John Ruple

NEPA, FLPMA, and Impact Reduction: An Empirical Assessment of BLM Resource Management Planning in the Mountain West

This paper reviews Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) completed in conjunction with Resource Management Plan (RMP) revisions completed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Colorado, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming between 2004 and 2014. Based on our review of sixteen EISs for RMP revisions we found that RMP revisions increased application of more protective surface use stipulations by statistically significant amounts without causing a statistically significant change in either the number of jobs created or the pace of oil and gas development. In fact, both the number of jobs created and wells drilled increased slightly despite strengthened environmental protections. We also found that Draft RMP EISs that are completed on an accelerated timeline come with a heightened risk that supplementation will be needed. The delays associated with preparing a Supplemental EIS far outweigh the timesaving associated with fast-tracking DEIS preparation and provide a strong caution against rushing the NEPA process.

NEPA — Substantive Effectiveness Under a Procedural Mandate: Assessment of Oil and Gas EISs in the Mountain West

This paper empirically evaluates whether Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for oil and natural gas field development projects lead to a significant reduction in environmental impacts. Based on our statistical analysis of projects within a four-state region, we conclude that EIS preparation does appear to produce final decisions that are substantially less impactive on the environment when compared to initially proposed projects. Impact reductions occur primarily between the Draft EIS and Final EIS, with minor reductions occurring between the Final EIS and Record of Decision. While reductions may be partially attributable to other legal requirements (such as Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or Endangered Species Act compliance or intervening economic and technological factors), external factors alone do not adequately explain impact reductions. We also found that the number of alternatives considered within an EIS affects the magnitude of impact reduction. EISs that consider a broader range of alternatives are more effective at reducing environmental impacts.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration: A Regulatory Gap Assessment

Though a potentially significant climate change mitigation strategy, carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) remains mired in demonstration and development rather than proceeding to full-scale commercialization. Prior studies have suggested numerous reasons for this stagnation. This Report seeks to empirically assess those claims. Using an anonymous opinion survey completed by over 200 individuals involved in CCS, it concludes that there are four primary barriers to CCS commercialization: (1) cost, (2) lack of a carbon price, (3) liability risks, and (4) lack of a comprehensive regulatory regime. These results largely confirm previous work. They also, however, expose a key barrier that prior studies have overlooked: the need for comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, CCS regulation. The survey data clearly show that the CCS community sees this as one of the most needed incentives for CCS deployment. The community also has a relatively clear idea of what that regulation should entail: a cooperative federalism approach that directly addresses liability concerns and that generally does not upset traditional lines of federal-state authority.

Land and Resource Management Issues Relevant to Deploying In-Situ Thermal Technologies

Utah is home to oil shale resources containing roughly 1.3 trillion barrels of oil equivalent and our nation’s richest oil sands resources. If economically feasible and environmentally responsible means of tapping these resources can be developed, these resources could provide a safe and stable domestic energy source for decades to come. In Utah, oil shale and oil sands resources underlay a patchwork of federal state, private, and tribal lands that are subject to different regulatory schemes and conflicting management objectives. Evaluating the development potential of Utah’s oil shale and oil sands resources requires an understanding of jurisdictional issues and the challenges they present to deployment and efficient utilization of emerging technologies. The jurisdictional patchwork and divergent management requirements inhibit efficient, economic, and environmentally sustainable development. This report examines these barriers to resource development, methods of obtaining access to landlocked resources, and options for consolidating resource ownership. This report also examines recent legislative efforts to wrest control of western public lands from the federal government. If successful, these efforts could dramatically reshape resource control and access, though these efforts appear to fall far short of their stated goals. The unintended consequences of adversarial approaches to obtaining resource access may outweigh their benefits, hardening positions and increasing tensions to the detriment of overall coordination between resource managers. Federal land exchanges represent a more efficient and mutually beneficial means of consolidating management control and improving management efficiency. Independent of exchange proposals, resource managers must improve coordination, moving beyond mere consultation with neighboring landowners and sister agencies to coordinating actions with them.

Water for Commercial Oil Shale Development in Utah: Clarifying How Much Water is Needed and Available

Utah contains an estimated 150 billion barrels of ‘recoverable’ oil trapped in its extensive oil shale formations – enough oil single-handedly to satisfy 100 per cent of the United States’ oil demand for 21 years at current consumption rates. Most authorities assume that commercial oil shale development will require significant quantities of water, a constraining resource in a region that receives, on average, less than nine inches of precipitation annually and where water resources are already over-appropriated. The technical water requirements of commercial oil shale development are poorly understood, but this represents only part of the problem. Utah operates under the prior appropriations system of water allocation whereby the first in time is the first in right. Unanswered legal and political questions create uncertainty regarding the amount of available water within the most geologically prospective area and the rights of competing water appropriators. This article addresses two foundational questions: (1) apportionment of the only major surface water source within the most geologically prospective area between competing users in Colorado and Utah; and (2) the terms and extent of Indian reserved rights.