BHA can now celebrate. Hypocrites

[nontyp]

I don't like wearing R or D jerseys.

And I have coal miner friends and O&G friends and rancher who are obviously correct in their skepticism of BHA. According to BHA, development doesn't matter, just development by the "other team"

Which sucks, because I like BHA idea of trying to unite various interest groups and people, from Yvon and Patagonia, to Nosler and Weatherby, to rally around protecting land.

Can't wait to hear how strip mining is good for public land, if it's for EV battery components.

Team sports suck

So what do you propose? Should BHA actively campaign against all energy development on public land?

I don’t like seeing any development on public land. Solar is especially bad. Heck I don’t even like to see solar going in on private prime farmland in the midwest.

I don’t know what the official BHA policy statement is on energy development without looking it up. I would say as long time proud BHA member, this just really isn’t something that is on the radar much. Can’t say that Ive ever heard energy development actively discussed. Tons of other public land issues and projects to deal with, and personally im glad we don’t spend our time fighting development that’s likely inevitable. Land may support it, I have no idea what his personal stance is. I guarantee BHA doesn’t actively support this development. They may not be actively opposing it, but those are very different things.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There's a lot I don't know on this subject, but I think I'm missing something with regard to BHA being supportive, or against energy development on public lands. I don't know the specifics of this project, but it sounds like an energy related lease of BLM land, not unlike those for an oil or gas rig. I don't think BHA has ever said that they are against all oil and gas development either.

“Let’s be clear: BHA is not against energy development on our public lands,” said BHA President and CEO Land Tawney. “There are ways we can do it responsibly with smart planning, stakeholder collaboration and careful implementation that allow fish and wildlife to coexist with energy development".

If this project isn't taking away critical habitat/access, I don't see the hypocracy. What's the background I'm missing?

BHA has been vocally opposed to just about every public land OG project or bill for the 5 years.

OPINION: Big Hole wrong place for oil and gas development

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Time to Stand up for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Sportsmen Concerned about House Energy Bills

Sportsmen concerned about house energy bills. Learn more about the work that Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is doing to protect your wildlife habitat and public hunting and fishing access.

www.backcountryhunters.org

CO BHA Comments on Uinta Basin Railway Project

CO BHA Comments on Uinta Basin Railway Project

www.backcountryhunters.org

Sage Grouse Protections Reduced Under Administration Plan

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If this project isn't taking away critical habitat/access, I don't see the hypocracy. What's the background I'm missing?

When you take an OG leases it's for a term, it lasts for 10 years + as long as wells are producing then you have to plug and remediate.

Solar fields will be there forever it's not a time limited project, this is de-facto land transfer. There is no remediation plan.

Don't think of the comparison as an oil well versus solar array. An oil well doesn't create electricity, it extracts a commodity.

The comparison is natural gas plant or coal power station to a solar array.

So Land is saying that public land should be used to built Natural Gas power stations.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Should BHA actively campaign against all energy development on public land?

"This country has been swinging the hammer of development so long and so hard that it has forgotten the anvil of wilderness which gave value and significance to its labors. The momentum of our blows is so unprecedented that the remaining remnant of wilderness will be pounded into road-dust long before we find out its values."

100%, it's absolutely ridiculous they treat solar or wind or nuclear any differently than Oil and Gas.

 

[rogerthat]

So what do you propose? Should BHA actively campaign against all energy development on public land?

I don’t like seeing any development on public land. Solar is especially bad. Heck I don’t even like to see solar going in on private prime farmland in the midwest.

I don’t know what the official BHA policy statement is on energy development without looking it up. I would say as long time proud BHA member, this just really isn’t something that is on the radar much. Can’t say that Ive ever heard energy development actively discussed. Tons of other public land issues and projects to deal with, and personally im glad we don’t spend our time fighting development that’s likely inevitable. Land may support it, I have no idea what his personal stance is. I guarantee BHA doesn’t actively support this development. They may not be actively opposing it, but those are very different things.

