Schaffer accuses Udall of delaying key energy decisions
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published July 13, 2008 at 12:54 p.m.
Updated July 14, 2008 at 8:25 p.m.
Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky
Mark Udall, candidate for U.S. Senate, debates with opponent Bob Schaffer at Wildlife Experience in Parker on Sunday, July 13, 2008.
Photo by Darin McGregor © The Rocky
Bob Schaffer, candidate for U.S. Senate, debates with opponent Mark Udall at Wildlife Experience in Parker on Sunday, July 13, 2008.
PARKER — Bob Schaffer came out swinging Monday.
After weeks of being dubbed "Big Oil Bob" in ads and taking criticism for his association with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Schaffer turned the tables on his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, at their first debate in the race for U.S. Senate.
Schaffer accused Udall of flip-flopping on the Iraq war and delaying decisions critical to energy development.
"I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence," Schaffer said of Udall's reluctance to allow faster oil-shale development.
Udall often responded by saying the way to solve problems is to work together rather than to continue partisan divisions in Congress.
Near the end of the debate, Schaffer's supporters began laughing at Udall for repeating the comment, but Udall supporters said their candidate was far more composed.
Schaffer, a former congressman from Fort Collins, also chided Boulder residents in the crowd for interrupting the debate several times, drawing loud protests in response.
Emblematic of the tone of the day for each candidate was a question over whether officials need to speed the extraction of oil shale in the state. Udall, of Eldorado Springs, said that while research is under way to determine the potential benefits of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."
Schaffer responded by saying: "Ladies and gentleman, that is part of the reason I'm running for Congress. ... We need (all forms of energy), and nothing should be taken off the table."
The hourlong debate in front of some 800 people at the Wildlife Experience was the first between the congressional veterans looking to succeed retiring Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. It followed months of attack ads and critical news conferences that came as polls showed Udall turning a dead heat into a 10-point lead in the race.
Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams said the longtime office-holder, known in the past for his aggressive campaigns, waited until the first debate to unleash his new accusations because this is the time people begin following the campaign closely. The style will continue over the next four months, Wadhams said.
In a moment illustrative of his new aggressive style, Schaffer at one point read a resolution stating that Iraq had been a state sponsor of terrorism and failed to end its weapons-of-mass-destruction program. He asked who agreed with it, drawing raised hands from his supporters and hisses from Udall's.
Schaffer then revealed that he was reading a resolution introduced by Udall in 2002, a move that longtime Republican activist Kendal Unruh called "the best political checkmate I've ever seen in a debate."
Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West called the move a distortion of the record, saying the resolution was one to withhold congressional authorization for attacking Iraq until all diplomatic means were exhausted.
As Udall supporters booed or heckled Schaffer, he asked more than once for respect from his "friends from Boulder," prompting several to yell that Udall had support from places other than just his home county.
Udall responded: "When I serve in the United States Senate, I'm not going to pick out one community or another and stereotype that community."
Republican Kyle Fisk of Colorado Springs said of Schaffer before the debate: "He's been so defined by Udall's media, he knows that he's either got to start fighting or this race is over by Labor Day." Afterward, a pleased Fisk said: "He did exactly what I thought he would."
But Harold Anderson, a registered Republican and Lone Tree city councilman, said he and several others were turned off by Schaffer's Boulder references.
"The thing I noticed is that Udall kept stressing we've got to work together as a team, which I've said many times on the City Council," Anderson said.
Udall, meanwhile, emphasized his support for developing fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel vehicles. He was at his most aggressive in criticizing Schaffer, a former energy company executive, for backing oil-company tax cuts.
Staff writer Lynn Bartels contributed to this report.
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.
July 14, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
ghoax writes:
Scaffer ROCKS! and is the clear choice for those who want to preserve our Freedom and reclaim that which has been taken. We cannot afford more liberal fascism. 4000 Federal crimes invented in the last 8 years, more regulation, more expansion of government? Enough is enough...as far as I can there hasn't been 1 lefty policy or law that has made us better, stronger, or more economically sound.
The left has brought nothing but confusion, and God is not the author of confusion....yes I'm saying the left is evil..so what!!!
All I've seen is the destruction of the family, the family structure, enabling poor to stay poor and providing refuge for millions to come here and live off of your hard earned tax dollars...so they can appease their guilt...its all about emotion for the left, clear thinking escapes them and we don't need them at the helm. Giving them more power, means you are voting to continue to systematically dismantle the United States of America, dishonoring those who fought and died for our way of life and provide the foundation for the USA to be the smartest, strongest best country in the world.
July 14, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
fishin writes:
Marxist Udal and his liberal democrat counterparts have been locking out hundreds of billions of barrels of oil and now it's coming home to roost. At $140 a barrel oil, the US is sending almost $1.7 billion per day to other countries. Both sides of the supply and demand equation needs to be addressed. More domestic oil drilling, conservation, and alternative energy.
July 14, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Ask Mark Udall if he supports:
employee free choice, but does he support real free choice the free choice offered by Amendment 47 and Initiative 53?
July 14, 2008
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
This isn't a democracy, it's a two-party plutocracy. They absolutely should have invited third-party candidates to this debate.
July 14, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Hey Froward- I'm not a single issue voter and I support Schaffer. Udall is just another elitist from the People's Independent Republic of Boulder, who could careless out the rest of us in Colorado.
July 14, 2008
12:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holohedral_Gumbo writes:
Big_D: you're an idiot. You obviously have absolutely no knowledge of what it takes to develop off shore acreage and should probably shut up about the whole thing because every word you write amplifies the magnitude of your ignorance. Your government makes billions of these sealed bid leases. Plus, 70% of our oil comes from foriegn countries and our largest oil company, Exxon, only owns about 2% of the world's oil and produces ~70% of it oil from foriegn lands. If they knew how to make it work closer home then they would.
http://energytomorrow.org/media/resou...
Educate yourself, help form a cohesive energy plan that supports short term domestic hydrocarbon production and fund research for longer term non carbon based alternatives.
July 14, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Drilling has nothing to do with it. Deregulation of the commodities market is fueling the speculation, plus the declining value of the dollar. The supply/demand market price of oil should be around $70 a barrel.
Re-regulate the speculators who buy and sell this stuff without ever seeing it. Watch the price drop; preserve our natural resources.
July 14, 2008
12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
whunt writes:
ghoax wrote... "We cannot afford more liberal fascism."
Do you have any idea what fascism is, ghoax? Please enlighten us, oh wise ghoax, and explain to us why fascism is a liberal ideal.
Quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand. Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.
July 14, 2008
12:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Froward-Colorado is not my adopted state. I'm actually a native to Colorado...5th generation to be exact.
July 14, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
and if you really want to get technical, my family has been in Colorado since 1868 (before Colorado was even a state) and lived in the area that is now known as Canon City. So adopted, yeah, I think not.
July 14, 2008
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
froward69, I agree. Why don't we tell all the Californians to return home. That is why Colordao is a blue/purple state now. If it was not for them Udall, Ritter, and Salazar would never had a chance. Sorry but your statement that Udall is better for Colorado, because he is a pioneer is just plain stupid as my statement above. It is xenophobia at it's best.
Why do democrats want to restrict Alaska and other states on what they do in their own backyard? If Alaska wants to drill then let them. If California does not want to drill off their coast. Then let them stop it. This is just another way for the federal government to tell the states the best way to run their own backyard. At least at the state level I feel like I can have a voice where at the Federal level I am just one voice of 300 million.
July 14, 2008
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holohedral_Gumbo writes:
Big_D: There are many problems with that Washington Post article, most by far and away outside the scope of this discussion. If you read the document I sent you would see that it's sources are entirely credible.
There is a serious need for political action otherwise all those reserve estimates you are citing will never make it market.
The simple truth is that your an idiot not because of the sources you site but because you believe there is some big oil conspiracy to keep domestic sources of oil from market. In fact, the only two things keeping domestic oil from the market are geologic complexity and government regulations.
July 14, 2008
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
bid_d,
When exploring for oil and natural gas it takes years to determine if there is oil and if there is enough oil to make it worth while to drill. Then it takes additional time to create a plan to put in place the infrastructure to even produce the first drop of oil. If it is off-shore they probably will have to develop a new technology to even get to the oil and gas.
Of course if you actually educated yourself and stop reading the talking points from the enviro wackos you might know this. Either way the Democrats will back down soon enough, because if they don't they will lose in November. If they don't then they are more stupid than I thought they were.
July 14, 2008
1:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Wow Froward, we have one thing in common.
July 14, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Holohedral_Gumbo writes:
Like I said Big_D, every word you write further illustrates the level of your ignorance. No industry on earth invests more capital and takes bigger risks than Big Oil. Plus, despite all the commodity fluxuations they're still only pulling in a 7-8% rate of return. I bet your Prosac prescription earns some pharmaceutical company a much greater return than that.
