Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    55

    Moab Land Use and the blm

    BLM is starting the process of opening up leases to the oil and gas industry.

    I started a thread here-----http://forums.mtbr.com/general-discussion/moab-public-lands-blm-778910.html

    Trying to spread the word.

    Thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    273
    and?
    I need more information before I go on a proper e-rant. I'm not going to get upset just because they opened up a lease. I bet whatever they do, it won't be as bad as the east coaster's that live with the illusion that Southern Utah is some kind of untouchable, fragile temple think it will be.

    I love southern Utah, probably more than you, it's been an important part of my life since I was 5 years old, but I am also capable of reasonable thought processes.

  3. #3
    Paste eater
    Reputation: Jwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,413
    You think drilling for oil in places like Moab is a positive action for our future?

  4. #4
    NMBP
    Reputation: crashtestdummy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,049
    Quote Originally Posted by KThaxton View Post
    and?
    I need more information before I go on a proper e-rant. I'm not going to get upset just because they opened up a lease. I bet whatever they do, it won't be as bad as the east coaster's that live with the illusion that Southern Utah is some kind of untouchable, fragile temple think it will be.
    As opposed to the ultra conservatives that think the state should be bulldozed flat and sold to Canadian mineral companies?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind View Post
    You think drilling for oil in places like Moab is a positive action for our future?
    Define "our" future.
    Monte
    Lodging & Guiding for SW Utah Trails
    http://www.vrbo.com/298759
    www.UtahMountainBikingAdventures.com
    MTBR Discounts

  6. #6
    Paste eater
    Reputation: Jwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by STT GUY View Post
    Define "our" future.
    Tearing apart Moab (and many other places for that matter) is short sited. Yes, it *may* help alleviate "high" gas prices. However, time spent on alternative, and more importantly, sustainable, energy is a better use of time and resources.

    And ya, it would be a total ecological disaster. Not to mention I live here and I don't want it in my backyard. If that means higher gas prices, so be it.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind View Post
    Tearing apart Moab (and many other places for that matter) is short sited. Yes, it *may* help alleviate "high" gas prices. However, time spent on alternative, and more importantly, sustainable, energy is a better use of time and resources.

    And ya, it would be a total ecological disaster. Not to mention I live here and I don't want it in my backyard. If that means higher gas prices, so be it.
    No one wants it in "their" backyard. It's called NIMBY. That's a great mantra to adopt but some questions first if I may. Do you drive a vehicle that uses fossil fuel? Does your home/apartment have electricity (it's natural gas or coal that provides the heat to make steam to spin the turbines that power the generators......maybe a little hydro tossed in).

    So if you walk or ride a bike everywhere and do not use electricity and if you do not consume goods (you know like food, the bike you ride, the place you live in, the clothes you wear, etc...etc..etc...) that require shipping via fossil fueled powered vehicles or electricity to manufacture, harvest or transport then lead the charge. Otherwise you are part of the reason they are looking to extract natural gas in Moab.
    Monte
    Lodging & Guiding for SW Utah Trails
    http://www.vrbo.com/298759
    www.UtahMountainBikingAdventures.com
    MTBR Discounts

  8. #8
    zombie freerider
    Reputation: SaddleRags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    152
    you're right SST, only those who have stripped every semblance of modern consumerism and living with any sort of generated power can possibly lead the charge and comment on how to improve things!

  9. #9
    Paste eater
    Reputation: Jwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,413
    Quote Originally Posted by SaddleRags View Post
    you're right SST, only those who have stripped every semblance of modern consumerism and living with any sort of generated power can possibly lead the charge and comment on how to improve things!
    Well that's just not true...

    I'm fully aware of our dependancies on fossil fuels and I'm no different. Doesn't mean I have to like it. Also doesn't mean there can't be a bit of discretion or as I mention above, more agressive action in terms of alternative and sustainable energy. No?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,771
    Quote Originally Posted by SaddleRags View Post
    you're right SST, only those who have stripped every semblance of modern consumerism and living with any sort of generated power can possibly lead the charge and comment on how to improve things!
    I'm betting you're being a bit sarcastic, but his comments focus around HIS not wanting it in HIS backyard. Everyone wants steak,...... well than you gotta kill some cows. The OP didn't hint at improvement, he just pretty much *****ed about NIMBY.

    My problem is we all pretty benefit from the extraction of natural resources from our public lands but tend to get butthurt when said extraction draws too near to us. Thats an unsustainable model.

