I’d like to reiterate some points I made at a meeting of the Las Cruces City Council on August 18 where I argued that a resolution to close federal lands to potential oil and gas development on Otero Mesa is not needed.
The Bureau of Land Management agrees that Otero Mesa contains natural resources that must be protected. Our resource management plan will protect them while allowing an extremely limited amount of potential oil and gas development on the Mesa.
The resolution passed, but information presented the resolution’s proponents did not tell the whole story about Otero Mesa.
Our plan covers 2.1 million acres of public lands in Otero and Sierra Counties, which includes Otero Mesa in southern Otero County. The BLM established a limit of 1,589 acres of short-term and 860 acres long-term disturbance on this 2 million-acre area.
Based on the fact that both state and federal oil and gas lease owners are letting their 5- and 10-year leases expire, we don’t believe these meager limits will ever be reached. Both BLM and the state have about 13,000 acres under lease for potential oil and gas development on the Mesa, down from over 50,000 acres each.
Our plan’s threshold for disturbance totals less than one-tenth of one percent of the public lands in the area. The proponents of the resolution want a total ban.
Where’s the balance?
In areas where drilling is allowed on public lands, we have strict reclamation requirements that require all disturbed areas to be successfully reclaimed with mature, germinating native grasses and other native plants. The BLM also requires strict measures to protect groundwater. Multiple strings of steel casing (pipes) and cementing are required during drilling. Cement protects the steel casing and provides additional barriers to isolate different formations. In addition, we require operators to use fresh water during drilling operations so there is no potential for drilling fluids to degrade fresh water zones.
Which leads me to a question. Is this great debate over Otero Mesa really about ‘saving’ the Mesa? I think that ideology is trumping facts, and the level of resources devoted to the debate is way out of proportion to the reality of the situation.
Let me close by reaffirming the BLM’s commitment to environmentally responsible development of all potential sources of energy, including solar, wind and geothermal on public lands – where it’s appropriate. The Las Cruces District has applications for eight projects for developing solar power on public lands, covering a total of 57,000 acres.
One proposal would remove 24,000 acres of land for development of a large solar collecting, power-generating facility. The BLM will closely examine the impacts of each proposal, as we do for oil and gas development. It’s important to note that when it comes to impacts from any kind of energy development, there’s no free lunch.
Energy development on public lands is not new. It’s been congressionally mandated for more than a century. What is new, however, is the technology to leave a smaller footprint on the land; the know-how to produce oil, gas and other sources of energy while protecting natural resources.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide information on the BLM’s management of public lands on Otero Mesa. I believe the BLM is taking the right course.
>