# Offshore Drilling



## paddler

Pretty boring around here lately, but no news is good news isn't necessarily true:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-...t-Aggressive-Offshore-Drilling-Plan-Ever.html

The administration has also acted to open ANWR:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/climate/drilling-arctic-anwr.html

Surprised anybody here supports the current occupant, his administration, or the horse he road in on.


----------



## LostLouisianian

paddler said:


> Pretty boring around here lately, but no news is good news isn't necessarily true:
> 
> https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-...t-Aggressive-Offshore-Drilling-Plan-Ever.html
> 
> The administration has also acted to open ANWR:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/climate/drilling-arctic-anwr.html
> 
> Surprised anybody here supports the current occupant, his administration, or the horse he road in on.


I'm just curious what type of non fossil fuel vehicle you drive and how many years you've worked in the offshore oil industry or the environmental industry.


----------



## paddler

LostLouisianian said:


> I'm just curious what type of non fossil fuel vehicle you drive and how many years you've worked in the offshore oil industry or the environmental industry.


So, are you saying you support the Trump administration's policies?


----------



## DallanC

So paddler, you dont support Trumps policy to ban offshore oil exploration off the Florida coast? You want to see drilling there?


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

DallanC said:


> So paddler, you dont support Trumps policy to ban offshore oil exploration off the Florida coast? You want to see drilling there?
> 
> -DallanC


The initial plan was to open the entire coastline to drilling except for the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska. Florida was included until today:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-reverses-oil-drilling-decision-for-florida

Apparently, Florida officials complained. Most states object to the plan. Then again, maybe somebody reminded the stable genius that he owns ocean front property there. Wouldn't want any spills washing up on the beach near Mar-a-Lago now, would we? Or any offshore rigs spoiling the view?


----------



## LostLouisianian

This is going to be my last post here. I am leaving this forum for good. The moderators have decided to allow hate speech on here in the form of one particular person bashing anyone else he disagrees with politically and since they refuse to adhere to their own rules against political speech I am out of here permanently. Some of you will say good riddance and that's fine. The moderators and owners have made their decision to not enforce their own rules for certain people yet have sent me warnings when I rebut those people. Life is too short to put up with bull crap and lies. To those I have met in person and other befriended on here I will miss you and wish you well in your personal lives and hunting/fishing endeavors. There is no need to PM me or anything like that as I will not be visiting this board again once I hit enter on this post. Godspeed and God bless all of you. Good luck until we meet again.


----------



## wyogoob

*I'm not making this up, I can cook.*



LostLouisianian said:


> This is going to be my last post here. I am leaving this forum for good. The moderators have decided to allow hate speech on here in the form of one particular person bashing anyone else he disagrees with politically and since they refuse to adhere to their own rules against political speech I am out of here permanently. Some of you will say good riddance and that's fine. The moderators and owners have made their decision to not enforce their own rules for certain people yet have sent me warnings when I rebut those people. Life is too short to put up with bull crap and lies. To those I have met in person and other befriended on here I will miss you and wish you well in your personal lives and hunting/fishing endeavors. There is no need to PM me or anything like that as I will not be visiting this board again once I hit enter on this post. Godspeed and God bless all of you. Good luck until we meet again.


First let me say the Moderators have lives outside the UWN and may not be on site 24/7 and, from what I gather, the owners spend very little time on this well-managed and smooth-running site; one of the top 14 outdoor forums in Utah.

Second, it goes without saying threads relating to offshore drilling are not out of bounds on the UWN. Although it's not the theme of the thread but how the thread is presented. I'll look Paddler's post over.

Lastly I'm thinking you'll have a lot of free time if you leave the UWN. Could you come up to Evanston and help me paint my garage shop? Can you bring gdog with you? I'll feed you guys. I'm a fair cook.

.


----------



## wyogoob

paddler said:


> Pretty boring around here lately, but no news is good news isn't necessarily true:
> 
> https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-...t-Aggressive-Offshore-Drilling-Plan-Ever.html
> 
> The administration has also acted to open ANWR:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/climate/drilling-arctic-anwr.html
> 
> Surprised anybody here supports the current occupant, his administration, or the horse he road in on.


You could probably just leave this part out. Trump doesn't ride horses.

.


----------



## PBH

wyogoob said:


> You could probably just leave this part out. Trump doesn't ride horses.
> 
> .


Maybe a reference to Zinke??


----------



## wyogoob

*Another thread destined to get locked*



paddler said:


> The initial plan was to open the entire coastline to drilling except for the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska. Florida was included until today:
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-reverses-oil-drilling-decision-for-florida
> 
> Apparently, Florida officials complained. Most states object to the plan. Then again, maybe somebody reminded the stable genius that he owns ocean front property there. Wouldn't want any spills washing up on the beach near Mar-a-Lago now, would we? Or any offshore rigs spoiling the view?


Who's a stable genius? What?

Hey, I've worked offshore in the Arctic Ocean, a production platform and a huge salt water treatment plant. Man, the stories I can tell.

I don't see anything wrong with this post other than the stable genius comment is gonna piss off Trump supporters here. And my guess is there's a good number of Trump supporters here.

.


----------



## wyogoob

PBH said:


> Maybe a reference to Zinke??


yeah, good point

.


----------



## wyogoob

I've flown over the western part of the AWNR, February, in a prop-job transport plane. -50° F, cold, nondescript mostly.

.


----------



## wyogoob

*I'm not making this up, I fathered children.*



LostLouisianian said:


> I'm just curious what type of non fossil fuel vehicle you drive and how many years you've worked in the offshore oil industry or the environmental industry.


My son worked on a hydrogen fuel cell study for the US Navy. Yes, they can fuel vehicles with water but the hydrocarbon dudes are kinda runnin' the planet right now so we're gonna have to wait awhile for that.

.


----------



## wyogoob

I think I'm getting my Mojo back.

.


----------



## PBH

sitting in Bishopric meeting on Sunday, our [R] Bishop said: "great news! they are opening up drilling in ANWR! Did you guys know that they've done studies and the wildlife actually benefit from the oil industry up there?"

I swear. Sometimes in Bishopric meeting.
I have a hard time stomaching my Bishop. He's such a blow-hard. I think most of the time he's spouting off politically, he hasn't a clue what he's even talking about.

He once mentioned to me that elk are non-native to Utah, and he remembers the day that the DWR first introduced them. I followed up that statement by saying: How do you explain native American petroglyphs depicting elk?

Sorry. Got side-tracked there...


----------



## High Desert Elk

Personally, I would love to get out of the fossil fuels industries as a whole altogether, but that is the driving economic force where I live. It would be tough to sell the house right now and move because of the local market and economy.

So, here is my proposal to Paddler since he has such disdain for what many of us have to do to buy a loaf of bread: please send me the info for the outfit you work for so I can set up shop here as well and it might even give our area an economic boost. It will do so well, that the fossil fuels industries that supply the economic life blood we depend on can close down and we can all set back and enjoy the good clean life. Nevermind the increase in local gasoline price and natural gas we cook and heat our homes with.

Of course then the San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Wildearth Guardians, and Dine CARE won't have anything to do as there will be no reason to protest outside of the local BLM office as it will shut down - it being a minerals office where 75% of its funding comes from extractive royalties. But hey - they can all come and get a job with the company that Paddler will help me start up when the FFO closes.

It's all good...


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> sitting in Bishopric meeting on Sunday...


Wait, what? That's the second darndest thing I've read on this thread today.

Offshore drilling, monuments, bikes in the wilderness -- it doesn't really matter the topic. Paddler does not like republicans, and he really does not like Donald Trump. Can we all just move along now to something important like discussing how PBH is in the bishopric or if Goob can actually really cook?

Pictures or it didn't happen...


----------



## wyoming2utah

Don't let him fool you...he was sitting in bishopric meeting; he isn't in the bishopric! As for Goob, I don't think we will ever know if he can actually cook or not because of what he cooks. I ain't eating some damned raccoon!


----------



## Vanilla

wyoming2utah said:


> Don't let him fool you...he was sitting in bishopric meeting; he isn't in the bishopric! As for Goob, I don't think we will ever know if he can actually cook or not because of what he cooks. I ain't eating some damned raccoon!


Ha! If I could like this twice, I would.

Mods, will you get on that and make that option available? It's 2018 for crying out loud!


----------



## Catherder

*Just waking up on a rainy day off. Random thoughts.*



PBH said:


> sitting in Bishopric meeting on Sunday, our [R] Bishop said: "great news! they are opening up drilling in ANWR!


Is that our esteemed representative Rob Bishop (R-UT) or your local ecclesiastical leader? Kind of confused.



Vanilla said:


> Wait, what? That's the second darndest thing I've read on this thread today.
> Pictures or it didn't happen...


Yeah, that is probably why I am confused. ;-)



wyogoob said:


> Could you come up to Evanston and help me paint my garage shop? Can you bring gdog with you? I'll feed you guys. I'm a fair cook.
> .


I would love to come up but I don't need any lottery tickets, fireworks, smokes, or booze, so I don't see me coming that way any time soon. However, if you were coming down this way for some fishing, let me know and we could go catch a few whitefish for your smoker. Especially since none of the lakes are frozen and there is no ice fishing this year.



wyogoob said:


> I think I'm getting my Mojo back.
> 
> .


Wonderful to hear. Hope all is well.



LostLouisianian said:


> This is going to be my last post here. I am leaving this forum for good. The moderators have decided to allow hate speech on here


Well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do, but it just seemed like the same old Paddler post to me, Nothing to get too excited about regardless of where one stands on the issue. The "hate speech" phrase sounds kind of like liberalspeak though. Sure you want to end things that way?


----------



## johnnycake

Just sayin' I hear very few people up here that are upset about drilling in ANWR. It will boost jobs, increase flow in the pipeline, increase our permanent fund dividends, and onshore drilling is simply safer than offshore--especially in the arctic. 
#drillbabydrill #alaskansforglobalwarming


----------



## backcountry

I can't say I see a moderator issue here as much as a user who constantly antagonizes others with different views. Sadly even the best of community guidelines are permissive enough for trollish posts. 

LL, we have had spirited disagreements but I would hate to see you go. I know I learn from the range of opinion and experience here. Hate to see folks leave but as another user said, you gotta do whats best for you. I've left sites myself and struggled with internet communities as well.

Per offshore, I am worried about our marine ecosystems and fisheries. We are in a precarious position in the middle to long run if we hope to sustain enough resources for our country's population. But I'm less concerned about short term tit-for-tat political oscillations and more interesting in long term trends. Sadly, we've become too reliant on unilateral executive action which is vulnerable to these types of radical changes every 4-8 years. 

The good news is we all care about conservation here, even if we have different perspectives.


----------



## gdog

backcountry said:


> I can't say I see a moderator issue here as much as a user who constantly antagonizes others with different views. Sadly even the best of community guidelines are permissive enough for trollish posts.


Oh no..not that..not a different view/standpoint in UT. Isn't that against the law or something?:shock:;-)

Paddler stirs the pot, good for him. Keeps the natives restless.



backcountry said:


> The good news is we all care about conservation here, even if we have different perspectives.


Absolutely!


----------



## bowgy

I for one will miss Lost, but that being said no matter how passionate I am on a subject no personal views of an unknown person behind a computer screen pounding on a keyboard is going to affect me one way or another.

I will read what I want and take or leave as I see fit for me. 

The one thing while reading posts is when someone says someone else is dumb because they believe something or support someone or they claim to be smarter, they loose all credibility in my book and I disregard anything that they have said.

I enjoy this forum for entertainment mostly and education secondly. I check other sources before I take anything for face value.


----------



## gdog

wyogoob said:


> Can you bring gdog with you? I'll feed you guys. I'm a fair cook.


Hey..you know I'm game. Plus..unlike Catherder..I'm running low on lottery tickets, fireworks, smokes, and booze.


----------



## PBH

wyoming2utah said:


> Don't let him fool you...he was sitting in bishopric meeting; he isn't in the bishopric!


I take notes, and I call households and ask parents for their teenage son or daughters cell phone numbers. I then press my ear against the door so that i can hear what's being said during those one-on-one discussions behind closed doors.

I swear.
(too often lately)

I'm not a creep.

As long as we have access to oil, we'll continue to depend on it.


----------



## DallanC

When the oil's gone I'm going back to Imbert Gasifiers.


-DallanC


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> You could probably just leave this part out. Trump doesn't ride horses.
> 
> .


Right. I should have said "rode".


----------



## paddler

wyogoob said:


> Who's a stable genius? What?
> 
> Hey, I've worked offshore in the Arctic Ocean, a production platform and a huge salt water treatment plant. Man, the stories I can tell.
> 
> I don't see anything wrong with this post other than the stable genius comment is gonna piss off Trump supporters here. And my guess is there's a good number of Trump supporters here.
> 
> .


Those were Trump's own words. Why should his supporters be upset?


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Personally, I would love to get out of the fossil fuels industries as a whole altogether, but that is the driving economic force where I live. It would be tough to sell the house right now and move because of the local market and economy.
> 
> So, here is my proposal to Paddler since he has such disdain for what many of us have to do to buy a loaf of bread: please send me the info for the outfit you work for so I can set up shop here as well and it might even give our area an economic boost. It will do so well, that the fossil fuels industries that supply the economic life blood we depend on can close down and we can all set back and enjoy the good clean life. Nevermind the increase in local gasoline price and natural gas we cook and heat our homes with.
> 
> Of course then the San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, Wildearth Guardians, and Dine CARE won't have anything to do as there will be no reason to protest outside of the local BLM office as it will shut down - it being a minerals office where 75% of its funding comes from extractive royalties. But hey - they can all come and get a job with the company that Paddler will help me start up when the FFO closes.
> 
> It's all good...


Incorrect. I have no disdain for people who work in fossil fuels. I don't think we should open our entire coastline or the ANWR to drilling, though.


----------



## taxidermist

I think this post is stupid. GUMP!


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> Incorrect. I have no disdain for people who work in fossil fuels. I don't think we should open our entire coastline or the ANWR to drilling, though.


Nor to offshore windfarms. The proposal for ANWR is equivalent to a postage stamp on a city block.


----------



## Vanilla

This thread has really devolved since we stopped talking about PBH's Sunday meeting schedule and Goob's ability to cook.


----------



## bowgy

High Desert Elk said:


> Nor to offshore windfarms. The proposal for ANWR is equivalent to a postage stamp on a city block.


Wind farms can be dangerous.


----------



## paddler

This will be an interesting topic to watch. Lots of backlash against Zinke exempting Florida, apparently just because of his personal relationship with Rick Scott. Some call it capricious:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...s-840pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.1d169f162809

I expect we'll hear a lot more about this in the future. Nobody seems to want drilling in their own back yard. Not Democrats, not Republicans. Bipartisanism at its best. Too bad other environmental issues don't have it.


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> Nobody seems to want drilling in their own back yard. Not Democrats, not Republicans. Bipartisanism at its best. Too bad other environmental issues don't have it.


uuhhhhh....you must not be looking at Alaska. The majority of voters up here have overwhelmingly voted in support of drilling in "our backyard" ever since Jimmy Carter set aside section 1002 to allow for oil and gas exploration.

But please, don't let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.

http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2017-10-01/alaskans-say-yes-anwr-drilling


----------



## Vanilla

Mr Cake,

Please don't confuse him by using the "F" word.


----------



## PBH

johnnycake said:


> The majority of voters up here have overwhelmingly voted in support of drilling in "our backyard" ...
> But please, don't let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.


Same with here in Utah. According to our legislature, we also want to extract natural resources in our own back yard.

As my bishop always says: don't tell that to a liberal.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Nobody wants it in their backyard but in someone else's and everyone sure wants to use it. 

Seems like everyone should have to pay the piper to some point...


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> Nobody wants it in their backyard but in someone else's and everyone sure wants to use it.
> 
> Seems like everyone should have to pay the piper to some point...


That seems true in general. As others have highlighted, there are places that are fine with local extraction.

Until Americans are willing to pay for "cleaner" fuel sources we have to accept a significant level of extraction. Until then we have to admit our choice comes with consequences, and that includes drilling in our backyards.

Will be interesting to watch how the offshore drilling conversation and policy goes. I don't imagine anyone wants another Deepwater Horizon event but I also wonder how government and industry regulation have adapted and learned in the intervening years. Beyond tourist beaches we as a nation are reliant on productive fisheries and oil spills have noticeable impact on the health of those. I know folks on both sides of the aisle in the Chesapeake Bay Area have already been up in arms from the new decision.

Will get interesting either way. So many different aspects and economies to consider.


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> uuhhhhh....you must not be looking at Alaska. The majority of voters up here have overwhelmingly voted in support of drilling in "our backyard" ever since Jimmy Carter set aside section 1002 to allow for oil and gas exploration.
> 
> But please, don't let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
> 
> http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2017-10-01/alaskans-say-yes-anwr-drilling


Seems many locals often favor development, extraction, etc. This goes all the way back to at least the designation of the Grand Canyon as a NM. Short sighted greed will always be with us. Nothing new here.

What amazing is that you support locals when they want to exploit, but not when they want to preserve. Bears Ears is the most recent example, carving it up at the behest of the uranium producers and against the tribes' wishes. Same old song, different verse.


----------



## backcountry

paddler said:


> johnnycake said:
> 
> 
> 
> uuhhhhh....you must not be looking at Alaska. The majority of voters up here have overwhelmingly voted in support of drilling in "our backyard" ever since Jimmy Carter set aside section 1002 to allow for oil and gas exploration.
> 
> But please, don't let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe.
> 
> http://juneauempire.com/opinion/2017-10-01/alaskans-say-yes-anwr-drilling
> 
> 
> 
> Seems many locals often favor development, extraction, etc. This goes all the way back to at least the designation of the Grand Canyon as a NM. Short sighted greed will always be with us. Nothing new here.
> 
> What amazing is that you support locals when they want to exploit, but not when they want to preserve. Bears Ears is the most recent example, carving it up at the behest of the uranium producers and against the tribes' wishes. Same old song, different verse.
Click to expand...

Its not shortsighted greed that drives most locals, wether those for tourism or extraction. I've lived and worked in towns with economies limited or defined by both. And residents of both normally just want their jobs to pay well and be secure. Wanting a roof over your head and three square meals a day doesn't make one greedy. Nor does trying to secure your field for the next generation.

And you know San Juan Co. residents were overwhelmingly against BENM and therefore how flawed your comparison just was. We are both saddened by the ultimate outcome for the tribal coalition but don't distort the broader sentiment of "locals" to fit your argument.

Ironically, we are in a national wave of NIMBY-ism, including extraction. Clearly plenty of Americans are concerned about local extraction, including conservative strongholds. But they still want extraction and fossil fuels in general which exposes the conundrum and hypocrisy.


----------



## High Desert Elk

First of all, isn't Grand Canyon a National Park...?

Second of all, everyone has had to deal with change whether they want(ed) to or not. It's time for tribes to do the same. Indigeneity does not give you outright ownership. Otherwise, the BLM has no authority over Bundy and his claims of rights to "ancestral" grazing...

Every mountain peak in the west is sacred to somebody. The Navajo tribe has just closed its second land purchase in south central CO because of some mountain they hold sacred. Seems like they are stepping on SoUte's toes.

I was witness to the SoUte's pushing extraction on USFS lands because they had a bylaw in their gov't denying the ability to disturb surface within their reservation boundary. The arguement was they had the right to develop their minerals (at the cost of you and I). The BLM and USFS buckled.


----------



## backcountry

High Desert Elk said:


> First of all, isn't Grand Canyon a National Park...?


 What we now know as Grand Canyon NP has gone through several iterations and designations. It was first a National Monument and later adjacent national monuments, like Marble Canyon, have been incorporated into the current National Park overtime.


----------



## .45

PBH said:


> sitting in Bishopric meeting on Sunday,.


:shock::shock::shock:


----------



## .45

LostLouisianian said:


> This is going to be my last post here. I am leaving this forum for good. The moderators have decided to allow hate speech on here in the form of one particular person bashing anyone else he disagrees with politically and since they refuse to adhere to their own rules against political speech I am out of here permanently. Some of you will say good riddance and that's fine. The moderators and owners have made their decision to not enforce their own rules for certain people yet have sent me warnings when I rebut those people. Life is too short to put up with bull crap and lies. To those I have met in person and other befriended on here I will miss you and wish you well in your personal lives and hunting/fishing endeavors. There is no need to PM me or anything like that as I will not be visiting this board again once I hit enter on this post. Godspeed and God bless all of you. Good luck until we meet again.


Aw come on man. You fell for this before. How the heck am I supposed to appreciate your comments if your not around? Just do what I do, don't read. Who really wants to get that aggravated?


----------



## High Desert Elk

backcountry said:


> What we now know as Grand Canyon NP has gone through several iterations and designations. It was first a National Monument and later adjacent national monuments, like Marble Canyon, have been incorporated into the current National Park overtime.


Have never heard of it being referred to as a national monument before. That one will *never* be rescinded.

Kind of like saying 'Glen Canyon National Monument'. Sounds weird.


----------



## paddler

backcountry said:


> Its not shortsighted greed that drives most locals, wether those for tourism or extraction. I've lived and worked in towns with economies limited or defined by both. And residents of both normally just want their jobs to pay well and be secure. Wanting a roof over your head and three square meals a day doesn't make one greedy. Nor does trying to secure your field for the next generation.
> 
> *And you know San Juan Co. residents were overwhelmingly against BENM and therefore how flawed your comparison just was. We are both saddened by the ultimate outcome for the tribal coalition but don't distort the broader sentiment of "locals" to fit your argument. *
> 
> Ironically, we are in a national wave of NIMBY-ism, including extraction. Clearly plenty of Americans are concerned about local extraction, including conservative strongholds. But they still want extraction and fossil fuels in general which exposes the conundrum and hypocrisy.


I'm not aware of any poll showing that San Juan County residents were overwhelmingly against BENM. I'd like to see that data if you have it, especially since 50.4% of county residents are Native American, while 45.8% are white. I'd imagine that support for the monument among San Juan County residents split mostly along demographic lines.

Statewide polls showed that older voters, men, active Mormons and Republicans felt that it was too big:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environ...-says-utahns-split-on-shrinking-the-monument/


----------



## Dunkem

Quote:
Originally Posted by *LostLouisianian*  
_This is going to be my last post here. I am leaving this forum for good. The moderators have decided to allow hate speech on here in the form of one particular person bashing anyone else he disagrees with politically and since they refuse to adhere to their own rules against political speech I am out of here permanently. Some of you will say good riddance and that's fine. The moderators and owners have made their decision to not enforce their own rules for certain people yet have sent me warnings when I rebut those people. Life is too short to put up with bull crap and lies. To those I have met in person and other befriended on here I will miss you and wish you well in your personal lives and hunting/fishing endeavors. There is no need to PM me or anything like that as I will not be visiting this board again once I hit enter on this post. Godspeed and God bless all of you. Good luck until we meet again. Sorry to hear that lost!! You are wrong about us "mods" you were not the onlu one to get warnings,Ole paddler has had his--and so on.Best of luck to ya cajon man!!_


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> Have never heard of it being referred to as a national monument before. That one will *never* be rescinded.
> 
> Kind of like saying 'Glen Canyon National Monument'. Sounds weird.


Grand Canyon National Monument was designated by Theodore Roosevelt in 1908.

* In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt visited the site and said: "The Grand Canyon fills me with awe. It is beyond comparison-beyond description; absolutely unparalleled through-out the wide world... Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity and loveliness. You cannot improve on it. But what you can do is to keep it for your children, your children's children, and all who come after you, as the one great sight which every American should see."*

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/28894539

It became a National Park in 1919. Many of our National Parks were National Monuments first:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/28894539

Roosevelt's quote above is how I feel about many of our public lands. One cannot improve them, but we can protect them in perpetuity.


----------



## High Desert Elk

paddler said:


> I'm not aware of any poll showing that San Juan County residents were overwhelmingly against BENM. I'd like to see that data if you have it, especially since 50.4% of county residents are Native American, while 45.8% are white. I'd imagine that support for the monument among San Juan County residents split mostly along demographic lines.


The only poll taken were the banners around town that read No Monument. The chapter closest was against it. The further away you got, the more support. So they say. Locals didn't want it, but that doesn't matter, does it? Had you set foot in the two border towns, you'd know that. Real life experience speaks volumes to anything published in the Tribune. You'd imagine wrong.

Now back to offshore drilling. The only form of that to take place there will be to put a Jack Up rig on Dry Wash, Lloyds Lake, Blanding 3 and 4...


----------



## OriginalOscar

Paddler you are under your batting average. 11 Paddler Posts (PP's) / 51 Thread Posts (TP's) = 21.5%


----------



## paddler

High Desert Elk said:


> The only poll taken were the banners around town that read No Monument. The chapter closest was against it. The further away you got, the more support. So they say. Locals didn't want it, but that doesn't matter, does it? Had you set foot in the two border towns, you'd know that. Real life experience speaks volumes to anything published in the Tribune. You'd imagine wrong.
> 
> Now back to offshore drilling. The only form of that to take place there will be to put a Jack Up rig on Dry Wash, Lloyds Lake, Blanding 3 and 4...


Your methodology isn't at all scientific. The correct term is "anecdotal". I was asking for a reliable poll that showed a majority of San Juan County residents were against the BENM.


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> What amazing is that you support locals when they want to exploit, but not when they want to preserve. Bears Ears is the most recent example, carving it up at the behest of the uranium producers and against the tribes' wishes. Same old song, different verse.


Thanks for assuming my position on an issue to which I have not weighed in on. Please, tell me more about what my political positions are. The only contributions I recall giving in the various Bears Ears/Antiquities Act discussions were analyses as to the legal issues of a designation or revocation. But I could be wrong.

The problem with taking an absolute position on anything, and I admit I have topics on which I am very guilty of this, is that absolutes almost never exist. Do I think offshore drilling is "right"? It depends. I think it makes a ton more sense to drill offshore in climates that are mild, with quick access to emergency/spill responses. I've even published a number of papers criticizing the legal framework of offshore drilling in Arctic Waters (I know, gasp, Johnnycake is a closet hippy!)---but I also still think it can be done the "right" way even in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas. Do I support local input on how land is used? It depends! Sometimes the local input is well informed and it makes a lot of sense to listen to them over the objections of an ignorant majority. Other times it is more logical to ignore an ignorant minority and go with the majority-even if most of them will never set foot on that land. And sometimes you just cannot determine who "knows" what is "right."

It must be much more cathartic to zealously defend an absolute position and make broad, unsubstantiated claims to support it online, as opposed to actually doing something effective. Interesting.


----------



## High Desert Elk

Ooo


paddler said:


> Your methodology isn't at all scientific. The correct term is "anecdotal". I was asking for a reliable poll that showed a majority of San Juan County residents were against the BENM.


Polls aren't scientific and are only as reliable as you want them to be. Try again.

The testimony of an eye witness in a murder trial is anecdotal, yet it is enough to hang a man...


----------



## backcountry

Paddler, 

I will admit I made a mistake in being so overly broad and apology. To be honest, I had forgotten the demographics and subtleties of the tribal presence in county politics. I need to refresh myself on those details after being gone for more than a decade. Its a mistake on my part to have defined all of San Juan County by the conservative LDS that reside in Monticello and Blanding (my experience in the past).

Aneth Chapter did abstain from the recent BENM vote but its hard to wager there stance other than the anecdotes about their preference. That said, all the others bordering the monument voted overwhelming in favor of BENM.


----------



## wyogoob

johnnycake said:


> Thanks for assuming my position on an issue to which I have not weighed in on. Please, tell me more about what my political positions are. The only contributions I recall giving in the various Bears Ears/Antiquities Act discussions were analyses as to the legal issues of a designation or revocation. But I could be wrong.
> 
> The problem with taking an absolute position on anything, and I admit I have topics on which I am very guilty of this, is that absolutes almost never exist. Do I think offshore drilling is "right"? It depends. I think it makes a ton more sense to drill offshore in climates that are mild, with quick access to emergency/spill responses. I've even published a number of papers criticizing the legal framework of offshore drilling in Arctic Waters (I know, gasp, Johnnycake is a closet hippy!)---but I also still think it can be done the "right" way even in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas. Do I support local input on how land is used? It depends! Sometimes the local input is well informed and it makes a lot of sense to listen to them over the objections of an ignorant majority. Other times it is more logical to ignore an ignorant minority and go with the majority-even if most of them will never set foot on that land. And sometimes you just cannot determine who "knows" what is "right."
> 
> It must be much more cathartic to zealously defend an absolute position and make broad, unsubstantiated claims to support it online, as opposed to actually doing something effective. Interesting.


Cool, have you ever worked offshore?

.


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> Thanks for assuming my position on an issue to which I have not weighed in on. Please, tell me more about what my political positions are. The only contributions I recall giving in the various Bears Ears/Antiquities Act discussions were analyses as to the legal issues of a designation or revocation. But I could be wrong.
> 
> The problem with taking an absolute position on anything, and I admit I have topics on which I am very guilty of this, is that absolutes almost never exist. Do I think offshore drilling is "right"? It depends. I think it makes a ton more sense to drill offshore in climates that are mild, with quick access to emergency/spill responses. I've even published a number of papers criticizing the legal framework of offshore drilling in Arctic Waters (I know, gasp, Johnnycake is a closet hippy!)---but I also still think it can be done the "right" way even in the Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas. Do I support local input on how land is used? It depends! Sometimes the local input is well informed and it makes a lot of sense to listen to them over the objections of an ignorant majority. Other times it is more logical to ignore an ignorant minority and go with the majority-even if most of them will never set foot on that land. And sometimes you just cannot determine who "knows" what is "right."
> 
> It must be much more cathartic to zealously defend an absolute position and make broad, unsubstantiated claims to support it online, as opposed to actually doing something effective. Interesting.


Yep, I mistakenly lumped you in with the locals. I shouldn't have assumed you agreed with them. Sorry about that. I haven't taken an absolute position on offshore drilling, except I think it's absolutely wrong to open our entire coastline to drilling.



High Desert Elk said:


> Ooo
> 
> *Polls aren't scientific and are only as reliable as you want them to be. Try again.*
> 
> The testimony of an eye witness in a murder trial is anecdotal, yet it is enough to hang a man...


Don't kid yourself, it is possible to conduct a statistically reliable poll.


----------



## johnnycake

paddler said:


> I haven't taken an absolute position on offshore drilling, except I think it's absolutely wrong to open our entire coastline to drilling.











...you do know there has to be oil/gas present, or at least really strong indicators, before any drilling would happen, right? Mighty broad absolute statement you've got yourself there.

And Goob, no I have not worked offshore. I've got my reasons for why I think drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or other climates makes a lot more sense than drilling in the Beaufort. But I also think there are circumstances/situations/conditions where drilling in the Beaufort could be just fine too. Not quite sure where you're getting at.


----------



## paddler

johnnycake said:


> ...you do know there has to be oil/gas present, or at least really strong indicators, before any drilling would happen, right? Mighty broad absolute statement you've got yourself there.
> 
> And Goob, no I have not worked offshore. I've got my reasons for why I think drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, or other climates makes a lot more sense than drilling in the Beaufort. But I also think there are circumstances/situations/conditions where drilling in the Beaufort could be just fine too. Not quite sure where you're getting at.


Absolutely. It's inconceivable that there is oil everywhere along our coasts. My objection is to the Trump administration's original action to open all our coastline to drilling except the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska. I also object to excluding Florida as an act of political cronyism.

Anybody want a peanut? One of my all time favorite movies. We first had it on VHS, then DVD, and now BD. Seen it about 30 times. On BD, you can see graffiti on one of the boulders during the fight between Wesley and Fezzik.


----------

