[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Rush to drill on the Roan

Tuesday, May 22 at 12:01 AM

This Speakout has not been edited

By David A. Lien, Colorado Springs

Loss of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife and hunting today, and hunters understand that habitat means wild, rugged country not overrun with drilling rigs, roads, pipelines, and OHV trails. That's what we have on Colorado's Roan Plateau. If you've ever driven through Colorado on I-70 between Grand Junction and Glenwood Springs, you have likely had your gaze drawn north up the stunning white cliffs that tower 3,000 feet above the highway, to the Roan Plateau.

Every single town and city in Garfield County, where the plateau is located, has expressed support for protecting it from drilling, as have thousands of citizens who wrote or emailed the BLM regarding the agency's development plans. They have been joined by more than 70 area businesses and outfitters who know firsthand the local economic value a pristine plateau provides through tourism and recreation. Citizens and businesses alike want to preserve the natural capital and quality of life that it brings in steady revenues year after year.

Hunting, fishing and wildlife watching generate more than $1 billion per year in Colorado, and hunting on the Roan Plateau alone is worth nearly $4 million annually. Local economies depend on the plateau's abundant wildlife, scenic intact landscapes, and plentiful recreation opportunities to attract visitors and new business alike.

Coloradoans have identified four potential wilderness areas (the gold standard for wildlife habitat and hunting grounds) on the plateau's top, encompassing 48,000 acres.

In addition to being a pristine and remote wilderness, the Roan Plateau is one of the top four most biologically diverse areas on Colorado's West Slope.

Besides, the known oil in Colorado would only supply national demand for a paltry 11 days. The entire Rockies region has known oil supplies sufficient for 100 days of national use, and these projections are contingent on zero demand growth. And fully 88 percent of the public lands in the Rocky Mountains are already open for oil and gas drilling. In Colorado, between 1982 and 2004, oil and gas companies had access to 15.8 million acres of public land-about one-fourth of the entire state. But from 1989 to 2003, they produced enough oil to power the country for one day, and enough gas for less than two weeks. Colorado issued a record 5,904 oil and gas drilling permits in 2006, more than double the permit total from two years earlier.

"Not every place on God's green earth needs to be open to natural-gas exploration," says George Orbanek, the conservative publisher of Colorado's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. In Wyoming, where the oil and gas boom began first, studies have documented the industry's impact on wildlife. One study funded by the oil and gas industry found a 46 percent decline in migratory mule deer in a heavily drilled area near Piñedale. Studies also show that more than 2 miles of road per square mile leads to a 50 percent reduction in elk populations.

As Citizens Protecting the Wyoming Range co-founder Gary Amerine said, drilling in the Wyoming Range is replacing current multiple uses on public lands with a single use: "There's no room for hunting and fishing in an oil and gas field...no room for snowmobiling and camping where oil and gas wells flare and compressors thump 24 hours a day." So it's destined to be here in Colorado, if we don't act today, as outfitter Jeff Mead is learning the hard way.

Mead has been guiding hunters on the west slope for 15 years. "Elk and deer move out when rigs move in," says Mead. "Up on the mountain during hunting season, if you sneeze, you can hear the elk running. So, don't tell me they like eating by a drilling rig." Mead's outfitting business has already taken a hit. He usually has 40 hunters signed up for fall trips, but had only 18 people lined up during the fall of 2005. He blames the drilling, which he said has decreased the number of elk, deer and bear.

According to a recent report released by the National Wildlife Federation, drilling on federal lands in five Western states (Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and New Mexico) has doubled over the last decade, and the BLM has leased 23 million acres of mule deer habitat, 18 million acres of antelope habitat, 17 million acres of sage grouse habitat, and 13 million acres of elk habitat. How much is enough? This rush to drill is squeezing hunters off of public land and destroying irreplaceable habitat for big game and other species.

We need oil and gas resources to heat our homes and to provide energy for our daily lives, but given the insignificant reserves found in Colorado it need not come at the expense of the wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities that have been part of Colorado's and the West's heritage for generations.

