Energy exploration in our backyard
Oil and Gas Leases up in Gallatin County
By Lucia Stewart, 7-30-08
 |
|
 | |
|
State-owned land in and around Gallatin County could up for oil and gas development — parcels that include the riverbeds of the Yellowstone and Boulder rivers.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation considers the sale of school trust land each quarter for oil and gas leasing, and are currently in the preliminary lease sale stage. And they are moving fast. Public comment closes on Friday, Aug. 1st, with the sale set to take place on Sept. 9th.
In Gallatin County, three parcels north of Interstate 90 in the Bozeman Pass area are listed on the lease sale list — an area that is prospective with oil, methane and coal from past exploratory test sites, but does fall under the Bozeman Pass zoning district that residents created in 2001 following potential coal-bed methane drilling which the Gallatin County Commissioners were pressured to implement emergency interim zoning.
“Due to the geology, there is some definite potential up there,” Alan English, Gallatin Local Water Quality District Manager said to the Belgrade News.
A majority of the parcels involve the riverbeds of the Yellowstone and Boulder Rivers, 14 in the bed the Yellowstone and 18 in the Boulder River. Click here to see a map of the parcels.
All leased parcels do need to follow the Montana Environmental Policy Act guidelines, which include a standard environmental assessment to a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement.
Comments should be submitted to O&G Lease Sale Comments, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, P.O. Box 201601, Helena, MT, 59620-1601. Late comments will be reviewed and taken into consideration.
Okay - well - the oil and gas companies pay royalties on everything they find (think "The Beverly Hillbillies" in terms of the amount of money made when there is a strike).
So - who gets the money in this instance? Sounds like the local and state governments get it. So do we allow drilling and reap money for the state? Or do ban it, keep our wild lands and pay higher taxes?
Our schools are in great need for funds since logging was stopped and the federal gov't no longer pays their fair share to them. Also roads and the needs of this state are many since jobs have been lost due to the environmental movement as much of the land belongs to the Federal Government. It was at one time belonged to the people but now I think it belongs to the minority groups with the most money like the ACLU.
Comment By tom agnew, 7-30-08Where to begin? As a 30 yr. environmentally aware rancher I am horrified that this is the first I have heard of this outrageous proposal ( and that the comment period ends the day after tomorrow. ) The current stampede by the oil companies to try to lock up all lands for leasing seems akin to the schoolyard bully gathering up all the marbles and has nothing to do with solving our oil problem. What genius came up with the idea to despoil two blue ribbon fisheries to pump some dollars into the state coffers so that Americans can continue their wasteful petro ways? This is consummate insanity. As a recovering alcoholic, I am acutely aware that the least helpful thing for an alcoholic is more alcohol. We have myriad alternative avenues to solve our energy problem, including getting serious about automotive design and building safe, fun, affordable, efficient cars that get at least triple the current mileage. We also have myriad ways to fill state coffers without sacrificing two of our finest rivers.
Comment By vicky, 7-31-08I agree with Tom. The comment period ends tomorrow and there was a small article in the Chronicle yesterday,noting that the environmentalists always cry foul but have no evidence to back up their contentions! Bush noted years ago that we are addicted to oil,and the last thing we need is to drill for more fossil fuels when that is our problem and a major cause of global warming. In addition,there are millions of acres of leases that the oil and gas companies already are sitting on and NOT drilling. They just want to lock up more leases now in the last days of this administration,while they can. Why despoil our landscape and risk polluting our waters for an addiction that is causing more and more global warming?
Comment By Tom Fiddaman, 8-01-08I agree that the ineffective public notice is outrageous.
Worse, the leases raise a trivial amount of money (averaging $46 per acre in June) compared to the developers' potential revenue from the project and the potential damage to surrounding landowners and environment. Clearly this is not an efficient market.
Further information and maps of the Gallatin & Park County sites at
http://groups.google.com/group/bridger-canyon-forum
"minority groups with the most money like the ACLU"
This is a joke, right?
In 2007 the ACLU had revenue of $28 million. The Sierra Club Foundation had $29 million. Exxon had $372,000 million. Who do you think has more influence on policy?
DNRC didn't (can't) approve drilling in a river. They leased the minerals below the river. Oil and Gas wells are permitted by the Board of Oil and Gas Conservation and are permitted in "spacing units". State wide spacing for gas is 1 well per section, 640 acres, oil wells are spaced based on depth from 40 acres to 640 acres. If a major river runs through a spacing unit the minerals that DNRC owns in that unit would be put up for lease. If a well should be permitted in a river, very unlikely, then they would also need a permit from the county conservation district, Army Corp of Engineers, and possibly others.
Comment By vagabond, 8-04-08Has the DNRC lost its mind?
Leases in riverbeds? Or in the Jackson Creek/Bridger area?
As a fan of public lands as they are supposed to be for the good of the public, I am beginning to re-think my belief. How can these decisions possibly be good for anyone except those companies who suck the life out of an area and leave the degredation behind?
Put up a few windmills out at Malmstrom outside of Great Falls and you could probably power the state.
Using schools as a politically correct tool to grab more and inappropriate drilling leases is particularly distasteful. Shame on Montana if the state goes down this road.
Recent surveys by the USGS have estimated that the total amount of natural gas reserves under our area could rival those in Saudi Arabia.
As you know, natural gas is preferred by environmentalists over petroleum, and there is currently a huge push to have autos converted to natural gas burning vehicles to help combat global warming.
Recent developments in drilling have greatly reduced the foot-print a natural gas well has on the local land, and advances in horizontal drilling make it possibly to retrieve gas from below riverbeds without raising so much as a ripple in the river itself.
Needless to say, Montana can either be a leader in the push for cleaner burning energy; or it can keep its reserves untapped and
force the US to continue to burn and import petroleum.
Remember if we don't support an interim solution on our march toward alternative energies, it is the poorest of the poor who will suffer most. It is they who must commute the farthest to work. It is they who can't afford even the smallest up-tick in prices, it is they who can't afford to trade in their vehicle for a Prius or convert their old-reliable wheels into a hybrid. And it is they who will benefit the most from the responsible development of the vast resources under our very feet.