|
In addition to removing barriers to drilling that were already in place, the Bush Administration shortcircuited the Department of Interior's ability to identify and protect potential Wilderness areas in the future. This decision, made through a 2003 settlement with the state of Utah, effectively means that tens of millions of acres of potential wilderness throughout the West may be developed for oil, gas, and other purposes, before they can be protected. As a result, these lands may forever lose their wilderness character. Moreover, a recent report found that through BLM's land use planning process, the Bush Administration has opened to potential oil and gas drilling 5.4 of 6.4 million acres on sensitive lands in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and New Mexico (TWS Land Use Plans 2004). The Bush Administration has also issued pronouncements that make it difficult for land managers to deny new drilling proposals, including a memoradum to Utah land managers stating that considering offers by oil and gas companies to lease and drill land should be their "No. 1 priority" (Egan 2002, TWS 2004). Cherry Picking — Drilling on the last best western landsIn Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah, communities are protesting local land use plans and drilling proposals that would open sensitive lands up for drilling, or expand operations on lands already under pressure from current operations. The governors in both Wyoming and New Mexico have opposed recent efforts to expand drilling in areas that are sensitive and, in Wyoming's case, heavily leased. In the aggregate, all onshore drilling operations on public lands managed by the Department of Interior account for just 10 percent of our domestic production of natural gas, and 5 percent of domestic oil production (DOI 2003). For increments in production barely measureable, the administration is approving or considering drilling proposals on some of the last best western lands.
How to Use This Site — A Guide to Features and DataThe three tabs at the top left of the page will take users through the site. EWG Investigation includes the executive summary and links to several chapters on the left of the page including:
Interactive Maps allows users to see maps of the 12 western states showing cumulative lease activity since 1982, active leases, lands offered since 1982 but not leased, lands leased since 1982 whether still active or not, and lands that have produced oil and gas since 1982. Click on a state on the map to see a close-up map of leasing in that state. Then click on the State Reports tab to see data specific to that state including top leaseholders and in which counties they hold their leases. The Data allows users to see some of the key findings of the investigation including:
References
Part 2: About Oil and Gas LeasesSince 1982, the federal government has leased or offered for oil and gas drilling 229 million acres of public and private land in 12 western states -- an area larger than the combined size of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The federal government offers land for oil and gas drilling through the sale of leases which typically last for 10 years or more. Among the rules that have helped clear the way for oil and gas development are provisions that generally allow drilling on land where the surface is owned by a private party but the oil and gas rights are owned by the federal government. Environmental measures can restrict drilling in sensitive locations but companies in many cases receive waivers from these protections. Following is a look at the basics of oil and gas leasing.
What is an oil and gas lease?Under federal law, any adult U.S. citizen may obtain and hold a lease to explore and drill for, extract, remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits on federal land. Corporations organized under U.S. law and municipalities may also obtain and hold oil and gas leases (CFR Who May Lease Land? 2004). The lease provides the right to use as much of the leased land as is necessary to develop oil and gas resources. The lessee and his or her operator cannot build a house on the land, farm the land, or remove minerals from the leased land other than oil and gas (CFR Lease Rights 2004, BLM Instructions 2004). However, in most states, if the surface of land is owned by another party and oil and gas companies lease the mineral rights from the federal government, the companies do not have to receive permission from the surface owner before beginning operations (OGAP 2004). Most leases expire at the end of a 10-year "primary term" but may be extended if diligent drilling operations are in progress, or if other conditions are met. The term of a lease can continue as long as the lessee produces oil and gas in paying quantities (CFR Duration of Lease 2004). Leasing of minerals that are privately owned differs from the leasing of federal minerals because a private mineral lease is a contract between two private parties. Thus, in a private lease, a mineral owner can create stringent stipulations regarding how development may occur, for example, where access roads are built and which damages will be compensated (OGAP 2004, Chapter 3). How is land leased?Determining which land is leased is an ongoing process that often begins with informal expressions of interest from the public — usually oil and gas companies — who ask that certain parcels of public property be leased. BLM also decides to lease some land for management reasons (CFR How BLM Offers Leases 2004). 
