[djb47]

Hi All,

You may have heard that many National Monuments are going to be reviewed for opening them to oil and gas drilling.

You can read the DOI document here: Regulations.gov

Many of the National Monuments are photographers havens. If you have been to the National Monuments or have seen photos of them, you have an opinion about their value.

Let the Department of Interior how you feel. There are two ways to express you opinions.

1) Online: Online site opens today. May 12, 2017

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001 then enter "DOI-2017-0002" in he search bar.

2) Mail:

Monument Review , MS - 1530
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240

[FilmORbitz]

Thank you for helping combat the current insanity. Nothing is sacred.

[monochrome]

Depends on the specific National Monument under review.

In recent years vast tracts of wasteland, scrub grass, barely useful for grazing, much less photography, yet Federal property since the Louisiana Purchase - millions of such acres have been designated National Monuments with the stroke of a Presidential pen specifically to inhibit resource development. In some cases there is a justification for the set-aside. In others there is absolutely nothing monumental about the Monument; the designation was purely politically motivated.

The government receives lease revenue and royalties on resources recovered. 'Review' means what it appears to mean. Balance the needs of conservation of the good stuff against the need of the People to increase the Revenue of the US Treasury where there is no other useful purpose for the land..

[rod_grant]

Are they going to find oil under Washington's house?

[surfar]

Are they going to find oil under Washington's house?

They found some in his car!

[brightseal]

resource development

Why can't we quit fossil fuels?

[monochrome]

Why can't we quit fossil fuels?

Not being snarky - there's 2 trillion dollars of fixed capital invested in fossil fuel production, refining and distribution in the US alone. It would take another 2 trillion dollars of capital to convert to alternative sources. That's 1.5% of the total sum of capital assets invested in the US just for fossil fuel, not counting downstream capital invested in everything that uses fossil fuels. We're only 27% of the world's capital investment and production.

It is literally impossible - not figuratively, literally - to fully quit fossil fuels.

[FilmORbitz]

Not being snarky - there's 2 trillion dollars of fixed capital invested in fossil fuel production, refining and distribution in the US alone. It would take another 2 trillion dollars of capital to convert to alternative sources. That's 1.5% of the total sum of capital assets invested in the US just for fossil fuel, not counting downstream capital invested in everything that uses fossil fuels. We're only 27% of the world's capital investment and production.

It is literally impossible - not figuratively, literally - to fully quit fossil fuels.

We've quite recently seen that reserves-a-plenty exist when crude price fluctuations motivate development of existing non-designated areas. The drive to open these protected lands is simply to expose low-hanging fruit, but we will not see that reflected at the pump. I for one would like my children's children to be able to view natural areas sans oil derricks or McDonald's arches. One man's wasteland may be another's paradise, and not simply an unexploited resource.
There was a time when the best way to move products was a grass-powered horse, then a coal-fired locomotive, and today it's millions of hydrocarbon-belching autos/trucks/busses. This is not a sustainable mode of power generation in a highly-interdependent and fragile ecosystem. The incumbent fossil fuel industry has virtually infinite resources when it comes to convincing us gasoline is still the next best thing to cigarettes, but anyone who's been paying attention knows otherwise. True enough, fossil fuels will be with us for some time, but the first step to something better is not a step backward.

[monochrome]

We've quite recently seen that reserves-a-plenty exist when crude price fluctuations motivate development of existing non-designated areas. The drive to open these protected lands is simply to expose low-hanging fruit, but we will not see that reflected at the pump. I for one would like my children's children to be able to view natural areas sans oil derricks or McDonald's arches. One man's wasteland may be another's paradise, and not simply an unexploited resource.
There was a time when the best way to move products was a grass-powered horse, then a coal-fired locomotive, and today it's millions of hydrocarbon-belching autos/trucks/busses. This is not a sustainable mode of power generation in a highly-interdependent and fragile ecosystem. The incumbent fossil fuel industry has virtually infinite resources when it comes to convincing us gasoline is still the next best thing to cigarettes, but anyone who's been paying attention knows otherwise. True enough, fossil fuels will be with us for some time, but the first step to something better is not a step backward.

End Fossil Fuels! Support Nuclear Power!.

I'm out. This will just get political and stupid.

[aslyfox]

It is nice to discuss

Not nice to argue

( this comment is meant in general, it is not directed to any member of the Forum )

MHO, YMMV

[brightseal]

Not being snarky

2 trillion dollars of fixed capital invested in fossil fuel production,

another 2 trillion dollars of capital to convert to alternative sources

1.5% of the total sum of capital assets

not counting downstream capital invested in everything that uses fossil fuels

It is literally impossible - not figuratively, literally - to fully quit fossil fuels.

All this money going to the top 1/10 of 1% without any other considerations. Why?

If I didn't know better I would think money is God......

Anything is possible.