Trump administration rushes to lease federal lands to energy companies

[Borealis]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-administration-lease-federal-lands_us_5b98f9b5e4b0511db3e7cd19

WASHINGTON — The Department of Interior is quietly preparing to offer hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for leasing to energy companies, a move critics have charged is
being undertaken with minimal public input and little consideration for ecological and cultural preservation.

According to data compiled by environmental groups, the Bureau of Land Management will put 2.9 million acres up for potential leasing in the next four months. Because the land in
question — in states including New Mexico, Colorado and Arizona — lacks designation as a national park or monument, it can be used for commercial purposes such as mining for
minerals and drilling for oil and gas. Supporters say that bolstering the extractive industries will ensure energy independence for the United States, though shifting energy preferences
and falling oil prices appear to undermine that assertion.

Leasing land was a common practice before Trump. What’s different now, detractors say, is that the Bureau of Land Management is moving with uncommon speed to make improper
determinations without allowing public to comment. That has led, these critics say, to widespread damage to the environment of the American West.

The Obama administration offered plenty of land to energy and mineral prospectors, but it did so in far more considered fashion. In 2016, the Obama administration put 1.9 million
acres up for leasing, down from a high of 6.1 million acres offered in 2012. In its first year, the Trump administration offered 11.9 acres, the vast majority of them in Alaska. In the
end, only 792,000 acres were leased, which represented just 7 percent of the offerings. In 2016, conversely, the Obama administration offered a much smaller total number of acres
(1.9 million), but sold a far greater share: 47 percent, or 921,240. That suggests the Obama administration was more judicious in determining lands that would be desirable to industry.

Those numbers, however, do not tell the full story. Less important than the amount of land offered, conservationists say, is where those parcels are located, as well as their significance
as either natural resources or cultural landmarks. In this, too, the Obama administration appears to have been significantly more successful than its successor. In 2012, for example,
only 17 percent of the parcels offered by the Obama administration were “protested” by the public (those figures are for fiscal years, where as the compilation of acres offered is for
calendar years; the two correlate closely, if not exactly). Conversely, of the parcels offered in 2017, a full 88 percent were contested, suggesting the Trump administration has been
largely indiscriminate in the land it is offering. 

Many of the lands also represent habitat of the sage grouse, a bird whose native habitat is the high desert of the West. The sage grouse’s numbers have been drastically diminished by
commercial and residential development.

Aware that leasing land across the West could prove highly unpopular, the bureau canceled a 30-day comment period on any proposed lease, and the time to appeal a proposed lease
already in the works was reduced to a mere 10 days. During the Obama administration, the total time for both comment and appeal had been 60 days.

“Why in the world, for a short-term gain, would you jeopardize those places by doing something stupid?” wonders Walt Dabney, who served as a park ranger for many decades and is
now retired and living in Utah. He says that Moab, Utah, where he lives, is full of tourists and that French and Mandarin are commonly heard in local stores. The tourists bring millions
to the local economy, and they “don’t boom-bust like the oil and gas business.”

Energy-related development will drive them away, according to Dabney, who says he’s not against energy. He is only against doing things quickly, and without consideration.

[Borealis]

In its first year, the Trump administration offered 11.9 acres, the vast majority of them in Alaska. In the end, only 792,000 acres were leased, which represented just 7 percent of the offerings. In 2016, conversely,
the Obama administration offered a much smaller total number of acres (1.9 million), but sold a far greater share: 47 percent, or 921,240. That suggests the Obama administration was more judicious in
determining lands that would be desirable to industry.

Oh my god, Obama's admin was better than Trump's admin at leasing real estate.

[Sableye]

with good reason though, oil and gas companies know this stuff is too politically and potentially legally risky to waste the effort. like nobody was lining up to drill the east coast because they knew there was holy hell to pay politically and then the thing fell off the legal rails as the interior sec gave some states preferable treatment

[elix]

Or, careful, deliberate practice; Trump's rushing and dumping the land.

[Saxon]

I've heard that drilling in Alaska isn't as great for oil companies as it seems. Only because the infrastructure to support it just doesn't exist and taxpayers aren't going to be happy paying for it.