http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~154~1839541,00.html

Article Published: Friday, December 19, 2003


penelope purdy
Oil ire on public lands
By Penelope Purdy


In quiet corners of public land across the West, an angry fight roils over
energy development.

A few weeks ago, the Senate killed an energy bill that would have erased
important protections for wildlife and pristine lands. But next month, voters
can expect another push for environmental rollbacks when Congress reconvenes.

Of course, the nation should develop its energy resources - but most federal
land already is open to mineral development, according to the Bush
administration's own studies. The few federal holdings that are off-limits
include national parks and wilderness areas.

Yet the Bush administration came close to allowing energy exploration in one
national park. The plan to permit oil exploration in Arches National Park in
Utah raised a public outcry, so the Bush team backed off. It's not the only
time the extreme position was the one staked out by the Bush administration and
the oil industry.

In Western Colorado, the magnificent Roan Plateau harbors thundering waterfalls
and important wildlife habitat. Much of it already is open to oil and gas
drilling. But local residents so cherish the remaining pristine areas and
vistas that every town council in Garfield County asked the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management to not allow drill rigs on the plateau's top. After all, the Bush
administration pledged to listen to local concerns. However, that promise may
apply only when local governments want more development, not less.

Officially, the BLM hasn't said whether it will permit oil rigs atop one of
Western Colorado's most visible landmarks, but the bureau reportedly is under
enormous pressure from higher-ups to do so.

In southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, more than 20,000 drill rigs
have spouted, another 12,000 are planned, and more than 3 million acres of
federal, state and private lands have been leased. Conservationists asked the
U.S. Forest Service to leave just 40,000 acres of old-growth forests
undisturbed. Resources under the HD Mountains could be reached by placing rigs
outside the pristine area and having them drill at an angle. It's unclear if
the feds will accept the compromise.

Federal agencies require oil companies to not drill on elk calving grounds in
the season the young animals are born. But one oil man told Congress that such
wildlife restrictions should be revoked.

The public lands issue voters have heard most about is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, a pristine swath of tundra in northern Alaska. But the claim
that Alaska's North Slope is "locked up" is wrong. West of the refuge is the
Prudhoe Bay oil field and another area designated as a national petroleum
reserve.

The real reason the industry wants into the Arctic refuge was revealed by Texas
congressman Tom Delay, the House majority leader. During the energy bill
debate, Delay told the GOP caucus that if oil drilling is permitted in the
refuge, it would be far easier to open other sensitive federal lands to energy
development, too.

The Arctic refuge issue also should be seen in context of Alaskan politics -
and the disproportionate influence that the state's small delegation wields on
Capitol Hill. Alaska is one of many states facing budget woes because of past
poor policy decisions. But as has happened in Colorado and California, Alaska's
politicians haven't mustered the courage to make changes needed to fix the
problems. Rather than come up with creative economic development programs,
politicians have told voters the only way to revive Alaska's economy is to
drill in the refuge.

It's not true, of course. Alaska's economy isn't moribund, and it enjoys better
business and population growth than some states. Its tourism industry, for
example, thrives thanks to vast national parks, forests and other federal
lands.

What Alaska needs, say economists in the state, is to diversify its economic
base. But instead of enacting policies that create a broad, stable business
environment, Alaska recently gave big tax breaks to the oil business. So now,
other industries likely will have to pick up the slack. That's exactly opposite
of what the state should be doing, economists have said. But to make up for the
state's nonsensical economic policies, Alaska's congressional delegation wants
to fling open to oil rigs one of our nation's most fragile wildlife refuges.

Clearly, the extremist position is not the environmental one.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~154~1839541,00.html

Article Published: Friday, December 19, 2003


penelope purdy
Oil ire on public lands
By Penelope Purdy


In quiet corners of public land across the West, an angry fight roils over
energy development.

A few weeks ago, the Senate killed an energy bill that would have erased
important protections for wildlife and pristine lands. But next month, voters
can expect another push for environmental rollbacks when Congress reconvenes.

Of course, the nation should develop its energy resources - but most federal
land already is open to mineral development, according to the Bush
administration's own studies. The few federal holdings that are off-limits
include national parks and wilderness areas.

Yet the Bush administration came close to allowing energy exploration in one
national park. The plan to permit oil exploration in Arches National Park in
Utah raised a public outcry, so the Bush team backed off. It's not the only
time the extreme position was the one staked out by the Bush administration and
the oil industry.

In Western Colorado, the magnificent Roan Plateau harbors thundering waterfalls
and important wildlife habitat. Much of it already is open to oil and gas
drilling. But local residents so cherish the remaining pristine areas and
vistas that every town council in Garfield County asked the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management to not allow drill rigs on the plateau's top. After all, the Bush
administration pledged to listen to local concerns. However, that promise may
apply only when local governments want more development, not less.

Officially, the BLM hasn't said whether it will permit oil rigs atop one of
Western Colorado's most visible landmarks, but the bureau reportedly is under
enormous pressure from higher-ups to do so.

In southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, more than 20,000 drill rigs
have spouted, another 12,000 are planned, and more than 3 million acres of
federal, state and private lands have been leased. Conservationists asked the
U.S. Forest Service to leave just 40,000 acres of old-growth forests
undisturbed. Resources under the HD Mountains could be reached by placing rigs
outside the pristine area and having them drill at an angle. It's unclear if
the feds will accept the compromise.

Federal agencies require oil companies to not drill on elk calving grounds in
the season the young animals are born. But one oil man told Congress that such
wildlife restrictions should be revoked.

The public lands issue voters have heard most about is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, a pristine swath of tundra in northern Alaska. But the claim
that Alaska's North Slope is "locked up" is wrong. West of the refuge is the
Prudhoe Bay oil field and another area designated as a national petroleum
reserve.