Each BLM state office is required to hold lease sales at least quarterly if land is available. These sales are first conducted competitively through an oral bidding process. Prospective lessees must bid in person or send a representative. Competitive leases are issued for a primary term of 10 years (CFR How BLM Offers Leases 2004, BLM Instructions 2004). If land does not receive bids at competitive auction, prospective lessees can obtain a lease on the land non-competitively by submitting a bid to the proper BLM office. Non-competitive leases are also issued for a primary term of 10 years (CFR Non-Competitive Bids 2004). Can leases include environmental protections?Yes. Public lands are available for oil and gas leasing only after they have been evaluated through the BLM's land use planning process. In areas where development of oil and gas resources would threaten other land uses, such as setting aside habitat for wildlife, BLM may attach protective measures to the leases that modify the terms of oil and gas operations or restrict where operations can occur. The Secretary of the Interior and federal officials who manage the surface of federal lands have the authority to deny a lease (BLM Instructions 2004, CFR Land Use Stipulations 2004). In practice, however, recent reports from BLM field offices in Wyoming indicate that the BLM may often waive environmental protections at the request of gas and oil companies. The Pinedale Field Office in western Wyoming granted at least 251 exceptions to protections for wildlife between September 2002 and July 2003 while the Rawlins Field Office in southern Wyoming reported that since October 2003, it has granted 66 exceptions to protections for wildlife (BLM Pinedale Wildlife Exceptions 2003, BLM Pinedale Sage Grouse Exceptions 2003, BLM Pinedale Raptor Exceptions 2003, BLM Rawlins Exceptions 2004). How much land can be leased?About 570 million acres of federal land in the continental U.S. and Alaska are open for oil and gas leasing -- an area of land about the size of all 12 states included in this investigation: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. EWG estimates that about 301 million acres in the 12 western states considered in this investigation are open for oil and gas leasing. This estimate reflects the total area of federal public land in these 12 states less lands that are nearly always restricted from leasing and drilling regardless of administration policies or local land use plans — National Parks, Wilderness, National Monuments, Forest Service Recreation Areas, Military Reservation, National Fish and Wildlife Refuges, and National Recreation Areas. BLM has responsibility for leases on lands which includes BLM and national forest lands as well as private lands where the federal government has retained mineral rights, called "split estate" or "private surface" lands (BLM Instructions 2004). A parcel of land in the continental U.S. offered under a competitive lease may not exceed 2,650 acres. The parcels must be as compact as possible (CFR Size of Competitive Leases 2004). A parcel of land in the continental U.S. offered under a non-competitive lease must generally be at least 640 acres and, in all cases, must be less than 10,240 acres (CFR Size of Non-Competitive Leases 2004). A person or entity can take, hold, own or control a maximum of 246,080 acres of federal oil and gas leases in any one state at the same time. Federal rules do not count some acreage as part of a person or entity's total acreage, such as certain leases subject to operating, drilling or development contracts approved by the Secretary of the Interior (CFR Total Land Holdings 2004). Violations of acreage limitsAccording to BLM records, Energy West Corp.'s holding of 287,363.5 acres under lease in Washington state violates federal provisions allowing a company to hold no more than 246,080 acres in a particular state (BLM LR2000 2004). According to a recent report, BLM has notified its state offices that any company whose holdings exceed the state acreage limits will not be allowed to obtain new leases in that state until the company brings its holdings back within the acreage cap. The notice follows shortly after a recent Associated Press story which reported that since 1997, a half dozen companies have violated the state-by-state acreage limit. One of the violators was Tom Brown, Inc. which, at the time of its violation from 1997 to 2000, was headed by Donald Evans, now U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The AP reported that BLM had never exercised its legal right to cancel leases held by companies in excess of the state acreage limit and that BLM had never denied a company's request for an extension of time to comply (Pace 2004). How much do leases cost?On auction day or at a time specified by an authorized officer, winning bidders pay an administrative fee of $75 per lease, the first year's rent of $1.50 per acre, and at least $2 per acre of their "bonus bid." (The minimum bid is $2 per acre; the bonus bid is what bidders offer above the minimum.) Winning bidders pay the balance of the bonus bid to BLM within 10 working days of the auction. In addition to the initial payment, lessees pay rental rates of $1.50 per acre for the first five years for all leases beginning after December 22, 1987. Rates are $2 per acre for any additional year. Other rates may apply for leases that began prior to December 22, 1987. Rates can reach $10 per acre or higher for leases that are terminated and subsequently reinstated. Lessees generally do not pay rent on land for which they are paying royalties (CFR Leasing Fees 2004). What happens after a company or individual wins a lease: BondingBefore drilling can begin, the lessee, sublessee, or operator must post a bond of at least $10,000 to ensure compliance with the terms of the lease, including environmental protection. However, a lessee, sublessee or operator can post a bond of at least $25,000 to cover all leases and operations in a particular state and a bond of at least $150,000 to cover all leases and operations nationally (CFR Oil & Gas Bonding 2004). In practice, these fees have fallen far short of actual cleanup costs. In 2001, state and federal managers in Wyoming reported that Emerald Restoration & Production, a Gilette-based company, went bankrupt, leaving only about $250,000 worth of bonds to cover the estimated $4 million bill for closing 120 wells. The company had posted a blanket bond of $25,000 to cover its wells on federal land, the others were located on state and private land. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission had required Emerald to pay additional bond money for the state and private wells but the total was still far short of the cost of cleanup (Bleizeffer 2001).
