Time visit Chaco Canyon

[Ed Richards]

The federal judge who had blocked oil drilling in the Chaco Canyon area just reversed himself. Depending on the market for oil, we could see exploration and drilling in the next few years. It will be a few miles away, but it will destroy the sublime quiet that was the hallmark of the Chaco Canyon experience for me. There is pressure to fast track these projects so the damage will be done before another administration can try to roll back the opening of public lands - once development starts, it is very difficult to reverse.

177494

[John Layton]

This is such horrible news. I've been to Chaco many times...typically camping there for a few days - and each time the magic of the place grows stronger. I think that that federal judge ought to spend some time there and then re-visit his reversal.

[Willie]

Time for the Monkey Wrench Gang to get going again? Use photos for documenting the damage to the area? Aerial drones to video what is happening? Streaming to TheCloud" so reaction is quick to form?

[John Layton]

yep...time to honor Hayduke...time to dump some sugar into some fuel tanks!

[David Lobato]

Times have changed since Hayduke’s productive years. Instead of Hayduke, picture me as Doc with a LF camera.

[Ed Richards]

We are going to see this on many critical areas. Mining around Grand Canyon, shrinking or eliminating national monuments, etc. I do not know how you document silence, which is a defining characteristic of Chaco.

[Peter Lewin]

Agree with all of the above posts. Chaco Canyon, like many Anasazi sites, is magical, and the silence is a benefit of its relative isolation, which will be lost. While the ruins are not as amenable to LF photography (although the only restrictions are within the ruins themselves) you can find similar silence at Keet Seel within the Navajo National Monument, again due to the isolation. Similar to Chaco, you have to camp overnight, but also similar to Chaco, the ghosts of the Anasazi hover near by.

[goamules]

The question is how far from the monument would any work be, and how loud would it be? And how far does the sound carry? Councilor, NM is the closest "oil town", and is 38 miles away. In canyon lands, that could be on the other side of several mesas, canyons, small mountains....

[David Lobato]

The question is how far from the monument would any work be, and how loud would it be? And how far does the sound carry? Councilor, NM is the closest "oil town", and is 38 miles away. In canyon lands, that could be on the other side of several mesas, canyons, small mountains....

Last year I saw a publication that drilling would be close by the NPS boundaries, as in less than a mile away. The rangers are aware of how close it will be. That surprised me because I thought adjacent lands were either reservation land or NPS land. Apparently there are tracts of land with available mineral rights scattered around the area.

[Drew Wiley]

There still has to be a financial incentive. There's already a glut of Oil and natural gas. Of course, the scheme is to export a lot of it. But when a Kleptocracy is in charge, it's all about grabbing as much as you can while you can.

[Peter Lewin]

From the Sierra Club's magazine, an article on Chaco Canyon. There is a map which shows the proliferation of current well sites. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2018-3-may-june/feature/native-activists-halt-new-drilling-near-new-mexicos-chaco-canyon

And unfortunately, the most recent legal ruling on nearby drilling, which now will be permitted as long as there is no physical damage to archeological remains: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/legal-setback-for-defenders-chaco

[Drew Wiley]

Apparently the Judge is placing the responsibility to explain why it shouldn't be opened up to drilling on the BLM, which is obviously under the Interior Dept,
which at this junction in history is like asking a fox if the henhouse needs protection. How do you think we feel here on the coast, where even the protection of National Parks like the Channel Islands and official marine sanctuaries like Monterey Bay with endangered sea otters is now hypothetically open for drilling.
Of course, California has a lot of financial clout and can impose legal hurdles in a manner New Mexico cannot. But it's basically an all-out war on the environment which ironically doesn't even make economic sense - more about ideology and demographic revenge it seems. The long range goal is to remove
all protection from Natl Parks, wildlife refuges, and designated wildness areas where extractable commercial resources might be found. A certain coalition in congress has been proposing this for awhile, and they have enormous financial backing from the usual suspects. But they've been stopped before.

[John Layton]

As a Vermonter, I can find the cost/logistics of dropping everything and heading to New Mexico on short notice a bit daunting - and so usually do lots of careful advance planning. But (delete this if its not appropriate)...if a group of passionate LF'ers/environmentalists/historical preservationists, etc. were to organize a well-focussed effort/protest on the scene, or in D.C. - count me in!

[Chauncey Walden]

Not to mention the loss of "dark sky" from the 24 hour lights of the drilling rigs.

[Willie]

Apparently the Judge is placing the responsibility to explain why it shouldn't be opened up to drilling on the BLM, which is obviously under the Interior Dept,
which at this junction in history is like asking a fox if the henhouse needs protection. How do you think we feel here on the coast, where even the protection of National Parks like the Channel Islands and official marine sanctuaries like Monterey Bay with endangered sea otters is now hypothetically open for drilling.
Of course, California has a lot of financial clout and can impose legal hurdles in a manner New Mexico cannot. But it's basically an all-out war on the environment which ironically doesn't even make economic sense - more about ideology and demographic revenge it seems. The long range goal is to remove
all protection from Natl Parks, wildlife refuges, and designated wildness areas where extractable commercial resources might be found. A certain coalition in congress has been proposing this for awhile, and they have enormous financial backing from the usual suspects. But they've been stopped before.

California could do the rest of the nation a big favor and allow hundreds of offshore wind towers for generating electricity to be used by the cities along the coast. Would really cut back on the need for power from other parts of the country and lower the amount of coal burned to power California lights and air conditioners.

[Drew Wiley]

Would you want em ruining your favorite view, and spoiling a massive tourist economy? We already have thousands of wind turbines on land. They started here. We also have a massive oil industry. The world's largest hydroelectric projects were here - I say "were" because the snowpack is diminishing due to climate change. Not as many turbines are running. Massive solar farms are here too, spoiling some formerly pristine views, but easier to remove than dams. Nuke too. So scuse us if we don't want anymore wrecked. The only thing we import is natural gas. We're a net exporter, and also a "donor state" that pays way more in taxes than we get back, so that poorer states can be on the dole.

[Drew Wiley]

This reminds me that a couple of days ago I told a friend from Kenya that cheetahs were exported to Africa from here, and that we have bigger lions and elephants twice as big. He was shocked and wanted to see them. So I told him the next time he is in LA visit the LaBrea tar pits. Calif. is where most of the heavy crude oil comes from - road asphalt, petrochemical plastics, jet fuels. Fracking isn't realistic because everything is already pre-fracked by earthquake faults.

[Willie]

Would you want em ruining your favorite view, and spoiling a massive tourist economy? We already have thousands of wind turbines on land. They started here. We also have a massive oil industry. The world's largest hydroelectric projects were here - I say "were" because the snowpack is diminishing due to climate change. Not as many turbines are running. Massive solar farms are here too, spoiling some formerly pristine views, but easier to remove than dams. Nuke too. So scuse us if we don't want anymore wrecked. The only thing we import is natural gas. We're a net exporter, and also a "donor state" that pays way more in taxes than we get back, so that poorer states can be on the dole.

Drew, California uses so much power for so many people. Same with sea coasts all around the USA. Let your view get ruined rather than ours. With 70% of the US Population projected to live within 50 miles of a sea coast by 2025 why shouldn't your offshore winds power your houses and businesses? Your offshore winds are much more regular than ours inland. Give the interior of the nation a break and use 'renewable energy' close to home. Walk the walk rather than just talk the talk.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't want to argue with you Willie. Just come out here with a camera sometime. If you don't get it then ...

[Drew Wiley]

If you need the economic perspective, Willie, why would anyone want to invest a hundred times as much on an offshore wind farm a nightmare to build and maintain in comparison to land? We have plenty of wind. And as the southern great plains go dr dry, wind is all that's left. Wind farming is rapidly expanding in the center of the country.