[yew]

Energy production is a hot current issue on federal lands especially since 2001 and even more so since Hurricane Katrina last fall and insurgent sabotage of the oil infrastructure in Iraq, disruptions to oil production in Nigeria, and rhetoric from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. In order to "boost domestic production" the Bureau of Land Management and US Forest Service has been ordered by the Administration and Congress to expand and expedite oil and gas drilling and develop energy resources like oil shale. Massive oil shale development will have profound consequences for wildlife, water, plants and scenery on federal lands in western Colorado and Utah where tar shales are abundant. http://www.suwa.org/library/oil-shale_special-lands.pdf is a map of where oil shale is with Wilderness Areas, proposed Wilderness Areas, Roadless Areas, etc.. Here are some articles. http://www.bellinghamherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060630/BUSINESS/606300337/1001/NEWS "House Passes Oil Shale Bill". http://chriscannon.house.gov/Press_2005/april21.htm says "The U.S. holds more than 60 percent of the world’s oil shale resources, of which 1.5 trillion barrels of oil are recoverable. The oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming underlie a total area of 16,500 square miles, and the Federal Government owns an average of 72 percent of the acreage." What a curse on those states. http://www.postindependent.com/article/20060203/VALLEYNEWS/102030025 is very good. Below this article is "Related Articles" which has detailed, in-depth news stories. This is a western CO newspaper where energy issues are big. http://www.postindependent.com/article/20060131/OPINION/101310025 is an editorial written by a US Forest Service official at White River National Forest, CO about energy development on that National Forest. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10908599/ is about energy development on the Roan Plateau in eastern Utah. I've hiking in this place. It's pretty nice. It'd be a shame to see it strip-mined. 10 years from now will not a good time to be a Gunnison sage grouse running around the red high desert near Rifle, CO.

[Backpacker Joe]

How about we let the people who LIVE in Utah and Coloradio decide what's best for them and their state? Hmm.

[yew]

Because these are federal lands with national repercussions. Locals are not sometimes the best judges of what to do. They don't sometimes see the big picture. They often only see the dollar signs and jobs and other concerns get discounted.

[Backpacker Joe]

These great 50 United States of America. States rights Mr.. I say let them decide. It's easy for some jack ass Sierra club member living in Kalifornia to make dicisions about land they'll never see in some other state.

[MCaver]

[Backpacker Joe]

[MCaver]

I didn't say they were. I'm just pointing out that it can work both ways, thus the double-edged sword.

[domaz]

Oil shale is a waste of energy and money to produce. About 40% of the energy in the oil shale is lost in the mining, refinements and other production processes. With biofuels it's worse- it takes more energy to produce biofuels then what you get from the resulting fuel. The U.S. has huge energy problems to deal with in the near future and the only way to really deal with them is to reduce our reliance on automobiles. The easy Saudi Arabian oil is almost gone and with it cheap oil prices...

[MtnGoat]

Which is precisely why we should permit expanded exploration and extraction, end all subsidies so the prices are not distorted, and let the market decide where the balance should be. Since not everyone desires to live in urban areas nor to cut their mobility, this preserves everyones choices but allows truer representations of cost to be what the decisions are based upon. The explosion into the woods of people every weekend to every single different nook and cranny will not be possible with out personal vehicles, for one thing. Of course, some folks will see this as a positive as well.

[yew]

Backpacker Joe: The USA is just as much about federal rights as states rights. Since BLM lands are federal lands the state has no formal, legal control of their managment. Citizens of CO and UT have control over state lands. In reality, the BLM and USFS weighs the interests of locals much more than people from far away. How would you "let them decide"? Put it on a ballot initiative? "It's easy for some jack ass Sierra club member living in Kalifornia to make dicisions about land they'll never see in some other state" is true. People like that don't have to pay the economic and social consequences of the policies they want. But, for this issue, that's all irrelevant, a moot point - the Sierra Club member is not being listened to at all. None of the policies they want are being put into action. The Sierra Club has not pull in Washington DC now. They're powerless.