Offshore drilling part of Udall's energy plan
By Lynn Bartels, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published August 13, 2008 at 5:16 p.m.
Video powered by Flickr
Video powered by Flickr
Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall unveiled an aggressive energy plan Wednesday that includes offshore drilling, the hot-button topic in politics in Colorado and the nation.
Udall, a congressman from Eldorado Springs, stood with U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Denver, on the west steps of the Capitol to talk about their proposal to return to Washington in September and push for a comprehensive energy plan before the year is out.
Republicans charged that Udall suddenly supports drilling because polls show Americans are furious about the price of gas and his Republican opponent, Bob Schaffer, is gaining on him.
"I've always said we have to have responsible drilling," Udall said during the news conference. "I'm not opposed to drilling. What I've been opposed to is the Bush-Cheney focus solely on oil. I've been opposed to (the) Bush-Cheney line that we can drill our way out of this challenge."
Offshore drilling is also an issue in the presidential race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. Obama has said he does not support offshore drilling but is willing to consider it as part of package with alternative energies at the forefront.
"I find it terribly amusing that Boulder liberal Udall is trying to recast himself as some kind of a proponent of domestic drilling," said Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign chairman.
He noted that an energy ad Udall unveiled this week mentions drilling, while a May energy ad focused on renewables.
"This is proof we've got him on the run," Wadhams said.
Schaffer served in Congress for six years before going to work for an oil and gas company. He left in January to campaign full time.
"My opposition to (Schaffer's) energy plan is based on the fact that it's a drill, drill, drill approach," Udall said. "We need a much broader approach, a much more comprehensive approach that understands that the future includes renewables, conservation, . . . these amazing fuel-efficient cars."
Udall said Schaffer's energy plan is modeled on the so-called "Gang of 10" proposal, a bipartisan energy plan that would allow limited offshore drilling but stop the tax cuts to oil companies.
Udall and Salazar's plan would add a national renewable electricity standard requiring energy companies to use 20 percent of their power from renewable sources. It also would also give tax breaks to automakers to help them build cars that get 50 miles to the gallon by 2030.
bartels@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5327
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 13, 2008
6:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
independentenergy writes:
The only drilling Udall has been supporting before Bob Schaffer pushed him on this issue was offshore Cuba!! I guess he doesnt realize that's basically the same thing as offshore Florida. Or perhaps he doesn't really care.
August 13, 2008
6:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
navymom writes:
What the anti-drilling crowd does not care about is the fact that China will be drilling right in Florida's backyard, off of Cuba.
August 13, 2008
7:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
BurgandyWine writes:
I'll take comprehensive energy reform that includes drilling, wind, solar, and bio-fuels any day over this ridiculous "drill here, drill now, tax breaks for big oil" plan that d. wadhams and his ilk are pushing.
We need to throw everything we have at this problem and the short-sighted approach that republicans are "gaining ground" with is going to leave us more screwed than we are now.
August 13, 2008
7:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
BurgandyWine writes:
Hey navymom,
Even Cheney admitted that China isn't drilling in Florida's backyard.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3...
August 13, 2008
7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
Reading through the article, it's clear the headline and the lead are inaccurate. Udall is calling for a LIMITED drilling plan along with the ridiculous Gang of Ten.
August 13, 2008
8:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
wow writes:
You have got to love the RMN for controversy stirring headlines.
There's a big difference between an "aggressive drilling plan" and an energy plan that includes some drilling.
Why the heck do I still even read this rag? It's not fit for lining a parakeet cage.
August 13, 2008
9:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
ColdShot writes:
I wouldn't hire Udall to handle a pooper scooper. He is a spinless, 2 faced liar!! A perfect fit for his party!
August 13, 2008
9:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Frank25 writes:
In 1973 it was President Jimmy Carter (D) who wrote executive order restricting energy development. It was Democrats who told us that world supply of fossil fuels would be exhausted in next 10 years, so laws were passed allowing unlimited delays, law suits, hearings, and it became very expensive and time consuming to build nuclear power plants, refineries, and no one wanted electric poles or wires seen from thier houses, parks, or federal parks. Jimmy paid subsidies to build wind turbines and solar panels away from towns, that killed birds, made continous noise, and solar panels that killed all vegetation nearby. Why can other countries solve nuclear fuel storage and waste, drill safely, and operate safely, BUT U.S. ENERGY COMPANIES CANNOT? Media, television, and radio tell us a lease on private land can start developing within 6 months. But same lease on federal land will still be in courts and townhouse meetings 8 to 12 years later. Since Democrats know of all those leased acres not being drilled, perhaps they would share location, company, lease date, and present status. If they can't, they need to shut up, and let us have accurate information. Nancy was not elected to save the planet, and Obama is not running as "messiah" to save the world. Ironic that with Democrats on vacation, gas in Aurora stations I observe have dropped 33 cents per gallon. We should leave them on vacation, but cut off their pay and benefits. Who needs them as proved past 2 weeks.
