Friday, August 8, 2008

Bob Schaffer Campaign Exposes Duplicity in Mark Udall's Energy Policy

The Bob Schaffer campaign has contrasted Boulder liberal Mark Udall's energy policy rhetoric with his energy policy record - including a remarkable 15 Congressional votes against offshore drilling, 8 of them within the past 2 years. Ouch! Further proof of we already knew, namely that Udall is out of touch on energy policy.


Curious Stranger said...

You mean the offshore drilling that by the Bush Administrations own accounting won't have any impact on supply for 10 years or so, and even 20 years out will only provide a 7% boost in supply and a negligible impact on prices?

"The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

Yes, that sounds like the wagon we should hitch our team to.

I'll stick with the team that believes in science and numbers and can see that this is a dead end land grab by the oil companies which provides the American public with nothing but gas-bill-by-subsidy from the oil companies.

Amos_thePokerCat said...

Bla, bla, bla. One throw away 5 year old annual report written by career apparatchiks should not be used as the sole determent of a national energy policy.

The delay is not 10 years across the board. ANWR would be only a year or two. California would only be a couple of months. That is because there is already existing infrastructure there. Offshore Virgina, would take much longer because there is no infrastructure.

Obviously, if we had planned in advance, and vote for additional drilling 5 years ago, alot of it would be in production now.

Oh, science and numbers, you mean you will not be voting for the New Age Enviro religious left Udall?

Curious Stranger said...

I know research is hard, especially for those prone to disbelieve numbers and facts and science and such, but that report is a year old, not 5 years old. And according to it, OCS drilling (and that includes California and Virginia) will have no significant impact on supply or prices before 2030.

As for ANWR, based on DOE reports from earlier this year and using their most optimistic projections, production couldn't begin until 2018, would peak in 2028 and will not have a large impact on prices - $1.44 2006 dollars a barrel in 2027, and according to the DOE, OPEC could easily neutralize that by reducing its own exports.

I'm interested to hear what should "be used as the sole determent [amusing sic, determent - "To prevent or discourage from acting, as by means of fear or doubt"] of a national energy policy", if not impartial government research. Or is the combination of "government" and "research" so antithetical to your anarcho-republican tendencies that you can't accept anything not produced by Industry?

If you have other actual numbers from an impartial source, I'd be happy to consider them. Until then I'll stick with science and an energy future that doesn't lead us to a dead-end.

Ben DeGrow said...

Mark Udall didn't get the memo:

Amos_thePokerCat said...

If you would bother to look at the data at the top of the page referenced by the link you provided you would see that "Table 10" is based on data from 5 years ago.

As far as you considering any data I provide, I seriously doubt that you would. You have clearly made up your mind, I there is nothing I can do not change it.

You have swallowed hook, line and sinker, that Mathusian static model, much beloved by the loony left, of life, the Universe, and everything. I take the optimistic dynamic Free Market point of view that entrepreneurial forces left unthwarted by short sighted regualtion, and the self serving picking winners by beaurcrats will provide the solutions, like it always has.

Projections based on backward looking estimates has given us the "Coming Ice Age" of the 70's, and, of course, the "Global Warming" hysteria, and now the current all encompassing fad of climate change. Since these predictions are not good enough to get even the direction right, let alone the magnitude. That maybe numbers but it is not science, unless you think Fortune Telling is science.