READER COMMENTS

$4 million a year in hunting revenues versus $160 million a year in taxes and federal royalty share (not to mention the underlying economic activity). By the way, it's not about oil. It's about enough gas to heat every home in Colorado for the next quarter century. And, how do 160 miles of existing roads get to be "pristine"?

Posted by Ken on May 23, 2007 09:54 AM

Well, Oliver, I'm glad you read the BLM plan because this Lien character obviously didn't. Anyone else tired of these rich, spoiled know-it-all's trying to tell the rest of us how to live while advocating policies that drive up what we have to pay for our heating and gas bills?

And where, exactly, would you recommend that we drill for natural gas? If you envrio-extremists can't agree to drill on the Roan, then you should just admit that you don't support drilling ANYWHERE. Of course I'm not waiting for that to happen since it would mean that you'd have to give up using petroleum products. I'm guessing you're not that dedicated to the cause, huh?

Posted by bobby on May 23, 2007 09:24 AM

"Please tell us, when you support prohibiting oil and gas development on at least 75% of public lands, how are we supposed to meet our energy needs?"

Please don't make up exaggerated hypotheticals and then argue against them, it makes you sound like Vince Carroll.

" 'Every single town and city in Garfield County, where the plateau is located, has expressed support for protecting it from drilling...' This is blatantly untrue. In fact, the Garfield County Commission was at the table when the BLM plan was developed and voted to support it."

To state the obvious, saying that "every town and city" in a county is not the same as saying the county. Counties and municipalities are different. The municipalities in Garfield County have consistently supported protection (and no drilling) for the public lands atop the Plateau and in the critical winter range at its base; two of the cooperating agencies--the cities of Glenwood Springs and Rifle--still prefer/recommend that position.

"Again I refer you to the BLM plan and urge you to do some research on your own and not believe what the envrios tell you. Remember-- scaring people is how they raise the money that pays their salaries."

I am familiar with the plan. Indeed I didn't just read BLM's little press release and summary, but the details, including tables, appendices, etc. If you go to the Save Roan Plateau website, you will find that most of their information is sourced, and many of those sources are primary--i.e. the BLM documents, letters from cities, etc.

" 'The "Devil may be in the details' as you claim, but I see no evidence to support these "realities." Do the Save the Roan people have any evidence to back up these claims? I don't see anything reference here to support what they are saying."

The references to the FEIS are taken from the BLM's proposed plan and final EIS for Roan Plateau.

Posted by Oliver on May 23, 2007 07:55 AM

It was the DNR that helped develop the proposed plan as a cooperating agency. TO suggest that it was basically written by DOW biologists is wrong. Go back (under the Walcher DNR) to when the process started and read what the CDOW biologists actually wrote/recommended, before it went through the Walcher pipeline. Russ George did an admirable job, but once leased the nature of the Roan Plateau would be forever changed: that is not what the majority of local communities, area governments, and nearly 99% of the public comments (75000) on the Draft plan wated.
Finally, the plan that came out of the cooperating agency meetings (and remember, two key cooperators still favor no o&g drilling/development on the area's unleased public lands, esp. the top) ,, was never considered or reviewed by the public. It is substantively different from what the agency studied under the draft in any of its alternatives.

Posted by Oliver on May 23, 2007 07:39 AM

The "Roan" is hardly a virgin area, there are roads and trails all over the place and have been for years. Besides coal, about the only other minerals there worth extraction are oil and gas, and oil shale. In so far as the gas is concerned, it will be depleted in forty to fifty years and the infrastructure will be removed. This has happened in other areas of the country and it will happen in Colorado. Back to nature it will go.

There is, or was, a nice little oil refinery in Parachute. While helping to build this facility, I watched deer feed and battle a couple of hundred feet away in complete oblivion to the human activity. We used to have to stop and wait for herds of deer to cross the road going up the creek to the mines. Before the road was built all the way to the top, we had to go in by Rio Blanco and wait for herds of Elk and wild horses to get out of the way. There are already gas wells along the edge of the plateau all the way from Rifle to Green River, Utah and have been since back in the seventies. Roads and trails are all over the place in that country.

Drilling activity on the Roan is nothing new like some would have us believe, and it's hardly caused any major impact.

The reduction in the deer herd in western Wyoming is likely caused by the hunting members of the drilling and pipeline crews now living up there. I know some of those guys and they love nothing more than hunting.

Posted by joe on May 22, 2007 06:24 PM

The point is that in spite of unprecedented drilling in Wyoming, they have more big game than they want there.

Lien is trying to imply that if we allow drilling on this tiny portion of the Roan that the area will be decimated and wildlife will be unable to survive. That's either dishonest or ignorant. There has been drilling in the West for over 100 years, and our wildlife is doing just fine. But of course scare tactics raise money and these enviros need lots of money to keep scaring people!

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 03:10 PM

Bobby: a study of elk populations in the entire state of WY does not prove that oil and gas development does not impact wildlife. Look at some recent mule deer studies in Pinedale and tell me what you find. Just like I don’t buy the enviros’ assertion that oil and gas development is "devastating" wildlife in the area, I also don’t buy that it’s having no effect. It is pretty clear at this point that the development is at least *displacing* mule deer from the area. More significant impacts could come as development expands.

Posted by jer on May 22, 2007 02:44 PM

Lien's claim:
Wyoming, where the oil and gas boom began first, studies have documented the industry's impact on wildlife. ...Studies also show that more than 2 miles of road per square mile leads to a 50 percent reduction in elk populations.

The truth:
Wyo. elk herd 16,700 above state's target
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5540876,00.html

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 01:00 PM

"David Lien is a typical Mount Everest climber: He's not a world-class mountaineer. He is a client who paid a Russian guide service $20,000 this spring for a shot at the summit." (From http://outdoors.coloradosprings.com/fullStory.jsp?id=5006).

Mr. Lien obviously is not on a fixed income and therefore not concerned with high energy prices. The rest of us (who can't afford $20,000 rock climbing trips to Asia) would thank you to leave us alone!!

Posted by James on May 22, 2007 12:52 PM

You guys are totally correct that environmental organizations feed people BS. However, most of the statements in this op-ed, as well as some posts, happen to be 100% correct (Oliver and Bobby, thanks for citing directly out of the plan. However, Oliver, your “Reality” discussions are your own interpretations). I’ll tell you what’s unfortunate: these conservation organizations lie, which totally ruins their credibility in my book. They also tell the truth, but these occasional blatant “stretches of the truth” make people distrust everything they say and are counterproductive to the environmental movement.

Okay, now on to the Roan plan. I am torn between whether the top should be closed to development (the BLM-managed portion anyway) or if the BLM should go forward with their Proposed plan. It would be very difficult to write a better plan that protects the natural and scenic values while still allowing development of the resource from on top of the plateau. The only logical next step would be to close it to leasing (or make it all No Surface Occupancy). For that, I applaud the BLM and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Yes, you are correct that in order for disturbed acres to be placed back in the “kitty” to be used again, the area does not need to be fully reclaimed. But some standards still need to be met. And it’s still about as strict as you can get and still allow the resource to be developed. Don’t forget, this plan was endorsed by (in fact, it was developed by) Colorado Division of Wildlife. Now when it comes down to trusting a Colorado Environmental Coalition staffer or a DOW biologist, I don’t have to tell you who I’m going to trust to give me more unbiased science.

Anyway, this is an important discussion in the west now. There must be SOME areas off limits to development and I’m talking about more than just the current wilderness areas and national parks. However, let me pose a hypothetical question: if you gave 5 major environmental organizations (CEC, TWS, CNE, etc) a map of the Western Slope and asked them to draw circles around areas where they would like to prohibit oil and gas development, then combined the maps, what area would have available for development? Well, my educated guess would be somewhere from 25% to 10%. TWS would exclude all Citizen Wilderness Proposals areas and then some (GJ watershed, for example), and CNE would exclude all sage grouse habitat, big game winter range, prairie dog habitat, etc. So then, I pose this question to the enviro consortium/community: what is your vision for energy in this country? Please tell us, when you support prohibiting oil and gas development on at least 75% of public lands, how are we supposed to meet our energy needs? Are you okay with importing it from the Middle East and other developing countries? I know you support “alternative energy,” but you guys should be smart enough to know that we can’t snap our fingers and magically have solar and wind power even come close to meeting our needs. What do we do while we develop these other technologies? If you guys all got together and drafted something realistic and sensible, I might support it. But you can’t tell us not to drill anywhere without having some plan!

