Article published Dec 19, 2007

It's right to question energy development

By HAL HERRING

I'd like to respond to Dave Ballard's guest opinion, in the Tribune Dec. 8, entitled "Setting the record straight on oil and gas development."

Instead of "setting the record straight," Ballard engages in the art of disinformation when he assures Montanans that there is no need for concern in his industry's plans for thousands of new natural gas and coal bed methane wells on public lands.

Ballard seems to want to reassure Montanans that his industry plans to develop "only" 10,000 natural gas wells, as if that figure would have no impact on the public and private lands where the drilling will take place.

He does not mention that oil and gas companies have actually leased 4.4 million acres of Montana land for possible development.

He fails to mention that there are currently no regulations as to how densely the wells will be spaced on these leases, even though he must be aware of places like Wyoming, where development is well under way, where what were once thousands of acres of public grazing land is now a heavy industry matrix of well pads, some spaced as tightly as every 10 acres, roaring with truck traffic.

He tells us that his industry has made "great strides" in environmental protection but fails to cite examples, nor does he inform us that the federal laws that would require such protection for public lands, waters and wildlife have recently been dismantled.

Ballard's description of the amount of land disturbed by the drilling pads is deliberately misleading.

He asks, "How can potential development on 200 to 400 surface acres significantly impact the 73,000 acres recently withdrawn from the July BLM lease sale?" The answer to his question lies in Wyoming, in the Red Desert, in the Jonah Field, the Pinedale Anticline, the Fontanelle Gasfield.

These are the current models of public lands energy development, and anyone concerned should go and see them. Industry spokespeople have long said that the area of disturbance of their developments was such a small percentage of the total land area, which might be true if the developments were crowded together into a tiny corner of the range. Instead, in reality, the development is spread over a huge area, completely dominating the landscape, impacting thousands upon thousands of acres with new roads, heavy truck traffic (11,000 vehicle trips in one month on Wyoming's Pinedale Anticline, the winter range for the state's largest mule deer herd), and the weeds, erosion, and loss of wildlife that are a part of any industrial landscape.

Anyone who drives through the Jonah Field or the Red Desert will see a landscape completely transformed by energy development. "Significant impact" does not begin to describe it.

America needs the energy that is being produced in Montana and throughout the Rockies. But that energy does not have to be produced at such a high cost to public lands and wildlife.

The raising of intelligent questions about energy development is not "fearmongering" as Mr. Ballard calls it. Citizens are absolutely right to question these coming energy developments, especially since we are the ones who will be paying the price for decades to come to try to reclaim these lands, try and re-establish the wildlife that will be lost, and deal with the massive weed problems that will follow the gas boom and be with us long after Mr. Ballard and his associates have retired on their profits.