With the BLM in control of 245 million acres of mostly Western US public lands and the USDA National Forest Service in control of another 193 million acres, primarily in the West, and with the USFS statutory mandate of managing under "multiple use" principals (and the BLM, too? I dunno), processes for development of mineral resources are longstanding policies directly "in the wheelhouse" of such agencies. Mr. McKibben's piece "examines" all day, every day normal practice for Federal Gummint agencies managing public assets in the manner in which the law has required for many decades. In the area between Canyonlands and Arches, actual lease offerings, purchases, and drilling are extremely unlikely to ever see administrative approval. Thus the mere nomination process is an extraordinarily long shot which will in every likelihood never see the light of day. Mr. McKibben's piece is, in essence, an editorial. Not that there's anything wrong with his taking of a position against mineral development, but I just see it as a First Amendment position, not as a report of some imminent threat to public lands.
Foy