more jobs, jobs, J-O-B-S
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/banking-on-shale-gas-to-preser...
Add this to that ...
http://www.res.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SPE-141949paper.pdf
(08
Tags:
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.
Certain companies, EG Anadarko, have been fairly proactive in setting up mitigation arrangements.
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....
68 members
478 members
194 members
11 members
405 members
18 members
250 members
457 members
11 members
388 members
Posted by Char on May 29, 2025 at 14:42 — 4 Comments
© 2026 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by