Questions about energy exploration/production
- Thread starter jmcd
- Start date
Tom
New member
Forums are simpler than real studies. You can't accuse me of oversimplifying it and expect me to draw a conclusion, like you want, based on a picture, that's way to simple.
Why can't you plant stuff and bring the net value of the habitat back up when a road goes in? Has anybody tried that?
You have to restrict access too, don't let the road be a highway, I understand that. Isn't it a basic fact, if they planted more than or better plants than they cut out, when they cut the road, then the habitat is better food. Say they plant some cover plants too, say they can put in a pond using the water they pump out. Wow, food, cover and water. Have they tried that, I bet the animals would love it?
Here's an example: They claim keeping in "corridors" helps the animals.
"Consrvation Biology
Volume 12 Issue 6 Page 1241 - December 1998
doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x
Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?
Paul Beier* & Reed F. Noss "
You can't over simplify it and throw your hands up and say look at this bad stuff, you have to put in good stuff to counter it, that's the idea. At least until we ever learn to reduce the demand for oil and gas.
What's Occam's razor got to do with it? Its pretty simple, if you take out habitat cutting a road, put back more, the animals will like it. If the animals run from the traffic on the road, restrict the traffic, put some cover for the animals in, pretty simple there too. Who writes those contracts, put that in, if they don't, expose them, those that write the contracts?
Oak, you know those pads will jeopardize the city water supply? Wow, you've got something there, go to the city, tell them to get the pressure up to fix it, before its too bad. You could make a movie I bet, if someone making a lot of money doesn't kill you. Am I getting over dramatic? Its somebodies job to protect that city's water supply, who's?
Why can't you plant stuff and bring the net value of the habitat back up when a road goes in? Has anybody tried that?
You have to restrict access too, don't let the road be a highway, I understand that. Isn't it a basic fact, if they planted more than or better plants than they cut out, when they cut the road, then the habitat is better food. Say they plant some cover plants too, say they can put in a pond using the water they pump out. Wow, food, cover and water. Have they tried that, I bet the animals would love it?
Here's an example: They claim keeping in "corridors" helps the animals.
"Consrvation Biology
Volume 12 Issue 6 Page 1241 - December 1998
doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.98036.x
Do Habitat Corridors Provide Connectivity?
Paul Beier* & Reed F. Noss "
You can't over simplify it and throw your hands up and say look at this bad stuff, you have to put in good stuff to counter it, that's the idea. At least until we ever learn to reduce the demand for oil and gas.
What's Occam's razor got to do with it? Its pretty simple, if you take out habitat cutting a road, put back more, the animals will like it. If the animals run from the traffic on the road, restrict the traffic, put some cover for the animals in, pretty simple there too. Who writes those contracts, put that in, if they don't, expose them, those that write the contracts?
Oak, you know those pads will jeopardize the city water supply? Wow, you've got something there, go to the city, tell them to get the pressure up to fix it, before its too bad. You could make a movie I bet, if someone making a lot of money doesn't kill you. Am I getting over dramatic? Its somebodies job to protect that city's water supply, who's?
I agree with you Tom. You can't draw conclusions from pictures.
Do you think that planting good food along the road with neutralize all the problems Buzz listed in his #4 answer?
How do you keep a road that's used to access 150 or 200 wells from being a highway? You keep saying that all of your solutions just need to be added into the contract. Who do you think is keeping that from happening???? Do you honestly think that Bush would consider allowing things like that to happen in his big push to make his energy buddies as rich as he can in the next three years?
The Occam's Razor reference was just correcting 1_p's spelling. I think he was referring to the dropoff in production.
It's the city's responsibility to protect their water supply, but they're too busy whoring themselves out to the energy industry. Let them pay the price down the road. I have little sympathy for those sacrificing the future to line their pockets today. They can make a movie later about how our president threw away some of our last remaining wild areas.
Oak
Do you think that planting good food along the road with neutralize all the problems Buzz listed in his #4 answer?
How do you keep a road that's used to access 150 or 200 wells from being a highway? You keep saying that all of your solutions just need to be added into the contract. Who do you think is keeping that from happening???? Do you honestly think that Bush would consider allowing things like that to happen in his big push to make his energy buddies as rich as he can in the next three years?
The Occam's Razor reference was just correcting 1_p's spelling. I think he was referring to the dropoff in production.
It's the city's responsibility to protect their water supply, but they're too busy whoring themselves out to the energy industry. Let them pay the price down the road. I have little sympathy for those sacrificing the future to line their pockets today. They can make a movie later about how our president threw away some of our last remaining wild areas.
Oak
Tom
New member
Ok, you want to focus on the negative parts. Buzz's #4 is all negative. People are the cause of all of those things, get rid of peope is the conclusion. Or else, get people to do things to make it better.
