Wrong place for drilling
Dear Editor:I am writing in response to Dennis Webb’s Oct. 1 article on the Forest Service and the Thompson Creek Roadless Area and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. I believe that the Forest Service should err on the side of caution when it comes to oil and gas development in Roadless Areas.With the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in the appeal process in the 10th Circuit Court and the recent proposal to change the rule from the Bush administration, there is plenty to question with the Roadless Rule. However, one thing is certain: Thompson Creek is exactly the type of place that the Roadless Rule was designed to protect.The Forest Service obviously realizes the fact that they are required to maintain the roadless characteristics of this piece of land in question. With no legal documentation, immense public opposition, and the fact that they are obligated to protect the roadlessness of the area, it seems clear that this lease parcel should be not be developed for natural gas. The BLM and Forest Service already have sold hundreds of other leases in the area, most of which did not enter any roadless areas and were in areas designated for oil and gas development. There are places that are appropriate to drill for gas and places that are not; I think it’s very clear that Thompson Creek is not one of those areas that are appropriate for drilling.Jay HermonLyons, Colo.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.