| |
|
Monday, June 30, 2008
|
|
Political Wire: "A new Rasmussen Reports survey in Georgia finds Sen. John McCain well ahead of Sen. Barack Obama, 53% to 43%."
Political Wire: "A new Rasmussen Reports poll in Arizona shows Sen. John McCain struggling in his home state. While he still leads Sen. Barack Obama, 49% to 40%, that's down from a 20 point lead in April."
Political Wire: "A new SurveyUSA poll in Virginia shows Sen. Barack Obama edging Sen. John McCain, 49% to 47%."
"2008 pres"
5:13:15 PM 
|
|
Coyote Gulch reader Theo sends this press release in email:
Duke Cox, Western Colorado Congress, 970-379-3649
Keith Lambert, Mayor Town of Rifle, 970-319-3758
Bob Elderkin, Colorado Mule Deer Association, 970-948-9081
Congressional advocates for the oil and gas industry today continued their relentless and misleading effort to convince Americans that unproven oil shale technology can help reduce the price of gas at the pump. "The Gas Price Reduction Act of 2008,"" introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell claims that the current a one-year funding limitation amounts to a moratorium on oil shale development.
In fact, oil shale development has been proceeding for decades. The federal government is overseeing a major oil shale research and development program that includes four projects in Colorado. Major proponents of oil shale leasing already control 200,000 acres of oil shale deposits. The Department of Energy estimates that up to 3 million acres of oil shale lands in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are in private hands. However, the leading oil shale companies acknowledge that they won't know if their technology works for several more years. yet none have begun development of commercial production facilities. Significant commercial production, they acknowledge, is more than a decade away. The idea promoted by Congressional oil and gas supporters that leasing up to 2 million acres of public land before oil shale technology proves itself will somehow lower gas prices prompted several Western Coloradans to scoff. "That's bogus," said Rifle Mayor Keith Lambert. "I have had discussions with Shell, who's obviously taken the lead as far as research and development. They have indicated they are not anywhere near ready to go. From that standpoint, I don't know how that will make a bit of difference at the pump in so far as no one is ready to pump oil from the ground."
"Horsefeathers," said Duke Cox, president of Escalante Builders and a member of Western Colorado Congress. "Recently released information from experts in mainstream media indicates that market manipulation by giant hedge funds and banks, many of whom are connected to the oil companies, is responsible for much of the recent price hikes. The new GOP bill, said Cox, "is a blatant effort at extorting the American people into setting up the oil and gas industry to record profits for decades to come. People need to know the truth: Domestic drilling will not lower oil and gasoline prices."
A former BLM employee agreed. "That's a bunch of bull," said Bob Elderkin of Silt, who worked on oil shale development before it crashed during the 1980s. "All Bush wants to do is get these things leased while he's in office. The bottom line right now is that Shell has to take its technology to commercial development, which is a decade away. Nobody's else has got anything." Elderkin said the potential impact of oil shale's development on Northwest Colorado's wildlife has not been properly evaluated. "If Shell went commercial, the impact on our wildlife be huge," said Elderkin, a member of the Colorado Mule Deer Association. "Shell drills on five-foot spacing, which means they have to level the ground for every cell. You can visualize what's going to result -- it's disturbance on a mega-scale. And that's just the surface - we're not even talking about water yet.""
Meanwhile, from The Environmental News Network:
The U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Miami this week adopted a resolution aimed at avoiding the use of high carbon fuels such as tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale. The resolution encourages fuel analyses that include emissions from production, not just from burning the fuel. The resolution calls for the creation of guidelines and purchasing standards to help mayors understand the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuels they purchase through their entire lifecycle from production through consumption. "We don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that make global warming worse," said Mayor Kitty Piercy, of Eugene, Oregon, who submitted the resolution. "Tar sands oil emits up to three times the greenhouse gases in the production process per barrel as conventional oil production," Piercy said. "Our cities are asking for environmentally sustainable energy and not fuels from dirty sources such as tar sands."
Tar sands are deposits of natural bitumen, a viscous oil that must be treated to convert it into an upgraded crude oil so that it can be used in refineries to produce gasoline and other fuels. Extracting oil from these sands uses more water and requires larger amounts of energy than conventional oil extraction, even though many conventional oil fields also require large amounts of water and energy and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases. Many countries have large deposits of tar sands, including the United States, Russia, and countries in the Middle East. The world's largest deposits are in Canada and Venezuela, both of which have tar sands reserves equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil.
The resolution approved by the mayors expresses concern for Canada's environment, stating, "... the production of tar sands oil from Canada emits approximately three times the carbon dioxide pollution per barrel as does conventional oil production and significantly damages Canada's Boreal forest ecosystem - the world's largest carbon storehouse ..." "The mayors have once again confirmed that they're serious about combating climate change," said Mayor Marty Blum of Santa Barbara, California. "Not only will we give preference to clean, renewable energy sources, we are standing our ground when it comes to synthetic petroleum-based fuels that exacerbate global warming."
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
5:11:14 PM
|
|
Ed Quillen takes up the theme of Colorado as a "National Energy Sacrifice Zone" in his column in yesterday's Denver Post. From the article:
The industry shills are upset about a proposed regulation to protect wildlife by forbidding drilling in certain areas at certain times of the year, like mating and birthing seasons. "It could shut down 30 percent of Colorado's drilling activities for three months every year in the seasonal range of several species, including prairie dogs." Well, yes, it could, unless the drillers consulted with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and prepared comprehensive development plans. In other words, they could act responsibly. Is that expecting too much? Under Colorado law, "All wildlife not lawfully acquired and held by private ownership is declared to be the property of the state." So, the state acts to protect public property, including those pernicious prairie dogs, and it's doing something evil? Would you say "Go right ahead" to an industry that proposed damaging your personal property? Likely not - so why would you say that to an industry that wants to damage property that we Coloradans hold in common?[...]
They are not drilling to make sure Coloradans stay warm in the winter. For generations, long before the current boom, Colorado has produced more natural gas than it could consume. With the construction of new pipelines, natural gas can be exported to higher-paying markets. The current drilling boom is for gas to go to those markets, which also raises the price we have to pay. Just why our wildlife is supposed to be sacrificed for the benefit of natural-gas customers in California and the Midwest is a question the drillers have neither raised nor answered. Further, the drillers skip around their damage to another public asset. The water of Colorado belongs to the people of Colorado. And thanks to gas drillers, various people of Colorado have found methane and benzene in their water. Let's face it. The drillers are here for one purpose: To make as much money as they can, as fast as they can, just like the earlier gold and silver mine owners. If it's asking too much for them, in the process of sending Colorado natural gas to California, to follow some rules to protect our property - our wildlife and our water - then goodbye and good riddance, the sooner the better.
Meanwhile we received this link in email from Colorado Media Matters:
The Daily Sentinel misleadingly reported that a proposed wildlife habitat rule discussed at a June 10 hearing of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) "would set a moratorium on drilling for at least three months each year, potentially crippling western Colorado's booming energy industry." However, the article omitted that the COGCC issued revised proposed rules, which, as The Daily Sentinel reported on June 18, "make it clear that energy companies have a variety of options to mitigate effects on wildlife near their drilling sites before being slapped with a 90-day drilling moratorium," according to COGCC acting director David Neslin.
Here's a press release from Western Progress on the subject of opening more federal land to oil and gas exploration to help with gasoline prices in the short term and long term:
While Americans suffer sticker shock at the pump and natural gas costs are expected to soar within the next year, the Bush Administration would have us believe that the cure for those skyrocketing prices lies beneath our feet, and above the law.
The source for this political gamesmanshipis the Bureau of Land Management's latest energy report released last month, EPCA III -- an inventory of oil and gas resources on more than 279 million public acres, 43 million of which are in Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
The report, required by the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and skewed to hasten fossil fuel development at the expense of a healthy environment, doesn't pass the laugh test.
In addressing the industrial favoritism of EPCA III, the Wilderness Society's Nada Culver denounced the BLM and Bush Administration for "manipulat[ing] data to reach a predetermined conclusion that supports the oil and gas industry's desire to open more public lands drilling."