Wake up dude, move closure to work, drive a more fuel efficient car, because there is no hidden agenda; just more people and tighening resource constraints.
July 14, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Big_D,
I actually just came from the Bakken. You obviously do not understand the amount of time it takes to build a infrastructure (rigs, trucks to haul the sand and water, trucks to haul the equipment, housing for the employees, the employees, the roads, the equipment to access the oil, etc...) to drill for oil and gas. I can tell you right now there is not enough infrastructure in place but it is growing substantially. That is why I am for opening up additional areas now so the industry can better put in place infrastructure to meet future requirements and not just for the near future. Too bad you let your politics guide you more than your common sense.
I guess you need to continue to listen to the enviro wackos who obviously are the "experts". The oil companies don't know anything when it comes to the oil industry.
Froward69, why keep the oil here? Send it to the world market so the oil companies receive top dollar for it and then the government can tax those top dollars. Then we can take those tax dollars to develop alternative energy.
July 14, 2008
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
I always back up my arugments Froward:o) The only thing I like about Udall is that he has climbed all the 14ers, which is something I'm trying to do, but living in DC makes that a little difficult at the moment.
Energy is a very important topic for me since I spend the majority of my day working on the issue. 67% of Americans believe that we need to open up the OCS, GOM and ANWR to drilling. The amount of oil and natural gas in those areas will help supply this country. China will start drilling next year since they were granted a lease from Cuba (ah Communism). The amount of oil shale that can be mined safely on the Western slope of Colorado alone could make the U.S. the leader in energy production. China is on the Western Slope mining for it right now, why can't American companies be allowed to do the same? The amount of jobs drilling in this country would create would be great as well. The numbers are there and the USGS and MMS have stated that drilling this those areas would leave a carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island. Had these drilling bans not been place, America would not be having the current problem we have (yes, I know Bush 41 signed the ban shortly after the Exxon Valdez spill).
Renewable energy companies are also trying to develop but are not being allowed to build transmission lines, look at what is going on in San Diego with the transmission lines. I'm all for renewable energy, because I realize that the oil will eventually run out (in like 40-50 years), but the cost for renewables is far greater than the cost for drilling in our own country. The Democrats plan for "use it or lose it" is stupid. I don't think they understand how long it takes to do the seismic data, get the equipment to drill for it, oh and not to mention the lawsuits that will sure follow before the drilling can even be done. Half the leases that oil companies have, have turn out to dry wells. In Russia, the world largest oil field was found after they drilled 75 dry wells, 76 turned out to be the place.
Americans should be happy that gas prices here are not at $10 like they are in Europe.
July 14, 2008
2:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
You cannot blame Bob Schaffer and his boss, Alan Cranberg, for wanting to keep American troops in Iraq. Mercenaries are much too expensive to hire and pay these days. National Guard soldiers work for a fraction of what mercenaries demand for their services. And their services and subsequent medical bills are paid by us taxpayers. What could be a better deal than that?
Bob's employer, Aspect Energy LLC, will pay him handsomely to represent their interests in the Senate. He will do a good job for them. They're digging for oil in Kurdistan.
http://web.krg.org/articles/detail.as...
So, you can forget about unifying Iraq or even settling the issue at all. The Kurds, who suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein, now have a country of their own. It's possible the Kurds might even forgive us for letting Donald Rumsfeld sell all that Sarin gas to Saddam Hussein. He only used Rumsfeld's Sarin gas to kill no more than 40,000 rebellious Kurdish villagers.
Never mind that Kurdish separatists have been greatly responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 Turkish citizens since the 1980s. Don't worry that the oil money the Kurds get is being used to increase the number of Kurdish terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, Turkey. And of course, the fact that the Turks are now conducting deep raids into Kurdistan to hunt down the Kurds who are killing their people shouldn't bother Bob Schaffer either.
He's making too much money on the deal to bother with people getting killed for his greed in places that he can't even pronounce.
Get ready for some fireworks and we're not taking about the 4th of July. Bob Schaffer, Alan Cranberg, and Aspect Energy LLC are setting up a nice big powder keg in northern Iraq. If you think our troops are busy now and really love reading about bombings and body parts floating in pools of blood, you're going to go gaga over the entertainment that Bob Schaffer has in store for you.
July 14, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Froward69,
So we don't get any taxes from the oil companies when they extract oil from the U.S? That statement does not make any sense. Why would any corporation have their headquarters here if they can avoid it by just moving their address to a foreign country?
