Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

CARROLL: Udall faces reality

By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 15, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Opinion Columns & Blogs

More stories »

If you want to know why U.S. Rep. Mark Udall switched his stand this week on offshore drilling, direct your attention to a poll that appeared in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. When unaffiliated voters were asked whether they would be more or less likely to support someone who favored easing restrictions on offshore drilling, 60 percent answered "more likely" while only 28 percent went the other way (the issue apparently didn't matter to some).

Even Democrats tilted slightly in favor of easing restrictions.

Udall, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and a longtime foe of offshore drilling (and much other drilling besides), recognizes an albatross when he sees one clinging to his neck. So he tried to yank it off by reversing his position. We'll see if he succeeds.

Two years ago, when a Rocky editorial called Udall shortsighted for voting against a bill to ease the ban on offshore drilling for natural gas (oil wasn't even on the table in order to eliminate fearmongering about spills), Udall wrote to say that we had "oversimplified the question."

Drilling "may be justified with the right safeguards," he maintained, but "that has not been properly established."

One would have thought that the vast experience of extracting natural gas in the western Gulf of Mexico had established that safeguards could be successfully imposed elsewhere, but the congressman was very picky at the time.

More to the point, perhaps, gasoline wasn't $4 a gallon.

Others unmoved

Unlike Udall, who must recognize certain political realities, many other longtime opponents of offshore drilling have not softened their stance at all.

The New York Times, for example, is indignant that "a toxic combination of $4 gasoline, voter anxiety and presidential ambition is making it impossible for this country to have the grown-up conversation it needs about energy."

In the Times' view - echoed still by numerous pundits and politicians - grown-ups do not discuss measures to boost oil supplies, except perhaps to mock them as pointless. No, grown-ups focus exclusively on how to reduce oil consumption and tap alternatives to it, since this nation "cannot drill its way to happiness at the pump."

You would think that the grown-ups at the Times would have noticed an interesting fact about prices set in the marketplace: They are influenced by both supply and demand. The mantra that we cannot "satisfy the country's long-term needs," let alone drill our way to energy independence, is hardly news to proponents of drilling. Nor is the proposition that reducing demand for oil and finding alternatives is important.

It is rank economic ignorance, however, to deny that boosting supplies will restrain prices - if restraining prices is what you actually have in mind.

As it happens, some opponents of offshore drilling are quite open in their disdain for lower prices. The Times' Tom Friedman is perhaps the most vocal of the cheerleaders for expensive energy (imposed, if the market won't do it, through taxes). Oil is "a 19th century fuel," he sneers, which is a bit like saying that wood was a 15th century fuel while ignoring the fact that it was pretty important to humans during lots of other centuries, too.

Reducing consumption can indeed curb energy prices, as the past year has proved. USA Today reported Thursday, for example, that Americans drove 4.7 percent fewer miles this June than during June of last year. Meanwhile, demand in other countries has slackened, too - thus explaining in part the recent oil price decline.

But recent news also vindicates the importance of energy supplies - of drilling, to use the word that the Friedmans of the world treat like a yahoo obscenity. For example, although natural gas consumption has risen this year, production has grown even faster. The result: Natural-gas futures, which had been rising since September, began to slump in July.

According to the Department of Interior's office of Offshore Energy and Minerals Management, "The offshore areas of the United States are estimated to contain . . . about 60 percent of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas resources estimated to be contained in remaining undiscovered fields in the United States."

You may well sneer at that if your goal is to keep energy prices high. But not if your goal is to win a Senate election.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

Comments

  • August 15, 2008

    5:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    Fear and ignorance have combined with envy to permit politicians to decide that oil companies will be nice fat (read profitable) cow they can send to slaughter to make them look like they're doing something.

    Reminds me of my cat. She steals potato chip and will be really sneaky about it. Put a bowl of chips on the table in plain sight she ignores it. Put the bag in a drawer with a 4 in by 4 in hole in the back and you hear rustling and crackling. Open the drawer and you see a cat with a mouth full of potato chips.

    Politicians don't like to tell people they are going to have to pay extra taxes to enable pet projects and CYA last minute patches to current programs. If they can point a finger and create an enemy (before "Big Oil" it was big mortgage companies) to target with taxes they can pretend that companies don't pass taxes on to customers. Just ask yourself, easy question if you run a business, what do you do if your costs go up? Do you cut expenses starting with employees or raise prices? Maybe both.

    Most of us don't want to admit we can't trust the words of our representatives. We also would rather do something else with our time than check up on voting records, campaign contributors and other issues of the trustworthiness of a candidate. Don't have a magic formula. Do have a magic question for all of them. Ask them what the most powerful committee they serve on is. Then ask them what they think is the most powerful committee. Rookies can be asked which one would be their first ideal choice and which their future probable committee would be. If their answers are false they could end up in lower places than they aspire to if they win.

    The duties and responsibilities of each committtee are clear from the bills sitting in those committees. Best shortcut I know.

