The Rush to Develop Oil and Gas We Don’t Need

An interesting piece in the NYT on the affects of the extraction industry on OUR Public Lands.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/opinion/trump-oil-public-lands.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region

Prior to this article, I had a basic understanding of the fact that we have a glut of oil and gas, not just in the States, but worldwide. This is most evident in the price of WTI - West Texas Crude. In 2014, WTI was around $105 per barrel, it now trades at $50 per barrel. The fracking industry is so good at getting oil that we have way to much supply.

So, the question for all of us Public Land advocates is why should we accept Zinke and the DJT's push to add more of OUR Public Land to the extraction industry?

We should not.

This attack on OUR Public Lands is just the beginning and if we do not fight and fight hard, we will lose these lands - maybe forever. This fight is going to need everyone regardless of political view to fight this. Set aside "Left" and "Right" Think for yourself, act for all.

Here are a couple highlights from the article.

"Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recently directed the Bureau of Land Management to ramp up sales of oil and gas leases on federal land. He wants leases sold at least every 90 days and drilling permits processed in 30 days, a procedure that, with proper environmental reviews, requires substantially more time".

"Global oil and gas supplies are so abundant that these fuels are being produced on less than half of the approximately 27 million acres of public lands under lease to energy companies. Through the 2015 fiscal year, a record 7,950 drilling permits on federal leases were not being used".

"The facts are that the United States already has abundant oil and gas available, the industry has chosen not to drill on leases they already own and is not even bidding on what the government is offering".

"To meet the Zinke directive, the agency will need to shift its focus from managing public lands for multiple purposes as the law requires — for grazing, mining, water, fish and wildlife, and historic, cultural and recreation values — to an all-out effort to expedite oil and gas lease sales and energy development".

"Oil and gas leases run for 10 years and are often extended. Committing public lands to energy production for so long — whether or not they actually produce oil or gas — means that public use of these lands for nonenergy purposes could be affected for years".

"Rural communities should be wary of this new initiative.....curtail priorities important to rural communities that depend on the public lands, like fire prevention, rangeland improvement, conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation".

"...pursuit of “energy dominance” is likely to amount to a fire sale of oil and gas leases benefiting speculators who pay little up front, hoping to benefit when energy prices rise. Taxpayers would lose and the purported benefits to local communities of greater revenues and more jobs..."

"The president’s energy strategy is more likely to damage public-land resources. Rural communities, American taxpayers and our children will pay the price".

Cheers,

Mark

Your post makes absolutely no sense.First of all the New York Times is a liberal rag,whom could care less if you have hunting rights or not.Second,you say they can't get anyone to bid on the leases because of low crude prices.Sounds to me as though we have nothing to worry about there.I'm starting to think liberals are impersonating hunters on all these hunting sites trying to cause a divide amongst us.But explain what I'm missing here.Are they giving these leases away now since no one wants them?They've got better at extracting oil it says.That would lead a normal person to assume less drilling is needed..I think residents in those rural communities may have ALOT of interest in high paying energy jobs as compared to a place to walk their dog.Just thinking from a realistic perspective here.Thanks for the warning though.When will you guys realize how dumb you sound when you keep acting like the sky is falling but nothing happens

mixedbag said:

Your post makes absolutely no sense.First of all the New York Times is a liberal rag,whom could care less if you have hunting rights or not.Second,you say they can't get anyone to bid on the leases because of low crude prices.Sounds to me as though we have nothing to worry about there.I'm starting to think liberals are impersonating hunters on all these hunting sites trying to cause a divide amongst us.But explain what I'm missing here.Are they giving these leases away now since no one wants them?They've got better at extracting oil it says.That would lead a normal person to assume less drilling is needed..I think residents in those rural communities may have ALOT of interest in high paying energy jobs as compared to a place to walk their dog.Just thinking from a realistic perspective here.Thanks for the warning though.When will you guys realize how dumb you sound when you keep acting like the sky is falling but nothing happens

Click to expand...

Here's how it works:

Expediting the lease sale is a win for the industry because it means they get to secure leases at bargain-basement prices, regardless of potential. Owning those leases are important to the industry because they can trade them, sell them or use them as proof that the "next big boom will be in X area" to their investors. Getting a lease, and the permit to drill doesn't mean they will sink the money in the well right now. They'll wait until they have the right market conditions, and then they have everything lined up - ready to go - including the massive reduction in stipulations and mitigation that have been put in place w/o much fanfare over the last few months. It's exactly how it worked under 43 when we had places like the Jonah and Pinedale Anticline ruined for generations due to "ensuring profitability of leaseholders and removing regulatory burdens." There are currently over 7,000 permits waiting to be drilled on, and millions of acres of public land leased already. Now industry wants more.

It's like Industry is seeing shelves of .22 bricks for $15 and then hoarding them to resell when they can get $30. It's basic capitalism.