On top of the regular taxes we receive from the oil companies the federal government receives royalites if they drill on federal land. Ordinary citizens who receive royalites are taxed. Employees of all the companies that support the activity of drilling and maintaining the oil/gas wells are taxes on their salaries. The companies who sell their product and services are taxed. Any product that leaves our shores we receive taxes on too.
July 14, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
Oil companies only make 8 cents on the dollar for every gallon pumped, compared to the 80 cents the federal gov't gets.
July 14, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Christopher Dodd received a "special" benefit when he got his mortgage from Countrywide Mortgage. Now his committee that he is the chair of is investigating this company and their shady tactics. How many people have lost their home, because of their shady businesses policies and now we have Christopher Todd investigating the company who gave him a very nice benefit.
July 14, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
The politians in DC don't care about the citizens of this country mwanecek, hence why their approval rating is at 9%!
July 14, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Jonah writes:
why has the oil industry paid for immigrant politicians (Owens & Schaffer) to run for office in this state? If the answer is not obvious then you must be deluded.
Schaffer and his ilk have clearly demonstrated what motivates them over the last eight years - personal and corporate greed. It's time for change.
July 14, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
danirobi, you're so freaking wrong on your "facts" it's insane! First of all, the Federal Government gets 20 cents per gallon roughly in gas taxes. Certainly not 80 cents! Off by a factor of 4? How quaint!
Secondly, China's oil companies are not drilling on the western slope, at least not that I'm aware of. Where did you get this information? I'm quite curious as to their methods of extracting the kerogen from the "shale", especially given the water and energy requirements that seem to be so high with currently available technologies...
My guess is that you pulled this little plum of information right out of your arse.
July 14, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
Jonah,
You and others keep bringing up how Owens and Schaffer are immigrants. So I guess we better have Hickenlooper pack his bags and any other Democrat that is not born here in Colorado.
July 14, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
I was at the debate. Virtually all the accusations originated with Schaffer. Bob repeatedly and directly (and preposterously) attempted to blame Democrats for the price of gasoline. It is the typical style of Republicans to make so many outrageous claims that it isn't possible to refute all of them (the Nazis were fond of the Big Lie too); there's bound to be some reactionary hacks willing to swallow them. In this instance, the fact that American greed, free enterprise, decades of inertia, and just possibly, the invasion of Iraq and the confrontation with Iran, might have had more effect on the price of gas than any acts of the newly elected Democratic majority didn't get the attention it could have. The Republican Party of Colorado is so far to the right that its candidates don't even try to speak to reasonable people in the middle, but they sure like to punch the buttons of their base. That's what all the references to "folks from Boulder" were about, of course, but Bob's conceit was specifically that Udall's supporters at the debate had come from Boulder. Many of us in the audience, not from Boulder objected to being so characterized, but Bob kept at it. He even told a little story about how city officials there fined a local business $2600 for giving away free cups of coffee -- the connection to Udall and the Senate race was not entirely clear. Udall was a bit platitudinous, but Schaffer was rabidly partisan and overreaching -- the claim that the majority was responsible for the price of gas was particularly over-the-top.
July 14, 2008
4:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
jack a: [Whatever could the "a" stand for?] The Amendment is not connected to every news story, and has nothing to do with the Senate race or this story. Your post is inappropriate as it is completely IRRELEVANT! Trolls out of the discussion!
ghoax: "Scaffer [sic] ROCKS" -- this is just pathetic; do you have any knowledge of, or interest in, any of the issues, or are you just a dim, fundamentalist child? If God isn't the author of confusion then you must be the Devil's spawn, because you sound mighty confused to me!
July 14, 2008
5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Holohedral_Gumbo: "The simple truth is that your [sic] an idiot not because of the sources you site [sic]", "I bet your Prosac [sic] prescription", "move closure [sic] to work" -- your spelling is almost as poor as your grasp of the issues!
July 14, 2008
5:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
forward69,
you did not answer my question. If any corporation could move and not pay taxes why would they stay here unless they got the big tax break like Exxon did? If you say what is true all I have to do is create myself a corporation, open up a small office in a foregin country with very little or no taxes and I won't have to pay a dime of taxes. I am sorry but I don't believe that.
DenverDan,
Yes, North Dakota has roads and a highway. No, they don't have a road to the actual oil well. The oil company builds this. No, they don't have trucks and truckers sitting around doing nothing. So they need trucks and people to drive them up there. They are currently short. They don't have enough quality people there to do the jobs. They mostly have to transport people there to meet their needs but they still come up short. They don't have enough rigs to drill all the leases. They are building new ones but again this takes time. The equipment to produce the well and the pipeline is also difficult to come by.
