Top Gun’s Tough on Lizards Too…
When the issue of the dunes sagebrush lizard first became a hot topic last year, it was widely believed in the oil industry that the environmental movement had such a strong and sympathetic ally in the anti-fossil fuels Obama administration, that the southwestern oil fields the little critter calls home were doomed. Many in the currently booming Permian Basin of West Texas and Southeast New Mexico were predicting that another era of economic prosperity was about to be driven off the cliff, this time not due to the dropping price of crude but rather by any insignificant little reptile that few locals had ever heard of, much less seen.
Yesterday, sanity seems to have prevailed when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced that this elusive sub-species which exists only in the habitat provided by the shin oaks of this desert region, would not be added to the list of endangered species. NewMexicoWatchDog.org quotes Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, “This is the right thing for conservation, and the right thing for the economy.” Congressman Steve Pearce, who fiercely fought the listing from the outset, is quoted in the same article,
“While it was a long and emotional process, in the end, Washington listened, and the lizard will not be listed. This is a huge victory for the people who have tirelessly fought to save regional jobs and our way of life. I extend my gratitude to the New Mexicans who came to the table, and through good faith efforts, voluntarily protected the lizard’s habitat.”
So why am I, one of those whose economy was directly threatened (prosperous oil industry folks are the primary tourist base and wealthy vacation homeowners in our little mountain resort community) not shouting “Yahoos!” and “Attaboys!” at the Obama administration for making the right call on saving our fossil fuel industry? Perhaps it’s because the cynicism developed over seven decades (well, truthfully, only four-I was a borderline airhead liberal optimist for the first three) has me wondering how this decision might have gone were Barack Obama not facing an increasingly difficult re-election. While I’m encouraged by the obvious growth in office of someone who formerly only threw people under the bus to a new resolve to totally obliterate them, I’m still skeptical. We’ve seen the recent, controversial leaks indisputably timed to show what a resolute tough guy our commander-in-chief is when fighting threats against America. Are we now to conclude that same awesome resolution extends to a reptilian menace to our petroleum dependent way of life out here in the Great Southwest as well? Is Lord Axelrod attempting to communicate to the oil-stained wretches of the Permian Basin a message?
“Yo! Oilfield trash! Top Gun’s got yo’ six!”
Perhaps the disappointed environmentalists who fought to shut down the industry to protect this dunes sagebrush lizard should dispatch forthwith a squad of binocular-equipped volunteers to be dispersed among the shin oak groves. Hellfire-armed drone watch, don’t you know?
Lads…be especially vigilant on Tuesdays…
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Dumbass Bullshit
The uniqueness of the species isn’t so much important as it’s place in the ecosystem. It does seem the due diligence was done, but that doesn’t address the overall environmental impact of drilling. You can find new energy sources, but it’s hard to repair environmental damage. These sort of operations invariably contaminate the area, the company moves on, and the taxpayer is left footing the cleanup and healthcare costs. I don’t know if a job is worth that.
The agreements call for 650,000 acres of the lizard’s habitat to be protected. The agreements also call for “financial restoration” of damaged habitat. FWP will be the determining agency, and the oil companies will get the bill. Oh, and if the oil industry doesn’t play along?
The lizard goes on the endangered species list, and drilling ceases.
Our government is beginning to act like the Mob more and more.
Yes, they do manage to exercise tactics that should any of us try would fall under RICO.
Maybe this one got past the sycophants to the enviroterrorists because so many are busy with the campaign?
Ann–I was raised in the oil patch, coal industry, and the infrastructure required to support it. From an environmental standpoint, getting oil and coal from the ground is a much safer and less destructive process than even a generation ago.
The old movies showing the blowout and gusher are thankfully (mostly) a thing of the past.
Ann: you got an economically feasible, immediately-implementable alternative to petroleum? If not, how do you feel about $6-7/gallon gasoline and $1000+/month bill for heat (for a house heated to maybe 60F) in the winter?
And don’t even start with ethanol. That at best is marginal on an energy-content basis when total energy required for production is accounted for – and may actually be counterproductive (e.g., take more total energy to produce than it yields).
We use petroleum because there isn’t anything feasible that works better. The choices aren’t petroleum or something else; the choices are petroleum or do without.
“The choices aren’t petroleum or something else; the choices are petroleum or do without”. Wait, isn’t wind power the answer? Solar? Hydro? Can’t you just picture a freeway full of cars with windmills on top? Or miles of stalled cars if it’s a cloudy day? Or a waterfall in each car?
I put the snark up, just in case our own little Joey shows up to pollute the thread.
