Windmills coming to public land near you

[BigHornRam]

Replace the words "wind, solar and renewable energy" in this bill with "Oil, gas and fossil fuel energy". Keep every other word in the bill the same and ask yourself would BHA, TU and TRCP sign on as supporters? I asked John Gale that very question and he has yet to answer it. He has replied but has never answered that question. BTW, doing that would result in less surface disturbance acreage and far more money for F&W, the State, the County and the Fed deficit fund.

Two words. Climate change. Get with the program.

 

[JDH]

That is correct. I'm not sure where the confusion is about this. Wyoming took it upon ourselves to support WY G&F management, including hunting. National wanted us to say we supported "delisting".

I do believe now the BHA statement supports state control, without mentioning hunting.

That's not a typo. They wanted the Wyoming Chapter to take a position supporting delisting. Nothing else.

We didn't comply with that request by the way. Buzz sent a great letter in full support of state management of grizzlies by the Wyo Game & Fish Dept, including hunting as a management tool.

Thanks for the clarification. I think it is sometimes hard for a forum of hunters to realize that state control doesn't automatically mean a hunting season.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Two words. Climate change. Get with the program.

Yep....

The obvious riposte being that most public lands are in the west, that the west is mostly montane forest and/or desert biomes, that the flora/fauna in these regions have evolved to be fairly resilient to dramatic changes in local climates, and therefore are somewhat insulated from the effects of climate change.

They aren't insulated from development.

 

[icebreaker12]

Yep....

The obvious riposte being that most public lands are in the west, that the west is mostly montane forest and/or desert biomes, that the flora/fauna in these regions have evolved to be fairly resilient to dramatic changes in local climates, and therefore are somewhat insulated from the effects of climate change.

They aren't insulated from development.

I think that's a giant reach. A lot of the models suggest water will fall in these desert areas at different times of the year and in varying amounts. That's going to have affects we can't really even imagine right now.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Two words. Climate change. Get with the program.

I thought we moved on from pinning that on fossil fuels and started blaming it on cow farts? Perhaps as bill that incentivizes increased sheep grazing, since they obviously fart less, is in order.

 

[icebreaker12]

I thought we moved on from pinning that on fossil fuels and started blaming it on cow farts? Perhaps as bill that incentivizes increased sheep grazing, since they obviously fart less, is in order.

Woah, woah, woah....... The may fart less, but they don't taste near as good. Let's not let this line of thinking go to far!

 

[Deleted member 18333]

Woah, woah, woah....... The may fart less, but they don't taste near as good. Let's not let this line of thinking go to far!

More of something with less quality is always better than less of something with more quality. That's not my opinion, that's science! Try to explain Walmart any other way?

 

[BuzzH]

Hey all, see below from John Gale our director of conservation:

The short of it is we’re not opposed to oil and gas energy development on public lands any more so than we are renewable energy development. Ultimately, we’re interested in helping direct policies that ensure wildlife habitat is not negatively impacted by energy development of all kinds. This bill helps do that while also providing a funding source to help mitigate impacts.

https://www.tu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/190723_C.Wood_PLREDA_Testimony_HNRC-emr_H.R.3794_July25hrg.pdf

Sportsmen's Groups Throw Support Behind Renewable Energy Legislation | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Today's House hearing will consider a measure that sportsmen’s coalition says will help protect wildlife and public lands with thoughtful planning and revenue for conservation.

www.trcp.org

That is what was sent my chapter. BHA is completely freaking tone deaf on this one. How do they expect to ever be taken seriously on energy develop ment again? How do they expect any of us to be taken seriously when we push the cause?

"Just tell Land we will send some money to Wildlife"

I'm still waiting to talk to a BHA member supporting this. Not sure one exists, outside of Missoula.

This is completely ridiculous. I don't think anyone with these sportsmen's groups has read the goddamn bill...it reeks of business as usual for a way to expedite and rape public lands for the profit of a few. There aren't even assurances of WHAT amount of money will be deposited into the accounts because its largely at the discretion of the Secretary. That's for starters, secondly, it doesn't specify any "split" of the wildlife fund going to which states...at all. In other words, when my state takes the brunt of this bill, and my BLM is littered with solar and wind development, there's no assurance of how much money Wyoming will get from the wildlife conservation pool *(a whopping fraction of 25% of the rents/lease fees, which aren't jack chit even at full value). Further, the Secretary has the discretion to reduce the rent/lease fees (there are no "royalties") at a whim. If development costs are a hardship or if he/she just feels that the wind and solar companies suffer a hardship of any kind they can reduce or not even charge a rent/lease fee. Nowhere in the text did I read anything about a minimum based on the order of the Secretary being able to reduce the lease fees.

That's just for starters....

Its also pure bullchit too that NEPA is going to be largely subverted, making it nearly impossible for SPORTMEN and SPORTSMENS groups to file objections to any new development. Without that, we're FRANKED...we wont have any recourse or very little recourse to deal with developments we don't agree with.

I can also tell everyone here, for a fact, that I wrote a letter of opposition to a permit application filed to allow a gigantic wind farm on BLM in an area of central Wyoming under BHA's letterhead. I was asked by a Game and Fish biologist to look into the development. Not only was it located in a premier deer/elk/pronghorn area, but also in core sage grouse habitat as well. I got the green light from BHA leadership to write the letter of opposition and ultimately the permit was denied. I also talked with several BLM employees that were directly involved in that process before and after I wrote the letter of opposition...and was thanked profusely for assistance in saving that area from being permitted for wind development. This area is not only a special place for the wildlife found there, but also to me personally. Its my "boundary waters" and there is already infringement on adjacent private property that has wind farms already. Luckily its in an area that hasn't had any oil and gas development for the most part and a very nice area of intact sagebrush steppe habitat. Oh, did I mention its also a place where black footed ferrets have been reintroduced?

I've already given up the chokecherry project, and I admit and regret not doing more to oppose it. The positive that will come from this massive wind farm is before and after data on migration corridors and how wind development impacts there. I attended a presentation by Hall Sawyer and Matt Kaufmann with the migration initiative group and someone in the room made the statement that the wind/solar crowd had their knickers in a bunch because they were sure that deer/elk/pronghorn migrations would be altered by that development. I mean, no chit? slapping a couple thousand wind turbines right in migration corridors is going to alter their migration patterns? The wind guys were all hot because there was no "before and after development data with oil/gas/coal, so its not fair to pick on us". Really? I also asked a question of the presenters if big-game would avoid wind development about like they avoid oil and gas development...they said, "that would be a fair assumption to make".

I expect to have to battle/compromise some with industry on this stuff, just never thought I would also have to battle my own to do what's best for wildlife on MY PUBLIC LANDS.

Its really tough for me to believe that there is any support for this bill from the conservation community...my soul, wildlife, and public lands aren't for sale for 25% of, at best case, $3/acre in rent fees...

 

[hossblur]

This is completely ridiculous. I don't think anyone with these sportsmen's groups has read the goddamn bill...it reeks of business as usual for a way to expedite and rape public lands for the profit of a few. There aren't even assurances of WHAT amount of money will be deposited into the accounts because its largely at the discretion of the Secretary. That's for starters, secondly, it doesn't specify any "split" of the wildlife fund going to which states...at all. In other words, when my state takes the brunt of this bill, and my BLM is littered with solar and wind development, there's no assurance of how much money Wyoming will get from the wildlife conservation pool *(a whopping fraction of 25% of the rents/lease fees, which aren't jack chit even at full value). Further, the Secretary has the discretion to reduce the rent/lease fees (there are no "royalties") at a whim. If development costs are a hardship or if he/she just feels that the wind and solar companies suffer a hardship of any kind they can reduce or not even charge a rent/lease fee. Nowhere in the text did I read anything about a minimum based on the order of the Secretary being able to reduce the lease fees.

That's just for starters....

Its also pure bullchit too that NEPA is going to be largely subverted, making it nearly impossible for SPORTMEN and SPORTSMENS groups to file objections to any new development. Without that, we're FRANKED...we wont have any recourse or very little recourse to deal with developments we don't agree with.

I can also tell everyone here, for a fact, that I wrote a letter of opposition to a permit application filed to allow a gigantic wind farm on BLM in an area of central Wyoming under BHA's letterhead. I was asked by a Game and Fish biologist to look into the development. Not only was it located in a premier deer/elk/pronghorn area, but also in core sage grouse habitat as well. I got the green light from BHA leadership to write the letter of opposition and ultimately the permit was denied. I also talked with several BLM employees that were directly involved in that process before and after I wrote the letter of opposition...and was thanked profusely for assistance in saving that area from being permitted for wind development. This area is not only a special place for the wildlife found there, but also to me personally. Its my "boundary waters" and there is already infringement on adjacent private property that has wind farms already. Luckily its in an area that hasn't had any oil and gas development for the most part and a very nice area of intact sagebrush steppe habitat. Oh, did I mention its also a place where black footed ferrets have been reintroduced?

I've already given up the chokecherry project, and I admit and regret not doing more to oppose it. The positive that will come from this massive wind farm is before and after data on migration corridors and how wind development impacts there. I attended a presentation by Hall Sawyer and Matt Kaufmann with the migration initiative group and someone in the room made the statement that the wind/solar crowd had their knickers in a bunch because they were sure that deer/elk/pronghorn migrations would be altered by that development. I mean, no chit? slapping a couple thousand wind turbines right in migration corridors is going to alter their migration patterns? The wind guys were all hot because there was no "before and after development data with oil/gas/coal, so its not fair to pick on us". Really? I also asked a question of the presenters if big-game would avoid wind development about like they avoid oil and gas development...they said, "that would be a fair assumption to make".

I expect to have to battle/compromise some with industry on this stuff, just never thought I would also have to battle my own to do what's best for wildlife on MY PUBLIC LANDS.

Its really tough for me to believe that there is any support for this bill from the conservation community...my soul, wildlife, and public lands aren't for sale for 25% of, at best case, $3/acre in rent fees...