August 13, 2008
10:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
GabeMc writes:
It's not complicated people, oil will destroy the world, no matter where you get it.
We have to go solar, wind and geo-thermal, it is quite obvious, and always was.
The only reason any oil is drilled is for money, money most of the 6 billion people will never see, but they will be slowly poisoned for profit.
August 13, 2008
10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
mattm writes:
Udall has been very consistent, this spring on his campaign kickoff tour I heard him say the same thing about drilling. He is for responsible drilling that benefits the American people, not oil companies. The only difference is that he now has to focus on this point to counteract Wadhams' and Schaffer's lies.
August 13, 2008
11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
As I have mentioned in previous posts on this site I do not believe that more drilling, whether offshore or in ANWR, is going to affect the price at the pump. But I certainly would not want to stand in the way of the possibility that it might. Therefore I think that we should go ahead and allow for it, but under the conditions that any leases dolled out are on a use it or lose it basis. If drilling hasn’t commenced within 365 days of signing, the lease it is forfeited.
Since the oil extracted actually belongs to the people of the United States, there should be stipulations that it must be used in the United States. It should be should be sold at market value, with the oil companies retaining a reasonable 25% return on investment and any and all additional profits given to the government to be used to reduce our foreign debt.
Any takers?
August 14, 2008
12:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
AmericanPatriot,
There are some real problems with your plan:
1) The leases are already on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. I think it's ten years.
2) The oil companies already pay multi-billions of $$ for those leases and pay a yearly amount on top of that. If you place a 365 day limit, then the federal government loses that money.
3) The idea that the oil belongs to the people of the U.S. is just another way of saying it doesn't belong to anyone. Oil companies do not pay all that money just for the privilege of drilling for something they can never own.
4) Oil is fungible. Requiring that it be sold only in the U.S. would have no more effect on the world supply or the world price than it's being sold anywhere else.
5) 25%, huh? Right now, their profit margin is only about 8%.
6) What happens if they end up with a loss, as has happened many times? Should the federal government bail them out so they not only recover that loss, but they get an extra 25% to boot?
August 14, 2008
7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
Udall is an environmental obstructionist. His record is consistent on environmental obstruction. His record is also clear about opposition to oil and natural gas exploration. He is against anything but token additional exploration. He is opposed to all additional exploration but he senses that the public supports additional exploration so he is trying to throw a small bone in hopes of cooling the call for more exploration.
The combination of drilling off shore, ANWR, and oil shale recovery could dramatically change the energy landscape in 5 to 10 years. Udall and the rest of the Democrats are not about to allow meaningful oil development. Udall's opposition to oil share exploration will deny Colorado vital economic development.
The choice is simple: vote Udall if you want environmental obstructionism and high energy prices, vote Schaffer if you want a balanced energy policy do develop everything and mandate nothing. If you vote Udall and other Democrats, please do not complain about the coming thousands of layoffs in the travel, transportation, and manufacturing industries, huge price increases in air travel prices, substantial increases in home energy costs, inflation across the economy, and energy shortages.
August 14, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
GabeMc- Do you realize how long its going to take for solar and wind to actually supply this country with energy? The Democrats claim they want it, and yet they keep stalling it in Congress. You don't think wind and solar won't be about money? Hmmm, think again buddy.
Congress and the environmentalist are allowing Communist China and Cuba come after OUR supplies. Just imagine how much our economy would grow while we continue to produce our own resources and move toward alternative energy. We can become the Saudi Arabia of the West!
August 14, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSmith2 writes:
mmannino - I suggest talking to your presidential candidate, who also says ANWR is off the table.
As for oil shale, where do you propose we get the water? Where do we put the 6 or 8 new coal-fired power plants it will require to retort the shale (either in-situ or above ground)? Personally I don't want my state becoming a national sacrifice zone so that people in LA and New York can drive Hummers while we have to ration water and give up our outdoor way of life.
August 14, 2008
7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSmith2 writes:
Frank, get a history book and a calendar. Carter wasn't president until 1977, the nuclear industry was responsible for its own downfall (remember Three Mile Island?), and you can look up the 68,000,000 acres of already-leased federal land yourself. Start with the Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management web sites. It's public information.
You are a tool.
August 14, 2008
7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnSmith2 writes:
danirobi- Do you realize how long it will take for drilling to occur offshore? All the oil rigs in existence are spoken for. It will take at least a decade, and the amount of oil there is to go for is so small that it's not going to make a difference if world demand keeps escalating at the rate it has been.
Should we do it? Of course, but it is only a small piece of the solution. As Barack Obama correctly noted, simple efficiency measures like tuning up your car and inflating your tires (and lightening up on the lead foot) will make a vastly larger and more immediate difference.
