Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
dlhicks
Is this you? Claim Profile »
11 months ago
in All tapped out on The New Mexico Independent
re:jbaca
not entirely sure what you are getting at.. but keep in mind that just because an oil company leases land, does not mean it will drill there. Certainly it means they are very interested, and intend to drill there.. but frequently other factors come into play that can change this, for better or worse.
Oil prices, the success/failure of other projects within the company, changing policies at the state or federal level, landowners, the success/failure of surrounding wells, and sometimes just plain old geology.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy :)
not entirely sure what you are getting at.. but keep in mind that just because an oil company leases land, does not mean it will drill there. Certainly it means they are very interested, and intend to drill there.. but frequently other factors come into play that can change this, for better or worse.
Oil prices, the success/failure of other projects within the company, changing policies at the state or federal level, landowners, the success/failure of surrounding wells, and sometimes just plain old geology.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy :)
11 months ago
in All tapped out on The New Mexico Independent
re:jbaca
not entirely sure what you are getting at.. but keep in mind that just because an oil company leases land, does not mean it will drill there. Certainly it means they are very interested, and intend to drill there.. but frequently other factors come into play that can change this, for better or worse.
Oil prices, the success/failure of other projects within the company, changing policies at the state or federal level, landowners, the success/failure of surrounding wells, and sometimes just plain old geology.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy :)
not entirely sure what you are getting at.. but keep in mind that just because an oil company leases land, does not mean it will drill there. Certainly it means they are very interested, and intend to drill there.. but frequently other factors come into play that can change this, for better or worse.
Oil prices, the success/failure of other projects within the company, changing policies at the state or federal level, landowners, the success/failure of surrounding wells, and sometimes just plain old geology.
Not everything has to be a conspiracy :)
11 months ago
in Santa Fe national forest will be a quieter, sweeter-smelling place on The New Mexico Independent
Trust me...do not take this lightly.
NFS just went through the same thing down here in the Sandia Ranger District and the result was heavily in favor of anyplace where off-road motor vehicles are currently being used. The end result was that they more or less gave a rubber stamp to existing conditions making whatever use currently existed "officially sanctioned". The NFS will claim that they are doing you a big favor by limiting use to only specific trails, and not between trails or allowing people to blaze new ones... while at the same time admitting they do not have the resources to enforce any of that.
In short.. I think they are very short staffed, under funded.. and my impression down here at least.. is that they did what was easiest..i.e. pander to the off-road crowd.
My word of advice...create a ruckus, be loud and be heard clearly and early. None of that really happened down here, and much to my regret I wasn't paying attention until the last couple months after most of the meetings had been held.
NFS just went through the same thing down here in the Sandia Ranger District and the result was heavily in favor of anyplace where off-road motor vehicles are currently being used. The end result was that they more or less gave a rubber stamp to existing conditions making whatever use currently existed "officially sanctioned". The NFS will claim that they are doing you a big favor by limiting use to only specific trails, and not between trails or allowing people to blaze new ones... while at the same time admitting they do not have the resources to enforce any of that.
In short.. I think they are very short staffed, under funded.. and my impression down here at least.. is that they did what was easiest..i.e. pander to the off-road crowd.
My word of advice...create a ruckus, be loud and be heard clearly and early. None of that really happened down here, and much to my regret I wasn't paying attention until the last couple months after most of the meetings had been held.
11 months ago
in Santa Fe national forest will be a quieter, sweeter-smelling place on The New Mexico Independent
Trust me...do not take this lightly.
NFS just went through the same thing down here in the Sandia Ranger District and the result was heavily in favor of anyplace where off-road motor vehicles are currently being used. The end result was that they more or less gave a rubber stamp to existing conditions making whatever use currently existed "officially sanctioned". The NFS will claim that they are doing you a big favor by limiting use to only specific trails, and not between trails or allowing people to blaze new ones... while at the same time admitting they do not have the resources to enforce any of that.
In short.. I think they are very short staffed, under funded.. and my impression down here at least.. is that they did what was easiest..i.e. pander to the off-road crowd.
My word of advice...create a ruckus, be loud and be heard clearly and early. None of that really happened down here, and much to my regret I wasn't paying attention until the last couple months after most of the meetings had been held.
NFS just went through the same thing down here in the Sandia Ranger District and the result was heavily in favor of anyplace where off-road motor vehicles are currently being used. The end result was that they more or less gave a rubber stamp to existing conditions making whatever use currently existed "officially sanctioned". The NFS will claim that they are doing you a big favor by limiting use to only specific trails, and not between trails or allowing people to blaze new ones... while at the same time admitting they do not have the resources to enforce any of that.
In short.. I think they are very short staffed, under funded.. and my impression down here at least.. is that they did what was easiest..i.e. pander to the off-road crowd.
My word of advice...create a ruckus, be loud and be heard clearly and early. None of that really happened down here, and much to my regret I wasn't paying attention until the last couple months after most of the meetings had been held.
1 year ago
in West Siders beware on The New Mexico Independent
I'd love to see more public awareness on this issue, but I would like to see a more balanced approach to it. I think this, and this sort of article (by this sort I mean highly biased) contributes little towards creating "real" awareness about this issue.
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to have a real discussion of the pro's (yes there are) and cons (of which there are many) and realities of energy in New Mexico than to paint it all with a very one sided brush ? How is that better than just believing what an oil company exec will tell you ?
Here is what I think would be a more realistic approach:
1. If the oil and gas reserves in the Rio Grande Rift really are of the scale that was mentioned here
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/200...
Given the current trends in oil/gas prices, it is highly likely that these reserves are going to be tapped.
2. The good news is that what wasn't possible/likely/economically feasible at $8 oil, is much more plausible with oil bouncing between $130-$140/barrel, or even at $70 or $80 (which is probably more like what a company might use to run their numbers).
3. Oil and gas are realities in your life. You may not like them, or the people who profit from them, but they surround you and are so deeply integrated into your life that for the next 10 or 15 years we all are going to have to live with the consequences of the world we built. You cannot quit cold turkey, and even if you can, most of the rest of us cannot, will not, and probably should not.
4. It is possible to explore for oil/as, find it and produce it without contaminating our water,air etc.. It is expensive, and requires diligence and a very careful eye on the people making the money to make sure corners are not cut... The good news is (see #2).
5. If you buy into the fact that the city/state/country cannot quit cold turkey, and believe that the city/state needs to pursue alternative energies wouldn't it be great to structure deals such that money the state receives for it reserves are dedicated to such projects. Use the money from fossil fuels to fund cleaner, more renewable energy.
6. There is some advantage for all concerned, to diversifying the NM and Albq. economies. It will definitely supply jobs and revenue to the state. Certainly there is a boom and bust cycle to the business, but the boom ($70/barrel +) is probably here to stay.
7. In the article, and subsequent posts there was mention made of wind/solar farms in lieu of oil exploration. Most places people have tried to build either, near population centers anyhow.. have met with some push back given the area they require and their aesthetics. My point being that these are not without their own problems. Not that they shouldn't be pursued.. but lets not fool ourselves into thinking right now, today these solutions provide all the answers and make all our decisions based upon that belief.
So...let's talk about it.. argue about it.. tell me why we can't make the oil/seismic/service companies clean up after themselves and leave a minimal foot print while helping funding the leading edge renewable energy projects. Do we know we can't we have our cake and eat it too ?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable discussion and in fact I think most people would be willing too.
So whaddya say.. is the NM Independent and/or readers up for it ?
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to have a real discussion of the pro's (yes there are) and cons (of which there are many) and realities of energy in New Mexico than to paint it all with a very one sided brush ? How is that better than just believing what an oil company exec will tell you ?
Here is what I think would be a more realistic approach:
1. If the oil and gas reserves in the Rio Grande Rift really are of the scale that was mentioned here
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/200...
Given the current trends in oil/gas prices, it is highly likely that these reserves are going to be tapped.
2. The good news is that what wasn't possible/likely/economically feasible at $8 oil, is much more plausible with oil bouncing between $130-$140/barrel, or even at $70 or $80 (which is probably more like what a company might use to run their numbers).
3. Oil and gas are realities in your life. You may not like them, or the people who profit from them, but they surround you and are so deeply integrated into your life that for the next 10 or 15 years we all are going to have to live with the consequences of the world we built. You cannot quit cold turkey, and even if you can, most of the rest of us cannot, will not, and probably should not.
4. It is possible to explore for oil/as, find it and produce it without contaminating our water,air etc.. It is expensive, and requires diligence and a very careful eye on the people making the money to make sure corners are not cut... The good news is (see #2).
5. If you buy into the fact that the city/state/country cannot quit cold turkey, and believe that the city/state needs to pursue alternative energies wouldn't it be great to structure deals such that money the state receives for it reserves are dedicated to such projects. Use the money from fossil fuels to fund cleaner, more renewable energy.
6. There is some advantage for all concerned, to diversifying the NM and Albq. economies. It will definitely supply jobs and revenue to the state. Certainly there is a boom and bust cycle to the business, but the boom ($70/barrel +) is probably here to stay.
7. In the article, and subsequent posts there was mention made of wind/solar farms in lieu of oil exploration. Most places people have tried to build either, near population centers anyhow.. have met with some push back given the area they require and their aesthetics. My point being that these are not without their own problems. Not that they shouldn't be pursued.. but lets not fool ourselves into thinking right now, today these solutions provide all the answers and make all our decisions based upon that belief.
So...let's talk about it.. argue about it.. tell me why we can't make the oil/seismic/service companies clean up after themselves and leave a minimal foot print while helping funding the leading edge renewable energy projects. Do we know we can't we have our cake and eat it too ?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable discussion and in fact I think most people would be willing too.
So whaddya say.. is the NM Independent and/or readers up for it ?
1 year ago
in West Siders beware on The New Mexico Independent
I'd love to see more public awareness on this issue, but I would like to see a more balanced approach to it. I think this, and this sort of article (by this sort I mean highly biased) contributes little towards creating "real" awareness about this issue.
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to have a real discussion of the pro's (yes there are) and cons (of which there are many) and realities of energy in New Mexico than to paint it all with a very one sided brush ? How is that better than just believing what an oil company exec will tell you ?
Here is what I think would be a more realistic approach:
1. If the oil and gas reserves in the Rio Grande Rift really are of the scale that was mentioned here
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/200...
Given the current trends in oil/gas prices, it is highly likely that these reserves are going to be tapped.
2. The good news is that what wasn't possible/likely/economically feasible at $8 oil, is much more plausible with oil bouncing between $130-$140/barrel, or even at $70 or $80 (which is probably more like what a company might use to run their numbers).
3. Oil and gas are realities in your life. You may not like them, or the people who profit from them, but they surround you and are so deeply integrated into your life that for the next 10 or 15 years we all are going to have to live with the consequences of the world we built. You cannot quit cold turkey, and even if you can, most of the rest of us cannot, will not, and probably should not.
4. It is possible to explore for oil/as, find it and produce it without contaminating our water,air etc.. It is expensive, and requires diligence and a very careful eye on the people making the money to make sure corners are not cut... The good news is (see #2).
5. If you buy into the fact that the city/state/country cannot quit cold turkey, and believe that the city/state needs to pursue alternative energies wouldn't it be great to structure deals such that money the state receives for it reserves are dedicated to such projects. Use the money from fossil fuels to fund cleaner, more renewable energy.
6. There is some advantage for all concerned, to diversifying the NM and Albq. economies. It will definitely supply jobs and revenue to the state. Certainly there is a boom and bust cycle to the business, but the boom ($70/barrel +) is probably here to stay.
7. In the article, and subsequent posts there was mention made of wind/solar farms in lieu of oil exploration. Most places people have tried to build either, near population centers anyhow.. have met with some push back given the area they require and their aesthetics. My point being that these are not without their own problems. Not that they shouldn't be pursued.. but lets not fool ourselves into thinking right now, today these solutions provide all the answers and make all our decisions based upon that belief.
So...let's talk about it.. argue about it.. tell me why we can't make the oil/seismic/service companies clean up after themselves and leave a minimal foot print while helping funding the leading edge renewable energy projects. Do we know we can't we have our cake and eat it too ?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable discussion and in fact I think most people would be willing too.
So whaddya say.. is the NM Independent and/or readers up for it ?
Wouldn't it be more meaningful to have a real discussion of the pro's (yes there are) and cons (of which there are many) and realities of energy in New Mexico than to paint it all with a very one sided brush ? How is that better than just believing what an oil company exec will tell you ?
Here is what I think would be a more realistic approach:
1. If the oil and gas reserves in the Rio Grande Rift really are of the scale that was mentioned here
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/200...
Given the current trends in oil/gas prices, it is highly likely that these reserves are going to be tapped.
2. The good news is that what wasn't possible/likely/economically feasible at $8 oil, is much more plausible with oil bouncing between $130-$140/barrel, or even at $70 or $80 (which is probably more like what a company might use to run their numbers).
3. Oil and gas are realities in your life. You may not like them, or the people who profit from them, but they surround you and are so deeply integrated into your life that for the next 10 or 15 years we all are going to have to live with the consequences of the world we built. You cannot quit cold turkey, and even if you can, most of the rest of us cannot, will not, and probably should not.
4. It is possible to explore for oil/as, find it and produce it without contaminating our water,air etc.. It is expensive, and requires diligence and a very careful eye on the people making the money to make sure corners are not cut... The good news is (see #2).
5. If you buy into the fact that the city/state/country cannot quit cold turkey, and believe that the city/state needs to pursue alternative energies wouldn't it be great to structure deals such that money the state receives for it reserves are dedicated to such projects. Use the money from fossil fuels to fund cleaner, more renewable energy.
6. There is some advantage for all concerned, to diversifying the NM and Albq. economies. It will definitely supply jobs and revenue to the state. Certainly there is a boom and bust cycle to the business, but the boom ($70/barrel +) is probably here to stay.
7. In the article, and subsequent posts there was mention made of wind/solar farms in lieu of oil exploration. Most places people have tried to build either, near population centers anyhow.. have met with some push back given the area they require and their aesthetics. My point being that these are not without their own problems. Not that they shouldn't be pursued.. but lets not fool ourselves into thinking right now, today these solutions provide all the answers and make all our decisions based upon that belief.
So...let's talk about it.. argue about it.. tell me why we can't make the oil/seismic/service companies clean up after themselves and leave a minimal foot print while helping funding the leading edge renewable energy projects. Do we know we can't we have our cake and eat it too ?
I'm willing to listen to any reasonable discussion and in fact I think most people would be willing too.
So whaddya say.. is the NM Independent and/or readers up for it ?