According to a 2001 report by four citizens groups, "BLM recognizes that all bonding amounts (both private and public surface) are dramatically low in contrast to costs of full reclamation. Recent Wyoming examples illustrate this point: operators posting $25,000.00 statewide bonds have left clean-up costs, for one well, of $37,000.00. In addition, BLM recognizes that it has approximately 90 orphan wells nationwide, with expected liability to the taxpayer at $1.7 million, yielding an average cost of reclamation (and just plugging and abandoning), per well, of approximately $19,000.00. BLM acknowledges that full reclamation of some orphaned natural oil and gas wells can cost up to $75,000.00. Accordingly, BLM recognizes that bonding amounts are far too low for federal oil and gas activities" (Protecting Wyoming 2001). BLM Director, Kathleen Clarke, told a Wyoming newspaper more than two years ago that "there will be some increases" in bonds. And last year, the BLM announced that amounts for oil and gas bonds would increase. Under proposed rules, oil and gas companies would pay $20,000 for wells they drill on a particular lease and $75,000 for statewide bonds. But nationwide bonds would remain unchanged at $150,000. Thus far, these changes have not been implemented (Gillette News-Record 2002, Chakrabarty 2003). Applying to DrillIn addition to bonding, a federal officer must approve an Application for a Permit to Drill (APD) before the lessee can begin oil and gas operations. The lessee must file the APD at least 30 days before operations begin. Among other things, the APD must include a surface use plan of operations which must provide plans for reclamation as well as containing and disposing of hazardous material. Subsequently, a federal officer will post a description of the proposed operation for public inspection for a period of 30 days. Within five business days of the end of the 30-day period (or within 30 days of receipt for Indian lands), a federal officer will approve the APD, approve the APD with conditions, deny the APD with an explanation of the denial, or advise the applicant that final action will be delayed and provide an expected date for final action (CFR Application for a Permit to Drill 2004). BLM is on pace to issue a record number of drilling permits this year. By June 25, the Bureau had issued 3,500 permits and is expected to reach 6,000 by the end of the fiscal year in September. Last year, BLM issued 4,000 permits. "It's unprecedented in the history of the BLM," BLM Geologist Richard Watson said of the pace of permitting at a natural gas conference in Denver (Shore 2004). What production royalties are paid to the government by oil and gas lessees?Lessees pay a royalty of 12.5 percent to the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service on the amount or value of the oil or gas removed or sold from each lease. Lessees must pay a minimum royalty at the end of each year beginning on or after a discovery of oil or gas in paying quantities (CFR Oil and Gas Royalty 2004). Do operators have to abide by environmental protections?Yes. Among other things, federal law provides that "the operator shall exercise due care and diligence to assure that leasehold operations do not result in undue damage to surface or subsurface resources or surface improvements." Failure to abide by such protections can result in civil or criminal penalties. In addition, an authorized federal officer may enter the lease and perform, at the operator's expense, procedures that the operator has failed to perform. An authorized officer may also shut down oil and gas operations (CFR Environmental Obligations/Enforcement 2004). In at least some cases, BLM has fallen short of its duty to enforce environmental standards. In 2001, New Mexico's acting BLM state director, Richard Whitley, testified at a Congressional hearing that an Inspection and Enforcement review of the Farmington, NM office "identified an inadequate number of personnel available to monitor oil and gas activities in the Farmington area." Whitley also testified that "Surface Protection Specialists were focusing their efforts on processing Applications for Permit to Drill (APD)" and indicated that these personnel were not concentrating on "high-priority environmental inspections." (Whitley 2001). Can a lessee relinquish rights to a lease or lose such rights?Yes. A lessee may relinquish a lease at any time by paying accrued rental fees and royalties, placing wells in a condition for suspension or abandonment as required by BLM, and by completing reclamation on the site after halting oil and gas operations. In general, a lessee will automatically lose rights to a lease if there is no well capable of producing oil or gas in paying quantities and the lessee fails to pay the annual rental fee on time (CFR Relinquishment/Termination 2004). Leases expire at the end of their 10th year unless certain conditions (discussed above) are met. References
Part 3: Oil & Gas: Impacts at Every Step of the WayThe process of obtaining oil and gas from federal lands involves more than just drilling. Some of the potential impacts from drilling to wildlife, drinking water, and local communities are documented here, including those from exploration techniques, road construction, the use of heavy machinery, and the use and production of hazardous fluids. In some cases, oil and gas operators can take measures to mitigate environmental impacts — these measures are also discussed below. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see the Oil and Gas Accountability Project's (OGAP) "Oil and Gas at Your Door: A Landowner's Guide to Oil and Gas Development" (OGAP 2004). ExplorationOnce potential operators of oil and gas wells have leased land, they can enter the land to explore for oil and gas. The most common exploration technique is "seismic exploration" in which an operator explodes dynamite in a hole drilled several hundred feet in the ground, drops a heavy object from a truck onto a hard surface such as a paved road, or shakes the ground with a mechanism known as a vibrasizer. Seismic waves from these impacts travel downward and outward and then bounce back at different rates and strengths depending on what underground substances the waves pass through. Oil and gas companies analyze these waves to determine the location of oil and gas deposits (Farmbrough 1996). Impacts from exploration can be significant. The author, Terry Tempest Williams, recently described a convoy of "thumper trucks" moving through Utah's red rock desert. The giant trucks, with tires as tall as a man, were exploring for oil by lowering huge plates onto the desert, applying 64,000 pounds of pressure and then sending a seismic jolt into the ground to measure the waves as they returned. "Three other thumper trucks were at work about half a mile ahead," Williams wrote. Behind them was pulverized earth: a 15-foot swath of beaten down and broken junipers, blackbrush, rabbitbrush, squawbush and cliffrose. The delicate desert crust that holds the red sand in place from wind and erosion, known as cryptobiotic soil, was obliterated. Replacing it, in effect, was a newly crushed road. "In January Jayne Belnap, a United States Geological Survey expert on soil damage, submitted an official comment letter to the Bureau of Land Management about the fragility of desert crusts, warning it could take from 50 to 300 years for the dry soil to recover from the damage incurred by heavy equipment" (Williams 2002). Among other damage, water seepage can result when blasts from dynamite breach the water table. Water seeping from such blast holes has made land so wet that farmers were unable to harvest hay. Plugging these holes from bottom to top can avoid water seepage problems. Wire pin flags used for surveying can be shredded in the making of hay. The leftover metal bits can kill livestock that eat the feed. Livestock and wildlife can also die after eating ribbons attached to the flags. To prevent such harm, OGAP recommends that operators use of wooden stakes and remove them when exploration is complete (OGAP, I-6).Exploratory DrillingAfter exploration is complete, oil and gas companies will drill exploratory wells to ensure that there is oil and gas on the site in quantities sufficient for economical development. This stage includes building roads for access to the drilling area, which may require bulldozers, road graders and gravel trucks. The oil or gas company will then clear vegetation from the drilling area and level it. The company may construct a drilling pad out of gravel as well as pits to hold water and other wastes. Next, the company will install the drilling rig that raises and lowers the drill stem and bit along with any associated engines, pumps and equipment. Impacts in the drilling stage include disturbed land, which can exceed 40 acres per well depending on the length of roads, size of equipment, and other factors (LEERIC). The movement of heavy vehicles and drilling can create continuous noise, often running 24 hours each day, seven days a week. Emissions from diesel engines and turbines that power the drilling equipment can pollute the air