| |
|
Friday, December 21, 2007
|
|
From The Rocky Mountain News, "Colorado is one of three states where Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign will focus on expanding her already strong support among Hispanics. Clinton's campaign announced Wednesday the formation of Hispanic Leadership Councils in Colorado, Illinois and New Jersey. The councils, composed of local leaders, will reach out to Hispanics both locally and across the country. They also will work to mobilize the Hispanic vote in states holding primary elections on Feb. 5, including several Western states. In Colorado - as well as New Mexico, Florida and Nevada - where the 2004 presidential election was closely contested, Hispanics represent a potential swing vote."
"2008 pres"
7:04:18 AM 
|
|
From The Aspen Daily News "reg", "Local tourism officials are hoping that when Democrats converge for the national convention in Denver next summer, the party will spill over here. Democrats are saying it will be the largest convention in Colorado history. That could mean some delegates' motoring West while they're in Denver, and statewide publicity from the pack of journalists who descend on them. "It's kind of like the Super Bowl of politics," said Marianne Virgili, CEO of the Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association. "Everybody is aware of how much buzz the Super Bowl generates in the hosting community, and I think the same will be the case for the whole state of Colorado when the Democratic convention comes to town. I know the state tourism board is very excited, not only about the convention itself, but the opportunity to promote the state to attendees and to the media community watching.'"
"2008 pres"
6:57:28 AM
|
|
The Bureau of Land Management released their draft environmental impact statement on oil shale development Thursday, according to The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Commercial oil shale development in western Colorado is expected to supplant all current uses of the land in areas slated for oil shale leasing, urbanize small towns, dramatically affect regional air and water quality, stamp out agriculture, cause a decline in some property values and drive away thousands of recreation-related jobs while creating thousands more oil shale-related jobs. That's the federal government's conclusion in a draft environmental study released Thursday of the Bureau of Land Management's fledgling commercial oil shale leasing program. Called the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, the report is available online at http://ostseis.anl.gov.
The BLM has no specific date for when commercial leasing will begin, but BLM spokeswoman Heather Feeney said it will be at least 10 years before construction can begin on any future leases. Of three possible oil shale development scenarios outlined in the statement, the BLM's preferred scenario calls for 1.99 million acres of federal land and mineral estate to be available eventually for commercial oil shale leasing in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. More than 359,000 acres would be available for leasing in Colorado, all of which would be in the Piceance Basin southwest of Meeker and due north of Parachute. If leasing goes forward, oil shale development would preclude all other uses of the federal land where extraction would occur, including ATV use, agriculture and all other oil and gas development, the statement says...
Construction of a single in situ oil shale processing site, similar to that now being studied by Royal Dutch Shell, would create up to 2,900 jobs, producing up to 950 jobs during peak operations, the statement says. Construction of power plants for the in situ oil shale sites would produce up to 3,100 jobs, with up to 330 remaining during plant operations. Coal mines needed to power the shale production process would create up to 1,300 jobs. Housing construction for oil shale workers in the three states would create up to 620 jobs, while such construction for power plant workers would create up to 820 jobs. Coal-mine worker housing construction would account for up to 320 jobs, the statement says...
The government doesn't know how much surface and ground water any method of oil shale extraction would consume, but where the industry acquires water rights, oil shale development "may result in a complete loss of agricultural uses in some areas." The amount of water oil shale would consume isn't known, the government says, because there's not enough information about the kind of technology that could be used to extract oil shale. But the government expects surface water quality in the region to degrade, natural runoff patterns to be altered, hydrocarbons to contaminate surface and ground water in some areas and a possible reduction or complete loss of water flow into some domestic wells. The government also projects a dramatic loss in wildlife habitat where oil shale is developed, and habitat for 14 threatened and endangered species could be destroyed. "What you're describing to me sounds like a natural catastrophe on the scale of a meteor impact," Western Colorado Congress President Bill Grant said. "You're sacrificing a large chunk of western Colorado to oil shale. Is there no alternative to this total destruction to western Colorado?"[...]
The release of the environmental impact statement kicks off a 90-day public comment period on the document. Paper copies will be available at the Grand Junction BLM field office, 2815 H Road today.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
6:10:06 AM
|
|
During a Detroit Free Press interview John McCain was asked, "You come from a state that is growing and dry. Michigan is a state that is shrinking and has lots of water. Do you see a time when states in the South and West might want to go after the water here?"
The Senator's answer:
I'm sure they might want to go after it. But I don't see that as a likely scenario, because I think that would be up to the people of these states, and they wouldn't enter into an agreement that would move water out of the Great Lakes to other states. I'm a federalist. I don't think water should be taken from one area to another, unless there's some kind of compact. The Colorado compact, over the Colorado River, was the agreement of every state that was involved [ed. except Arizona]. I would think maybe, in this region, you might see compacts to share the water of the Great Lakes, and how to make best use of the water. But I don't see them willingly saying they'll ship all that water down to Arizona. If they would, I'd work on the pipeline myself. Same thing with off-shore drilling. If Louisiana wants it, fine. But if Florida doesn't, that's fine, too. You really can't force these things, especially when there are environmental issues. I wouldn't want drilling in the Grand Canyon in Arizona, for example.
"2008 pres"
5:56:07 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 1:53:28 PM.
|
|
|