Remember the oil companies hire a lot of 3rd party companies to drill, produce, connect and then maintain the product. Right now if you check steel, raw material, and other resources you will know that the nation is short to meet the current needs of the oil boom that is going on. Of course you would know that if you actually took the time and stop reading the talking points of the democrats.
July 14, 2008
5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
jaymoveonorg writes:
oh by the way Big D, a teamster would be lucky to get a job in the oil industry. They would get paid more. They work hard but they pay well. Of course teamsters don't have to work hard since they get to keep their job based upon senority instead of their performance.
solar_satelite,
Of course Schaffer looked partisan, because you are a lefty. If you actually call yourself a moderate I am going to puke. Udall is a liberal and that is fact. All you have to do is look at his voting record. At least I would concede that Salazar tries to be moderate but he usually falls in line with the democrat party line. Udall though is a big time lefty. He is right there with Degette.
July 14, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Oh come on jaymoveonorg! I'll be glad to concede that Udall is a liberal, but don't give me that crap (that Schaffer's partisanship is a reflection of my political opinions). Schaffer is an extreme partisan for the apalling, failed policies of the Bush administration at a time when a large majority of Americans have rejected those policies. I'll grant him the courage of his convictions (or at least the gall of his and his cronies' greed). I am certainly willing to entertain criticism of Democrats and Mark Udall as well; I already delivered a little. For all the failings of both of the two major parties, the voters aren't going to choose another, and the choice between their candidates is a stark one: on the one hand, the clear intent to further abdicate our heritage and mortgage our future to corporate greed, and on the other, a concern for the commonweal, which is the only appropriate motivation for a Senator.
July 14, 2008
9 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
big oil bob is getting desperate...just like both ways bob did.
time to pay the piper for years and years of republican incompetence...and the stuff rolls downhill.
bob lost the battle before it began due to the actions of his fellow party members and conservative politicians.
not his fault really...he's just a victim by association.
July 14, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
fishin writes:
Colorado finally has a chance to get Marxist Udall out of government, don't blow it. Marxist Udall is the poster boy for term limits. Send him home to chase windmills like Don Quixote.
Look at the guys record after decades in congress.
He's done everything he can to prevent oil and gas exploration in the US, now we are sending over $600 billion a year to foreign countries for their oil (4-5% of our GDP). Gas is around $4 and heading higher, hurting every Colorado family. Now he want to look at bipartisan solutions, funny how he never cared about bipartisan solutions about anything until he decided to run for senate.
He has constantly voted against securing our boarders. He wanted to give amnesty to illegals and start the whole process over again without a thing to stop the whole mess from occuring again and again.
Never saw a tax or spending (unless it involves the military)increase he didn't like.
With him you get higher gas prices, bigger trade deficit, more illegal immigration, higher taxes, bigger government.
But he is a native unlike that carpetbagger that has only lived in the state for 20+ years. That had to be one of the most humorous arguments I've every seen as a reason to vote for someone.
July 15, 2008
1:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
ecoscience writes:
Schaffer won that debate in massive fashion. It is true though, that he can be fairly accused of picking on Boulder too much, but that's a Ft Collins thing. He'll have to grow out of it. Otherwise, Schaffer won on every other issue. Schaffer showed such a greater depth and understanding than Udall that if I was Udall campaign manager I wouldn't let my candidate debate him any more!
July 15, 2008
4:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
solar_satellite writes:
Colorado's Republicans haven't had enough of W and Co. -- they wan't more and Bob is their man! Rah, Rah, Rah! They are incredibly out of touch with the electorate.
fishin, you partisan parrot, can you think, have you something original to contribute, or do you just vomit forth the same, tired rhetoric over and over again?
ecoscience: Did you read my first post? Picking on Boulder was supposed to galvanize you! If you think that Schaffer won the debate outright (or "in massive fashion", if you must), then you are one of the true believers. Republicans seek to make up in stridency what they lack in numbers. I don't think it's going to work this cycle. All that optimistic, supply-side garbage (and W's War) have created the mess we find ourselves in today. Occasionally the Republican belief that they can fool most of the people all of the time is not borne out at the polls, and this is one of those occasions.
July 15, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Froward, what's wrong with all the Alaskans getting paid for every drop of oil that leaves their state? Would you rather the Saudi's get paid? Why do you hate this country so much?