US Blocks Drilling At 60 Sites In Utah -- Approval Process Under Bush "Mishandled"

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - US Blocks Drilling At 60 Sites In Utah -- Approval Process Under Bush "Mishandled" stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JOAN LOWY | 10/ 8/09 08:56 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?

WASHINGTON — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday that oil and gas drilling will be permitted on some of the Utah land parcels near national parks that were hurriedly readied for leasing in the waning days of the Bush administration.

Salazar said at a media briefing that 17 parcels were approved for drilling and eight rejected. But no decision has been made on the fate of the majority of the disputed lands – 52 parcels totaling 69,373 acres. He said more work needs to be done to determine if those lands qualify for oil and gas leasing.

In some cases, the remaining work is minor, he said. For other parcels, the remaining issues are more substantive and it's unclear if they will ultimately be made available for leasing, he said.

The disputed parcels are all in eastern or northeastern Utah, and much the land borders national parks and other areas prized for their vistas and their recreational and cultural amenities.

All the lands totalling 77 parcels are under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. The review found extensive problems with how BLM employees have made decisions regarding which lands should be offered for leasing. Interior officials said those problems often stemmed from a lack of clarity about how leasing determinations should be made, resulting in differing interpretations by employees.

"The oil and gas resources under our public lands are an important part of our energy future, but we must ensure that development is happening in the right way and in the right places," Salazar said.

He said he was instituting a series of reforms that will bring more clarity to the leasing process for employees and more certainty for energy companies.

The Bush administration's decision to offer the land for drilling drew fire from environmentalists and historic preservationists who said drilling might harm nearby parks and other protected lands.

Story continues below
advertisement

Salazar was condemned by the oil industry for scrapping the leases weeks after taking office, but all the drilling parcels had already been delayed by a federal lawsuit that still is not fully resolved.

Although the bulk of the original parcels could eventually before offered for leasing, Salazar said the review confirmed his original judgment that the Bush administration mishandled the leases.

But he added: "I don't think anyone acted nefariously."

The 17 parcels where drilling was deemed appropriate total 26,243 acres. Interior officials said the land will be offered for leasing, but they couldn't be sure when – probably next year.

The eight parcels totaling 7,670 acres will not be made available for leasing because of the scenic, recreational and cultural amenities, Salazar said. Photos of those lands displayed at the briefing showed scenic vistas, multihued mountains, and red rock cliffs and spires.

Drilling supporters pointed to portions of the review that said Bush administration officials correctly followed leasing procedures.

"This report proves what I've been saying all along – that the Utah BLM office followed the proper procedures for reviewing the proposed lease parcels that were sold last year," said Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah.

The Obama administration has "substituted the rule of executive whim for the rule of law, creating another huge vacuum of uncertainty for future BLM leasing decisions," Bennett said in a statement.

Bennett held up Senate confirmation of Salazar's chief deputy, David Hayes, while demanding the administration revisit the leasing issue.

Environmentalists said they were pleased by the review.

"We think the report is an astounding rejection of the Bush administration policy of drill here, drill now," said Steve Bloch of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, one of the groups that sued to block the leases.

A key part of that lawsuit remains unresolved – environmentalists' challenge to the management plan for BLM lands in Utah drawn up during the Bush administration. The 77 parcels were made available for leasing under the plan.

WASHINGTON — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday that oil and gas drilling will be permitted on some of the Utah land parcels near national parks that were hurriedly readied for leasing...
WASHINGTON — Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday that oil and gas drilling will be permitted on some of the Utah land parcels near national parks that were hurriedly readied for leasing...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
33
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
photo