Posted by jer on May 22, 2007 12:49 PM

"Every single town and city in Garfield County, where the plateau is located, has expressed support for protecting it from drilling..."

This is blatantly untrue. In fact, the Garfield County Commission was at the table when the BLM plan was developed and voted to support it.

Is anything in this column true?

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 12:49 PM

I don't know anything about the Roan Plateau but I'll agree that the environmental groups do rely on scare tactics to raise money. That certainly calls into question the truth of their claims in my opinion.

Posted by Sally on May 22, 2007 12:00 PM

The "Devil may be in the details" as you claim, but I see no evidence to support these "realities." Do the Save the Roan people have any evidence to back up these claims? I don't see anything reference here to support what they are saying.

I'm so tired of these environmental people thinking they speak for all of us. I want to protect the environment too, but unless you want to start taking cold showers and riding your bike everywhere you go, then shut up and quit driving up energy costs for the rest of us!

Posted by James on May 22, 2007 11:46 AM

I know it may be hard to believe that a group called "Save the Roan" may be giving misleading information, but the "Realities" you outline are simply untrue.

Again I refer you to the BLM plan and urge you to do some research on your own and not believe what the envrios tell you. Remember-- scaring people is how they raise the money that pays their salaries.

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 11:41 AM

The proposed plan emphasizes oil and gas development over the Roan Plateau’s other values and traditional uses.

Recreation-According to the FEIS, “Although public comments on the Draft EIS indicated a demand for undeveloped recreation settings, the BLM has concluded “management to accommodate substantial oil and gas development precludes maintaining characteristics specific to undeveloped recreation settings.”
-Instead, the final plan would manage the Roan as an “extensive recreation management area,” which requires recreational activities to adjust to natural gas development.

Wildlife Habitat-According to the FEIS, “outfitters and the big game they hunt will be…displaced;” and, “Some areas of high-quality wildlife habitat would be lost or permanently altered.” The FEIS notes, “Some of these impacts could never be reversed, especially those that eliminate genetically unique resources…such as genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout.” The FEIS also mentions closing the area to hunting if ‘crowding’ becomes a problem.

Wilderness Quality Lands-In 1998-2000, BLM performed a wilderness inventory on the Roan Plateau, and found three separate areas that met the qualifications for wilderness. The FEIS states that the plan’s emphasis on oil and gas development “would effectively eliminate wilderness character in the three inventory units as a whole,” going on to note that “opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation, naturalness, and solitude would not be preserved under the Proposed Plan.”

Posted by Oliver on May 22, 2007 11:04 AM

Actually, here is some information from the BLM's final Environmental Impact Statement and proposed plan (from www.SaveRoanPlateau.org)

The devil is certainly in the details …

The BLM has come up with some innovative ideas for energy development in the Roan Plateau Planning Area. However, a closer look at the plan reveals that protections touted at the plan’s release, might not be applied on the ground. Some of the claims made about the proposed plan weaken considerably in light of details included in the ‘fine print’ provided in the final Environmental Impact Statement. The result is that BLM’s proposed plan provides insufficient protection for Roan Plateau’s unique natural resources and popular public uses. The industrial affects of oil and gas development would eventually spread across the landscape, impacting all other uses and values. According to the FEIS:

Claim: Under the BLM’s proposal, ‘No Surface Occupancy’ stipulations “cover 51 percent of the Planning Area.”
-Reality: Although this stipulation seems to prohibit surface disturbing activities in sensitive areas, the details explain otherwise. Table C-1 (FEIS at C-3) spells out exactly how stipulations can be waived or modified. In many cases, these stipulations may not be required at all under the proposed plan.