The real reason the industry wants into the Arctic refuge was revealed by Texas
congressman Tom Delay, the House majority leader. During the energy bill
debate, Delay told the GOP caucus that if oil drilling is permitted in the
refuge, it would be far easier to open other sensitive federal lands to energy
development, too.

The Arctic refuge issue also should be seen in context of Alaskan politics -
and the disproportionate influence that the state's small delegation wields on
Capitol Hill. Alaska is one of many states facing budget woes because of past
poor policy decisions. But as has happened in Colorado and California, Alaska's
politicians haven't mustered the courage to make changes needed to fix the
problems. Rather than come up with creative economic development programs,
politicians have told voters the only way to revive Alaska's economy is to
drill in the refuge.

It's not true, of course. Alaska's economy isn't moribund, and it enjoys better
business and population growth than some states. Its tourism industry, for
example, thrives thanks to vast national parks, forests and other federal
lands.

What Alaska needs, say economists in the state, is to diversify its economic
base. But instead of enacting policies that create a broad, stable business
environment, Alaska recently gave big tax breaks to the oil business. So now,
other industries likely will have to pick up the slack. That's exactly opposite
of what the state should be doing, economists have said. But to make up for the
state's nonsensical economic policies, Alaska's congressional delegation wants
to fling open to oil rigs one of our nation's most fragile wildlife refuges.

Clearly, the extremist position is not the environmental one.

aozotorp@aol.com (Aozotorp) wrote in message
news:<20031219095349.19959.00000577@mb-m01.aol.com>...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~154~1839541,00.html

Article Published: Friday, December 19, 2003


penelope purdy
Oil ire on public lands
By Penelope Purdy


In quiet corners of public land across the West, an angry fight roils over
energy development.

A few weeks ago, the Senate killed an energy bill that would have erased
important protections for wildlife and pristine lands. But next month,
voters
can expect another push for environmental rollbacks when Congress
reconvenes.

Of course, the nation should develop its energy resources - but most
federal
land already is open to mineral development, according to the Bush
administration's own studies. The few federal holdings that are off-limits
include national parks and wilderness areas.

Yet the Bush administration came close to allowing energy exploration in
one
national park. The plan to permit oil exploration in Arches National Park
in
Utah raised a public outcry, so the Bush team backed off. It's not the only
time the extreme position was the one staked out by the Bush administration
and
the oil industry.

In Western Colorado, the magnificent Roan Plateau harbors thundering
waterfalls
and important wildlife habitat. Much of it already is open to oil and gas
drilling. But local residents so cherish the remaining pristine areas and
vistas that every town council in Garfield County asked the U.S. Bureau of
Land
Management to not allow drill rigs on the plateau's top. After all, the
Bush
administration pledged to listen to local concerns. However, that promise
may
apply only when local governments want more development, not less.

Officially, the BLM hasn't said whether it will permit oil rigs atop one of
Western Colorado's most visible landmarks, but the bureau reportedly is
under
enormous pressure from higher-ups to do so.

In southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico, more than 20,000 drill rigs
have spouted, another 12,000 are planned, and more than 3 million acres of
federal, state and private lands have been leased. Conservationists asked
the
U.S. Forest Service to leave just 40,000 acres of old-growth forests
undisturbed. Resources under the HD Mountains could be reached by placing
rigs
outside the pristine area and having them drill at an angle. It's unclear
if
the feds will accept the compromise.

Federal agencies require oil companies to not drill on elk calving grounds
in
the season the young animals are born. But one oil man told Congress that
such
wildlife restrictions should be revoked.

The public lands issue voters have heard most about is the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, a pristine swath of tundra in northern Alaska. But the
claim
that Alaska's North Slope is "locked up" is wrong. West of the refuge is
the
Prudhoe Bay oil field and another area designated as a national petroleum
reserve.

The real reason the industry wants into the Arctic refuge was revealed by
Texas
congressman Tom Delay, the House majority leader. During the energy bill
debate, Delay told the GOP caucus that if oil drilling is permitted in the
refuge, it would be far easier to open other sensitive federal lands to
energy
development, too.

The Arctic refuge issue also should be seen in context of Alaskan politics
-
and the disproportionate influence that the state's small delegation wields
on
Capitol Hill. Alaska is one of many states facing budget woes because of
past
poor policy decisions. But as has happened in Colorado and California,
Alaska's
politicians haven't mustered the courage to make changes needed to fix the
problems. Rather than come up with creative economic development programs,
politicians have told voters the only way to revive Alaska's economy is to
drill in the refuge.

It's not true, of course. Alaska's economy isn't moribund, and it enjoys
better
business and population growth than some states. Its tourism industry, for
example, thrives thanks to vast national parks, forests and other federal
lands.

What Alaska needs, say economists in the state, is to diversify its
economic
base. But instead of enacting policies that create a broad, stable business
environment, Alaska recently gave big tax breaks to the oil business. So
now,
other industries likely will have to pick up the slack. That's exactly
opposite
of what the state should be doing, economists have said. But to make up for
the
state's nonsensical economic policies, Alaska's congressional delegation
wants
to fling open to oil rigs one of our nation's most fragile wildlife
refuges.

Clearly, the extremist position is not the environmental one.


20,000 drill rigs have "spouted"? Huh? The total rig count in the US
is only about 450. Maybe they mean there are 20,000 producing wells,
and they almost never "spout". Having worked on drill rigs in the
area in question and seen many places where wells were plugged and
abandoned, I can assure you that when a site is non-producing, these
days it is difficult to tell a rig was ever there. Even producing
wells are difficult to see in many cases since the wellhead can be
very inobtrusive. I've seen just about every type of weird problem
while drilling and rarely saw noticeable environmental damage, even
after an uncontrolled blowout.