BLM officials have postponed an oil and gas lease auction for parcels near Chaco Culture National Historical Park so more studies into potential cultural impacts can be conducted/NPS
A proposed auction of oil and gas parcels near Chaco Culture National Historical Park in New Mexico has been put off for now, though it could come back to life, and there are other proposed leases in the region that are of concern to some environmental groups.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management canceled the sale last week, with Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke explaining that there was a need for more consultation with tribes to understand their concerns over how the sale could impact cultural sites. The leases would have auctioned off an additional 4,434 acres in the Greater Chaco region for industrialized fracking.
“My job is to make sure that the local voices are heard, and the state and national interests are reflected. In this case, there is some concern about the proximity to Chaco of some of the leases and the uncertainty about cultural impacts,” Secretary Zinke said Thursday.
Some groups, including the Sierra Club and area tribes, maintained the BLM was basing the sale on an outdated Resource Management Plan that was written before new fracking methods were feasible in the region, and without meaningful tribal consultation or consent from Navajo Nation and Pueblos who consider Chaco sacred.
There has been considerable opposition to the sale, with more than 450 administrative protests filed against it. The Navajo Nation and All Pueblo Council of Governors, National Congress of American Indians, 15 Navajo Chapter Houses, the New Mexico Legislature, and more than 400,000 citizens have requested a moratorium on drilling until health, cultural, and environmental impacts can be analyzed, according to a Sierra Club release.
National Parks Conservation Association officials, while happy with the withdrawal, say there are other controversial lease auctions planned for the region. The New Mexico lease sale is one of three March lease sales that NPCA has protested. Other sales set for this month include parcels near Hovenweep National Monument in southeastern Utah, and Fort Laramie National Historical Site in Wyoming.
There has been a substantial increase in leases offered for sale near national parks since 2017, including parcels near Dinosaur National Monument, Zion National Park, Rocky Mountain National Park, Great Basin National Park, and others, NPCA said in a release.
"The secretary's decision is the right one for Chaco Culture National Historical Park and the important cultural resources it protects,” said Ernie Atencio, NPCA's New Mexico program manager. “National Parks Conservation Association, area tribes and other conservation groups have long advocated for the BLM to take a focused look at potential impacts to Chaco from new oil and gas development and plan for the protection of the important cultural and natural resources in the area. As evidence by the BLM’s postponement, such a collaborative plan is still badly needed."
Comments
Nice to read some good news once in awhile.
Staff, could you identify what constitutes "industrialized" fracking?
Well, it's not like there is anything at all under the heading of environmentally friendly local family farm fracking.
I have a question for the group of commenters here.
Is there a place where you feel drilling for oil is acceptable?
The reason I ask is although I value our environment as much as the next person I am also practical about the fact we could not live without petroleum products in our lives.
Has the Sierra Club ever given a green light to ANY drilling or exploration project? I can't remember reading a single article where the Sierra Club gave a green light to a project related to mining or oil and gas. Quite honestly my first reaction is a big yawn when I read about opposition to drilling, fracking, mining these days because it is inevitable that someone or multiple someone's will be lined up to sue. This is a shame because I am sure there are projects that do pose a real concern. But just as many things in politics today it has become like that old fable of the boy who cried wolf.
I am convinced that there will never be another mining or drilling proposal that some group somewhere doesn't try to stop and can't help but wonder how much of this is little more than a poorly disguised ransom demand.
So back to my question, where would people here support drilling or mining?
Not on any federal lands? Just not on or near national park sites? Not on the North American continent? Or nowhere at all?
Wild, I think you're asking the wrong question. The more pertinent one, one that my good friend Dr. Runte and others have raised, is when are we going to start living within our means?
By that I mean when will we realize uncontrolled population growth and urban sprawl are unsustainable problems? Shouldn't there be a more sustainable approach to how we live on this rock?
Beyond those questions, if you believe The Wilderness Society:
With all that in mind, let's flip the question: Is there any place you wouldn't approve of energy exploration?
There is also the question of technique. Fracking is a rather destructively nihilistic attempt at things, as opposed to more traditional methods.
Seems to be something wrong with the Wilderness Society numbers Kurt. There are 640 million acreas of public land. If oil and gas leases are "locking up 36 mil, then only about 6% not 90% would be leased to oil and gas developers. Also, National Parks take up 85 million acres, 240% of the land "locked up" by leases.
"Shouldn't there be a more sustainable approach to how we live on this rock?"
Yes we definitely should and that may provide some marginal relief but certainly doesn't come close to eliminating the need for petroleum products which will continue to grow for some time. China and India alone have a long long way to go before they are on par with our standard of living and that will continue to greatly drive demand.
I believe EC is right that the numbers you quoted are wrong, (although I saw the article you quoted from).
I respect that you would rather not answer my question but I will answer yours. Yes, there are many places I wouldn't allow drilling. Inside the National Park boundaries, same for State and local parks unless the people of that state chose otherwise. Anywhere there is a REAL threat to a major waterway or aquifer and yes I think it is important to preserve a certain percentage of our wetlands. And yes, there are also many places that I would allow drilling, fracking and exploration.
I am tired of environmental groups that fight absolutely everything and constantly exaggerate the impacts. I also tire of people who condem the petroleum industry and mining without realizing or acknowledging they are driving the demand. As I said, they have cried wolf and told me the sky is falling far too many times which is sad because I would join in their fight on occasion if they were honest.