with particulates and carbon monoxide (EPA 2000, 38; BLM Draft EIS 2000, 4-51) The drilling process can generate thousands of gallons per day of drilling waste including "cuttings" (the shards of rock generated by the drill bit) and drilling fluid or "mud" that is used to keep the hole open and the drill bit cool. The cuttings can contain arsenic as well as oil with which the cuttings come into contact during the drilling process. Oil and gas companies use water-based muds most commonly but also use more toxic oil-based muds for certain types of drilling (EPA 2000, 18-19). Drilling operators sometimes place wastes in pits lined with plastic but often discharge cuttings, muds, and other drilling byproducts onto the ground (Beaumont). Several ways to reduce the impacts from drilling include using lined pits to store waste or shipping waste to a secure disposal facility, using less toxic drilling fluids, and revegetating the drilling pad surface with native grasses (OGAP 2004, I-12). Completion of DrillingOil and gas companies will sometimes employ techniques to improve the flow of oil and gas to the well. One such method is known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracing" (rhymes with "cracking"). Companies use fracing to create fractures in rock or coal formations so that gas or oil can escape. In this method, the companies will pump into the formation a fluid, often one that they have thickened with gelling agents. The formation will crack under the pressure, and then the company will pump in substances called "proppants" to hold the fractures open. Some fracing fluids and proppants include potentially toxic acids and diesel fuel (EPA 2002, Ch.4). The EPA has warned that "the use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids by some companies introduces the majority of constituents of concern to underground sources of drinking water. Water-based alternatives exist and from an environmental perspective, these water-based products are preferable" (EPA 2002). Drilling often removes enormous amounts of groundwater. Companies frequently pump out thousands of gallons of water per well, particularly in oil wells and coal bed methane operations (USGS 2004 and EPA 2000, 38-39). The removal of water can create several problems: water may be depleted from nearby aquifers if large quantities of water are pumped out of the ground (Regele and Stark 2000, 3-5); removing water from coal beds creates the potential for underground coal fires; and vast quantities of water that are saline or contaminated with drilling fluids can contaminate soil, surface water and groundwater (OGAP I-48; USGS 2004). One way to reduce the amount of water and hazardous substances used in drilling is to use a fracing technique that employs sand and carbon dioxide. It is reported that this technique has increased production by two to five times more than water-based fracing (McCallister 2000). Another way to reduce environmental impacts is by so-called "closed loop" drilling in which the solid cuttings are removed from the drilling fluid and the fluid is stored in tanks and reused rather than dumped in a pit as is frequently the case. One contractor in Texas saved $10,000 per well by using "closed loop" drilling due to lower construction, closure and waste management costs (there was no need to build a pit or clean it up). The operator also reduced its liability by eliminating the chance of contamination from a leaking pit (Texas RRC 2004). Transportation of Oil and GasWhile roads and well pads disturb some land, the construction of pipelines and compressors that are used to transport oil and gas from the well can impact additional acres. Compressors, used to maintain pressure in pipelines for the transportation of natural gas, can produce a tremendous amount of noise that disturbs local landowners (PRBRC 2000). Abandoning WellsSome wells are left unplugged or improperly plugged after they have ceased to produce oil or gas or after their operators have abandoned them. Some such wells are abandoned after their operators go bankrupt and have no funds for properly securing the well. Oil, gas and saltwater leaking from improperly plugged wells can contaminate groundwater. Improperly plugged wells can also allow pesticides to leak into groundwater supplies and can pose safety risks to humans and livestock (OGAP I-27, 2004). State and federal governments should ensure that wells are properly abandoned. References:
Part 4: Oil and Gas: The "No. 1 Priority" on Public Lands
Under federal law, the Department of the Interior has a duty to balance competing uses of federal land. On the one hand, the Department must "protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values." On the other hand, the Department must manage public lands "in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber" (FLPMA 2004). An Environmental Working Group analysis of government records on public land use decisions shows that the Bush administration appears to have tipped the balance in favor of oil and gas drilling, minimizing efforts to protect other important resources, and is systematically stripping land protections hard won in previous administrations. Significant actions of this administration that have favored the oil and gas interests above other public interests are documented below. Lands newly opened to drillingEWG's analysis of public land use decision records show that the Bush administration has issued a series of decisions and proposals that collectively will strip protections from 45 million acres of the country's most pristine remaining wild areas. The administration is on track to open for drilling an average of 12.7 million acres per year in 12 western states, compared to a net 7.7 million acres per year protected from drilling under the Clinton administration, according to an EWG analysis of government records. The decisions range from a series of Public Land Orders issued by the Department of Interior, to the recent administration proposal to entrust local government with land use decisions on millions of acres of roadless Forest Service land protected by the previous administration. Each of the actions documented below either open or close the land for mineral leasing. Closures to leasing mandated by the federal government preempt local land use plans. From 2001-2004, 45 Million Acres in 12 Western States have been stripped of protections from drilling
From 2001-2004 vast areas in the Western U.S. have been stripped of protections from drilling
Source: EWG compilation and analysis of data from public land orders published in the Federal Register from January 1 1993 through July 15 2004, and information on other federal actions affecting land designations published by The Wilderness Society and The U.S. Forest Service. Although lands now stripped of protections will not necessarily be leased, the option to lease is now a possibility, and the decision to grant such leases is in the hands of local government officials. Administration decisions that have opened lands up for drilling, if companies choose to lease, include a recent proposal to reverse protections on 41.9 million acres of roadless Forest Service land in 12 western states, leaving land use decisions in the hands of local governments; a capitulation to Utah's then-governor Mike Leavitt (now the federal EPA Administrator) to open 3.2 million acres of proposed wilderness areas for drilling; and 13 public land orders issued by the Department of the Interior (DOI) that opened lands for drilling that had previously been off limits. In contrast, Clinton's DOI issued just eight public land orders that opened lands for drilling, and protected land in the aggregate with 11 other public land orders restricting drilling. The current administration has protected far less land from drilling than the previous administration. Ninety-nine designations for wilderness areas that protected lands from drilling were signed by Clinton, compared to 