antlerradar
Well-known member
Hossblur eats a snickers, all you are going to get is hossblur and a little more sugar. He is pretty consistent.
22 million BLM acres for development?
- Thread starter hossblur
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
I'm still waiting for my George Jetson space scooter.
brocksw
Well-known member
There is no free lunch, period. I don't think anyone in the organizations under the lens in this thread are ignorant to that. I think the disconnect is that some see these original, broad proposals as the equivalent to a specific project in a specific location.
For instance, if someone wanted to cover the boundary waters in solar panels, I feel pretty confident saying BHA and other orgs, would oppose that just as strongly as they oppose a mine. I know that's not exactly an apples to apples, but that's as close as I can come.
Conversely, these solar/renewable proposals on a multi state scale aren't specific to renewable energry, it's just a more modern process, more public and accessible, because it's taking place today and not 100 years ago. They didn't have an EIS with maps showing the result of the raster analysis of a huge subset of data inputs when the oil industry was first getting it's feet on the ground. But I would guess, that if these roles were reversed, and the oil industry was in the same position right now, we'd likely see a similar map (in purpose) depicting acceptable locations to develop minerals.
According to the BLM "23 million Federal acres were under lease to oil and gas developers at the end of FY 2022. Of that, about 12.4 million acres are producing oil and gas in economic quantities. This activity came from over 89,000 wells on over 23,500 producing oil and gas leases". None of these orgs Hoss likes to mention opposed ALL oil and gas development on ALL public land. At least, I haven't seen any objections like that. Rather, it's specific projects in specific locations. Outside of those specific objections, these orgs and their chapters, participate in plan revisions to help guide responsible development in areas where it is more acceptable, to help establish areas that are not acceptable but maybe not worthy of national attention like pebble mine or *insert location here*.
Personally, I believe multiple use is pretty crucial to the success and existence of public lands. Opposing an entire industry is just not realistic, and has no backing in terms of historic success in doing so.
Just my 2 pennies
44hunter45
Well-known member
I do.
I remember as small businesses were getting shut down restaurants were going bankrupt you posting they "deserved to lose them", because they hadn't put enough money in savings to survive a government shutdown.
I also remember the PM I got from Randy to be nice to you, apparently you'd complained to management.
Coincidentally not the first, nor the only, covering several other forums. Seems you like to talk big, then tell the teacher.
In sure you've got it handled Buzz. You did single handedly shut down One Shot after all with that stirring testimony you gave.
antlerradar
Well-known member
My biggest issue with solar is the multiple use aspect. Put in a field of solar panels and you are getting close to solar and only solar. There might be a place for solar on public where there is little other uses, I am thinking of the salt flats in Nevada or Utah, but the Red Desert in WY is not one of them.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Was that before or after uncle sugar sent the checks bailing out business?0
Tons of bolo ties and cowboy hats present at sheep show and millions spent to kill hand selected sheep at wild sheep last week, was habitat loss the solar farms brought up as an issue?
About to be a ton of people show up in bedazzled jeans, mullets, camo and firebull hats at western hunt expo in salt lake; will any time be spent on solar farm issues?
About to be a ton of people show up in bedazzled jeans, mullets, camo and firebull hats at western hunt expo in salt lake; will any time be spent on solar farm issues?
brocksw
Well-known member
I would agree with you. I'm not knowledgeable enough about some of those areas to be able to talk intelligently about specifics. But solar fields concern me too. But, so do roads to new oil pads that remove native forage for mule deer. So do wind mills that kill birds. So do urban developments in mountain valleys. There's a long list of negatives that come with development of any kind, like I said, there's no free lunch.
I could be wrong, but I bet when the dust settles on this EIS, you will see a strong showing on behalf of mule deer and pronghorn migration corridors, sheep lambing areas, etc. Those efforts will come from the very orgs Hoss is criticizing. They are working on those comments right now, as we speak. I know that for a fact.