August 14, 2008
8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
We need to generate our own resources, controlled and maintained by the American taxpaying public for the security and future well being of the American Tax paying public. We've handicapped ourselves for to long! Well I fully appreciate, agree, and support the requirement for federal laws mandating renewable energies to wane ourselves off fossile fuels, we need a near term fix for a dangerous situation.
We have funneled over 10 trillion petro dollars to middle eartern regimes that have no actual liking for western civilization and are actively persuing its destruction through several avenues. Why are we funding our own funerals?
We have resources, technology, and capabilities far beyond the Islamic world, fought and won over very adverse hardship. They were just lucky enough to be dumped on a large ancient graveyard. They've done nothing to devolop a thriving, powerhouse economy. NO industry, no equility of the genders, no equility of minorities, still supporting slavery (yep, thats the house of Saud, which follows Islamic teaching justifying it. Kennedy challenged the King about that), still butchering gays. I mean, the list is endless. And they want to enforce that (Sharia) here in western civilization. Look at Europe as an example. Poor France, rioting, killings, honor killings (and rapes now), female genital mutialation, killing (and threatening) of politicians that disagree with Islamic teachings.
Wake up people. It's time to start defending ourselves. We may have over three times the proven reserve of Saudi Arabia, and our other resources dwarf all other nations on the planet. Plus, we have the most important, undervalued resource: Human Capital.
Lets take advantage of OUR strength instead.
I.
PS I'm bringing this up because this WOULD NOT be a case if we we're nursing and purchasing all this with our petro dollars. Kill our reliance on them and they lose they're influence here. Simple enough.
August 14, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
JohnSmith- I'm very aware of how long it will take, it will take the same amount of time as renewables. I work on energy issues all day everyday, so yeah I'm pretty aware.
August 14, 2008
9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Danirobi,
Obviousily Renewable arent going to generate enough to cover the entire national needs of energy for the United States, it's likely going to be a bread basket of mixed energy sources for awhile now. We need to devolop our resources, including oil, nuclear, solar, wind, wave, and other sources.
I'm sure your very aware of renewable sources. Let's work together to change our reliance on enemy states that sponsor the very terrorists who want to destroy us. We're American's, lets unite on that very foundamental and important principle.
I.
August 14, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
I own a couple leases in Western Arizona I'd be happy to sign over to Nancy Pelosi provided she drill them immediately with her own money, locate her own drilling rig, do all the labor, live in the nearby village and truck the product to the nearest refinery. She'll go bankrupt when the leases hit an unprofitable deposit at today's low prices. She'll break a nail doing the hard physical work. But she'll enjoy living in a cinder block building with no heat, air, electricity and no running water. She'll love the drunken locals who don't believe in door locks. I'm sure there are literally thousands of leases in the Dakotas, Arizona, New Mexico, with similar conditions we could sign over to the government for some amusing consideration.
August 14, 2008
10:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Hopi!!
LOL@comment!
I lov ya, but your craaaazzzzyyyy....A demacrat doing hard work? That'd be the day ;)
I.
August 14, 2008
11:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
Now I'm confused.
Mark "Big Wind" Udall wants to do what? I thought that new drilling wouldn’t provide oil for 10 years. I thought that this would spoil our coastlines. I thought the speculators were driving up the cost of oil. Aren't only evil "rape the earth" republicans in favor of more drilling? I thought putting air in our tires and getting tune ups could replace the oil that Big Wind wants to drill for. Should I buy the Prius or not? Is the term "Big Oil" Bob Schaffer now a compliment? Is it now Both Ways Mark? I am confused.
It couldn't possibly be that Big Wind Mark discovered that he is supposed to represent the people of his district and not tow the line for Nancy Pelosi &Harry Reid. People in Mark's district don't use oil, do they? Where does Big Wind stand on global warming? Coal? Will he be changing his position on these issues?
How's that corn based ethanol thing Mark? Were you for it before you were against it?
August 14, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnHKennedy writes:
This is just another Udall Flip Flop, but
UDALL's Biggest FLIP FLOP WASN'T ABOUT DRILLING.
IT IS HIS FAILURE TO HONOR HIS OATH OF OFFICE
TO PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTION And HOLD BUSH AND CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE .
In 2006 voters gave Udall and Speaker Pelosi
clear instructions to Stop The Iraq War and Hold Bush and Cheney Accountable.
The one thing all voters can respect is a politician who keeps his word. If Udall refuses to honor his Oath Of Office how can we trust Udall to do anything we want especially getting us Single Payer Healthcare.
The Constitution is the 200 year old contract that binds us as a Nation and keeps us free. If Udall won't protect the Constitution against Bush and Cheney, the most easily impeachable US Executive office holders in the history of the United States, can we trust him to do anything he claims he will do?
