Federal Court Blocks Drilling in Baca
Wildlife Refuge
Reported by Staff
DENVER – U.S. District Court Judge Walker Miller on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction against Lexam Explorations, a Canadian mining company, barring it from drilling and activities related to oil and gas exploration on the 79,000-acre refuge in southwest Colorado. Walker wrote in his decision that “it is undisputed that the Refuge contains unique resources, including sensitive wetlands, habitat for a variety of wildlife and fish, aquifers that play an important role in the wetlands and in providing water for the community, clean air, and a large expanse of undeveloped land with a significant ‘sense of place’ and quiet.”
Conservation groups praised the court ruling. “This decision is a victory for those of us who live and work in the San Luis Valley and who have fought to protect the refuge and its special sense of place,” said Christine Canaly of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. “As a region with huge potential for sensible, renewable energy development, this is a victory for our country and for efforts to move toward new, cleaner energy surces.”
Judge Miller went on to say,“When the Baca National Wildlife Refuge was established in 2000, the intent was to protect the water, wildlife and land within the area,” said Travis Stills, an attorney who represented the plaintiffs. “Drilling activities posed a huge threat to the refuge and the underlying aquifers. Judge Miller’s decision brings us one step closer to full protection of this pristine area and its resources.”
The federal government purchased the refuge in 2000 for the purpose of protecting its “unique hydrological, biological, educational and recreational values.” However, Lexam owned mineral rights within the refuge and in 2006 proposed drilling for natural gas there.
Department of Interior officials in the Bush administration approved the plan, determining that drilling and gas exploration would have no significant impact on the refuge or groundwater, and that a full environmental impact analysis was not necessary. Records obtained under the Freedom of Information Act later showed that industry officials helped draft parts of the government’s analysis.
The San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council and Energy Minerals Law Center, along with the San Luis Valley Water Protection Coalition, challenged the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision in 2007.
In granting the preliminary injunction, Judge Miller affirmed the plaintiffs’ claims that Lexam’s drilling proposal threatens “irreparable harm” to the refuge and underlying aquifers. He said that the proposal submitted by Lexam and approved by USFWS did not present sufficient safeguards, and he questioned “whether the agency really evaluated the efficacy of many of the proposed safeguards.” Miller also expressed concern about the potential impact of chemicals used in drilling and about clean-up and mitigation efforts.
You seem to be ignoring the issue that this wind farm -- Limon II -- was touted by Xcel as ...
Ya know what else could save a bundle of money? A serious investment in efficiency, and unlike shale gas, ...
I read your post and and it's nice to be hear that DU offers new
certificate in petroleum land Management ...
Nice job Graham. It's important to note that what constitutes "green jobs" policy in the US is not the ...
Mineral severance has been in existence for 100 - 200 years. Some of the transfers may not have been totally ...
Great work by the EEBC. Yes consumers need to find financing,but the EEBC is also working on this item too. 
There is already a rule on the books that requires title disclosure for severed mineral rights.
It was done in ...
Comment by cogeo on 4 September 2009:
I agree that some critical areas of this country should not be disturbed without careful consideration of the resources at play. However, the “conservationists” should understand that drilling and exploitation activities have often worked in league with local interests in conserving the surface resources while doing their bit to make a living. The oil and gas industry of today is far from where it was even 5 years ago. As for a victory for those who live and work in the San Luis area, I don’t think the majority would consider the loss of revenue from oil and gas work a “victory”. Certainly a duck might, but not the people. Oil and gas work means jobs and a cascading of revenue for not only the direct workers, but local businesses and local government. As for the industry helping to write the decision to allow drilling in this area, I see no problem using experience and educated people to address each issue along the way. Certainly not every project needs to be declined based on the perceptions of one side, whose agenda can be as suspect as any.
Comment by energyski on 5 September 2009:
The conservationists involved in the issue of drilling the Baca NWR recognize more than anyone that industry can work in concert with residents to preserve resources. Gas drilling and exploration are part of life in the San Luis Valley, and those folks live there. None of them have said that drilling and gas exploration should be halted in their entirety. They have argued, quite correctly, that certain places should be off limits. A National Wildlife Refuge is one of them.
Most of them also know that the revenue and economic benefits gained by preserving a resource that is consistent with the huge amount of recreation and tourism that the natural uniqueness of the valley brings in far outweighs the short-term gains of one drilling operation. Clean air, clean water, a healthy landscape and vibrant wildlife are just as much a part of the economic vitality in southern Colorado as any gas operation. And those things are going to be around for generations. An ill-conceived plan to drill in a wildlife area that was rubber-stamped by Bush industry appointees is going to be gone in a few years, but the irreparable damage that would be done, as Judge Miller recognized, would last for generations.
Bicyclists, campers, climbers, hunters, anglers, hikers, wildlife watchers; those folks bring in just as much “cascading revenue” as any wildcatter, and they’re probably Coloradans, not out-of-state temp workers who are going to cash in and move on. The folks of the San Luis Valley value community as much as they do dollars, and gas industry man-camps don’t have that quality.
Judge Miller’s decision was not a one-sided opinion. Read it. It’s an objective analysis of the pros and cons of the issue and the due diligence of the agencies that are charged with protecting things that matter to people everywhere: clean air, clean water and quality of life, not to mention unique landscapes and sustainability. The only imbalance in this whole affair comes from Lexam, a company with zero experience in responsible drilling, and the political hacks who allowed them to write the government’s approval without any scientific grounding. Case in point: the public still isn’t allowed access to the refuge because officials have not yet drafted a comprehensive management plan. But the Interior officials who approved of the drilling plans determined that the operation would have no significant impact. So, impact fom hikers and birdwatchers; we need to keep studying before we can let them on. Drilling using toxic chemicals through an extremely complex aquifer, no problem. Yeah right!
That contrast pretty much sums up the wisdom of Judge Miller’s decision. Here’s hoping the court makes the preliminary injunction a permanent one.
Comment by cogeo on 7 September 2009:
The oil and gas industry in Colorado, at least, is more aware of environmental issues than ever before, and I consider that they have done a very respectable job on those projects I have been involved in. Are they all operating as well as they should be? Probably not, and those who do not choose to get with the program should be heavily fined. Whether Lexam is a responsible company or not, I have no idea, but I know others who could not only meet any local restrictions but vastly exceed them in order to protect the resource. These are the same companies who go out of their way to become a part of each community they operate in, hire local talent to run field operations, fund wildlife research and move operations to facilitate things like wildlife migration, breeding, and hunting. While I don’t argue that maybe Lexam and a few lobbyists got them access to this land, I also feel that the Interior Department may also be preloaded against the industries who make a profit from the land. It is an age-old conundrum; politics gets in the way of common sense and vice versa. I would also consider that the climate of the time was that energy costs were scaring us to death and the only way to mitigate those costs for all Americans was to open up areas for drilling, some before rightful due diligence was done. It is easy to use our 20/20 hindsight and say this was wrong, but such is life. It seems we are reminded of the past on a nearly daily basis by the new crews in Washington and Denver, and doubtless some of the decisions being made are done so with an eye toward punishing an industry instead of helping America. One thing is very clear and inarguable; America’s politicians, regardless of affiliation, rarely learn from history and rarely get it totally right. The new sport of trashing the extractive industries will cease to be fun when Americans once again look to Washington and their elected officials and ask why their energy bills have once again doubled.
Comment by Susan on 2 January 2010:
Maybe you should look whos behind the environmental group. See the connections. Start with a man named Maurice Strong who is connected to Baca ranch. With that you will find many connects all the way to the Rio Environmental Summit all the way to Copenhagen.
May God intervene.