Or...why right-wing paranoia has reached a fevered pitch in the Allegheny National Forest region.
There's been a lot of events that have transpired over the past year or so on the Allegheny National Forest regarding oil and gas drilling. For a primer on this issue, you can read my previous diaries here, here and here.
Long story short: 93% of the mineral rights underlying the Allegheny National Forest are privately owned and until very recently, the U.S. Forest Service has refused to conduct the appropriate environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before authorizing access to and surface occupancy of the Allegheny for the exercise of private mineral rights.
On November 20, 2008 Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, Allegheny Defense Project and the Sierra Club sued the Forest Service for its failure to comply with NEPA before approving private oil and gas drilling projects on the Allegheny National Forest. You can see a copy of our complaint here. Our lawsuit had a singular purpose: to compel the Forest Service to comply with NEPA and prepare the appropriate environmental analysis, subject to public comment, before allowing oil and gas companies to build roads and drill well sites on the Allegheny National Forest.
On April 9, 2009 we signed a settlement agreement with the Forest Service in which it:
agrees that it shall undertake appropriate NEPA analysis prior to issuing Notices to Proceed, or any other instrument for authorizing access to and surface occupancy of the Forest for oil and gas projects on split estates including both reserved and outstanding mineral rights. Appropriate NEPA analysis shall consist of the use of a categorical exclusion or the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement.
This is a major victory for the Allegheny National Forest. The settlement agreement ends the Forest Service's unlawful authorization process it used for years in which it simply reviewed companies' development plans internally and then gave the green light for the drilling. The Forest Service did not prepare an environmental analysis pursuant to NEPA and the public certainly was not part of the equation. All that has now changed.
The settlement agreement, however, sent our local, state and federal elected officials and the oil and gas industry into the upper stratosphere. Of course, had these elected officials and industry representatives actually read the settlement agreement, they would have realized that all it does is compel the Forest Service to follow the law like other national forests have done for years.
For instance, the Ottawa National Forest in Michigan is similar to the Allegheny National Forest in that it has privately owned minerals underlying the federal surface. However, unlike the Allegheny, the Ottawa National Forest did not have to be sued (at least not recently) for it to comply with its mandatory obligations under NEPA to prepare an environmental analysis and allow the public to comment on proposed private mineral development projects. Take, for instance, this private mineral exploration project in 2007. Here, the Ottawa National Forest emphatically stated at the bottom of page one of this Environmental Assessment that:
Federal actions such as permitting and/or authorizing access and surface occupancy for the exercise of private mineral rights must be analyzed to determine potential environmeconsequences pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
This is essentially what the Forest Service on the Allegheny National Forest finally admitted when it agreed to settle with FSEEE, ADP and the Sierra Club in April 2009. As stated above, the settlement agreement requires the Allegheny National Forest to prepare the "appropriate NEPA analysis" on proposed private oil and gas drilling projects. Furthermore, the Forest Service agreed that:
in the context of split estates the Forest Service has legal authority to establish reasonable conditions and mitigation measures to protect federal surface resources.
This is a really important statement that brings the Allegheny National Forest in line with other national forests that have similar issues involving private minerals. But none of this matters to some of our elected officials and certainly not to the oil and gas industry that views the Allegheny as their own private forest to be exploited indefinitely.
Take for instance these comments from U.S. Representative Glenn "GT" Thompson (R-5th), whose district covers most of the Allegheny National Forest, a couple months before the settlement was signed.
U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Centre County) said the AFA needs to make "battle plans for the future" because there is what he calls "a war between rural America and urban America." He said the "urban" side of the conflict has "a whole lot more soldiers than we do."
For a U.S. Congressman to go out of his way to publicly declare that there is a "a war between rural America and urban America" is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous to his constituents who are looking beyond the boom and bust cycles of oil and gas drilling and instead are working to protect the major asset in the region - the Allegheny - Pennsylvania's only national forest.
On April 19, 2009 U.S. Representative Glenn "GT" Thompson issued a statement condemning the settlement in which he said:
"I am mystified and seriously troubled as to why the USFS, through the U.S. Department of Justice, would so blatantly disregard the legal process and private property rights by agreeing to an out of court 'settlement' which has the potential to kill the regional economy, increase unemployment and further our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas."