Hondo, I wish since then I could retire at 23. I just don’t think we are putting enough into R&D for alternatives. I agree about ethanol completely, but failures are what help get us to the answers.
There hasn’t been a promising track record of companies being held accountable when they screw up and cause an accident. We’re the ones left with the cleanup.
I just don’t think we are putting enough into R&D for alternatives.
Tell you what, Ann–you tell me how much is “enough” for R&D into alternative fuels/energy sources.
Cause I’ll guarantee we’re probably spending WAY more than that.
Actually companies are held accountable. Exxon and BP to name just a couple. I grew up in logging country where the spotted owl was trotted out as an excuse to block timber harvesting. It was junk science BS but it worked. The Eco-warriors have destroyed the logging industry.
Oh and the pining for alternative energy R&D reminds me of those always complaining about conducting wars where no “civilians” are ever harmed. The complaints are by people who know zero about energy production or the limits of current technology. But gosh darn it oil is just so yucky! I must have a world running on unicorn farts and Skittles!
Ann: we have one workable partial alternative – nuclear. The environmental movement kinda frowns on that one, though. It’s cost-competitive with pretty much anything except hydro (and maybe even that) in terms of generating electricity. It’s well known, safe when properly built/operated, and causes far less damage to the environment than any other source of energy production. Waste disposal is a done deal if we can ever find the political will to use Yucca Flats. It could easily be used to generate all of our US baseline electrical power needs if we wanted (France gets about 80% of it’s base electrical load from nuclear), plus generate spare electricity for the hydrolysis of water into O2 and H2 (or for hi-temp conversion; more later). But ever since Three Mile Island, politics precludes its widespread use because “something bad might happen”. Something bad might happen every time you cross the street or go to work, too. And airplanes crash sometimes. But we still cross streets, go to work, and fly. However, even nuclear is only a partial solution. It generates energy cleanly and cheaply, but not in the form needed. Safe portability of stored energy is the other factor. And for safe portability, today petroleum products win – hands down. Not even close. We could use nuclear to produce H2, which is a helluva good fuel. But it’s not easy to deal with at room temperature. As a gas, it’s hard to carry much with you safely (compressed gas tanks of any meaningful capacity get big and/or heavy quickly). And as a liquid, you’ve got a problem – it’s liquid only somewhere below -400 F. Kinda hard to handle then, too. Most other fuels which are gases at normal temperatures share this problem to some degree. Propane is an exception; it’s workable because it’s boiling point is fairly high, so it doesn’t need extreme cooling to be liquid at reasonable pressure (it’s liquid at 100 F at a bit less than 200PSI pressure, and it’s relatively easy to build a tank that will handle that). But it’s about the only common fuel… Read more »
I would like to see R&D on alternative fuels (my choices would probably be ethanol and methanol), but not from the environmental slant anymore. I want to see the US develop all of our available fuel sources to get out from under the oil we buy from the Middle East. I also think it would help our economy, to widen the energy employment field.
And not to go all Star Trek and everything, but new fuels are going to be necessary for long range space travel, and there is a market looming (SpaceX, anyone?) that needs to be prepared for.
Pinto–get out from under the thumb of the ME? That’s simple. Develop our own sources at home. Coal. Oil. Natural gas. Tell the Chinese to get the fuck off our shores. Get the rigs back from Petrobras. Build the fucking Keystone Pipeline, and lots more with them.
Our current production rate is the same as it was in the late 1940’s. Peaked in the early 70’s, and with the exception of the Alaska Pipeline coming online in the late 70’s/early 80’s, has been in pretty steady and constant decline since.
I may have phrased my comment incorrectly. I wasn’t saying we should attempt to substitute petroleum products with alternative fuels; what I meant to say was that research should be encouraged, while continuing to expand our petroleum industries.
[…] Top Gun’s Tough on Lizards Too… […]
I’m going to just drop this in about endangered species. If you haven’t heard about the fuss about the endangered pupfish, which lives in only ONE place in a canyon in either New Mexico or Arizona (I forget which) and the spats and quarrels over whether or not it should be listed as endangered, well — now you have. And that was some twenty years ago, I think.
There was a 7.0 earthquake in Mexico which created a long-distance side effect, a violent wave action in the pool of water in which the pupfish were residing.
I say residing, because the waves were up to 3 feet high and washed away all the pupfish and all of their eggs. They’re gone and that’s that.
End of story.
Hondo, I’m goingnto reply within a few days. My laptop charger crapped so I’m stuck using my Kindle Fire which sucks for typing until my new charger gets here (>.<)