A decision by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to open thousands of acres of public lands abutting national park properties in Utah could be halted by President-elect Barack Obama once he takes office, according to his transition team.
"They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah," John Podesta, who heads the transition team, said Sunday on a Fox network news show. "I think that's a mistake."
It was on Election Day when BLM officials in Utah announced they planned next month to offer 360,000 acres for oil and natural gas leases. Some of the proposed leases lie adjacent to or near Arches National Park, Canyonlands National Park, and Dinosaur National Monument.
Mr. Podesta did not say, however, how the incoming president could reverse any leases auctioned off by the BLM before he takes office.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
I think the term "fondly" is a bit of a stretch for the legacy Georgie Jr. will leave behind. Terms more akin to "with amusement", or maybe "with bewilderment" or "misguided" come to mind, particularly given the debacle that is the middle eastern "war". "Fondly" seems to be the current sentiments pertaining to Alan Greenspan, who "coincidentally" jumped ship at the most opportune moment. Ever consider what HE knew that was kept secret from the American public specific to our economic status?
The current approval rating of Congress must appear as golden to any resident of the State of Illinois who are saddled with a limp weenie of a governor with a single-digit approval rating. Now THAT'S a true accomplishment for ANY democrat in a state that has been a democratic stronghold for about a century! Well done, Rod!!!
Getting back to the title of the thread, please note that the operative word here is HINTS.........more politispeak from your "friends" on The Hill. No substance, just jargon. Nothing that they can be held accoutable for in any way, shape or form. How typical. How sad. "Obama for Change"? I believe not. But only time will bear witness and unveil his legacy. I, for one, refuse to get my hopes up for any manner of true "change", except in the rhetoric he chooses to utter.
Anon: Obviously you only talk the talk and not walk the walk because if you had been in the area you might notice some drilling rigs already. They are so non obtrusive that it is hardly noticed in this wide expanse of beautiful, glorious land.
Cookie, full-field development is not unobtrusive in the least. Just Google "Jonah Field" and take a look at the photos and air quality problems that have arisen in and around Pinedale, Wyoming.
Even partial field development is fairly obtrusive, particularly when you think of all the access roads skittering here and there across the landscape, roads that ORVs will gravitate to.
Cookie, my closest ally that works for the U.S. Forestry Service (forestry ecologist) tells me exactly what Kurt describes...a scarred environment that is indeed very obtrusive.
Don't be an ostrich with your head buried in the sand and take a REAL hard look.
So...I looked at the Jonah Field site...I can't figure out what you see wrong...looks like money and probably smells like money to me! JOBS too! And gee...even perhaps some good clean fuel for our cars!
The real problem here is that those like yourself that pray to the altar of "Gaia" have taken away jobs and have become so radical that you are not even revelant anymore. ANY hint of resource extraction is met with cries of "the sky is falling" and "oh, whine-whine, the earth is dying." I really think that perhaps we oughta start drilling right smack dab in the middle of a park, so that when we do it outside, you'll quit your whinin'!
Do you drive a car? How do you heat your house? Where are you getting your electricity to power the 'puter you are typing on?
Stop the whimperin'!
P.S. Good book just out: "Red Hot Lies" by Chris Horner...ya might wanna read it:
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Alarmists-Misinformed/dp/1596985380
Hi LoneHiker:
just looking at the body of the article about Podesta's remarks, and the headline here of "HINTS," I'd say 'hints' is the right word here, and attacking Kurt's headline seems to me is unwarranted. Or characterizing '"friends" on The Hill' as if he were in some sort of conspiracy. Please be fair, as usually you are.
Doesn't it seem to you that what is going on here with Podesta and the President-Elect is the normal need to raise an issue to public attention, before they decide exactly how to act on that issue? This is, as you must know, an important way to get things said in advance, to avoid paying later for acting without all the info, or info and public understanding.
The Hill democrats pointed out during the campaign that Oil companies had failed to drill in areas they already had leasing rights for, but were instead trying to cherry-pick by opening up Outer Cont. Shelf areas for oil development. Few in the US will understand that since the Reagan-Watt days oil companies have been allowed to cherry-pick on the oil reserves on land. In a break with long standing oil reserves conservation policy to extract the maximum amount of oil from each field, James Watt as secretary of the interior offered large amounts of tracts for lease simultaneously. This allowed companies to obtain leases essentially with no competition on a track-by-track basis, and ALSO allowed the companies to pick only the most profitable track in a specific field, allowing the rest of the oil to be wasted. [unless you go for all the oil at once, the less productive tracts become sub-economic, in the same way that the health insurance of senior citizens becomes hugely expensive if you take seniors out of the general pool for health insurance.] Anyway, the result of all this is under the existing 'system' [when corruption is really enormous, we change its name to "policy"] oil companies get to lock up domestic undeveloped oil fields and hold them until they want to develop them.
Because of the cherry picking, some of these fields may have been ruined for feasible development for years to come. Some, with careful management (including the need to cancel some non-performing leases), may be brought back if and when prices get high enough. Some are too sensitive to develop, because of the other valuable resources in the vicinity, resources that could include water resources or wilderness values.
All government owned oil fields are not in the above category, but as a result of the poor understanding of all this by the Media, few distinctions were drawn in the public mind about what public lands should or should not be open to development.
It makes sense to me that Potesta needs to begin to raise the issue with the public that we need to put together a balanced and thoughtful energy strategy. You must have been around long enough to know this is a critical political skill, not something reprehensible. Even if you completely believe something, in a democracy you have to begin the discussion first with the public. Look how poorly Secretary Babbitt did by just announcing to the public his own personal preferences, rather than building a constituency first. Some of our greatest acts of leadership, such as Lincoln slowly raising the possibility of the emancipation proclamation, or Franklin Roosevelt gradually raising the need to support Britain against the Nazis were conducted this way.
One purpose of discussions such as all of us are having on this blog is to get the complexities out there for consideration, and reconsideration.
Please don't blame Kurt for his "friends" on The Hill. And don't think there is something wrong going on as a government official begins to raise an issue to the public.
Roger, until you know me a little better I'd prefer you not speculate as to whose alter I pray to or what my views are on resource extraction.
There is indeed a "smell" about the Jonah Field, one that Pinedale residents don't particularly enjoy. Jobs indeed are being created, but so is crime, resource destruction, wildlife habitat fragmentation, pollution, and a significant jump in cost of living, one that has made Sublette County the second-most expensive place to live in Wyoming, behind only Teton County.
Local officials report that "Sublette Co. has a smaller and less diverse array of small businesses than it did before the gas boom, and state figures show the number of retail and entertainment businesses and employees declining from 2000-2006, while the food service industry remained stagnant despite boomtown growth. Staffing considerations make starting a small business in Sublette Co. difficult at best. Daycare facilities continue to face long waiting lists and new providers are hard to find due to labor and real estate price considerations. Tourism in Sublette County currently suffers from a lack of lodging options, at least 75% of rooms are booked nightly by industry workers and rooms easily rent for $90 night – in the summer months reservations are often required.
Is this healthy? Should one industry suffocate all others? Socio-economic concerns shouldn't be ignored when it comes to making decisions on where to dig or drill. Indeed, some communities just might prefer a more-rounded, cleaner economy.
All that said, I'm not ignoring the country's need for energy. My point is that what the BLM is trying to accomplish in Utah doesn't seem to be carefully thought out, not when you consider the scant energy reserves that possibly exist and the detrimental impacts to other segments of the regional economy, ie tourism. Beyond that, I would prefer to see just as much, if not more, emphasis placed on development of alternative energy sources. If you interpret that as whining, so be it.
Back at ya d-2:
I wasn't criticizing Kurt for his trailer....which as I see it states that it is none other than Obama's Team, in particular J. Podesta, along with other members of the "organIzation" whose inference it is that the policy / decisions MIGHT be overturned, not Kurt directly. Nor am I suggesting that those responsible for the statements are friends, directly or otherwise of our moderator. I guess my original post should have stated "our", not "your" friends on The Hill. Pardon my literary lapse.
However, I do believe there is a marked difference between publicizing an issue and bringing an issue before the public conscience. One is little more that a blatant form of grandstanding, while the other more generally serves to solicit opinions or motivate those concerned. Again speaking solely for myself, I believe this current ploy to be more the former than the latter. I sense this is the point at which you and I begin to interpret the gist of the issue and the methodolgy used by the administration's representative differently. I'm skeptical of ANY political posturing, but none more so than in the wake of election day, when the spotlights are shining their brightest. Jaded? You bet....guilty as charged. Gullible? Not in the least. I'll take jaded anytime.