A Wilderness Society analysis of EPCA III shows that some lands listed by the BLM as "inaccessible"" are known to be available for leasing including Alaska's Northeast Planning Area, which was put into the "no leasing"" category even though it has undergone two lease sales and is scheduled for a third in October.
Furthermore, the BLM frequently grants "exceptions" to lease terms written to protect the land, and has issued five new "categorical exclusions"" (under the Energy Policy Act) that exempt drilling projectsfrom environmental review. Look for the new exclusions to boost the number of exempt projects, which totaled more than 1,600 between 2005 and 2007.
The report also identifies vast supplies of oil and gas as off limits to drilling due to "impediments" such as laws protecting clean air, clean water and healthy wildlife populations. Yet much of the report's inventoried acreage protected by these impediments is actually found within national parks, national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas.
Most important, there remains one simple fact that calls into question the entire scope of the BLM report: more than 44 million acres of public lands are already under lease for oil and gas drilling across the country, and yet only 26 percent of those lands are actually in production.
"We have found that the oil industry is sitting on 68 million acres [including off-shore leases] of federal oil and gas leases, the size of Colorado," said Democratic chairman of the House Natural Resource Committee Nick Rahall last Wednesday. "They are stockpiling them. Opening up even more areas only gives them an opportunity to speculate even further."
Rahall and other House members have sensibly introduced legislation that would force block oil and gas companies from getting new leases unless they can demonstrate they are developing the ones they already have.
Meanwhile, the administration wants to sell them even more leases to sit on, by opening up treasured places like Colorado's Roan Plateau.
If increased oil and gas drilling throughout the West and across the country is really the answer to cheaper gasoline prices and lower natural gas bills, shouldn't Americans already be experiencing these rollbacks?
Since 2000, drilling on federal lands has steadily increased while in the last three years gas and oil prices have broken record highs. Under the Bush Administration drilling permit approvals set a new record last year with 7,124, making the total number of permits issued since 2001 just over 35,000. All but about 2,000 of those were in Rocky Mountain states.
In addition, a U.S. Energy Information Association report shows that full oil production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could save only a few pennies at the pump.
Opening up more public lands - treasured, scenic lands where Americans hunt, fish, hike, and camp - to oil and gas development, especially when 33 million leased acres remain vacant,makes a mockery of the BLM's own mission statement, and keeps the nation on a myopic carbon-based fuel path rather than one of renewable energy development and resource conservation.
Meanwhile, the energy industry speaks (via The Summit Daily News):
A Canadian organization found that new regulations proposed for the state's oil-and-gas industry has made Colorado a much worse place for energy companies to invest. The Fraser Institute, which calls itself a non-partisan group, ranked Colorado as the 29th worst jurisdiction for "upstream" oil-and-gas investment out of 81 international jurisdictions, according to its Global Petroleum Survey 2008. That's because of the prospect of the new rules, according to the institute. But others point out that the same organization determined Colorado was one of the best places in the world for drilling just a short time earlier and note that the energy companies are clammoring to increase their presence in the state...
The Fraser Institute based its report on survey results from industry senior executives and managers who responded to its annual survey of "upstream petroleum companies." "Survey respondents were very concerned with Colorado's changes to drilling permit requirements and other stringent regulations," said Gerry Angevine, Fraser Institute's senior economist and coordinator of its annual petroleum survey. "The Colorado Oil and Gas Association estimates the new rules could increase drilling costs by $60,000 to $600,000 per well."
Meg Collins, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said the study indicated that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter and his administration are "sending a clear message to natural-gas and oil companies that Colorado is closing its doors on them." "The Fraser Institute's 2008 report accurately demonstrates the real concern Colorado's natural-gas and oil producers are feeling, given the state's complete rewrite of the rules that govern the industry," she said.
Duke Cox, who has been involved in the rule-making process and is the former director of the Western Colorado Congress, said people should follow what companies say to their investors, rather than what industry may tell the Fraser Institute. Cox specifically referred to what Williams Production RMT [~] one of the largest producers in Garfield County - is telling its investors. Williams, in its most recent Securities Exchange Commission filing this week, said its recent acquisition of 24,000 net acres in the Piceance Basin and the associated increase in drilling activity are the primary drivers of the increase in company's capital expenditure guidance in 2008 and 2009.
Trinidad is on the side of oil and gas developers, according to The Pueblo Chieftain:
Backers of sweeping new state regulations on the energy industry, consumed by a desire to slow natural gas drilling around Rifle and Meeker in the state's northwest corner, continue to pay a price for their tunnel vision. While they weren't looking, Trinidad jumped into the fray. And now, like a pied piper of methane, the small city with a rich energy history of its own is leading a revolt against the new rules. Moreover, the tide of criticism is swelling so big, so fast that some political observers think a possible November ballot question to collect extra tax money from the energy industry may tank. Trinidad leaders are unapologetic. The state's rush to regulate threatened to cripple the economy of Trinidad and a number of other small cities across the state, and all for no good reason, they say. The old approach - local control with an assist from state and federal agencies - worked well, they say. Sweeping new mandates from the state aren't needed, they say.
Las Animas County commissioners summarized their concerns in a complaint filed with the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission, the agency drafting the new rules: Coalbed methane development "has made a considerable difference in Las Animas County's economy, leading to a decrease in unemployment rate and an increase in tax revenues. If a proper balance is not reached, the draft rules will have a severe negative impact without significantly protecting public welfare, the environment and wildlife." Left unspoken: Two of the three county commissioners are Democrats, putting them at odds with their party's state leaders, who made the tougher rules a priority after coming to power in Denver...
There's too much uncertainty about the state's motives, [Jay Still, vice president of Pioneer Natural Resources and current chairman of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association] said. "We're still asking, 'What is the problem you're trying to address?'" More time also is needed to study the proposed changes, possibly until year's end, he said. The last time the state's rule book was updated, in the 1990s, the talks lasted five years, he noted. The full-court press by the Trinidad community, the energy industry and speakers such as Still are proving effective at rallying groups around the state, including the Western Slope. Belatedly, regulators moved to relax some rules, including writing into the rules a specific exemption for Las Animas County on new wildlife controls the county considered unnecessary. But now other energy basins are pressing for concessions of their own. Meanwhile, the industry has launched a well-funded statewide advertising campaign to press its case. More recently, the Bureau of Land Management sent notice that, under federal law, the rules will not apply to federal lands. The BLM also noted no problems while working under the state's old system. Right now, the Oil and Gas Commission is still scheduled to adopt a set of rules in August but it's likely that the process will undergo review when the Legislature convenes in January. Even one of the main legislative sponsors of the state's effort, state Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, says she may introduce a new bill to rein in the new rules...
Drilling applications could require aerial photos, detailed topographic maps, access road plans, vegetation and wildlife analysis and a number of mitigation plans, among other documents. The Division of Wildlife would receive new powers to intervene on drilling plans, including the right to potentially call for a 90-day halt to drilling activity in certain energy basins if deemed in the best interest of the breeding and birthing habits of wildlife. Regulators now say they envision the rule seldom coming into play; the industry isn't yet buying the claim. Adjacent landowners would get a bigger say in the permitting process. Regulators shelved an idea of allowing landowners to object outright, but they left in a rule that requires drillers to certify the landowners are notified of the permit process, an invitation for them to find other ways to press their concerns. Another rule calls for a study of methane gas in coal outcrops, or "seeps," including seeps on other people's property, Still says. "What is the problem they want addressed? Have they looked at the economic impact? And how do we gain access to private land?" he asks. Another rule could require drillers to re-inject any water discharges back into the ground rather than to continue using water to stock wildlife and livestock ponds, as many ranchers and wildlife enthusiasts prefer, the industry says. A detailed study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Association reports that few of the new rules are in place in other Western states, including Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, California and one Midwest state surveyed, North Dakota.
New West: "The annual Western Governor's Association meeting kicked off in Jackson Hole Sunday, with the initial discussions focussed on how to protect wildlife amidst the oil-and-gas drilling boom. The Denver Post reports that the governors created a Western Wildlife Council to work on habitat and wildlife corridor issues."
"2008 pres"
5:10:11 PM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2009 John Orr.
Last update: 3/15/09; 2:34:32 PM.
|
|
|