    But hey, I get a chance to vote for a Democrat I can respect: Polis. Hate a lot of his positions but appreciate his honesty and upfront attitude. Now my husband won't vote for any rich man because they are all crooks. Our dinner table is a real hoot.

  • August 15, 2008

    6:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    freethinker07 writes:

    A politician finds out which way the parade is going and then runs to the front in order to have followers.

  • August 15, 2008

    7:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    p_myers, sounds like a cool cat!

    freethinker, generally true! Dems are changing their stance now that it is becoming politically unpopular to stand staunchly with the oil haters. On the other hand, McCain was riding the green bandwagon right up until he established himself as the Republican candidate. All jokers who do what it takes to get into power.

  • August 15, 2008

    7:45 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    You, part of the people, have been wanting it so bad for the last thirty odd years that your people have been restricting supply to force a contrived shortage just in case your theory that we would be out of oil in thirty years didn't work out.

    Now we are somewhere between goofed and screwed because none of us can afford to fill our tanks and green energy is still too inefficient to bail us out.

    The market knows. Government does not.

  • August 15, 2008

    7:50 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    pak writes:

    Obama is leading the flip flop parade and Udall just wants to join. Typical Democrat ploy. Govern from the left, and campaign from the left during the primaries, but try to move to the center when campaigning for the General election... and hope nobody notices! Udall is no different than the rest of the Democrats and his actions are not surprising in the least!

  • August 15, 2008

    8:01 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    fencergal writes:

    Isn't Udall the same person who uttered "The ends justify the means" when trashing his opponent in his last election. He may say he now supports drilling, but if elected, his vote will be in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi in wanting to "Save the planet".

  • August 15, 2008

    8:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    spencerr writes:

    To be completely fair, usually both sides migrate more to the radical end of the political spectrum during the primaries and then come back to the middle for the general election.

    This year was an odd one because McCain kind of took the opposite path. He started out fighting for votes on the left and middle, and now he is backtracking, trying to get conservatives to vote for him.

    My point is that flip-flopping is not a thing that liberals only do. Everyone who is a politician vying for the presidency does it.

  • August 15, 2008

    11:21 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    mattm writes:

    Mr. Carroll, boosting supplies by drilling offshore will do little to nothing to bring down the price of gasoline. Bush's own energy department recognizes this fact, saying that if drilling began in 2012 it would take until 2030 to affect the price of oil. Even if drilling began THIS year it would take until 2026 to affect oil prices. Furthermore, the U.S. has such a high demand for gasoline that if we drilled everywhere, we would still be importing most of our oil. What domestic drilling can do is help reduce the enormous amount of money we send overseas due to our energy habits by keeping it in the U.S.

    Here, Mr. Udall has the right approach: focus on conservation and renewables to reduce consumption, and domestic drilling to offset foreign oil. While the price of oil won't go down, the money will go to Americans. Coloradans understand (in recent polling) that renewable energy and fuels are the way of the future. We have to be realistic about domestic drilling; it can help offset foreign oil only if we also reduce our consumption, and must be combined with renewables to make us truly energy independent. We should be focusing on policies of the future (Udall's kitchen sink approach) not the past (Bob's drill drill drill plan).

  • August 15, 2008

    1:57 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    here's that trend again for those still sticking to the supply and demand myth...

    http://zfacts.com/p/35.html

    as our regular far right wing commentator, eli has graciously pointed out, prices have risen 300% under the republicans' watch.

    unless you can make the case that demand has also risen 300%...well...you get the idea....

  • August 15, 2008

    2 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dr_B writes:

    Vincent the moral prig Carol is repeating the right wing talking points and (very stupidly) implying that selling a few licenses to drill in the water will magically bring down gas prices. How? Supply and demand, you immoral leftie idiot! And forget about the fact that the righties have been in charge for all these long years. Ignore the fact that Bush senior put the moratorium on off shore drilling in place. Ignore the fact that 31 million domestic barrels of oil are not being drilled now. Never mind that over 60 million acres have been leased recently and are not yet being drilled. How dare you bring up the fact that domestic oil is sold on the open market to Japan, India and the like, and that even Alaskan oil is sold to them today!! What you have to do to please the moral superiority of the prig V Carol is shut up and vote Republican. Only plutocrats know what to do! And Carol knows exactly how to lick their boots perfectly.

  • August 15, 2008

    9:06 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    The energy companies are not asking for handouts. They just want to be able to explore for new energy in areas that they believe contain reasonable reserves. If large reserves are not discovered or not economically viable to extract, the energy companies will be the losers. They are proposing to invest their profits to find new energy sources.

    The Democratic Oil Blockade, led by obstructionists like Mark Udall, is an immoral policy. This policy is deliberately creating an artificial shortage of a vital resource thereby inflating prices. Chaos in the travel, transporation, and manufacturing industries have impacted hundreds of thousands of employees. As price increases ripple through the economy, many others will be forced with difficult choices between energy usage and other basic needs.