25 signed by President Bush. Three new national parks were created under Clinton's tenure; none have been created since Bush took office. President Clinton created 17 national monuments that restrict drilling activity, and 22 national wildlife refuges; President Bush has created none. Favoring Oil and GasThe Bush administration first indicated that it was predisposed to favor drilling on federal lands by issuing a series of documents in 2001. In the White House's National Energy Policy Report, directed by Vice President Dick Cheney, and released in May 2001, the report's authors called for "an Executive Order directing all federal agencies to include in any regulatory action that could significantly and adversely affect energy supplies a detailed statement on the energy impact of the proposed action." The report also stated that the President should direct the Secretary of the Interior to "[e]xpedite the ongoing Energy Policy and Conservation Act study of impediments to federal oil and gas exploration and development" and "review public lands withdrawals and lease stipulations, with full public consultation, especially with the people in the region, to consider modifications where appropriate" (NEPG 2001, 5-7). Land withdrawals refers to land that is declared off-limits to oil and gas development while lease stipulations provide protections for land, water, wildlife, and cultural resources. Consistent with the report's advice, President Bush issued two executive orders in May 2001. One order provided that agencies shall prepare a detailed analysis of any action that "is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy" (Executive Order 13211, 2001). The other order stated that "for energy-related projects, agencies shall expedite their review of permits or take other actions as necessary to accelerate the completion of such projects, while maintaining safety, public health, and environmental protections" (Executive Order 13212, 2001). The administration then modified federal land use policy in favor of oil and gas production by issuing a memorandum to all BLM land managers. The memo stated that land use managers should continue to issue leases and drilling permits in areas for which new land use plans had not yet been finalized. This policy overturned an existing federal rule that no new leases would be issued while land use plans were being redrawn. The goal of this older policy was simply to ensure that ecological, historical or cultural resources would not be lost before managers could implement a new land use plan (BLM Leasing Instruction Memo 2001, TWS 2004). In a recent reversal of course, the Interior Deparment told BLM state and regional officers that they may postpone leasing if they were in the process of developing new resource management plans that establish long-term federal land-use policies (Eilperin 2004). Oil and Gas: Number One PriorityThe administration became more overt in its efforts to make oil and gas drilling a priority in 2002 when the BLM issued a memo to land managers in Utah. "Utah needs to ensure that existing staff understand that when an oil and gas lease parcel or when an [application for permission to drill] comes in the door, that this work is their No. 1 priority," the memo read (Egan 2002, TWS 2004). End Run Around ProtectionsRecent reports from BLM field offices in Wyoming indicate that the BLM may often waive environmental protections at the request of gas and oil companies. The Pinedale Field Office in western Wyoming granted at least 251 exceptions to protections for wildlife between September 2002 and July 2003 while the Rawlins Field Office in southern Wyoming reported that since October 2003, it has granted 66 exceptions to protections for wildlife (BLM Pinedale Wildlife Exceptions 2003, BLM Pinedale Sage Grouse Exceptions 2003, BLM Pinedale Raptor Exceptions 2003, BLM Rawlins Exceptions 2004). Opening Wilderness to Oil and Gas Drilling
As a result of a backroom settlement in 2003 between Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton, and then-governor of Utah and current EPA administrator, Mike Leavitt, the Bush administration has opened thousands of acres of wilderness quality federal land to oil and gas development. Following the deal, the BLM has already leased for oil and gas development 33 parcels of Utah land covering more than 18,000 acres that the BLM had previously designated as potential wilderness (EWG Utah Report 2004, Bloch 2004). The seeds of the deal originated in 1996 when then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt ordered a wilderness inventory of land in Utah as an effort to help resolve a controversy over the proper amount of wilderness in the state. Conservationists had charged that a previous agency inventory of BLM land had overlooked wilderness areas (BLM Utah Inventory 1999, Bloch 2004). The same year, the state of Utah alleged in a lawsuit that the federal government was exceeding its authority by conducting the inventory. But in 1998, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Utah essentially had no legal standing to challenge BLM's analysis. The 10th Circuit remanded the case to federal district court in Utah where it lay dormant for approximately five years (BLM Utah Inventory 1999, Utah v. Babbitt 1998). Meanwhile, in 1999, a BLM-assembled team that included some of the Bureau's "most experienced wilderness professionals" issued a report identifying 2.6 million acres of federal land in Utah as having wilderness characteristics — a finding that substantiated the conservationists' concerns. Between 1999 and 2003, BLM deferred approving most proposed development that would have damaged these characteristics pending further actions that could have designated the land as officially protected Wilderness Study Areas (BLM Utah Inventory 1999, Bloch 2004). Then, in 2003, Utah's lawsuit that had been sitting idle in district court resurfaced in the form of the Norton-Leavitt settlement. In the deal, the Bush administration acquiesced to the state's demands and stripped the potential wilderness protection from the inventoried lands, including red-rock canyon land and rock formations in southeast Utah. The administration also stated that the BLM lacked the authority to protect additional land in other states as wilderness unless Congress formally designated the land as wilderness (BLM Utah Memo 2003, Utah Settlement 2003), a decision that has national ramifications. As a result of this secretly-negotiated agreement, thousands of acres of potential wilderness may be lost forever because BLM can no longer provide interim protection for additional potential wilderness and it is unlikely that Congress can designate as wilderness an area that has already been developed. According to the 1964 Wilderness Act, land must be "untrammeled by man" to receive a designation as wilderness. Once land receives such a designation, "no commercial enterprise and no permanent road" is allowed inside the area (The Wilderness Act 2003). Not Leasing: Increasingly Not an OptionIn February 2004, the Bush Administration turned up the heat even higher on BLM land managers who might deny a lease request on a particular parcel of public land. "[A] decision not to lease that extends beyond the [sic] one year could be considered a change in land use allocation outside of the planning process that effectively removes large parcels of land from mineral development without following appropriate planning procedures," wrote BLM Director, Kathleen Clarke, to BLM staff. If a manager of an area operating under a land use plan determines that a tract should not be leased in an area currently open to leasing for more than one year, Clarke added, "the manager should strongly consider a plan amendment, with an appropriate range of alternatives, [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis and public participation." In addition, Clarke wrote that when a parcel is not offered for leasing, "[t]he State