U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 27, 2007 01:05 AM UTC
137 Comments
and muffle the wailing sounds….
and you have to live there with all the pretty oil riggs ontop of the moutains. If this passes, I sure hope your real estate value doesn’t dip too low.
I just sold my house in Grand Junction for almost DOUBLE what I paid for it 6 years ago. Amazing considering that I have to look at oil and gas rigs once in a while on my way to Denver.
Give me a break with your rhetoric!
Ralphie outed you Penry loving oil&gas shrills at the bottom, so I thought I would bring it up top to share with all.
http://coloradopols….
but if it did, maybe the new mill levy freeze wouldn’t affect me so much. Always look for the silver lining Go Blue, no matter how hard it seems:)
To contrast:
Ritter, Udall and both Salazars sit back and say: don’t lease the Roan — all while supporting plans to raise taxes through the mill levy freeze. You don’t need someone like Dick Wadhams to make the case that the GOP (via White and Penry) are proposing common sense, pro-multiple use plans that do NOT raise taxes while the D’s sit around at cocktail parties dreaming up freezes on mill levys that wind up taxing the shit out of the middle class.
What a no brainer for 08.
point-it is not multi use’ you can make the point that drilling is good for the state, but the smell is destroying tourism, and could beharming human and livestock health.
queston-do you support a general change in the severanve fees?
I live and work in Mesa and Garfield counties and I have no idea what smell you’re referring to. Do you mean the smell of increased sales taxes in every municipality in these counties? Do you mean the smell of small businesses flourishing? It’s hyperbole. Plain and simple. Don’t believe the hype.
I love the smell of benzene and tolune in the morning, smells like money.
For all of the grand exaggerations of the grand valley citizens alliance and the rest of the black helicopter crowd — i’ve still never smelled it. Do you truly believe that the most regulated industry in our state is doing things in secret once the sun goes down? I’d suggest ejecting the “A Civil Action” VHS tape from your VCR. I’d agree that John Travolta is good in that movie but trying to force a correlary just doesn’t work in this case.
Real estate values are soaring, businesses are thriving, and schools and municipalities are benefitting greatly from severance taxes. Are some citizens heavily impacted by the drilling from noise, dust, and increased traffic? Yes they are and I am sympathetic to them. But people who own mineral rights have the right to extract and the government has the right to lease public lands and benefit from the taxes.
I’d love to see stats that prove the economy is suffering in Garco or Mesa, because it sure isn’t evident.
It doesn’t take an economist to tell you an economy doesn’t suffer during the BOOM portion…it is the BUST that gets it. Look at how high housing values were in the early 80s in the region.
My concern is that a lot of the city and county governments will not spend their revenues wisely and then be hung out to dry. Or, some such as Rifle will try to spend their money on economic diversification and development plans only to realize they are in a complete bind due to the demands of the energy industry. Many govt.s have the money–actually oodles of money–but you can not buy long-term economic development during an energy boom. I could ramble about the consequences for quite awhile.
Also, mineral rights owners must make a good faith effort to arrive at terms with the landowners. This has been thrown to the wayside because bonding on is so incredibly cheap (you’re getting the bond at a 1960 price).
HERE IS MY FINAL ANSWER:
http://www.youtube.c…
TURN UP THE VOLUME~
Basically if Ritter says no to $1 Billion in revenue for Higher Ed he is going to have a hell of a time asking for higher taxes when Penry and White are handing the money to him on a Roan Plateau Platter.
Say…..my son and I have been hauling water on transport, private fee lands on the Roan for a couple years, and I must not be seeing the same mountain as you all!!!! We’ve been drilling up there for two years now and I have yet to see what is so great or different about it! I understand first hand why Clinton wanted it drilled!!
Every governor is essentially the same…they promise a lot to the residents upset about the O&G issue but then once elected they don’t and can’t do much. I mentioned this when everyone was saying Ritter was the savior for the West slope. Look at Montana, Wyoming, and New Mexico…all have Democrat governors.
What a striking contrast. We have to members of congress engaging in unprecedented tomfoolery in DC while two members of the Colorado General Assembly accept reality and work to put forward real solutions — not partisan parlimentary games. It also strikes me that White and Penry represent areas in Colorado that are actually being impacted — and will be impacted — by current and future oil and gas development. Translation: Udall should stick to what he’s good at. Keep renaming post offices and climbing mountains. Let the real leaders in Colorado do the heavy lifting.