So let me get this straight:
"Salazar said Thursday that oil and gas drilling will be permitted on some of the Utah land parcels near national parks"
"Salazar said at a media briefing that 17 parcels were approved for drilling and eight rejected"
Ignoring for the moment the dubious style of mixing numerals and test for numbers in the same sentence, He approves more than twice as many as he rejects, declares he needs more information on the undecided parcels, and the energy interests are "angry" because he's "blocking" development?
I guess they've grown so used to having unfettered access to the country's (our) resources for so long that any change to that policy by someone who actually cares about western land management issues now feels like obstructionism.
Imagine that, a government that acts like actually managing the country's (our) resources is a good thing.
There are ways to access these resources that are less destructive to the environment under which they lay and the associated water tables, Like drift drilling, (drilling sideways), form a further distance. More expensive?,,, Potentially. More time consuming? ... Likely. More forward thinking and resource conserving, perhaps.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:37 PM on 10/11/2009

Too bad.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 AM on 10/11/2009
- wernerholm I'm a Fan of wernerholm 10 fans permalink

A different way to look at peak oil http://www.suburbanempire.com turning the peak upside down

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 AM on 10/11/2009
- wernerholm I'm a Fan of wernerholm 10 fans permalink

Thank goodness, Utah is a beautiful place that does not need to be trashed like West Texas

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 AM on 10/11/2009
- PatA I'm a Fan of PatA 49 fans permalink
photo

Having lived in New Mexico and fought the "Bureau of Livestock and Mining" for 10 years, why am I not surprised that they screwed this up?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 10/10/2009
- Freesia2 I'm a Fan of Freesia2 306 fans permalink

I like Ken Salazar. I think he's a good, reasonable man.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 10/10/2009
- springsm I'm a Fan of springsm 53 fans permalink

I don't...I think he would do all of Bush's follies all over again if he could get away with it. He represents the energy/oil people in the west...He is not an enviornmentalist and I don't think you can trust him. Tho I have to give him credit..he has stopped a few of the most egregious attempts of Bush's to destroy and rape the land. He apparently brought Colorado to Obama and that is why he is there.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:15 PM on 10/12/2009
- JShep I'm a Fan of JShep 4 fans permalink

If these areas are off limits to drilling for oil, that means no natural gas drilling also. Seems like it would also mean no wind farms since the windmills, along with their access roads and extensive power grids, destroy more pristene area than drilling rigs. Just ask any environmentalist.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:04 PM on 10/10/2009
photo

Nobody in their right mind would ever let the chemicals used for fracking anywhere near their drinking water. Consider at how many communities and schools have polluted water that has recently been in the news!

Do just a little of your own research! Who wants a poisoned world?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:02 AM on 10/10/2009

First, specifically what chemicals?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 10/10/2009

Many are kept a secret because they are a trade secret. That is the problem, the EPA has it's hand tied. They cant regulate something they don't know is there.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:09 PM on 10/10/2009
photo

I had posted this previously. You do the research.
Significant, telling information is available.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 PM on 10/10/2009
- ChelseaC I'm a Fan of ChelseaC 155 fans permalink
photo

Wind farms, solar, hydro energy, please!!!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 10/10/2009
photo

agree!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 10/10/2009

The consumer's all agree.

Unfortunatly these projects usually take about 15-25 to pay themselves off. The credit crunch has stopped a lot of these projects. On a wind farm the wind turbines themselves account for about 1/2 the price, the rest comes from infrastructure (foundations, substations, transmission lines, etc..) Most wind turbines in the US have been bought and paid for up to 4 years in advance due to increased demand globally. These turbines are sitting in pieces in ports, rail yards, etc... There are sitting their because while they are paid for there it is hard to get a bank to finance a project that might take over a decade to pay for itself.

This problem is largely based on corruption on wall st and in the government. Instead of the Fed and government just handing out $$$ with no stipulations or accounting of it they could have made a stipulation that a percentage go to funding renewable energy projects. Roosevelt's Civilin Conservation Corp was a good idea, we still reap the benefits today, the same could be done for public power infrastructure.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 10/10/2009

As price of oil increases, and technology gets better the near future we will be able to use oil shale for an amazing amount of energy. It has it's problems like oil and gas, but the US does have enough fossil fuels to tide us over to a future of clean energy.

The WH has promised sweeping things for new renewable energy projects, yet since Jan 2009 new wind farm construction has come to a near standstill. This is part of the job losses we hear about. Our administration seems like it doesnt want to drill anymore, but also wont push along new renewable incentives­.... We need power, and we need to act now!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 PM on 10/09/2009
photo

Oil shale is NOT the cure-all for our energy needs. It's terribly expensive to extract, using almost as much energy as the energy content of the oil itself. Also the oil is dirty, having a high sulphur content.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:20 AM on 10/10/2009
photo

Typical liberal bias in the media. I mean, what's so wrong with drilling babies?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 PM on 10/09/2009
- jer9848 I'm a Fan of jer9848 11 fans permalink
photo

IS THAT HOW YOU GET BABY OIL???

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 AM on 10/11/2009

ZOMG!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 10/11/2009
photo

If this isn't a not-too-subtle call for lobbying $$$$$ from the oil industry, I'd like to know.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 10/09/2009

Regardless of the meritis of any individual decision, it seems like our country is just determined to make us remain dependent on foreign oil.
Natural gas is a real success story. It burns much cleaner than coal. The more we restrict natural gas production, the more we force power plants to use coal.
For the future of our country, we should move aggressively forward with nuclear energy and natural gas.
We can work on green sources of energy as well. However, it is highly unlikely things like solar and wind and biofuels will have much of an impact on America anytime soon.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:22 PM on 10/09/2009
photo

I'm going to have to agree with you. although this small, step is being taken we still bring up the issue of the "reserves" we have that we wont touch because we know big business banks on foreign oil it's all tied in together. We need to start using cleaner energy sources not only for our environment but also for the welfare of the citizens, it will generate millions of jobs, and help make our planet better, its a win win situation, but again the lobbyist and big business gotta eat so we fail.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:25 PM on 10/09/2009
- JohnMayer I'm a Fan of JohnMayer 12 fans permalink
photo

I’m all for nuclear. Just as soon as the nuke industry figures out how to do it right. The nuclear program in the Tennessee valley was a disaster for rate-payers; what had been some of the lowest rates in the country doubled, seemingly overnight.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:24 AM on 10/10/2009

Nuclear power wont likely be accepted here.

It's a moral dilema, a disaster at a nuclear pant will release a lot of radiation in a localized area, and likely downstream because plants need vast amounts of water to cool the reactors.

With coal and gas, there is little danger of a 'disaster' but the pollution is a given. so for every kilowatt hour, nuclear is safer than coal even with a couple small nuclear accidents. However since caol plants are everywhere in the US we all share the pollution, but a radioactive pollution would be localized, and kill people quickly, instead of slowly like coal. I think people are for nuclear power as long as it's not near them or their water.

Simply put coal plants are everywhere and poisoning everything in small doses slowly, nuclear accidents would poison a small area quickly with worse symptoms.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 10/10/2009
- StephBr I'm a Fan of StephBr 4 fans permalink
photo

As soon as they figure out how to do it right you say?
What have the French done for decades? Just swallow your pride and ask them for advice!

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:33 AM on 10/13/2009
photo

drill on Sarah Palin's home site !

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 10/09/2009
- NoPCZone I'm a Fan of NoPCZone 17 fans permalink

This area is in the Colorado River watershed and some of these desert areas contain significant underground water that appear through seeps, springs, etc. We have already seen toxic destruction of water from the fracturing method used to obtain gas and what happens if/when this happens on the Colorado Plateau and the toxic water enters the Colorado river. San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas and other cities already depend on this resource as well as farmers in the SW US and Mexico.

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 AM on 10/09/2009
- TxAggie I'm a Fan of TxAggie 5 fans permalink

How do you know fracing will be employed? WHy would drilling be a threat to underground water? You really don't have a clue do you, you are just shooting from the hip...

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:14 PM on 10/09/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect