BLM working with wildlife?

[Oak]

Miller, would the BLM really do this?! This is the funniest thing I've read in our local paper in a while, but maybe you have to know Velarde.

Drilling dollars tempt DOW
Select sites may be OK to develop

By DAVE BUCHANAN The Daily Sentinel
Saturday, December 02, 2006

Energy development and wildlife rarely are a good mix.

Development brings roads, traffic, noise and other disturbances 24 hours a day, every day. Habitat suffers, wildlife suffers, and outdoor enthusiasts find their favorite hunting, birding, fishing areas ruined.

It’s no wonder the Colorado Division of Wildlife has opposed every energy lease proposed for state-owned lands.

But what if the opportunity arose where a state wildlife area, teeming with elk, deer, bear and wild turkeys, could give up its energy resources, suffer virtually no visible or surface impact, and earn the state as much as $100 million?

That’s only one of the energy-related decisions being considered by the DOW and the Colorado Wildlife Commission, into whose collective lap the final responsibility will be thrown.

Curiously, but certainly not surprisingly, the DOW doesn’t have a consolidated policy when it comes to leasing state land to energy companies. Most of the existing leases, notably a few oil and gas wells on Banners Lakes SWA northeast of Denver, are 30 years old.

But most DOW “policy” decisions have been on a case-by-case basis, and with the advancements in drilling techniques and the rush-to-develop attitudes shown by President Bush and Gov. Bill Owens, the DOW needs a united front when it comes to leasing decisions.

The sole restriction now facing the wildlife commission is a regulation that says leases may be granted only when the development is compatible with the original purposes for which the DOW holds the land. And on state wildlife areas, the foremost reason is wildlife and wildlife habitat.

One impediment to opposing state-land leases is that the division in most cases doesn’t own the mineral rights, the devilish split-estate syndrome that’s created so much friction between homeowners and energy companies.

So far, the BLM has acquiesced to the DOW when it comes to leasing out mineral rights below state lands, but how much longer that might last is anyone’s guess, especially with the Bush administration in its final throes and energy companies realizing that if they don’t get the leases under this president, they may never get them.

Thankfully, a decision last week by a federal district court judge will at least temporarily protect roadless areas from oil and gas leases. However, there are many other areas owned by the state that face the threat of development, almost certainly to the detriment of wildlife habitat.

Except, maybe, for one notable exception.

When the DOW purchased the Bosque del Oso State Wildlife Area near Trinidad, it wisely picked up the coal-mining rights under the 33,000-acre area. The gas and oil rights already were taken, and anyone going to the Bosque for the first time will be sorely surprised at the miles of energy roads lacing the area.

The area around the Bosque and its coal-rich underlayings once were owned by Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp., and then subsequently were sold to Montana Power Co., from whom the state bought the land and the coal rights.

At a recent commission meeting, DOW Northwest Regional Manager Ron Velarde revealed a coal company has approached the DOW about leasing the coal rights under Bosque del Oso. Access to the coal would be via some existing tunnels on adjacent land and the only visible effects, says the coal company, would be the construction of two 100 foot-square fenced air shafts on the wildlife area.

The coal company estimates the state may get as much as $100 million in royalties over the life of the 50-years lease, Velarde said.

The commission in November time-tabled the Bosque del Oso request and asked DOW staff to present a cogent energy policy at Thursday’s meeting in Sterling.

Velarde has fought energy leases on state lands, and for a while he was a lone dissenter.

“I’ve been opposed to every energy lease on state wildlife areas, but on most wildlife areas we don’t own the mineral rights,” Velarde said. “So the BLM could tell us to go pound sand and that’s what they did. We didn’t get much cooperation from them until the (DOW) director (Bruce McCloskey) and (Department of Natural Resources executive director) Russ George got involved.”

He now says the DOW and local BLM and Forest Service officials are cooperating on leasing decisions.

If an energy lease includes a no-surface-use component, the energy companies could directionally drill on an adjacent parcel and go right under the state area, draining the gas in what’s called “forced pooling.”

In some cases, the state is receiving royalties from off-site directional wells, said Grady McNeal, acting manager of the DOW wildlife resources support staff.

“The Division tries to protect some of our properties only to have the adjacent lands heavily drilled,” said McNeal, who is working with Velarde and Southeast Region Manager Dan Prenzlow on the proposed energy policy. “What sense does it make to have small islands of habitat when the (surrounding) habitat is gone?”

In some cases, it might make sense to drill on state lands if it protects nearby areas with better wildlife habitat, McNeal said.

“We have to assess the total picture, taking a landscape approach, and find out where we fit in the big picture,” McNeal said.

Velarde remains unconvinced that energy development can be compatible with wildlife and habitat but said there might be some exceptions.

“If an energy company proposes an energy lease below a wildlife area and there would be no surface impact and potentially the state could realize $100 million dollars, we would be remiss not at least considering it,” Velarde said.

 

[mtmiller]

I will give this a read later, but from what you have high-lighted, split estate and a Bush Energy policy are certainly in the mix.

 

[Oak]

It's not really worth the read to you, just the highlighted line. Not something you generally read in the paper from a professional. The split estate issue is very common here, and that's a good explanation of how it usually goes.

 

[1_pointer]

To quote a TNC person that worked in/around Las Vegas, "We wish for the days when grazing was the issue."

 

[MarvB]

Just trying to remember, don't the mineral rights take precedence in split estate situations? I thought that the EPACT was going to address (or at least attempted) this issue- what was the outcome?

 

[1_pointer]

That's been my limited experience Marv. Will be interesting to see what becomes of the test well their drilling in an area I work.