What if every hunter planted one lousy plant on each hunt? We're talking millions of plants to improve the habitat for animals, that's not being done. We ought to do that, if we're the ones who care about the animals. We're the ones putting the meat in our freezers, just like the city guy putting the company money in his picket. You and Buzz are the guys that know what that city is doing to themselves maybe, Oak. I don't know if the general city person knows anything about watersheds. You could at least e-mail the city counsil or something, some of them not putting company money in their pockets.
I don't like sitting around and listing every bad thing that people do to the environment, I'm headed out of here. I'm going to go fill my deer feeders, some 20% free choice good protein stuff and some with corn, 9% protein. It keeps them going, but its not good. But, its more affordable. Maybe western states should consider feeders, if they're loosing all the habitat, day by day, minute by minute.
You can't blame it on Bush, its the state's job to manage the wildlife in their state. You expect the feds to do everything for your state?
We have a lot of wells here, we have a lot of game here too. Most hunters here out out feed for the game. We value them enough to do that. You guys sometimes sound like you expect the federal budget to solve all your problems some times, so you can get a $25 elk tag for a 1000 lb bull. Plant a few plants, put out a few bales of good hay, it would go a long way toward saving the animals. I see a benefit of our baiting there, that would solve a lot of things in Buzz's #4. Get rid of the people and their demand, that's the only thing that solves it all, but that's illegal.
Its seems more likely to allow those who value the wildlife to increase the value of the habitat for animals than to allow some who might want to, to go kill all the people taking habitat away from animals.
What if every hunter planted one lousy plant on each hunt? We're talking millions of plants to improve the habitat for animals, that's not being done. We ought to do that, if we're the ones who care about the animals. We're the ones putting the meat in our freezers, just like the city guy putting the company money in his picket. You and Buzz are the guys that know what that city is doing to themselves maybe, Oak. I don't know if the general city person knows anything about watersheds. You could at least e-mail the city counsil or something, some of them not putting company money in their pockets.
I don't like sitting around and listing every bad thing that people do to the environment, I'm headed out of here. I'm going to go fill my deer feeders, some 20% free choice good protein stuff and some with corn, 9% protein. It keeps them going, but its not good. But, its more affordable. Maybe western states should consider feeders, if they're loosing all the habitat, day by day, minute by minute.
You can't blame it on Bush, its the state's job to manage the wildlife in their state. You expect the feds to do everything for your state?
We have a lot of wells here, we have a lot of game here too. Most hunters here out out feed for the game. We value them enough to do that. You guys sometimes sound like you expect the federal budget to solve all your problems some times, so you can get a $25 elk tag for a 1000 lb bull. Plant a few plants, put out a few bales of good hay, it would go a long way toward saving the animals. I see a benefit of our baiting there, that would solve a lot of things in Buzz's #4. Get rid of the people and their demand, that's the only thing that solves it all, but that's illegal.
Its seems more likely to allow those who value the wildlife to increase the value of the habitat for animals than to allow some who might want to, to go kill all the people taking habitat away from animals.
Tom,
Thanks for the interest in the post, but your'e getting a little off topic. I'm just wondering about this issue and am looking for factual information, not opinions or theories (throwing out bales of hay to save animals?????)
Thanks for the interest in the post, but your'e getting a little off topic. I'm just wondering about this issue and am looking for factual information, not opinions or theories (throwing out bales of hay to save animals?????)
Tom
New member
Well, its just some ideas. They do feed the elk in the winter, it could work other times too. The winter feed saves them too, they put out hay too, geesh. It is a theory, I'm not in wildlife management. I hypothesize the road density effect is an artifact, not the real cause. In biomedical statistics, where I work, we have things like numbers of TVs, radio, and telephone poles predict higher cancer and heart disease rates. Those effects are artifacts, just predictors of people being able to afford the high animal fat foods that are the actual causes of cancer and heart disease.
I'm thinking before those roads, the cover for the animals was being in the middle of nowhere. Now, with a road to nowhere, they really do need some cover and its not there, so they move.
mtmiller, you're not dumber for reading, that is really a dumb comment.
Don't people have fixes for this stuff to put in those contracts? We have ranches around here that won't let a truck in, unless they've just washed of the noxious weeds, put up a truck wash. Does that work on noxious weeds, whatever they are?
People need to be educated. What's a noxious weed, where do I get it, how do I not spread them? In medicine the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society spend a lot of money and effort education people about animal fat causing those diseases. Many people still don't eat right.
Won't it take a much bigger effort to get people to care about deer and elk? 15% of the nations gas needs for 20 years is worth a lot more than a few deer having to move to the next field. Educate me, but isn't that the main problem. Don't tell me that's Bush's fault, its not.
