There are some units of the National Park System that allow oil and gas drilling, but very few. And that's wrong, believes a congressman from Texas.
Republican Rep. Pete Olson said there are energy reserves scattered across the country that can't be tapped because they lie within the National Park System.
"Guys on the West Coast ... west of the Mississippi, they know they've got oil and gas under the land that they can't touch because it's on a national park or some sort of federal land," he told Platts, a media outlet that covers the energy sector.
Energy development already exists at places such as Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument, Aztec Ruins National Monument, Big Cypress National Preserve, Big Thicket National Preserve, Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site, Gauley River National Recreation Area, Lake Meredith National Recreation Area, New River Gorge National River, Obed Wild and Scenic River, Padre Island National Seashore, and Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve.
Rep. Olson, who made his comments while attending the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Owners annual convention, believes companies can safely develop oil and gas resources on National Park System landscapes.
"Working with the parks system, without destroying the parks' value, we can do both. We've proven that we can do that here in Texas," he said.
Comments
Lee @ 8:48,
Agreed. A combination of conservation, improved efficiency, development of alternatives--every bit positively contributes to alleviating pressures to drill in protected areas.
(Your stat might be a bit off, Lee. According to Nat Geo, "it takes 17 million barrels of crude oil. That's enough oil to keep a million cars going for twelve months." Not to mention the energy it takes to recycle plastic water bottles. http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/stories/spacescience/water-bottl...)
Justin, the problem is that there are many sources for stats regarding plastic bottles and their numbers vary widely. I tried to pick one that was in the middle of the range.
As for ec's "meaningless" comment -- okay, maybe according to some statistic or other that may be true. Yet consider this, a brain tumor may be only about 0.04% of the mass of the entire body, but if your doctor tells you that you have one, will you call it "meaningless?"
Is it possible that we are surrounded by environmental cancers that could, and should, be treated? Taken together, their sum total is certainly much more than 0.04% of what we need to survive on this battered old world. If we could eliminate -- or even mitigate -- just some of them, might we actually improve our economic well being and quality of life?
I'm not trying to tell others what they must do or not do, just asking the questions: "Is this REALLY necessary?" and "Can we find a better way?" Unfortunately, many gullible Americans, like some who post frequently here, have allowed themselves to be duped by industry advertising and propaganda or by their own selfish agendas.
I'm not trying to dictate, just asking people to actually do some THINKING.
It's no surprise that ec applies the term "meaningless" to the value of even small reductions in the use of oil resulting from any conservation efforts. After all, if you don't pump it, you can't sell it.
In that context, I'd welcome his response to my comment above on April 2, (12:22) that's there's no demonstrated need to drill in NPS areas at this time. A more appropriate use of "meaningless" would be reasons, other than increased industry profits, for such drilling.
Anyone who suggests oil and gas drilling and production can be accomplised without significant, negative impacts on a park experience sure hasn't spend any time around the oil fields. For just one small example, see the story on today's Traveler about Dinosaur NM.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57765696-78/citation-forest-harris-lea...
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57728795-78/oil-spill-wash-valley.html...
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57749747-78/oil-wash-spill-valley.html...
These links take readers to articles about two recent Utah oil spills. One was recently discovered on Grand Staircase/Escalante National Monument which, although not administered by NPS, is one of the jewels in our southwestern collection of special places. Be sure to look through the photos in the second one.
Jim, it's doubtful that the Congresscritter and his henchmen really want to drill in national parks and monuments. This is an election year and for a nauseatingly long few months we're going to witness a lot more of this kind of nonsense.
It's called blatant pandering to their most rabid supporters in hopes the rest of the voters in their districts will have typically short American voter memories and will punch whatever button accompanies an incumbent's name on the voting machine.
As far as I can tell,"gullible" is an equal opportunity condition. As long as the arguments are directed at the gullible and they decide the outcome, not good.
Lee -
Since the percentage of body mass that has cancer at any moment is irrelevant to the severity of the disease your comment makes no sense. With cancer the entire body will die. With oil, reducing some fraction of a percent of consumption would be meaningless and have no impact on the other 99+ percent.
For Jim, I did respond. I suggested that the Senator was looking forward to future needs. Your response is, we don't need it now, which totally ignores the Senators' more prudent vision. Further, if in fact there are no rigs and no demand for additional energy sources, then the producers won't lease the NPS lands so your concerns would be moot if your assumptions are correct.
Nope, I didn't say there was "no demand for additional energy sources." The demand by producers for cheap new energy sources, such as public land, is insatiable, especially if they gain approval for increasing exports to overseas markets. I said there was no demonstrated need in terms on national interests, for the reasons I cited above.
re: "The Senator was looking forward to future needs."
The subject of the discussion was Representative Pete Olson, but heck, with all the potential new campaign contributions from the oil lobby, maybe he got his "promotion" even faster than he hoped :-)