Access Fund Will Sue Federal Government to Defend Bears Ears National Monument

near-on to one hundred gallons HCs and closer to dogliness

Max Supertramp wrote:

near-on to one hundred gallons HCs and closer to dogliness

Feel free to keep right on talking about things you don't know anything about.
If you are interested in learning more, as opposed to being a troll, the internet is here and free to use.  Here is a link for you:
Utah's grid sources give EV's ~94MPG equivalent.

so the EVs run on coal methinks.  and Tony, I dig your style and all, but yeah, I do know something about petroleum geochemistry....beyond the fact that it was rad to drive out to do my tower and then be back in town for shower and schwifty meal.  

Max Supertramp wrote:

so the EVs run on coal methinks.  and Tony, I dig your style and all, but yeah, I do know something about petroleum geochemistry....beyond the fact that it was rad to drive out to do my tower and then be back in town for shower and schwifty meal.  

Well, like that link said:
"More than 66 percent of Americans now live in regions where powering an electric car on the regional electricity grid produces lower global warming emissions than a gas-powered or hybrid car getting 50 miles per gallon." (and that was a year ago)

I dig your style and all (the point that driving to UT burns carbon), but yeah, I do know something about EV's and power... and you keep it up with the misinformation.  Not only talking about EV's in general, but also talking as if you know what I run off at home... and even if I can't generate what I charge from, the generators next to me run on biogas from a landfill and solar, not coal. And I posted Utah's grid info already.
But even if you are 35% coal, the EV's are still more efficient than any gas-powered machine.  There is almost nowhere in the country where the comparison to burning to gas is 1:1.
You also seem to think you know where the Superchargers get their power, which I admit is not yet fully converted to renewable sources, but I digress...
I'm game to discuss the merits and drawbacks of power generation and energy sources, but not based on whatever the hack religion you have about it.   It should be based on actual information.
Here, let me help you with that with a link from ucsusa.org:
Educate yourself or quit with the discussion

Who was the blm chief busted with native artifacts?

Ray Pinpillage wrote:

I don't think I really have to, a federal judge just said as much. The lead BLM agent got busted dealing in stolen native artifacts and the lead prosecutor was fired for prosecutorial misconduct. Or are you saying that's how it should work?

Given you're the one crying about the reduction of BENM, it seems there's more than a few people that see it somewhat similar to me. Strange that you're the one stomping your feet making demands as it would appear your "side" is a bit on the ropes. Shouldn't you over on the taco anyway? That's gotta be a bit more comfortable echo chamber for your sensitivities. 

Edit: Want to guess which BLM office worked on the BENM project? You guessed it, the one that's chief got busted with stolen native artifacts who was also involved with the Bundy shit show in Nevada. 

other wrote:

Who was the blm chief busted with native artifacts?

Dan Love

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/climate/bears-ears-national-monument.html?smid=fb-share&referer= m.facebook.com

So how is the suing going?

New to the thread, chose not to read all 16 pages of bickering. 

Ray, it seems you're against the Feds controlling BE, but also against extractive mining (correct me if I'm wrong), if it were to become state controlled, what exactly do you think should happen with BE? 

simplyput . wrote:

New to the thread, chose not to read all 16 pages of bickering. 

But you expect me to answer your questions? No, read the thread if you care that much.

Bravo. Thanks, Ray. I guess I don't care that much, just thought that all the immediate hate you were getting might not have been warranted. 

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21308:Trump%27s-Monumental-Betrayal%3A-Public-Antiquities-Gutted-for-Oil-Industry

G Woods wrote:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21308:Trump%27s-Monumental-Betrayal%3A-Public-Antiquities-Gutted-for-Oil-Industry

I started reading until I read this:

K. MAITLAND-CARTER:In February, a paleontologist announced he and his team had discovered an extremely rare and abundant collection of prehistoric fossils within the original borders of Bears Ears National Monument, an area now stripped of federal protection status.

I stopped and immediately did a google search and found this:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Paleontological%20Resources%20Preservation%20Act.pdf

There are already federal laws in place to protect fossils.  I wish certain media outlets would focus on the facts when it comes to protecting Bear's Ears than engage in fear mongering.

jg fox wrote:

There are already federal laws in place to protect fossils.  I wish certain media outlets would focus on the facts when it comes to protecting Bear's Ears than engage in fear mongering.

Yes, of course, if you know where they are already.  But let's say that there may be a lot just nearby that you have not yet found.  Would it be nice if that area was not plowed under meanwhile?

jg fox wrote:

 I wish certain media outlets would focus on the facts when it comes to protecting Bear's Ears than engage in fear mongering.

Quite right.  Most folks on here probably want protection for the area almost as much as we want access. Throwing propaganda, rather than real news, into the mix just makes us look foolish.  

Tony B wrote:

Yes, of course, if you know where they are already.  But let's say that there may be a lot just nearby that you have not yet found.  Would it be nice if that area was not plowed under meanwhile?

You know it isn't profitable to strip mine the area right?

The article was implying that weren't protected anymore, which isn't the case when they get discovered like they would if they started digging.  There are other protections than a National Monument status.

jg fox wrote:

I started reading until I read this:

I stopped and immediately did a google search and found this:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/Paleontological%20Resources%20Preservation%20Act.pdf

There are already federal laws in place to protect fossils.  I wish certain media outlets would focus on the facts when it comes to protecting Bear's Ears than engage in fear mongering.

Yes the fossils may be protected in the sense that they cannot be taken out of the area without a permit, but since the the land use has changed and if mining was approved, then my understanding is that fossils can be legally destroyed or damaged: 

"(a) IN GENERAL.—A person may not—(1) excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alter or defaceor attempt to excavate, remove, damage, or otherwise alteror deface any paleontological resources located on Federal land unless such activity is conducted in accordance with this subtitle;"

For example:

"One of those extinction events is being studied in that tropic shale, which is known to have shale gas potential. Since it’s going back to [normal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) multiuse management], it will be open for leases to do fracking. You can imagine what will happen to the skeletons of mososaurs [carnivorous marine lizards] if you hydraulically fracture the rock. They’re gonna break."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/qa-why-fossil-scientists-are-suing-trump-over-monuments-downsizing

§291.3   Exceptions.

The regulations in this part do not:

(a) Invalidate, modify, or impose any additional restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities permitted at any time under the general mining laws, the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, laws providing for mineral materials disposal, or laws providing for the management or regulation of the activities authorized by the aforementioned laws including but not limited to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. 1701-1784), the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-1358), and the Organic Administration Act (16 U.S.C. 478, 482, 551);

(b) Invalidate, modify, or impose any additional restrictions or permitting requirements on any activities permitted at any time under existing laws and authorities relating to reclamation and multiple uses of National Forest System lands

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=7b7796f0ea8fbf9aa22cf76da4fb5d09&mc=true&node=pt36.2.291&rgn=div5#se36.2.291_13

jg fox wrote:

You know it isn't profitable to strip mine the area right?

The article was implying that weren't protected anymore, which isn't the case when they get discovered like they would if they started digging.  There are other protections than a National Monument status.

You don't have to strip mine it.  You have seen a modern dripp pad/well bank, right?

JonasMR wrote:

Quite right.  Most folks on here probably want protection for the area almost as much as we want access. Throwing propaganda, rather than real news, into the mix just makes us look foolish.  

To follow up on Steve's last post, this perspective is incredibly naive. You believe that a mining company which invests $10s or $100s of millions and may earn $ billions is going to halt extraction when they find a few old bones.  Who's going to report let alone enforce that rule.  You are aware that there are a great many environmental and workplace regulations that companies routinely ignore?  Which is propaganda, the claim that these statutes exist and therefore will be enforced, or the claim that they will not?