Comparing responsible and irresponsible approaches to conservation negotiations
DENVER—Rugged Rocky Mountain wilderness, a petroleum company poised to drill, and a consortium of concerned community members with an offer to buy back the leases. This is the stage that was set for the Wyoming Range in 2009 and is currently being played out in Colorado’s Thompson Divide. Also, it is the focus of the Center for Western Priorities’ new comparison that examines the path forward for the Thompson Divide.
The key difference between the Wyoming Range and the Thompson Divide is that in Wyoming, the petroleum industry, the government, and the community acted responsibly to reach an agreement that benefited all parties. In Colorado, the government has been virtually absent and industry has been dismissive, both refusing to learn from the groundbreaking example laid out just four years prior.
Business owners and residents whose livelihoods and quality of life are tied to the Thompson Divide’s integrity are attempting to prevent drilling in the area by offering oil and gas companies fair market price for their leases. Thus far, industry has rejected these offers, or ignored them outright, choosing instead to proceed with operations that will destroy pristine wilderness, jeopardize local economies, and endanger habitats.
“Mistakes were clearly made in allowing oil and gas leases in the Thompson Divide,” said Greg Zimmerman, Policy Director at the Center for Western Priorities. “As we saw with the Wyoming Range, there is a right way to handle this situation through negotiations and consensus building. Government and industry should head this example.”
The comparison takes a cursory look at the situation in the Thompson Divide and the events that allowed the Wyoming Range agreement to succeed.
This is the third installment of CWP’s Right Way, Wrong Way series, which showcases examples of responsible and irresponsible energy development on Western public lands.
(Feature photo: Ken Lund, Flickr)