    I'm a realist and try to lower my energy use, my home is uber insulated and we have ground-based geothermal heating and cooling so my energy bill for a 2300 sq-ft home here is SW Utah averages $125 a month (paid for itself in a tad over 4 years..try to get that from solar) but I drive places and consume goods and services that need fosil fuels to manufacture and deliver to market so I'm part of the problem as well.
    Monte
    Lodging & Guiding for SW Utah Trails
    http://www.vrbo.com/298759
    www.UtahMountainBikingAdventures.com
    MTBR Discounts

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind View Post
    You think drilling for oil in places like Moab is a positive action for our future?
    First of all, one must drill for oil and gas where it is to be found!

    As to the specific question, it depends on where they drill. Do you know where they intend to drill? because I didn't see it. I'm not going to get all worked up without that info, and I'm certainly not going to freak out like the OP intends assuming since it's hip to be green that everyone would hop on board and be outraged.

    As opposed to the ultra conservatives that think the state should be bulldozed flat and sold to Canadian mineral companies?
    I love it when people exaggerate and take something to the extreme to make their point. I have a name for my kids when they do this, I call it being a "drama queen".

    Nobody intends to bulldoze the entire state, that is just stupid and shows your lack of understanding of reality.

    Tearing apart Moab (and many other places for that matter) is short sited.
    "Tearing apart Moab"? See above, drama queen. It was gas on oil drilling and mining that created the bulk of the trails we now enjoy for recreation. Was Moab torn apart in the 50's?

    However, time spent on alternative, and more importantly, sustainable, energy is a better use of time and resources.
    That sounds all nice and lovely, but the hard truth is we're going to have to use diversified forms of energy for a long time now. Perhaps 1000's of windmills in Moab is your preference?

    And ya, it would be a total ecological disaster.
    Holes in the ground will not cause a "total ecological disaster".

    Not to mention I live here and I don't want it in my backyard. If that means higher gas prices, so be it.
    Did you decide a huge pile of radioactive mine tailings were acceptable when you moved there?

  12. #12
    zombie freerider
    Reputation: SaddleRags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    152
    Looks like the OP stirred up some strong opinions, perhaps we're blessed to have a shill from the oil industry in this thread?

    Sorry, I should have put a sarcastic emodicon on my earlier post. Obviously being a being a bit facetious. It reminds me of the people who say "if you don't like ______ (status quo in question) then move out" - a ridiculous argument in any situation.

    Seems to me like the OP just wants people to be aware of what's going on... Maybe we should wait until we know exactly where every hole is going before we talk about it. (wink) Then of course we should wait to talk about it then since no one really knows exactly what impact a silly little hole will have, right? (wink)

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    263
    Quote Originally Posted by KThaxton View Post
    First of all, one must drill for oil and gas where it is to be found!

    As to the specific question, it depends on where they drill. Do you know where they intend to drill? because I didn't see it. I'm not going to get all worked up without that info, and I'm certainly not going to freak out like the OP intends assuming since it's hip to be green that everyone would hop on board and be outraged.



    I love it when people exaggerate and take something to the extreme to make their point. I have a name for my kids when they do this, I call it being a "drama queen".

    Nobody intends to bulldoze the entire state, that is just stupid and shows your lack of understanding of reality.



    "Tearing apart Moab"? See above, drama queen. It was gas on oil drilling and mining that created the bulk of the trails we now enjoy for recreation. Was Moab torn apart in the 50's?



    That sounds all nice and lovely, but the hard truth is we're going to have to use diversified forms of energy for a long time now. Perhaps 1000's of windmills in Moab is your preference?



    Holes in the ground will not cause a "total ecological disaster".



    Did you decide a huge pile of radioactive mine tailings were acceptable when you moved there?
    Good retort to the previous "chicken little" posts.

    When people hear the words "oil", "drilling", or "mining", rationalism gets replaced with sensationalism.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by Jwind View Post
    Tearing apart Moab (and many other places for that matter) is short sited. Yes, it *may* help alleviate "high" gas prices. However, time spent on alternative, and more importantly, sustainable, energy is a better use of time and resources.

    And ya, it would be a total ecological disaster. Not to mention I live here and I don't want it in my backyard. If that means higher gas prices, so be it.
    Oh Jeez. It's not like they are going right into Arches NP and setting up a strip mine. Drilling is pretty non intrusive on the landscape actually,(especially compared to windmills) and those places are more likely to remain open to mountain bikes with better access than if they were 'protected'(aka closed) the way the environmentalists want.

