June 09, 2008

End the Oil Shale Moratorium!

Toying with the energy companies, in Fortune magazine:

Salazar's efforts [U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo.] have essentially pulled the rug out from under Shell (RDSA) and other oil companies which have invested many, many millions into oil shale research since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which established the original framework for commercial leasing of oil shale lands. (Last year, oil shale represented Shell's single biggest R&D expenditure.)

Salazar says he's simply trying to slow things down in order to ensure environmental considerations don't get trampled in the rush to turn western Colorado into a new Prudhoe Bay. But, ironically, his bid to extend the moratorium comes at a time when his fellow Senate Democrats have been blasting Big Oil for not reinvesting enough of their profits into developing new sources of energy.

It's hard not to see all the obstructionism regarding energy development as a sort of Marie Antoinette approach to fuel transitioning: we should force conservation, force biofuels, force diesel. And we should do it on the backs of the poor and the middle class.

After all, if someone can't afford a Prius: well, fuck 'em. And, by the way: those who are suffering from the dictatorships and authoritarian governments propped up by American fuel dollars? Fuck them, too.

More:

Fortune: Why do you consider developing oil shale such a high priority?

Sen. Hatch: We have as much oil in oil shale in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado as the rest of the world's oil combined. Liberals and environmentalists can talk all they want about wind, solar and geothermal - all of which I'm for - but last time I checked, planes, trains, trucks, ships and cars don't run on electricity. 98% of transportation fuel right now is oil. Ethanol is the only real alternative, and we're seeing that ethanol has major limitations.

It's pathetic. Environmentalists are very happy having us dependent on foreign oil. They're unhappy with us developing our own. What they forget to say is that shipping fuel all the way from the middle east has a big greenhouse gas footprint too.

Fortune: Any hope of changing Sen. Salazar's mind? After all, he says he's not opposed to oil shale production in principle.

Sen. Allard: His mind seems pretty set. His argument is, if we delay this, it gives us an opportunity to phase it in gradually. But he's got it turned around. We need the rules and regulations in place first. When the oil companies go to bid on their leases, they need have some idea what their royalties might be and what their remediation requirements might be [for restoring the land at spent drilling sites].

Fortune: Have you talked to Shell about this?

Sen. Allard: We have, and they've indicated a great deal of frustration. They've put it this way: Look, we can't continue to invest millions and millions of dollars in this kind of research without seeing some light at the end of the tunnel.

Fortune: Sen. Salazar insists he just wants to take things more slowly.

Sen. Hatch: Sen. Salazar and the Colorado governor [Democrat Bill Ritter] say they don't want it to happen too fast. Well, the existing law that I sponsored [which became part of the 2005 energy act] makes it abundantly clear that each governor gets to decide how quickly developments should move forward in their respective states. [Salazar and Ritter] know that. What they're really doing is making sure that the governor of Utah and the governor of Wyoming never get to make that decision for themselves.

No blood for oil. No sweat and tears, either.


Via Insty.

Posted by: Attila Girl at 09:38 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 587 words, total size 4 kb.

1 "Like a rock."

Posted by: Attila Girl at June 09, 2008 02:28 PM (1q/ac)

2 I hope McCain has the stones to bring up the Democrats' obstructionism when he starts talking about why oil prices are so high and why we are forced to pay them. If what Hatch says is true, we should be able to be 100% independent from foreign oil. Doesn't make the problem go away entirely (our trading partners will still be affected) but it stops it from killing our economy.

Posted by: jvon at June 09, 2008 04:35 PM (9S8s+)

3 Bush's fault (TM).

Posted by: Sissy Willis at June 09, 2008 04:44 PM (cdtTx)

4 I'm not surprized politicians want to go slow on new oil development, they are willing to wait decades for an alternative fuel. Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him?

Posted by: william at June 10, 2008 06:10 AM (emgKi)

5 the dems are not for the downtrodden and poor. they are for the radical environmentalists -- they would all have us drive rock cars from the flintstones. thats another reason we have this energy crisis. joy terrific post.

Posted by: zoey at June 10, 2008 07:54 AM (oNP5F)

6 The concept is very simple. Liberals vote large public expenditures for environmental projects. These monies are transfered to groups that then contribute large amounts and spend larger amounts to elect lefties. It's sort of like public financing, but only for one side and without any accountability.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at June 10, 2008 10:03 AM (uT2/F)

7 Joy, great companion piece to the post I just put up. When the dhimmis start getting 1,000's of emails and faxes and the phone lines melt, maybe they'll get the mesage. Unfortunately, as long as Nancy Lugosi and Maxine (this liberal will socialize..er...um..take over the oil companies) Waters are in charge, don't expect any major changes. BTW You're linked back to UCV. Good on ya, Lady!!!

Posted by: concretebob at June 10, 2008 10:40 AM (1WvXw)

8 Forget Guy Fawkes, where is Charlotte Corday (more specifically, Marie-Anne Charlotte Corday d'Armont)??? Pity more people don't know who she was. Pity more women don't honor one of their greatest heroes. Pity women let the Left to continually crap on her, ala Gore Vidal's comparison with Monica Lewinsky. Even when her head was separated from her body, she was able to show these louts the might of her righteous indignation.

Posted by: Darrell at June 10, 2008 12:08 PM (5deUr)

9 How can you discuss massive oil shale development without once considering the carbon footprint of the new industry nor the impact on Colorado River Basin water that is already in long term deficit? The oil shale resource may be massive but is incredibilely dilute - much more so than the tar sands in Alberta and look at the environmental havoc their utilization is causing. Salazar is right!

Posted by: TedN5 at June 13, 2008 07:56 AM (9528e)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
30kb generated in CPU 0.546, elapsed 2.4998 seconds.
209 queries taking 2.3224 seconds, 466 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.