Danita Bye

Stanley

From time to time, a writer or editor suggests the value in slowing down the pace of development in the Bakken. Though well intended, the idea of slowdowns and shut-ins are more harmful to our state than beneficial. Why do I say this?

Slowdowns and shut-ins reduce the revenues to our overall economy and while oil and gas producers are clearly hit, the consequences are far reaching. Lower production proportionately hits mineral owners, the state severance taxes and the Legacy Fund, and every city and county share of the Prairie Dog bill which shares oil and gas taxes with local governments across the state.

Consequently, slowdowns and shut-ins further harm the economic prosperity of our state’s workers, entrepreneurs, property owners, and taxpayers.

And as far reaching as these effects may be, they are also complex and can compound challenges faced by the industry and state. For instance, the severe downturn in oil prices had a clear effect on jobs and state tax collections. It also rattled the pace of infrastructure investment by gas processors. When coupled with the rapid technological improvement in gas production, our state today experiences higher flaring levels and producers are restricting production.

Who wins here? It’s not the producer. Nor the surface or mineral owners. It certainly is not the state or taxpayer. Nor the worker or entrepreneur.

Why, however, should we not support slowdowns and shut-ins? Consider this: Governor Burgum challenged the industry with reaching production levels exceeding 2 million barrels per day. Such a level would add billions of new revenues to the state, including approximately $1 billion per year to the Legacy Fund. It would also add tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for North Dakotans.

Such production is clearly a benefit to all of us. Our newspapers, our leaders, and each of us ought to fight for every well and every barrel.