    If you know it's history, drilling and mining etc. has been in Moab since the very beginning and the place is no worse for wear.

    Yup it's time for people to grow up about this.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by SaddleRags View Post
    Seems to me like the OP just wants people to be aware of what's going on... )
    That is all I was doing. I feel as taxpayers we have a right to know what the government is planning to do with our public lands. We have that right to show our support either for or against it.

    I work in the electric generation industry, so believe me I understand that while green energy is great thing, its not going to take the place of fossil fuels anytime soon. Drilling and mining is still needed, but I believe a balance can be struck with land users.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by SaddleRags View Post
    Looks like the OP stirred up some strong opinions, perhaps we're blessed to have a shill from the oil industry in this thread?

    Seems to me like the OP just wants people to be aware of what's going on... Maybe we should wait until we know exactly where every hole is going before we talk about it. (wink) Then of course we should wait to talk about it then since no one really knows exactly what impact a silly little hole will have, right? (wink)

    Perhaps it's my own predisposition as someone who supports multiple land use that gives me my vigor for these issues. I grow tired of the hipness of being green that the mere mention of anything that appears to be not so green gets people fired up. The first post has a patina of "I assume everyone should be outraged by this", again, perhaps its my own predisposition.

    It seems that many of the people I have come across that are ridiculously green, are usually misinformed and also fall for the sensationalism mentioned above. It's also frustrating that many of these people think they are doing their part for the environment by getting angry and talking about it on the internet. Or, like the dread-locked SUWA weirdos that stood with folded arms staring at me and my group driving our dune buggies (street legal) on the trail through Muddy Creek the last season it was open, as if they were the bouncers. I sooooo wanted stop and tell them how I probably do more for the environment in a 8 hour work day than they do in a whole season of guarding the trails......'cuz I'm a Environmental, Health and Safety manager for an aerospace gear and transmission manufacturer.

  17. #17
    Paste eater
    Reputation: Jwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,413
    Well, differences of opinion I guess. Like Heisman, I do believe there is a balance to be struck. I care not for a political debate here as those never end well. So, this is the point in the story I depart.

    P.S. & FYI

    -The area being considered is 783,000 acres of public lands (South of I-70 right on down to Monticello)
    http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial.../MLP%20Map.pdf

    A lot of info here:
    BLM Announces Preparation of Master Leasing Plan and Plan Amendments to the Moab and Monticello Resource Management Plans

    And plenty more with a few minutes with google.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    273
    There are many, many areas on that map that I would be just fine with drilling, others I'd prefer not. In a perfect world, it would be really cool if we didn't have to drill anywhere, but we actually live in reality.

    Ever spent much time in the area directly south of I-70? They could drill there and not "tear up Moab" nor "bulldoze the whole state".

  19. #19
    Bored Carp
    Reputation: chuky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,519
    Wow, this thread fell apart into useless diatribes almost instantly, despite the lack of loaded phrasing in the OP. Name-calling is especially effective from either side. The good news is that people prone to screeds tend to come across the same way in any letter they manage to write to the BLM.

    Heisman - thanks for the heads up, I hope a few folks take the time to look at the leases and see how they might affect the local area. Moab has a long history of extractive industries and a short history of evaluating long term effects. Some projects have come and gone with few long term problems, but not all of them. It would be nice to avoid another version of UMTRA 20 years down the road. This is why public commentary is important. Compared to the Talisker moves in the Wasatch, this process is pretty upright.

    A well needs an access road, a few buildings and a couple of acres of ground that inevitably get flattened by vehicles driving around on it, etc. They need to be looked at by the public before they get the go-ahead for that, but I don't think it is impossible to fit some wells into the landscape. There are good and bad examples up on Dead Horse, for anyone that wants to see the physical footprint.

    Personally, I find the noise pollution to be significant and oft unconsidered. In unobstructed desert, you can hear the low bass of a well w/in couple mile radius. With several, the noise becomes fairly oppressive - it is just at that level where you can feel the bass as well as hear it. I evaluate these projects based on whether or not they will render favorite camping areas unpleasant in addition to impact on significant natural sites.
    I only attempt to change the world in the appropriate World-Changing venues and forums.

  20. #20
    Bike Snob
    Reputation: can't get right's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,230
    Here is the straight poop.

    When the BLM says that they are doing a master plan, that means that they have probably had applications made in some or all of the area to be considered. They therefore will study all the negative and positive affects of the actions. The BLM takes their jobs pretty seriously and careful, conscientious use of the land under their control seems to be the highest priority. This is a very long process and a total PITA to any applicant.
    What you may or may not find funny, is that it is the same process for renewable energy development.

