Oil drilling possible in wilderness study areas

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • Sly O
    Dec. 29, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    Is anyone else tired of this story? I wish the media would report the news and not attempt to make news by working the environmentalists up. EVERYONE knows these sales occur quarterly, by law. Sometimes they get cancelled, when there isn't enough interest, like the January 09 sale was.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 6:12 p.m.

    That money would come from the NATION'S taxes as well as ours.

    Any penny that goes towards our kids' education is money well spent.

    Right now the Feds benefit while our state sits by and watches...

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 5:16 p.m.

    "All kinds of idiots sell in a depressed stock market. Did you? Or do you have still have your 401k in stocks?"

    I sold stock during the bubble. I saw the real estate bubble too. I find the stupidity show by conservatives to be funny. Conservatives just utter mantras. Oil is at $35 and you free market worshipers are selling.

    Eighty-five percent of leases aren't being used. There's a oil glut and you are selling. :-)

  • BobMarshall
    Dec. 27, 2008 3:23 p.m.

    A lot of ranting going on out there. To repeat, it seems like one thing that could be done is to swap out the SITLA lands. In the past, some of the SITLA one-square mile blocks have been inside of national park units; it made utter sense to swap them out for an agreedl-upon-by-all parcel that had similar economic value, and wasn't controversial. It's been done before; it should be done again.
    Now, back to the bickering.

  • falcon's beak
    Dec. 27, 2008 3:20 p.m.

    If an area is say 100,000 acres to be opened for drilling what per cent of the land would be occupied by the oil wells and roads?

  • @Anon 1:23
    Dec. 27, 2008 2:11 p.m.

    And where do you think that rent money would come from? From your taxes. Duh!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 1:23 p.m.

    I agree with the poster that said the feds should be paying us rent money for the land in our state that they control.

    It could be developed and taxes collected to pay for our schools.

    We desperately need the money and they are robbing us blind!

  • Johny Fairplay
    Dec. 27, 2008 1:02 p.m.

    ^^^ Isn't seizing assets of an organization in order to drive them out of business - just because you disagree with them - a socialist communitarian undertaking?

    Please accept membership in the East Bench elites cell comrade what a surprise.

  • Marky
    Dec. 27, 2008 12:56 p.m.

    Lease, develop, grow. Just make sure that all bidders at the auction or sale post a multi-million dollar bond prior to the start of the proceedings so no more bogus bidders step in to screw up the process.

  • to what a surprise
    Dec. 27, 2008 12:36 p.m.

    keep writing a little balance is needed, i get censored for saying things like you did so keep it up while they let you

  • What evironmentalists need to do
    Dec. 27, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    I myself don't mind drilling. But if I did, and didn't want it to happen, I would take out my check book and write a check to the Utah Schools Trust fund in lieu of the money the fund would have made from the sale of oil.

    Then to help make up for the lost oil hitting the market, I would not drive a car, heat my house with oil or natural gas, or fly in an airplane.

    Thats just me, of course environmentalists do heat their house with products of oil and natural gas, they do drive cars, they do fly and they don't write checks to make up for lost money to the schools.

  • HEGW
    Dec. 27, 2008 11:43 a.m.

    I have a question? Are they actually buying the land or just buying the mineral leases for a specified number of years? There is a big difference. I would like to know.

  • To: ah the web
    Dec. 27, 2008 11:41 a.m.

    Your kind has been saying this kind of stuff for 50 years. How many generations is that?

    What have we to show for it? Nothing. Except a burgeoning dependence on foreign oil. Even you green guys ought to be thinking - maybe we should develop some of this stuff. I mean, we need some jobs, our state needs more public revenue, and we can always use the natural gas for heat and fuel.

    I'm all for the wind, the geothermal, the solar, the coal, the oil and gas -- we need all of this to meet our energy demands.

  • What a surprise
    Dec. 27, 2008 11:44 a.m.

    . . . that SUWA will oppose any development of these State trust land leases!

    When has SUWA ever supported any reasonable and necessary development?

    It should be noted that sales of these leases and royalties from any petroleum or minerals extracted will finance sorely needed projects in our educations system. Funny the article glossed over that, huh?

    SUWA should be sued for its many RICO violations, it's miniscule assets seized, and then driven out of business.

    Then, this alliance of a tiny number of vocal Back East carptebaggers, West Coast fruits and nuts, and East Bench elites should be relegated to its proper place -- a comic curiosity.

    It's amazing that this organization consisting of a few dozen committed socialists and anarchists should be so often quoted in DesNews, particularly since reasoned rebuttal is seldom included in the articles. SUWA is always jaunty on the spot to give DesNews reporters a ready-packaged, if misleading, sound bite.

    Too bad reporters are too lazy or biased to seek accurate unbiased information from those most likely to be affected by SUWA's socialist communitarian agenda.

  • ah the web of the problem
    Dec. 27, 2008 11:28 a.m.

    Here are some considerations on this matter: Utah has set up a way to pay for some of its education of its youth. But they keep having too many kids for the $$$ raised. Hmmmmmmmm. Less children means more per child, more children means less per child. Hmmmmmmm.

    Once you use up the oil and gas, you are... officially bankrupt.

    It is wrong to think that oil and gas dev. anywhere in the world, let alone the us of a, will go to the us of a. Companies are not national, they are international businesses. What foolishness to think that any oil and gas reserve will come to us!

    Think of the next 7 generations and then ask yourself what are we doing. It is the right thing to do: for the next 7 generations, not the next 7 months or years.

    We are a greedy, ignorant lot, aren't we.

  • To: Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 10:18 a.m.

    All kinds of idiots sell in a depressed stock market. Did you? Or do you have still have your 401k in stocks?

    But back to the current issue: Companies try to buy low - maybe there will be enough of them to bid the price up. And the auction isn't until April, and who knows what the energy markets will be like then.

    That said, your side would use any excuse it could find to delay the bidding. This is a little better one than 'it will ruin the pretty vistas." Which it won't.

  • Get Going
    Dec. 27, 2008 9:39 a.m.

    The parcels are outside of any protected areas. They are on the UNPROTECTED side of the boundary, so lets get going.

    Good thing these lands were preserved specifically for the purpose of development and natural resource utilization. If we hadn't protected these areas from the envirowhackos, what would we be doing now? We should protect much more land from envirowhackos and preserve development and extraction opportunities for our children. Otherwise, their quality of life will suffer greatly.

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 9:22 a.m.

    What idiot sells low in a depressed market?

  • curious
    Dec. 27, 2008 9:18 a.m.

    How bout the headline...

    "Study areas might quell Utans' abillity to obtain their own resources..."

  • boblog
    Dec. 27, 2008 8:56 a.m.

    Maybe our own SITLA will have the fortitude to do what the feds couldn't this last go time. For the record, oil and gas exploration does not ruin landscapes, vistas and tourism. Companies go to great expense to meet requirements placed on them by government.

    But now we have to watch out for the 'wolfs in sheeps' clothing - the bidders that can't and won't pay.

    SITLA, our schools need extra revenue, our rural communities and, lest we forget we are in a recession, our states need the jobs that go with energy development. Stick with your plan.

    Why should foreign countries get the jobs that go with energy - we need them!!

  • Anonymous
    Dec. 27, 2008 8:42 a.m.

    This money goes to our schools.

    The feds have tied up much of the land in Utah and the little bit run by the Trustlands is all the school children of Utah are going to get.

    When we have the most children and the lowest spending for education, this land has to be sold off from time to time.

    If the environmental groups don't like it then they need to help petition the Feds for the money owed to Utah for the education of our children.

    We should be reimbursed for all of the taxes the state could be collecting on any land run by the feds.

    Something has to improve the education funding in Utah.

    This is it.

  • Cringe Away Wackos
    Dec. 27, 2008 8:31 a.m.

    I'm so sick of reporters always taking environmentalist side as if their views are the penulitmate version of the way things "ought to be." SITLA lands are and were always meant to be maximized for the profit of Utah's Schoolchildren. They're PRIVATE lands -- not PUBLIC lands. They belong to a TRUST. Not the BLM, Forest Service, or any other organ of government. If the enviros hate the prospect of "Drilling Here, Drilling now" to help solve our nation's energy crisis.... that helped lead to the economic crisis we're now in - then maybe they can offer solutions to the overburdened taxpayers of UTah in trying to adequately fund our public Schools. If they want to buy SITLA lands at fair market value, then I'm sure the SITLA board will entertain any serious offers.

  • BobMarshall
    Dec. 27, 2008 7:39 a.m.

    There is a bill that is offered in Congress routinely that would trade out the most controversial of the SITLA parcels (those in wilderness study areas and national park units) for land of comparable value elsewhere. It routinely languishes, unpassed or not even brought to table. Passing it would allows us to escape some of these headaches.

  • stevo
    Dec. 27, 2008 6:51 a.m.

    e state should trade that land for another piece with equal mineral opportunities...makes sense.

  • The phrase
    Dec. 27, 2008 6:29 a.m.

    The phrase for this action is "messing in your nest." Trade the land, sell the land, or hold it... but to develop it and ruin the future outdoor rec. vistas and sites is so short sighted...

    In reality, one puts the land up for sale, and an environmental groups buys it, over time or cash up front.

    To destroy the priceless land for any price is the ultimate "mess in your nest." How shortsighted.

    Who makes the money under the table?