More Energy exploration

chipc · Mar 14, 2012

I just received an e-mail from the Wyoming Wildlife Federation regarding some initial hearings in Rock Springs on the potential of Shale and Tar sand energy exploration in Southwest Wyoming. Apparently they are considering opening up 2 million acres for this type of activity. I sure am conflicted by all of this Energy work. On one hand I certainly realize the importance of trying to satisfy our own energy needs and reducing our reliance on foreign crude. I also realize the importance of alternative energy sources. However, with all of the traditional energy exploration,the wind farm development, and now this new energy exploration I wonder what will be left of Wyoming in 15 years ? I have Elk hunted on a huge ranch south of Rawlins which is in the process of becoming one of the biggest windfarms in the country. It is home to hundreds of Elk, Mule deer, and antelope not to mention hundreds of other critters. Its now closed to hunting and always will be. Not only that but critical wildlife habitat for numerous species will also be lost forever. I wish there was an easy answer..... Chip

Triple_BB · Mar 14, 2012

I'm not torn. I'd like to see them close off some of these area's just like they did with the Wyoming Range. On one hand, I'm tired of some of the trash that continues to move into the state and on the other, this country needs to start getting aggressive with alternative forms of energy as we'll never become energy independent with hydrocarbon based fuels...

chipc · Mar 14, 2012

So, you want to close off some areas for fossil fuel exploration but not wind ? Just askin'

Triple_BB · Mar 14, 2012

The only reason wind exists is because of gov't handouts. When the subsidies end, so will wind expansion. Didn't the senate just kill an amendment that would've extended wind subsidies for another year. I'm not up on all of it, but you might be able to fill in the details...

Califelkslayer · Mar 14, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-14-12 AT 10:38PM (MST)[p]I read recently that there is a huge oil field on the Montana/North Dakota border that goes into Canada that is the biggest oil field known to man.

Why "explore" if we already know where it is????

RockyDog · Mar 15, 2012

CA - that is the bakken oil field and they are already roading, building, drilling fracking and pumping the chit out of it.

beech18 · Mar 15, 2012

I dont like seeing hunting areas infringed on by exploration or drilling, however, Im for exploration and utlization of our natural resources instead of buying oversea's. Alternate fuels in my opinion wont be enough to take over the fossil fuel demands to see it in my life time.

oldwyoelkhunter · Mar 15, 2012

When the gas drilling in the pinedale anticline was apparently linked to a huge drop in mule deer numbers we did not hear a lot from hunters. Likewise when the BLM proposed drilling cbm in the range of the Fortification Creek elk herd. Neither was there a lot of concern expressed by sportsmen over the massive development on public lands in the Powder River Basin or the Red Desert. We were silent and we can only blame ourselves. What has happened to the hunter being in the forefront of conservation?

I am not saying that we shouldn't drill for oil and gas. I'm just saying that it should be done in an orderly manner with full consideration for other valuable resources including fish and wildlife.

Wyoming hunters are taking up the mantra of those that want to develop energy with no consideration for the game we hunt or they are simply choosing to be silent and watch it all go away. Go away so some driver in some eastern city can drive what they want and burn what they want and wyoming be damned. Or so some stupid fool in the parking lot at walmart in Sheridan can leave his truck running with the AC on for an hour or more

theox · Mar 18, 2012

reclaimed oil and gas fields always seem to create extremly great habitat for wildlife.
the problem is how long wil the oild fields be there? I would say in the long term they do a lot of good! but just depends on how long they remain there if they are there 50 years then that sucks, but a 5 or ten year stretch and then reclaimed would probably actually benefit wildlife.

mtmiller · Mar 18, 2012

>depends on how long they
>remain there if they are
>there 50 years then that
>sucks, but a 5 or
>ten year stretch and then
>reclaimed would probably actually benefit
>wildlife.

Development and production for oil 30 - 50 years.

DougW · Mar 19, 2012

Chip-

just to clarify, "opening up to wind" would not be "exploration" as we know the wind is there.

Also, there is no water contamination with wind energy. It is not without its faults, but the environmental damage and invasivity is nowhere near what it is with drilling.

DougW · Mar 19, 2012

Triple_BB:

You are nearly correct on the amendment....the major subsidy looks like it won't survive into 2013.

But you're dead wrong on the economics. Do you really think $5-$6 for gasoline doesn't affect all of the alternatives? Mark my words, no subsidies will be needed when this happens.

Triple_BB · Mar 19, 2012

Don't think so. Sound economics doesn't come into play when the price of oil is being driven mostly by fear, speculation and manipulation. The price of oil could keep going up or it could start dropping at any time for no reason. The payback on a turbine is something like 10 - 15 years. People investing in wind aren't going to dump millions more with that type of uncertainty even if the price goes to $5-6/gallon.

DougW · Mar 19, 2012

I see what you mean....but remember that the price of wind is not driven by fear. And WY has the best wind in the world aside from knife ridges at 10000feet+, or 5000ft+ in lower mt. ranges. Payback on a turbine in AZ or on the coastline might be a decade, but not in a place like WY.