Back country hunters - You would think they either should be against all development or neutral on all of it. The problem is them picking the development that suits their politics. I think wind farms also suck. Any industrial energy development comes with some impacts. That's why they look like hypocrites with wind and solar. They do a ton of good that I support so I look the other way on this, but they do look like hypocrites on this issue and definitely turn off some folks that would totally otherwise support them.

 

[brocksw]

BHA came out big for this bill.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20190725/109851/BILLS-116HR3794ih.pdf

Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act Benefits Wildlife, Hunters

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Windmills coming to public land near you

The field propossed near me is near the main lines in good wind spot. There is a public road in area already. Seems logical,tho unsightly still. "Can't see it from my place" would be an apt phrase. Not near as bad as "url" fumes in water & air. None of this would be needed if the restraints on...

www.hunttalk.com

H.R.3794 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

Summary of H.R.3794 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

"Reported to House, Part I (12/18/2020)
Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

This bill sets forth provisions regarding development of geothermal, solar, or wind energy on public lands.

The bill directs the Department of the Interior to establish priority areas on covered land (i.e., public land administered by Interior and not excluded under law from the development of geothermal, solar, or wind energy) for geothermal, solar, or wind energy projects. Other areas shall also be considered for the development of renewable energy projects under this bill, consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Interior shall establish a program to improve federal permit coordination with respect to renewable energy projects carried out on covered land.

Interior and the Department of Agriculture shall seek to issue permits that in total authorize the production of at least 25 gigawatts of electricity from geothermal, solar, or wind energy projects by the end of 2025.

The bill provides for the disposition of revenues from the development of wind or solar energy on covered land. The bill establishes the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund to make funds available to federal, state, and tribal agencies for distribution in regions in which renewable energy projects are located on federal land for (1) restoring and protecting fish and wildlife habitat and corridors for affected species and water resources in areas affected by geothermal, solar, or wind energy development; and (2) preserving and improving recreational access to federal land and water in an affected region."

 

[brocksw]

BHA has been vocally opposed to just about every OG public land OG project or bill for the 5 years.

OPINION: Big Hole wrong place for oil and gas development

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Time to Stand up for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Sportsmen Concerned about House Energy Bills

Sportsmen concerned about house energy bills. Learn more about the work that Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is doing to protect your wildlife habitat and public hunting and fishing access.

www.backcountryhunters.org

CO BHA Comments on Uinta Basin Railway Project

CO BHA Comments on Uinta Basin Railway Project

www.backcountryhunters.org

Sage Grouse Protections Reduced Under Administration Plan

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

www.backcountryhunters.org

Did you read any of those links or just share them because you thought they were apples to apples? Those bills are vastly different than the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act.

As a side note: There's something like 100,000 oil wells on BLM managed mineral leases that consist of almost 30 million acres of usfs and BLM land.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

H.R.3794 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

Summary of H.R.3794 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

"Reported to House, Part I (12/18/2020)
Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2019

This bill sets forth provisions regarding development of geothermal, solar, or wind energy on public lands.

The bill directs the Department of the Interior to establish priority areas on covered land (i.e., public land administered by Interior and not excluded under law from the development of geothermal, solar, or wind energy) for geothermal, solar, or wind energy projects. Other areas shall also be considered for the development of renewable energy projects under this bill, consistent with the principles of multiple use.

Interior shall establish a program to improve federal permit coordination with respect to renewable energy projects carried out on covered land.

Interior and the Department of Agriculture shall seek to issue permits that in total authorize the production of at least 25 gigawatts of electricity from geothermal, solar, or wind energy projects by the end of 2025.

The bill provides for the disposition of revenues from the development of wind or solar energy on covered land. The bill establishes the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund to make funds available to federal, state, and tribal agencies for distribution in regions in which renewable energy projects are located on federal land for (1) restoring and protecting fish and wildlife habitat and corridors for affected species and water resources in areas affected by geothermal, solar, or wind energy development; and (2) preserving and improving recreational access to federal land and water in an affected region."

