Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Energy firms care about the land, too

By Kathy Hall

Published November 16, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

Contrary to the fears expressed in "Energy development imperils habitat," the Speakout column of Nov. 2 by Colorado's former big-game manager John Ellenberger, energy companies are committed to responsible development of natural gas and minimizing the impact of its activities on the environment.

Both state and federal agencies have wildlife regulations in place. Energy developers are required by both state and federal law to lessen or avoid impacts to wildlife. The Colorado Division of Wildlife manages wildlife species in the state but does not specifically regulate oil and gas development. However, it has administrative directives which define the roles and responsibilities of operators. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the primary regulatory agency in the state, specifically protects wildlife under its statutes and regulations.

On federal land, the Bureau of Land Management has jurisdiction over energy development under various laws including the National Environmental Policy Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers federal conservation laws including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, among others.

Both the conservation commission and the BLM routinely inspect well pads and associated facilities to ensure regulations are being met.

While required by state and federal regulations to take steps to minimize impacts to wildlife, many companies have developed comprehensive wildlife mitigation plans which go above and beyond these requirements. These plans, often developed in consultation with BLM, Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife, seek to balance energy development with sound environmental stewardship practices using new oil and gas technologies.

Directional drilling, remote completions, remote well monitoring and centralized tank facilities serving multiple wells result in less wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation. For example, remote completion facilities can deliver water and fracturing fluids to well pads up to two miles away, reducing truck traffic significantly.

Energy developers have funded deer migration studies now being conducted by the Division of Wildlife to determine oil and gas impacts on their movements. One company, Williams, established a wildlife food plot in the Parachute valley, irrigating about 60 acres of alfalfa to provide winter forage for deer and elk on land made available by Exxon. And it is funding a mule deer study by the Division of Wildlife that will provide real-time data collection through radio-collaring on how deer are influenced by winter drilling.

EnCana, meanwhile, conducted baseline wildlife studies on its North Parachute Ranch, also in cooperation with the Division of Wildlife, which includes air, water, grazing and rangeland resources over a five-year period. It consulted with the state on its long-range South Parachute Geographic Area Plan for BLM which includes wildlife mitigation.

Energy developers also worked with state Rep. Dan Gibbs and wildlife conservation groups during the last legislative session to craft a bill aimed at addressing wildlife impacts as new drilling plans come forward.

Developers are also actively involved in the greater sage grouse conservation plan working group. This is a cooperative effort between landowners, state and federal agencies, and the energy industry that seeks to preserve sage grouse habitat in Colorado and formulate mitigation measures.

Some companies have adopted best management practices to prevent birds from entering oil and gas facilities, including installation of netting over open pits and covering cones on heater stacks.

The people behind the energy companies at work in western Colorado care deeply about the land and its wildlife species. Most enjoy hunting and fishing and want to preserve those opportunities for generations to come.

Comments

  • November 16, 2007

    9:18 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    katall writes:

    BS.

    Energy firms like any other companies care about one thing, and one thing only: making a profit. And that is the way it should be.

    Everything that Kathy writes is true. But the bottom line is that these companies take mitigation measures because they have to do so. It is cheaper to mitigate than to pay the price of not mitigating.

    And if energy companies can persuade the regulators to enact less rigorous mitigation measures, or at least less costly ones, they will.

    I do not blame the energy companies for this. For, again, their sole purpose is to make money.

  • November 16, 2007

    2:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    I generally agree with katall up to a point. There are nearly 100-year-old hydro power plants in this country and others that have 100-year-old fish bypass systems. The hydropower industry has always been very concerned with the health of the river system as well as the health of the fish in the rivers. This wasn't the result of federal or state legislation, but a responsible use of the resource. I’m proud that my industry was the first environmental steward of the river system. Of course, today clean renewable hydro power is not politically correct, but it continues to be the only large scale renewable baseload resource available.

  • November 17, 2007

    8:33 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    CL writes:

    Hydro_Man - hydro plants have pretty much always been built with fish bypass systems to prevent fish from entering the penstock and damaging the turbines. Other bypass systems, such as fish ladders, that were intended to allow fish to get past the dam weren't implemented until later when the government required them.