I'm thinking before those roads, the cover for the animals was being in the middle of nowhere. Now, with a road to nowhere, they really do need some cover and its not there, so they move.
mtmiller, you're not dumber for reading, that is really a dumb comment.
Don't people have fixes for this stuff to put in those contracts? We have ranches around here that won't let a truck in, unless they've just washed of the noxious weeds, put up a truck wash. Does that work on noxious weeds, whatever they are?
People need to be educated. What's a noxious weed, where do I get it, how do I not spread them? In medicine the American Heart Association and American Cancer Society spend a lot of money and effort education people about animal fat causing those diseases. Many people still don't eat right.
Won't it take a much bigger effort to get people to care about deer and elk? 15% of the nations gas needs for 20 years is worth a lot more than a few deer having to move to the next field. Educate me, but isn't that the main problem. Don't tell me that's Bush's fault, its not.
Tom
New member
So, what's the answer to jcmd's question, do you know mtmiller? Can it be done reasonably, i.e. protect the animals and get the gas?
It seems like it would take one heck of a contract, but there are ways to address all those issues Buzz brought up, right or partially right or what?
It seems like it would take one heck of a contract, but there are ways to address all those issues Buzz brought up, right or partially right or what?
Alright, I will throw in my 2 cents.
1. Yes, industry is required to post bond before any exploration or production activities.
2. Yes and no. In the area I work, roads area first created during the drilling process. For gas wells in this area, the well only takes 48-72 hours to drill. Once the well has been drilled, there is still a high use (my opinion) on that road. On site visits occur at a minimum of 1 to 2 times a month to inspect the well, change charts, maintain. Some gas wells produce large amounts of water and in many cases the water is not a high enough quality to support livestock or wildlife. When that is the case and evaporation can not keep with production, trucks are utilized to remove the water and relocate to larger evaporation pools with sprinkler systems to encourage the process. I know of many wells that must be visited on a daily basis to truck out water.
We have stipulations to protect some of the sensitive wildlife species, but many times I feel they are inadequate. Example -- In crucial big game winter range drilling may not occur during that sensitive time. Our RMP suggests December 1 to May 15. If industry still wants to drill a well during that time period they may request an "exception". If I feel the herd is in good shape and winter conditions warrant, I can allow them to drill. Remember, this is basically a short term event in this area because of the shallow pockets of gas. Now, the RMP allows us to protect these critters during the dates mentioned during the drilling phase, but production is a different ballgame. Seems silly to me to prohibit them from drilling in February, but allow them daily trips to pump water during severe winter conditions for the life of the well.
Montana is like many Rocky Mountain states. Lots of road hunting occurs and with every new road there is traffic not only from industry, but also your weekend warriors. Obviously they are not all road hunters, but it also allows vehicular access to areas that may have been rather remote and protected from large numbers of hunters. I think I brought up the example of a Wyoming hunter mentioning how improved the hunting was for big bucks after all the new roads went. Love it while you got it, 'cause it is only for the short term. :BLEEP:
I am rambling, so to answer your question, NO roads will be utilized for the life of the well and are then supposed to be rehabbed.
3. For a producing gas well the average is somewhere around 20 years.
4 & 5. I have touched a few issues, but as Buzz/Oak mentioned, there is a ton available on the internet and that is the best place to do some investigating. You did ask, "can it be done without too much impact to wildlife"? I guess that depends on the person and their attitudes. I have seen gas wells in the same spot sage grouse used to congregate for mating. The grouse are no longer there and I am not able to find a neew lek. Is this too much of an impact? In my opinion yes.
Don't get me wrong. Getting these resources out of the ground are a benefit to all americans, but there are some places that need protection, whether it is because of sensitive wildlife, unstable soils or pristine areas.
I don't buy into the idea build lots of roads, well pads and pipelines and we can mitigate by throwing out hay and planting a sage brush. Sorry Tom, not really to be a shot and at least you are trying to think outside the box. Sometimes you seem to be well out of view of any boxes though.
Tom
New member
If you were a deer, and there were two roads. One road had a bale of hay and a sage brush bush and the other road didn't have either, which road would you choose?
I remember a well that went in one place I used to quail hunt. It was right where I shot some quail the year before. I don't know what happened to those quail, but I'm not fool enough to think, my desire to hunt quail and the quail's desire to live there would take precedence over getting oil out of the ground there. I'm sure if I were willing to pay the difference in the well and the old quail hunt costs, for the life of the well, the owners would be glad to consider not putting in the well.
Does anybody ever study increasing the habitat value in a situation like a well going in? Does anybody try to transplant a cover of birds? We need studies like that?
I remember a well that went in one place I used to quail hunt. It was right where I shot some quail the year before. I don't know what happened to those quail, but I'm not fool enough to think, my desire to hunt quail and the quail's desire to live there would take precedence over getting oil out of the ground there. I'm sure if I were willing to pay the difference in the well and the old quail hunt costs, for the life of the well, the owners would be glad to consider not putting in the well.
