BLM land being leased to big oil.

[Matt Kline]

Since 2007 our favorite BLM state has been Utah. We had a rude awakening in September when we drove six miles up a dirt road to to a great spot on a lake, only to find it posted by Pacific Energy. Every primitive camping spot had a new PE sign.
There were no lease signs where we left the paved road, only the normal BLM sign.
WTF is going on? Well, it seems that big oil is leasing thousands of public land acres for pennies per acre. My son in law is a land man. In Texas he has paid owners as much as $5,000 per acre for a lease. Our bankrupt government is leasing OUR BLM land for a pittance.
Although I am no Trump guy, he can't be blamed. This started under Obama.
Does anyone know what we can do to fight this?
If we can't fight it, could we at least demand they tear down the BLM signs so we don't drive for miles down a bumpy, dusty, dirt road only to find spots where we have camped for years posted.
my e-mail is mjkvsk@gmail.com if anyone wants a private discussion on this. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I sure would like to raise some hell. At the nearest BLM office a sympathetic lady told me there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. Great democracy!!!

[Ray Eklund]

Hi Matt. I do not believe because the BLM has leased acreage for potential petroleum exploration, that you are banned from using it. It does not become private property. I have camped in areas with oil pumps and tanks in western Kansas and SW Colorado.

Much like a National Grassland lease for cattle grazing does not exclude you from camping there.

If you would give more information, even I am curious. Pacific Energy, I find, also quarries rock and stone. It is all public information and can be found on some searches. There was even an email address you could contact directly with the company.

With more information we can follow up and find out what is up. Utah is 65% Federal Land
of 34,202,920 acres from a Google search.

[snow]

We camp quite often on BLM land in Utah, so I am curious as to where your spot is located.
-Dave

[Thalweg]

Hi Matt,

I work for the BLM, and my primary duties are related to oil and gas. So I've got a lot of experience with these issues.

First of all, the operator (Pacific Energy) doesn't lease the land. The have a lease on the energy reserves in the ground. They pay a lot for those leases, and by law, they must be provided access to develop those resources. Usually they acquire a Right Of Way for access. They also pay the federal government royalties on all minerals they extract. Every project goes through an analysis of some sort in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the public always has an opportunity to comment on the project, either on an individual well, or on a larger project as a whole. The BLM is required by law to respond to those comments. The problem is that some of these projects take many years to get to the drilling phase, so the NEPA could have been done years ago. If you're really interested, you can go to the Field Office that manages the area and they will show you the NEPA documents. As part of the NEPA, the BLM considers all relevant issues, including air and water quality, wildlife and vegetation impacts, socio-economics and recreation, among many other things. BLM managed land is designated by law to be available for multiple uses; mineral development, recreation, grazing, etc. It is sometimes very difficult to balance one resource over the other, but we do our best. We do consider the comments. If we had a proposed well that generated a lot of comments about camping, we would do our best to work with the operator to mitigate those concerns. If it is any consolation, most of these large oil wells (I'm assuming this is an oil development) get cut back significantly after the drilling and completion phase is complete. Unless it is posted otherwise, you are not precluded from camping in the area as long as you're a safe distance away. Personally, I would stay away from the immediate area while drilling is underway for safety and noise concerns. In a year or two, things should be a little better, though when in an oil and gas area, always keep an eye out for signs warning of hydrogen sulfide. And, if you see a flare (fire at the top of pipe) stay upwind. Flares can sometimes precipitate sulfer dioxide downwind. It will cause burning skin. I would highly recommend talking to the Field Office about camping in the area. They'll know if it is safe or not.

None of this has anything to do with Presidents Trump or Obama. The laws that drive these issues are much older than that. Sometimes lands/minerals available for lease change a bit per administration, but honestly, the driving factor is usually economics. Operators frequently hold onto leases for many years, only choosing to develop them when economic conditions suggest that they can make money on the project. These developments are crazy expensive.

[billrector]

Originally Posted by Matt Kline

Since 2007 our favorite BLM state has been Utah. We had a rude awakening in September when we drove six miles up a dirt road to to a great spot on a lake, only to find it posted by Pacific Energy. Every primitive camping spot had a new PE sign.
There were no lease signs where we left the paved road, only the normal BLM sign.
WTF is going on? Well, it seems that big oil is leasing thousands of public land acres for pennies per acre. My son in law is a land man. In Texas he has paid owners as much as $5,000 per acre for a lease. Our bankrupt government is leasing OUR BLM land for a pittance.
Although I am no Trump guy, he can't be blamed. This started under Obama.
Does anyone know what we can do to fight this?
If we can't fight it, could we at least demand they tear down the BLM signs so we don't drive for miles down a bumpy, dusty, dirt road only to find spots where we have camped for years posted.
my e-mail is mjkvsk@gmail.com if anyone wants a private discussion on this. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I sure would like to raise some hell. At the nearest BLM office a sympathetic lady told me there doesn't seem to be anything we can do about it. Great democracy!!!

Where did you get your information that the lease was "pennies per acre"? I'd like to see the source.

[Matt Kline]

The signs at EVERY site say, "No overnight camping. Day use only."
This was on RT. 18 between Beryl Junction and St. George UT

[billrector]

Originally Posted by Matt Kline

On Rt. 18 between Beryl Junction and St. George. The signs say, "No overnight camping. Day use only."

The only lake I see on Rt. 18 between those two towns is the Baker Dam Recreation Area. Is that the area you are referencing?

Again, how did you reach the conclusion that this land was leased for pennies per acre?

