22 million BLM acres for development?

[BigHornRam]

It's nice that we'll have a thread on Thursday when BHR is going to get into another 10 page throw down over energy stuff.

This idea is so lame, I give it 2 pages max.

 

[whatnot]

For a lot of us, that's our family members & friends, so I guess I care.

As do I. I just remember a lot of "go learn to code" from the other team.

 

[BuzzH]

Imagine if the BLM announced 22 million acres for oil/gas, mining, timber.

There wouldn't be enough craft beer in the country to feed the thirst of the usual suspects and their loud objections.

Are we putting an asterisk on "public land in public hands" now based on team jerseys?

Is it your contention that the oil/gas, mining, and timber doesn't have at least 80 million acres of BLM open to those extractive uses?

For the record, I'm not a fan of wind and solar on public lands, or really even private for that matter.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Imagine if the BLM announced 22 million acres for oil/gas, mining, timber.

There wouldn't be enough craft beer in the country to feed the thirst of the usual suspects and their loud objections.

Are we putting an asterisk on "public land in public hands" now based on team jerseys?

Oh yes......the "knit and bitch save the world pint night". I envision a lot of puffer jackets.

That group should push an agenda to just completely cover unit 6 and unit 7 Wyoming with solar panels. That would push the overpopulated elk into other units where they can be killed. This would also help them save some face with their democratic friends and solve the world's problems at the same time.

 

[BuzzH]

Oh yes......the "knit and bitch save the world pint night". I envision a lot of puffer jackets.

That group should push an agenda to just completely cover unit 6 and unit 7 Wyoming with solar panels. That would push the overpopulated elk into other units where they can be killed. This would also help them save some face with their democratic friends and solve the world's problems at the same time.

View attachment 312420

 

[88man]

Maybe the good folks a BHA can work to stop this and truly protect our public lands

 

[SAJ-99]

Imagine if the BLM announced 22 million acres for oil/gas, mining, timber.

There wouldn't be enough craft beer in the country to feed the thirst of the usual suspects and their loud objections.

Are we putting an asterisk on "public land in public hands" now based on team jerseys?

Don't have to image on your scenario. It would be nice to imagine that O&G would also cap those wells when they are done so we don't have to use tax dollars to cap the 100,000+ leaking wells they like to extract profit from and then leave to the peasants to fix.

Everyone on this board is going to lean toward this being a bad idea, but there plenty of people in some urban center that have never set foot on BLM that might think it is great. Poor arguments about cost or storage are not going get us toward real solutions. There are plenty of rooftops and parking lots that could have solar panels before we start degrading natural public lands (any further than O&G has already done). But it is going to be more expensive. We all need to work together toward more productive, long-term solutions rather than arguing a couple of cents/kwh.

BLM oil and gas lease sale in Wyoming nets $3,405,179 | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

 

[whatnot]

Is it your contention that the oil/gas, mining, and timber doesn't have at least 80 million acres of BLM open to those extractive uses?

For the record, I'm not a fan of wind and solar on public lands, or really even private for that matter.

My contention is that if development of public land is bad, then it's bad. Is development better because Stone -Manning proposes it rather than Pendley.?

The deafening silence from the mothership of your group is pretty deafening

 

[Mallardsx2]

Don't have to image on your scenario. It would be nice to imagine that O&G would also cap those wells when they are done so we don't have to use tax dollars to cap the 100,000+ leaking wells they like to extract profit from and then leave to the peasants to fix.

Everyone on this board is going to lean toward this being a bad idea, but there plenty of people in some urban center that have never set foot on BLM that might think it is great. Poor arguments about cost or storage are not going get us toward real solutions. There are plenty of rooftops and parking lots that could have solar panels before we start degrading natural public lands (any further than O&G has already done). But it is going to be more expensive. We all need to work together toward more productive, long-term solutions rather than arguing a couple of cents/kwh.

BLM oil and gas lease sale in Wyoming nets $3,405,179 | Bureau of Land Management

www.blm.gov

Better yet, lets re-work those "leaky wells" with new technology under the existing agreements and start producing them again and throw the solar BS in the garbage where it belongs.

Most current infrastructure will not allow solar panels to be placed on roofs that were not designed for them. Find me 1 engineer that will sign off on a building having added weight of solar panels placed on the roof of a commercial building and I will show you a licensed guy who isn't concerned with keeping his license active for long. lol

Solar is NOT the answer. It is NOT economically viable to build, maintain or operate. I can't believe how naive people are to this.

 

[Mallardsx2]

My contention is that if development of public land is bad, then it's bad. Is development better because Stone -Manning proposes it rather than Pendley.?

The deafening silence from the mothership of your group is pretty deafening

Yup.

This is why I refuse to support them. Right there.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Don't have to image on your scenario. It would be nice to imagine that O&G would also cap those wells when they are done so we don't have to use tax dollars to cap the 100,000+ leaking wells they like to extract profit from and then leave to the peasants to fix.

I mean 30 years from now the solar panels are producing at 25% capacity and cost more to maintain than they generate revenue. Get sold a couple of times, and we end up with a bunch of garbage on public lands that costs a pile of cash to remove.