Claim: The proposed plan would result in “approximately 210 wells on 13 pads above the rim and 1,360 wells on 180 pads below the rim.”
-Reality: According to a BLM spokesman, “the Plan doesn’t limit the number of wells and the number of well pads” and “there is no number that says only 210 wells on top.” Indeed, many more wells are likely under the proposed plan. BLM bases the projected number of pads and wells on assumptions that even the oil and gas industry calls “unrealistic”, and which “grossly” misrepresent the amount of drilling and impacts likely atop the Plateau.

Claim: The proposed plan would “Limit the amount of disturbed land at any one time to 350 acres, representing approximately 1 percent of the BLM lands on top of the plateau.”
-Reality: The proposed plan does not require that disturbed areas be fully reclaimed before new roads are bladed or wells drilled. It only requires that the reclamation process be showing “satisfactory progress” toward meeting short-term goals. Once in the process of reclamation (which, according to the Plan, can take 20 years or longer to be successful), developed lands will no longer be counted against the 350-acre total and new roads can be built and additional lands drilled.

Claim: The proposal would “Restrict drilling operations to only one of six ‘phased development areas’ at a time”
-Reality: While “active drilling” can only be occurring on one ridgetop at a time, an unspecified number of exploratory wells can be drilled in any of the six ridgetop ‘phased development areas’ at any time.

Posted by Oliver on May 22, 2007 11:01 AM

No matter how many times you post them, your assertions are still blatantly false.

Try doing some actual research instead of buying the distortions and outright lies of the enviros.

http://www.blm.gov/rmp/co/roanplateau/

There you will see, among other things, that:

1. Only 350 acres would be disturbed at any given time, and 38,427 acres are off limits from any development at all, including nearly 23,000 acres of wildlife security areas identified by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

2. Drilling and related activities are limited from December through April in nearly 35,000 acres of
critical big game winter range below the rim.

3. A drilling area would have to be restored before work could begin in another area

4. No new roads or pipelines would be allowed on the sides of the plateau visible from I-70

5. This area holds enough natural gas to heat 4 million homes for 20 years.

It's all there in black and white. Too bad this Lein fellow doesn't know how to do a Google search on "BLM Plan Roan"!

Again, don't believe the propaganda. Do some research and learn to think for yourself!

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 11:00 AM

Thanks to Bobby for your comments, but the reality is that your "factual" assertions are flawed. About half of the top of the Roan would be developed by the time the drilling is done, and the 1% assertion is a veil - the 1% is an acreage # that gives the impression that all of the impacts will be bunched up, rather than spread out through roads, pipelines, etc, actually impacting much more of the surface than an isolated 1%. Furthermore, the 1% disturbance does not have to be fully reclaimed before the industry goes on to the next 1%. And none of this counts exploratory wells that are permitted in other places at the same time - they somehow didn't get factored into the 1% equation...

Posted by Josh on May 22, 2007 10:36 AM

How is the amount of oil under the Roan relevant? It's natural gas that they would be drilling for, not oil. And natural gas development isn't nearly as harmful to the environment and wildlife.

Where does Mr. Lien suggest we get our natural gas? From Iran? Or maybe Russia? I for one would rather get it from Colorado.

Posted by James on May 22, 2007 08:50 AM

WE ARE 25 YEARS LATE...that hardly qualifies for a "rush."

Are we supposed to put up with 25 more years of whinning, moaning, complaining and anger about high energy prices from those very same folks who are helping to cause the problem in the first place? What about energy independence, lower energy prices, lower inflation, lower interest rates and more jobs?

Not only would I drill there, I would plant a huge crude oil refinery right on top!

Posted by Hank on May 22, 2007 08:10 AM

Don't believe everything you read. This column is full of factual errors. The natural gas reserves on the Roan will actually provide enough energy to heat every home in Colorado for 20 years. He also fails to mention that drilling would only be allowed on less than 1% of the Roan, which would have little or no effect on wildlife.

How does something so full of errors get printed in the Rocky?

Posted by bobby on May 22, 2007 07:56 AM