# Bush's BLM: Big oil needs Desolation, you don't



## Beardance42 (May 12, 2008)

I'll restrain myself from using the kind of language proportionate to my rage at this small and destructive man, now lobbing another phony "energy independence" bomb at Desolation Canyon.

Bureau Proposes Opening Up Utah Wilderness to Drilling - washingtonpost.com 



> The federal Bureau of Land Management is reviving plans to sell oil and gas leases in pristine wilderness areas in eastern Utah that have long been protected from development, according to a notice posted this week on the agency's Web site.
> The proposed sale, which includes famous areas in the Nine Mile Canyon region, would take place Dec. 19, a month before President Bush leaves office. The targeted areas include parts of Desolation Canyon, White River, Diamond Mountain and Bourdette Draw.
> The bureau has sought to open these public lands to energy exploration since 2003, though it had earlier classified them as having "wilderness character." But the agency has been repeatedly blocked by federal court and administrative rulings.
> "Previous administrations proved that there can be a balance between wilderness protection and oil and gas development," said former bureau director Jim Baca, who served under former President Clinton, in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has worked tirelessly to appease the oil and gas industry no matter the cost to our national heritage of wild and untamed places."


Deso is one of the world's great places, as far as I'm concerned - they absolutely will not rest until it looks and smells like Houston.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

*Drill, baby, drill...* some sense into the heads of TeamMcBush.


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

An article in the Post today said that Bush is trying to push through a bunch of regulations that will be hard to change once he leaves office. Lots of enviromental stuff if I remember correctly.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Do we as a nation want to decrease our demand for foreign oil? or do we continue to drill in the middle east, ask your self that to start it off. lets not be selfish now, we want to decrease foreign dependency but we don't want more drilling on our own land? do you own a vehicle, how many times do you fill her up a month?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

by the picture in the article im positive zero rigs would be seen from the river and its a wasteland.

its utah anyways the mormans have already ruined the state.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

I fill my truck up about once every month and a half. Used to be about 5 times a month. If I can do it, you can too!

The more we can reduce our demand, the less we need to import. If everyone tries to reduce demand where they can, we don't need any new drilling and we probably wouldn't need middle east oil either.

Bring on the Volt and other electric cars!


----------



## brooks8970 (Jun 5, 2005)

"we want to decrease foreign dependency but we don't want more drilling on our own land?"

Yes, you nailed it! Id like to decrease our dependence on foreign fuels and not open up more lands in the us to drilling and I can think of more than a few ways to start. This isnt a black and white issue unless your primary interest is lining the pockets of big gas and oil.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

BROOKS YOU ARE BITCHING ABOUT IT AND LIVE IN BOULDER HOW FAR IS THE COMMUTE TO DESOLATION CANYON?

currently there really hasnt been an increase in who drives cars that use greener technologies, so speaking literally the only way to decrease is to drive less or make cars that don't run on the shit. so if people like you are still driving to desolation from boulder you don't fit the nitch, so the next answer is to drill more oil to decrease foreign dependency. did i make it black and white for you since its really that fucking easy to figure supply and demand!

id make a bet boaters drive more than skiers and bikers put together.

sounds like the blm will be leasing the land so more money to the people who take care of the putins and take outs and more oil in the us which would help decrease foreign dependency as well as put gas in your tank so people like you can drive from boulder to hit desolation. sounds okey to me and im sure you can stand to look at a rig for 30 seconds as you drive by not that big a deal.


----------



## brooks8970 (Jun 5, 2005)

I live in Boulder so I can live and work in a community where I travel by bike everyday. Ive been to desolation a couple of times in my life and I hope to get back for a third and a fourth time but characterizing me as someone who drives there every weekend just doesnt fit the bill nor does it address the issues which you fail to recognize.

If there hasnt been an increase in the use of green automotive technologies perhaps its time to push for legislation which increases their availability and subsidizes their use....or we could keep subsidizing carbon fuels instead. Its no wonder this is such a close political race with people like you driving down the average american IQ.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

BROOKS IM NOTA BRAINIAC BUT IM SURE MOST AVERAGE AMERICANS CAN'T AFFORD TO DRIVE GREENER TECHNOLOGIES SPECIALLY WITH GAS AT UNDER 2.40 IN TOWN. ITS NOT PEOPLE LIKE ME THAT DRIVE THE IQ DOWN ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU. YOU MAYNOT DRIVE THERE EVERYWEEKEND BUT SOMEBODY IS!
to be honest if anyof us were truely enviromentally savvy we would not drive to any creek besides public transportation or electric car, not happening. 

70 percent of what the US uses and needs is imported. what do you think we should do now to decrease our demand for foreign oil? not drive ever again> looks like you won't see desolation that fourth time. brainiac out


----------



## Beardance42 (May 12, 2008)

This is the same straw man people use for drilling ODCS and ANWR - it "reduces our dependency on foreign oil". More Sarah Palin mythology. 

No it doesn't. It put cheaper-to-obtain oil in the hands of the oil companies, who sell it on the open market for a profit. The oil companies have 4 million acres of leased land in Utah alone that they haven't exploited. Until they pass a law that keeps every drop of US recovered oil within American borders, this "reducing our dependence" stuff is bull. The only way we stop being dependent on foreign oil is to transfiorm our economy onto renewable energies, and away from fossil fuels. Flattening every canyon or building roads and rigs in every draw or cutting down every forest doesn't change that - it just leaves us a dessicated and barren environment to live in when we get hit with the inevitable. 

I vote they be forced to exhaust and clean up every single lease already granted before they start drilling and road building and otherwise flattening wild and scenic river corridors. 

