BLM Otero Mesa Ruling: An Edict, Not a Decision

October 12, 2008

By Dan Townsend

A lot of speculation is out there about the decision of the BLM to permit oil and gas drilling in Otero Mesa. The key point is that the BLM did not make a decision — its managers were presented with an edict. A “decision” implies the weighing of facts, consultation with contending parties, and the courage to defy powerful interests.

A good guess is that the “edict” which determined the outcome (pending the expected investigations and challenges) emerged from one of Vice-President Cheney’s underground bunkers and was propelled down the food chain by compliant sub-Cabinet ideologues to the local BLM office for communication to the media.

Let me explain my reasoning. I attended, and offered testimony, during consideration of the resolution passed by the Las Cruces City Council (”In Support of Permanent Protection of Otero Mesa’s Land, Wildlife and Water Resource from Oil and Gas Drilling” #09-048) August 21, 2008. By coincidence, the Manager of the local BLM Office, Mr. Bill Childress, presented the outline of his mandate to allow drilling during the same testimonial period, and took his seat next to mine in the Council Chamber.

I had referred to, in my remarks, a report by an engineering firm (John Shomaker and Associates, 2004) specializing in subsurface geology . It’s summary, which I reported to the City Council, was that the subsurface geology of the Otero Mesa virtually guarantees that whatever foreign substances injected in the case of oil/gas drilling, or released in the course of extraction of the resource, will mix with the huge fresh water resource present in the Mesa, rendering it useless for economical utilization by thirsty New Mexicans.

On a hunch, I introduced myself to this gentleman, and gave him the summary I cited to read. He related that he had “never heard” of the report. He duly recorded the pertinent data to enable his search for the complete report, and mentioned his plan to read it.

Despite the contents and conclusions of the report, and libraries full of supporting data, the “edict” mentioned above emerges a month later.

What is the “bottom line” regarding Otero Mesa? I have to leave the surface environment issues to those qualified in that area. Water however, in a state and a region in which all water resources have already been allocated, is an area with which I have some layman’s knowledge. Sandia National Laboratories made a study of the Mesa in regard to its water resources and came up with the figure of 57 million acre feet. In terms of the water requirements of, say, the Water Utility of the City of Las Cruces, as an example, (recently 17,000 acre feet per year), this amounts to a water supply with no other inputs sufficient for more than 3000 years. You can imagine that the City of Albuquerque and nearby Alamagordo are desperate to keep this resource available for future needs, not to mention the state as a whole.

Suppose that all data about oil and gas drilling and water contamination have no interest for you. Why then, do you suppose the oil and gas drilling industry spent years, roughly from 1999 to 2005, lobbying furiously for total relief from liability for water and well contamination from their activities (industry exemption from the “Safe Drinking Water Act”)? Current plans to drill Otero Mesa for both oil and gas derive directly from that liability protection, courtesy of the Bush Administration.

A final irony is that the BLM’s “solution” to contamination concerns revolves around a plan to, as much as possible, inject fresh water into wells drilled into the Mesa in the processes of drilling, fracturing, and sustaining yield. Where do you suppose that fresh water will be coming from? According to a press release, dated November 16, 2005, from the office of Senator Pete Domenici, “Estimates indicate that at least 10 barrels of water are used to produce 1 barrel of oil, and that nearly 40% of all water diverted is for energy production”.

Here is a list of the chemicals future consumers of Otero Mesa’s water resource will be faced with in their water, due to both well preparation activities (fracturing) and operation (contaminated well waste): benzene, phenanthrenes, napthalene, 1-methylnapthalene, fluorenes, aromatics, ethylene glycol (automotive anti-freeze), methanol, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene. That is assuming that there will be any water left after BLM’s fresh water injection plan has run its course.

In conclusion: how sensible is it to destroy thousands of years worth of fresh water for the 20 year life of an oil and gas well? How would you decide this question?

Written by admin · Filed Under Environment | Leave a Comment