Director must provide a letter to those who submitted the expression of interest for the tract, stating the reasons for not offering the parcel(s), the factors considered in reaching that decision, and an approximate date when analysis of new information bearing on the leasing decision is anticipated to be complete and when a decision to lease (or amend the [land use] plan) is expected to be made" (BLM February Memo 2004). As the Wilderness Society has noted, this memo suggests a strong presumption that land must be leased. Yet there is no requirement under federal law that a land manager must lease federal land. In fact, the decision is discretionary (TWS 2004 Leasing Rules 2004). Governors Protest DrillingThe Bush Administration has continued to lease federal lands in such a reckless manner that it has drawn protests this year from the governors of New Mexico and Wyoming. The protest from Bill Richardson, New Mexico's Governor, came after the BLM announced that it was going to double the area open to the least restrictive form of oil and gas leasing in Otero Mesa, a fragile grassland in south-central New Mexico. Wyoming Governor, Dave Freudenthal, protested a lease sale in the heavily-leased Pinedale area in the northwestern portion of his state. Fruedenthal argued that further leasing would jeopardize critical wildlife habitat and that BLM should postpone new leasing until BLM issues a new land use plan for the area. The current level of oil and gas development, he wrote, already far exceeds that envisioned by the existing land use plan (see section on Otero Mesa for New Mexico's gubernatorial protest; see Freudenthal 2004 for Wyoming's gubernatorial protest). Declining Oil Production, Increasing Natural GasDespite an increased emphasis on drilling, crude oil production on U.S. onshore lands (federal and private) have generally fallen. In 2001 crude oil production fell to 96 percent of production rates achieved in the previous year (EIA Onshore Oil 2002). Oil production on onshore U.S. lands generally declined during the 1990s from 6.3 million barrels of oil per day in 1990 to 3.8 million barrels per day in 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available (EIA Onshore Oil 2002). Natural gas production from onshore U.S. lands generally increased during the 1990s from 16.5 trillion cubic feet in 1990 to an estimated 19 trillion cubic feet in 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available (EIA Onshore Natural Gas 2002). References
Part 5: Slick Talk Attempts to Rig Oil and Gas DebateKey administration officials and members of Congress have been using the "tested" language of pollster and political consultant Frank Luntz to garner support for opening environmentally sensitive areas across the inter-mountain West for oil and natural gas drilling.
Luntz's widely-circulated 2002 "Straight Talk" memo outlines talking points on energy and the environment, among many other subjects. While the chapter on Energy focuses on coaching Republicans to win the debate about oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the language and concepts also have been used in the debates surrounding western oil and gas resources. The Luntz memo has become a guide for politicians looking for effective ways of communicating messages about the need to expedite drilling in sensitive areas. Often the language used does not reflect reality, as discussed below.
At a town hall meeting in Arkansas on August 3, 2004, Vice President Cheney told the community that domestic declines in production were driven by western land use restrictions: "In fact, our production is declining. In part, that's because we made a decision as a country — you and I might not have agreed with it — but, basically, we've taken large chunks of the country and put it off limits to any kind of exploration or development... Large parts of the Rocky Mountain West are off limits." But EWG's analysis of government records shows that the U.S. government has, in fact, given the oil and gas industry broad access to public land for drilling, since 1982 offering for drilling 229 milion acres in 12 western states, an area greater than the combined size of Montana, Utah, and Wyoming.
Interactive Version of This Map Source: EWG analysis of leasing and drilling records in 12 western states, contained in the Bureau of Land Management's Land and Mineral Records 2000 database, acquired by EWG May 15 2004. * * *
Luntz and others tout the benefits of low-impact, advanced technologies such as those that allow companies to drill multiple wells extending down and outward from a single location. This type of "directional drilling," they argue, reduces the land area disturbed by oil and gas operations. In a Saint Paul, Minnesota speech introducing his energy plan, President Bush claimed that "Advanced new technologies allow entrepreneurs and risk-takers to find oil and to extract it in ways that leave nature undisturbed. Where oil is found underneath sensitive landscapes, rigs can stand miles away from the oil field and tap a reservoir at an angle." The energy plan includes the same argument, that "...companies have adopted innovative techniques to reduce the possible impacts of exploration and development," an idea used to justify proposals for drilling on sensitive western lands. 
Such technologies exist, but the evidence suggests that they aren't widely used, or when they are used environmental impacts are still substantial. Wyoming's Jonah natural gas field, pictured here, exemplifies the tightly-spaced pattern of wells that is required to efficiently extract natural gas through conventional vertical drilling. Operators said in 1998 that 497 wells drilled over 10-15 years would be adequate to extract the natural gas in the Jonah area. Just five years later in 2003, BLM reported that oil and gas companies had drilled 500 wells in the field and the Casper Star-Tribune reported that operators may ultimately drill 3,100 wells in the Jonah area (Amos 2003). Earlier this year, the BLM backtracked on provisions that would have required directional drilling in New Mexico's fragile Otero Mesa, reducing from 160,000 to just 40,000 the number of acres requiring such technology, while allowing conventional drilling and minimal wildlife protections on 1.4 million acres of the 2 million-acre area. (BLM DEIS 2000; BLM FEIS 2003a). When innovative, low-impact technology is the exception rather than the rule on one of the country's most valuable ecological resources, it becomes apparent that the use of such technologies to protect land and wildlife is likely not an industry or a government priority. On Colorado's Roan Plateau, a spectacular, wildlife-rich region above the Colorado River, a proposed oil and gas development plan includes the use of directional drilling, but even so, would result in drastic impacts. In its 2003 Reasonable Foreseeable Development plan, the Bureau of Land Management discusses a well spacing of 10 acres across much of the plateau. To minimize impacts, BLM proposes directional drilling. But even with this innovative technology, well pads would be spaced just 40 acres apart, the equivalent of one well for every four city blocks (BLM 2003b). The visual impact of these wells in the wide open vistas of the plateau would be substantial. The environmental impacts of oil and gas development in such a sensitive area are incalculable. At an August 2004 Arkansas town hall meeting Vice President Cheney boasted about the effectiveness of drilling technology in protecting valuable environmental resources: "The technology has gotten so good that, frankly, we can develop those kinds of resources without doing any environmental damage." Wells drilled at a spacing equivalent to every four city blocks, and the pipes, roads, tanks, holding ponds, and compressor stations needed to sustain these operations, would likely not qualify as development that would do no damage to the surrounding, precious environmental resources.