"As John Dean points out, Bush/Cheney have broken the same laws Nixon did, only Nixon's actions did not cost the lives of over 4000 brave American men and women" (and over 30,000 GIs wounded, one Million Iraqis Killed).
The failure of the House Democrats to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for the WMD Lies is unforgiveable. No matter what Bush/Cheney Crimes evidence comes out the Incumbent House Democrats will try to ignore it.
Democrats control Congress and can start Impeachment Hearings with a simple majority vote.
We just have to make them do it. NOW!
In Colorado we have been doing negative campaigning against all incumbent Democratic Congressmen who reject impeachment.
The race for the US Senate from Colorado is statistically "too close to call". We believe that since the race is "so close" that we actually can stop Udall from winning and going to the Senate.
The way we are doing this is by doing "Negative Protesting" at our weekly impeachment events, at all of Udalls public events. We only have to sway the vote of a very small percentage of voters to keep Udall out of the Senate.
The House Democrats have ignored us for years. Unless we threaten to un-elect them with negative campaigning they will continue to ignore us. The only thing they care about is getting re-elected.
Unless Angry Voters, Liberal Democrats, Independents, Republicans, Greens and the rest of you get off the couch and carry signs in front of all Incumbent House Democratic Congressmen's offices ( and at all of their public appearances) with harsh language such as
"UDALL and Pelosi are Traitors to Our Constitution
because They Refuse To impeach"...
There Will Be No Impeachment and No Accountability.
It is up to you.
At least one Incumbent Colorado Democratic Congressman needs to publicly support Impeachment Hearings very soon.
John H Kennedy, Denver CO, 43 yr Democratic voter,
Obama delegate to the Denver County Democratic Convention, organizer of the
IMPEACH COLORADO COALITION http://ImpeachCO.com
August 14, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
NotUrFriend---I guess I did get carried away there, Pelosi running an oil rig in the Arizona desert with no running water, very unlikely. But I suppose she'd be tapping some solar energy out there.
August 14, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
buffsblg writes:
Once again name calling over logic. Can anyone link me to an actual study not sponsored by the Oil industry that says that offshore drilling will reduce prices. The last study I saw from the U.S.Government (and there has never been a more oil industry friendly administration) was that offshore and ANWAR drilling might affect the cost of oil by a maximum of 3% by 2013. Not exactly the panacea that the drill and strip mine folks claim it is. Here is one perspective on that report. http://www.slate.com/id/2197283/
Even if the oil came on line, OPEC can reduce their production by that amount to keep the price up. The sad truth is that the U.S. Reserves just do not matter in the grand scheme of the worldwide oil business. However that truth does not get anyone votes so neither party will ever publicize it.
The reality is that we cannot drill our way out of this. Oil is a fungible good and the oil companies do not give a da#n about anything but profit, which means that they will sell the oil to the highest bidder, which right now means that the demand in China and the rest of the east dominates the world market. Demand is increasing and that means prices increase. The tiny (1or 2%) increase in the world supply from off shore drilling is irrelevant to the issue.
It would be nice if both parties would quit posturing on this and actually make a plan, but they will not and judging by the posters on this board, ignorance reigns in the public as well. Alternative sources will be part of it, conservation another, perhaps nuclear another. So far neither candidate has a plan, they have slogans.
August 14, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
HopiMedicineMan writes:
A study would show a gallon of gasoline needs to be $20 a gallon for adequate supply. Reducing prices? Who wants that? At least that's true of my Arizona leases. At that price I can recover the cost of production and pocket a nine percent profit, which would be my salary. Of course, I'd have to get off my rump, lock up my trailer, kennel my pit bulls, load the snakegun, locate a drilling rig that wasn't in use at $20 a gallon. I'd file all the EPA reports, hire the CPA for the inevitable audits. I'd Purchase storage. And then I'd do all the work myself because Nancy Pelosi doesn't do drilling I read above. Oh, I'd have to rent a bulldozer to put in a road to get the drilling rig to the remote location. On second thought Pelosi can have my leases for no charge. I'll just sit here watching the television. I saw a movie the other day where the white guy was negotiating with the Indians talking in this halting fashion. I laughed so hard the dogs barked. So, aside from repeating the same old lines over and over, liberals, what proven method have you for running America's vehicles? Ethanol? Are you going to place windmills on the hood? How about electricity? Oops, that's actually coal, mining involved. Come on someone lecture me in a halting fashion.
August 14, 2008
8:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
roger44 writes:
Udall's ad has a windmill in the background and talking about oil, don't anyone tell him, but most of electricity comes from our own resources, which we have a lot of, coal. He might learn something. Germany made gas from coal during the war. Udall is a career politician, and this voter won't vote for him for sure. He just goes with the flow long enough to get elected then drops the ball. Snake oil salesman.