Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by The_Baron on October 21, 2011 at 9:23

don't even get me started...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on October 21, 2011 at 15:39

In most cases, DU and other organizations get the land and a fund to manage it at the end of the mitigation bank life.  The greater benefit, IMHO, would be in giving organizations like TNC or DU the money and cutting out the middle man.  The bulk of that mitigation credit value goes back to the landowner and the bank backers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on October 21, 2011 at 10:15

Sesport,

I do work related to this - It creates very few jobs relative to the industry, and mostly results in profits for weathly landowners, REITS, and environmental consultants. The reality is that oil and gas gets held to a higher standard than most industries on this issue, and winds up paying to do things forest companies and agricultural landowners can do at will.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on October 21, 2011 at 15:53

Sesport,

 

I have literally put gas well pad sites in recently clearcut forested wetlands, that have been or are planted in monoculture pine plantation, and paid in excess of $15,000 per credit, with more than 3 credits required for the site, plus damages to the landowner.  The $15,000 per credit ends up going about 60% to the original landowner of the bank, 10% to the consultants setting it up, 20% to the money men, and about 10% to the conservation group, plus the mitigation land (eventually).  

I got no problem requiring mitigation, but the push to the banking system away from alternate arrangements means net that conservation groups are getting less of the pie than they otherwise would.  

 

The issue about timber companies or folks doing ag operations not being required to get permits is a different issue.  That said, in terms of wetland impact, its a much greater ongoing  issue than Oil and gas will ever be.  

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mmcf/d on October 22, 2011 at 14:37

Any indications that the companies like CHK have formed or will be forming affiliates?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on October 22, 2011 at 16:36

Certain companies, EG Anadarko, have been fairly proactive in setting up mitigation arrangements.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bacon on October 24, 2011 at 8:31

We looked in to MB's as a way of encouraging pipelines go through a "corridor" instead of wherever they wanted across the property.  It was going to be around $30K to have an environmental consultant come out and do the the study that was required by the ACoE and the whole process could take a few years by the time ACoE, EPA and LA agencies all got on the same page and signed off.  We bailed on it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dbob on October 24, 2011 at 15:33

Sesport

 

Due to economies of scale, bigger is better.  The best credit generation happens by generating "ecological lift" on a site, so ag fields or recently clear cut timber makes the best property.  

The study Baron referred to would assess the site, plan mitigation appropriate to the site, and prepare a prospectus to the USACE.  USACE trots it around to other agencies (EPA, USFWS, TCEQ/LDEQ, etc) to make sure it passes muster, and if so, you can get your vary own mitigation bank.  Oh and you may have to put up financial assurance, do yearly monitoring, and marketing of your credits....  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bacon on October 25, 2011 at 0:09

dbob's response has some of the details. But the stuff like yearly monitoring and marketing the credits yourself seemed to be more trouble than we wanted to get involved with. Nothing like the CRP where you just do it and forget it.  So that and a minimum of 100 acres was suggested (we were originally thinking around 50).  No, we never did figure out a way to herd the pipelines but now they have a lot less options where they can put them so we're probably good.  Environmental engineer would be the occupation involved in putting together the report, not sure what kind of support they could use from locals but certainly worth looking into.

• ▶ Reply