Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 12 May 2017 (Friday) 11:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Oil and gas drilling in National Monuments

 
OldCrow
Goldmember
Avatar
3,351 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Likes: 1751
Joined Mar 2013
Location: NC Foothills
     
May 12, 2017 11:13 |  #1

Hi All,

You may have heard that many National Monuments are going to be reviewed for opening them to oil and gas drilling.

Document can be read here:https://www.regulation​s.gov/document?D=DOI-2017-0002-0001 (external link)

Many of the National Monuments are photographers havens. If you have been to the National Monuments or have seen photos of them, you have an opinion about their value. Let the Department of Interior how you feel.

There are two ways to express you opinions.

1) Online: Online site opens today. May 12, 2017

http://www.regulations​.gov (external link) then enter "DOI-2017-0002" in he search bar.

2) Mail:

Monument Review , MS - 1530
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240


Don
---------------
Canon SX50, Pentax K30, Fuji S2950

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,591 posts
Gallery: 174 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 356
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by frozenframe.
     
Jun 06, 2017 10:06 |  #2

I read that document linked to, and could not find anything in the document stating the reason for this review was for oil drilling. While that is possible, it seems more like a review due to the previous administration's massive land grabbing. There's a lot of land that was snatched up, for no legitimate reason. Some of this land needs to be returned to their owners. Then if the owners choose to allow drilling that's the owner's choice to do so.


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,339 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2068
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 10:29 |  #3

frozenframe wrote in post #18372280 (external link)
I read that document linked to, and could not find anything in the document stating the reason for this review was for oil drilling. While that is possible, it seems more like a review due to the previous administration's massive land grabbing. There's a lot of land that was snatched up, for no legitimate reason. Some of this land needs to be returned to their owners. Then if the owners choose to allow drilling that's the owner's choice to do so.

^^^

However there indeed is mentioned:

In a separate but related process, certain Marine National Monuments will also be reviewed. As directed by section 4 of Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), the Department of Commerce will lead the review of the Marine National Monuments in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. To assist in that consultation, the Secretary will accept comments related to the application of factors (i) through (vii) in Executive Order 13792 as set forth above to the following Marine National Monuments:
Marine National Monuments Being Reviewed Pursuant to Executive Orders 13795 and 13792
       

Marianas Trench CNMI/Pacific Ocean 2009 60,938,240
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Atlantic Ocean 2016 3,114,320
Pacific Remote Islands Pacific Ocean 2009 55,608,320
Papahanaumokuakea Hawa​ii 2006/2016 89,600,00​0
Rose Atoll American Samoa 2009 8,609,045

To the point raised earlier in the thread about a region of Alaska not appearing to have valid reason for status as a National Monument, the document does refer to only ONE review of a monument in Maine, "National Monuments Being Reviewed To Determine Whether the Designation or Expansion Was Made Without Adequate Public Outreach and Coordination With Relevant Stakeholders"

What also is lacking is any explanation of WHY the need to review any of the other 21 National Monuments up for review, placed into that designation most between 1996- 2016...eleven of them attained that status during Bill Clinton's administration, ten of them attained that status during Obama's administration...seems to be very strongly smacking of political overtones, and not truly a periodic review of all national monoments in a rotational review process.

"... shall conduct a review of all Presidential designations or expansions of designations under the Antiquities Act made since January 1, 1996, where the designation covers more than 100,000 acres, where the designation after expansion covers more than 100,000 acres, or where the Secretary determines that the designation or expansion was made without adequate public outreach and coordination with relevant stakeholders, to determine whether each designation or expansion conforms to the policy set forth in section 1 of this order."

And oddly one national monument under review was put on that status in 1924 during a Republican administration but simply renewed under a Democratic administration.
Another oddity is why one national monument would be declared so, and renewed just recently in 2017 yet is up for review YET AGAIN ?!?!

This review is under direction of Executive Order 13792, and while that order has no overt reference to oil drilling/exploration, unfortunately.we have no idea if the executive briefing to the Secretary of the Interior contained an explicit or covert instruction to "go find if any of these areas have oil to tap".


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frozenframe
Goldmember
Avatar
1,591 posts
Gallery: 174 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 356
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Kansas, USA
Post edited over 1 year ago by frozenframe.
     
Jun 06, 2017 10:49 |  #4

Wilt wrote in post #18372292 (external link)
^^^

However there indeed is mentioned:

In a separate but related process, certain Marine National Monuments will also be reviewed. As directed by section 4 of Executive Order 13795 of April 28, 2017, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy” (82 FR 20815, May 3, 2017), the Department of Commerce will lead the review of the Marine National Monuments in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. To assist in that consultation, the Secretary will accept comments related to the application of factors (i) through (vii) in Executive Order 13792 as set forth above to the following Marine National Monuments:
Marine National Monuments Being Reviewed Pursuant to Executive Orders 13795 and 13792
       

Marianas Trench CNMI/Pacific Ocean 2009 60,938,240
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Atlantic Ocean 2016 3,114,320
Pacific Remote Islands Pacific Ocean 2009 55,608,320
Papahanaumokuakea Hawa​ii 2006/2016 89,600,00​0
Rose Atoll American Samoa 2009 8,609,045

Yes that's for off-shore drilling. I'm not saying all the others are not in their radar for that purpose too. However the wording prior to that, seems they are looking to shed some of that land, return it to owners, or lessen costs to maintain them. There's a lot of land that the government did not need to grab and designate as some landmark, special monument, or what have you. Some of that did include a massive land grab or water, around Hawaii. Obama's BLM was notorious for this.


Ron
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,339 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2068
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Jun 06, 2017 11:14 |  #5

frozenframe wrote in post #18372302 (external link)
Yes that's for off-shore drilling. I'm not saying all the others are not in their radar for that purpose too. However the wording prior to that, seems they are looking to shed some of that land, return it to owners, or lessen costs to maintain them. There's a lot of land that the government did not need to grab and designate as some landmark, special monument, or what have you. Some of that did include a massive land grab or water, around Hawaii. Obama's BLM was notorious for this.

"A Maersk drillship has broken the world record for the deepest water depth for an offshore oil rig after spudding a well located more than two miles below the surface of the ocean.
The well, known as the Raya-1 prospect, is being drilled offshore Uruguay in a water depth of 3,400 meters (11,156 feet)."

So why is the Marianas Trench on the list, do we doubt the scientific value of that area, the worl'd deepest zone at about 11000 meters and three times as deep as the world's deepest oil operation?!

The Hawaiian area, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, is part of the 28 percent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the U.S. Pacific Islands Region as Marine National Monuments; that Hawaiian fishing interests have expressed dismay at expansion of the area apparently has some 'cultural' iimplication; but commercial fishing for profit is certainly NOT comparable to native Hawaiian fishing for their own sustenance!

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts in the Atlantic Ocean is also an area for scientific study since the 1970s, and provides critical protections for important ecological resources and marine species, including deep-sea corals; sperm, fin, and sei whales; Kemp's ridley sea turtles; and, deep-sea fish.

I sense the anti-science 'bunk' sentiment, (anti ecology, anti environment, anti preservation of natural resources rape and pillage and plunder our resources) is the motivation behind all of this.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,022 views & 7 likes for this thread
Oil and gas drilling in National Monuments
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Shelley Stump
791 guests, 409 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.