Oil leasing terms for Los Padres National Forest announced

[Kadie]

Oil leasing terms for Los Padres National Forest announced

5:11 p.m. July 28, 2005

LOS ANGELES – Los Padres National Forest will allow companies to drill for an estimated 17 million barrels of crude oil or natural gas within its borders but roadless wilderness areas and critical habitat of the California condor will be preserved, forest officials announced Thursday.

Forest Supervisor Gloria Brown will allow oil and gas leasing on only 52,000 out of 767,000 acres of land that were included in a decade-long study of Los Padres, a nearly 2 million-acre forest that spans 220 miles from Big Sur in Monterey County south to near western Los Angeles County.

On all but 4,277 acres, leases would have a "no surface occupancy" stipulation that would forbid development on the site, including wells, roads or power lines. Instead, companies would have to drill in from adjacent national forest or private lands where oil fields already exist, the U.S. Forest Service said in a statement.

If all of the available acres are leased, about 25 wells could be drilled, producing 17 million barrels of oil or the equivalent in natural gas, forest officials estimated.

more...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20050728-1711-ca-lospadresoil.html

[Oerdin]

1. Normally I'd be against this...

And when I was at college at UCSB I was very much against this, however, I'm thinking every barrel of oil we produce her is one which we don't have to buy from murderous Arab regimes or Psuedo-dictatorial regimes like Venzuela or Nigeria. It would be better for us to dramatically raise CAFE rates and build more mass transite but since Bush would never do such an intelligent thing...

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. "every barrel of oil we produce.."

true, but this does zero to reduce our dependence on oil, which is a finite resource.

I would rather see the recent ~$11 billion in "incentives" for domestic production of oil go to ...mmm.. research into ways to move us off of that finite resource.

[Oerdin]

5. I agree.

I agree with you and that's why I wrote "It would be better for us to dramatically raise CAFE rates and build more mass transit but since Bush would never do such an intelligent thing...". Yes, we all know what the best thing to do is but since Republicans are in charge we won't get intelligent and meaningful changes to the existing policy. Instead we've got to take what we can get until Democrats wisen up and learn how to win elections.

Unfortunately, if DU is any indication we're going to be spending more time losing elections before things change.

[livetohike]

2. Oh just want I want to see when I'm hiking around in the National Forest

pump jacks :sarcasm:

Nice to see CA taking the lead in the use of alternative energy :sarcasm: (again).

[Oerdin]

4. We are, thanks.

California already does have the highest output of wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and tidal power. We also have the highest output of nuclear power which is the energy source we realistically need to switch to if we want non-greenhouse gas electricity. We're third in hydroelectric output after Washington state and Oregon state. What's more our good weather and excellent building code which requires energy efficient construction make Californians the lowest energy consumers per capita in the nation.

I know it is sometimes a bother but couldn't you check the facts before making nasty comments?

[livetohike]

6. Post your sources for all this

valuable information you are claiming.

By the way, I don't have to check my facts about not wanting to see pump jacks in the National Forest :-).