Funny how folks are pissed about orphaned wells but will let other energy companies piss down their neck.

If you aren’t skeptical of any energy development you’re an idiot.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Did you read any of those links or just share them because you thought they were apples to apples? Those bills are vastly different than the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act.

As a side note: There's something like 100,000 oil wells on BLM managed mineral leases that consist of almost 30 million acres of usfs and BLM land.

I support BHA on all those issues, and it’s literally no different it’s a bill that allows a favored industry to get around rules we have created to protect public lands.

I have the same feelings about wind turbines and sage grouse as oil wells.

 

[brocksw]

I support BHA on all those issues, and it’s literally no different it’s a bill that allows a favored industry to get around rules we have created to protect public lands.

I have the same feelings about wind turbines and sage grouse as oil wells.

I do as well.

How does it allow a favored industry to get around "rules"?

Also, I'm having some difficulty connecting similarities between the development of ANWR and a bill that adds structure and regulation to a newer industry thousands of miles away from ANWR (I'm under the assumption Alaska as a whole doesn't make for the greatest solar field) and doesn't actually green light any specific energy projects.

 

[brocksw]

If you aren’t skeptical of any energy development you’re an idiot.

Im skeptical of a lot of things. Hoss coming on HT trying to rile everyone up using outrage mixed with a simplified version of reality is one thing I'm more skeptical of than "any energy development".

 

[Southern Elk]

Got an email from BHA yesterday saying my membership had expired. I will be renewing and this thread doesn’t change my mind. The good they do outweighs the bad. If I boycotted every organization that did something I didn’t like, I wouldn’t be able to support anything.

 

[MTGomer]

One thing worth pointing out that I’ve said before on this page, solar development is a 100% intensive use of the land.
It Is solar field and only a solar field. It is sterilized, covered with panels, sprayed with roundup biannually, and encircled with chain-link fence and topped with razor or barbed wire. In the desert this means a take permit for dozens of threatened tortoises, and zero public access in perpetuity.

 

[JM77]

The bill establishes the Renewable Energy Resource Conservation Fund to make funds available to federal, state, and tribal agencies for distribution in regions in which renewable energy projects are located on federal land for (1) restoring and protecting fish and wildlife habitat and corridors for affected species and water resources in areas affected by geothermal, solar, or wind energy development; and (2) preserving and improving recreational access to federal land and water in an affected region."

I'm interested to hear how the funds from the RERCF restore and protect habitat and preserve and improve access on the 4800 acre solar project.

 

[brocksw]

I'm interested to hear how the funds from the RERCF restore and protect habitat and preserve and improve access on the 4800 acre solar project.

I could be wrong, but I understand that particular part of the bill to be like a poor man's Land and Water Conservation Fund. Instead of an offshore oil production tax, lts based on solar energy output. My biggest complaint is that I think it needs more clarification on how funds are used and distributed and they should Implement and codify an actual fixed percentage, like the LWCF does.

 

[brocksw]

One thing worth pointing out that I’ve said before on this page, solar development is a 100% intensive use of the land.
It Is solar field and only a solar field. It is sterilized, covered with panels, sprayed with roundup biannually, and encircled with chain-link fence and topped with razor or barbed wire. In the desert this means a take permit for dozens of threatened tortoises, and zero public access in perpetuity.

Not to mention the absolutely toxic mining of minerals like quartz, copper, coal, lithium, etc that are also required to make energy sectors like solar succeed.

Extraction of all energy comes with risk and negative consequences. For humans, it's the cost of doing business.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Im skeptical of a lot of things. Hoss coming on HT trying to rile everyone up using outrage mixed with a simplified version of reality is one thing I'm more skeptical of than "any energy development".

Hoss and I converge on this issue.

Here's where I'm coming from, full disclosure I work for an OG company, we drill wells.

I support BHA, generally but they have this one wrong.

