We have now all witnessed the true anti-development nature of several environmental groups, including the Northern Plains Resource Council (NPRC). NPRC, along with seven sister organizations, recently filed lawsuits to stop coalbed natural gas production in Montana. They did so by suing the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) decisions.

Clearly, the lawsuits were written long before the BLM released its decision, since they were filed literally within hours of BLM's announcement. Seemingly, the legal challenge was ready to go regardless of the content of the decision since no one could have thoroughly studied the document in the few hours before the lawsuits were filed.

Montanans may want to ask, "Who loses?" Surprisingly enough, companies like Fidelity Exploration & Production Company aren't the big losers. We can produce natural gas in any number of states and Canada. We would, however, like to produce energy in Montana because we come from a corporation with deep roots here.

Other companies are watching what we're going through to do business in Montana. Here is a sad fact: While they admire our fortitude, they are very hesitant to do business in the Big Sky State.

The person who stands to lose more in this never-ending scenario is the third-grader in the rural school that can't afford the latest computer hardware and software. People who stand to lose are the residents of the economically challenged counties that can't afford to maintain and upgrade their emergency vehicles. The people who lose the most are the ordinary citizens who benefit from county services supported, in part, by tax revenues from energy development.

Yet, I can hear the anti-development folks saying, "But, we're just trying to preserve the environment." Well, we are too. Let's review the public research process that demonstrates that coalbed natural gas production and a healthful environment can co-exist.

The initial environmental review of coalbed natural gas production began with an Environmental Analysis in 1997 and ramped up to a full EIS in 2000. All through this very open process, comments were solicited from the public, including NPRC. The final EIS incorporates several revisions from suggestions made by the public, including refinements to the air and water quality requirements. It also reflects close coordination with Native American tribes, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Wyoming BLM.

Throughout this process, I was disappointed that the anti-development folks failed to accurately portray what this EIS is supposed to do. The EIS created a "programmatic" document. Thus, it documents the "programs" the agencies will use to regulate the coalbed natural gas development (That's in addition to - and in concert with - the dozens of state and federal environmental laws and regulations already in place).

This EIS is but one of the multiple layers of regulation that make certain development is accomplished in a responsible manner. Before development proceeds, the BLM and the state must conduct additional project-specific environmental reviews and create appropriate mitigation measures before approving activities involving surface disturbance. In essence, the EIS is not the "end" of the environmental review process, it is just the beginning.

Look at the level of review reinforced by the EIS:

• Prior to permit approval, operators must submit a detailed Project Plan of Development (POD) to the BLM.
• The POD must include - among other things - a reclamation plan, a surface use plan, a wildlife monitoring plan, a water management plan, and certification that the developers have agreements with the surface owners.
• The water management plan must demonstrate how the operators' water management system will comply with all federal and state water quality laws.
• The surface owner agreement must include an agreement protecting the surface owners' water wells and springs.

The environmental process is absolutely necessary. We support it and we take seriously our obligation to work through that process safely and intelligently. Yet it needs to have a forward progression. Each step must have a conclusion. Delay tactics that are thinly veiled efforts to stop development don't benefit the people of Montana, the environment, the tax base, or the state's business climate.

It's time to question the motives of those groups that choose to obstruct legitimate development. There is much at stake here. And those who stand to lose the most are the citizens of Montana. At the same time, Montanans also stand to gain the most from responsible development.

Bruce Williams
Vice President of Operations
Fidelity Exploration & Production Company