Montana: Wilderness agency grapples with state over Breaks drillingBy
SONJA LEE Montana -
8/15/02 - The Montana Wilderness Association is
challenging a state decision that would allow
eight natural gas wells to be drilled inside and
adjacent to the Upper Missouri River Breaks
National Monument.
This marks the second time the
MWA has appealed the decision since the Bureau
of Land Management in May said drilling the
wells wouldn't harm the environment and could
begin.
The proposed wells, on leased
BLM property on the east side of the monument,
are in an area known as Bullwhacker Coulee in
Blaine County.
The BLM state director upheld
the decision to drill. But in early August the
MWA appealed the decision to the Department of
the Interior Board of Land Appeals.
The MWA questions the validity
of the gas leases and says it is improper to
proceed with the drilling because of another
pending lawsuit involving gas leases in the
area.
Because the BLM still is
creating a resource management plan for the
Breaks, the MWA also questions the decision to
drill.
"Since the proclamation
designating the monument establishes a clear
vision of preserving and protecting the unique
historical, biological and cultural resources of
the area, it would be a significant impact to
permit the action to proceed," the group's
appeal argues.
MWA also says that of 153 gas
wells that have been drilled inside the
monument, only two are producing wells.
MWA member Dennis Tighe said the
appeal is based on the organization's allegation
that the BLM did not properly review the
validity of the leases in the monument.
"Our contention is that the
BLM has the obligation under its own guidelines
to check to make sure that the gas wells holding
the leases are capable of production and paying
quantities," Tighe said. "You can't
just go around drilling holes. You have to be
able to produce gas in paying quantities."
Paying quantities is defined by
how much gas an area can produce, how much can
be sold and the cost of drilling. He said that
because the gas wells have not been producing a
paying quantity, the leases should have been
terminated.
To protect wildlife, no drilling
or construction would be allowed Dec. 1 through
June 30, according to the BLM decision. Existing
trails would be used to reach the site.
Drilling, which could have
started in July, could still start this year,
said Don Judice, field station supervisor with
the BLM in Great Falls.
"We at BLM feel confident
in our decision that there is a finding of no
significant impact," Judice said.
Macum Energy Inc. of Billings
filed for six of the applications to drill.
Klabzuba Oil and Gas Inc. filed two and Ocean
Energy Resources Inc. filed one.
The January 2001 monument
proclamation states that existing leases will be
honored, although no new oil and gas leases will
be issued. The wells are expected to help the
BLM as it creates a resource management plan for
the Breaks.
Macum President Ralph Gailey
said the decision states that the leases are
acceptable. Gailey has been trying to drill for
the last three years.
"I'm just absolutely
disgusted with trying to do business," he
said. "You can't do it anymore."
The MWA is already challenging
one of Macum's other leases in District Court in
Great Falls. The BLM's environmental analysis
didn't include that lease.
In March 2000 the MWA filed
suit, challenging seven of Macum's natural gas
leases in areas in and near the Breaks and
accusing the BLM of failing to properly analyze
the environmental impact of oil and gas
exploration.
Tighe said the challenges there
differ from the most recent obstacle. But if the
District Court case is decided in favor of MWA
it also could impact the validity of the
Bullwhacker leases, according to the appeal.
If the land board upholds the
BLM's decision, the MWA can still challenge it
in district court.
"We have not made any
decisions on that," Tighe said. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
|