The BLM considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis alternatives to pursue a withdrawal from appropriations under the mining laws for a large portion of the Planning Area because it found those alternatives to be overly restrictive and not reasonable. By law, an RMP cannot close an area to the operation of the Mining Laws – this can only be accomplished by withdrawal, which is a separate action BLM can recommend but must ultimately be taken at the Secretarial level. Moreover, withdrawing the entire Planning Area would eliminate development in areas where conflicts can be mitigated or where conflicts do not exist. This contradicts BLM policy that except for congressional withdrawals, the public lands should remain open and available unless doing otherwise is clearly in the National interest. Such withdrawals may conflict with the FLPMA’s mandate for multiple use. Withdrawals must be justified in accordance with U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) 603 Departmental Manual and withdrawal regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2300. Withdrawing a large portion of the Planning Area would conflict substantially with the goals and objectives for mineral resources and would require an extensive inventory and evaluation outside the scope of this RMP and EIS of the current natural uses and values of the site and adjacent land, as well as an analysis of how those uses and values would be affected. Valid existing mining claims would be allowed to be developed.
The BLM considered, but eliminated from detailed analysis, suspending or eliminating all existing federal minerals leasing and development operations and cancelling existing oil and gas leases. Under the FLPMA, the BLM must recognize all valid existing rights. The BLM can impose reasonable limits on the manner and pace of development, and the BLM evaluates limits of this type under alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternatives analyzed in detail also evaluate locations in the Planning Area where the BLM would pursue a withdrawal from mineral entry.
Directional wells generally are used to complete zones not directly below the drilling rig. Current technologies, along with large reserves, make it possible in some parts of the world (for example, the Wytch Farm oil field in Dorset, England) to drill to a bottom hole location several miles from the surface location.
In the Planning Area, circumstances might result in the need to drill a directional and/or horizontal well. Those circumstances could include, but are not limited to, the following:
Adverse geologic and topographical features.
The need to access more of the mineral resource.
A high density of cultural and historic material requiring in-depth testing and excavation.
National Historic Trails (NHTs) and Other Historic Trails viewshed considerations.
Avoid critical habitats of threatened, endangered, or other special status species.
To develop leases with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) restriction.
BLM considered an alternative that would require directional and/or horizontal drilling of all oil and gas wells in the Planning Area. The BLM eliminated that alternative from further consideration and detailed analysis for the following reasons:
The BLM retains the authority to require directional and/or horizontal drilling or pad drilling on a site-specific basis within all alternatives.
The risk of losing the borehole due to technical drilling difficulties is higher for directional and/or horizontal wells than for vertical wells. In addition, directional and/or horizontal drilling technology requires precise control of target locations in three dimensions. In exploratory areas this information is usually not available. A requirement to drill directional and/or horizontal wells under these conditions would result in additional drilling costs, the loss of some wellbores, and more uneconomical wells drilled. Therefore, it is generally preferable not to drill these types of wells unless concerns such as those listed above make this option necessary.
Drilling and completion costs for directional and/or horizontal boreholes are higher than for conventional vertical boreholes and can substantially reduce a well’s economic viability. Eustes (2003) identified these additional costs. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring directional and/or horizontal boreholes would need to be assessed well by well. In some circumstances, the potential for increased productivity of directional and/or horizontal boreholes can offset their additional drilling costs and risks, making these types of boreholes the preferable drilling option.
Some of the oil and gas reservoirs now being developed in the Planning Area are multiple, vertically stacked, and discontinuous sandstones. These reservoirs are not good candidates for horizontal completion practices because their geology is such that a horizontal borehole might contact only one of the productive horizons, while a vertical borehole might be able to contact multiple horizons (depending on factors such as how the well is completed and the areal extent of the pool). A mandate requiring horizontal drilling would make many of these wells uneconomical to drill.
Experience and improved efficiency have caused the additional costs attributed to directional drilling and/or horizontal drilling to decrease. However, exclusive use of directional and/or horizontal drilling is not always necessary and could result in wells not being drilled and reserves not being recovered. This does not meet either the Nation’s energy needs or result in the maximum ultimate recovery of the oil and gas resources with minimum waste, as required by regulation (43 CFR 3161.2).