Does anybody ever study increasing the habitat value in a situation like a well going in? Does anybody try to transplant a cover of birds? We need studies like that?
Luckily, there are still three choices. I would pick the choice not mentioned. No road with native vegetation.
Here is one for you. Two horny guys, one is ugly and one is a hotty. Which one would you want to be locked in a room with.
As for your quail example. I touched on that in my earlier post.
We have different values.
Would you have a different opinion if it impacted a species that was petitioned under ESA recently?
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
That's funny.
Tom
New member
If its your land, then your value matters. If its not your land, then someone else decides. If its your job to protect the birds, you deal with it either way.
I do not have to choose to be locked in a room, that's a totally irrelevent question. If you gave the deer a choice, what would they choose? That one study showed 46% left for better areas, like your third choice. Has anybody studied enhancing the habitat as a choice? If not, maybe its because they don't really care about the deer and birds.
How to protect the deer, that is the relevent question that can't be dogged, if we care about them. I wish there were no roads, but its just a wish. What's an ESA species?
I guess if its a federally protected species and its federal land, then it would have to be protected. Could you transplant it, then we could have both the ESA species and the road with the well?
I do not have to choose to be locked in a room, that's a totally irrelevent question. If you gave the deer a choice, what would they choose? That one study showed 46% left for better areas, like your third choice. Has anybody studied enhancing the habitat as a choice? If not, maybe its because they don't really care about the deer and birds.
How to protect the deer, that is the relevent question that can't be dogged, if we care about them. I wish there were no roads, but its just a wish. What's an ESA species?
I guess if its a federally protected species and its federal land, then it would have to be protected. Could you transplant it, then we could have both the ESA species and the road with the well?
Tom, I think the problem with discussing these things is that you don't understand some of the basic biology of the species involved. That's not a knock on you, as I'm sure a lot of hunters don't. But those that do understand such things don't want to spend hours and hours typing it out on here to explain. I know for a fact that you like reading books, so read up on the natural history of greater sage-grouse and I think you'll understand a little better.
Oak
Oak
Actually it is your land, but you share it with the rest of the american public.
Duh, my point. Is that light bulb going off yet?
ESA -- Endangered Species Act
There are a few in MT. Any thoughts on where we should redistribute some wolves, grizzlies, black-footed ferrets, pallid sturgeon, piping plovers. How is Texas for some habitat?
Tom
New member
The mule deer lived there, they had to decide to stay or leave, that decision was not irrelevent. No lightbulb there. Oak, you guys are supposed to educate us, if you want us to believe the stuff you come up with when you're the expert. Nobody will learn if you can't tell us. I don't care about sage grouse much, are they in the ESA? If you know the greater sage grouse need the well area, you're supposed to show us, at least, the people who manage them, not you in particular.
Maybe we should all stop wasting our time typing, why even write the books, there's a waste of time too, eh. What kind of thought is that? I understand enough about wildlife to know we need to provide them cover, water, and food to live. Without any one of those, pfit, their gone.
Exactly, mtmiller, with all the rest of the US citizens, they want the gas, they could care less about the sage grouse! You buy the land, you pay for what the well would produce, then the sage grouse can have the area. If you can't pay, you have to convince the rest of us too. If I give a dollar, would you go plant a sage grouse plant there?, maybe that group will show up again.
It looks like they would like sagebrush, based on the reading that Oak assigned me.
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage_grouse/docs/Sage-Grouse_Strategy_1_4_1.pdf Plant a few sage brush there, that's exactly what the plan calls for that they need.
Maybe we should all stop wasting our time typing, why even write the books, there's a waste of time too, eh. What kind of thought is that? I understand enough about wildlife to know we need to provide them cover, water, and food to live. Without any one of those, pfit, their gone.
Exactly, mtmiller, with all the rest of the US citizens, they want the gas, they could care less about the sage grouse! You buy the land, you pay for what the well would produce, then the sage grouse can have the area. If you can't pay, you have to convince the rest of us too. If I give a dollar, would you go plant a sage grouse plant there?, maybe that group will show up again.
It looks like they would like sagebrush, based on the reading that Oak assigned me.
http://www.blm.gov/nhp/spotlight/sage_grouse/docs/Sage-Grouse_Strategy_1_4_1.pdf Plant a few sage brush there, that's exactly what the plan calls for that they need.
MarvB
Well-known member
Tom...I think what miller and Oak are saying is that those things are already being provided (by nature) the decisions being made are whether or not to allow them to continue to be provided or to impact the site (and therefore its associated species) by taking away the "cover, water, and food".
Similar threads
