During the summer of 2008, people living near the Pinedale<\/p>\n
Mesa (sometimes called the Pinedale Anticline) in<\/p>\n
Wyoming were anxiously waiting for the Bureau of Land<\/p>\n
Management (BLM) to issue a decision regarding whether<\/p>\n
Questar and other energy companies would be allowed<\/p>\n
to drill thousands of ugly natural gas wells all over the<\/p>\n
serene wilderness that lay atop the mesa. The Pinedale<\/p>\n
Mesa is a 40-mile-long, 300-square-mile plateau extending<\/p>\n
north and south along the eastern side of Wyoming\u2019s<\/p>\n
Green River Basin, an area that is famous as the gateway to<\/p>\n
the hunting, fishing, and hiking treasures of the Bridger-<\/p>\n
Teton wilderness. The city of Pinedale, which sits below<\/p>\n
the mesa, a short distance from its northern end, was already<\/p>\n
surrounded by hundreds of recently drilled wells<\/p>\n
that ceaselessly pumped natural gas from the vast pockets<\/p>\n
that are buried underneath the region and which are estimated<\/p>\n
to contain 25 trillion cubit feet of gas worth billions<\/p>\n
of dollars.<\/p>\n
Questar Corporation, an energy company with assets<\/p>\n
valued at about $4 billion, is the main developer of the gas<\/p>\n
wells around the city and had already drilled several wells<\/p>\n
up on the mesa that overlooked the city. Occasionally elk,<\/p>\n
mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and other wildlife, including<\/p>\n
the imperiled greater sage grouse, descend from their<\/p>\n
habitats atop the mesa and gingerly pick their way around<\/p>\n
and between the wells Questar drilled around Pinedale.<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, environmentalists were at war with Questar<\/p>\n
and the other energy companies, whose plans to expand<\/p>\n
their operations on the mesa, they claimed, would<\/p>\n
have serious negative effects on the wildlife on the mesa as<\/p>\n
well as on the beauty of the area.<\/p>\n
The federal government\u2019s Bureau of Land Management<\/p>\n
(BLM) was responsible for deciding what was done<\/p>\n
with the acreage on the mesa. Of 198,034 acres on the<\/p>\n
mesa, the federal government owns 158,000, Wyoming<\/p>\n
owns 9,800, and 29,800 are privately owned. In 2000, the BLM had authorized limited drilling on the mesa, but had<\/p>\n
imposed several restrictions that protected wildlife from<\/p>\n
the full impact of the drilling. In 2008, the Bureau was being<\/p>\n
asked by Questar and the other companies who wanted<\/p>\n
to drill on the mesa to remove its limits on drilling by allowing<\/p>\n
more than 4,300 additional wells, as well as to lift<\/p>\n
one of the restrictions that cushioned the drilling\u2019s impact<\/p>\n
on wildlife but had proven very costly to the companies.<\/p>\n
Headquartered in Salt Lake City, Questar Corporation<\/p>\n
drilled its first successful test well on the Pinedale<\/p>\n
Mesa in 1998. Extracting the gas under the mesa was<\/p>\n
not feasible earlier because the gas was trapped in tightly<\/p>\n
packed sandstone that prevented it from flowing to the<\/p>\n
wells and no one knew how to get it out. It was not until<\/p>\n
the mid-1990s that the industry developed techniques<\/p>\n
for fracturing the sandstone and freeing the gas. Full-scale<\/p>\n
drilling had to await the completion of an environmental<\/p>\n
impact statement, which the Bureau of Land Management<\/p>\n
(BLM) finished in mid-2000 when it approved drilling up<\/p>\n
to 900 wells on the federally owned acreage on the Pinedale<\/p>\n
Mesa. By the beginning of 2004, Questar had drilled<\/p>\n
76 wells on the 14,800 acres it leased from the federal government<\/p>\n
and from the state of Wyoming and the company<\/p>\n
had plans to eventually drill at least 400 more wells. Energy<\/p>\n
experts around the country welcomed the new supply<\/p>\n
of natural gas, which, because of its simple molecular<\/p>\n
structure (CH 4 ), burns much more cleanly than any other<\/p>\n
fossil fuels. Moreover, because natural gas is extracted in<\/p>\n
the United States, its use reduces U.S. reliance on foreign<\/p>\n
energy supplies. Businesses in and around Pinedale also<\/p>\n
welcomed the drilling activity, which brought numerous<\/p>\n
benefits, including jobs, increased tax revenues, and<\/p>\n
a booming local economy. Wyoming\u2019s state government<\/p>\n
likewise supported the activity since 60 percent of the state<\/p>\n
budget is based on royalties the state receives from coal,<\/p>\n
gas, and oil operations.<\/p>\n
Questar\u2019s wells on the mesa averaged 13,000 feet<\/p>\n
deep and cost $2.8 to $3.6 million each, depending on<\/p>\n
the amount of fracturing that had to be done. 1 Drilling a<\/p>\n
well typically required clearing and leveling a 2- to 4-acre<\/p>\n
\u201cpad\u201d to support the drilling rig and other equipment.<\/p>\n
One or two wells could be drilled at each pad. Access roads<\/p>\n
had to be run to the pad, and the well had to be connected<\/p>\n
to a network of pipes that drew the gas from the wells and<\/p>\n
carried it to where it could be stored and distributed. Each<\/p>\n
well produced waste liquids that had to be stored in tanks<\/p>\n
at the pad and periodically hauled away on tanker trucks.<\/p>\n
The BLM, however, had imposed a significant restriction<\/p>\n
on Questar\u2019s operations on the mesa. Large<\/p>\n
areas of the mesa provide habitat for mule deer, pronghorn<\/p>\n
sheep, sage grouse, and other species, and the BLM<\/p>\n
imposed drilling rules that were designed to protect this.<\/p>\n
Chief among these species was the sage grouse.<\/p>\n
The sage grouse is a colorful bird that today survives<\/p>\n
only in scattered pockets in 11 states. The grouse, which<\/p>\n
lives at elevations of 4,000 to 9,000 feet and is dependent<\/p>\n
on increasingly rare old-growth sagebrush for food and to<\/p>\n
screen itself from predators, is extremely sensitive to human<\/p>\n
activity. Houses, telephone poles, or fences can draw<\/p>\n
hawks and ravens, which prey on the ground-nesting grouse.<\/p>\n
It is estimated that 200 years ago the birds\u2014known for<\/p>\n
their distinctive spring \u201cstrutting\u201d mating dance\u2014numbered<\/p>\n
2 million and were common across the western<\/p>\n
United States. By the 1970s, their numbers had fallen to<\/p>\n
about 400,000. A study completed in June, 2004 by the<\/p>\n
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies concluded<\/p>\n
that there were only between 140,000 and 250,000<\/p>\n
of the birds left and that \u201cwe are not optimistic about the<\/p>\n
future.\u201d The dramatic decline in their number was blamed<\/p>\n
primarily on the destruction of 50 percent of their sagebrush<\/p>\n
nesting and mating grounds (called leks ), which in<\/p>\n
turn was blamed on livestock grazing, new home construction,<\/p>\n
fires, and the expanding acreage being given over to<\/p>\n
gas drilling and other mining activities. Biologists believe<\/p>\n
that if its sagebrush habitats are not protected, the bird<\/p>\n
will be so reduced in number by 2050 that it will never<\/p>\n
recover. According to Pat Deibert, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife<\/p>\n
Service biologist, \u201cthey need large stands of unbroken<\/p>\n
sagebrush\u201d and anything that breaks up those stands such<\/p>\n
as roads, pipelines, or houses, affects them. 2<\/p>\n
In order to protect the sage grouse, whose last robust<\/p>\n
population had nested for thousands of years on the<\/p>\n
ideal sagebrush fields up on the mesa, the BLM required<\/p>\n
that Questar\u2019s roads, wells, and other structures had to<\/p>\n
be located a quarter mile or more from grouse breeding<\/p>\n
grounds, and at least 2 miles from nesting areas during<\/p>\n
breeding season. Some studies, however, concluded that<\/p>\n
these protections were not sufficient to arrest the decline<\/p>\n
in the grouse population. As wells proliferated in the area,<\/p>\n
they were increasingly taking up land on which the grouse<\/p>\n
foraged and nested and were disturbing the sensitive birds.<\/p>\n
Conservationists said that the BLM should increase the<\/p>\n
quarter-mile buffer areas around the grouse breeding<\/p>\n
grounds to at least 2-mile buffers.<\/p>\n
In May, 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service<\/p>\n
announced that it would begin the process of studying<\/p>\n
whether the sage grouse should be categorized as<\/p>\n
an endangered species, which would bring it under the<\/p>\n
protection of the Endangered Species Act, something conservationists<\/p>\n
had been urging the Service to do since 2000.<\/p>\n
Questar and other gas, oil, and mining companies adamantly<\/p>\n
opposed having the grouse listed as an endangered<\/p>\n
species because once listed, the grouse would make large<\/p>\n
areas of federal land off-limits to drilling, mining, and development.<\/p>\n
Since 80 percent of Wyoming is considered<\/p>\n
sage grouse habitat, including much of the Pinedale Mesa,<\/p>\n
Questar\u2019s drilling plans would be severely compromised.<\/p>\n
ETHICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 299<\/p>\n
Questar and other companies formed a coalition\u2014the<\/p>\n
Partnership for the West\u2014to lobby the Bush administration<\/p>\n
to keep the grouse off the endangered species list. Led<\/p>\n
by Jim Sims, a former communications director for President<\/p>\n
George W. Bush\u2019s Energy Task Force, the coalition<\/p>\n
established a web site where they called on members to<\/p>\n
lobby \u201ckey administration players in Washington\u201d and to<\/p>\n
\u201cunleash grass-roots opposition to a listing, thus providing<\/p>\n
some cover to the political leadership at Department of Interior<\/p>\n
and throughout the administration.\u201d The coalition<\/p>\n
also suggested \u201cfunding scientific studies\u201d that would be<\/p>\n
designed to show that the sage grouse was not endangered.<\/p>\n
According to Sims, the attempt to categorize the grouse as<\/p>\n
an endangered species was spearheaded by \u201cenvironmental<\/p>\n
extremists who have converged on the American West<\/p>\n
in an effort to stop virtually all economic growth and development.<\/p>\n
They want to restrict business and industry at<\/p>\n
every turn. They want to put our Western lands off-limits<\/p>\n
to all of us.\u201d 3 Dru Bower, vice president of the Petroleum<\/p>\n
Association of Wyoming, said, \u201c[endangered species] listings<\/p>\n
are not good for the oil and gas industry, so anything<\/p>\n
we can do to prevent a species from being listed is good<\/p>\n
for the industry. If the sage grouse is listed, it would have<\/p>\n
a dramatic effect on oil and gas development in the state of<\/p>\n
Wyoming.\u201d 4<\/p>\n
The sage grouse was not the only species affected<\/p>\n
by Questar\u2019s drilling operations. The gas fields to which<\/p>\n
Questar wanted additional drilling rights was an area<\/p>\n
8 miles long and 3 miles wide, located on the northern end<\/p>\n
of the mesa. This property was located in the middle of<\/p>\n
the winter range used by mule deer and pronghorn antelope,<\/p>\n
some of which migrate to the mesa area from as far away<\/p>\n
as the Grand Teton National Park, 170 miles to the north.<\/p>\n
Although the mesa was elevated and winters there were<\/p>\n
harsh, it was much lower than the mountains where the<\/p>\n
mule deer and pronghorn antelope lived in spring and<\/p>\n
summer, and the mesa provided large fields of sagebrush<\/p>\n
that fed the animals. Migration studies conducted between<\/p>\n
1998 and 2001 revealed that the pronghorn antelope herds<\/p>\n
make one of the longest annual migrations among North<\/p>\n
American big game animals. The area around Pinedale is<\/p>\n
laced with migration corridors used by thousands of mule<\/p>\n
deer and pronghorn every fall as they make their way south<\/p>\n
to their winter grounds on the mesa and the Green River<\/p>\n
Basin. Traffic on Highway 191 which cuts across some of<\/p>\n
the migration corridors sometimes has to be stopped to<\/p>\n
let bunched-up pronghorn herds pass. 5 Environmentalists<\/p>\n
feared that if the animals were prevented from reaching<\/p>\n
their winter ranges or if the winter ranges became inhospitable,<\/p>\n
the large herds would wither as the animals died off.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, drilling operations create a great deal of<\/p>\n
noise and require the constant movement of many trucks<\/p>\n
and other large machines, all of which can severely impact<\/p>\n
animals during the winter when they are already physically<\/p>\n
stressed and vulnerable due to their low calorie intake.<\/p>\n
Some studies had suggested that even the mere presence<\/p>\n
of humans disturbed the animals and led them to avoid an<\/p>\n
area. Consequently, the BLM required Questar to cease all<\/p>\n
drilling operations on the mesa each winter from November<\/p>\n
15 to May 1. In fact, to protect the animals the BLM prohibited<\/p>\n
all persons, whether on foot or on automobile, from<\/p>\n
venturing into the area during winter. The BLM, however,<\/p>\n
made an exception for Questar trucks and personnel who<\/p>\n
had to continue to haul off liquid wastes from wells that had<\/p>\n
already been drilled and that continued to operate during<\/p>\n
the winter (the winter moratorium prohibited only drilling<\/p>\n
operations, and completed wells were allowed to continue<\/p>\n
to pump gas throughout the year).<\/p>\n
Being forced to stop drilling operations during the<\/p>\n
winter months was extremely frustrating and costly to Questar.<\/p>\n
Drilling crews had to be laid off at the beginning of<\/p>\n
winter, and new crews had to be hired and retrained every<\/p>\n
spring. Every fall the company had to pack up several tons<\/p>\n
of equipment, drilling rigs, and trucks and move them off<\/p>\n
the mesa. Because of the seasonal interruption in its drilling<\/p>\n
schedule, the full development of its oil fields was projected<\/p>\n
to take 18 years, much longer than the company wanted.<\/p>\n
In 2004, Questar submitted a proposal to the Bureau<\/p>\n
of Land Management. Questar proposed to invest in a<\/p>\n
new kind of drilling rig that allowed up to 16 wells to be<\/p>\n
dug from a single pad, instead of the traditional 1 or 2.<\/p>\n
The new technology (called directional drilling ) aimed the<\/p>\n
drill underground at a slanted angle away from the pad,<\/p>\n
so that by placing wells around the perimeter of the pad,<\/p>\n
all at an underground slant leading away from the pad\u2014<\/p>\n
like the outstretched tentacles on an octopus\u2014multiple<\/p>\n
distant locations could be tapped by several wells branching<\/p>\n
out from a single pad. This minimized the surface land<\/p>\n
occupied by the wells: while traditional drilling required<\/p>\n
16 separate 2\u20134 acre pads to support 16 wells, the new<\/p>\n
\u201cdirectional drilling\u201d technology allowed a single pad to<\/p>\n
hold 16 wells. The technology also reduced the number<\/p>\n
of required roadways and distribution pipes since a single<\/p>\n
access road and pipe could now service the same number<\/p>\n
of wells that traditionally required 16 different roads and<\/p>\n
16 different pipes. Questar also proposed that instead of<\/p>\n
carrying liquid wastes away from operating wells on noisy<\/p>\n
tanker trucks, the company would build a second pipe system<\/p>\n
that would pump liquid wastes away automatically.<\/p>\n
These innovations, Questar pointed out, would substantially<\/p>\n
reduce any harmful impact that drilling and pumping<\/p>\n
had on the wildlife inhabiting the mesa. Using the<\/p>\n
new technology for the additional 400 wells the company<\/p>\n
wanted to drill would require 61 pads instead of 150, and<\/p>\n
the pads would occupy 533 acres instead of 1,474.<\/p>\n
The new directional drilling technology added about<\/p>\n
$500,000 to the cost of each well and required investing<\/p>\n
in several new drilling rigs. The added cost for the 400<\/p>\n
300 BUSINESS AND ITS EXTERNAL EXCHANGES: ECOLOGY AND CONSUMERS<\/p>\n
additional wells Questar planned would total $185 million.<\/p>\n
Questar noted, however, that \u201cthe company anticipates<\/p>\n
that it can justify the extra cost if it can drill and complete<\/p>\n
all the wells on a pad in one continuous operation\u201d that<\/p>\n
continued through the winter. 6 If the company was allowed<\/p>\n
to drill continuously through the winter, it would<\/p>\n
be able to finish drilling all its wells in 9 years instead of<\/p>\n
18, thereby almost doubling the company\u2019s revenues from<\/p>\n
the project over those 9 years. This acceleration in its revenues,<\/p>\n
coupled with other savings resulting from putting<\/p>\n
16 wells on each pad, would enable it to justify the added<\/p>\n
costs of directional drilling. In short, the company would<\/p>\n
invest in the new technology that reduced the impact on<\/p>\n
wildlife, but only if it was allowed to drill on the mesa during<\/p>\n
the winter months.<\/p>\n
In addition, Questar had requested that it be allowed to<\/p>\n
increase the number of wells it was allowed to drill on the<\/p>\n
mesa. By now, several other energy companies were trying<\/p>\n
to get permission to drill on the mesa, including Ultra<\/p>\n
Resources, Shell, BP, Stone Energy, Newfield Exploration,<\/p>\n
Yates Petroleum, and Anschutz. Together, the companies<\/p>\n
asked the BLM that they be allowed to drill an additional<\/p>\n
4,399 natural gas wells on the mesa. And all of them were also<\/p>\n
requesting they be allowed to drill through the winter.<\/p>\n
Although environmentalists welcomed Questar\u2019s willingness<\/p>\n
to invest in directional drilling, they strongly opposed<\/p>\n
allowing it or the other companies to operate on the<\/p>\n
mesa during the winter when mule deer and antelope were<\/p>\n
there foraging for food and struggling to survive. The Upper<\/p>\n
Green River Valley Coalition, a coalition of environmental<\/p>\n
groups, issued a statement that read: \u201cThe company should<\/p>\n
be lauded for using directional drilling, but technological<\/p>\n
improvements should not come at the sacrifice of important<\/p>\n
safeguards for Wyomings\u2019s wildlife heritage.\u201d<\/p>\n
In order to allow Questar to test the feasability of<\/p>\n
directional drilling and to study its effects on wintering<\/p>\n
deer herds, the Bureau of Land Management decided to<\/p>\n
let Questar drill wells at a single pad through the winter<\/p>\n
of 2002\u20132003 and again through the winter of 2003\u20132004.<\/p>\n
The Bureau would launch a 5-year study of the impact<\/p>\n
of the drilling which would continue until 2007 (later<\/p>\n
extended beyond 2010). Questar was glad it was at least<\/p>\n
being given the chance to show that drilling through the<\/p>\n
winter was compatible with the wildlife living on the mesa.<\/p>\n
Two of the other companies, Shell and Ultra were also allowed<\/p>\n
to test winter drilling in 2005.<\/p>\n
Before the Bureau made a final decision about<\/p>\n
whether it would approve the companies\u2019 requests to drill<\/p>\n
thousands of additional wells and to drill them through the<\/p>\n
winters, it had to again prepare an environmental impact<\/p>\n
statement, this one called a \u201csupplemental environmental<\/p>\n
impact statement\u201d or SEIS. 7 The Bureau therefore began<\/p>\n
collecting information about the impact of increasing<\/p>\n
the number of wells and allowing year-round drilling. Its<\/p>\n
5-year study of the impact of winter drilling was expanded<\/p>\n
to include on-going monitoring of wildlife on the mesa.<\/p>\n
In a preliminary 2004 report on the results of its study,<\/p>\n
the Bureau of Land Management said that it had found<\/p>\n
\u201cno conclusive data to indicate quantifiable, adverse effects<\/p>\n
to deer\u201d due to drilling. The Bureau was clearly anxious<\/p>\n
to avoid the public dismay that it had created when it had<\/p>\n
first opened up the mesa to drilling by Questar and it was<\/p>\n
trying to be as open as possible. During the winter of<\/p>\n
2005 and the spring of 2006, the Bureau held several open<\/p>\n
meetings at which the public was invited to comment on<\/p>\n
the requests of Quesar and the other companies. In December,<\/p>\n
2006, the Bureau completed the first draft of its<\/p>\n
environmental statement and released it to the public for<\/p>\n
more comments. Based on this additional input, a second<\/p>\n
preliminary draft was issued for public comment in December,<\/p>\n
2007 and the Bureau held additional public meetings<\/p>\n
on the second draft during early 2008.<\/p>\n
Finally, on September 12, 2008, the Bureau issued its<\/p>\n
decision on the requests of the drilling companies, along<\/p>\n
with the final draft of its environmental impact statement.<\/p>\n
Its decision assumed that future drilling would use the new<\/p>\n
drilling technology Quesar had proposed. According to<\/p>\n
the Bureau, it had studied the impact of five main alternative<\/p>\n
decisions it could render: (1) continue to prohibit winter<\/p>\n
drilling and allow no additional wells; (2) allow winter<\/p>\n
drilling and allow 4,399 more wells on a maximum of 600<\/p>\n
drilling pads all located within a large \u201ccore area\u201d in the<\/p>\n
central part of the mesa; (3) allow winter drilling and 4,399<\/p>\n
more wells on a maximum 600 pads plus : confine drilling<\/p>\n
to specific parts of the \u201ccore area\u201d and prohibit drilling or<\/p>\n
disturbance of any areas that were \u201ccrucial winter ranges\u201d<\/p>\n
for mule deer and pronghorn antelope, or mating and<\/p>\n
nesting areas of the sage grouse; (4) allow winter drilling<\/p>\n
and 4,399 wells on 600 pads, confine drilling to parts of<\/p>\n
the core area, prohibit drilling or disturbance of winter<\/p>\n
ranges of mule deer or pronghorn antelope or mating and<\/p>\n
nesting areas of sage grouse, plus: prohibit drilling on the<\/p>\n
thousands of acres (the \u201cflank area\u201d) surrounding the \u201ccore<\/p>\n
area\u201d where drilling was allowed, require annual review of<\/p>\n
wildlife impacts, and require the companies to establish a<\/p>\n
fund (with an initial contribution of $4.2 million and annual<\/p>\n
payments of $7,500 per well) to monitor wildlife and<\/p>\n
to pay for the costs of mitigating any impacts on wildlife<\/p>\n
that monitoring detected; (5) Allow drilling only within<\/p>\n
the \u201ccore area\u201d and prohibit drilling in the area around the<\/p>\n
periphery, but: permit fewer than 4,399 wells and less than<\/p>\n
600 pads and limit the total acreage devoted to wells.<\/p>\n
The BLM admitted that under all alternatives but<\/p>\n
(1), the deer and antelope \u201cwould continue to be adversely<\/p>\n
affected,\u201d and \u201cdecreased habitat\u201d would result for the<\/p>\n
sage grouse. Also \u201csurface disturbance is expected to adversely<\/p>\n
affect migratory birds,\u201d and sediment from drilling<\/p>\n
that entered rivers could lead to \u201cdecreased reproductive<\/p>\n
ETHICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT 301<\/p>\n
success in spring-spawning native salmon species.\u201d Nevertheless,<\/p>\n
the BLM decided to choose alternative (4), saying<\/p>\n
that it provided the best balance between protecting<\/p>\n
the natural environment and allowing access to the natural<\/p>\n
gas that was so valuable to the United States. In its official<\/p>\n
statement of its decision, the BLM added, in an important<\/p>\n
\u201cappendix B,\u201d that if the number of mule deer or antelope<\/p>\n
declined by 15 percent in any one year or from their levels<\/p>\n
in 2005\/2006, or if the number of sage grouse declined<\/p>\n
by 30 percent in any two-year period, then the BLM was<\/p>\n
required, and had the right, to take a number of \u201cmitigation<\/p>\n
responses.\u201d Specifically, the BLM had to first try to<\/p>\n
expand the habitat of the declining species by removing all<\/p>\n
human disturbances from the large \u201cflank area\u201d surrounding<\/p>\n
the \u201ccore\u201d and by enhancing these areas so they could<\/p>\n
provide additional habitat by, for example, planting more<\/p>\n
sagebrush and other edible vegetation. But if this did not<\/p>\n
work, then the BLM could change where wells were allowed<\/p>\n
and how fast new wells could be added, as needed to<\/p>\n
protect wildlife.<\/p>\n
Questar and the other companies were pleased with<\/p>\n
the outcome. They had, essentially, gotten what they had<\/p>\n
asked for, even if there were limits to where they could<\/p>\n
drill their wells. The companies quickly moved into the<\/p>\n
\u201ccore areas\u201d and began building and drilling, and continued<\/p>\n
through the winter of 2009. But on October 28, 2010,<\/p>\n
Western Ecosystems Technology, the group monitoring<\/p>\n
wildlife on the Pinedale Mesa, announced that in 2009<\/p>\n
mule deer on the mesa had declined by 60 percent compared<\/p>\n
to their numbers in 2001, and by 28 percent compared to<\/p>\n
their number in 2005. 8 The Western Ecosystem Technology<\/p>\n
study also found that in 2009 less than 70 percent of<\/p>\n
adult female mule deer survived the winter on the mesa,<\/p>\n
compared to a normal survival rate of 85 percent. A representative<\/p>\n
of Shell, one of the companies drilling on<\/p>\n
the mesa, reacted by saying more research was needed:<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s see what the results are before we start reacting too<\/p>\n
much to what could be naturally caused variation.\u201d But<\/p>\n
a local Bureau official responded that since the decline<\/p>\n
in deer numbers had passed the threshold of 15 percent,<\/p>\n
\u201caggressive and positive action\u201d on mitigation measures<\/p>\n
was required.<\/p>\n
Questions<\/p>\n
1. What are the systemic, corporate, and individual issues<\/p>\n
raised in this case?<\/p>\n
2. How should wildlife species like grouse or deer be valued,<\/p>\n
and how should that value be balanced against<\/p>\n
the economic interests of a society or of a company<\/p>\n
like Questar? What principles or rules would you<\/p>\n
propose we use to balance the value of wildlife species<\/p>\n
against economic interests?<\/p>\n
3. In light of the fact that natural gas reduces the U.S.\u2019s<\/p>\n
undesirable dependence on foreign oil and the fact<\/p>\n
that natural gas produces less greenhouse gases than<\/p>\n
coal, oil, and other fuels, should Questar continue its<\/p>\n
drilling operations? Does the environmental impact<\/p>\n
of Questar\u2019s drilling operations imply that Questar is<\/p>\n
morally obligated to stop drilling wells on the Pinedale<\/p>\n
Mesa? Explain.<\/p>\n
4. What, if anything, should Questar and the other companies<\/p>\n
be doing differently?<\/p>\n
5. From an ethical point of view, was alternative (4) the<\/p>\n
best option among those from which the BLM chose?<\/p>\n
Is another alternative better from an ethical point of<\/p>\n
view? Explain your answer.<\/p>\n
6. Should the loss of species produced by the drilling<\/p>\n
operations of Questar be considered a problem<\/p>\n
of pollution or a problem of conservation? Can the<\/p>\n
loss of species by evaluated as an \u201cexternal cost\u201d?<\/p>\n
Explain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
During the summer of 2008, people living near the Pinedale Mesa (sometimes called the Pinedale Anticline) in Wyoming were anxiously waiting for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to issue a decision regarding whether Questar and other energy companies would Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71941","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.benedictsol.com\/blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}