Energy bill info

[mtmiller]

I would like to hear some more opinions on the energy bill (although the butt-punching elk conversation was entertaining, I would like to get back to the topic). As some know, I work for BLM and part of my job includes leasing public land for gas development. I have seen areas that are extracting gas and causing minimal impacts on other resources. Unfortunately this is not always the case.

My question is to those on both sides of the fence, are there areas that should not be leased to oil/gas development? Although I am open to all resource concerns, my primary interest is with wildlife and wildlife habitat.

On a side note, 6 lease nominations, encompassing ~4,000 acres, came across my desk yesterday. Four of the leases are located in the middle of identified crucial big game winter range. Standard stipulations allow for seasonal timing stipulations for drilling, but no protection during production. It is obvious that once these parcels are leased my hands are tied and when it is between maximum production and wildlife protection, the critters loose.

Anyway, how about some thoughts.

 

[ELKCHSR]

Would it be possible to make extraction and all work on a seasonal basis, i.e. remove the human elemant during the more criticle times of the year while leaving it open the rest...

 

[Tom]

I don't know the big picture. I know oil wells make lots of noise and the trucks going in and out can chase even the whitetail deer out temporarily. Once the pumps just pump all the time and trucks just come and check them once a week or some infrequent time like that (less than hunting traffic) the deer hang around. We hate to see a new well come in on a lease down here, but if its old and just in maintenance mode, we hunt and get deer and other game near it. The road into it and out, are great shooting/retreival lanes.

That senator thought the data Kerasote was talking about was not meaningful and that senator is from Montana, whew. Alternative energy would be great, what is it? How do we get it? We all use gas and oil, so its important.

Here's a table that shows we only produce about 3/4(?) of what we use.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0101.html

We used 97+ quadrillion BTUs in 2002. We need to turn our heaters and air conditioners off, right?
Take cold baths, why heat water 24/7?

Here's a neat Policy Analysis report.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html

Alt.ener. not cheap, not green? 2-3 times the cost.

Look at this book.
http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=31&pid=144056
it says
"The best energy policy is not policy at all."

[ 04-05-2004, 13:24: Message edited by: Tom ]

 

[Tom]

Public Policy Implications (from the Policy Analysis Report)

This analysis can be employed now in the public policy debate to answer such questions as whether there has been too little or too much renewable energy investment to date, whether renewable and conservation subsidies should continue, and what the role of renewables and conservation in a restructured electricity industry might be.
...
Whenever renewables seem stymied, environmentalists, regulators, and politicians respond that more R&D is needed. This cry arises from an outmoded belief that technological and social innovations spring from the womb of large centralized organizations. This model of innovation no longer produces results either in government or commerce. The call for more R&D diverts attention from what is needed most, structural change in the market. [311]

Ending Renewable Energy Subsidies
The policy implication of the present analysis is, stop throwing good money after bad. All renewable energy subsidies from all levels of government should cease. ...

Deregulate, Do Not Reregulate

Electricity restructuring is gaining momentum at both the state and federal level. Many of the reforms being proposed and adopted still suffer from an unthinking reliance on the paradigm of eco-energy planning and thus threaten to negate some, if not much, of the rate savings possible from increased industry competition.
...
For now, the harsh environmental opposition to hydroelectric power, the only meaningful alternative to fossil fuels in the renewable portfolio, should be reconsidered. A public policy initiative to repeal licensing requirements and privatize waterways to allow market decisionmaking about existing and new hydropower facilities is long overdue to replace the current political conflict over these now "public" resources.
The chance that market verdicts may change with such resources as wind and solar energy in central-station electricity generation cannot be a rationale for government to pick winners and losers before the market does. The evolutionary market process is theoretically and empirically the best way to allocate scarce resources amid uncertainty--a conclusion buttressed not only by theory but by the history of market and government forces in energy markets. [324]
It is possible that the primary source of energy in 50 or 100 years will be renewables, as a study by Shell International predicts. [325]
...
The results of a complex, evolving market discovery process cannot be known ahead of time.
The failed coercive model of eco-energy planning should be replaced with a market energy model predicated on private property, competition, market pricing, profit/loss signals, technological improvement, and growing real wealth and philanthropy. This paradigm shift should be welcomed by environmentalists who
• prefer voluntary negotiation to coercion (civil society to political society),
• recognize the unintended negative consequences of government intervention and the unintended positive consequences of market transactions, and
• understand the positive correlation between private economic wealth and improving technology on one hand and ecological sensitivity and progress on the other.

To this end, the failed ad hoc program of eco-energy planning should be terminated.
Such a public policy initiative would end the present era of energy intervention, facilitate the abolition of the DOE and state-level energy bureaucracies, and contribute to increased energy abundance and true sustainability.

 

[Ten Bears]

mtmiller,I would go slow to approve anymore then 1/4 of the applications for winterrange at any one time. Do they have to file any type bond for remediation/cleanup?

 

[Tom]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/Forward.pdf is a link to the report of the energy policy group the president requested at the beginning of his term.

