Sentinel: Mark Udall "a Johnny-come-lately" on Comprehensive Energy Solutions

I won't say the editors of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel have followed the lead of this blog's writers, but it's safe to say they've studied many of the same materials and come to a similar conclusion. From their editorial yesterday (you really ought to read the whole thing):

[Mark] Udall is a Johnny-come-lately to the we-have-to-do-everything-we-can solution to the nation’s energy woes. Of course, he really doesn’t mean everything, and some of what he wants to do is nothing more than silly ideas designed to do nothing other than generate votes for his Senate race.

Couldn't have said it any better ourselves. For just a few recent examples:
- Mark Udall: "Shifting Sand"
- Nailing Down Mark Udall's Shifting, Cuban-Centered "Comprehensive" Energy Policy
- Mark Udall Still Says "Heck No" to Offshore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Solution
- If Mark Udall Has Changed His Mind About Drilling, then What About ANWR?

Mark Udall Still Says "Heck No" to Oil Shale as Part of Comprehensive Energy Solution

Boulder liberal Mark Udall continues to put ideology over comprehensive energy solutions that could benefit Coloradans. The Glenwood Springs Post-Independent reports that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has worked on new regulations to open up oil shale leasing in western Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. But Udall wants to fight to keep the oil shale leasing ban in place, no matter what the BLM says:

Republicans have targeted U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, for criticism because of their support of a measure that prohibits the BLM from issuing final oil shale leasing regulations.

That ban is set to expire at the end of September, but Udall has said he is going to work to keep it in place. That position has drawn criticism from Bob Schaffer, a former congressman from Fort Collins, who is running against Udall in their battle to replace U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo.

Oil shale isn't the panacea, and its benefits in energy supply can't be fully reaped right away. But there are 800 billion barrels of oil there, making it a significant part of a long-term solution for American energy independence.

Even so, Mark Udall is working to prevent any reasonable process from even starting. Udall is saying "No way" to oil shale, while also blockading efforts to open up ANWR and latching desperately onto the Gang of 10's restrictive plans on offshore drilling.

No wonder Environment America - a major lobbying group that opposes any drilling - has judged Mark Udall's U-turn on energy production insincere. When it gets down to it, Udall's shift toward the center has left him far from supporting a truly comprehensive energy solution. Mark Udall is trying to buy votes from middle-of-the-road, independent voters who want more drilling. To do so, Udall is supporting the least possible drilling that he thinks he absolutely has to support in order to appear that he's on the same side of the issue.

In other words, Mark Udall has gone from "The only place he wants to drill is your wallet" to "The only places he wants to drill are your wallet and off the coasts of four states that don't include the most promising areas for energy development." It doesn't fit on a bumper sticker anymore, but it still doesn't help struggling Colorado families. And it doesn't look much better for the Boulder liberal Congressman.

Schaffer v Udall Debate--Update, Quick First Impressions

**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos/video posted later).

Quick takeaways and initial impressions--Schaffer clearly had the upper hand in the debate when it came to vociferous support (the Udall side was not full), a command of the issues and the details involved in policy, and in overall demeanor. Udall's answers were forced when they weren't simply regurgitations of campaign talking points, and his rebuttals routinely eschewed marked policy differences, and instead focused on rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and the notion that "we are all Coloradans, all Americans." Udall certainly didn't appear to be comfortable in his own skin appearing before the cameras and a somewhat more open style of Q&A, with questions drawn from email submissions to 9NEWS' Adam Schrager, who moderated the debate. Schaffer was on offense from the opening remarks, with Udall trying (and failing, miserably) to play catch-up.

As for the supporters themselves (and this will be revealed in the photos and video), Schaffer's proponents were motivated and loud--"fired up and ready to go." Udall's troops showed up much later, had very little presence inside the complex or on the street, and demonstrated a lack of coordination/organization and reflected poorly on a candidate up by 10 points in the latest polls. It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays the debate today--one that favored Schaffer in all meaningful aspects and really exposed Udall as a mediocre debater and Washington insider who would rather cater to special interests and promote delays and politicking with hashed reasoning (health care is a national security issue, ya know!) rather than dealing with issues head on.

Looking forward to the next debates, Udall faces quite a challenge. The format certainly favored Schaffer, and may be one of the reasons that the Udall campaign refused to sign on to Schaffer's debate series. It is clear Udall would prefer the closed-set, no-crowd debate format with canned questions from the host. To his credit Schrager ably kept the candidates in line and on topic, and dealt with unruly Udall supporters by threatening to halt the proceedings.

RMN:

Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.

Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.

The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.

Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."

Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."

Oil Shale: Mark Udall's Obstructionism vs. Bob Schaffer's Comprehensive Approach

Sunday's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel features dueling columns between U.S. Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall on the issue of energy production and the potential of western Colorado oil shale, in particular. A careful look at the two articles highlights a vital contrast

Mark Udall's piece is full of warnings about irresponsible oil shale development, but leaves only the vaguest of hints of what he thinks needs to be done in moving forward.

In one place, Mark Udall writes:

Put plain and simple: We still don’t really know how to develop oil shale in a way that makes economic sense and in a way that protects scarce water resources.

And if we don’t want to send the Western Slope into another economic crash, we’d better figure that out before we try to kick-start another crash program.

Classic doublespeak. It will be harder for oil shale extraction to make "economic sense" when environmental interests, to whom Mark Udall is beholden, press for additional unreasonable regulations that will make the already challenging process costlier. Udall also has advocated a one-year moratorium on oil shale recovery.

The fact that Mark Udall neglected to mention Royal Dutch Shell's Mahogany Ridge Project may speak louder than anything he actually wrote:

But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the
oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to the point where the oil leaches from the rock.

Recognizing this reality and others,
Bob Schaffer's piece is full of faith in American ingenuity. His approach to energy policy is comprehensive:

We should offer more incentives to grow a more robust renewable energy sector. We should hold out incentives for unconventional technologies such as oil-shale, oil sands and others. We should expand other clean-energy opportunities such as nuclear and geothermal.

Bob Schaffer's strategy for oil shale is reasonable and balanced. Among other things, he recognizes that energy companies have made dramatic technological advancements in oil shale extraction that respect the environment.

As MSNBC has reported, even Democrat Governor Bill Ritter has spoken out clearly about the promised benefits of oil shale extraction: "If we go forward with oil shale, it could be the biggest commercial development in the history of the state of Colorado."

Despite using the rhetoric of responsibility, Mark Udall's energy obstructionism represents irresponsible behavior. Bob Schaffer's plan respects the environment but gives incentive to speed a process that can give a huge boost to America's energy supply and a major boon to Colorado's economy.

Mark Udall Winning on Internet Ads, But Obstructing Energy Solutions for Colorado

Long weekend, slow political news cycle. Lynn Bartels at the Rocky Mountain News writes about how Democrat Mark Udall's campaign is absolutely cleaning up on the Internet advertising front:

Udall's campaign has turned to the Internet for an advertising blitz that puts the candidate's face on more than 250 Web sites. Browsers who click on Udall's ads are sent to his campaign Web site, which recently received rave reviews from a blog that grades such sites.

"We hear people say they see Mark's ad in lots of places," said Taylor West, Udall's campaign spokesperson.

Heck, I'm surprised Mark Udall hasn't bought ad space on this site. (It's a joke. Ha.)

And Taylor West was replaced as official campaign spokesperson weeks ago. How long has this story been in the can?

Mike Saccone at the Grand Junction Sentinel also reports that Mark Udall is winning the not-yet-meaningful Facebook rivalry.

Meanwhile, the issue of rising gasoline prices raises the profile on oil shale extraction in Colorado. But Mark Udall stands in the way of energy relief. Smaller newspapers get the importance of the issue (H/T Coyote Gulch). The technology is there to do this far more cleanly than in the past.

Hopefully the discussion of campaign Internet advertising will give way soon to substantive campaign issues, like Mark Udall's obstruction of sensible energy solutions that would benefit consumers.

Mark Udall Obstructing Reasonable Solutions to Skyrocketing Gas Prices

Gas prices in the Denver area are hitting new records again. Meanwhile, syndicated columnist William Hamilton, in mountain Granby's Sky-Hi News, lays out our nation's current energy problems and where our policies have gone wrong:

In December 2007, Congress adopted the Rep. Mark Udall Amendment to prohibit oil-shale development. As recently as May 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to overturn the Udall Moratorium. Obviously, Congress still doesn’t get it.

Meanwhile, the Law of Unintended Consequences remains in effect. Attempts to legislate against brand-name Big Oil will negatively impact the no-name Little Oil companies that develop 90-percent of our domestic oil and gas wells. Little Oil produces 68-percent of our domestic oil and 82-percent of our natural gas. Oil wells cost between $1.5 million to $3.5 million to drill. Most of the time, no recoverable oil is found.

