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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests