Don’t endanger the economic life of our state

Comments

  1. Michael L Hays says:

    MJM, invoking Australia, Brazil, and Canada–none of them third-world economies!–without introducing their environmental restrictions, etc., makes your comparison with New Mexico meaningless. Your mentioning cost-benefits analysis, but without bothering to offer a single fact about it, hardly sets you up as an expert or me as a neophyte. So, before you get snarky with people with whom you disagree, take the advice you so freely dispense, book up on both sides of the issue, and then get past regurgitating what pleases you.

  2. MJM says:

    Michael Hayes,

    Interesting comments regarding the extractive industry industry and how NM is going to be a third world economy if we continue to pursue the direction of developing those resources. I guess you would consider much of western Candda, portions of Brazil, and much of Austrailia as thrid world economies since they are area where extractive industires are growing? Wow near full employment in these area too. Environmentally they do the right thing most of the time. NM has so much potential for natural resource development. But, not until you become better informed on costs/benefits of such development Mr. Hays. I hpe you make the effort. I have had to look at both sides of the process. It is a real eye opener. Why don’t you go look at a mine site under remediation? You might just learn a few things.

  3. Michael L Hays says:

    A third-world economy like New Mexico’s will remain a third-world economy so long as it relies on and encourages extractive industries. If protecting a lizard and its environment is what is required to help wean the state from this dependency, good. I would like Representative Kintigh to conduct a thought experiment; imagine being an elected official when the oil runs out, then tell me what your legislative response would be. When you have figured it out, advocate it now or explain why not.

  4. MJM says:

    Representative Kintigh is more or less correct with his statements.

    The state permanent fund which is quite substantial is the result of taxes charged on the extraction of natural resources severed from state lands. An historical review will show that this revenue has declined over time (exept for years of high commodidy prices).

    It is likely to drop further in the forseeable future for a number of reasons. First, NM is a hard place to do business if you are involved in the extractive industries unless you are a large company. . I am not complaining, just talking the facts.

    The second is that there are many more places that you can develop natural resources than NM. For example ND, TX, MT, UT WY are examples in the west and there are others in the eastern USA. Candad is a good location.

    Capital will flow to where one can get a return, and the biggest risk is time. It takes so long to get things done in NM. With 70+% of land owned by federal, state, local or tribal governments it is hard to get things done. NM does not promote business for small or mid size natural resource developoment companies.

    That is too bad because the larger companies will be gone once a more attractive alternative is found.

    Politicians will make every effort they can to access the permanent funds for our operational expenses of the bloated educational system. When this money is gone you will see property taxes rise to levels like those in many states. At that time we will have no competitive advantage left. NM will be like Detroit, unless we get our act together now.

    I am not hopeful that as a state we will address the need for structural reform of a bloated government system. There are just too many individuals who are on the government gravy train.

    I look for a tax payer revolt shortly, perhaps manifesting itself at the polls in 2012. Bu it is wishful thinking..

  5. Doris V says:

    You and Steve Pearce need to get the facts on this situation and stop exploiting the fears of the “common man”. You seem to imply that New Mexicans are stupid in that they do not know the revenues we get from oil and gas industries. Quit the scare tactics and tell the truth.

  6. qofdisks says:

    The lizard is just an excuse to achieve a far more important objective. I wish the environmentalists would quit using the welfare of a single being to hold the line for the greater good. The crazy short-sighted, right-wing, Jebus is coming anyway crowd only demonizes the single being in their relentless propaganda. They will render the survival of that single being meaningless against their insatiable greed. It is short term gain for the few and long term pain for everyone else.
    The lizard is only one element of a life-web in that region. The demise of a single being indicates the demise of the entire life-web. They used the lizard to save the indigenous trees against the cattle industry, now, they try to use the little humble being to save the the life-web against the greed for oil.
    Of course, what is the most important question to ask? Is there ground water there? Our long term water security is more important than profits for big energy or even short term monetary income for the state.
    When the oil and gas is tapped out, then where will the state turn for funding? We might as well come up with a long term sustainable solution for a viable civilization right now while our water resources are still intact.

  7. Hemingway says:

    I am so disappointed in Mr. Kintigh, who is usually a thoughtful person. It is typical conspiracy “mumbo jumbo” economics blaming the dunes sagebrush lizard for our economic problems. We need to create jobs not go hunting for a lizard.

  8. Dr. J says:

    Thank you Rep. Kintigh, for pointing out yet another example of activist environmentalists with a political agenda twisting, cherry-picking, and misrepresenting science to further that agenda.

  9. gm says:

    I can’t read minds anymore like I used to when I was a liberal fresh out of college but I suspect the concern for the lizard is no more than another battle in the war against OIL. “Big Oil” is a bogeyman for liberals and the use of oil and drilling is a mortal sin to those who worship at the church of the environment. Similarly, the demands for environmental impact statements by the anti-nukes do not reflect a concern for the environment but an attempt to stop weapons activity at Los Alamos.
    We are going to need oil for several more lifetimes. We drill for it here or we buy from other countries but the need will remain. Americans will pay $10 a gallon before they drive a battery-powered car that requires a charge every 100 miles. Battery research has been going on for at least 40 yr so don’t expect a substitute for oil there. Natural gas? Maybe, but the infrastructure that is in place for good old gasoline will be hard to replace.