* * *
In public communications on energy issues, Administration officials have followed Luntz's advice, choosing the term "exploration" over "drilling." For instance, when President Bush announced his administration's energy plan in St. Paul, Minnesota in 2001, he asserted that "...our ability to develop gas resources has been hampered by restrictions on natural gas exploration." But contrary to the rhetoric, it is, eventually, drilling, and many other large-scale operations that move earth, water, oil, and gas, and that involve heavy machinery and other supplies. Companies must drill to extract oil and gas, and that generally means building roads, hauling in heavy equipment, running large compressors, disposing of toxic drilling fluids, jeopardizing ground water supplies and other impacts. * * *
Luntz advises stressing national security and our need to reduce our dependence on foreign energy in arguments on energy policy. Politicians have used this argument to sell proposals to increase oil and gas industry access to western lands. In his State of the Union address in January 2004, President Bush asserted to Congress that his bill would "make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy" (Bush 2004). Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has stated that Congress must enact "a comprehensive national energy policy that balances domestic energy production with conservation and efficiency efforts to enhance the security of the United States and decrease dependence on foreign sources of oil" in his communications on the need to pass the National Energy Policy Act, a piece of legislation that would open up sensitive lands for new drilling, and that has been widely criticized for failing to include sufficient incentives for conservation and energy efficiency (Frist 2004). Energy experts within the administration disagree that increased access to domestic supplies of oil and gas would wean this country from foreign energy. The Energy Information Administration, a data analysis group under the Department of Energy, found that domestic production will decline and our dependence on foreign oil will continue its steady climb even if the proposed energy plan is fully implemented (EIA 2004b). Imports are at an all-time high. In 2002, the US imported 56 precent of its petroleum products. By 2025 EIA projections show we will import nearly 70 percent, a figure that would be reduced by only 1.2 percent if the President's plans were fully adopted, with drilling in the US expanded dramatically into areas that are currently protected for their unique wildlife or wilderness qualities. In fact, imports of crude oil under the Bush plan, projected at 13.38 million barrels of crude oil per day in 2015, reflect a mere 0.3 percent decline from the 13.47 million barrels per day projected under current policies. This is just one of the facts that led Bush's energy experts at EIA to find that the President's plan would have a "negligible" impact on our dependence on foreign oil (Committee on Government Reform 2004; EIA 2004a; EIA 2004b). Many of the sensitive areas proposed to be opened for drilling contain very little oil and gas. According to an industry estimate, which may present a best-case scenario, drilling for natural gas in New Mexico's rare grassland known as Otero Mesa will yield one trillion cubic feet of natural gas. At our nation's current rate of consumption, that's enough gas to supply us for less than 16 days (Albuquerque Journal 2004, USDOE Natural Gas 2004). 
Another estimate tells a similar story. According to a recent study by three federal agencies, the five western basins containing "most of the onshore natural gas and much of the oil under public ownership within the 48 contiguous states" would supply only about 8 years of natural gas and a mere 279 days of oil at current rates of consumption. These figures may overestimate the amount of oil and gas that can be extracted, because the agencies assessed the oil and gas that were technically recoverable, not economically recoverable (Energy Inventory 2003, USDOE Natural Gas 2004, EIA Petroleum Products). In any event, six-and-a-half years of energy is hardly enough to win the battle for energy independence and national security. To reach those goals, we will have to invest in increased energy efficiency and renewable, home-grown energy such as solar and wind power. * * *
Too often, oil and gas drilling consumes vast stretches of land, such as the development in Utah's Uinta Basin and and the Jonah well field in Wyoming's Green River Basin (pictured on the right), when lower-impact technology is available. * * * Related ResourcesLuntz Memo on EnergyWhen polling showed voters worried about the environmental impacts of the GOP's energy plans, "Republican energy language" from focus group guru Frank Luntz helped change the subject. References:
Part 6: Roan Plateau, ColoradoQuick Facts: Federal Land in Roan Plateau Area
Map Note: Entire Roan Plateau area outlined in red depicts 73,000-acres of land on which BLM may allow close to 2,000 oil and gas leases. Top of the Plateau depicts sensitive undeveloped area on which BLM might approve up to 335 of the 2,000 leases (National Atlas 2003, Energy Inventory 2003, Roan Resource Plan 2004). Drilling Roan Plateau?
For 35 days worth of natural gas and a 5.8-hour supply of oil, the Bureau of Land Management may approve a plan this August that could jeopardize one of the West's natural treasures (U.S. DOE Natural Gas 2004, BLM Roan RFD 2003, EIA Petroleum Products 2002, BLM Roan RFD 2003). The BLM is expected to complete an environmental impact study in 2004 that could place 335 oil and gas wells on Colorado's spectacular Roan Plateau and more than 1,600 wells adjacent to the Plateau (AP 2004). An Environmental Working Group analysis of government leasing and drilling records shows that the oil and gas industry already pressures local wildlife — a summary of current leasing activity in the Plateau is shown below. Oil and Gas Lease Holders of Roan Plateau landIn Roan Plateau, 3 companies and individuals hold 13 active leases on 13,288 acres of land. The table below shows who holds active leases, and provides links to comprehensive information on leases held across the west by individual companies, and political contributions made by companies over the past three election cycles.