A good example of what's coming down the pike is the Creston-Continental Divide project in Wyoming. It's 1 million acres in size, with projected well spacing between 10-40 acres. This project was fast-tracked because of the President's EO on expediting oil and gas development and removing "barriers to industry" (which really means wildlife protections). This project was then protested by conservation organizations because it was in Wyoming's Core Sage Grouse strategy (which the EIS functionally ignored as well).

The harsh reality of where we are with the Dept. of Interior and minerals is that the public has fewer options to participate in public land management now, has far fewer advocates in the administration at the top levels, and the same people who made the mistakes of the early 2000's are back in power, with more authority to make bigger mistakes now. That's simply a statement of fact based off of working on this stuff for the last 15 years. Elections have consequences, and the consequences of this past election mean that public land is once again under management by those who view hunters and anglers as a detriment to premium profitability. I hear a lot from my conservative friends that local management of public lands is a good thing, and usually I can go along with that so long as our public processes are left, and the Washington set leaves us enough tools to properly sculpt & pull together large projects. Unfortunately, with our Resource Advsory Councils done away with, new processes that discourage public participation or in the case of the EO - offer no public participation in public land management - what we have is a new boss who makes the old - top-down boss - look like a good steward of the land.

mixedbag said:

Your post makes absolutely no sense.First of all the New York Times is a liberal rag,whom could care less if you have hunting rights or not.Second,you say they can't get anyone to bid on the leases because of low crude prices.Sounds to me as though we have nothing to worry about there.I'm starting to think liberals are impersonating hunters on all these hunting sites trying to cause a divide amongst us.But explain what I'm missing here.Are they giving these leases away now since no one wants them?They've got better at extracting oil it says.That would lead a normal person to assume less drilling is needed..I think residents in those rural communities may have ALOT of interest in high paying energy jobs as compared to a place to walk their dog.Just thinking from a realistic perspective here.Thanks for the warning though.When will you guys realize how dumb you sound when you keep acting like the sky is falling but nothing happens

Click to expand...

It's perceptive and insightful thoughts such as this that keeps me engaged in our national discourse (public lands, etc.)
Thank You, Mixed Bag
Sincerely
Another Liberal Impersonating a Hunter

Thanks Ben, your insight and knowledge on these issues is amazing to say the least.

Ben Lamb said:

Elections have consequences, and the consequences of this past election mean that public land is once again under management by those who view hunters and anglers as a detriment to premium profitability. .

Click to expand...

Let's be clear -- the left is no friend of hunters either. The right may very well give "big oil" and "big timber" too much leeway, but the left does the same with PETA, anti-lead, anti-hunting, anti-2nd amendment, et al. In the end, it is our loss of a reasonable and pragmatic middle that is having the largest consequences on hunters (and just about everything else).

If we can be energy self sufficient I think we should. Would you sing a different tune if the leases were for wind turbines and solar panels?

JWP58 said:

If we can be energy self sufficient I think we should. Would you sing a different tune if the leases were for wind turbines and solar panels?

Click to expand...

Since we can now export our LNG & Petroleum, Industry will not leave the product where it is sold cheap, but export to countries that they can get more money from. Energy independence has been abandoned for "energy dominance," which would benefit the nation if energy were nationalized, but since it's private, it doesn't benefit anyone but the shareholders.

And to be honest, yeah - I've said bad things about poorly sited wind farms and I don't think large-scale solar projects on public land are needed. We have a ton of space that we can convert to energy production in already developed areas that would have limited impact elsewhere.

VikingsGuy said:

Let's be clear -- the left is no friend of hunters either. The right may very well give "big oil" and "big timber" too much leeway, but the left does the same with PETA, anti-lead, anti-hunting, anti-2nd amendment, et al. In the end, it is our loss of a reasonable and pragmatic middle that is having the largest consequences on hunters (and just about everything else).

Click to expand...

Amen. Those who can find common ground and compromise are a rare breed these days. Our salvation is not in either party, but in the ability to work together for a shared goal.

Ben Lamb said:

Since we can now export our LNG & Petroleum, Industry will not leave the product where it is sold cheap, but export to countries that they can get more money from. Energy independence has been abandoned for "energy dominance," which would benefit the nation if energy were nationalized, but since it's private, it doesn't benefit anyone but the shareholders.

And to be honest, yeah - I've said bad things about poorly sited wind farms and I don't think large-scale solar projects on public land are needed. We have a ton of space that we can convert to energy production in already developed areas that would have limited impact elsewhere.

Click to expand...

And we all know private industry is evil.

JWP58 said:

And we all know private industry is evil.

Click to expand...

My point is that if we expect industry to put the needs of anything ahead of their shareholders, we're fools to be disappointed when they don't.

Signed,

A small business owner who just celebrated his 5th year in business, making a profit.

