LITTLE ROCK — A U.S. District Court judge heard arguments Thursday from a conservation group attempting to prevent further mineral leasing and naturalgas exploration in the Ozark National Forest.
The Ozark Society, which promotes conservation in the forest, is seeking a preliminary injunction that would stop the U.S. Bureau of Land Management from allowing any more natural-gas wells in the forest, part of which is in the natural-gas-producing Fayetteville Shale region of north-central Arkansas.
The group filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in October against the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and several administrators for those agencies.
While the lawsuit alleges that the agencies failed to conduct a proper environ- mental-impact study on the effect of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in the forest, the hearing Thursday primarily concerned a 2010 supplemental report to an environmental-impact study conducted in 2005.
Fracking is the process of injecting millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals into a well to extract more oil and gas. The process, coupled with advances in horizontal drilling, has led to increased drilling in geological formations such as the Fayetteville Shale and is sometimes called unconventional drilling.
There are only conventional wells active in the forest, court records show.
According to court records, the 2005 environmental study estimated between 10 and 12 conventional natural-gas wells would go in per year over a 10-year period. There are about 40 currently. However, in 2010 a supplemental report predicted there could be more than 1,700 wells in the forest because of advances in drilling and high natural-gas prices.
The supplemental report fails to examine “the sheer volume of wells, from 10 to 12 to 1,700,” said Ross Noland, an attorney for the Ozark Society. “We contend that the Ozark Society wasn’t allowed to participate in the public comment process” for the supplemental report.
Noland said that not allowing the Ozark Society to participate in the supplemental report caused irreparable damage to the group and the public.
For a preliminary injunction to be granted, the judge has to find there would be irreparable damage if the injunction is not granted. The judge also must consider the likelihood of the Ozark Society succeeding at trial and whether the injunction would serve public interest.
Tyler G. Welti, an attorney for the U.S. Justice Department’s natural-resources division, said the supplemental report doesn’t require public input because it doesn’t authorize any drilling. Instead, he argued, that the report was a prediction of how many wells there potentially could be considering advances in drilling.
“That was a crystal-ball prediction that proved to be wrong,” Welti said.
He added that the Bureau of Land Management hasn’t approved any unconventional wells in the forest and is not currently considering any proposals to allow fracking in the forest.
Indeed, Welti said, the government has said it would not allow fracking until the environmental effects of fracking can be determined. He added that it was within the Ozark Society’s right to pursue the case if drilling was approved, but because it had not, the injunction should not be granted.
Judge Susan Webber Wright asked Noland why the Ozark Society was seeking an injunction even after the government said it was suspending fracking. She said: “They are saying they aren’t going to drill — why do you need me?”
Noland responded that an injunction was needed to prevent the government from changing its mind.
“If the price of natural gas jumped up tomorrow, they could go forward with drilling,” Noland said. “We need the court to determine that the [supplemental report] is not valid and they can’t act on it.”
After hearing arguments, Wright said she needed time to review case law before issuing an order. She did not give a time frame for issuing her ruling.
Business, Pages 25 on 03/02/2012