Replies

The key to energy independence is multiple sources.

I leave it to someone else to determine the merits of Richardson's case, but if you reflexively take US oil and gas fields out of production you should not then complain about the price of energy.

The environmental issue is not particularly valid; an oilfield is off limits to hunting, and most wildlife roams freely. Under modern regulations spills are cleaned up within hours. When the oil is gone, a few decades from now, the area will still be essentially undeveloped, the wildlife will all still be there.

And finally, whether Richardson is remunerated for his service or not is beyond my ability to know; but he should be, he serves Saudi interests well and so does anyone and any group that reflexively works to stimy non-Opec production. Notice when he retires from the governorship if he appoints himself the head of his own institute for the furtherance of who-knows-what-issue, funded by who-knows-what-sources of revenue.

Good comments. On Fox this morning, I heard that the Saudis or other middle-eastern energy countries might tighten supplies as the election approaches so as to hurt the economy and defeat Bush. Wonder why.

Hunting in the oil patch in NM is not off limits, but there is not much to hunt! Most animals are nocturnal and not hunting species.

The biggest problem with oil drilling (or any other activity out there) is that the footprint of man will remain long after the wells have been plugged and area has been cleaned up. Roads cut in an area that receives less than 6 inches of rain in a good year remain essentially forever. Even small off-road vehicle ATV's leave a foot print. This, essentially is what the environmentalists are fighting for -- keep the area pristine so no roads show up on maps or aerial photos in the future. It is essentially an aesthetic thing with them -- they may never visit it, but knowing it is untouched (essentially) gives it worth in their value base.

I think most of us have a tolerance for some disturbance in our environment (or else we would never build a new house on an undeveloped lot). And not many of us would want a large permanent power plant blocking our view of a spectacular vista. But when it gets down to constructing a short road to a small drilling pad, temporary in nature, to produce something of economic value, most of us would allow the development to go forward. Our value system can balance the amount of disturbance with the economic value obtained and feel comfortable with that. Not so the environmentalists in this case. They are radical in the sense that their value system does not allow for this choice to be made and they are tenacious in their opposition to it.