...
"This dangerous move will encourage future lawsuits and help fund the radical environmental movement - whose goal is to prevent energy and timber production in the ANF and at other forests around the country," said Thompson.
What is really irrational about Rep. Thompson's statements is that the settlement agreement that we signed with the Forest Service actually allows 54 "packages" covering 588 oil and gas wells, one pipeline and one seismic line to move forward without NEPA analysis. As the Warren Times Observer dutifully noted in this April 22, 2009 article:
The 54 packages represent a sizable body of work - 588 wells, two pipelines, and a seismic line.
The total number of wells is a drop from the last few years when the price of oil reached record highs, but double the number of new wells built each year early this decade.
Mohney said there were 5,168 new wells approved from 2000 to 2008.
Most of those came in the last four years. From 2005 to 2008, 3,726 of those wells were approved - about 930 a year. "It increases as the market prices of oil and gas climb," Mohney said.
From 2000 to 2004, the average was 288 new well approvals.
It is slightly ridiculous for Rep. Thompson to claim that this settlement "has the potential to kill the regional economy, increase unemployment and further our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas" when the settlement actually allows the drilling of 588 wells immediately. Furthermore, this notion that our NEPA litigation is somehow responsible for decreased oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny or that drilling on the Allegheny somehow reduces our dependence on foreign oil and gas is erroneous, at best.
Taking the foreign dependency issue first, all of the oil wells in Pennsylvania (~ 19,000...give or take a thousand or two since so many new wells have been drilled in recent years) produced a paltry 3.6 million barrels of oil in all of 2007. Considering that the U.S. consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil every single day, the notion that drilling in Pennsylvania will somehow reduce our dependence on foreign oil is foolish. Since the majority of wells drilled in the Allegheny are oil wells, I'm not going to focus on natural gas except to say that, like oil, the gas production in Pennsylvania is a drop in the bucket compared to our national consumption...certainly not enough to justify further extensive fragmentation such as this. I should say, however, that gas drilling is likely to increase in this area due to the Marcellus shale.
As for our litigation and settlement allegedly having something to do with a decrease in oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny, an understanding in basic economics refutes that. Perhaps this story on drilling in the Allegheny National Forest region will shed some light on why oil and gas drilling has decreased there. As this CNNMoney article clearly demonstrates:
The collapse in oil prices from over $147 a barrel has caused many oil producers to pack up their rigs and stow their jacks.
The CNNMoney reporter even interviewed local oil and gas operators to ask them why they were not drilling. Did they blame the litigation filed by environmental groups? Nope:
"We're not drilling right now," said Willard Cline, who has run the small Cline Oil Company since 1946. "The low price of oil is slowing it up."
...
Just outside Bradford, Pa., Keane and Sons Drilling Corp. recently laid off 20 employees - about a third of its workforce.
Half the company's drill rigs sit at the shop. A row of brand new fracing trucks, used to inject fluids into oil wells to get production flowing, line the back of the parking lot.
"Once oil dropped below $75 a barrel, the economics just don't make sense for the wells we have around here," said Shawn Keane, who now runs the company along with his brother. "Just about everyone we've talked to is in the same situation we are."
Worldwide reach
The pullback isn't limited to Pennsylvania. From Texas to Wyoming to California, places once considered boomtowns are now going bust as energy prices drop and access to credit dries up.
Nationwide, the number of drill rigs fell almost 50% since October, the steepest decline since the energy bust of the mid-1980s. Worldwide production numbers have been continuously revised down nearly every month since late last year.
"It's like things fell off a cliff," said Richard Mason, publisher of the Land Rig Newsletter, an industry paper that tracks oil and gas rigs in the U.S. If it continues, Mason said production could be hurt permanently.
Perhaps a few graphs will help drive home the fact that the price of oil and gas is the determining factor of whether oil and gas companies are drilling on or off the Allegheny National Forest. The first four graphs document oil and gas drilling in the four counties with Allegheny National Forest land within their boundaries (McKean, Warren, Forest and Elk Counties). The next four graphs document oil and gas drilling in four other counties (Clarion, Jefferson, Armstrong and Indiana Counties) that are outside of the Allegheny National Forest. These graphs demonstrate that oil and gas drilling dropped significantly after the collapse of oil and gas prices from last fall and the decline occurred across the boards, whether it was the four counties in the Allegheny National Forest or the four other Pennsylvania counties outside the Allegheny National Forest. Is Rep. Thompson going to blame litigation on the Allegheny for the drop in drilling in counties outside the Allegheny National Forest?
Of course, the truth is very inconvenient for Rep. Thompson. So rather than engage in rational debate about the issue, Rep. Thompson has instead opted for the "conspiracy theory" argument. On May 1, 2009 the Pennsylvania House Republican Policy Committee held a "hearing" in Warren, PA to discuss the settlement agreement and other oil and gas drilling issues on the Allegheny National Forest. You can read about this dog-and-pony show here. Rep. Thompson went on to say:
Thompson insinuated that a conspiracy took place between the U.S. Justice Department, the Forest Service and "radical environmentalists" to attempt to shut down oil and gas development in the National Forest. He told the committee he planned to investigate.
That's right...a "conspiracy" to "shut down oil and gas development" by immediately allowing 588 oil and gas wells to be drilled without further environmental analysis! Like I said, the truth does not matter.
Warren County Commissioner John Bortz recently stated:
I think it's time the U.S. Forest Service leaves Warren County.
But Rep. Thompson and Commissioner Bortz were clearly outdone by Craig Mayer, an attorney and member of the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association (who attempted to block the settlement agreement in court). Here's how Mr. Mayer described the Forest Service agreeing to obey the law:
He went on to liken the Forest Service to a "nationalistic military group in a Third World country." According to Mayer, he spent time while serving in the U.S. Marine Corps studying such military groups.
"Predictably these Third World military groups rely on special armed groups to threaten and intimidate," Mayer said. He claimed the Forest Service used its law enforcement arm in similar style to intimidate oil and gas industry workers and their families, including showing up at public meetings being held on drilling in the ANF with sidearms.
What's next? Black helicopters? Seriously, the atmosphere developing on the Allegheny National Forest right now is one of outright hostility toward individuals that are members of environmental and recreation groups. Mr. Mayer's assertion that the Forest Service had its law enforcement at these meetings to intimidate those in the oil and gas industry is patently absurd. The Forest Service's law enforcement was there as a precaution, most likely to protect those affiliated with environmental and recreation groups who have pushed for environmental analysis of oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny.
Keep in mind that Mr. Mayer's and Rep. Thompson's statements were made in front of a committee of Pennsylvania House Republicans that have all been very critical of the settlement agreement. After reading the above articles and statements about "conspiracies" and referring to the Forest Service as a "nationalistic military group in a Third World country," is it any wonder why Sen. Arlen Specter left the Republican party of Pennsylvania?
What is truly unfortunate in all this is that the truth about this settlement agreement has been completely lost. The truth is, the settlement agreement will not stop oil and gas drilling on the Allegheny National Forest. As stated above, 588 oil and gas wells will immediately move forward without further analysis. After that, the Forest Service is simply agreeing to do on the Allegheny what it already does on other national forest with private minerals - prepare the "appropriate NEPA analysis" and allow the public to comment on proposed oil and gas developments.
Just days before we reached a settlement, the judge allowed the oil and gas industry to intervene in the case. The industry filed an emergency motion to stay the settlement after it was announced but the judgecategorically rejected their arguments.
On June 1, 2009 the Forest Service intends to publish a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to prepare a Forest-Wide Oil and Gas Development Transition EIS. The Forest Service will be analyzing all proposed oil and gas developments between now and 2013 as part of this EIS process. This is a paradigm shift on the Allegheny -- no longer will the public be completely excluded from commenting on proposed oil and gas developments and prevented from offering alternatives that better protect Pennsylvania's only national forest.
Finally, largely as a result of what has occurred on the Allegheny National Forest, the USDA has announced its intent to undergo a federal rulemaking to "clarify and expand" the Forest Service's authority to regulate private mineral developments on all National Forests that have private minerals underlying the federal surface.
Stay tuned for more information in the months to come so that you can take action to better protect the Allegheny and other national forests from private mineral developments that impact wildlife habitat, water and air quality and recreation opportunities.