Thread: Bush Signs Off on 90% of National Forest in AL For Drilling

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdail ... head.shtml

Bankhead faces threat?
Conservationists say forest could
be leased for coal-bed drilling


By Kristen Bishop
kbishop@decaturdaily.com · 340-2443

BANKHEAD NATIONAL FOREST — Conservationists say Bankhead National Forest is facing its greatest threat in more than 20 years: coal-bed methane drilling.

More than 90 percent of Alabama's national forests can be leased for oil, gas and mineral development, according to a provision the U.S. Forest Service has inserted into the state forest plan.
Wild South, a Moulton-based environmental group, has threatened to sue the Forest Service, claiming the provision was illegally added to the forest plan and violates the National Environmental Policy Act.

"NEPA is a law that requires the federal agencies to provide management plans and mandates that the public be allowed to participate," said Wild South Executive Director Lamar Marshall.

"The Bush administration ordered the Department of Agriculture, who is over the Forest Service, to open up these lands so that they can be leased by energy companies. They have put us at the mercy of whomever wants to drill."
The Bureau of Land Management announced in March that it has already leased more than 75,000 acres of Talladega National Forest and thousands of acres of national forest land in Michigan, Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

Environmentalists say Bankhead National Forest may be next.

The Bureau of Land Management Web site confirms that public lands in the Black Warrior Coal Basin, which includes Bankhead, are up for lease.

The option could be especially enticing to companies looking to profit from undiscovered oil and gas resources in the area. According to a U.S. Geological Survey in 2002, about 8.5 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas lies beneath the surface of the Black Warrior Basin.

Marshall said the process of obtaining that underground treasure is damaging to the aboveground treasures the U.S. Forest Service promised to protect in its restoration plan
approved in 2003.

Nearly 7,100 coal-bed methane wells have been drilled in Alabama, mostly in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson counties. These areas serve as a prime example of the damage caused by methane drilling, said Marshall.

Some residents are fighting the industry, claiming the blasting of the underground coal seams has damaged their homes and contaminated their water.

"There's horror stories coming out of Tuscaloosa about people's wells and their water being unfit to drink," said Marshall.
Ray Vaughan, attorney for Wild South, has given forest officials 60 days notice of their intent to file a lawsuit.

"It gives them a chance to remedy the situation, but I don't see it happening this time," said Marshall.

This is the second time Wild South has gone up against the U.S. Forest Service. The nonprofit filed numerous lawsuits in the mid-'90s over the Forest Plan of 1985, which allowed logging companies to clear-cut the forest and convert it to loblolly pine plantations.

The new forest plan stops that practice, and forest officials, along with conservationist groups like Wild South, are working to repair the damage. Wild South Program Director Vince Meleski said it may take hundreds of years to restore the areas that took logging companies merely a decade to destroy.

So?

Every friend of mine who owns land that has oil deposits has leased rigs operating on that land, and I can damned well guarantee you that I would have no qualms about having drilling equipment on my own land. There is little risk in allowing modern drilling operations on even the most sensitive lands, and if private citizens have no problem allowing dirlling on their private ranches and farms then we should have no problem allowing it on the lands that the government used our tax dollars to purchase. We need to increase our domestic production and the greenies need to shut the hell up.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

So?

Every friend of mine who owns land that has oil deposits has leased rigs operating on that land, and I can damned well guarantee you that I would have no qualms about having drilling equipment on my own land. There is little risk in allowing modern drilling operations on even the most sensitive lands, and if private citizens have no problem allowing dirlling on their private ranches and farms then we should have no problem allowing it on the lands that the government used our tax dollars to purchase. We need to increase our domestic production and the greenies need to shut the hell up.

Yep and if they do any damage, those who drill should have to pay to fix it immediately. I'd have them on my land too.

I don't want to depend on any foreign country for fuel.

In my area it's coal mines, they have done great things at restoring the land after mining.

I wold just love it if we were fuel independent, but what about the water problems, or should we just blow that off?

Originally Posted by Rockfish

I wold just love it if we were fuel independent, but what about the water problems, or should we just blow that off?

If we get desperate, there's always desalination, which is what the Californians should be doing in the first place rather than diverting and using up all the water from the surrounding states. They had Lake Mead down by about 180' last time I was there.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by Rockfish

I wold just love it if we were fuel independent, but what about the water problems, or should we just blow that off?

If we get desperate, there's always desalination, which is what the Californians should be doing in the first place rather than diverting and using up all the water from the surrounding states. They had Lake Mead down by about 180' last time I was there.

Having lived in Las Vegas I was shocked to hear the lake had fallen that much so I did a Google search.

The lake looks like hell with that huge white ring around it, but it's 90' of elevation loss, not 180'.

Don't get me wrong, 90' is an INCREDIBLE amount of water to lose in just 8 years, it actually nears the 50% of capacity range.

BTW Crocket, I agree wholeheartedly with desalination, I'm baffled that it hasn't been used already.

Oops, maybe 80' was the figure that I had heard, or maybe the local who was giving me the figure misrepresented it. I recall that someone there did not realize that the lake was deep enough to lose the level mentioned and be anything but a rock pit. I was thinking that the figure was 180' because we were talking about the level at the dam being about 500', when I recall being previously told the deepest point was about 680'.