    The choice is obvious: allow private initiatives to pursue every energy idea and technology but mandate nothing. All means of conventional, renewable, and conservation should be allowed with private investments to determine the proper mix of energy technologies and sources. The Democratic Oil Blockade (and associated blockades of coal and nuclear) will lead to an energy meltdown with high energy prices and energy shortages.

  • August 16, 2008

    1:40 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    AmericanPatriot writes:

    Like I have said several times on previous posts on this website, I truly do not believe that drilling offshore or in ANWAR will affect gasoline prices at the pump. Nevertheless, I do support such drilling if the States and local authorities agree to it, and that everyone recognizes that the oil extracted belongs to the people of the United States.

    Any company extracting this oil on behalf of the people of the United States should be restricted to selling it only in the United States. They should be allowed a reasonable (25%) return on their investment with all additional profits going to the government to be used to reduce our foreign debt.

    I applaud Mr. Udall’s stance that we need to explore all avenues of energy exploration, and (with an emphasis on) conservation. However, we must do so through a reasonable and thoughtful process. We definitely need to free ourselves from our dependency on foreign oil, but we cannot be fools in doing so. As Mr. Udall states, we need to throw everything “including the kitchen sink” into the mix and on a non-partisan basis figure out what is going to work.

    In the past, we have given ridiculous sums of money to the oil companies to pursue oil exploration, while they make ridiculous amounts of money in profits. From here on out we need to let the oil companies fend for themselves, while we financially support and encourage the exploration and development of alternative sources of energy. We need to level the playing field so that all potential sources of energy have the opportunity to contribute to our nations needs.

  • August 17, 2008

    11:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    p_myers661 writes:

    What has been the biggest factor in the rapid rise of oil/gasoline prices has been the actions of oil speculators in the commodities markets. Another, also large, factor is that the rest of the world has a fast growing need for more and more oil. A factoid during the Olympic coverage was that 60K cars go on the road every day in China. Give each of them 20 gallons and it's a telling amount of oil necessary to satisfy that demand.

    Oil speculators have been slowly getting out and selling back on the market because of the probability that we will begin to produce more oil. That has lowered prices. Any news of an oil strike, usually known within the first year of drilling, will cause more of them to sell out and the price will jump down faster than it jumped up. Gas prices will drop more slowly because stations are charged based on the highest price paid for the oil used to produce it. Prices will come down even further. I'd expected it to be at this level in mid September. Guess it might just go down a lot faster if we get a favorable vote on drilling before the election.

    Let me see if I can debunk the "They have all these leases already, they don't need no more." nonsense.

    Suppose you have a house on the open prairie. You have six square miles of land (just an example OK?) You have the right to drill anywhere on that land. How do you decide? You check on other wells, look at geology in the area and try to make an accurate guess. Usually several sites will look promising. You can project how much water might be there and how long the supply will last. All guesswork. Scientific guesswork, but guesses just the same.

    You face the same drilling costs for any well. Where would you drill? Would you drill close to the house even though the area is the least likely? Would you drill on the best prospect even though it's two miles from the house?

    Now suppose you put the house sixty yards from the property line. Your neighbor's land has a great aquifer with a high probability from past wells of producing an artesian well with enough water for ten households. Would you try to get permission to drill on his land or your own? If he was willing to share/sell water rights, how would you reply to those who say he should be prevented from allowing you to drill.

    Oil rights belong to the American people in general or to individuals who own the lands where oil is suspected of being found. We need to drill and produce our own oil. It will make a big impression on our economy. Jobs will be produced, local economies will get a boost. Those things will strengthen us. The average American might not have the details but we all sense that NOT drilling, being our former action, didn't work. Let's try doing something and see what happens.

  • August 20, 2008

    8:23 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    rjnova writes:

    I too read Friedman’s article and was struck with the same dismay. The guy touts all the reasons wind and solar power has so little utility in this country. It is uneconomical by any measure. He proposes the govt. tax oil and gas and pay subsidies to wind and solar to make up for their deficiency.

    All we need is more misguided Congressional interference with the energy equation. Have they not done enough damage with the corn for fuel mess? Congress’ acts are the absolute worst method for change because they are driven by political rather than scientific or economical reasons. They either have some constituency or some monetary interest they wish to satisfy that has no relationship to the wisdom of the change.

    Friedman’s call for social engineering this economy is colored by his NYC background, where there is no relationship to the rest of the US. Unless the rest of us live at a similar density, and have taxis, trains and buses to work and home there is no comparison. Besides, who wants to live in a congested wasteland like NYC, where I might add they have some of the worst pollution in the country and the crime and moral decay that goes with it.

  • August 21, 2008

    9:41 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

    Udall is a total tool of "Big Green". Big Green is leading the way to much much higher energy bills, a less reliable power grid, and a weakening of our economy.

    Big Green is bad.

  • August 22, 2008

    4:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Rbcc writes:

    Sorry to hear about Udall's change of heart. He's usually been right on most issues -- and I expected him to continue to stand for the right policy choice, even if it's not the most politically expedient.
    True leadership is telling people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear.