Rant of the Week: Shell Oil Applies for Massive Water Right in Moffat County

So last week my boss at the BLM gets a call from Shell, saying the want to meet with him. My boss asked what it was concerning, and they wouldn’t tell him. Apparently, they felt comfortable telling enough other people that it leaked to the press and this front page article appeared in the Denver Post. Water news is big news in the west, and this was no exception. This story got national coverage in USA Today, as well as articles in Craig Daily Press and the Steamboat Pilot. Shell had tried to keep this news on the DL until they met with all the interested parties. Nothing pisses off locals like hearing about how their land or water would be affected from the media before hearing it from the project proponents.

To sum it up, Shell needs a whole lot of water for their oil shale operations in Rio Blanco County. Some of the highest quality oil shale in the world is there in the Piceance Basin near Meeker and Rifle Colorado. Some sources say that for every one barrel of oil produced, Shell will need 3 barrels of water for operations. (Water needs are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to resource requirements for oil shale. They also need a ton of power and upwards of 30,000 employees, probably 3 times the population of Meeker and Rifle now.) So they are proposing to 375 cfs of water from the Yampa River into a reservoir just south of the Yampa. The reservoir would hold 45,000 acre feet of water, more than any other reservoir in the area. The water would then be piped from Moffat County down to the oil shale operations to the south. The pumping stations and reservoir will lie on both private and BLM land.

I joined my boss with a few other employees in an informal meeting with Shell. The rep from Houston (dressed in jeans and a flannel shirt) first talked about their prospects for oil shale. He said that some days, he just thinks they should give up. Huge production costs and questionable profits might lead the companies to abandon oil shale altogether. They’re working on a new way to get the oil out of the shale. Unlike the old method where oil shale is mined in an open pit, then processed, this is an in situ method, where oil and natural gas is pumped out as a liquid out with wells, just like conventional oil. First, they seal off an area under ground by freezing it. This creates an impermeable barrier, so water is not contaminated and won’t interfere in the process. After a zone is frozen off, Shell places huge electric heaters in the ground to melt the oil shale. A well is then drilled and a liquid is extracted. It is then processed into oil and natural gas. The majority of the water is used to dump down in the hole to cool the rock that was heated. So much of the viability of oil shale depends on how well this technology is perfected. Optimistically, Shell says they could produce 3 parts energy for every 1 part energy invested in the process.

Shell already bought up most of the water rights on the White River, closer to the oil shale operations. However, this wasn’t enough, and didn’t allow enough flexibility if one basin were to have abnormally low flows any certain year. Nothing will be happening any time soon on this project. Shell estimates it will take around 5 years to get the water rights, and including other permitting, no dirt would move until at least 2018.

The Yampa River is one of the only unallocated rivers in the west. That would change if Shell’s conditional water right is granted. However, I can’t see how the Yampa is not going to lose some water one way or another. There have been several “proposals” (too early to be called concrete proposals) to pipe Yampa River water the Front Range to build new homes and resorts from Aspen to Denver. I’m on the fence as to which use is worse. Given the fact that even the industry leaders aren’t ready to develop oil shale, the BLM has been much too hasty to develop oil shale. In the past few years. I believe oil shale development poses great risks to local communities and natural resources, and is counter to the important goal of helping our nation transition from fossil fuels. However, in 10 years when the technology has improved, I might support development if these risks and high resource needs are reduced. I’m not sure what all the impacts to the Yampa would be from this reservoir, but I tend to think that we should do all we can to leave the Yampa alone.

Wild and Scenic Rivers might rear its head as a real issue here. Our BLM office in Moffat County is currently revising its Resource Management Plan (RMP), and look at which river segments are suitable for Wild and Scenic River. In the Draft RMP we determined that three segments of the Yampa are suitable for Wild and Scenic River. Of course, this is a very controversial issue in the region. The county government and other local industry interests (the biggest coal mines and power plant in the state) strongly oppose anything to do with Wild and Scenic Rivers, as a suitability determination or a Congressional Designation could affect future water rights, conditional water rights, and future water projects on the Yampa. Shell’s new conditional water right could bring this issue to the forefront. This one should be very interesting to watch. I’m attending another public meeting about this issue tomorrow night. I will be interesting to see what the locals think about this proposal. My guess would be that they favor water going to develop oil shale than to support all those yuppies on the Front Range. I’ll keep you all in the loop.

Rant of the Week: Tim DeChristopher sabotages BLM oil and gas lease sale

So I’ve been ranting about this controversial lease sale in Utah where areas surrounding Arches National Park are being leased. This lease sale took place December 19th and most definitely did not come off without a hitch. First of all, there were many protestors outside the BLM State Office, but that wasn’t the truly unique aspect of this lease sale. Environmentalist Tim DeChristopher got into the auction room and posing as an industry representative, outbid oil and gas companies for many of those controversial parcels. In fact, he won $1.7 million in leases on 22,000 acres. He is currently being investigated for any wrongdoing. The BLM isn’t sure whether the lease sale will stand. See this Salt Lake Tribune article for more information, and a High Country News op-ed.

Despite the fact that I argued BLM has the right to lease these areas and that I don’t see that they’ve done anything illegal here, I have to say that this is pretty sweet. I thought this was a pretty cool idea and I have often wondered before why more enviros don’t bid on lease parcels. I wonder what the requirements are to bid and/or be granted a lease? This page offers a lot of info on lease sales:

Under “Lessee Qualifications and Limitations,” it states:

Federal oil and gas leases may be obtained and held by any adult citizen of the United States. No lease may be acquired by a minor, but a lease may be issued to a legal guardian or trustee on behalf of a minor. Associations of citizens and corporations organized under the laws of the United States or of any State also qualify.

Aliens may hold interests in leases only by stock ownership in U.S. corporations holding leases and only if the laws of their country do not deny similar privileges to citizens of the United States. They may not hold a lease interest through units in a publicly traded limited partnership.

If those are the only requirements, how come Mr. DeChristopher wasn’t a legal participant? If he doesn’t pay, the leases should be pulled. But what if he does pay? What power does the government have to indict Tim? However, fraud certainly could be a problem, because he can’t pay for these leases. Well, he is trying. He’s trying to come up with an initial down payment of $45,000 by January 9 and is taking donations here. (I think I’ll save my money for something else, thank you very much, but this is a good opportunity for enviros to put their money where their mouth is. Robert Redford, have you contributed yet?).

Now, some folks are saying Tim is their hero for standing up to the evil Bush administration’s BLM. Well, that would only apply if BLM is breaking the law by offering these leases, and if they are, they will get nailed in court. If they’re not, then what Tim is protesting is really regular-old oil and gas leasing laws which have been around for decades. So what the BLM did might have been legal, and what Tim did was probably illegal. But maybe this isn’t a huge distinction to Tim; maybe he doesn’t care whether BLM was justified in offering the parcels for lease or not. There are many examples of people protesting unjust laws. It wasn’t legal for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, was it? Leasing our federal minerals for development is not some unjust travesty in my view, but heck, if you think it is and you are willing to pay the price for your civil disobedience as Tim is, then by all means, have at it. It will be very interesting to see how this all shakes out.

1/11/09 UPDATE:
Tim was able to raise the $45,000 down payment on his leases. Only $45,000 shy of $1.7 million to go.

Rant of the Week: Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior

So, western Colorado’s own Ken Salazar has been chosen by Barack Obama to be his Secretary of the Interior. The Department of the Interior has definitely been the most corrupt and dysfunctional department I’ve seen in my lifetime. The Bush administration is most definitely the most anti-environment administration in a long time, and I can’t wait to see this change. I thought Raul Grijalva would have been a good choice, but I also like Salazar.

Salazar might not be my favorite politician, and I don’t think anyone would argue that he’s not a moderate Democrat. I didn’t like a lot of the stuff Salazar supported, whether it was proudly introducing Gonzalez as the Attorney General, or voting for the torture bill and Bush’s wire taps. I could care less about these things though, as his positions on these issues definitely do not equate to his positions on public lands and environmental policies. All I care about is Salazar’s record on natural resource issues. That record is pretty good in my book. Ken listened to his constituents in western Colorado and fought hard to keep the top of the Roan Plateau free of oil and gas development. We went to Congress several times and tried to get move a legislative solution through to protect the Roan (even though he was unsuccessful). He even annoyed me a bit by spreading some of the lies and propaganda the enviro groups were selling about Roan Plateau (the untruth about how companies could have taped the gas resource from around the base of the plateau and how big game populations on a 36 square mile area would be “decimated” by 350 total acres of oil and gas-related disturbance). However, overall I see this as good news for the west. He’s also been a staunch opponent of the Bush administration’s rush to develop oil shale.

