Obviously the whole thing is pointless then as far as finding more anyway.

Time to just start really going alternative…and let the O & G stay down there. ( it creates more problems getting the crap than it’s worth from a total quality of life standpoint ).

That simple.

One other interesting point: Most or all of the area that was deferred had been leased back in the 70s and 80s.

While we can certainly point the finger at the BLM for denying these protests, we could also point one at FS for making the decision to have this area available for oil and gas development in the first place.

My point is, very many parcels are protested every BLM lease sale. Every single parcel was blanket protested this May by Western Environmental Law Center based on BLM not analyzing effects on climate change. Another party protested for a reason similar to the example Marty provided: “We are property owners living in the area where the oil and gas lease is selling. We both hunt, fish, film and watch the wildlife continuously.” I’m not arguing that these might not be very legitimate reasons to not lease an area. In fact, I think BLM needs to defer more parcels, especially in areas critical to wildlife. What I’m saying is that if BLM were to not lease every parcel that was protested, there would be very few new leases. Everybody has a problem when you’re leasing next to them or on a piece of land they enjoy. It’s classical NIMBY-ism.

No more new leasing on public land might be a good thing, and I could definitely help make that argument. However, IMHO, we can’t end the conversation there. We must take it to the next step and ask “well then how will we meet our energy needs?” There are obviously tradeoffs involved, and it frustrates me sometimes when someone advocates “no development” (or taking a serious chunk out of energy production) without a counter proposal on how to fill that gap.

I’m confused? How does selling land in the Rio Grande National Forest (Dept. of Agriculture) morph into Bureau of Land Management (Interior Dept.) sale of oil and gas leases. I think Forest Service and BLM are two entirely separate entities. Maybe you were just referring to two different happenings but it seems confusing when you mix apples with oranges, in the same short article.

I have to agree with Niko that the BLM has shown precious little concern for local communities in leasing decisions and lease provisions.

However, it does seem a bit hyperbolic to assert that domestic energy production would suddenly end if the BLM did their job right.

I would like to add bit of perspective about the magnitude of the BLM’s Minerals Management Service.

The total receipts pulled in for royalties, bonuses, and rentals amounted to less than $15 per citizen of this country.

For a comparison, that $15 won’t go a long way toward covering the $300 tax rebates we are getting right now.

The Sublette proper deal is recognized…everyone is ignoring the fact that several of the neighboring ( even 2 or 3 counties over ) counties to the NE, E and SE will have high O3 also due to Thermal Carry.

Weather in the USA moves West to East. suffer hive

Perhaps no more gas drilling until some of the skies clear would be a good thing.