfall in the mountains in 2011, combined with a lack of vision by said corp. here's where it gets confusing to you all, there's three dams above minot on the souris river, reservoirs were made to control runoff by emptying them prior to record runoff levels, the flood should've never happened, period! The city of minot has nothing to with the water rights to the souris, Canadian govt. and army corp are to blame, but is a little late for placing blame!! Better preparation is required in terms of emptying these reservoirs before record runoff takes place so at least there's a fighting chance for us not to flood, a dammed river is never a good thing for the river, especially when the people operating it are incompetent!!!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 12:39 PM

Don't blame oil companies for all that has come to ND, blame this honored geologist that is responsible for the find!! Oh and there's thousands upon thousands of native North Dakotans to blame as well for leasing them their land to ruin!!

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 9:50 AM

Leak? What leak? Oh it is just 98,000 gallons. The price of gas will go down--you say it's up? Oh, it is that summer blend thing. We (oil) r stewards of the environment and limit our footprint (2 all private land in the badlands)some of which is too rugged 2 clean up spills says big oil. Too much for us billionaires! You don't mind if we leave some radioactive filter socks, do ya? ND Oil Can lie, pollute, destroy, pay higher than union wages and cheat at will to pocket billions.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 8:40 AM

great...more transients living in mancamps,cars and make travel trailers to keep our police busy and jails busting at the seams.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 7:39 AM


3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-02-14 7:28 AM

Just don't drink the water.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 14 of 14 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web