-
Posts
-
-
This is a huge mess. They are drilling for oil right on the trail and not rerouting it. This is over a 100 miles of kick ass single track and some of tightest single track around. I was able to ride this trail a few years back It runs from Theodore Roosevelt National Park all the way to Medora, ND. They have cut another 20+ miles south of Medora as well.
-
"stackout" wrote
This is a huge mess. They are drilling for oil right on the trail and not rerouting it. This is over a 100 miles of kick ass single track and some of tightest single track around. I was able to ride this trail a few years back It runs from Theodore Roosevelt National Park all the way to Medora, ND. They have cut another 20+ miles south of Medora as well.
Stackout, can you give us some more information on this? Energy self sufficiency is a great goal, but at what cost. Just reading some of the comments on the petition it sounds like somebody suddenly turned the "on’ switch for drilling. Was there some event that caused this "oil" rush? Just curious, I haven’t heard anything on this before. How much of the trail do you think it will affect?
Thanks for any info
-
From the link it sounds like oil companies are "exploring the idea" of drilling – hence the need for a petition (the original post seemed to imply drilling is already happening).
-
When I spent a few years in Minot, ND, the MDH was my greatest refuge. While the prairies and badlands can never compare to the mountains I was used to, it was a unique landscape that provided the only worthy mountain biking within a (long) day trip from home. Destruction of the are would definitely be a huge loss.
Having said that, however, I can’t sign the petitions as is. It just puts a blanket ban on potential drilling. I have seen drilling done in ways that minimize the impact and I have seen reclamation that would leave you wondering if any drilling had ever taken place at all. Rather than just say "no drilling," better to assess and balance the needs of both concerns and then ensure any drilling done has minimal impact and full reclamation. Of course, that would drive up costs, but if the need is that great, then it will bear the additional cost.
We do ourselves a disservice by only accepting two possible alternatives–either we blindly rape and pillage the landscape and environment or we "preserve" with no consideration of the possible uses of the land. It’s the exact same argument anti-MTB Wilderness advocates use to defend their position by begging the questions with "would you rather preserve our wild spaces with Wilderness designation,including MTB prohibition, or have them destroyed by commercial interests or rampant overuse"–as if those were the only two possible paths.
-
"skibum" wrote
We do ourselves a disservice by only accepting two possible alternatives–either we blindly rape and pillage the landscape and environment or we "preserve" with no consideration of the possible uses of the land. It’s the exact same argument anti-MTB Wilderness advocates use to defend their position by begging the questions with "would you rather preserve our wild spaces with Wilderness designation,including MTB prohibition, or have them destroyed by commercial interests or rampant overuse"–as if those were the only two possible paths.
+1,000 to this. So many people think that there are only two possible options, and they’re both extremes. What about something in the middle that serves both parties reasonably well?
-
Great points skibum. On my Durango to Moab trip a couple summers ago the route went through an area that was reported to be heavily used by oil & gas drilling companies. Our group imagined riding through an apocalyptic scene with heavy smoke, flaming smokestacks, and massive equipment rumbling all around us.
In reality we did see dozens if not hundreds of small drilling sites but they were spread out and often the only way we knew they were there was by a small dirt road leading off the main route. There was no noise and before we knew it, we were surrounded by wilderness again on our way to Moab.
If, as the original poster put it, they’re "drilling for oil right on the trail and not rerouting" the trail, then yeah, that’s messed up. But somehow I doubt the situation is that simple…
-
"skibum" wrote
When I spent a few years in Minot, ND, the MDH was my greatest refuge. While the prairies and badlands can never compare to the mountains I was used to, it was a unique landscape that provided the only worthy mountain biking within a (long) day trip from home. Destruction of the are would definitely be a huge loss.
Having said that, however, I can’t sign the petitions as is. It just puts a blanket ban on potential drilling. I have seen drilling done in ways that minimize the impact and I have seen reclamation that would leave you wondering if any drilling had ever taken place at all. Rather than just say "no drilling," better to assess and balance the needs of both concerns and then ensure any drilling done has minimal impact and full reclamation. Of course, that would drive up costs, but if the need is that great, then it will bear the additional cost.
We do ourselves a disservice by only accepting two possible alternatives–either we blindly rape and pillage the landscape and environment or we "preserve" with no consideration of the possible uses of the land. It’s the exact same argument anti-MTB Wilderness advocates use to defend their position by begging the questions with "would you rather preserve our wild spaces with Wilderness designation,including MTB prohibition, or have them destroyed by commercial interests or rampant overuse"–as if those were the only two possible paths.
+1,000
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.