The BLM considered a request to remove all stipulations and restrictions from oil and gas leases. This alternative is unreasonable because it conflicts with the FLPMA Section 102(8) mandate to manage the public lands to protect resource values. The BLM’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. This includes encouraging the use of sound resource management practices to restore and maintain land conditions. The BLM assesses and monitors resource conditions and trends and considers the best available information to either maintain or improve the health of the land to fulfill this mandate. Removing all stipulations and restrictions from oil and gas leases would impair the BLM’s ability to fulfill its mission by eliminating its primary tool for managing potential effects from oil and gas development on public lands; such an alternative is, therefore, not feasible. For these reasons, the BLM eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis.
The BLM considered an alternative that would regulate the rate of oil and gas development in the Planning Area, but determined that the holders of federal oil and gas leases have the right to develop those leases on the schedules they deem appropriate within regulatory limits. Federal regulations at 43 CFR 3160.1-2 state that “the lessee shall have the right to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, and dispose of all the leased resource in a leasehold …” The 43 CFR 3160 regulations also require lessees to attain maximum economic recovery of the leased resource and to conduct their operations in a manner that prevents undue and unnecessary damage to the environment. It is not possible at the RMP or leasing stages to determine whether a lease would actually be developed, or what well spacing or level of development would be necessary to achieve maximum economic recovery. Well spacing can vary from development area to development area, with some well fields efficiently developed at 1 well per square mile while others require up to 128 wells per square mile. Given the wide range of potential well spacing, the pace of development a lessee must maintain to meet the regulatory requirement of maximum economic recovery also greatly varies. Setting reduced or limited rates of development is more appropriately analyzed in project-/wellfield-specific NEPA documents; therefore, the BLM eliminated this alternative from detailed analysis.
The BLM considered an alternative of phased leasing, especially along areas where conflict with other resources are anticipated to occur, such as bentonite and gypsum mine development or wildlife habitat. The BLM found this alternative unreasonable as 48 percent of the Planning Area is leased or non BLM-administered minerals. The scattered ownership pattern in the Bighorn Basin lends itself to drainage, and the BLM has responsibility to address drainage issues. Leasing is a discretionary action therefore the right to phase leases is retained under all alternatives.
The BLM considered closing the Planning Area to new leasing of federal minerals, specifically oil and gas, as a method to resolve conflicts with other resource values and uses. The federal mineral estate in much of the Planning Area has already been leased (approximately 960,000 acres), and large portions of the area are developed (BLM 2008a). Although conflicts between oil and gas leasing and other resource values and uses do occur, closing the entire Planning Area to new oil and gas leasing would eliminate development and production activities in areas where conflicts can be effectively mitigated or where there would be no conflicts. The purpose of this RMP revision project is to ensure that public lands are managed according to the principles of multiple use identified in FLPMA while maintaining the valid existing rights and other obligations already established to address the changing needs of the Planning Area and resource conflicts. This alternative, while it may address conflicts, does not address the purpose of meeting the changing needs of the Planning Area. This alternative would eliminate development and production in areas where conflicts can be mitigated or where conflicts do not exist, which contradicts FLPMA Section 102(8) that the public lands should be available unless doing otherwise is clearly in the National interest. Public scoping comments indicate a growing level of concern with the rate and scale of oil and gas leasing and development in the Planning Area. Alternatives analyzed in detail address making portions of the Planning Area unavailable for oil and gas leasing in response to other identified resource needs.
The BLM considered requiring reinjection of all produced water. Under this alternative all produced water from both new and existing sources would be required to be captured and re-injected into an underground stratum. The BLM considered this alternative, but eliminated it from detailed analysis for several reasons, including responding to issues such as potential impacts to aquifers, soils, and the quantity and quality of surface water in and downstream of produced water discharges. The feasibility of an all reinjection alternative is unreasonable as produced water from numerous oil and gas fields in the Planning Area has been authorized in the past and such authorizations remain valid. Further, not all stratum are of a type or quality that would permit reinjection. Requiring such reinjection of produced waters wholesale would also be outside of BLM’s regulatory authority because all water in the state of Wyoming is owned by the state, and discharge of produced water is therefore under the jurisdiction of the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Wyoming State Engineer’s Office, and/or the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) WY-2005-14 addresses water disposal and land application. Under Alternative B, the BLM did analyze a management action prohibiting the authorization of new activities resulting in the surface discharge of produced water on BLM-administered land.