Industrial Gas Group Seeks Boost in Forest Service's Permitting Budget

MarvB

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 5, 2001
Messages
7,266
Location
₵tral Oar-e-gun
Industrial natural gas consumers have called on a House appropriations subcommittee to increase the U.S. Forest Service's budget for permit processing by $18 million in fiscal 2007 to spur oil and gas activity in the Rocky Mountain West region.

"There is no greater energy-related spending priority within the federal government in the short term," wrote Paul N. Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA), in a letter Wednesday to Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies. The subcommittee is scheduled to mark up the fiscal 2007 spending bill for Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and related agencies on Thursday.

The industrial consumer group urged the House panel to allocate $100 million for the Forest Service's permitting activities, up from the $81.2 million that the Bush administration proposed for the Department of Agriculture agency for fiscal 2007. The IECA supports the administration's request of $115.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) leasing and permitting activities.

"It does us no good for the BLM to increase permitting only to have them delayed by the Forest Service," Cicio said. "It is for this reason IECA strongly encourages the committee to increase the Forest Service amount to $100 million."
 
Marv,

I thought Mark Twain said "Whenever you find yourself on the side of Jose, it's time to pause and reflect".

So what's your take on this? My closest experience with this would be the building permit process. Building permit fees generally fund the Building Inspection Departments. In times of building booms, the Building Inspectors are usually slow in adding staff causing bottle necks in plan review and inspection. They are usually hesitant to add staff fearing a future slow down would force them to layoff staff. A lot of cities make the inspection process slow and expensive on purpose in an attempt to curb growth. Is there similarities in the gas permiting process as well? Do permit fees paid by industry cover the cost to manage the process? Are the fees resonable or should they be increased? Or is the Forest Service inefficent in processing the permits? Thanks
 
Paul- (Don't know if Twain had the pleasure of ever meeting one of gunners alter-egos ;) ) I don't claim to have a rat’s patute of knowledge on this one other than what I have "heard" in my line of work. From what I've been told there is both a definite bottleneck on both the permitting (and inspection) processes and that, given the boom in the industry and corresponding price run ups, the permits are extremely under priced. One would think that if they would update the pricing scheme that they (again given the uplift in the industry) could self-fund more employees and lessen the bottleneck. Like most gov. operations though, regardless of funding, you still have to go through the "process" to get new or more positions established and that can be a bottleneck onto itself! I definitely don’t think they are trying to curb/limit growth of expansion in the industry though- it's pretty darn wide open right now.

The worst fear is that they don't put the necessary effort into the permitting/inspection processes and just become a rubber stamp operation to hasten the timelines....I think we'd all (except for big business of course) loose on this one. As to the Forest Service and efficiency? I'll let those currently employed speak to that one, my experiences are now 20 years ago in the past and (hopefully) things have likely improved.....that being said (again, speaking on my District) their inefficiency was one of the main reasons I decided to change careers....and that folks is post 2000! time flies when you're having fun eh :eek:
 
Yeti GOBOX Collection

Forum statistics

Threads
113,587
Messages
2,026,109
Members
36,239
Latest member
cprsailor
Back
Top