Nine Hundred Ninety Nine and One Thousand! Internalized my response.

Going hunting Friday. Great frame of mind this week!

...but, but, but Nan agrees with mixed bag, sort of.

[video=youtube;92sXx-s-qkg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92sXx-s-qkg[/video]

Ah the comfort of living in your own biased world......

Since when does someone who is a liberal or especially a liberal who lives in Cali. get labeled less of a Public Land user than the so called serious hunter sportsman?

Me for example. I will put my sportsman chops and outdoor chops on the line with anyone.

Yesterday I shot 30 rounds from my 6.5 Grendel and 30 rounds of 20g on BLM public land in CALIFORNIA ! OMG. What did you do yesterday......

Have you ever climbed to 18,000 feet on YOUR legs, I have.
Have you caught Tuna from a Kayak, while 3 miles off shore, I have.
You ever climbed Mt Fuji in Japan, I have.
How about crew on an offshore sailboat, I have.
Driven to central Baja to surf perfect point breaks, I have.
Have you paddled a Kayak to remote islands in the Sea of Cortez, I have.
Ever flown a sailplane, how about a hang glider or a paraglider, I have.
How about cross country ski up Whitney Portal, I have.
Ever ride you bike 75 miles in 3 hours, I have.
How about ride a mountain bike down a ski run, I have.
Have you ever worked a mining claim and found gold, I have.
Have you ever owned a company that makes equipment for mining, I have.
Do you know how to file a mining claim, I do.
Every lead a multipitch rock climb over 1000ft, I have.
Ever been on a 10 day backpack trip, I have.
Do you know the difference between a tack and a jibe, I do.
Ever make Pemmican, I have.
Ever train a dog to take rabbits, I have.
Ever surfed waves at double overhead, I have.
Blah, Blah. Blah.

For me, is someone is afraid to read a newspaper cause it is "liberal" or respect someone because they are "liberal" or worse yet from the evil Cali, then that person is uninformed, ignorant and living in their own bubble.

I am a collage educated engineer who has spent most of my career in Aerospace. My industry depends on facts, data and doing the right thing to keep people alive.

I apply this method to how I view the fight for OUR Public Lands.

To sit on the couch eating Cheetos (which are good but bad for you ) and toss bombs at the liberals, is nothing more than wind in the wires. It amounts to zero. To claim that you are a righteous 2nd ammendment man and have a bunch of guns somehow makes you better than someone else, shows fear and insecurity, not strength. Some of the finest people I know have never shot a gun.

A thinking man, a man of action, is not afraid of a liberal newspaper or a liberal, because he makes up his own mind and is secure in himself.

Fearful men, try to shape others and cower at facts and data.

Cheers,

Mark

P.S If you are able, give to the Red Cross for the folks down in Houston

On top of every other criticism of extractive industries operating on federal lands, there is this frosting: The feds charge a small fraction of the going royalty rate for drilling, grazing, mining logging on private and even state lands. That is a subsidy, a handout to these industries, and we taxpayers foot the bill. How much less popular would gas/oil leasing on Bears Ears, for example, be if the cost to industry to operate there were the same as on Duke's, or your or my acreage? Every time you see a rig or mine or herd of cattle or clearcut on federal land, you as a taxpaying citizen are paying for them to be there. How about Trump/congress endorsing the tax break every American would receive by the feds charging market value for extraction from federal lands?

Thank you Mark for sharing what you do in your free time while not sharing fantastic hit pieces from the ny times, Washington post, and declaring your hatred for Zinke.

It was a fantastic read.

JWP58 said:

Thank you Mark for sharing what you do in your free time while not sharing fantastic hit pieces from the ny times, Washington post, and declaring your hatred for Zinke.

It was a fantastic read.

Click to expand...

Deleted, except for expression of my support for public lands and the hunting that occurs there.

Well that escalated quickly....:W:

Avoiding the "buzz-kill" actions,

The BLM's land management policies are meant to balance energy development, grazing, recreation and conservation.

Click to expand...

An incredible balancing act, I would imagine. The ebb 'n flow of the politics at the time. I have no desire to see drilling rigs strewn throughout our public land-scape. I also respect our interests to produce domestic oil, gas and "hard-rock" minerals that make us less dependent on foreign countries.

I like the great mechanical, electrical, diesel advantages featured in my pickup. The GPS unit to find my way. Cameras to snap those great trophy pics - freezer filler happiness for myself. The drive in the vehicle to my favorite trailhead. Enjoy the cell phone and (or) computer used to type opinions here.

If we enjoy the creature comforts of "Life", ultimatums are not the way to hide the pot's yell for kettle black. It would be great to see some big gov't grants for the scientific engineering for green mining innovations. Until then and during, we need to find the best way to keep our cell phones in our hands while enjoying our great country.

I don't know if anyone has seen the drilling rig count in the US lately........tough times for an industry that has been to successful.