Has “energy dominance” lost a battle?

Opponents of fracking on the Wayne National Forest filed a lawsuit last spring alleging the failure of the BLM and Forest Service to comply with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act in authorizing oil and gas leasing.  They argued that when the forest plan was revised in 2006 it didn’t address the effects of fracking.  Plaintiffs suggest that is the reason why the Forest has now decided to again revise it forest plan.   (Which would make it one of a very few forests to re-revise, so it is noteworthy that the Wayne was put in the queue ahead of many forests that have not been revised at all.)

The Forest says this:

For years, the USDA Forest Service, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have been innovating ways to collaborate in the restoration of southeast Ohio’s oak and hickory forest ecosystems. The next step to realizing that objective is having compatible long-term management plans that allow the organizations to work together more efficiently. With ODNR’s intention of revising their State Action Plan by 2020, the Wayne National Forest decided the time is right to revise its Land Management Plan, to facilitate collaborative work efforts with the State.

That’s a worthy goal, but not one I would have expected to get it to the top of the Forest Service’s priority list for plan revisions.  Let’s see if they argue in court that starting revision would moot the lawsuit.  Regardless, “The public can now demand a plan that bans fracking in the Wayne.”

10 thoughts on “Has “energy dominance” lost a battle?”

  1. I don’t understand why they didn’t amend their plan when they did the NEPA for the oil and gas leasing?

    What do you mean by “energy dominance”?

    Reply
    • Sharon: What do you mean by “energy dominance”?
      ===
      Well, I would assume when your President made this bold statment:

      “After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. My administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.”

      Reply
      • I actually agree with using our country’s natural resources to help other countries and giving jobs to our own people, and using our relatively highly regulated processes to produce them. Energy independence is a good thing, but Trump used the word “dominance” so that’s bad? Hyperbole is OK for some politicians but not for others (hyperbole being the language of politics).

        Remember Jimmy Carter (1977)

        “The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6 percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our Nation’s economic and political independence is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980’s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.”

        The Congress, not the President, spoke when they passed bills with energy CEs a while back. Just sayin’ it’s not all about the current President.

        Reply
        • Sharon: “Just sayin’ it’s not all about the current President.”
          ====

          Correct, the quote I provided was from this last President who also has the distinguished title as the Oil President (more so than Bush before him) since he approved more oil drilling permits than any other US President in history. The BLM guy who was trying to explain that it was not Trump, but Obama’s people behind the Home page photo rotation software and those demonized photos (coal seam) were from his side. But like the BLM guy said, these people aren’t ready to hear that. You may notice you do not hear about that subject anymore.

          Reply
  2. Do you have a more realisitic photograph of where land has been clearcut and fracking wells have been installed. This picture is of the Oil and Gas Jonah field in Wyoming and it’s all prairie. I think everyone gets that type of frackig field, but do you have an example of a former forest cut down and fracked ? Thanks

    Reply
  3. The President explained that he is not only focusing on “energy independence,” but also “energy dominance.”
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/president-trump-vows-usher-golden-era-american-energy-dominance/

    Here’s a forest photo:
    http://www.friendsofshenandoahmountain.org/news/aerial-view-of-fracking-in-the-allegheny-national-forest

    Well, I think the usual answer is that they were under political pressure and thought they might get away with not doing the analysis/amendment (but if not, at least they could now blame “environmental obstructionists,” though that’s not what they seem to be doing here.)

    Reply
    • Sounds to me like that is more about “what we produce” rather than “where we produce it.” And would “energy dominance” be OK if it were solar and wind? Because many folks don’t want those on public lands either.
      I looked at the photo of the Allegheny and it appeared to be of roads… I couldn’t enlarge it. So wouldn’t the impact be different if there were lots of roads needed, or the roads already existed?

      Here’s a link to the White River’s Oil and Gas Leasing Decision
      https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/whiteriver/home/?cid=stelprd3824477
      Here’s the associated Plan Amendment.
      https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd485179.pdf

      Reply
    • Jon Haber: “Here’s a forest photo:”
      ===
      Thanks, I just now saw that, I guess I missed it from before. Really I agree that’s ashame. I hate seeing the land being irresponsibly torn up, but unfortunately the new mandate (when it comes to oil & gas) seems like nothing more than the continuation of what the guy he reeplaced started before him. You know, the Oil & Gas President (2008-2016)

      Jon Haber: “The President explained that he is not only focusing on “energy independence,” but also “energy dominance.”
      ===

      Okay I read that and it almost sounds identical to what was written by the previous President Obama who I quoted to Sharon in another post further up this thread. The BLM employee in the BLM website discussion/debate stated that Obama approved and cut red tape for more drilling permits than any other President in history and his outraged followers weren’t ready to be reminded of that. And he was right, because I looked this info up and even some of his Media allies were disturbed. But give him credit, he did exactly what he said he would do. This is where I’m not seeing a different between either ideology here.

      “After years of talking about it, we are finally poised to control our own energy future. We produce more oil at home than we have in 15 years. We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas, and the amount of renewable energy we generate from sources like wind and solar – with tens of thousands of good, American jobs to show for it. We produce more natural gas than ever before – and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. My administration will keep cutting red tape and speeding up new oil and gas permits.” ———> President Barack Obama (2013)

      Like I said, you gotta give him credit, he did precisely what he said he would do and now his followers are blaming the other guy for his actions and decision maaking. Go figure, peace and security just breaking out all over the place now.

      Reply
  4. Not sure of your point, Sharon, but the road density needed for fracking probably exceeds what exists anywhere on national forests. Roads aren’t the only impact of fracking either. Water quality and destabilizing the geology are others.

    As we saw with the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, people don’t like industrial scale wind and solar energy on public lands either.

    Obama presided over the Bakken oil boom on private lands. Which mostly meant getting out of the way. Actually, Trump liked Obama’s approach to fracking so much that he just got rid of it. http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/366704-trump-to-repeal-obama-fracking-rule.
    I don’t remember it becoming a big deal (like “energy dominance”) for national forest policy under Obama (when I was with the Forest Service through 2012).

    Ownership does matter, but the Forest Service can minimize surface impacts, especially where directional drilling from adjacent property is possible.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Kevin Franck Cancel reply