Posted on 09/16/2003 7:38:18 AM PDT by BOBTHENAILER
U.S. District Court Judge Paul G. Cassell ruled last month in favor of the Bureau of Land Management in the matter of Veritas DGC Land Inc's 2-D geophysical exploration project in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The ruling affirmed BLM on all counts brought before the court, the agency said.
In his decision, according to the BLM's Utah State Office, Judge Cassell wrote, "The Environmental Analysis and its suggested mitigation methods show that the BLM gave adequate consideration to the environmental effects, both in terms of direct recovery time and residual effects of the project."
In October 2002, after nearly 13 months of review and environmental analysis, the BLM authorized Veritas to conduct geophysical exploration in an area of the Uinta Basin about 30 miles south of Vernal. Subsequently, the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance filed suit in federal district court, including a request for a preliminary injunction to block the project. After the court set aside the request for an injunction, the company began work. In March 2003, Veritas suspended work, having completed 11 of the 17 seismic lines, or approximately 65 percent of the project that was originally proposed. The company has until October 2004 resume work under the terms of its permit.
The court's ruling affirmed that the BLM considered a reasonable range of alternatives; fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the project, the reasonable foreseeable indirect effects, and the cumulative effects; and appropriately developed mitigation measures. Specifically the ruling upheld the agency's consideration of - and mitigation for - off-highway vehicle usage, soils, vegetation, archeological resources, wildlife and sensitive or threatened and endangered species. The court also found against the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance's allegation that the decision of a Finding of No Significant Impact was "arbitrary and capricious."
Howard Cleavinger, assistant field manager for mineral resources for the BLM's Vernal Field Office, praised the efforts of both BLM resources professional staff and the seismic company's crews. "The BLM's analysis and mitigations were right on target and the company's follow-through execution has been exemplary," Cleavinger said.
According to chief compliance officer Byron Tolman, who is in charge of overall monitoring for the project, the geophysical exploration work conducted between October 2002 and March 2003 has left a "minimal" footprint on the landscape. "In many areas it's nearly impossible to trace the path followed by the seismic trucks, let alone find any discernable impacts," Tolman said. "Contrary to allegations lodged in the suit, new roads have not developed and staging areas are reclaiming nicely," Tolman added. "Impacts analyzed in the environmental document were never predicted to be significant and were negligible on the ground."
Veritas' non-exclusive 2-D geophysical survey is being carried out over a large (3,168 square miles) area of the Uinta Basin in southeastern Uintah County.
That's interesting. My wife just asked the other day why there were these ponds and a 30 ton Speeder there by a coal fired plant right in the middle of town. I figured it was something like that. I'm surprised to hear a bad report about a Manitowoc. We had one brought into town to help finish a hospital upgrade. The engineers in charge build the thing out of order and needed a huge crane with a 200ish foot luffing boom so they had to rent this thing for a month at 250,000 bucks. I hear it took about 20 truck loads to haul the crane to town. HOW COOL!.
It was devistating having Link Belt bought out and moved out of town. My dad got a better job that paid more but he loved Link Belt. So did I. I knew every model and what it could lift and how much boom it could use etc. He brought me home flyers.
So now with windmills getting bigger and bigger, the cranes used to construct them are getting to be the very biggest ones made. The new big ones are on 330 foot towers and have components that weigh 50 tons. That's a big lift.
Hahahahahahaha.
Laughing all the way to the bank.
Couldn't really understand your analogy about the UAW worker. Don't flag me to your blather anymore.
(Hmm... Add class envy to the mix.) You just can't admit that the environuts -- "RICH" or not -- create demand for your gas-drilling services. They put food on your table, wheels in your garage, a roof over your head, money in your pocket. You're indebted to them. Tsk, tsk, tsk...
Anybody ever tell you that brevity is the soul of wit?
Were you going for "wit"? I was hoping for reasoned debate. Sorry if that hope was too unreasonable for you.
I knew I could get you to blow.
You don't know what you don't know, let alone what you haven't done.
Oh, well. At least we all know why you can't be trusted to objectively weigh alternative energy sources (alternatives to yours, that is).
Adios Mr. Analyst
Good day, Mr. Analyzed.
Well, I'm glad I stumbled onto this so that I can set the record straight.
I'm not mocking you; I'm just getting a kick out of your paradoxical situation. You know, the one where you owe a great deal of your recent success to the environuts you love to hate, and you can't bring yourself to admit it.
(With all due respect,) He didn't say he is one.
My success, over the last 15 years, is due to acreage acquisition in geologically defined areas, drill sites picked by seismic definition and/or within known productive areas and having an attorney and a geologist with his masters, as partners. It also has a lot to do with having the guts to roll the dice on your own nickle, win or lose.
It has nothing to do with enviro-nazis, who, in one area where we drilled over 54 wells, caused the price per well to increase from an average of $180K per well to $250K per well, due to DNR regulations imposed after enviro lawsuits. They HURT that endeavor in a big way.
If you bothered to read my other posts in this thread, you can see that I also advocate coal, nuclear and hydro power. This nation needs all the power it can get, (even your wind) and even though new nukes, drilling ANWR, new coal plants, new hydro projects and yes, wind farms, would have the effect of lowering commodity prices affecting me, I don't care. It is for the good of the nation as a whole, and that matters more to me than current prices. Actually, the current high prices are chasing away big manufacturing users such as chemical and fertilizer companies, steel and agri-business. Lower prices would help the solvency of those companies and keep their usage high.
I am able to make profits at $2.00 per mcf, as easily as $4.50. Just have to drill the more prolific wells.
Since you are well aware of my antipathy for enviros, I'm curious why you don't have the same, inasmuch as they will fight your wind projects almost as hard as drilling efforts.
In an effort to end this time consuming pissing match, once and for all, I'll concede that wind generation is getting closer to being a commercially viable power source, however, due to it's unreliability, it can never stand on its own. Just as none of the other sources can. The current price imbalance of natural gas will fade over time as it has for the 25 years I've been in the business.
If its commercial and not subsidized it will easily work. My disagreement has always been based on my perception of it "not" being commercial.
BTW, my pastor knows I'm a christian.
Still, you're missing (or denying) the point. Those enviros you love to hate have artifically increased the demand for your gas, at the expense of coal. Without that increased demand, your employer wouldn't have acquired the acreage or rolled the dice. I'm sure you know this is true.
Since you are well aware of my antipathy for enviros, I'm curious why you don't have the same
I do share your antipathy for the environuts, as I wrote previously: "You and I can stand in unison in deriding them and their misguided causes." I've only said you owe them some gratitude. That doesn't mean I like them any more than you do.
I'll concede that wind generation is getting closer to being a commercially viable power source,
Wow, that must've hurt. I'm touched. ;O)
If it isn't already, it certainly is fast becoming commercially viable. Just forget about those piddly little antiques in California, please. We'd still be riding the rails cross-country, if people kept pointing to the Wright Flyer as evidence of aviation's shortcomings.
Technological advances are making wind power cheap.
however, due to it's unreliability, it can never stand on its own
Oh, I'm glad you brought that up. If, by "unreliability" you mean the wind isn't always blowing -- that favorite "diss" of the uninformed and anti-anything-that-sounds-like-the-enviros-might-like-it crowd -- I'll counter that all we need is a 21st Century grid, and wind can be every bit as reliable as your gas. The wind is always blowing somewhere and it's certainly viable enough to provide economical power for peak demands.
Just as none of the other sources can.
Wow, that must've hurt, too. ;O) So, it sounds as if your only real beef with wind power is commercial viability. Hey, you're almost on board.
Even if you can't thank a greenie for giving you job security -- and, deep down, you must know they are -- I'm encouraged that it seems you're trying to keep an open mind about wind power. Don't worry, I won't tell your buddies. But, I can't speak for biblewonk. :-)
Was I so much more arrogant in the old days? :-D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.