Is this plan from the same people who approved drilling on that old nuclear bomb site?
Actually if they pay enough to the state this faustian bargain just might work for the state.
Although I worry about the health of people in garfield county, will the energy companies help them?
that the valley smells like money.
I believe it’s Bernie Buescher’s bull shit that lingers over this valley. Peeeeheeew!
There it is, you lose the argument and begin your repulsive republican attacks.
Grow up.
sure did jump on this quick.
Penry and White are willing to side with Big & Oil at the expense of our state. This “get rich quick scheme” is bad for the Roan, bad for the Western Slope and just all around bad for Colorado.
It will cost Colorado, not only an unprecendented amount of environmental damage, and will increase the amount of carbon dioxide pollution into our air by 80 times!
It will cost Coloradans three times the amount of electricity we currently use, and twice as much water that the city of Denver consumes.
And I quote, this will all “create enough pollution to roll back years of air quality gains and inject massive amounts of global warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
And in the name of corporate profits. Thanks for the grand idea Penry! You’re a leader… for the oil companies.
The rhetoric you were so quick to espouse is actually CEC’s bullshit about oil shale development. I think the Penry/White plan is primarily about natural gas leasing. Kudos to you for being quick to copy and paste, though.
If you’re going to pick and choose and which facts to “believe” then your not informed enough to make any decision on this.
Several analysis have come forward pointing that the $1billion figure Penry and White refer to is inflated, and the state would actualy recieve half of what they say would windfall into state funding. While their “claim” (without any accurate data) may be true, it’s funny to see that they already have a plan to spend all the money (just like a liberal!).
However, what I disagree with is allowing private interests to move in, rape the land (I wonder if Caldara minds that I use his rhetoric), and leave us with the check to clean up afterwards. Or here’s a better analogy, the prostitutization of the western slope by the oil & gas industry is shameless.
I qouted an article above, which gave state, and I did not copy and pasting anyone’s taling points. Your hollow arguments are not amusing, nor informative, but rather as you put it “you’re qucik to espouse such bullshit” to protect the Oil & Gas industry.
“unprecedented tomfoolery in DC”?
“work to put forward real solutions — not partisan parlimentary games”?
“the real leaders in Colorado”?
Who talks like that?
You work for Penry, don’t you? I see you just came today to post about this subject.
Per Usual
Leave it to Penry to come up with a proposal that is actually practical, meaningful and utilizes our resources in a way that most benefits our state.
While politicians like Salazar and Udall placate to their Sierra Club base, “Practical Penry” joins with “White the Wise” (well sometimes wise) to actually get something done.
I am sure the Grand Junction paper, that is unfriendly to Energy in general, will let him have it as the Roan is Cox Corporate hunting grounds, but the rest of the statewide media will see the sensibility in such an out-of the-box proposal that will benefit so many of Colorado’s residents.
The Roan will be to Colorado what the pipeline is to Alaska -a slush fund for public good.
Josh started this type of thinking by helping Palisade with their highway signs his first term and the out-of-the box ideas continue to flow.
Thanks Josh Penry and Al White
It’s another Penry get-rich-quick scheme.
At the expense of Western Colorado.
Good goin’ Josh. Explain THAT one to your constituents.
Ok. Here is how Sen. Penry can expalain this idea to his consituents:
SURVEY IN MESA COUNTY –Which best describes you as a Mesa County resident?
A. Dont Drill! I really care about a mountain few people have ever been on, covered with sage brush, criss-crossed with roads and private inholdings, not to mention miserable access, and finally, where drilling has occured starting about 100 years ago. In addition count me in for locking off the most valuable gas deposit in the lower 48 so that the Sierra Club can raise more money! And finaly, I really think that thousands of Sierra Club folks who commented on the Roan, but who have never been up there, should have final say.
or…
B. I would prefer to see $1 Billion dollars worth of parks, trails, green schools, emergency Services, teacher’s salaries, state park improvments and funding for Ritters new social programs, that are a huge value to the homeless and disadvantaged, in addition, to seeing a resource brought to market that keeps Ralphie’s pilot light going year round.
Or, C
I have never heard of the Roan Plateau and dont care…
Survey Says:
A. 5%
B. 20%
C. 75%
I think Sen. Penry knows his consituents and what is REALLY important to their families: Schools, parks, jobs, healthcare and things that actually matter in their lives. The grandstanding of Mark Udall and John Salazar is not something they care about.
LOL!
IT seems so UNLIKE ralphie to misread the west slope. Where is his buddy Bernie on this issue? Suspiciously mum if you ask me…must be too busy running for speaker in Denver.
Wow, you really degrage yourself each time with these hollow attacks. If you would read the paper once in awhile you would see exactly where Bernie stands on this right now. He’s been just as vocal on the drilling as White and Penry.
But, you really could care less about the facts.
AGREED
Are the people of Colorado more likely to be exited that Penry stopped energy development or saved a child’s education?
Are the people of Colorado more likely to be exited about the completion of T-Rex, or the preservation of Raphie’s nature hike?
Are the people of Colorado more likely to visit the a high desert north of Rifle or visit a state park improved by the revenues generated by White’s plan.
What are the chances Ralphie and Go Blue will visit the Roan this year compared with the chances of them benefiting from the millions that will come to their communities through energy impact grants?
Wasn’t it guys like Bernie Buescher traveling the state a couple of years ago telling us that we needed to pass Ref C in order to avoid having to raise state parks fees and such? Now, the state is flush with cash and what does the JBC do? Raise state parks fees. With swindlers at the helm (like Bernie and Ritter) I am glad that there’s a voice in the wilderness like Josh and Al advocating for our future…not just cheap, quick political points.
Who would have thunk it was so easy
No, he’s going to kill public education with the help of Spence and other privateers. The money he proposes would go into a trust, to be delegated out, in which case Penry would try and send all of it to private schools, while once again screwing over the public schools and poor students who need it.
And Penry doesn’t hunt.
He’s creating a new national sacrifice zone for his constituents. He needs oil and gas money for his congressional run. He’s carrying water for the oil and gas industry by fabricating numbers about how much money ruining the Roan will be worth.
Before I let Josh frame the argument, however, this is all funny money. It’s one guy’s bullshit study vs. another’s. Let’s see the money.
Don’t worry, if this proposal falls flat on its face, he’ll spend the same money a different way next year. It’s what he does.
To Josh’s credit, however, he did do his homework. He got all his trolls out ahead of time to attack the messenger rather than discuss the facts.
Come on. When’s the last time you drove up Piceance Creek Road, Ralphie? You have absolutely no idea what’s going on outside of your ivory bubble in orchard mesa. Do you think that the oil and gas industry is happy with Sen. Penry after his bipartisan negotiation on the bill to reform the oil and gas commission?! You are so lost and confused if you think they are now (or are going to be) showering him with money for anything.
As for the “show me the money” argument, that’s exactly what the BLM is trying to do — but they have to wait for Udall and Salazar to go through their pointless political stunt before they can proceed with implementing their ROD on the Roan Plateau.
Ralphie raises one good point and that is questioning the assumptions about the total amount of money Sen. Penry and Rep. White state will flow into state coffers from the Roan drilling. In the past, severance tax revenues have been notoriously unpredictable for oil and gas and hard rock minerals. They have varied greatly from year to year. I do not question Sen. Penry’s or Rep. White’s good faith when they put forth their revenue numbers but based on past history, the General Assembly should not assume it will work out this way. In short, the revenue projections need to be thoroughly studied before the state bets the future of higher education on this proposal.
Another practical consideration is whether there is as much natural gas buried in the Roan as projected. In a previous life, I worked for the exploration and production division of a major oil company here in Denver. The technology has improved to explore and predict where oil and gas may be found but again, as a cautionary note, we should not bet the future of higher education on just the potential in the Roan.
The final point is the fact this proposal as alluring and fiscally important as it is does not solve the short term or long term fiscal and budget policy problems that face Colorado because of TABOR. For example, assume for purposes of discussion that Sen. Penry’s and Rep. White’s revenue predictions are correct and then assume the economy enters a recession. With the ratchet down effect of TABOR, we will still have to cut the state budget, especially higher education and transportation, regardles of whether the Roan money is flowing into the state treasury. I don’t know if Sen. Penry’s and Rep. White’s proposal has considered the implications of TABOR but it should. If it is going to be exempt from TABOR then it will require a vote of the public.
Another TABOR issue is whether the Roan revenues will be subject to the TABOR annual budget increase restriction. If it is much of the money won’t be available for the budget and this won’t be the item to increase funding for higher education that its proponents say it will be. Again, they may have taken this into consideraiton but if they haven’t they need to. TABOR can and is a real drag on even potentially good ideas like this one.
This was discussed during the first interim committee meeting about sev/FML revenue. If the increased revenue goes into a trust would it still be subject to TABOR?
Regarding the money, the severance taxes and fed mineral lease funding streams would go up significantly if we drilled on the Roan in earnest. The initial bonus payments are, from what I heard, $40,000/acre vs a few dollars/acre outside the Roan. However, I’ve also heard that gas wells reach peak capacity in around two years and then they’re output consistently decreases. Some argue we have already reached the peak for natural gas output in Colorado. There is no great way to accurately predict how much money we’ll see from increased Roan drilling.
I’m very hesitant to tie anything except local impacts to the energy money. It is a fact that once it is no longer profitable for the industry to drill, they’ll cap the wells and wait, while Colorado’s revenue goes down. Why would anyone want to tie a volatile funding stream such as this to education – it is shortsighted.
Personally, I’m a bit surprised that Al White jumped in on this. He knows the TABOR issues better than most (being on the JBC). He must be running for Senate or something 🙂
Penry is just thinking of those campaign checks from Big Oil. I can’t believe he would sell out the western slope like this. This may be the worst idea out of Penry thus far. His “rising-star” status may just come crashing down. I wonder if Club 20 members are going to shun Penry for this “get rich quick”?
If you took a minute to look at Club 20’s website, you’d understand that they are fully supportive of the BLM’s plan for the Roan Plateau. Why in the hell would they shun Penry for putting forward a plan that will wind up benefiting their communities (50% of the money going directly to impacted communities — not to mention the impact the other 50% will have on Mesa State, Western State and Ft. Lewis).
To answer your question, no. Club 20 will most likely heap praise on Penry and White for this plan.
No, the chair supports it. That doesn’t mean the members of club 20 support. The overwhelming majority of members (some that Ive talked to last night) are against it.
Get a clue.
Also new today and also here to talk about this one issue.
The money had better go a long ways…if the region is going to void any and all tourism and hunting that once was prevalent in the region for a one-time allotment of cash and a permanent change in their way of life. Oh wait, silly me! Everyone loves to go check out drilling rigs! Their lights at night are beautiful.
The one percent plan wouldn’t be so horrendous if I actually thought the BLM and the rest of the industry would abide by it. Also, if the whole base of the plateau wasn’t already being extensively drilled.
However, I must say I support Penry and anyone else who is thinking of ways to strictly set this money aside from pet projects because the approval of the actual drilling is not in the state’s hands. Our legislature should be pro-active in setting aside these funds and not dipping into them if the drilling is approved.
it definetly has hurt the tourism business
$23 billion industry (oil and gas) vs. maybe $1 billion from hunting and tourism. Do the math. From my vantage point here in happy valley, I’d have to say that oil and gas is more than paying their way.
you are using statewide numbers from the lobbyists over what time period, including who knows what. I’m sure the DOW, and every tourism related industry would dispute your figures. Tourism is a much bigger industry in CO, of course skiing skews the figure, but hunting and fishing are huge industries in colorado.
I keep waiting for someone to give numbers specific to Roan Gas exploitation, the DOW haw done it for Wildlife tourism.
No, you’re wrong. Those figures aren’t from lobbyists. They’re from the Colorado School of Mines. If you dig in to the multipliers that tourism officials use to come up with their numbers, it would make you blush. What numbers do you want on the Roan?
I was going to ask you to link the studies so I could rationally analyze the data. But the attempt at a personal insult has revealed you.
sub reply does the pink reference imply that i am gay or that i am a communist? If I were going to go for an insult I would have gone with green.
We can’t have a rational discusion about energy development without good data that includes external costs.
Go a head and post a link to a study so that I can look at it in context.
Didnt you offer to provide research on the Roan? But since you insulted Danny, and he took issue with that, now you are reneging? God forbid someone provides links to provide a foundation for a discussion.
says Aspinall Dem “I created my anonymous profile today,
I can’t be misrepresenting the facts.”
At least when I talk force structure and the BRAC with a dive bar drunk, he has to look me in the eye as he tells me I’m full of it.
Data is meaningless without context.
Sarcasm.
Does anyone posting on this thread realize that there is ALREADY development on the Roan Plateau? The BLM did the right thing — the thing that Congress (and Bill CLinton) TOLD them to do. They’ve developed a plan that includes leasing — just what they SHALL do according to Congress. All of this BS about “sacrificing” western Colorado is just that – BS. We currently live with development and our economy is the better for it. I suppose if you listen to Ralphie and Go Blue we’d be much better off buying our natural gas from Vladimir Putin and GAZPROM.
THERE IS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF THE “ROAN PLATEAU”. SOMETHING THAT THE ENVIROS CHOOSE TO LEAVE OUT WHEN THEY GIVE JOHN SALAZAR AND HIS STAFFERS FROM DC FREE FLIGHTS OVERHEAD.
There has been, they put a few wells in on top and around the edges. The first one was drilled on the very edge last summer so you could see the rig from below. Ticked a lot of people off.
Asspinal, why are you so set on avoiding rational discussion? I personally wonder about the longevity of tourism and hunting in the region vs. a one-time all-out energy boom lasting 10 years. I know the way the region currently stands it can not even handle the additional men and women of oil shale development or roan drilling. The vacancy rate in Garfield, for example, hit ZERO percent last year. Man camps are the only option and those will not result in a long-run economic benefit. Slower development of the resource would be fine by me, I don’t get it.
And yes, Asspinal is ALSO right that the BLM binge on energy was begun under Clinton’s administration in ’97 or ’98.
The west slope and others want to develop a high speed rail. If started there and headed towards the ski resorts it would allow for bedroom communities to be created. From there, it would allow these communities to be lower costs areas for the aspen, vail, etc. It may make it possible to have the olympics here (finally).
I think those projections were like 6.8Bil, of course those were CDOT figures and they staunchly opposed such a rail. But anyway I dont think 1Bil would do it.
What really bothers me about a bunch of the liberal-leaning posts here (I expect better from you) is this knee jerk reaction that it must be bad.
We are going to continue being an oil-based economy tomorrow. And pretty sure about the day after too. Yes renewables and nuclear and conservation need to all be fast-tracked. But until we get there, natural gas mined in the US is money we don’t send to the middle east where a percentage makes it’s way to the terrorists.
And dedicating it to higher ed (the future) and to those impacted – strikes me as the best use of these taxes I have heard from anyone.
My suggestion, Dems need to line up behind this fast and call it a bi-partisian proposal so they at least get half the credit.
The enviro lobby has been pumping this issue up for a long time. They have a zero tolerance for any drilling and I’d be really surprised to see any Dems support any other position.
As I pointed out earlier, this plan isn’t approving the drilling. As far as I can tell without reading the text, they are saying what we will do with all the excess money IF it passes (Fed decision, not state). Rs can point to the idiot Ds and say they just want to plunder state coffers for pet projects while higher ed struggles. Gotta love the knee-jerk.
I like the idea that they are proposing. But what is needed is to add back some of the environmental rules that W. removed. In addition, hold the companies and their CEOs responsible for illegal activities. Finally, require BEST AVAILABLE tech WRT the environment vs. LOWEST COST tech. Dems can, and should, be jumping all over this. They just need to make certain that these companies are held accountable.
Hard choices need to be made. W. (as well as clinton and reagan) moved us directly and indirectly towards foreign oil. Obviously, the republicans have pushed that, But even the dems have helped. When they stop nukes and nuke technology, then we have no real choice BUT to go to oil and coal. At this time, our country is between a rock and hard spot. What is needed is for both parties to start making compremises and start working for the long term good. In particular, I am an environmentalist (in fact, that is why I became a Libertarian). But having drilling rigs on the roan is not all that bad. What is bad is that they are being done in the most destructive manor possible (read cheapest). Stop that, and then it is not a big deal. In addition, require that the company take FULL responsibility and they will not try to go around the system. Oddly enough, CEOs do not allow the cheating if THEY might go to prison. Our real problem is that politicians and businesses are no longer taking responsibility because they do not have to.
Basically, it is time for a president and a party to declare that the buck stops here. I really hope that the dems will jump on the bandwagon, but make sure that it does not cause harm (which is easy to do).
There are other options than just oil, gas, nukes, and coal.
We are moving away from all those things, and the dying breed of Big Oil is in the middle of their death rattle, claiming we have one option… which is true for them.
We can do better, and we will. We do not need this horrible get rich quick scheme which would be a bigger burden on our environment, atmosphere and health.
Ignore millions of dollars that could help locals with the impacts. Ignore the jobs and taxes Colorado can benefit from? Ignore the fact that we are at least five to ten years away from a renewable energy economy that could sustain itself?
The O/G industry is one of my least favorite (with big pharm racing them to the top) but we’re a state with diverse resources, some of which could help us become a renewable energy economy. Why not use O/G money to help develop the renewable energy economy we need.
Now that would be ironic wouldn’t it?
What’s with this focus on the $? Don’t you see this is a diversion and doesn’t make anything better?
If someone offered you “up to” $1million in exchange for being able to stab you 20 times, would you be so excited about accepting this sort of an arrangement? Even if they offered to put a bandage on each wound before they stabbed next?
What’s with the hesitation? Come on! Don’t be reluctant! Don’t be taken in by those doctors who keep harping on the potential negatives! You’ve got lots of skin – you won’t even notice 20 more holes in it. I’ve smelled blood – it smells like money!
Focus now – we’re talking $1million! Think of all the good you could do! You could pay off all your college loans! You could pay off your mortgage! Think about all the good things that you could do for Colorado!
Don’t dwell on the possibility that you won’t live through it.
Just
focus
on
the
$$$.
My answer is it depends. Stab me 20 times in my big toe and pay up. 20 times in the heart, I’ll pass.
I’m not blinded by money, far from it. But I do recognize that without the revenue provided by the O/G industry our state coffers are/will be greatly reduced and then we’ve got another bag of problems to solve.
Money isn’t a diversion and it isn’t evil. O/G isn’t evil. The environmentalists, with whom I have more sympathy than industry, also create diversions.
The bottom line is we have a product the world wants and we can sell it to help our citizens.
You will find that I have been pushing alternative since the 70’s. In fact, a design that I came up with for a wind generator a brit is doing for water (in fact, I suspect that it will end up here being used on our water transport).
But the problem is that there is NO WAY to switch to 100% alternative. Even if we could, we have another issue. That is, that nearly all alternative come when the power comes, not when we need it. So that means storage. And we do not have a good solution for that. Sky fuel is pushing the right idea (heat storage in high temperature salts), but it is not here. SO we MUST start dealing with reality. One hand you have the republicans who say full development at any costs, environment be damned. And on the other, you have dems who say that we must stop ALL pollution right now and jump into alternative. Neither of these are working. In fact, it is causing us to see-saw back and forth and hurting us more.
So, Colorado IS going to build several base plants. Right now, they are looking at coal or natural gas. They are then looking to use alternative for demand plants, which is somewhat ok. But are you ok with that? Keep in mind, that the clean coal that they are speaking of is considered a joke by all. It will not happen. And if they burn the natural gas at a fast rate, then the prices go up, and we will see home heating double or go up by 4x (can you afford a 1000 / month for heating in the winter?). So, we are left with nukes.
2 plants ARE going to be built. You have only 3 choices for these. Coal, Natural Gas, or nukes. Which do you want? And why? I will take the nuke. less pollution (CO2, CO, mercury, radiation, so*, nO*, etc), it is far less prone to changes in economy (the fuel is the cheap part; it is building it that is expensive it). And because I do care about environment, I would like to see us push IFRs so that we can have cheap energy again without the environmental costs.
Nuclear is incredibly expensive (and I’m not talking only dollars). It is the most expensive form of electricity, per kWh, if you factor in the costs of building the plant (if you add in waste storage and perpetual protection, the cost keep climbing).
Approx. 60% of our energy RDD dollars over the last 50+ years has gone towards nuclear. Yet, nukes only produce approx. 10% of our energy generation total. (11% of our RDD dollars have been put into renewables, which produce about 5% of the energy total. Just think if our $ had been prioritized differently!) (Note, these data are from 2000.)