I live in Boulder, too, and I've been down Desolation 12 times. I'm not going to apologize for driving my truck to float down rivers, and I'm not going to equate driving my truck with the implicit approval to permanently wreck unique, fragile and irreplaceable wild lands. 

The put in and take out are paid for by my permit fees and funds derived from recycled beer cans. I've paid for those. The resource recovery companies won't do anything to Deso/Nine Mile except trash it.

There are, anyway, dozens (if not hundreds) of rigs already standing on the plateau, which is essentially endless BLM wasteland. The proposal is to drill in Nine Mile Canyon and within sight and earshot of the river itself.


----------



## Beardance42 (May 12, 2008)

Dunno what happened to your response, Mike, but....

ANALYSIS-US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar | Markets | Reuters


> WASHINGTON, July 3 (Reuters) - While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, _American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries._
> A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.
> The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

the oil companies are selling to countries willing to pay top dollar.


----------



## DurangoSteve (Jun 2, 2006)

But if "drill, baby, drill" doesn't directly benefit the United States, only the oil companies, then why would we trash a wilderness area to sell the oil to a foreign country?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

that is something that your state governor would have to do. but to top it off your governor doesn't want any drilling in the state of colorado. period


----------



## stubby (Oct 13, 2003)

I'm all for some sort of balanced management. But having grown up there it's not a total wasteland, and just because you can't see it from the river doesn't mean we should just say f%#$ it and drill. Plus there's other issues like roads, water use and wastewater that will end up in the Green. I don't have the solution, I drive to the river to boat and I'm gonna' keep boating. If I have to pay more than I will (and I'm not exactly rich). Maybe we should try diplomacy instead of military imperialism to try and secure our needs...it might last longer than making a bunch of people pissed that we're in their country and could care less about them other than what they can give us.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Our dependency on foreign oil. That is going to happen anyway. If we aren't dependent on foreign oil, it will be something else like foreign cheap labor, or foreign loans. Like Stubby says we need to learn to get along... 
Gas SHOULD be expensive. We have never payed the true price of gas. Which means we never externalized the costs to our environment, our national pride, safety, sanity.
No. It is not worth sacrificing another portion of wilderness for another oil rig. Where does the insanity and gluttony stop?


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

I'm a boater and don't drive gas guzzlers (have a Honda Insight 60 mpg and a Honda CRV that gets 30 mpg and 25 mpg with a trailer). I limit my long-distance travels and do most of my boating close to home. So your guilt trip doesn't fly with me— I think there's way too much drilling now and the standards are way too loose. 

I just did a Deso trip, and the drilling plague has spread since my last one, in 2005. They are really f-ing up that desert something awful. Roads are slashed all over the place, with zero erosion control or reclamation. They are going full bore while Bush is still in office and trying to grab still more. Going into Sand Wash we had to dodge a lot of oilfield traffic and the truckers are worse than log truck drivers— flash their brights to blind you and damn near run you off the road. 

After getting back I dug a trench to lay cable for another solar array (we have one set up). Pretty tired of the corrupting influence of big oil on US politics, via Cheney and the rest of his gang. Millions of decent working people are going broke while Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, BP and the rest are raking it in. 

You seem to resent people in Boulder CO driving. So— what do you drive, amigo? Care to post your mpg?


----------



## Rockhead (Sep 17, 2007)

*GO Green now*

I gotta say bull to Drill Baby Drill. You can convert YOUR vehicle to a hybrid today! My Toyota truck has seen a 35% increase gas mileage and over 50% decrease in emissions. The answer isn't to give up our wild spaces because you can't see the oil rigs from the water. Here in Montana they like to leave a swath of trees along the road while clear cutting "out of view of the river". Take a look at Nelsons Hydro-Gen home page for information on how to convert your rig to a hydrogen hybrid. We are going to run out of oil. Let's look to other alternatives that are cleaner and renewable.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

they should cordon off 9 mile, but the rest of that country is a fuckin wastelend.

drill it all, fuck applying for permits, lets just open the gates and let em drill, i say

whats eastern utah ever done for you


----------



## 1whitewattafoo (Nov 25, 2007)

you 2 r like politicians being idiots to each other back and forth. you both need to shut the hell up and if you wanna make something happen likea green future or electric cars fuckin do it and stop talking about it so much.
or if you wanna drill in deso grey go fuckin try for it and see what happens. to many people on this planet have so much to say but when it comes down to it they are just bitches like the both of you and do nothing but talk about it. go act on your beliefs people.............


----------



## 1whitewattafoo (Nov 25, 2007)

everyone needs to stop being so addicted to oil. if you think about how cracked out we are on oil its rediculous. hydrogen for fuel. all you use is water. "drill" FUCK OFF.. go spend 1000.00 or less and run yer dam car on water.. listen to ROCKHEAD


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

i like my gas guzzler

lets drill in the arctic too, what has a bunch of stupid caribou ever done for you


----------



## ski_adk (Apr 24, 2008)

Rockhead -- how did you hear about Nelson's and how long have you been running their system? I just reviewed their site, it all sounds real good, but I'd like to hear some more from a user. It certainly sounds interesting to say the least.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

1whitewattafoo said:


> go act on your beliefs people.............


Right!









2000 Honda Insight— 60 mpg. Bought used long before the gas price crunch. Great 2-seater, quick, and RED.








Here's a solar array we put up a few years back (with additional solar shingles on the casa). It's grid-tied (no batteries) and in summer generates more power than we use. 








This is the trench I just dug (after getting back from Deso) to connect another solar array. The cable runs behind the retaining wall toward the back of the lot, where the new solar stuff will go (once we recover from the bite of putting in a greenhouse). 

Can't change the whole world at once. 

Just do one thing at a time. 

Chip


----------



## 1whitewattafoo (Nov 25, 2007)

Chip said:


> Right!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


nice, if I actually owned some land or a house I'd be looking for advice from ya to do that.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

If you're renting, you can do stuff like replacing the bulbs with compact fluorescents (take 'em with you when you move) and using radiant spot heaters instead of cranking the 'stat. 

The transport issues apply pretty much across the board: walking, skateboard, bike or public trans is best. Next best are high mpg vehicles, whether hybrid or not. 

We've long been pretty thrifty with energy (I lived without electricity or central heat for much of my adult life), but since moving to this house four years ago we've reduced our electric and propane use by 60%. Swapping out the old electric water heater for a gas demand model (Bosch AquaStar) was a big help. 

The only hardship is the work involved. But since I love tinkering, it's been fun. And the reward, in comfort and reduced bills, is pretty immediate. 

The sad part is that as we conserve in the US, the oil oligarchs sell our domestic production overseas, and hire more lawyers & lobbyists.


----------



## Rockhead (Sep 17, 2007)

*Green is Good*



ski_adk said:


> Rockhead -- how did you hear about Nelson's and how long have you been running their system? I just reviewed their site, it all sounds real good, but I'd like to hear some more from a user. It certainly sounds interesting to say the least.


I've know Scott and Crystal Nelson for 15 years now. I watched them developp this product from a concept on a table to a viable system that anyone can use. 
Scott is the finest mechanic that I know, to me his advice is gold. They currently have systems running on Toyotas, Hondas, Subarus, a Dodge SUV and an old pick up with a carb as a test. The Hydro-Gen works. My truck is running way smoother, my gas mileage has increased 35% and emissions are cleaned up over 50%, we don't emission test here in Montana, but would love numbers on emissions. The hydrogen makes your engine run cooler and cleans carbon deposits out over time increasing the life of your vehicle. It's time for people to do more than complain about oil and gas. 35% or better mileage (highway driving should be closer to 40%) will put a hell of a bite in Exxons next quaterly statement. Burn water not money! rockhead on belay


----------



## walrus (Feb 20, 2007)

There are no easy answers, but if you would like to know about how it feels to live in the most polluted cities on earth I can tell you about it. It hurts to breathe, you wake up every morning with a mild headache, your eyes itch, and a dull pain envelops your body. Check out Chennai if you want to see what continuing to drive and recklessly consume fossil fuels will leave us with.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

Rockhead said:


> The Hydro-Gen works. My truck is running way smoother, my gas mileage has increased 35% and emissions are cleaned up over 50%.


Checked the Nelson website— very interesting and lacking the hype one gets with bogus gimcracks (of which there are many). 

Seems like a good fit for our boating bus, a 2000 Honda CRV. Thanks for posting the link—

Chip


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

This might clear a few things up...

Prescott Oil Loves the Earth | Tuesday September 30 | ColbertNation.com


----------



## asleep.at.the.oars (May 6, 2006)

Chip said:


> Checked the Nelson website— very interesting and lacking the hype one gets with bogus gimcracks (of which there are many).
> 
> Seems like a good fit for our boating bus, a 2000 Honda CRV. Thanks for posting the link—
> 
> Chip


I was excited when I first saw Rockhead's post, but then I started reading pages like:
"Run Your Car On Water" Scheme Could Leave Consumers All Wet

I found another page yesterday that had an even better explanation of why it doesn't work, but I can't find the link again. 
Basically, you just foul up the O2 sensor so that your engine runs really lean. For a while you get better mileage, but then have to start replacing valves and such because of the side effects of not running the right fuel mixture. 

I'm waiting to buy an Aptera for my next vehicle - it will surely be a better commuter than the F-150 we keep around to pull trailers - and doesn't involve mounting Mason jars under the hood.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

I was planning to drag a chemist or two out for a beer and get their take on it. What's funny is that the story debunking the devices is framed (courtesy of Google's uncritical algorithms) with ads for the very devices themselves. 

For the record, water injection is quite different than what's proposed on the Nelson website. 

My initial reservation had to do with the volume of hydrogen gas needed to actually provide the requisite energy to boost mileage by 35% vs. the apparently small volume of water in the generators. Seems as if you'd have to crack a lot more water molecules (like, gallons) to get enough hydrogen to do the job. 

Any chemists out there?


----------



## walrus (Feb 20, 2007)

I see this as a victory: 

General Motors Corp. said that last month, when adjusted for population growth, was the auto industry's worst since World War II. 

Bloomberg.com: U.S.

We love to learn our lessons at the wrong end of a 2" x 4"


----------



## Rockhead (Sep 17, 2007)

*read it all*



Chip said:


> I was planning to drag a chemist or two out for a beer and get their take on it. What's funny is that the story debunking the devices is framed (courtesy of Google's uncritical algorithms) with ads for the very devices themselves.
> 
> For the record, water injection is quite different than what's proposed on the Nelson website.
> 
> ...


Hey Chip

There are lots of folks making poor quality units out there. It goes the gamut from pyramid schemes to folks wanting you to bungee cord stuff to your engine. As to the amount of water needed, the Hydro-Gen needs to be recharged about as often as you change your oil, not refill just recharge a few ounces of catalyst. Give Scott a call, he can explain it all better than I can. These are high quality installations. I've been testing the "rockhead" 4 wheel drive unit on our local river shuttles and will soon be driving to our local hill (Snowbowl rocks) on a road infamous for eating tourists on a daily basis. You can see dozens of units on youtube sitting on a table. Nelsons Hydro-Gen home page is real world tested. rockhead


----------



## st2eelpot (Apr 15, 2008)

GREEN ENERGIES rant (water car thing, green cars, green energy production, etc.):

I'm curious about this water system, but trying to work out the simple logic. None of these bonds breaking or forming is going to be 100% efficient, but let's assume they are for argument. So, we're burning gasoline to charge the battery to separate the water to add it back to the gasoline to burn it. Sounds like a big circle. Since, ultimately, the charge for the battery is coming from the gasoline, you can't take energy from one place, add it back in, and get more net energy. 

If there is any logic in this, it would be decreasing loss of energy somewhere. Too much drag on the engine would be one spot it's trying to label- in the electrical system? This seems like it would be the result of an alternater drawing too much energy? Or, if it's burning less gasoline, it is burning leaner. Leaner burning engine = hotter = burned valve seals. 

The argument about higher increase in octane doesn't hold much benefit in increasing mpg. Higher octane- so what? Since the engines we're talking about don't have a variable compression (like the honda V-tec idea or a turbocharged engine) then most of the benefits of increased octane are lost. These engines are set to burn lower octanes/have lower compression ratios. It would possibly decrease the premature ignition of a worn engine with a hot spot, but now we're splitting hairs.

Neat idea though. I'd have to really digest it a bit more.

As far as "green cars," and most "green energy" for that matter, let's look at things in a bit more of a 'complete picture' sort of theory.

I forget the exact numbers, but a general gasoline engine is, what, 17% efficient? Diesel engines are slightly more efficient (still below 20% if I recall), though they do put a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. Keep in mind many biological organisms are only around 30% efficient with the food they eat vs. what they waste. Photosynthesis is exceedingly efficient- to the point it must be reversed or it burns the plant up. If only we could replicate this... 

Hybrid cars- better gas mileage in the end. Also the most environmentally polluting cars to make. Batteries are hell on the environment, *especially* when we dispose of them. 

Solar Cells- rather ineffecient, but a nice idea once they're in operation. However, the production of these things leave TOXIC by-products.

Electic cars- where does the electricity come from?

Hydrogen fuel cell- basically a big battery. Where does the energy come from?

Coal burning- can we say mercury pollution, sulfur pollution, etc.

Hydro-electric dams- This is a boating forum. I won't go into the environmental impacts here.

Wind Power- still no way to store the power. An eye sore. Few viable spots to put up wind farms. not a bad way to deal with our demand. I don't know much environmentally terrible about this technology

Nuclear- cleanest way to really get energy. The radioactive waste off this stuff, while nasty, is typically really small in volume (Look at France's 54 identical nuclear reactors- each one produces about one cigarette lighter worth of waste a year, in volume). Most of the problems with this arose in 1) learning how to use it, and 2) 'environmentalistis' not knowing what they hell they're talking about.

Now as far as lightbulbs- flourescent is more efficient, sure, though again we have toxic chemicals in the bulbs. Why is no one talking about the new LED lights? A 'normal' household lightbulb is 60watt incandescent. The same brightness will be roughly a 15watt flourescent. The same brightness is roughly... 4watts for an LED light. LEDs are also more environmentally friendly in production and disposal than flourescents (and likely incandescents).

The solution isn't in finding a 'greener' car or 'greener' technology. The point of this diatribe is it's all nasty in some regard. 

Decrease demand.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

Rockhead said:


> As to the amount of water needed, the Hydro-Gen needs to be recharged about as often as you change your oil, not refill just recharge a few ounces of catalyst.


Let me re-explain: to contribute power through hydrogen combustion, a certain amount of hydrogen must be burned. Since the hydrogen is said to be generated from water in the catalytic cells, the water molecules have to be "cracked" to release two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen (which is also supplied to the engine, with an effect similar to turbocharging). 

Hydrogen is a good fuel (_e.g._ the sun) but is also very light in gaseous form, _so _you have to burn quite a lot by volume to yield much energy, compared to gasoline, which has a much higher energy density. 

Consequently, the idea that a few quarts of water could yield 35% of the energy of multiple tanks of gasoline seems to violate what are called the "Las Vegas" laws of thermodynamics: 1) You can't get something for nothing, and 2) You can never really break even. 

If I was feeling energetic, I could try to calculate the whole thing out in terms of mass and BTUs, but I'm being lazy today, resting up for the election results.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I called up the folks to ask some questions and came away very skeptical. I asked how much hydrogen their unit produces so I could try and calculate what that volume would mean in terms of energy in your engine. They did not know and gave some excuses about not having any way to measure it and not really being scientists but more "mechanics". They did tell me that you hooked up the system to part of your cars electrical system, but if it pulled to much power it would blow a fuse. Ask yourself if you think an electrical component that could blow one of your fuses could increase your gas mileage by 50%. 

Fundamentally the only way this can work is to take any excess electrical power from your alternator that is not being used by your base electrical load, convert it into hydrogen (50-80% efficiency max), and then burn the hydrogen with sub-100% efficiency there. So you could probably get back at most about 20-30% of the excess power of your alternator. I'm not an alternator expert, but it doesn't seem like it would be that much power.

Anyway, sounds pretty damn sketchy to me. The energy balance doesn't pass the BS sniff test to me, and the fact that the company has no scientific details to back them up is suspicious. Their "proof" was supposedly a video showing a dodge durango digital mileage readout from a vehicle they modified. Hmmmm.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

Any high-school chemistry buff could hook the unit up to some external collector (a balloon) and measure the hydrogen output. 

Hydrogen fuel cells can power cars, but require an external source of hydrogen. 

I would love it if this were true, but the physics seems pretty shaky.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I'm a lazy chemical engineer, and I owe Chip one, but it doesn't pass the smell test for me to even bother calculating it. You can never get more energy out than in, so that just can't happen. Although there may be some super catalyst in their canisters, and given the cost of $500 for a new unit, I wonder what toxins, energy consumption, and environmental repercussions there are from the production of them. You have to draw your circle large. But, I will give it to my boss (not a chemical engineer but will dissect it faster than the blink of an eye) and tell you what he thinks.

A bit jaded today, having to research carbon credits for work and finding out that there are a lot of junk bonds out there, as I had feared. No, you can't buy your way out of guilt and environmental devastation.


----------



## walrus (Feb 20, 2007)

*hate fossil fuel consumption*

I am planning to ride a seated bike with trailer and kayak to Chile from CO in support of positive change. Any interested people? or sponsers? Spring might be a good time to start. We might have to ride a boat at the columbian border a short distance.Adventure...1st descents? 



walrus said:


> I see this as a victory:
> 
> General Motors Corp. said that last month, when adjusted for population growth, was the auto industry's worst since World War II.
> 
> ...


----------



## stubby (Oct 13, 2003)

Not to get back to the initial thread or anything, but...did anyone see the actual proposals, blm release plan, lease listing or anything that was supposed to be released election day? It seems to have gotten lost in the euphoria and I would like to offer my formal protest to the BLM.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

stubby said:


> Not to get back to the initial thread or anything, but...did anyone see the actual proposals, blm release plan, lease listing or anything that was supposed to be released election day? It seems to have gotten lost in the euphoria and I would like to offer my formal protest to the BLM.


Good on you! Here's a link (don't miss the editorial/disclaimer by the state ms.-manager). 

DOI: BLM: Utah Home Page

Chip


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Chip, I spent a few minutes surfing that blm site, but didn't find any specific discussion of what lands might be up for lease.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

Hmmm. Thanks, Dave. I'll poke around further— stay tuned.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

*Poking around, here—*

Looks like a typical Bush BLM shell-game. Here's a link to the announcement that they are posting a list of proposed oil-and-gas leases: 

BLM Utah Posts List of Proposed Parcels for Geothermal Lease Sale and Quarterly Oil and Gas Lease Sale (11/4/2008)

_ Weird_— I didn't insert that sneaky emoticon, and there's no link to the list itself. _Where_ are they posting it? On the back wall of Dick Cheney's undisclosed location? 

I'm married to an environmental law prof, and she complains quite bitterly about this sort of duck-and-dodge. I'll ask her when she gets back from DC— might have to try the Federal Register. Meanwhile, you give it a go— and let us know if you puzzle it out.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

The utah home page has a map of the several districts on the right side of the page, and links to the resource management plans for each of these districts as the top links smack dab in the middle of the home page.

DOI: BLM: Utah Home Page

If you follow the link to the moab district, there is a link at the bottom of the page for that directs you to the resource management plan (RMP). On that link there is a box on the upper right that has a link to the RMP among others. Click on the rmp link and you get a few more choices, clink on RMP/ROD. This finally gets you to what you are looking for and each of the districts has it. Linked the moab and price ones below. It has the entire document, plus it has maps. If you look through the loads of maps you will eventually find the map of oil and gas leases. Oil and gas lease maps in combination with the wilderness area maps will show you whats available for leasing and whats unavailable due to wilderness.

Moab
ROD/Approved RMP

Price
ROD/Approved RMP


It looks like there are westwater canyon SWA and desolation canyon SWA areas that are not up for lease. Perhaps some of the peripheral areas around desolation are up for lease, not sure where the desolation canyon run starts and stops. Maybe some folks who know the runs can figure out which areas are impacted. The moab maps have the east side, while the price maps have the west side and they should tell the story.

As much as I too like to blame things on Bush, I don't think you can blame lots of links and large documents on Bush. Much of this follows the NEPA process that has been around for many years. After reading through some of it, I actually think its a pretty cool document. It has everything from wilderness, forestation type, animal habitats, recreational potential, soil types, and leasing. For a map geek its Pretty neat. As to why there isn't a list of leases, I think that the list would be difficult to read. You would have thousands of lines of BS like (northwest 1/4 section of township range etc) that is much better presented in map format, and almost nonsensical unless you are intimately familiar with the township range lingo. You have to dig through the info, and perhaps know a bit about the govt process for these sorts of things, buts its all there.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

No doubt I'm deeply suspicious of the BLM and the Interior Dept. in general: Bush packed the upper echelon with lobbyists, energy corp hacks, and state legislators who served big oil and mining interests (such as Randall Luthi of Wyoming, head of the Minerals Management Service). 

I worked for the USFS for some time and understand the NEPA process, and also the dodges used to get around it, like Categorical Exclusions, that have been much used of late. 

I already looked at some of the RMP things you mention— what I haven't found is a list of the specific parcels that will be offered for leasing this December. I will keep looking, as I have time. 

cheers–


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Chip, the land up for lease is in the maps as I noted. Just follow the directions and you can check all the areas out. I've put a few of the pertinent bits of info for Desolation here.

Moab area wilderness areas including westwater and desolation









Moab lands open for potential oil and gas leasing









Price lands open for potential oil and gas leasing









Looks like most of desolation canyon is off limits to leasing according to the maps. Kind of confused about the original post about desolation being open for leasing. Perhaps its the stuff on the eastern side of the river just north of I-70?


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

One more map. Vernal area has the put in and first portion of desolation. Looks like there is leasing on either side of the river in the first 20-30 miles. The map shows no surface occupancy along the river corridor in what appears to be the canyon proper.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Also, just read an article speculating that Obama will likely reverse some of Bush's presedential decrees like the ban on federally funded stem cell research and potentially some of the drilling issues. 

There's talk of Senator Salazar from Colorado being appointed to head the department on the interior. Sounds like a good idea to me. There are so many big issues in the west like water, energy, wildlife, and wilderness that a "western" guy seems like a good pick. 

I wonder if the Obama admin will be able to restore what Bush has torn down in the last 8 years? I think what the country really needs right now is a much more balanced approach with a long term perspective.


----------



## asleep.at.the.oars (May 6, 2006)

A couple more maps that show where they want to lease - the encroachment seems worse in Dino than Deso.


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

Homer Simpson: _Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!_

Whether using fuel cells or just straight combustion, hydrogen is still extremely far fetched as any sort of viable "renewable fuel." Sure you can make hydrogen from water. And then burn it back to water. But there's a reason we're up to our ass in water on this planet rather than up to our ass in hydrogen! Water is lower in energy than hydrogen, and thus to make hydrogen from water, you have put that difference in energy into it. Then you get that same amount of energy back when you burn it (1st law of thermodynamics). So even if you could have a fuel cell that has 100% efficiency (absolutely impossible, 2nd law of thermodynamics), the best you could ever hope to do is break even in energy.

So the only way to make hydrogen even remotely viable is to find another energy source to make hydrogen from. The most promising one out there right now is solar energy, where some direct catalytic process might be possible, or more likely biological production of hydrogen from solar energy as NREL has been investigating. But the technological (and economic) hurdles to be able to produce anything close to the mass quantities needed to fuel our economy are still absolutely massive. It might be possible, but as it stands now it's still pretty far out.

In terms of global warming, the Hydro-Gen is BS, unless you power it from a solar panel or wind turbine.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

asleep.at.the.oars said:


> I was excited when I first saw Rockhead's post, but then I started reading pages like:
> "Run Your Car On Water" Scheme Could Leave Consumers All Wet
> 
> I found another page yesterday that had an even better explanation of why it doesn't work, but I can't find the link again.
> ...


 
I've been reading the posts about 'running a car on water', and I am compelled to respond to your comments. I've read the article about the technology leaving consumers 'all wet', and, like so many articles on the internet, it is biased and incomplete. I will be the first to agree that there are an amazing number of websites that are making unbelievable claims, that are pyramid marketing schemes to sell books, that are marketing inferior products, and on. That being said, however, just because one guy makes and sells a crappy product doesn't mean that good products don't exist. Hydrogen technology does work, and I have proof that it does. I would invite anyone who is a sceptic to come and talk with me for an hour and let me demonstrate our product for another half an hour, and I am sure you will not be able to deny what is fact and what is empty hype. There are several points that I must address: 1) The people who say it isn't feasible because "you put more energy in that you can get out, and variations on this statement - If you read up on the Law of Conservation and the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, you will learn that there is no energy system in which you get more out than you put in. Examples would be a 40 watt light bulb which is provided 40 watts and uses 40 watts (First Law of Thermodynamics - what you put in you get out), however, only 4 watts is used to convert electricity to light and the rest of the watts become the heat the light bulb casts off. The Second Law of Thermodynamics - when you convert one type of energy to another, there will be a portion of energy that will become unusable. The very definition of efficiency is: Efficiency equals the energy out divided by the energy in. Our power stations, our cars, our bodies, transportation, heating, the list is endless, and the laws of physics say that every method of converting one type of energy to another will result in a loss. So, my point in stating all this is: you can't apply the rules only to hydrogen generators. We live with inefficient systems all around us, every day. The beauty of the hydrogen system is that it can be used in conjunction with your existing vehicle, and use the vehicle's charging system to supply the electricity it needs to electrolyze water. Our system is designed to use less than 10 amps which is a minimal demand for power. Running the hydrogen generator is no different than driving with your stereo on or driving with your lights on, and what you get back out starts with vastly cleaner exhaust emissions, an increase in horsepower, and more efficient combustion of fuel that results in better gas mileage. 2) People who say "it doesn't work" and base their opinions on incomplete information. Again, I know there is a lot of useless information on the web, but that doesn't mean there isn't good information. The trick is finding it! Check out sites like BrownsGas.com for scientific explanations and sites that sell hydrogen generators for industry - there are huge mining trucks that now utilize hydrogen in conjunction with traditional fuels, and the companies are saving huge amounts of money in addition to reducing the pollution from these vehicles to almost nothing. There are mass produced hydrogen generators that are used for supplementing home heating. If they did not work, they would not be being built and used. 3) The cost seems high especially since I can buy a book and build it myself. This statement is true - to a point. If you build your own based on plans from who know who, you have essentially built a 'prototype' and I'm not sure it would belong under the hood of your car or that it would last very long. We started at the beginning, and the first systems we built were not anything we would have wanted market even though they worked. The plans you can buy have reduced every part to the lowest common denominator in both cost and quality. Not what I would want on my $25,000 car. We have refined and redesigned, tested, verified, rebuilt and marketed a product that we feel is a good balance of power in to power out, that produces verifiable results in emissions testing and in drivability, and is durable and safe, and will ultimately pay for itself in fuel savings. We invite any and all people to let us demonstrate our product. NelsonsHydro-Gen is committed to sharing all we have learned with everyone so that we can get past the debate process, and start making a difference in the quality of life now and for the future. Contact us at our website. We are organizing a demonstration and information seminar to be held in Missoula, Montana within the next few weeks.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

Chip said:


> I was planning to drag a chemist or two out for a beer and get their take on it. What's funny is that the story debunking the devices is framed (courtesy of Google's uncritical algorithms) with ads for the very devices themselves.
> 
> For the record, water injection is quite different than what's proposed on the Nelson website.
> 
> ...


I wanted to respond to your comment about the amount of water needed to be effective. Indeed, the more you can generate, the better it should work, and in most cases that is correct. Hydrogen is an energy medium and as such, works in conjuction with the traditional fuels like gas and diesel resulting in a much more efficient detonation and utilization of that fuel, so, not all the benefits come from just the hydrogen, a lot is coming from what was previously unused or unburned before. The amount of water used does seem very small, but on a molecular level, and utilizing it in an internal combustion engine, is still very effective. If you would like to know more, contact me through NelsonsHydro-Gen.com. We can answer your questions, and we can demonstrate a hydrogen generator that does work.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> I called up the folks to ask some questions and came away very skeptical. I asked how much hydrogen their unit produces so I could try and calculate what that volume would mean in terms of energy in your engine. They did not know and gave some excuses about not having any way to measure it and not really being scientists but more "mechanics". They did tell me that you hooked up the system to part of your cars electrical system, but if it pulled to much power it would blow a fuse. Ask yourself if you think an electrical component that could blow one of your fuses could increase your gas mileage by 50%.
> 
> Fundamentally the only way this can work is to take any excess electrical power from your alternator that is not being used by your base electrical load, convert it into hydrogen (50-80% efficiency max), and then burn the hydrogen with sub-100% efficiency there. So you could probably get back at most about 20-30% of the excess power of your alternator. I'm not an alternator expert, but it doesn't seem like it would be that much power.
> 
> Anyway, sounds pretty damn sketchy to me. The energy balance doesn't pass the BS sniff test to me, and the fact that the company has no scientific details to back them up is suspicious. Their "proof" was supposedly a video showing a dodge durango digital mileage readout from a vehicle they modified. Hmmmm.


 
Hi Ian! I'm the one you spoke to and I am sorry to say that some of what I said has been misinterpreted. You asked me if I could convert the amount of amperage energy to the amount of hydrogen energy being produced, and I tried to explain, that at this time, I do not have a way of calculating that relationship. We know that our 6 pack uses 8.5 amps and produces 1 liter of HHO per minute. Beyond that, the efficiency of the detonation of the fuels in the engine cylinder determines the power out, and because of the differences in efficiency in different vehicles, this is not a constant. I also am confused by what you said about blowing fuses. What I said is that there are systems that use more amperage, and if you try to run a 25 amp system on a 20 amp circuit you will blow a fuse. Our design uses an amperage level less than what it takes to play your car stereo or run your headlights. That brings me to the next point you bring up about the alternator and charging system in your car. The battery and alternator have symbiotic relationship and their jobs are to supply and maintain electrical power. Since the alternator runs off a pulley that is powered by mechanical energy from the engine's crankshaft, I guess I could agree that it is powered by gasoline, but not without clarifying that it takes such a negligible amount of power to drive the alternator that it's power usage is insignificant. Do you consider the power your stereo uses and what demand it puts on your alternator? You certainly don't expect your stereo to give any power back to the system. Our hydrogen generator will always give something back, but in a different form of power. I'm sorry you came away from our conversation so sceptical, but I do understand. We are a new company, with a new idea, and we are coming out of a testing and development phase into a verification and proof phase. We have now had vehicles in for emissions tests,which by the way are spectacular, and we are working with several individuals that are helping us to quantify our tests. Please don't give up on the idea because of anything we might have said. Although it seems like a simple concept, and in some ways it is, it quickly becomes more complicated when you combine the hydrogen technology with the automotive technology. Scott's extensive experience and knowledge with automotive mechanics is the main reason our systems work, and work in a vehicle not on a bench in a workshop. The generators are basic science, not impossible to replicate in any way, but integrating them into an existing vehicle in a way that is actually practical and productive is the true test. We are constantly learning, and our results are constantly changing, and changing for the better.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

Chip said:


> Any high-school chemistry buff could hook the unit up to some external collector (a balloon) and measure the hydrogen output.
> 
> Hydrogen fuel cells can power cars, but require an external source of hydrogen.
> 
> I would love it if this were true, but the physics seems pretty shaky.


 
Any high-school chemistry buff did! And more. I was trying to explain that at different amperages that output was different. We do not sell fuel cells that store hydrogen and that would require an external source of hydrogen, we sell a system that provides hydrogen 'on demand' and is used as it is needed. The hydrogen is in the water carried in the cells which makes it very safe. The physics are not shaky. The fundamentals of physics are very clear, it is understanding them in various applications that becomes shaky. We have spent thousands of hours sorting through the vast amounts of information, both good and bad, and more hours building and testing systems. Whether a person understands the physics or not, the proof is in the pudding, and we have a product that works.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

benpetri said:


> Homer Simpson: _Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!_
> 
> Whether using fuel cells or just straight combustion, hydrogen is still extremely far fetched as any sort of viable "renewable fuel." Sure you can make hydrogen from water. And then burn it back to water. But there's a reason we're up to our ass in water on this planet rather than up to our ass in hydrogen! Water is lower in energy than hydrogen, and thus to make hydrogen from water, you have put that difference in energy into it. Then you get that same amount of energy back when you burn it (1st law of thermodynamics). So even if you could have a fuel cell that has 100% efficiency (absolutely impossible, 2nd law of thermodynamics), the best you could ever hope to do is break even in energy.
> 
> ...


 
Your statements do not take into account that we are talking about a supplemental fuel source, not a primary source. Also, when using HHO in conjuction with an internal combustion engine, oxygen has a huge part to play when being mixed with traditional fossil fuels. Running a vehicle 100 percent on hydrogen is unrealistic at this time, but running a vehicle 50 percent on gas and 50 percent on HHO is realistic. Since hydrogen is an energy medium it facilitates much more efficient combustion of gas or diesel, so some of the energy return is from that as well as the hydrogen. We have vehicles that are getting better mileage and have been emssion tested with results that show zero (0) hydrocarbons in the exhaust, which means to us that the fuel(s) are being totally utilized in the combustion process.


----------



## Crystal (Nov 7, 2008)

lhowemt said:


> I'm a lazy chemical engineer, and I owe Chip one, but it doesn't pass the smell test for me to even bother calculating it. You can never get more energy out than in, so that just can't happen. Although there may be some super catalyst in their canisters, and given the cost of $500 for a new unit, I wonder what toxins, energy consumption, and environmental repercussions there are from the production of them. You have to draw your circle large. But, I will give it to my boss (not a chemical engineer but will dissect it faster than the blink of an eye) and tell you what he thinks.
> 
> A bit jaded today, having to research carbon credits for work and finding out that there are a lot of junk bonds out there, as I had feared. No, you can't buy your way out of guilt and environmental devastation.


 
I'm not a chemical engineer, but then, neither am I lazy. Calculate all you want. I would suggest you build something. We have drawn a large circle, and just so you know, the energy consumption in production is mostly elbow grease (time), and the materials we utilize are products that are already currently available and produced in the United States, so their environmental impact must be minimal (as opposed to products out of China or India). As to the environmental impact of our product, how does elevated o2 levels in exhaust emissions sound, how does reduced hydrocarbons and dioxide and monoxide levels sound, how does using less oil sound, how does extending the life of an already existing engine sound?
Energy in/enegy out, however you want to slice it, we are taking one source (electricity) of energy and turning it into another source that has benefits that outway those of the initial source. If I sound frustrated, it is because I am. I tire of debate, and of defending my position, when I have the proof in my driveway and in my garage. You are doing yourself and others a disservice by being sceptical without being informed. New ideas need to be tested, but it is unfair to dismiss them in such an offhand way without all the facts.


----------



## asleep.at.the.oars (May 6, 2006)

My wife once told me (lovingly, I'm sure) that anyone who needs to repeatedly tell everyone how great they are must not be. 

More science, less ranting. Let's see measurements of hydrogen output. Let's see the energy cost (with numbers, not relativity statements) to generate the amps that drive the HHO system. Let's see drive-wheel horsepower ratings before and after HHO installation. Let's see the valve heads after the system has been in use for a while. If you can't do that, I think the score is "science" 1, "water in mason jars under the hood" 0. 

Not to get back to the original topic or anything, but BLM also wants to lease drilling rights that straddle the White River. Not prime whitewater, but a great float, and did you see that nasty foamy stuff that got released into the Green River a year or so ago? Deso / Cataract / Grand Canyon trips shouldn't have to worry about swimming in drilling mud and petro-spills.


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

Okay. Chem 101: write an equation showing the inputs (water, catalyst, current) and outputs (hydrogen, oxygen). With volumes. 

To repeat: If the unit doesn't consume an appreciable amount of water, how can it generate enough hydrogen to produce energy when burnt in the engine?


----------



## Chip (Apr 7, 2007)

*Back to the chase. . .*

Looking at the maps, I'd say that the Vernal area is buggered: total capture by O&G forces. On the ground, this means that virtually everything north of Nine Mile Creek (the first drainage on the right below the Sand Wash put-in) is open for leasing with standard stipulations: Drill, Baby, Drill. So those spills, drilling fluids, condensate, surface run-off, and whatever nasty shit will end up in the Green River near the put-in and above. 

The boundary between the Vernal and Price areas (roughly Nine Mile Canyon, which you drive through if you shuttle a car from Sand Wash to Swasey's) is basically open with timing stipulations. (Anyone who's dealt with BLM knows that once the plan is approved, they waive stipulations at the drop of a corporate cap.) 

















What really makes me feel like thumping bureacratic ass is that they used _*green*_ for the area open to drilling and _*jet black*_ to indicate the area allowed to remain in something resembling a natural state: closed to drilling but open to boating, wildlife, vegetation, etc. 

I studied cartography and have made maps such as this. The perversity of that color choice pretty much sums up what's wrong with the BLM.


----------



## Tbird (Oct 9, 2005)

*Oil rigs are like zits on the face of America!*

Look once you put a rig on a site it’s been changed for ever! Oil and gas exploration requires a lot of roads every drill site requires a road and a gas pipeline to move there product and it looks like hell. Once the natural gas runs out the damage remains, these sites are going to be around for ever. We only have enough oil and gas to supply this country for the next sixty years and what happens after that? We look around and see how we trashed our country!
Oil and gas rigs contaminate the ground water, they look like shit and they let poisonous gases out of the ground and in to air like H2s that are heaver then air and would stink up low lying areas like Desolation Canyon. 
The oil companies lowered the gas prices to make the Bush administration look better for the election. Now that they lost and as soon as the economy starts to roll again we will be paying $5.00 at the pumps don’t worry its coming. As far as driving to go paddling goes boaters should live closer to where they like to paddle. When I moved from Denver to the mountains I went from filling my tank twice a week to filling my tank once every other week. Live closer to where you like to play! Whose side are you on?





caspermike said:


> BROOKS IM NOTA BRAINIAC BUT IM SURE MOST AVERAGE AMERICANS CAN'T AFFORD TO DRIVE GREENER TECHNOLOGIES SPECIALLY WITH GAS AT UNDER 2.40 IN TOWN. ITS NOT PEOPLE LIKE ME THAT DRIVE THE IQ DOWN ITS PEOPLE LIKE YOU. YOU MAYNOT DRIVE THERE EVERYWEEKEND BUT SOMEBODY IS!
> to be honest if anyof us were truely enviromentally savvy we would not drive to any creek besides public transportation or electric car, not happening.
> 
> 70 percent of what the US uses and needs is imported. what do you think we should do now to decrease our demand for foreign oil? not drive ever again> looks like you won't see desolation that fourth time. brainiac out


----------