 

[BuzzH]

Mtmiller,

I think the 4 areas with crucial winter range should be left alone. If its "crucial", then I would say thats pretty important habitat.

I'd bet though, that the "crucial" wildlife habitat will soon be supporting more wells and less wildlife, as usual.

Wildlife and wildlife habitat does not have a bright future.

 

[mtmiller]

We hate to see a new well come in on a lease down here, but if its old and just in maintenance mode, we hunt and get deer and other game near it. The road into it and out, are great shooting/retreival lanes.

Not so good for big game security cover though. This is especially true when it is located in crucial winter areas.

Would it be possible to make extraction and all work on a seasonal basis, i.e. remove the human elemant during the more criticle times of the year while leaving it open the rest...

I agree, but once that hole is in the ground we are not able to enforce those stipulations. One example, if it produces excess water, trucks must be used to haul the water away. The only way to reduce the water is to slow the production. We have then made the well "uneconomical", and therefore must allow the trucks to haul. In some areas this includes daily trips.

I would go slow to approve anymore then 1/4 of the applications for winterrange at any one time.

Well over 1/4 of the crucial winter range has already been leased. At some point we need to protect what we have left. I am not saying, No More Wells, but at least allow stipulations that will adequately protect wildlife.

Do they have to file any type bond for remediation/cleanup?

Yes, and from what I have seen, reclamation is done very well. My concerns are what is happening to the wildlife resource during production.

By the way, today I was fishing a bird out of an oil pit. The good news is that it was a sharptail and not a raptor, which was the initial thought. I would throw in a picture, but since it was taken with gov't camera and may be evidence, I better hold off.

I'd bet though, that the "crucial" wildlife habitat will soon be supporting more wells and less wildlife, as usual.

Buzz, unfortunately you are correct.

I proposed a "no lease" on the basis that our RMP does not adequately protect other resources, specifically big game in this instance. The newest IM states that the Field Office Manager must sign off on any parcels that are not leased. Hopefully he will stand behind the biologist (me), but I know he will be under a lot of pressure as well.

I am sure the next couple of months will get very exciting. Who knows, might be a transfer in my future.

 

[BuzzH]

mtmiller,

This is precisely what pisses me off about the resource extraction industry. The only compromise is the compromising of wildlife and wildlife habitat.

I'm assuming this is coal bed methane development, which will require a ton of roads, and a ton of wells. The road density and the well pad densities are out of hand, and not only directly destroy habitat, but also increase the access into otherwise hard to access areas. All of which negatively impact mule deer, elk, etc. etc.

Knowing how federal lands management is mandated, I'd say that the science behind the upcoming decision on this issue will be squashed and not even considered. The science will take the backseat to politics and money, like it always does. Sadly, the ultimate loser will be the wildlife. The directive from the current administration is to lease, lease, lease, and hurry up about it. Nothing better than schizophrenic planning.

 

[mtmiller]

You speak the truth Buzz. I have been thinking about planting some tee-pee rings in some of the most sensitive wildlife habitat. I still can't believe that a pile of rocks can move a project, but protecting crucial wildlife habitat carries little weight.

Thankfully, the coal-bed methane potential in my area is very low, but this gas extraction is still creating many roads and in some areas producing excessive water with high salt content. In fact today, we found a truck illegally dumping into an ephemeral stream. It was documented, but not sure if anything will come of it. Kind of like a grazing trespass that has been going on for over three years. Nevermind, I don't want to open that can of worms too.

Still love the job, but some days...

 

[Tom]

mtmiller said "I am not saying, No More Wells, but at least allow stipulations that will adequately protect wildlife."
That seems like a good approach. There are other ways to protect wildlife besides not having roads, but seeing how much trouble you have up there with ATVs, I see there would be trouble with roads until you can enforce those "stipulations".

I hope something does come of the illegal dumping, why would it not? Who lets it go?

 

[Oak]

There are other ways to protect wildlife besides not having roads, but seeing how much trouble you have up there with ATVs, I see there would be trouble with roads until you can enforce those "stipulations".

When it comes to big game habitat (leaving whitetails out of the equation because they can live anywere), roadbuilding has to be one of the quickest ways of degrading it. You then open it up to all the other things that degrade wildlife habitat. Even if you restrict use to designated roads, you're still causing a disturbance and removing a lot more effective habitat than is taken by the width of the road. Deny development leases and buy a pair of friggin' boots!

Who knows, might be a transfer in my future.

Miller, where do you go from Havre when you piss off the wrong person?!

Oak

 

[mtmiller]

Miller, where do you go from Havre when you piss off the wrong person?!

The joke is that Battle Mountain, Nevada is where one starts over.

 

[Tom]

I can see why that Montana senator might have thought Kerasote's data was bunk. A road with a gate, so you have to wear boots to go through, is not that big of a deal. I know RMEF is closing down a lot of roads, but isn't it because people missuse them, more than anything else.

Its a lot easier to control people down here. If they drive where they are not supposed to drive, they are banned, they never drive or set foot on the property again, they are asked to leave, if they don't, the police arrest them.

You want to deny development leases, then you sell your car, turn of your heater and water heater and walk everywhere, eh?

 

[Oak]

Lol! I ran out of gas in Battle Mountain once, a long time ago. That was as long as I wanted to be there.

Oak

 

[BuzzH]

Tom you said, "You want to deny development leases, then you sell your car, turn of your heater and water heater and walk everywhere, eh?


That isnt the answer and that arguement saves no wildlife habitat.

Consider the fact that a vast amount of all BLM, FS, etc. is open to development.

Whats at risk, is the 20% thats left. Thats whats maintaining the wildlife populations that we have now. Do you think its worth compromising the last 20%? I dont think it is, wildlife is already heading for trouble and lesser amounts of suitable habitat all the time. Wildlife should be a consideration, and the problem is, its really not a consideration. Thats whats so frustrating about working for the federal agencies, the science that supports your recommendations is not even looked at. Some jerkass in the whitehouse can trump all the best science in the world, and I have to pay the price for that. If you question the directive from the whitehouse, you'll find yourself in a nice cushy office in Point Barrow Alaska for "telling it like it is". So, for self preservation, you do what you have to. That is a shitty way to operate. At that point, why even hire a wildlife biologist? Why even write an EA or EIS? Why even study anything? Why try to do the right thing? Its a waste of taxpayer money if the professionals in the field wont be taken seriously and listened to.

I'd be more willing to compromise wildlife habitat if 80% of federal lands were off limits to development, but that isnt the case. In my opinion, we cant afford to lose any more wildlife habitat than we already have.

 

[Tom]

I was taking the idea that they are trying to develope more of the habitat to extract energy. We use up the energy, with our extravagant lifestyle. If someone wants less development, there has to be less energy used. I think whatever science you are talking about is being considered, its just that the impact is not that big of a problem, compared to the need for energy.

Where is the data that says a road with access/limited use stipulations destoys the wildlife habitat? I would like to read it. Isn't that the key point you're saying, it can't be developed at all? Anybody have something for me to read on that.

The only thing similar to what you're talking about for me is this, maybe.
When I was at Ind.Univ., the statistician that I worked for and I consulted with the Enviromental Protection Agency statistician evaluation steel mill polution in Gary, Indiana. Those mills were pretty old and polluted a lot and we helped document that. US Steel took out a full page add in the paper. They said if the EPA made them rebuild the mills, they would close them down the old ones down in that city and just use the new ones built later. The EPA was forced to back off because almost everyone worked at those steel mills. Slowly, things changed and newer competitors, with newer mills, took over.

I'm glad I was not that EPA statistician, but if they sent me to Alaska, I'd go, that's good hunting. Does anyone really live in Point Barrow though, isn't that place pretty much impossible to stay in? haha

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, the road itself takes habitat away. The access the road provides takes away security. The best habitat in the world does mule deer and elk no good if they're afraid to use it.

Theres been mountains of articles and studies on road densities and elk/deer utilization, I'd bet an internet search would bring up a ton of literature.

I agree that we should do more to conserve energy and develope alternative sources.

 

[Tom]

Here's a sample statement,

"This high road density increases elk vulnerability during the hunting season."

If people are not allowed to drive on the road or hunt on the road, if you want to be real strict, then the statement becomes, no problem, the elk are safe. If the elk are more vulnerable because of the road, so what, just stop the hunting when the quota is met. There's some possibly workable stipulations for where developement may be needed.

Grass grows in the roads, elk eat that, that's improved habitat, isn't it? I want something better than this to read, I'm not buying it, so far.

 

[mtmiller]

Here is another sample statement-

Example 1

Wildlife supporter-we will not allow you to build roads and place a gas pad in a coulee bottom because it is crucial wildlife security cover or winter habitat. We will allow you to stay on lease and place it 300 meters from your proposed site. You will be out of the coulee and can still hit your target by directionally drilling.

Industry-hell no, it would cost too much for us to drill directionally and we already have a 90% chance of missing the formation if we are dirctly above it. "Economically unfeasable", wildlife looses.

Example 2

Wildlife supporter-OK we will let you drill in the coulee bottom if a condition of approval is that you limit your trips to twice and month to check your equipment or anytime if there is a break down or work over order. We may request telemetry monitoring during sensitive seasonal periods.

Industry-Sure no problem, we can work together, now lets punch in a road and get drilling.

Reality check-Wow, we are producing 15 barrels of water/day and our evaportation pits can't keep up. We will have to visit the site every other day to haul water. I know we said twice a month, but if we slow production, "economically unfeasable". Those last two words are a hell of a trump card and we get to see them often. Once again, wildlife looses.

These two examples have occurred in the last couple of months.

As for roads and impacts to deer, elk and bighorn, Buzz is exactly right. Before you bash him too much, follow his advice and do an internet search. There are volumes on the subject. If you find a couple that state roads and vehicular access are a benefit to wildlife, please pass it along. I sure would be interested.