Because corporations do not pay taxes (the consumer does), mandating an excess profits tax on our domestic oil corporations just means we pay more at the pump — albeit a highly efficient way for Uncle Sam to take in more cash.

If Congress wants to be constructive, it could rid us of the oil futures speculators. That would have an immediate downward impact on gasoline and diesel prices.
But the long-term solution to our energy needs rests on the fundamentals of: increasing supply, reducing demand and on a fundamental belief that American ingenuity will, someday, invent a fossil-fuel alternative. [emphasis added]

Hamilton correctly identifies Mark Udall as a leading force obstructing our nation's efforts at reasonable energy independence. While it's a major factor, it's more than just because the oil-shale exploration moratorium bears his name.

Mark Udall also is actively trying to "punish the innocent" in his confused populist crusade to raise windfall profits taxes, sure to hurt consumers.

A watcher concisely explains how Mark Udall's green ideology could well push him out of favor with independent voters:

The ugly truth is that four dollar a gallon gas, going to seven dollar gas is a deal breaker. Mark Udall's politics are too idealistic. He wants the public to go from an economy of plenty to an economy of poverty. That might be possible over a long period of time. It is not possible over a small number of years.

Sensible people like Hamilton place a premium on "American ingenuity" to develop affordable and usable alternative energy, but also recognize it takes time and that government fiat will only make getting there harder.Unlike Mark Udall, Hamilton understands basic natural market forces and the need to increase oil supplies as part of the intermediate solution.

Hamilton says that "Congress doesn't get it." But I think he's being too generous - at least in the case of Mark Udall. Udall and Nancy Pelosi are glad to see gas prices skyrocket at consumers' expense to muscle through a costly, restrictive, and economically harmful green agenda. Seven bucks a gallon, anyone?

Another Inconsistent Mark Udall Comment

Now that 2008 is two months old, Mark Udall is running from the anti-fossil fuels energy record that he has fought so hard to make since he entered public life.

The Stirling Journal-Advocate reports that Mark Udall said:

“For me, all paths lead to and from energy,” he said Thursday.

He said that while the U.S. needs to explore and develop alternative energy sources, we cannot completely walk away from fossil fuels.

It was just last year that Mark Udall fought as though his political life depended on it against drilling on the Roan Plateau. He would very likely still hold that position if Bill Ritter hadn't seen the pot of tax gold at the end of that rainbow. When Bill Ritter folded on the issue, Mark Udall couldn't do an about face quickly enough.

We would guess that this statement means that Mark Udall now supports development of ANWR oil, or does it? Mark Udall now is willing to promote oil shale development in Western Colorado, right?

In all of Mark Udall's long career, this is the only statement that we know of that even remotely supports US oil and gas oil development and use. Yes, he is willing to allow offshore drilling, but only off the Cuban coast.

Not long ago, Mark Udall dropped a similar comment about nuclear power which he has never before supported. He didn't follow up on it with legislation or a strong advocacy of nuclear power, he just uttered the word so that he could claim both sides of this issue.

We suspect that that is what he is doing here.

We are putting both of these comments under the tag "Udall as a Liar."

Randy Isn't Running but...

Randy Udall, brother of Mark, has, as we mentioned yesterday, written a several page essay full of photos and graphs explaining why oil companies like Shell shouldn't be willing to spend billions to figure out how to get oil out of oil shale.

His arguments make no sense and are inconsistent, even within his own paper. Some of them are lies. If he turned that paper into a reasonably discerning English professor, he would be lucky to land a D. A philosophy professor would flunk him. He would get an A+++ from a movement professor.

The subject is too large to cover here, so we have put part I on The Colorado Index. We called it "We Decided It's In The DNA." Lying, that is, seems to be a family trait in the Mark Udall family.

Anti-Energy Busy Body

The Salt Lake Tribune has a "progressive" article on Mark Udall's ongoing efforts to ensure that no drilling for gas or oil occurs anywhere in the United States.

Efforts to protect the Roan Plateau are part of a broader movement across the West against the relentless ''drill everywhere, no matter what the cost'' attitude in Washington.

Meanwhile, KJCT is reporting on Udall's amendment to restrict oil shale funds.

The US House has approved prohibiting the use of federal funds to move forward on plans for commercial-scale development of oil shale. The amendment by Colorado Congressman Mark Udall was added to the 2008 Interior Department appropriations bill.

It would prohibit spending federal funds to prepare final regulations on oil shale development or to conduct commercial oil shale lease sales.