Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Opinion
Nov. 19, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Drill now

Once you've passed through the entrance gate to one of America's magnificent national parks or monuments, what do you see?

Nothin'. In most cases, mile upon mile of nothin'.

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
  • LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
  • LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
  • EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
  • J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
  • EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes
  • LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?
  • EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Letting the looters vote on who's for lunch




    • The sweeping grandeur of the Grand Canyon is not visible from any common entrance point to the national park of that name. Expect to drive several miles before you see the first signs directing you to various hotels and overlooks.

    The traveler does not come upon these scenic wonders immediately, because those who planned these vast impoundments understood the concept of a "buffer zone."

    Yet listen now to the green extremists, complaining that mining or tree-cutting or grazing is "allowed, only one valley away" or "one ridge line away" from a national park or monument.

    On Nov. 4, the BLM announced that on Dec. 19 it will auction the rights to drill for oil or gas on more than 50,000 acres of BLM land close to or adjoining three national parks in Utah: Arches, Dinosaur and Canyonlands.

    "This is a fire sale," shrills Stephen Bloch, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, "the Bush administration's last great gift to the oil and gas industry."

    "We find it shocking and disturbing," says Cordell Troy, chief National Park Service administrator in Utah. "That's 40 tracts within four miles of these parks."

    Read it again. Four miles outside the parks' existing buffer zones.

    Franklin Seal, spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR, contends "If you're standing at Delicate Arch, like thousands of people do every year, and you're looking through the arch, you could see drill pads on the hillside behind it. That's how ridiculous this proposed lease sale is."

    See people earning an honest wage, working to heat our homes and fill our gas tanks ... by using binoculars, perhaps?

    In an era when Americans actually celebrate gasoline prices falling below $3 per gallon -- when this nation needs to develop all its domestic resources to reduce its dependence on foreign oil -- there's nothing "silly" about creating wealth and real jobs by allowing entrepreneurs to risk their own capital developing our nation's resources.

    If the borders of the Arches National Park were not properly drawn to create an adequate buffer, it's odd no one noticed before. In such specific cases, the BLM might certainly compromise on a parcel or two.

    But these protests are like complaining someone "almost broke" the 65 mph speed limit by driving 63 mph, or that they "almost violated" the drinking age by serving beer to a 23-year-old.

    "I'm puzzled the Park Service has been as upset as they are," Selma Sierra, BLM director for the state of Utah, tells The Associated Press. "There are already many parcels leased around the parks."

    Details, details. What does that matter, when there's serious posturing to be done?

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 47 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    bill love wrote on November 20, 2008 07:48 AM: Information to protest to the BLM on drilling next to our national parks is in www.redrockforests.org


    TimeRanger wrote on November 19, 2008 10:29 PM: "I see no one has been able to offer a plausible explanation of why the oil companies are not drilling on the millions of acres of leases they already own where there are known reserves." ~Claudia

    Claudia, they ARE drilling. Just because you can't see the drill rigs working in the Vegas Valley, dosen't mean that they are not looking for oil. Please do a bit of research before wasting so much bandwidth.


    Auslander wrote on November 19, 2008 10:05 PM: National Parks are "impoundments." Wow. Talk about extremism.


    Rob L. wrote on November 19, 2008 08:57 PM: Exxon is you and me my foot wrote: Then why is my 401k being bled so dry I'm probably in the negative Rob?

    Now its just stupidity spewing forth... Could it be that Exxon is NOT the entire economy? Or that even they are down 25% from their highs?


    patrick wrote on November 19, 2008 08:47 PM: More like Exxon is you and my wife; that's why I ain't seen my share of the 30 Billion in profits I guess.


    Exxon is you and me my foot wrote on November 19, 2008 08:34 PM: Then why is my 401k being bled so dry I'm probably in the negative Rob?


    Rob L. wrote on November 19, 2008 05:56 PM: Randy,

    No one is arguing against the need to find alternatives to oil. The exact points you mention will force the world's hand. However, it is not an either/or proposition. Seeing as though the potential for global conflict is increasing and as you mention,it takes 10 years to bring new supply online; wouldn't it be prudent to start working our own reserves until the alternatives are found?

    One more point on the financial side of it... Another thing that is never mentioned by any media outlets, this one included, is that the 4 largest owners of Exxon are institutions who hold assets for retirement and pension funds. Exxon is you and me...


    Randy wrote on November 19, 2008 04:10 PM: ...and now, a sobering assessment of oil brought to you by Director of National Intelligence: Mike McConnell.

    At: 2008 MILCOM Conference & Symposium, San Diego, California, November 17, 2008

    Remarks Relevant to the Energy Resource Situation

    (pg 6): ...Production of oil in most of the countries that produce oil is currently on the decline. We will see a shift away from oil. But most likely, what we will see a shift to is coal and natural gas, unless there is a technological breakthrough that we don’t know about currently. So the pressure across the globe is going to change in the context of competition for natural resources. We’re going to see not only government groups compete for – governments compete for resources – we’re going to see nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and terrorist groups also have something to say about it.


    (pg 5) By and large … the potential for conflict over the next 15 to 20 years is going up not down. That’s because of the competition for resources. That’s because of the explosion in global population. Over the next 15 years, we’ll add another 1.4 billion people. It just so happens that number, 1.4 billion, also coincides with a number of people in 36 countries that will not have access to water – water for drinking or water for agriculture. During this period of time, the price of food will go up 50 percent."

    officeofdnI


    patrick wrote on November 19, 2008 03:13 PM: Geoffrey:

    Although it was a tangential point at best I did not really claim that Exxon "set" the price of oil or gas, however, you really are not seriously arguing that the forces of supply and demand are what drove the price for oil up to $150 a barrel 2 months ago are you?

    Cause if you are, then perhaps you might explain the 66% drop in that price in the last 2 months; did the demand for oil drop 66% in 60 days?

    Of course it didn't, and obviously the factors at work relate more to hedge funds getting out of oil speculation and putting the rest of their money into their pockets.

    There is not a single supply demand explanation for the spike in oil prices; at best world-wide demand even before the hedge funds lost all their gambling money MIGHT have increased 6% year over year, yet the price of oil increased more than 100% during this last year.


    patrick wrote on November 19, 2008 02:46 PM: Rob L.:

    As if.

    Guess how the government calculates how much it should tax Exxon?

    I wonder if it has anything to do with the amount of "profits" it makes?

    Seems like Exxon, and all other American companies, the vast percentage of whom "claim" NOT to have made taxable income last year, MIGHT have a reason for keeping their "real" profits fraudulently low.

    Think?


    Read All Comments