Nick87
Well-known member
I'm not entering this shit throwing contest. Just a side note...pretty disappointing the amount of businesses who were hardly or not affected at all that recieved ridiculous sums. Meanwhile others who were in need of it received zero.
antlerradar
Well-known member
My issue with this approach is that is sounds a lot like protect the best and pave the rest or in this case cover it with blue glass.
brocksw
Well-known member
Sadly, there's probably some truth to that. We've seen it happen right here in North Dakota. In the 1970's, 500,000 acres of the ND Badlands was "Suitable for Wilderness", that's been whittled down to around 40k acres and another 160k acres of inventoried roadless areas. 95% of federal minerals have been leased in some shape or form. Compromises always benefit the development industry (pick one) in the long term. You can only cut something in half so many times before there's nothing left to cut in half anymore.
I agree. It's not perfect. I don't like it either. But I don't have any ideas to address the exact point you bring up, at least not ones that have any degree of social acceptance or tolerance. Wish I did.
All that time on the throne, did you read the EIS or just think of Buzz?
I was too young for the beginning of wolf wars.
But I'm watching it now. Watching Grizzy delighting wars.
Honest question.
Why do we, as public land folks, care about "socially acceptable"
While I disagree with the methods in keeping wolves or bears listed, I can't help but respect the tenacity.
When tge BLM says 22 million, but they'd settle for 700k, it's because they wanted 700k.
We start at 700k and negotiate where those acres are. We accepted their number then "celebrate" we get to talk about which 700k?
I know that was a clumsy wording, hopefully it made sense.
I don't need a set up.man
I read War & Peace when I had to get the cleanse. The EIS isn't nearly as pedantic.
BuzzH
Well-known member
They call it rent free.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
The grift is collapsing.
time.com
"After interests and fees, that $62,000 turned out to be more like $90,000. Today, Hernandez pays about $400 a month on the loan. Worse, his electric bill is still in the $500 range, because the panels do not produce the promised electricity. The company took out a lien on his house without his knowledge, he says, and it turns out that his 2019 income—around $50,000—meant that he wasn’t making enough money to qualify for the tax incentive upfront. He sued Southern Solar, and a jury awarded him $500,000 in November 2023 but he hasn’t seen a penny yet, he says. "
Residential Solar Is In Trouble
Complicated financial products helped the U.S. rooftop-solar-power industry grow, but now put it at risk of implosion.
"After interests and fees, that $62,000 turned out to be more like $90,000. Today, Hernandez pays about $400 a month on the loan. Worse, his electric bill is still in the $500 range, because the panels do not produce the promised electricity. The company took out a lien on his house without his knowledge, he says, and it turns out that his 2019 income—around $50,000—meant that he wasn’t making enough money to qualify for the tax incentive upfront. He sued Southern Solar, and a jury awarded him $500,000 in November 2023 but he hasn’t seen a penny yet, he says. "
Last edited:
Mallardsx2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,616
The grift is collapsing.
Residential Solar Is In Trouble
Complicated financial products helped the U.S. rooftop-solar-power industry grow, but now put it at risk of implosion.
"After interests and fees, that $62,000 turned out to be more like $90,000. Today, Hernandez pays about $400 a month on the loan. Worse, his electric bill is still in the $500 range, because the panels do not produce the promised electricity. The company took out a lien on his house without his knowledge, he says, and it turns out that his 2019 income—around $50,000—meant that he wasn’t making enough money to qualify for the tax incentive upfront. He sued Southern Solar, and a jury awarded him $500,000 in November 2023 but he hasn’t seen a penny yet, he says. "
Those rooftop solar vampires were the worst. lol
The smart "solar people" were the ones that sold their leases to other suckers over a year ago. Tesla's stupidest decision IMHO was to buy SolarCity. They will lose their a$$es on that when the administration has a changing of the guard... Write it down. Once the incentives and the govt funding is shut down for these solar farms, that will be the end of it. If I was in the business, I would be getting out NOW if I could, but I fear it is far too late.
I watched it happening all across the southeast. Solar leases were the hot potatoes of the southeast as far as investments went. A gets lease ----> sells to B ----> B Sells to C---C ...well C is screwed because nobody wants to buy them this close to an election.