Buckhunter1 · Mar 19, 2012

Drill the crap out of the coastlines!!Platforms make great fish habitat! Nuclear power needs to be looked at as well.I hunted WYO last year north of Rawlins and it literally smelled like petrol! Seemed like they had most of it drilled allready? BH1

Triple_BB · Mar 19, 2012

They just announced on the local news something about a wind turbin manufacturing plant that was going to be built in Cheyenne is now on hold due to the tax credit not being extended. The payback on these turbines has always factored in the Feds tax credit and in WY's case, no excise tax until the $1/Mw tax started in January. So you'd be wrong to assert it won't take as long in WY. When the credits go bye bye and with the State tax now being a factor, the payback will still stretch out 10 - 15 years. Also, WY doesn't have the transmission lines in place to handle a lot more turbines. And with that, I'm done debating the issue...

DougW · Mar 19, 2012

Wow you sound like my wife at the end of an argument she's lost....

Not that I support this...but a gigantic new transmission line is currently proposed to be built from central WY down to Craig.

If you don't think $5/gal affects the economics of all of this, then it's hypocritical to say that elimination of a 10-20% subsidy will affect it. Selective reasoning?

piper · Mar 19, 2012

so would you like to have the coastline literally smell like petrol also?
There is going to be changes made in Wyoming, it won't be good for hunting no matter how many smiley faces you put on it, lets just hope it can be somewhat compatable with wildlife

chipc · Mar 19, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-19-12 AT 07:49PM (MST)[p]Doug, really ? perhaps I should have been more specific and said "the necessary development to take advantage of the wind that is already there". Anyway, if you look at the ground space that a large wind farm takes up and renders the associated area pretty much useless for most wildlife you'll see that wind development isn't necessarily less invasive than petroleum exploration.There isn't the same risk of contamination but habitat loss is habitat loss. Necessary ? maybe. unfortunate ? definitely.

oldwyoelkhunter · Mar 20, 2012

This makes my point about us hunters in Wyoming. Here we are arguing amongst ourselves oil vs wind etc. We should be demanding that this whole issue be addressed in a way that is most efficient, less invasive and less destructive of our public lands. Hunters need to once again become the strongest advocates for wildlife. We should do this in a way that offers constructive critiscism not obstruction as with the radical preservationists. If we don't get involved what will be left for our kids?

Wind sounds so green but I'm afraid it is anything but. In addition to its impact on bird impacts these tall structures aid avian predators and are avoided by sage grouse. I'm also hearing that the wind companies do not want other activities including hunting near these wind farms thus large tracts of the land we hunt will become off limits. The huge power losses that occur in transmitting electricity long distance call into question the wisdom of siting these farms so far from population areas. Wyoming is windy but not a wise choice when you consider that a wind farm would have to be much smaller to produce the same available power if it was closer to where the power was to be used. Physics is physics. To me solar and wind make most sense when they are on our roof and in our yards for personal use and for power we can sell back to the grid. The big power companies hate this concept because it takes them out of the loop. We need to give this some thought before we embrace wind over oil and gas. We also need to get serious about speaking out for our resource again.

All the humanity is on the coasts in this country. It infuriates me when the coasts are off limits and the sagelands of the west become the sacrificial lamb. The people that use the power should be willing to put up with the downside.

DougW · Mar 20, 2012

Chip-I may misunderstand petro exploration. Don't they drill typically many times before they make a hit? My point is, they don't put up wind turbines where there isn't enough wind. I know that for a fact because that's what I do for a living.

I could be wrong about oil drilling though. You are correct, wind requires extensive road building, grading, maintenance, etc., like any actual development.

"Ground space" that either wind or oil/ngas requires is not necessarily useless. I would argue that the associated poaching is a bigger impact, if it occurs. MDF reports that wintering deer do alter their hangouts, I won't argue that, though. Many wind dev. companies in the west have to negotiate maintenance schedules to meet requirements that minimize impact on wildlife. Believe me, any wind dev. company has to work with the stage game agencies or they won't survive.

If the oil/ng companies do the same, then more power to them.

DougW · Mar 20, 2012

Oldwyoelkhunter-

I work in the wind industry, I do a lot of hunting, and whenever I can get a tag in WY I hunt there and it is a wonderful experience.

Believe me, I try to change the realities on hunter perception and legalities whenever I can, but it's tough when work with few people who hunt or support habitat improvement and conservation like I do. They just don't get it or don't have time to support it.

Here's the reality: the non-hunting public regards us (generally) as a bunch of drunken yahoos who would just as soon put a bullet in a turbine blade, support tower or drilling facility as anything else we do out there. Thus lawyers get involved ($$), they talk to landowners (who sometimes hate hunters also) and public access is lost for the foreseeable future, especially for large ranches sometimes essentially run by corporations. It's a little tough to persuade a wind dev. company or power company to give access a chance when lawsuits are the potential result.

If the landowner is amenable, then it typically can be worked out. We are installing a small array in MT that includes a hunter access easement (to prime public elk hunting areas) as a prerequisite to building the array in the first place. This easement did not exist prior to the wind development, and it was worked out with Montana FWP. I supported this in full because I think access issues will determine the future of hunting, in large part, in the US West.

Bottom line: with landowner support, hunter access can be maintained. If a landowner sells out to a giant power company or Andheuser Busch or some other corporation (I'm forgetting the company names but that big place south of Rawlins is an example), the likelihood of access being maintained will be determined by non-hunting rich lawyers. I really do wish this was not the reality in the west, but for the most part, it is. And in some cases outfitters are also all for restricting access to the public.

Not all of us wind guys are enemies, please believe that-

doug