doublegunshop.com - home Forums Militia Enroute to Bunkerville

Fossil fuels are to stay for many decades and the benefits of both coal oil and fracking far outweigh any perceived disadvantages the environment groups try to show.Fossil fuels remain the most efficient, reliable, and affordable energy available. They enable ordinary Americans to travel to work, heat and cool their homes, and put food on their family�s table.

Alternative energy provides less then 2% of the world energy needs and is littered with failed government backed schemes like Fisker.

Its time for the western states to evict the Feds !

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2014/04/time-for-western-states-to-evict-feds/

�More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-,timber-and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

��It�s simply time,� said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. �The urgency is now.�

Here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven eastern states:

Illinois: 1.8%

Ohio: 1.7%

Alabama: 1.6%

Maine: 1.1%

New York: 0.8%

Rhode Island: 0.4%

Connecticut: 0.4%

By contrast, here is the percentage of land owned by the federal government in seven western states:

Wyoming: 42.3%

California: 45.3%

Arizona: 48.1%

Idaho: 50.2%

Oregon: 53.1%

Utah: 57.4%

Nevada: 84.5%

Remember that ranchers and farmers such as Cliven Bundy were promised access to these federal lands in perpetuity back in the nineteenth century when all of these land deals were being negotiated between the states and the federal government. Beyond that, ownership of the land by the federal government was supposed to preserve and protect the land for the people, not for the federal government.

Those states in the West were the property of the US before they became states. They were admitted to the Union as full states by a vote of congress on congress' terms. Those terms included retention by the Feds of vast swaths of public land.

Texas was a Republic for a few years before it was admitted to the Union. The Republic of Texas did negotiate retention of its public lands and the US accepted it on those terms. The original (thirteen?) colonies also kept their public lands. For reasons I don't understand there is not a lot of public land (state or Federal) in Kansas either.

Almost all hunting in Texas is on private land. Although there is some public "walk-in" hunting most hunting is leased out. It is very expensive in my opinion. I usually make a trip every year to New Mexico to hunt Blues on BLM and state land. I estimate about a third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the Feds. At the time of Texas' admission into the Union a disagreement about who owned New Mexico and Colorado between the US and the Republic of Texas was settled. Obviously the Feds got New Mexico and Colorado, along with their public lands.

Can you post a photo of the enormous areas of "destroyed" public land in any of these states? What is your definition of "destroyed"? The only things I have actually seen are new well heads and increased truck traffic on un-improved roads. This hardly constitutes "destruction". This notion of "destruction" of land is a hint of someone who thinks what occurs to a section of land in their lifetimes is significant in geological time, which, is most certainly not the case. This is often a liberal's erroneous viewpoint.
What will said land look like in 1 million years? 10 million years? The dinosaurs existed for 55 million years, give or take, and land was created and actually destroyed throughout that period, with no input from mankind. This is a bit more significant than the view that land can be "destroyed" in the coarse of a man's lifetime, which, is, of coarse, silly.

Another point, if I may? The way I see it, your own breathing and digestion are, in fact, "dead ends". They cannot and will not be sustained to infinity. None the less, I'm going to go out on a limb, and guess that you are interested in them continuing as long as possible, despite them being a complete "dead end".

Such is where we find ourselves with petroleum and it's by products.


Best,
Ted

I have killed many many blue and bobwhite quail within yards of oil wells and their associated infrastructure. An oil well doesn't seem to bother them at all.

I don't see how an oil well or a tank farm harms the Lesser Prairie Chickens or Sage Grouse either.

The root cause of all pollution and all endangerment of species is the overpopulation of the planet.

I suggest much of the opposition to the new Western fossil fuel boom is just guerrilla warfare on perceived CO2 induced global warming. Obama won't reject the XL pipeline because of the coming November elections. He won't approve it because he is opposed to fossil fuels. But he is for jobs.

It saddens me to hear that the area I hunt in Montana is in the new oil boom. It means more people, less game, and higher costs. But I don't begrudge the new jobs and improved economy brought to the area's residents.

I tried to highlight all the important facts here.

Also wondering, where can I find out more about dead ends and big bad corps. One of the most awe inspiring sights is a row of wind turbines at the foot of the Rocky's, in Montana, with every other one locked down because it tripped off for yet another problem. I wonder if the cocktail party libs will care if a place like Bunkerville is preserved in all its glory by being blanketed with chinese panels. Happy hunting.

And all those wind farms and solar farms have to be backed up by a fossil fuel plant with 100% of the "renewable's" capacity for those times that the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow.

So we import solar panels from China at the expense of coal miners and oil industry workers in the US. But Obama is for job growth.

Reluctant conclusion or justification. It's a familiar theme, 'I can't stand all you kooks, buy ya know we're all in this together, so lets just support the dems cause they make me feel good, I think'.

The New York Times condemns and opposes the mining, transporting, refining and burning of fossil fuels at every opportunity and on the smallest of pretexts. But in the context of the partial annexation of Ukraine the NYT editors advocated an immediate program to build infrastructure so we can export natural gas to Europe to end their dependence on Russia's. Why weren't they pushing a solar and windmill solution instead of a natural gas solution for those Europeans?

interesting viewpoints. The effects of the Bakken are well documented. I started a thread a few weeks ago inquiry where a guy might hunt. Not a pretty picture.

Oh and since we are pointing out the obvious regarding fossils fuels. Could one one of you die hards explain how when multinational oil companies sell resources that come from our public land on the INTERNATIONAL commodities market that somehow provides the US with secure fuel source. The multinationals benefit and the US consumer takes it in the shorts while the stockholders cash a nice dividend check. Politics as usual boys.

Far from "die hards" Steve,the facts fully support mine others views that oil/coal/nat gas are all going to be by far the most significant producers of world energy demands,Not wind Not solar.

Oil,like other commodities are all traded on an international markets, the profits can go to the Saudis' or to those who pay taxes here-that benefit ALL Americans.Before you trash big oil take a look at the tax they pay,the jobs-high paying jobs they provide and benefits of having natural resources available here in this country,one look at economies that don't like Japan show are fortunate we are.
Taxes and Tax rates of big oil;
ExxonMobil paid $146 billion in taxes; Chevron paid $85 billion; and ConocoPhillips paid $58 billion over the last five years.

In terms of their effective tax rates, the big three oil companies don�t get off easily either. Exxon had an effective tax rate of 37 percent, Chevron�s effective tax rate was 39 percent, and ConocoPhillips�s was a whopping 74 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

In fact, the big three oil companies paid multiples more, in both total dollars and effective tax rates, than such administration favorites as Apple, Google and General Electric.