    BTW, on the map provided by the honorable Jwind, all the blue squares are State Trust Land and not subject to BLM.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tystevens's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,536
    Quote Originally Posted by KThaxton View Post
    Ever spent much time in the area directly south of I-70? They could drill there and not "tear up Moab" nor "bulldoze the whole state".
    Or about 95% of the land between I70 and Montecello, for that matter!

    I'm all for a collaborative process that ensures drilling in the least invasive (yet productive) spots, which accounts for other reasonable uses of the area (including riding mtbs), and in my experience, that is what is typically done.
    '11 Specialized Enduro Expert for the trails
    '13 Felt Z4 for the road

  22. #22
    NOT Team Sanchez
    Reputation: wasea04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,966
    A balance, as mentioned a few times above, between human needs and environmental responsibility is the only viable answer. We can't all live in wicki-ups! One thing I know I really don't like is the SUWA's treatment of local ranchers who have been in the area for 150 years.

    Oh, and I just remembered these people, the SUWA, are the same that want to drain Lake Powell; nice call, it's only the main water source for a few million people
    I like bikes.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,735
    This is the gist of what I posted in the Passion forum on Screampint's thread. It was more wrt uranium but the Leasing Game applies to oil and gas as well.

    This is just my opinion and I'm no expert in the industry but as a geologist I'd be seriously surprised to see much more uranium mining in the Colorado Plateau area in the near future. The big boom a couple of years ago was more a powerplay between existing companies and start ups to show new claims or previously existing claims were worth something to their outside investors with the increasing value of ore. But prices would really have to go through the roof to make mining for uranium on the Col. Plateau profitable. The Grand Canyon area is in a bit more peril because there are very high, but extremely localized sources in the form of breccia pipes. Currently, underground leaching in WY is the hot spot for uranium in the US.

    Oil and gas might be a bigger deal but it's still rather limited in the Moab area. The wells are located over the anticlines (Porcupine Rim and Kane Springs are the closest) which are partially a result of large salt and evaporite deposits at depth from Pennsylvanian time. But at that time the conditions in the Paradox Basin were not really conducive to jungles of vegetation that would later become hydrocarbons so again it's not really a big hotspot. But as our supplies dwindle Moab is not immune to scrutiny and exploration by extractive industries.

    When these issues come up I think folks need to remember how they got to Moab in the first place. It's got to come from somewhere. Personally, I'm not convinced that petroleum or natural gas extraction is any better than uranium. I'd rather see isolated well pads that large mines in the area. I guess it's debatable whether adits and tailings piles are the bigger eye sore. Anyhow, if drilling is going to happen hopefully recreation interests are also sitting at the table. And keep in mind the whole leasing thing is partly a game.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    273
    Logic, and reason. I like it.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thor Lord of Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    296
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    This is the gist of what I posted in the Passion forum on Screampint's thread. It was more wrt uranium but the Leasing Game applies to oil and gas as well.

    This is just my opinion and I'm no expert in the industry but as a geologist I'd be seriously surprised to see much more uranium mining in the Colorado Plateau area in the near future. The big boom a couple of years ago was more a powerplay between existing companies and start ups to show new claims or previously existing claims were worth something to their outside investors with the increasing value of ore. But prices would really have to go through the roof to make mining for uranium on the Col. Plateau profitable. The Grand Canyon area is in a bit more peril because there are very high, but extremely localized sources in the form of breccia pipes. Currently, underground leaching in WY is the hot spot for uranium in the US.

    Oil and gas might be a bigger deal but it's still rather limited in the Moab area. The wells are located over the anticlines (Porcupine Rim and Kane Springs are the closest) which are partially a result of large salt and evaporite deposits at depth from Pennsylvanian time. But at that time the conditions in the Paradox Basin were not really conducive to jungles of vegetation that would later become hydrocarbons so again it's not really a big hotspot. But as our supplies dwindle Moab is not immune to scrutiny and exploration by extractive industries.

    When these issues come up I think folks need to remember how they got to Moab in the first place. It's got to come from somewhere. Personally, I'm not convinced that petroleum or natural gas extraction is any better than uranium. I'd rather see isolated well pads that large mines in the area. I guess it's debatable whether adits and tailings piles are the bigger eye sore. Anyhow, if drilling is going to happen hopefully recreation interests are also sitting at the table. And keep in mind the whole leasing thing is partly a game.
    +1.

    And remember, don't bust the crust.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •