SummitPost.org

Anschutz Exploration Corporation was awarded an exploration contract for the Blackfeet Reservation in 2006. Since then, they have begun to frack on the reservation. Some of these frack sites are within a few miles of the eastern boundaries of Glacier National Park and have raised concern about the impact fracking might have on the UNESCO World Heritage Biosphere, including animals, plants, trees, water and air quality. More importantly, there is growing concern for the health of Blackfeet lands, from Blackfeet tribal members and non-Blackfeet. The current largest sources of income on the reservation are the free range cattle industry and of course, tourism. Many people are concerned that these "renewable" sources of income could possibly be ruined by the fracking, which is of course, extractive and non-renewable. Once the oil is gone, it is gone. Why risk permanently damaging other major revenue sources for such a short term revenue?

Xanterra Parks and Resorts is owned by Philip Anschutz, the same man who owns Anschutz Exploration Corp. Xanterra is one of the concessions contractors on the short list of those bidding for the 16 year contract for Glacier National Park. The bidding period ends on April 16th, 2013. The first of the "Principle Selection Factors" that the NPS lists reads as follows: "1. The responsiveness of the proposal to the objectives, as described in the prospectus, of protecting, conserving, and preserving resources of the park area" (my italics). How can a man who is profiting from fracking on borderlands of GNP be counted on to be taken seriously as a partner steward with the NPS within Glacier?

The conflict of interest for Xanterra and Anschutz is unacceptable. Fracking on adjacent lands while bidding to become the concessions contractor and partner steward of Glacier National Park is unacceptable. There is a petition to be sent to the NPS regarding this unacceptable conflict of interest and it has gained 5,000 signatures already, 3,000 in just the last week. If you support this petition, please take a moment of your time, follow the link and sign your name. http://signon.org/sign/glacier-park-dont-give?mailing_id=10222&source=s.em.cr&r_by=4390207.

If you check into the history of GNP there was another "evil businessman" who played an important role when not destroying the world as we know it. Of course this was Louis Hill...one of Louis’ greatest legacies was his enthusiastic promotion of U.S. tourism and the national park system. He was a major force in the creation, promotion, and development of Glacier National Park in Montana, where he built several resorts. Involvement by Philip Anschutz in finding and producing reasonably priced, secure energy for our country should not a disqualifier of Xanterra in some folk's eyes. There may be better reasons for selecting an alternative concessionaire.

I know nothing about this specific situation but I've always found something a bit odd about the NPs relationship with Xanterra. Just more of a feeling after spending time in dozens of our NPs, I really don't know much about Xanterra. Maybe they're the Blackwater of our Park system

On March 5th, an Anschutz Exploration Corporation drillsite caught fire. The location of this drillsite and fire is less than 4 miles away from the eastern border of the park.

http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/hungryhorsenews/article_29382c2a-8be7-11e2-9f53-001a4bcf887a.html

I know people in the Kiowa area and they have told me there were actually thousands of gallons of leakage. This area is in the midst of wetlands and streams that I have personally seen grizzlies and moose using. Anschutz Exploration Corporation started this fire. Had it been summertime and grown larger, spreading to park lands, it would be an outrage, even more so if Xanterra was the park's concessionaire, as they are currently aggressively bidding to become. This incident clearly sillustrates the very serious conflict of interest for Xanterra/Anschutz. This resource extraction poses a very clear and real danger to the overall health of a UNESCO World Heritage Biosphere. Xanterra should be eliminated from the bidding on principle alone. Please sign this petition if you agree: http://signon.org/sign/glacier-park-dont-give

I'll be honest-- Although Glacier may be my favorite place in all the world, the doom-and-gloom tone of the message in the first post is exactly why I discontinued memberships in environmental organizations and stopped giving money. And as someone who has stayed at many Xanterra properties and seen how Xanterra does a lot more than many other companies to be environmentally conscious, I don't find it automatically so that letting Xanterra into the park automatically means ruining the park.

That is not saying I'm not distrustful of extractive companies operating anywhere near wilderness areas. I'm just saying that the one-sided message and its tone leave me less than convinced.

I'll also be honest-- I deleted posts in this thread not because I disagreed with the points made or the author's right to make them but because the writer was being abusive and has a history here of doing that (and I deleted posts quoting that person). And when that comes from a nameless, faceless avatar with no useful contributions to this site, I have few qualms about pulling the trigger. That person is more than welcome to make his points strongly but without insulting and abusing people, and if he wants to throw shit at people, there's a different forum for it.

Carry on.

Bob Sihler wrote:I'll be honest-- Although Glacier may be my favorite place in all the world, the doom-and-gloom tone of the message in the first post is exactly why I discontinued memberships in environmental organizations and stopped giving money. And as someone who has stayed at many Xanterra properties and seen how Xanterra does a lot more than many other companies to be environmentally conscious, I don't find it automatically so that letting Xanterra into the park automatically means ruining the park.

That is not saying I'm not distrustful of extractive companies operating anywhere near wilderness areas. I'm just saying that the one-sided message and its tone leave me less than convinced.

I'll also be honest-- I deleted posts in this thread not because I disagreed with the points made or the author's right to make them but because the writer was being abusive and has a history here of doing that (and I deleted posts quoting that person). And when that comes from a nameless, faceless avatar with no useful contributions to this site, I have few qualms about pulling the trigger. That person is more than welcome to make his points strongly but without insulting and abusing people, and if he wants to throw shit at people, there's a different forum for it.

Carry on.

Bob, thank you for taking care of that situation. Thankfully he is no longer part of what is otherwise a great forum.

I will disagree with your assessment of Xanterra however. I have been to 38 different parks and I have used concessionaire facilities run by companies such as Aramark, DNC, Xanterra, GPI, Forever, Ortega, etc. I have worked for 2 concessionaires and thus have had a very lengthy exposure to seasonal workers and their opinions of their previous employers. Without exception, Xanterra is widely known by concessions workers to be the worst employer in the National Parks. Forbes magazine has listed them as one of the worst 3 companies to work for in the entire United States, in ANY industry. Their workers are continually displeased with the conduct of Xanterra and I personally think that their services are lacking and overpriced (example: a $6 PB&J sandwich at Old Faithful Inn at Yellowstone).

Now, given these are labor issues and the main issue at hand is environmental issues, I will let it be known that I do not think Xanterra itself will ruin the park if given the concessions contract. This is absolutely not the issue. Xanterra, if given the contract, will have to follow regulations just as any other concessions contractor would. I do however think there is an ENORMOUS and DIRECT conflict of interest concerning their bid for the Glacier Natl Park concessions, given that the company is owned by the same man (Philip Anshcutz) that owns Anschutz Exploration Corporation, who was awarded leasing rights on much of the Glacier-adjacent Blackfeet Reservation. Please note that the very first line of the concessions contract prospectus's "Principle Selection Factors" reads as follows: "1. The responsiveness of the proposal to the objectives, as described in the prospectus, of protecting, conserving, and preserving resources of the park area" (my italics). This is exactly the reason that Xanterra should NOT be given the contract, or even be given consideration for the contract.

I am aware that there are many people out there who are hesitant about issues concerning development vs. conservation. I understand that many see the conservation side of the issue as alarmist. Well, I think a little alarm is in order here. On March 5th, there was a fire at an oilwell site less than 4 miles from the eastern border of the park near the village of Kiowa. Had this fire happened in summer, it would have definitely posed a very real danger and a very clear illustration of the conflict of interest regarding Xanterra's possible concessions contract within the park. Had that fire turned into a large wildfire that affected the park itself, Xanterra, Anschutz and the NPS would all look very bad and there would be outrage from the public and deservedly so. Also, it should be known that there are concerning problems that ALREADY exist concerning pollution of watersources that animals use which are on Blackfeet lands. These are animals that roam freely between the park and the western portions of the Blackfeet reservation, as there is no real physical border between park and tribal lands, nor do the animals have any idea that humans consider the two parcels of land as separate. I have personally seen grizzly bears and moose using the wetland areas directly adjacent to the drillsite where the fire occurred.

I am not an alarmist environmentalist. I am simply a Glacier area resident, who happens to also be a mountaineer, who is rightfully very concerned about the direct conflict of interest inherent in Anschutz/Xanterra's conduct in the area I am proud to call home. This conflict of interest in my opinion, and many others' opinion, is completely unacceptable for a man trying to become a main steward of one of America's and Earth's greatest treasures.

Regards,

ManyGlacierMountaineer

A very quick internet search shows the following:

1) There has been no cases of polluted water on Blackfeet land. You paint it as if this has already occurred and is documented. Its not. In fact, as far as I can tell, oil/ng companies drilling on Blackfeet land haven't found anything worth mentioning. The only cases I can quickly find are the ones in PA, where the local water table already had tons of methane in it and everytime anyone drills a new well, even a water well, it disturbs this top layer(aquifer) releasing methane into surrounding wells. Nothing new there. Now there is a certain case in WY where supposedly some chemicals showed up in someones well. 1 case in how many tens of thousands of wells? Really, this is what the doom and gloom is all about? What about the Bakken formation in E. MT & ND? Any polluted wells there? Nope.

2) They are pulling the water for fracking from water tables below where they are fracking on the blackfeet land from what I read, so they aren't even using drinking water sources either. They likewise truck the super saline waters that come up after fracking occurs and treat them. Its not even as if they are treating said saline water onsite and releasing it into local streams.

3) If a fire did somehow break containment and get into the GNP, it would hurt their concessionaire business as they would have to lay people off and therefore their kickback percentage would be lower. Hardly a conflict of interest there. The only interest they would have is to ensure that such a happenstance would never happen! That is called INCENTIVE to not screw the pooch. Not conflict of Interest!

A contract worker/company never has any say in anything. They are always the first to get fired. Thus if anything happened, your supposed so called "conflict of interest" would vanish in a puff of smoke as the NPS would simply void their contract and hire someone else.

4) This so called giant fire in Kiowa, didn't even spill a drop of oil. Only 'problem' was with the foam retardant used that needed to be cleaned up. The local Rocked pad did its job and no fire spread anywhere.

5) If one of their oil/ng wells is completed and actually produces a product, they have to disclose to MT all chemicals used in said well. That way they can trace any chemicals in local water source. So far none. Do you have a problem with the other 2 oil fields already developed on the edge of GNP/Watterton? No. Ack what about the grizzly bears and moose. Oh wait, those oil fields are improving the water quality as they are "cleansing" the ground of shallow oil that often polluted the local streams and rivers everytime there was an earthquake.

Ya know, if you doom and gloom alarmists actually provided economical, reliable, sustainable solutions to problems instead of just whining, things would go a lot smoother. So far all I hear is whining on subjects that even a half hour of internet searching can quickly disprove or debunk even by using the environmental over the top websites. I have to conclude that your real beef is that maybe one or two tourists driving on their way to GNP might have to observe an oil well and associated tanks as they whizz past at 70MPH, the occasional flaming stack, that power their cars, turn on their lights when they go home, provide hot showers, and create cheap fertilizer driving the cost of food and other basic necessities down to very low levels so they can do more with their life.

PS. There hasn't been any well drilled/developed in the last 40 years that hasn't been fracked with some method or other. It is certainly not a new technique and worthy of giant scorn. It is only with the economic incentive provided by cheap horizontal drilling, thank you accelerometers developed in the early 80's from Sundstrand Data Control, that a larger portion of strata layers are able to be effected and cracked compared to mostly vertical wells where ones local geology, perfectly good in the vertical well as they drilled down and obtained said geology map, might become in error as they can drill several thousand feet horizontally and it could change. Then again shale/sandstone layers are generally several thousand feet thick overlayed by other shale layers.

Wastral wrote:A very quick internet search shows the following:

1) There has been no cases of polluted water on Blackfeet land. You paint it as if this has already occurred and is documented. Its not. In fact, as far as I can tell, oil/ng companies drilling on Blackfeet land haven't found anything worth mentioning. The only cases I can quickly find are the ones in PA, where the local water table already had tons of methane in it and everytime anyone drills a new well, even a water well, it disturbs this top layer(aquifer) releasing methane into surrounding wells. Nothing new there. Now there is a certain case in WY where supposedly some chemicals showed up in someones well. 1 case in how many tens of thousands of wells? Really, this is what the doom and gloom is all about? What about the Bakken formation in E. MT & ND? Any polluted wells there? Nope.

2) They are pulling the water for fracking from water tables below where they are fracking on the blackfeet land from what I read, so they aren't even using drinking water sources either. They likewise truck the super saline waters that come up after fracking occurs and treat them. Its not even as if they are treating said saline water onsite and releasing it into local streams.

3) If a fire did somehow break containment and get into the GNP, it would hurt their concessionaire business as they would have to lay people off and therefore their kickback percentage would be lower. Hardly a conflict of interest there. The only interest they would have is to ensure that such a happenstance would never happen! That is called INCENTIVE to not screw the pooch. Not conflict of Interest!

A contract worker/company never has any say in anything. They are always the first to get fired. Thus if anything happened, your supposed so called "conflict of interest" would vanish in a puff of smoke as the NPS would simply void their contract and hire someone else.

4) This so called giant fire in Kiowa, didn't even spill a drop of oil. Only 'problem' was with the foam retardant used that needed to be cleaned up. The local Rocked pad did its job and no fire spread anywhere.

5) If one of their oil/ng wells is completed and actually produces a product, they have to disclose to MT all chemicals used in said well. That way they can trace any chemicals in local water source. So far none. Do you have a problem with the other 2 oil fields already developed on the edge of GNP/Watterton? No. Ack what about the grizzly bears and moose. Oh wait, those oil fields are improving the water quality as they are "cleansing" the ground of shallow oil that often polluted the local streams and rivers everytime there was an earthquake.

Ya know, if you doom and gloom alarmists actually provided economical, reliable, sustainable solutions to problems instead of just whining, things would go a lot smoother. So far all I hear is whining on subjects that even a half hour of internet searching can quickly disprove or debunk even by using the environmental over the top websites. I have to conclude that your real beef is that maybe one or two tourists driving on their way to GNP might have to observe an oil well and associated tanks as they whizz past at 70MPH, the occasional flaming stack, that power their cars, turn on their lights when they go home, provide hot showers, and create cheap fertilizer driving the cost of food and other basic necessities down to very low levels so they can do more with their life.

PS. There hasn't been any well drilled/developed in the last 40 years that hasn't been fracked with some method or other. It is certainly not a new technique and worthy of giant scorn. It is only with the economic incentive provided by cheap horizontal drilling, thank you accelerometers developed in the early 80's from Sundstrand Data Control, that a larger portion of strata layers are able to be effected and cracked compared to mostly vertical wells where ones local geology, perfectly good in the vertical well as they drilled down and obtained said geology map, might become in error as they can drill several thousand feet horizontally and it could change. Then again shale/sandstone layers are generally several thousand feet thick overlayed by other shale layers.

1. You are completely wrong on this one and your misinformation is disgusting. Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Texas and Wyoming are ALL settings for well pollution from fracking. Seriously, you need to do your homework better, or just stop talking about what you do not know about. I am from Ohio originally and I am well aware of fracking-caused contaminated wells there, so your assertion that this hasn't happened outside of PA is just a flat out lie. As of right now, the Blackfeet Nation is not in a free-for-all development stage such as in other places. SO, while there may not be any evidence of water contamination on Blackfeet land yet, your logic and misinformed argument do not quelch ANY concerns regarding this issue.

2. It does not matter where the water comes from. The leeching ponds that used fracking solution/saline waters are dumped into are disgusting places, which are bad for the environment everywhere, even if they aren't directly affecting GNP. Nobody has said they are treating this solution/saline water on site, so why even bring it up?

3. Your logic on this point is extremely laughable. Sure, Anschutz would have some sort of incentive to prevent accidents at their oil/ng wells, that is just plain business 101, regardless of whether their sister company Xanterra is the concessions contractor or not. You yourself have stated that there is absolutely no 100% safe way to extract oil and natural gas. Given this fact, in addition to the Concessions Prospectus #1 Principle for Selection (that the concessions contractor is indeed a steward of GNP and the GNP area), it is quite easy to see the conflict of interests. The extraction process is not 100% safe. Anschutz interest is making as much profit as possible, and attempting to minimize damage caused. Xanterra is supposed to be a major steward of the park. Let's see... one company risks environmental damage every time they drill/frack... the sister company is awarded the concessions contract to preserve and conserve the GNP area. How do you not consider this a conflict of interest?

As for your assertion that the NPS would "fire" Xanterra if an incident occurred... do you think that is good publicity for Anschutz/Xanterra/GNP/NPS? Do you think that would be fair to individual workers who planned their entire year around going to work in GNP? How about all of the visitors who will lose their vacation? This is a clear illustration of why Xanterra should not be given the concessions contract. The conflict of interest and high probability of an enormous public outrage alone should be enough to keep Xanterra from getting the contract, not to mention the environmental concerns.

4. Again, your hyperbole is ridiculous. Nobody called the Kiowa fire a "giant fire". Stick to reality my friend, you will be better served by it than hyperbole.

Furthermore, I know people who live in the Kiowa area who had to flee their homes because of the smoke it produced, so don't try to tell me the "only problem was that they had to use foam fire retardant". These are good people who had to flee their home because Anschutz was not doing their job properly ALREADY. Have you ever had to flee your home because of someone else's mistake? How would you feel about that if it happened to you? Would you still be apologetic for the offender?

Furthermore, this was in winter conditions. If you knew anything about wildfire at all, you would know conditions in summer are completely different and far more conducive to spreading wildfires than winter. Anschutz simply got lucky in the timing of the incident, plain and simple.

5. This following point you made has to be the most ridiculous of all and completely discredits anything you have to say: "Ack what about the grizzly bears and moose. Oh wait, those oil fields are improving the water quality as they are "cleansing" the ground of shallow oil that often polluted the local streams and rivers everytime there was an earthquake." You seriously have to be kidding me. Who are you trying to convince, 5 year olds? I am a highly educated individual, so you can try to play your little games with someone else.

As far as your little rant at the end, again, I am not an alarmist and I do not hate society or technology. I am using a laptop, which is most likely powered by burning coal. I understand very thoroughly how humans rely on modern energy sources. I do not get mad at people who drive cars, use refrigerators or any other modern technology for use in their daily lives, so again STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I am not somebody out to battle society and I have a great solution to the fracking problem on the Blackfeet Reservation: Keep it out. This is a special place, and fracking is a completely inappropriate use of this special land. Have you even considered the economic value of the wild and pristine lands of the western Blackfeet Nation and Glacier? Have you even considered that tourism is a far more sustainable source of income for the area ON TOP OF being able to stay that way for generations to come? Oil and natural gas would likely be extracted within 50 years. Then what? The ecological health of Glacier National Park and surrounding areas are FAR more important to the long-term sustainability and economic health of the region that any amount of oil and natural gas could be. Your opinions and views on this matter are extremely short-sighted, to say the least.

Let's keep this game up friend, I am having a lot of fun making you look bad in each and every point you make. I am glad you have at least come to your senses and joined in on this conversation with civility, even if you are completely 100% overly apologetic for Anschutz... is that you Philip?

ManyGlacierMountaineer wrote:5. This following point you made has to be the most ridiculous of all and completely discredits anything you have to say: "Ack what about the grizzly bears and moose. Oh wait, those oil fields are improving the water quality as they are "cleansing" the ground of shallow oil that often polluted the local streams and rivers everytime there was an earthquake." You seriously have to be kidding me. Who are you trying to convince, 5 year olds? I am a highly educated individual, so you can try to play your little games with someone else.

If you had bothered to look at Montana oil history before deriding another, lets look below. Shall we test your "highly educated individual" status with that of a 5 year old? Education isn't worth much if you don't bother to actually look first before opening your trap.

Seeps in GNP: That were found, and drilled and now not seeping:
http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/sp28/fuels.htm

"Swiftcurrent Creek.--Sustained efforts to develop oil by drilling on or near obscure surface indications of petroleum and natural gas in Swiftcurrent Creek Valley throughout the 9-year period before the district became incorporated into Glacier National Park in 1910 resulted in seven tests that give it the nominal distinction of being the first oil and gas field in Montana and the only locality in the State where drilling on seepages proved successful. Credit for the recognition of these showings appears to be divided between two men: Frank M. Stevenson identified certain exposures of Upper Cretaceous marine shale as "oil shale" in the summer of 1901; and Samuel D. Somes prospecting near where Sherburne Dam is located, observed small pools of oil in irregularities on freshly broken shale and limestone on the floor of his adit in late February or early March 1902.

Within a short time, 52 oil claims were located under the placer mining law. Companies were organized and consolidated as claims were exchanged for shares, the ultimate operator being the Swift Current Oil, Land & Power Co. The first derrick was erected in November 1902, approximately at the center of SW1/4NE1/4 sec. 4, T. 36 N., R. 15 W., unsurveyed, on the Lakeside placer claim which had been located by Stevenson. Drilling began in 1903, when the hole was taken to a depth of 430 feet, with a showing of oil; but was abandoned because of inability to shut off water. The rig was then skidded 30 feet west, and work begun on location 1-A, which was completed as an oil well at a total depth of about 550 feet during the summer of 1905. Oil from this well was displayed at the State fair at Helena in the fall of 1905, where the company was awarded a diploma for "the first producing oil well in the State of Montana." Operations were terminated through lack of finances in 1907, and the properties turned over to Stevenson. In the meantime, however, one other oil well, with an initial capacity of about 20 barrels per day, by bailing, and 2 dry holes had been completed."

Or:http://www.eti-geochemistry.com/link/index.htmlexplaining how most oil production regions are found: Why don't we look at Montana's oil history. Right on the border of GNP. The Cut bank oil field. The cut bank was found due to surface seeps when a dude was drilling his water well. http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga95/prov28/text/prov28.pdf Go to page 11 this shows the depths of oil and ng that were leaking into the surface streams and environment. Since the drilling said seeps etc have vanished.

Here is a little CA oil seep problem history. http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/oil/fss/fss04/mandel_04.pdf
What is sad in this instance on Toro Creek, is that oil companies would be more than glad to drill in this area alleviating the underground oil pressure dumping said oil into said creek and the government in their infinite wisdom won't allow them do so. Instead they keep paying to clean up the creek every time a little earthquake squeezes up more oil than the in place oil / water separator can handle

Hey, next time, why not show us all your degrees, I am sure that will really impress upon us your knowledge superiority and we will all quiver in awe at those pieces of paper(achievements in spending money that the world seems to be in love with) instead of contemplating a thesis argument.

Conflict of Interst:

"A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary."

If for instance NPS park higher mucky mucks, had shares of Xanterra stock etc, then THEY would have a conflict of interest.

Someone being hired to do a job(Xanterra) cannot influence a situation in any fiduciary way other than quitting, violating their contract. Of course to keep said Xanterra employees from walking off the job, the NPS could just temp hire them. All of those employees would rather be temp NPS employees anyways and the only reason Xanterra or whomever company wins is being used is because the NPS thinks they can save a $$$. If Xanterra was say, 1st cousin of the superintendent of GNP, yes, there would be a conflict of interest. AKA corruption. So far I don't see any conflict of interest. All I see are temp employees that would rather be NPS employees anyways as they are there because for the vast majority of them they WANT to be there so that on their off time, they can enjoy the beautiful national park. I have personally known several temp national park employees here in Washington state who specifically went after these summer jobs because they were in the national park.

All I can see is that A) you don't like Xanterra as a company because they have the audacity to be exploring for oil in the Grasslands of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation creating an "unsightly" mess(fuel tanks) and an occasional flaming smoke stack to the East side of GNP, and B) It would appear that Xanterra is somehow a bad company to work. At least position B) is valid as A) is pure personal preference. The real answer is to cut out the middle man and have the NPS hire the temp employees. Must be some union NPS contract that said temp employees have to be paid outrageous $$$/hr for the NPS to outsource their employees.

I'm for everything good, and against everything bad.

Wastral wrote:Conflict of Interst:

"A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary."

If for instance NPS park higher mucky mucks, had shares of Xanterra stock etc, then THEY would have a conflict of interest.

Someone being hired to do a job(Xanterra) cannot influence a situation in any fiduciary way other than quitting, violating their contract. Of course to keep said Xanterra employees from walking off the job, the NPS could just temp hire them. All of those employees would rather be temp NPS employees anyways and the only reason Xanterra or whomever company wins is being used is because the NPS thinks they can save a $$$. If Xanterra was say, 1st cousin of the superintendent of GNP, yes, there would be a conflict of interest. AKA corruption. So far I don't see any conflict of interest. All I see are temp employees that would rather be NPS employees anyways as they are there because for the vast majority of them they WANT to be there so that on their off time, they can enjoy the beautiful national park. I have personally known several temp national park employees here in Washington state who specifically went after these summer jobs because they were in the national park.

All I can see is that A) you don't like Xanterra as a company because they have the audacity to be exploring for oil in the Grasslands of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation creating an "unsightly" mess(fuel tanks) and an occasional flaming smoke stack to the East side of GNP, and B) It would appear that Xanterra is somehow a bad company to work. At least position B) is valid as A) is pure personal preference. The real answer is to cut out the middle man and have the NPS hire the temp employees. Must be some union NPS contract that said temp employees have to be paid outrageous $$$/hr for the NPS to outsource their employees.

My goodness, you really like to go far off topic, don't you? The reality of the National Park System as it stands is that there will not be any foreseeable future in which temporary workers will be hired to work concessions directly by the NPS. So, I am not sure why you are going on about temp employees.

Secondly, your first assumption about why I don't like Xanterra is just not true. Surely, nobody who enjoys nature likes to see a jackpump in a meadow. That is a given. But, I digress, as you have repeatedly done in this thread. READ: THIS IS ABOUT FRACKING ON BLACKFEET LANDS NEAR PARK LANDS AND THE ECOLOGICAL RISK THAT THIS POSES TO THE PEOPLE, ANIMALS AND LAND THAT MAKES UP THE BLACKFEET NATION AND GLACIER NATIONAL PARK. This is not about anything else, so you should address this topic, this is what is the issue, not your views on what you think of leftist America, which I am not a part of, not about what you think is a good solution to oil seeps, not anything else, period.

You have not answered a single one of the questions I posed to you, not one. Every single one clearly shows why there is a very direct conflict of interest regarding Xanterra and Anschutz. Every single question also addresses your unswerving commitment to the pro-energy industry. I have not once made a single anti-oil remark other than to say that the use of Blackfeet lands on the border of Glacier National Park for oil is an inappropriate land use and that the company mainly involved in doing so has a direct conflict of interest in terms of posing a huge risk to the ecological health of the park, while also being counted as a main steward of the park. You can answer the questions I have posed and you can address the concern about the ecological health of the park, but other than that, if you bring anything else up, it will simply be ignored. Your constant digressions and rants and completely illogical arguments are quickly becoming stale. I don't need to show you my degrees, I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to enter into honest debate, then do so, if not, you have made your opinion and stance very apparent and are more than welcome to leave the thread if you don't care to support the cause.


Other than that, thanks for the history lesson, I really do appreciate it. I am more than sure that there has been a case in which draining an oil seep is a good idea, but to claim that drilling is always good for wetlands because it "cleanses" them is just absurd to the point nobody can take you seriously.

You sir have no idea about/concern for the land in question, you have no idea about/concern for the people and animals who live around there and you have zero idea about/concern for my home area in general. If you don't like my concern for my home and its inhabitants, then please, just go away. We don't want you around at all, let alone trying to convince people that risking destroying the best part of their world-class homeland is good for them or the world.

@MoapaPk, well said sir.

Uh, no its not about fracking on blackfeet land. You have a problem with the company Xanterra and its bid for a concessionaire because they have a drilling/fracking arm to their company. That was your opening diatribe posts main thrust. Way to move the goal posts.

I answered you and all of your Q's. You refused to listen or discuss. Its not a conflict of interest under any scenario as you don't seem to grasp what conflict of interest actually means, and 2nd the blackfeet voted to use their lands as they see fit. Who the Hell are you to tell them otherwise?

ManyGlacierMountaineer wrote:not once made a single anti-oil remark other than to say that the use of Blackfeet lands on the border of Glacier National Park for oil is an inappropriate land use ...

You sir have no idea about/concern for the land in question, you have no... ranting SNIP

In short, you are a NIMBY, more than willing to let somewhere/someone else provide for your comfort and way of life, but unwilling to share responsibility for your comfort.

Thank you for clearing that up.

The conflict of interest for Xanterra and Anschutz is unacceptable. Fracking on adjacent lands while bidding to become the concessions contractor and partner steward of Glacier National Park is unacceptable. There is a petition to be sent to the NPS regarding this unacceptable conflict of interest and it has gained 5,000 signatures already, 3,000 in just the last week. If you support this petition, please take a moment of your time, follow the link and sign your name. http://signon.org/sign/glacier-park-dont-give?mailing_id=10222&source=s.em.cr&r_by=4390207.