"It's my boundary waters"

EXACTLY MY THOUGHT

 

[BuzzH]

Think wind is wildlife friendly and doesn't leave a footprint?

Photo I snapped with my phone during the presentation mentioned in my last post:

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

"The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall seek to issue permits that, in total, authorize production of not less than 25 gigawatts of electricity from wind, solar, and geothermal energy projects by not later than 2025"

At 2.5 MW a turbine that's 10,000 turbines, so 3400 or so acres bulldozed for pads. Roughly equivalent to 850 horizontal well pads.

Anadarko, a $38B company, probably only has ~1000 developed horizontal pads accross UT, WY, CO and TX.

 

[BuzzH]

"The Secretary and the Secretary of Agriculture shall seek to issue permits that, in total, authorize production of not less than 25 gigawatts of electricity from wind, 24 solar, and geothermal energy projects by not later than 2025"

At 2.5 MW a turbine that's 10,000 turbines, so 3400 or so acres bulldozed for pads. Roughly equivalent to 850 horizontal well pads.

Anadarko, a $38B company, probably only has ~1000 developed horizontal pads accross UT, WY, CO and TX.

That's not including the roads needed to haul all that crap out there, the road to each turbine, or the amount of disturbance installing transmission lines.

I wonder who's going to pay for the weed spraying, surface runoff, and road maintenance for all that? Let me guess, the taxpayer or directly from the "wildlife" pittance that is paid...which is up to the secretary to decide how much each State receives.

Congress is working its "magic" on this one...

 

[Deleted member 18333]

In fairness to the discussion, I was able to find another fee, other than rent, that renewable projects would need to pay when operating on BLM land and it looks like it could be considerable. There is a capacity fee attached to each megawatt produced. It appears that it is as simple as multiplying the name plate capacity by the MW rate. From what I could find the current MW rate for wind is $5,010/MW and between $2,863/M- $4,294/MW for solar, depending on the type of solar. Therefore a 2.5 MW turbine operating on BLM land would generate an additional $12,522/yr in annual capacity fees. Does anyone with more experience with this than me know if I am calculating this correctly?

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

In fairness to the discussion, I was able to find another fee, other than rent, that renewable projects would need to pay when operating on BLM land and it looks like it could be considerable. There is a capacity fee attached to each megawatt produced. It appears that it is as simple as multiplying the name plate capacity by the MW rate. From what I could find the current MW rate for wind is $5,010/MW and between $2,863/M- $4,294/MW for solar, depending on the type of solar. Therefore a 2.5 MW turbine operating on BLM land would generate an additional $12,522/yr in annual capacity fees. Does anyone with more experience with this than me know if I am calculating this correctly?

For perspective, if you had a 4 well pad and each well was doing 1000 barrels a day... (4000x 365 X price of oil $58) *fed royalty rate 12.5% = $1,022,000 plus you get a surface rental rate + an excise tax per barrel that goes to the state.

Using the 43,960,751 mcf/yr pad from my table... (43,960,751*$2.2 Gas price)* 12.5% = $1,208,920
So your looking at 10X the money going to the gov for 1/66 the surface disturbance, for equivalent energy production.

and if it was on private land the OG company would be paying 50k for a surface site + $2500-$5000/per acre (depending on the area) for a bonus payment

So if federal government got the same terms as a private land owner (which they don't) on a 1280 acre unit (2 sections) on a piece of BLM in New Mexico in the Permian with a modest 4 wells, they could receive over $4,272,000 assuming it took 6 months from the signing of the lease to full pad development. This single 1280 acres would be "developed" by a single 4-5 acre pad.

5 acres of wind development would be 15 ish turbines and given your fee numbers would generate $187,830, to provide the same $$$ figure you would have to have 113 acres of turbines, 341 total. Total development cost for 341 turbines would be between 300-500 million dollars, while that OG pad probably wouldn't break 25 million.

 

[RockinU]

I think I'm finally starting to understand the roots of some of the problems Washington is causing...it would appear than there isn't a single SOB in the whole damn town that is capable of doing math.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I think I'm finally starting to understand the roots of some of the problems Washington is causing...it would appear than there isn't a single SOB in the whole damn town that is capable of doing math.

They can do math just fine, they are just hoping we won’t check their work. Fortunately for us we have folks like wllm, Buzz and others that can and will

 

[widnert]

Government subsidization of private industries always works out well for taxpayers...........fill in the rest.

 

[antelopedundee]

Woah, woah, woah....... The may fart less, but they don't taste near as good. Let's not let this line of thinking go to far!

But they also breathe. Human and animal respiration is probably a bigger contributor to "greenhouse" gases than farting is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Government subsidization of private industries always works out well for taxpayers...........fill in the rest.

It's kept the cost of your food down. It's paid for the construction of our transportation system. And, it's led to the largest corporate takeover of government power in the history of the world.

But other than those, it's been awful.

 

[noharleyyet]

Truck stop burritos...just sayin'