Oil and gas articles challenged
Energy policy debate in T&T not appropriate
Grazing article praised

Oil and gas articles challenged

Editor: Regarding two articles published in the January-February issue of Trail & Timberline: “Is Energy Independence...” by Robin Hubbard, and “Saving the Roan Plateau” by Clare Bastable:  I am a 20+ year veteran of oil and gas exploration and production around the world, and I can assure you that many “facts” in both articles are neither accurate nor fair and balanced. 

Do these CMC representatives know where their natural gas comes from, what it costs, and what it may cost in the future if supply does not meet demand? If you plan to heat your home in 5–10 years at a reasonable price (less than $10/mcf versus $5 currently), you had better think twice before opposing all natural gas development in Colorado and, specifically, in gas-rich areas like the Roan Plateau. 

Alternative energy sources are great to pursue, but the reality is that we will all be using natural gas for the foreseeable future. Before disseminating a CMC–blessed opinion, which includes me as a member, how about calling upon some of us who could provide some enlightenment to those who don’t know the facts so they could provide an accurate, fair, and balanced view of the issue to the membership?

In the Hubbard ar-ti-cle, I assume that the author is merely ignorant of oil and gas resource estimates by the USGS and has not intended to mislead the CMC membership. Specifically, the author ar-gues that unrestricted drilling on fed-eral lands would provide for U.S. oil demand for only 222 days and gas for 1.7 years.  This is an ir--responsible argument. It as--sumes that all other sources of oil and gas would cease during the life of federal land reserves. USGS studies actually indicate that oil and gas reserves on federal lands will likely run for 50+ years, given all other currently producing sources, and likely equal more than 25% of current domestic reserves. That is a far cry from the author’s misleading statement that “push-ing energy development into these areas would not decrease our dependence on foreign oil for more that a few weeks.”

Pursuing alternative energy sources and conservation are necessary goals, but in our lifetimes we are not going to conserve our way to energy self-sufficiency when 57% of our oil is currently imported.  We can’t mandate, as the author argues, that a percentage of our electricity come from renewable sources because it isn’t going to happen unless it makes economic sense.  We prudently need to develop domestic  sources of oil and gas in order to wean ourselves from foreign oil dependence.  Lastly, whether 10% or 90% of federal lands are involved, the authors have a responsibility to provide accurate, fair, and balanced information so that members can formulate informed opinions on these critical issues.

--Don Regan
Western Slope Group

Energy policy debate in T&T
not appropriate

Editor: In the January-February 2003 issue of Trail & Timberline, Colorado Public Interest Research Group member Robin Hubbard provided our members with 2+ pages of her views on our National Energy Policy. The article was a blatant rant against the Bush energy policy. The fact that Trail & Timberline provided such a prominent platform is a disservice to CMC members. Articles of this nature should not be printed with my money.

I think a little energy consumption honesty is necessary. Members such as myself have a passion for the mountains. Most of us don’t get to the trailhead by foot. I would hate to see the amount of fuel my four-wheel drive has burnt in my pursuit of climbing mountains. I support the CMC’s interest regarding access issues as well as other political activities that affect our common interest on a case-by-case basis, but I did not join the CMC to be part of national energy policy debate.

The greater energy policy in general is not a debate for our club. Climbers have summitted some of the greatest mountains in Colorado and around the globe without supplemental oxygen-Ñbut without fuel? I don’t think so.

--Ryan Bendixen
Denver Group

Grazing article praised

Kudos to Steve Bonowski for highlight-ing the waste incurred through harmful public lands ranching in the west (T&T Jan.-Feb. 2003). Every user of public lands should contact elected officials as well as local Forest Service and BLM range managers to register their disgust with this fiscally and biologically wasteful program.

Lavish subsidies paid to the federal livestock grazing program have been swept under the rug for far too long. A report produced by the Tucson, AZ, based Center for Biological Diversity, Assessing the Full Cost of the Federal Grazing Program, found that the annual cost to the U.S. Treasury was $128M. Taking into account the many direct and indirect federal expenditures that benefit or compensate for impacts of livestock grazing on public lands, the full cost is closer to $500M every year.

The negative impacts of livestock grazing on threatened and endangered species are numerous and severe. Working for the Forest Service, Flather et al. (1994, 1998) synthesized data on 667 threatened and endangered species be-tween the years 1976 to 1994. He concluded from his data that grazing is the number one cause of species endangerment in the arid west.

The West is loosing its wild lands  because of the 22,000 welfare ranchers who are grazing cattle on ninety percent of our public lands but who produce less than four percent of the nation’s beef supply. When will this madness end?

ÑA.J. Schneller

Grazing Reform Research Associate

Center for Biological Diversity