What's "removal liability??" being charge to solar companies, to your point plugging liabilities were way to low when a lot of wells were drilled, have we learned from those lessons with solar and wind? - actual question

There are plenty of rooftops and parking lots that could have solar panels before we start degrading natural public lands (any further than O&G has already done). But it is going to be more expensive.

Interesting thought, we keep hearing that renewables are competitive with OG, but OG works where there is oil in the ground while Solar only works when it's subsidized or on basically free public land leases.

We don't drill public lands because they are public, we drill there because that's where the oil happens to be located. When it's located in urban areas we drill there.

Wells under Arlington-Ft Worth TX


You buy some single family houses or vacant lots, turn them into a pad, put up huge sound walls and drill.

 

[44hunter45]

(and I will add what the author didn't, the cost of insurance and lawsuits for every time a power line causes a wildfire).

Unless you're PG&E in California. You blame the fires on pot growers and the state hands you a get out of jail free card. Then you tell your customers you have to raise their rates.

 

[SAJ-99]

I mean 30 years from now the solar panels are producing at 25% capacity and cost more to maintain than they generate revenue. Get sold a couple of times, and we end up with a bunch of garbage on public lands that costs a pile of cash to remove.

What's "removal liability??" being charge to solar companies, to your point plugging liabilities were way to low when a lot of wells were drilled, have we learned from those lessons with solar and wind? - actual question


Interesting thought, we keep hearing that renewables are competitive with OG, but OG works where there is oil in the ground while Solar only works when it's subsidized or on basically free public land leases.

We don't drill public lands because they are public, we drill there because that's where the oil happens to be located. When it's located in urban areas we drill there.

Absolutely, there will be cleanup cost with anything- Solar, wind, O&G, nuclear. I think we should start including those costs in the projections. Mostly we are ignoring the sins of our fathers because no one wants to pay.

Solar is pretty competitive on a stand alone basis, but hard to measure because all power rates are controlled and subsidized in some way. I’m sure that BLM lease wouldn’t be free, but like grazing rights probably not fair market rate.

If I am honest, if climate continues on current trend, we are done as a society. People in FL can’t afford homeowners insurance because insurers can’t reinsure the risk and still make a return. All disaster relief will fall on the state which will then ask the federal government. That has to go through appropriations and our current politics show we can’t agree on anything. It will just be a matter of time before states don’t want to pay for other states’ “problems”. Dominoes falling…

 

[c0d95]

my understanding is that its 22 million acres that are available, up to 700,000 would be utilized. Still makes me sick. 700,000 acres of ruined public land.

Right...is there some form of reimbursement for tax payers aka public land owners? Of course not.

 

[whatnot]

As a Utahn, I get pretty damn tired of the jam job.

I'm sure I speak for the rest of the blm states.

Wind turbines at sea get shot down because the Kerry's and Kennedys didn't like the view, but jam this crap down the throats of the west.

 

[SAJ-99]

Unless you're PG&E in California. You blame the fires on pot growers and the state hands you a get out of jail free card. Then you tell your customers you have to raise their rates.

Not sure what you mean by "get out of jail free". PG&E was fined so much it had to declare bankruptcy. It is a good example of the conundrum of the modern utility.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I mean 30 years from now the solar panels are producing at 25% capacity and cost more to maintain than they generate revenue. Get sold a couple of times, and we end up with a bunch of garbage on public lands that costs a pile of cash to remove.

What's "removal liability??" being charge to solar companies, to your point plugging liabilities were way to low when a lot of wells were drilled, have we learned from those lessons with solar and wind? - actual question


Interesting thought, we keep hearing that renewables are competitive with OG, but OG works where there is oil in the ground while Solar only works when it's subsidized or on basically free public land leases.

We don't drill public lands because they are public, we drill there because that's where the oil happens to be located. When it's located in urban areas we drill there.

Wells under Arlington-Ft Worth TX
View attachment 312430

You buy some single family houses or vacant lots, turn them into a pad, put up huge sound walls and drill.
View attachment 312431

Inaccurate. Modern solar panels LOSE about 20 percent in 25 years, and are commonly warrantied that way. Also - AFAIK any energy development needs to place a "reclamation bond" to remediate after a project is finished - which came about from mining/o&g not footing the bill for it after declaring bankruptcy at the end. Historically - renewables have avoided public land. For evidence - the largest development of renewable power far and away exists in texas.

 

[SAJ-99]

Right...is there some form of reimbursement for tax payers aka public land owners? Of course not.

See table for lease rates. Google is your friend.

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/policies/IM2021-005_att5.pdf

 

[BuzzH]

Maybe the good folks a BHA can work to stop this and truly protect our public lands

Maybe you can get off your duff and do something?

 

[BuzzH]

My contention is that if development of public land is bad, then it's bad. Is development better because Stone -Manning proposes it rather than Pendley.?

The deafening silence from the mothership of your group is pretty deafening

And what's "your group" doing?

Thanks in advance.