Why idiot Dubya's oil drilling plans are a disastrous mistake
Michael Newton
Wilderness above, energy riches below
By Tom Kenworthy, USA TODAY: 8/2/01
PINCHER CREEK, Alberta - From afar, the eastern front of the Canadian
Rockies looms like a jagged citadel, a vision of untrammeled mountain
wilderness teeming with wildlife. But closer up, in much the same way the
plains slam headlong into the Rockies here, that distant vision collides
with reality. Travel into many of the canyons where streams swollen with
melted snow cascade down the range, and you suddenly enter an industrial
zone: clusters of natural gas wells, some belching fire; networks of wide
gravel roads and power lines; sheet-metal buildings housing gas compressor
stations; lumbering 18-wheelers.
This scene near Waterton Lakes National Park is one face of energy
development that many environmentalists fear could accompany the increase in
drilling in the USA that the Bush administration has proposed in its energy
policy.
More than 2,000 miles to the south, at the Houston headquarters of Shell
Oil, is another face, one the industry and the administration showcase. At
the oil giant's technology center, officials demonstrate how the industry
has learned to prospect and drill more efficiently - and to lessen the
impact on the environment.
In a darkened "virtual-reality" room, geophysicist Mark Stockwell shows how
seismic data from the Gulf of Mexico can be used to create three-dimensional
images of the Earth's geology. Petroleum engineers, geologists and drillers
can don special glasses and, on a huge display screen, visualize complex
underground geologic structures as they plan how and where to prospect for
oil.
Combined with other advances in technology, the virtual-reality laboratory
makes energy exploration and production more precise and less damaging to
the landscape, the industry says. Drilling now can be done with fewer rigs
and less disturbance to natural surroundings. The technological
breakthroughs have "allowed you to minimize the footprint you've got in the
Gulf of Mexico" from drilling, says Shell manager Larry Wooden, who formerly
directed some of the company's offshore operations in the gulf.
These two scenes at opposite ends of North America - intensive drilling near
majestic mountains in Canada and high technology in the capital of the U.S.
oil industry - frame the debate over President Bush's energy blueprint. He's
calling for more drilling for oil and natural gas on public lands, mostly in
the Rocky Mountain West, and for increased drilling in the gulf.
The administration's mantra remains that energy development and
environmental protection can go hand in hand, that modern technology has
made it possible both to protect the land and to siphon its riches.
"Energy production and environmental protection are not competing
priorities," Bush says. "Both can be achieved with new technologies and a
new vision."
Lessons from Canada
Although Canada's environmental laws are weaker than those in the USA,
Alberta's Waterton gas field may offer some lessons for the looming fight
over increased drilling on public lands in the American West.
Alberta has vast supplies of oil and natural gas and has moved aggressively
to develop and export them. The province has reserves of about 200 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas, and it exports 2.4 trillion cubic feet a year to
the USA - about one-tenth of U.S. consumption. In addition, Alberta sends
more than 900,000 barrels of oil per day across the border, about 5% of U.S.
consumption.
Since the late 1950s, the Waterton gas field developed by Shell Canada has
been a significant contributor. About 70 wells dot the sparsely settled
region around Pincher Creek (population 3,700). Shell continues to add
wells. A processing plant nearby removes sulfur and other impurities from
the gas.
Shell Canada officials say they have learned much during their decades of
operations on government lands. A combination of government regulation and
technological breakthroughs has significantly lightened the impact on the
land, they say.
In 1986, for example, Shell Canada sparked controversy by building a road
across the flank of a prominent peak known as Prairie Bluff and drilling
wells on its summit. Now, officials say, improved drilling techniques (see
graphic) and less-obtrusive seismic searches for natural gas allow them to
avoid such eyesores.
"The technology has improved dramatically as far as reducing the footprint
on the land base and our knowledge of the kinds of impacts we can have on
wildlife and the water resources and air resources," says Douglas Mead, an
environmental scientist with Shell Canada. "We've made tremendous strides in
being able to address those issues and reducing our impacts."
But statements about the benefits of technology don't impress Mike Judd, an
outdoor guide who once led bighorn sheep hunters in the rugged Alberta
landscape, near the Continental Divide just north of the U.S. border.
With full-scale natural gas development, Judd says, much of the big game has
disappeared. Now, he leads horse trips in the summer and sled-dog outings in
winter - and battles Shell Canada and other energy companies.
His land west of Pincher Creek is increasingly ringed by gas wells and
pipelines carrying natural gas mixed with potentially deadly hydrogen
sulfide. One pipeline ruptured 300 yards from his log home and sent him
packing until it was fixed.
"As the field develops, you get more and more infrastructure," Judd says.
"Gravel pits appear, pipelines, power lines, flare pits, dehydrating plants,
it's an endless list of stuff until one day what once was wilderness has
become a heavily industrialized area. ... I can't charge people to come to
an industrial landscape to look for non-existent animals."
Mike Sawyer, an environmental activist and longtime foe of the industry in
Alberta, contends that Shell and other companies, abetted by a provincial
government addicted to energy revenue, continue to scar the landscape and
hurt wildlife.
When viewed over its full production cycle, Sawyer says, natural gas is not
the cheap, environmentally benign energy source its proponents claim.
Touring a drill pad under construction just a few hundred yards from a
campground on the Castle River, he says the company is too cavalier about
the potential for a deadly gas leak.
Eye on Montana
Less than 200 miles from the Waterton gas field is a stretch of Montana with
similar geology: the Rocky Mountain Front.
Stretching from near Helena north to the border of Glacier National Park,
the front ripples with foothills and forests and draws outdoors enthusiasts
to the Great Bear, Bob Marshall and Scapegoat federal wilderness areas and
Lewis and Clark National Forest.
This intersection of plains and mountains produces a biological cornucopia,
a haven for grizzly bears, bighorn sheep, elk and other species that find
forage and security throughout the year. There may be energy riches here as
well, as much as 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, up to one-fifth of
the nation's consumption for one year.
That's why the Rocky Mountain Front - along with the Red Desert and the
Bridger-Teton National Forest in neighboring Wyoming - are likely candidates
for exploration and development as the administration evaluates public
lands.
Lewis and Clark National Forest supervisor Gloria Flora put much of the
front off-limits to energy exploration in 1997. She cited the area's "value
of place." She made the decision after touring the Waterton gas field and
receiving thousands of comments in support of a ban from Montanans who
cherish the wild country abutting the wilderness areas.
In May, a federal appeals court upheld Flora's decision in a challenge
brought by the Independent Petroleum Association of America. But with a
pro-exploration administration now running the U.S. Forest Service, the
battle in Montana is likely to resume.
The Bush energy plan says there is "significant potential" for domestic oil
and gas on federal lands in the lower 48 states: an estimated 4.1 billion
barrels of oil and 167 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be
enough to meet U.S. oil demand for about eight months and gas demand for
almost seven years.
Most of those federal lands, however, are "off-limits" or subject to
"significant restrictions" on drilling, the Bush plan notes. Though the
plan, now being debated by Congress, mentions no specific areas, it directs
Interior Secretary Gale Norton to review lands that have been withdrawn from
development and to "consider modifications where appropriate."
The impact of intensive drilling on Montana is difficult to predict.
Extensive natural gas production in adjacent Wyoming, however, has attracted
thousands of workers to rural areas and has taxed the ability of small towns
to provide housing and services.
And to the north, it has changed the character of the wild country in
Alberta.
The question, says Mark Rubin of the American Petroleum Institute, is
whether lands such as the Rocky Mountain Front should be left entirely alone
or tapped for their energy.
"If the goal is to keep areas pristine, ... then you can't keep them
pristine and also have natural gas production," he says. "But if the goals
are to protect wildlife and minimize the impact while still producing
resources, those we can achieve."
But Judd, the outdoor guide, says that once the choice is made to develop
wild areas, there is no turning back.
"The truth of the matter is, the technology has not changed all that much,
and there's still a lot of landscape restructuring that occurs with it,"
Judd says.
"It's so hard to buy back things like bighorn sheep and grizzly bears and
especially the type of habitat they need."
P.J. Gladnick
Not impressed
"P.J. Gladnick" <pjg...@gate.net> wrote in message
news:9kbpaf$agf$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> OT
>
>
>