Apparently, some environmentalists and liberals are pretty miffed by this selection. Salazar is definitely pro-agriculture. Fortunately, I don’t think public lands grazing is an issue we have to worry all that much about. I’m not saying the BLM and Forest Service have a lot of work to still to do in that department, it’s just that I’d rather have him have ag interests close to his heart than other interest. Believe it or not, some ranchers are good stewards, and Salazar seems to have that ethos. More and more ranchers are also coming on board opposing irresponsible energy development. There are policies in place for good grazing management, and there are groups like Western Watersheds that sue the pants off of BLM every time they take a misstep. Salazar just needs to make sure ranching interests don’t get a special seat at the table and I’ll be fine with his cowboy hat.

I also hear he’s received a failing grade by animal rights groups. Again, I could give a rat’s ass. Just because he doesn’t support hundreds of thousands of non-native wild horses running unmanaged on public lands doesn’t equate to a weak commitment to the environment. In fact, I would argue the opposite. I also don’t have a problem with his pro-gun rights position. I’ve always been one to think western Democrats really strengthen their base by sensible support for the 2nd Amendment.

The New York Times editorial board printed an op-ed about Salazar’s appointment and received comments from folks in New Jersey and California that don’t surprise me. They’re disappointed that Salazar is not more progressive/radical, i.e. he is not in favor of ending grazing and energy development on public lands. Well, what a sellout! Come on people, look at the laws surrounding public land management that have been in place 80+ years. Uses are allowed on public land, and they’ll be waiting for many more years before someone closes off public lands to all but hikers and mountain bikers. They don’t want a Secretary of Interior, they want a complete overhaul of all our current environmental laws and policies. If this is the kind of change they're looking for, they wouldn’t be happy with anyone Obama appointed.

Critics angrily point out that someone who works for a mining association thinks Salazar is “fair,” as if this is a bad thing. Do you realize how much you sound like Gale Norton and Dick Cheney? Why is horrible for today’s DOI to completely discount the views of many Americans (environmental interests), but just fine if an extremist Sec of the Interior does the same thing in ignoring industry interests and interests of rural westerners who make a living from responsible uses of public lands? They advocate replacing one extreme ideology with another.

The biggest think Ken has going in his favor is his ability to bridge gaps, listen and weigh all viewpoints, and facilitate collaboration. I believe his experience in bringing people together to hammer out win-win solutions was one of the biggest reasons Obama chose Salazar. I know sitting down at the table with ranchers and/or oil and gas companies riles some folks, but after working on these issues for the past 5+ years, I’m a believer that in some situations collaboration is the way to go. Energy is the most important issue facing the US today, and he’s right where we should be on domestic energy development. He’s a strong advocate of renewable energy and will fight to keep important areas off limits to development and ensure energy development is done properly in areas where it is allowed. I also think science will play a prominent role in his department, and I hope his appointment will improve the morale of many DOI employees. Salazar brings a vide breadth of knowledge about natural resource Issues to the table, and I think Obama made a good choice appointing him as Secretary of the Interior.

Professional Rant of the Week: Enviros shun autoworkers

A spot-on rant by High Country New's Ray Ring regarding the lack of environmentalist support for autoworkers:

Enviros shun autoworkers

Rant of the Week: Gender and HIV/AIDS in Developing Countries

Monday December 1 was World AIDS Day. An article appeared in the Denver Post about gender and HIV/AIDS in developing countries:

For Women, AIDS Stigma Worse

What I thought would be a straightforward and non-controversial piece turned out to be anything but the case. I’ve pulled together some reader comments on the article:

The point is that all we hear about is the rights of women and girls....every politically correct media outlet produces volumes of this stuff...however little is said about women's responsibilities, nor the many instances in which men are discriminated against in our society. No reasonable person is against women having equal rights, access, etc., but in far too many cases it appears the goal is not equality but advantage. Pieces like Messer's are tedious, redundant, and one-sided. Let's REALLY talk about equality, including addressing those areas in which women hold clear advantages in society (the draft, the courts, child custody, etc).

......

Mr. Messer, if you would lay off the anti-male, anti-patriarchy propaganda, you might have something useful to say. As it is, you demonize men by blaming them for the AIDS crisis in Africa and India and propose to address that crisis by asking men to "partner with women in rejecting patriarchal structures and relationships." In other words, the AIDS crisis is caused by the evil patriarchy. Get rid of the patriarchy, and the AIDS crisis goes away.

That's Feminism 101.

You argue that men should "partner with women to reject patriarchal structures and relationships." In other words, we men should partner with women in the destruction of our roles as fathers. As a committed father, I reject that proposal.

We've done a lot of rejecting of "patriarchal structures and relationships" in this country. The result is a lot of single moms, fatherless kids, and absent dads--and the highest rate of incarceration in the world. That may be your idea of utopia, but it's not mine.

In short, this article is not about addressing the AIDS crisis, it's feminist propaganda. Too bad. By using the AIDS crisis to promote feminist ideology, this article impedes efforts to find a solution.

......

Here's the problem: the author wants us to have sympathy for women but remain unsympathetic to the plight of men. The author shows no sympathy for male victims of AIDS, but instead treats them (and the patriarchy) as the villains in this melodrama. He states that half of HIV victims worldwide are women. That's his proof that women have it worse than men. Gender equality is supposed to mean one thing: men have it worse. When men have it worse, things are as they are supposed to be.

Could someone give a concrete example of extreme patriarchal communities exacerbating the HIV/AIDS epidemic? And don't confuse bad male behavior with the patriarchy. There's a lot of bad male behavior in matriarchies, such as the de facto matriarchy that pervades much of the black community in the US, where most children are born to single mothers and most fathers are absent.

Whoa.

There are several more comments to this affect, even some more blatant sexist comments that don’t warrant discussion (“Why don't we all take a moment on Christmas day to morn all the children killed by there [sic] own mothers.” “As for a statement that women are sleeping around, if the woman is caught doing so she has opened herself to being stoned, not so the male.”)

The first distinction that needs to be made when addressing these criticisms of Messer’s piece is that this essay was not about women in America with HIV. It’s about women in developing countries with HIV. There is a very substantial difference.

Do these commentors want to talk about women’s responsibilities in India? It’s to work, work, then submit to their husbands and breed. Period. And they do that, whether they want to or not. Females are often treated as less-than-human. Everyone deserves basic human rights, and many women in girls around the globe aren't afforded anything but a life of slavery. Give me a break with child support. There is no child support in Zambia. There are no courts in Cambodia. While we can argue about women’s rights in the US, I think everyone can agree that women in America have come a long way compared to many other women around the world. Do these guys care to level the charge on women in India how they have so many “advantages?” Tell me how a woman in Zambia is actually SO lucky because of political correctness and courts and child support? We’re not talking about equal pay here, we’re talking about much more basic human rights.

I view some of these harmful behaviours of men as prevailing patriarchal attitudes ,not necessarily specific to individual men. I always hate to paint people as “ignorant,” but I think when a culture is so ingrained in a certain community, it’s less (but still some) of an individual’s fault and more the fault of the norms of that community. It is fully believed in many African communities that there is no such thing as raping your wife. This isn’t necessarily the fault of those individual men; they simply do not understand. It is quite socially acceptable in some circles for men to have one or more mistresses outside of marriage. These men are not bad people, they’re not evil, and I wouldn’t even say they hate women or intentionally disrespect their wives. They’re members of a culture that used to allow for multiple wives. A law was passed banning polygamy, but the culture still prevails. Sure, I guess it’s the fault of each individual man, and I don’t want to absolve anyone from individual responsibility. My point (and maybe Messer’s) is just that there are some prevailing attitudes that should be corrected if we want to see positive strides in the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries. I didn’t see this so much as blaming men, but pointing out a legitimate problem.

But there’s no doubt correcting some the problems he identifies will help. Let me just talk out loud for a minute. The two most basic root causes of HIV/AIDS spread in Africa/developing countries are 1) lack of information/not educated about the spread of the virus and 2) Not adjusting behavior to reduce risk. Frankly, I don’t buy it when people content education is the major problem. Maybe 10 years ago, but now there’s hardly a bush village in Africa that doesn’t know the basic information about HIV/AIDS. Someone who knows Congo, Benin, or Cambodia better than I do might dispute this fact, but from what I saw in East Africa, people know darn well that using a condom can help prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. This is where the second root cause comes into play: they simply refuse to use one.

Let’s talk about infidelity, which is a root cause of the spread of HIV. Some women know that their husbands sleep around, and therefore the smart ones could refuse to sleep with their husbands. From what I’ve seen and read, women simply don’t have the right to refuse sex. Women cheat too, so they’re equally to blame, but at least it’s not common for women to go home and force their husbands to have sex with them. Similar situation for condoms. Men and women might both not want to use a condom, so equal blame there. But the distinction is that men make the decisions in the bedroom (and everywhere else), so if the woman wants to protect herself and the man doesn’t, she contracts HIV because she does not have the power to force him to use one. Again, I don’t see pointing this out as blaming men, I see it as an opportunity—empower women to be able to consent to sex under their conditions.

There’s an old story I heard a couple times in Kenya. I heard it from a member of the Kamba tribe, but it could fit for just about any community in Kenya or Africa. There’s this new husband who has no reason to beat his wife. His neighbors chastise him for this unpopular behavior. “We don’t hear you beating your wife, bwana,” they say. “You must beat your wife every night, for even if you don’t have a reason, she will think of one.” Still refusing to hurt his new bride, the husband returns to his wife and cooks up a plan. He ties a rope to two walls of his hut and hangs a rug over the rope. He takes out his “wife beating stick” and goes to work on the rug. He tells his wife to scream in pain. The next morning his neighbors complement him on good job he is doing with his new wife, and everyone is happy.

It’s pretty sad when a man has to think of an excuse for not abusing his wife. This is the life of too many women in Africa.

There are, however, a few things about Messer’s essay that bothered me. First of all, he generalizes and paints men with a wide brush. While communities in developing countries can be quite patriarchal, not all communities are. Of course, there are also differences between different men in these communities. Messer also makes several assertions that he backs up with no evidence. For example, he talks about how women do not receive the same quality health care as men. I’m not sure he’s correct in that assertion. Additionally, Messer appears to fall into the trap of imposing a western white women's feminist paradigm on developing countries. These women and girls need to decide for themselves what aspects of their lives they want to improve and must take the lead in making these changes. The role of outsiders should be to listen and offer assistance where necessary.

Rant of the Week: Oil and Gas Leasing next to National Parks

Re: This AP article:

Uproar over federal drilling leases next to parks

To me, the deciding factor in exactly how horrible of an offense this is on part of the Bush Administration depends on whether these parcels were nominated by industry for the lease sale, or whether the BLM itself put these parcels up for lease.

The vast majority of leases are nominated by the oil and gas industry for regular (quarterly) lease sales. The BLM is a completely passive participant when this is the case. If a company nominates some parcels, they go up for auction. If this was the case for the areas next to the parks, this is not a “Bush administration ‘fire sale.’” (Unless, of course, if someone within the government asked industry to nominate these parcels. But if this was purely an issue of industry interest, the Bush administration had nothing to do with these parcels being nominated).

However, if the BLM itself nominated these parcels and put them up for auction, which it can do (see Roan Plateau), then there definitely was collusion by the Bush administration and it makes this intentional and quite despicable. One of Sierra’s quotes makes be believe this is indeed the case:

Roy said that when he asked Selma Sierra what was going on, she replied: "We added some tracts, sorry we didn't notify you.”

If industry did nominate these parcels, I fail to see how they would be added after the fact. I would guess that all the industry-nominated leases were submitted, then Sierra got a call from Washington telling her that these controversial parcels would also be added to the list. Yes sir Mr. Cheney, sir!

(However, I can’t let the Park Service get away with this talk about being “shocked.” They should not have been surprised in the least. These areas had been leased before. It’s not like BLM is opening up new areas for development. The Park Service knew darn well that any lease sale these parcels could be nominated and leased at any time.)

Okay, with that out of the way, let me try to argue that managing with buffers makes no sense from a land management standpoint and that BLM would have a hard time denying these leases from a legal and consistency perspective.

I guess it’s quite obvious that the lands the National Park Service want excluded from oil and gas development are not national parks and are not managed by the NPS. What’s the point of a National Park boundary when it seems some folks want surrounding lands managed like a National Park? So let’s say the government adds a 10-mile buffer on public land to every National Park, which would receive park-like restrictions. So then would we need another buffer to protect values of that buffer? An extreme question maybe, but can’t you see how buffers can be never-ending?

The government would be heading down a very slippery slope and set a precedent by buffering National Parks in Utah. The Utah BLM State Director is right that no policy exists for this, and there’s a reason for that. Why do you think there has never been this kind of buffer applied in the US? Because this has been discussed in detail before (even in environmentally friendly DOI’s such as Bruce Babbitt’s) and they’ve come to the realization that it’s infeasible and doesn’t make sense. Let’s slide down this slope, shall we? Let’s say we buffer all National Parks. Why should it stop there? Don’t State Parks have scenic values that warrant protection? What about National Wildlife Refuges? Wilderness areas? Wilderness Study Areas? Come on folks, these special designations apply to what is inside of these areas, not what is outside. Managing for values outside the special area opens a whole new can of worms in public land management. In addition to oil and gas development, should we close these areas to vehicle travel? Rights-of-way? Any other actions that would be visible looking outside from inside the park?

All stipulations on oil and gas development on federal minerals must be developed within a land use plan, BLM Resource Management Plans, to be exact. Not one RMP has these stipulations for buffers. If lands are not closed in an RMP, they are available for leasing and development. So BLM would have a very hard time making the case that these areas should not be leased. In fact, an oil or gas company would have grounds to sue the BLM for making an arbitrary and capricious decision to close those areas to development outside of their normal process.

The best way to handle this issue is to use the tools BLM has in its tool box to protect scenic values. All BLM lands have a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class designation. VRM Classes range from Class I, which is extremely restrictive and is typically only used for wilderness areas and would allow only very minor modifications of the landscape, to VRM Class IV, which would allow a strip mine. A VRM Class II designation would allow for minor modifications of the landscape. Under this designation, BLM could require oil and gas operators to hide their infrastructure around topographic features and/or camouflage. This would be the best way to protect the viewshed from the park onto BLM land.

I agree looking beyond the arches in Arches National Park and seeing a gas well stinks. And I fully agree that if these parcels were put up for auction by the BLM and not oil and gas companies, this is yet another Bush Administration give away. However, I don’t think that closing a 10-mile buffer around the parks to oil and gas development is a logical solution for this problem.

Rant of the Week - Government audit of oil and gas leases

Back in June, I blogged about an effort in Congress to force oil and gas companies to develop their idle leases on federal land. If a company doesn’t drill a producing well on their lease within 10 years, it expires and would be available to re-lease at a later date. I made the case that energy development on our public lands is happening quite quickly enough for my tastes and that there is nothing wrong with having idle leases out there. So now our Government Accounting Office (GAO) looked into the issue and found (*gasp!*) that indeed there are a lot of acres out there that are going undeveloped. Here’s the AP article:

Report: Drilling on federal lands could be faster

Let me be frank: I think the findings and recommendations are a bunch of bullshit. The reason these areas are undeveloped lies solely with the oil and gas companies, not with broken agency processes or excess regulation. Sure, environmental reviews often take more than the mandated target of 30 days. However, the vast majority of these Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) are on leases which have already been developed, not in these undeveloped areas. About 95% of the development that takes place on public land is within established producing oil and gas fields. Look where we’re seeing most development in the west now: Pinedale Anticline, Piceance Basin, Uinta Basin, etc. Companies are spending money where they are certain they’ll get good returns on their investments. Drilling holes in wildcat areas that haven’t been explored yet is financially risky and far less common. So if APDs are being held up, they are not for these undeveloped areas.

DOI lackey Stephen Allred is flat-out lying in the last paragraph of the article. Boy will I be glad to see these industry idiots leave in a couple months. No department has ever been as corrupt or incompetent as Bush's Department of the Interior. Contending that environmental reviews are holding up development amounts to nothing more than another Bush administration attempt to gut all environmental oversight and regulation. If you want to speed up the processing of APDs, increase the freaking BLM budget so they can hire more people to process them. But since that’s never going to happen, I guess we’ll have more deregulation to look forward to.

Regarding Allred’s assertion that we need to fast-track development, this already happened. Thanks to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Bureau of Land Management does not have to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) anymore for oil and gas wells that meet several new criteria. Instead, they can do a Categorical Exclusion (CX), which is little more than a one-page paperwork exercise. No impacts are analyzed and often no mitigation is applied in CXs. These are called "Section 390 CXs," and are being challenged in court by environmental groups.

In some cases, fast-tracking is appropriate. For example, if a company wanted to re-drill a well on an existing pad and there would be less than 5 acres of new disturbance, and the original well was already analyzed in an EA, then fast-tracking the well makes sense. However, other criteria overreach. For example, the act said that if the agency disclosed the impacts of many wells in a field development Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), all future wells in that area can be permitted by a CX. The problem with this is that a field development EIS is quite broad, and the exact locations of the wells might not be known at that point in time. Therefore, the analysis of environmental impacts is not assessed in enough detail in the EIS; the wells should be subject to individual review under EAs, not fast-tracked by using CXs.

Anyway, setting aside all the complicated details, it’s safe to say that we cannot responsibly move any farther towards fast-tracking oil and gas development than we already are. I shudder thinking what else our politicians might do trying to speed up development even more.