[Dexterpix]

Are you sure the land you were on was BLM land? There are many pieces of private property interwoven within the lands owned by the government. It is not always clearly marked. depending on the private owner and the current use of the land.

Joe D

[Thalweg]

If the land in question is BLM managed, restricting camping in areas also requires a NEPA action. This could have been done through the Field Office's Resource Management Plan (RMP) or through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or Environmental Assessment (EA), all of which would have been open to public comment, and will be available at the Field Office (FO). They are most likely available on-line, but those can be difficult to find. I'd just contact the FO.

Closures like this are never done without good reason. Usually that is a safety issue or resource damage. Contact the FO. They will be happy to discuss it with you.

[xrvr]

My google search found 1.50dollars per acre for up to 2500 acres total. 250 million acres are mngt by blm, these leases are for 50 thousand acres total. A small amt. If i understand the govt article correctly.

[eubank]

There is considerable variation in rates for mineral leases.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...e-federal-lan/

I can't speak to companies keeping private citizens off the leased lands. I can speak to ranchers doing the same. It was pretty common to find no traspassing signs pop up on leased BLM ranching lands in western Colorado. Something about those lands being used to some ranch or another forever and ever, hence defacto ownership and the presumed right to put up the signs. Whole business riled up a lot of the sportspeople groups (hunters, fishers). This was all several decades ago.

Lynn

[Thalweg]

Originally Posted by eubank

There is considerable variation in rates for mineral leases.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...e-federal-lan/

I can't speak to companies keeping private citizens off the leased lands. I can speak to ranchers doing the same. It was pretty common to find no traspassing signs pop up on leased BLM ranching lands in western Colorado. Something about those lands being used to some ranch or another forever and ever, hence defacto ownership and the presumed right to put up the signs. Whole business riled up a lot of the sportspeople groups (hunters, fishers). This was all several decades ago.

Lynn

It is not uncommon for grazing lessees to put up signs like this, but it is in fact illegal. They have no right to do that, and BLM law enforcement can handle it if they are made aware of it. However, land owners can restrict access across their private land that may be needed to access the BLM.

I have no idea about the lease prices, however they are actually most likely a Right Of Way (ROW). That allows an entity the right to use federal surface. It does not preclude other uses. I do know that the prices are set in law, and it literally takes an act of congress to change them. That is not easy since congress has other priorities. A few years ago there was an effort to increase grazing lease prices, and holy-canoly did that ever raise a stink.

[Mollysdad]

I cringed at the term "BLM land". I assume you're all referring to Public land?
Out west, some states are almost all public land. Nevada, for instance. (84.9%) Utah (66.5%) Is it not in the public interest to take some of those millions of acres and use them to generate revenue? That's money YOU don't have to supplement.

BTW, a judge just threw out the case against the Bundys, because the BLM violated the law by intentionally withholding information from the defense.

[Lumatic]

Originally Posted by Ray Eklund

H
I have camped in areas with oil pumps and tanks in western Kansas and SW Colorado.

Much like a National Grassland lease for cattle grazing does not exclude you from camping there.

I often camp at Angel Peak near Bloomfield NM on BLM land on the way to Utah. Nice campground on the rim of a canyon. It is surrounded by oil/ gas rigs. Never had a problem camping there.

[Lumatic]

Originally Posted by Mollysdad

I cringed at the term "BLM land". I assume you're all referring to Public land?

Other than National Parks and Monuments, state land and Indian land what other kind of public land is there besides BLM? Looking at most maps all I see other than private land is BLM. The keyword here is public.

[windfallsp]

Thanks, Thalweg, for your informative reply.

[Mike G]

I worked in the oil & gas industry for 38 years, and I learned that when someone uses the term "Big Oil", their analysis is not going to be fair & impartial. Having said that, I, too, have concerns about access to federal lands, the recent developments in Utah being a prime example. I've been to a state park in Texas with numerous operating pumpjacks, and while it's interesting, it sure doesn't add to the nature experience!

A guy that grazes on federal land without paying the grazing fees ends up a folk hero, but big, bad oil is persona non grata. Anyway, the oil industry gets a bad rap. We just have to deal with our federal lands in a balanced fashion, whatever the industry involved.

[billrector]

Agree, I thought the same thing. Using the term “big oil” and making an unsupported statement like “leasing for pennies per acre” implied a biased agenda.

[Boxite]

Originally Posted by Mike G

I worked in the oil & gas industry for 38 years, and I learned that when someone uses the term "Big Oil", their analysis is not going to be fair & impartial. Having said that, I, too, have concerns about access to federal lands, the recent developments in Utah being a prime example. I've been to a state park in Texas with numerous operating pumpjacks, and while it's interesting, it sure doesn't add to the nature experience!

A guy that grazes on federal land without paying the grazing fees ends up a folk hero, but big, bad oil is persona non grata. Anyway, the oil industry gets a bad rap. We just have to deal with our federal lands in a balanced fashion, whatever the industry involved.

Originally Posted by billrector

Agree, I thought the same thing. Using the term “big oil” and making an unsupported statement like “leasing for pennies per acre” implied a biased agenda.

Yes. It's a sad thing when people jump to conclusions and fail to feel properly sorry for oil companies.

[Fred L]

Originally Posted by billrector

Agree, I thought the same thing. Using the term “big oil” and making an unsupported statement like “leasing for pennies per acre” implied a biased agenda.

Same take I had on the original post.

My second thought was that without all the big bad oil companies, I wouldn't be able to pull up to a pump to fill my TV to get there in the first place.

All good.