ENERGY & LAND Cont.

I've been documenting my running journey, which I plan to update regularly. My outdoor runs are mostly on public lands and trails by the Trinity River in Fort Worth. I am also passionate about hunting, fishing, and I support conservation-focused organizations. Surprised that an oilman cares about the environment? It is possible to be both. In fact, many in the oilfield are passionate about outdoor activities. Likewise, many are farmers and ranchers who rely deeply on the environment, contrary to what North Face believes…https://youtu.be/4lWro0U-iRE?si=RwlDtCLzDiNPMEZl

One aspect of the energy debate that captivates me is land utilization for energy production. For example, most leases in our RHR Oil & Gas portfolio are 20-acre spacing within the University Land System of Texas. In a recent Meateater podcast episode—a show I follow weekly for updates on hunting, fishing, cooking, and conservation—host Steven Rinella featured a guest from the Nature Conservancy, a global nonprofit organization. According to their website, their mission is, “To conserve the lands and waters on which all life depends.”  Their vision: “A world where the diversity of life thrives, and people act to conserve nature for its own sake and its ability to fulfill our needs and enrich our lives.”  Okay, sounds good and I am tracking.  So perhaps I was surprised by the comments from the guest, Brendan Runde.  The following are excerpts taken from episode 538.  I encourage you to listen to the episode to form your own thoughts and opinions. 

Runde: “So right now, the Bureau of Land Management is overseeing something called the Western Solar Plan (2023/2024 Solar Programmatic EIS Information Center (anl.gov))…. opening public land, BLM land, to solar application….which would open 22 million acres of public land for solar application.” 

Rinella then clarifies, “Public hunting ground.  Let’s just call it that.  BLM lands, upon which a variety of recreational…. consumptive and non-consumptive outdoor activities can take place.” 

Runde then quickly pivots about an alternative plan “that would only open 8 million acres to solar application.”  He mentions that this land is already “disturbed” and an area within 10 miles of existing transmission infrastructure.  He then points out that “23 million acres of federal land are currently leased to oil and gas companies. 12 million acres currently producing oil and gas on public land.”

Rinella understands that either way a lot of land is being discussed for energy use.  As he says, “Right, because not only do you have the idea of solar panels covering the ground, but all the roads and infrastructure you have to build is not much different than what’s already being done by fossil fuel operations.”  Ironically, Rinella then asks who the biggest players would be for and against this.  As Rinella goes onto rightfully guess, “It’s got to be a bitter pill for environmental groups who’ve built their careers, who’ve built their organizations on fighting energy development.” Runde then goes onto create a quasi-debate that, “Yeah.  There’s always trade-offs.”  Essentially, that if we are going to use land either way for energy use, why not use the land for energy creation with lower emissions than fossil fuels. 

Rinella then asks a very important question, “A thing that I would explore would be efficiency, meaning energy per unit of space.”  For me, this was a pivotal point of the conversation.  Here is the opportunity to show the science that these 8 million acres would be the most efficient use.  Instead, Runde responds, “Okay.  That’s one way to measure efficiency, sure.  But it’s also about containing the climate crisis…”  Nice dodge.  Rinella then continues to voice his concern, “But my reticence is that we would give up any amount of good functioning, pristine wildlife habitat in exchange for chasing a thing (ending climate change) that I’m not sure we can get.  But I’m sure we’re going to lose habitat in chasing it.” 

The podcast hosts eventually move onto offshore wind turbines.  Rinella is an avid spearfisherman and often uses old, offshore oil rigs as good targets to find fish.  The first federal wind turbines were built off the coast of Virginia in 2020.  The turbines are anchored at a depth of 85 feet.  Each turbine is a six-megawatt wind turbine generators.  That is in comparison to, as he quotes “…on land, your typical wind turbine generator is three and a half megawatts.”  Okay, so offshore turbines are doubling the amount of megawatts.  However, the offshore turbines are “…the pilot or research project for the developer.  They will begin building a commercial scale project this May (2024).  They’re going to be putting 14-megawatt wind turbine generators.  That project will be 176 turbines.  It’s going to power 660,000 homes annually.”  Runde goes onto to share that by 2030, the goal is to have 2,000-2,500 similar turbines in the Atlantic.  The turbines are on 30 or 25-year leases and Runde was unsure what would happen at the end of the lease but believes the goal would be to return the site back to as close to its original state as possible.  Rinella uses the opportunity to point out that the roughly 2,300 oil rig sites in the Gulf “created a fishery….They create so much habitat.  They create all these vertical reefs.”  Will the wind turbines create new areas of habitat? Runde explains that we will have to wait to see.  Rinella then tries to understand the winners and losers in this expansion.  Runde points out that these wind corridors are also strong areas for bird migration patterns and “are likely in places that historically have been migratory pathways for some species.”  Runde explains that they will use as much research as possible to build these turbines with the smallest impact to habitat as possible.  Runde then tries to dispel news that wind turbines were affecting whale populations, basically disorienting them.  Although Runde does not attribute that to the turbines; however, seismic is used when looking to place a turbine.  Runde says, “It’s been speculated that, and I don’t want to add any fuel to this fire.  It’s being speculated that the survey noise could have disrupted the normal activities of the whales that then eventually resulted in a vessel strike.”  An additional interesting fact Runde explained is that turbines shut down at wind speeds of 5 mph and over 55 to 60 mph.  Too slow and the turning of the turbine is not worth the cost, however too fast and the turbine could overheat. 

One last moment from the podcast to mention is that Rinella pushes to see, in the name of climate change, how far are we willing to go?  Rinella: “Would you be like, would anybody say, in pursuit of alternative energy, goodbye Northern right whale?” 

Runde: “…There’s a value judgment to be made when you’re making that statement on which species are more important than others.  That part of this process of the build out of renewable energy is consulting with the people who are best qualified to make those determinations.” 

I strongly recommend listening to the full episode. As an outdoor enthusiast, I found the discussion both enlightening and educational. Additionally, working in the oil and gas sector, it's intriguing to observe how renewable energy is carving itself out in the global landscape. The intent of this post is not to cast aspersions on Runde or the Nature Conservancy, but rather to continue highlighting aspects of the energy debate and the reception by various groups, including hunters, anglers, and conservationists. While I find wind and solar technologies interesting, the notion that there is a one-size-fits-all or perfect energy solution is flawed. As Brendan Runde remarked, "There’s always trade-offs."