Source: EWG analysis of leasing and drilling records in 12 western states, contained in the Bureau of Land Management's Land and Mineral Records 2000 database, acquired by EWG May 15 2004. Wild Land, Wildlife The Roan Plateau is located in northwestern Colorado and rises 3,000 feet above the Colorado River. It is a beautiful land of forests, deep canyons, and waterfalls (BLM Roan Plan 2004, BLM Rivers Eligibility 2002, BLM Roan RFD 2002, Kenworthy 2004). The Plateau is also home to a rich collection of wildlife including 33 species of mammals, 125 species of birds, and 12 species of reptiles and amphibians. The birds include the American Peregrine Falcon that was removed from the federal endangered species list in 1999. The mammals include black bear, mountain lions, elk and mule deer. In addition, the Plateau contains several populations of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout distinguished by their genetic purity (BLM Rivers Eligibility 2002). 
A recent BLM study found that eight streams on the Plateau meet the requirements to be designated part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System by Congress (BLM Rivers Eligibility 2002). Another BLM report found that four areas meet the requirements to be designated Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. One such area is known as Anvil Points and contains dramatic, white shale cliffs that give way to green slopes as well as habitat for Peregrine Falcons and Golden Eagles (BLM ACEC 2002). Citizens groups have identified 38,000 acres as having wilderness potential while a BLM study found 22,000 acres with wilderness potential. If Congress designates land as wilderness, the land is closed to development. But if land becomes developed prior to a wilderness designation, it likely will lose any chance to be designated as wilderness (AP 2004, The Wilderness Act 2004). Drilling High and Low The plan that BLM is currently considering would open 73,000 acres of the Plateau to oil and gas development. In a forecast of reasonably foreseeable development over the next 20 years that assessed a scenario of relatively unrestricted development, BLM estimated that there would be 1,987 wells drilled — 335 on the upper Plateau and 1,652 on the lower Plateau (BLM RFD 2004, Goodenow 2004). The lower plateau is also known as the base of the plateau and is currently the site of intensive natural gas development. The top of the Plateau is largely undeveloped (Goodenow 2004, AP 2004). 
Small Amounts of Energy This drilling would yield little oil and gas relative to demand. The BLM projected that the 1,987 wells will produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 2.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (BLM Roan RFD 2003, Goodenow 2004). To put these figures in perspective, U.S. oil consumption in 2002 was 7.1 billion barrels, meaning that the federal lands in the Roan Plateau would provide the nation with about 5.8 hours of oil (EIA Petroleum Products 2002). The U.S. used about 23 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas in 2001 — a figure that is expected to rise to 35 TCF per year by 2025 (USDOE Natural Gas 2004). Thus, at 2001 levels of consumption, the federal lands in the Roan Plateau would provide the nation with about 35 days of natural gas. Conservationists, hunters and local communities have opposed oil and gas development on top of the plateau in part because they believe such development could harm the area's economy that is increasingly dependent on tourism, outdoor recreation and retirees. Last year, BLM decided not to consider a plan that would include no drilling on top of the plateau as one of the Bureau's options for managing the area (Kenworthy 2004). References:
Part 7: Otero Mesa, New MexicoQuick Facts: Federal Land in Otero Mesa
For less than 16 days of natural gas, the BLM has proposed drilling in a 2 million acre-portion of the Chihuahuan Desert in New Mexico that includes a 1.2 million acre fragile grassland known as Otero Mesa. New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, leading an unusually diverse coalition of citizens, recently announced his opposition to the plan (BLM Draft EIS 2000 2-38, 2-39, Cart 2004).
Map Note: Otero Mesa area outlined in red depicts 1.2 million acres of sensitive grassland that is part of a 2 million-acre area on which BLM has proposed natural gas drilling operations. The operations could result in 140 wells drilled (National Atlas 2003, Energy Inventory 2003, New Mexico Wilderness Alliance 2004). A Rare Desert
According to New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, the Chihuahuan Desert "is one of the most biologically diverse arid regions in the world." The Desert is home to 23 percent of the world's 1,500 cactus species, the highest percentage of any of the western hemisphere's ecoregions (Richardson Consistency Review 2004). The World Wildlife Fund has listed the desert as one of its "Global 200," described as "a science-based global ranking of the Earth's most biologically outstanding terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats" (WWF 2004). The BLM has expressed its own concerns about drilling in the area. The BLM has written that Otero Mesa includes "one of the largest contiguous grasslands left in the region... Loss of grasslands due to clearing for pads and roads would lead to fragmentation of habitat [for antelope]." In addition, the BLM has written that increased traffic along roads in another portion of the Otero Mesa area "would increase the potential for direct and indirect effects on wildlife. Loss of woodland habitat would displace many species of birds and other wildlife. Loss of grasslands would reduce populations of small mammals, which provide a prey base for raptors." And the BLM has noted that "threatened and endangered wildlife species also could be significantly impacted if production activities occur within 1,600 feet (456meters) of occupied habitat" (BLM Draft EIS 2000, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-31). An Environmental Working Group analysis of government leasing and drilling records shows that the oil and gas industry already pressures the mesa — a summary of current leasing activity in Otero Mesa is shown below. Oil and Gas Lease Holders in Otero Mesa and Surrounding AreaIn Otero Mesa, 277 companies and individuals hold 781 active leases on 514,741 acres of land. The table below shows who holds active leases, and provides links to comprehensive information on leases held across the west by individual companies, and political contributions made by companies over the past three election cycles.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