If a company I was working for was drilling migration corridors in WY I would hope BuzzH would be keeping us honest. I want Buzz lobbying the WOGCC for rules that protect species, and mitigate impacts.

If there is a solar project or wind I want him to do the exact same thing, period. Don't give anyone a pass, look at them as industrial projects on public lands that enrich a private group.

Don't let any company tell you there won't be impacts, or that they won't try to maximize profits.

They will, expect it, watch for it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does it allow a favored industry to get around "rules"?

SEC. 9. RENEWABLE ENERGY GOAL.
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, through management of public lands and administration of Federal laws.

-No we should permit projects, as they meet the same rigorous standards that we have for other projects. If someone wants a solar array they submit an application, same standards for roads, impacts, etc.

I wouldn't support a bill that says "shall seek to issue permits for oil wells that, in total will produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day" in the next 5 years, you shouldn't either.

The words "may" versus "shall" have massive implications.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Also, I'm having some difficulty connecting similarities between the development of ANWR and a bill that adds structure and regulation to a newer industry thousands of miles away from ANWR (I'm under the assumption Alaska as a whole doesn't make for the greatest solar field) and doesn't actually green light any specific energy projects.

The major public land oil areas are Alaska, WY, and Utah BHA has come out against all of them.

If ANWR has an intrinsic value so great we shouldn't bill roads and drill it then why is it ok for us to build roads for X, Y, and Z?

I posted about the new leases near migration routes in WY for OG... I think they are problematic, I also think a wind farm would be problematic on those lands... or solar... or...

 

[brocksw]

Hoss and I converge on this issue.

Here's where I'm coming from, full disclosure I work for an OG company, we drill wells.

I support BHA, generally but they have this one wrong.

If a company I was working for was drilling migration corridors in WY I would hope BuzzH would be keeping us honest. I want Buzz lobbying the WOGCC for rules that protect species, and mitigate impacts.

If there is a solar project or wind I want him to do the exact same thing, period. Don't give anyone a pass, look at them as industrial projects on public lands that enrich a private group.

Don't let any company tell you there won't be impacts, or that they won't try to maximize profits.

They will, expect it, watch for it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 9. RENEWABLE ENERGY GOAL.
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, through management of public lands and administration of Federal laws.

-No we should permit projects, as they meet the same rigorous standards that we have for other projects. If someone wants a solar array they submit an application, same standards for roads, impacts, etc.

I wouldn't support a bill that says "shall seek to issue permits for oil wells that, in total will produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil a day" in the next 5 years, you shouldn't either.

The words "may" versus "shall" have massive implications.

I work in the oil and gas industry as well, have for the last 11 years.

I see your point about the ".....by 2025" part. It gives me a little heartburn as well. But, that's not the same as an actual bill that rescinds protections, relaxes regulations, eliminates certain stipulations, so industry can go in and do their thing. Which was the case in most of the links you shared above.

I agree the potential is there, but each permit/lease still requires an EIS and accompanying site reviews. Here in ND everyone complains that those same EIS's take to long to complete and slow development, that they're burdensome and too detailed. I just don't think that will change when it comes to solar fields and all of a sudden the feds will be turning a blind eye to infractions or things not being up to snuff.

 

[brocksw]

The major public land oil areas are Alaska, WY, and Utah BHA has come out against all of them.

If ANWR has an intrinsic value so great we shouldn't bill roads and drill it then why is it ok for us to build roads for X, Y, and Z?

I posted about the new leases near migration routes in WY for OG... I think they are problematic, I also think a wind farm would be problematic on those lands... or solar... or...

They objected to certain portions yes. But not all. ND has quite a bit of OG development on Public Land (Little Missouri National Grasslands) as well. BHA picked up in popularity around what 2014? Since 2014 there's been like 40k wells drilled on public lands, BHA didn't say much about a vast majority of those.

Is this particular solar project in a migration corridor? Is there endangered species or ES habitat there?