We have, right here in Colorado, sufficient solar and wind resources to provide the electricity needs of 15 Colorados. Of course it’s not going to all happen tomorrow. No one is claiming that.
However, the rest of the world is soon going to be clamoring for access to more clean energy. Are we going to advance the technology and be selling it to the rest of the world?
Or, are we going to spend our resources trying to secure all the world’s nuclear waste before it gets into the hands of terrorists?
You are welcome to dwell on potential difficulties. I’m more interested in people who are working towards solutions.
Forgive me, but it has been a long time since I looked at this issue.
I agree in principle, but I don’t think the nuke question is as clear.
Your numbers are correct (i believe) for the US, but other countries, france for instance use a lot of nuclear. Granted I am not a fan of the french technology, but there are places where it is a viable part of their energy plan.
2nd the waste issue. the reality is that the “bad” (realative) waste comes from weapons. well over 90% of the waste that needs perpetual storage comes from military applications, either weapons or the higher grade fuel from carrier/sub nuclear powerplants
First, lets focus on some facts:Next nukes make up 20% of our electricity, not 11%.
Yes, nukes have had a major portion of RRD. that money has included all fo the Fusion costs as well as the military costs (bombs, etc). So you are comparing apples to oranges. With that said, alternatives have not had the money that it should have.
You bring up the issue of storage which is a red herring. The problem is that we use nuclear power VERY inefficiently. We only pull 1-2% of the power that is available. Why? Because we are worried about the conversion to plutonium. IOW, we are worried about the bomb, but now any terrorist can obtain one elsewhere. It is another red herring. What is needed is to use up nearly ALL of the energy that is available. That is the IFR program that I have spoken about. Poppa bush started it, clinton killed, and the french and japanese are dying to do it. They know that if it is successful AND they own it, it will change ALL of the economics that we have. Most importantly, it will allow for us to move to alternative over a long period of time. Hopefully W. will do 2 things correctly and re-start this. Once these are running, there is no long term storage issue.
Second, have you notice that we do NOT have decent energy storage. Until that occurs, alterntive is NOT going to be replacing base plants. It will only serve in the on-demand plants stand-in. We need to make choices NOW!. Not tomorrow. NOW!. So, again I ask, you can choose coal, gas, or nukes? What will it be?
New nukes won’t come online for 10 years.
Improved efficiency can start by COB Friday.
Every unit of electricity NOT used in the home or business saves 3 units of coal, gas, or nuclear energy (due to inefficiencies of conversion).
So, don’t pretend that there are only three options. (Given that there are also various combinations of all the sources, there are many options. One of these combo plates is likely to be the most satisfying.)
(As for my earlier post, I believe that all my numbers were directly about energy demands, NOT military uses. However, the authors were always clear when they were considering total national energy demand vs. just electrical generation.)
…You are pretty knowledgeable on these nuke and energy matters, wb.
If we took the total cost of a nuke plant, all life time costs included, do you know what that works out to per kw/hr?
Direct solar electricity is getting cheaper by the nanosecond. In ten years, I would think panels will be virtually a commodity item. I don’t know the life span of a photovoltaic panel, but it seems like it would be at least 20 years and maybe 200.
So, alternatively, we take that $X Billions for a nuke and buy solar panels and the supporting hardware.
How do these compare?
Frankly, I would much rather worry about point source issues with a non-greenhouse belcher nuke than coal or other hydrocarbon plant.
I’d love to see the day that every structure possible has solar panels or windmills and all that Ex-hell does is move the juice around.
First, lets tackle the issue of Nukes Costs. First and foremost is what is the expensive parts? The building, the permits, and the storage. Oddly enough, the running of them is pretty darn cheap. The only problem with running them is when they are unique such as Ft. St. Vrain was (helium cooled; great idea; bad implementation). OTH, if you have a well known design and you use it over and over, then the costs per building as well as running becomes a fraction of what the unique ones costs. The other issue is storage. And that is a costly one if the nuke industry bears it. At this time, it would make nukes == in costs to coal, oil and gas. But the issue is that the current generations of plants use about 1-2% of the power that is available. Of course, that means that we have to store fuel that is going to be radioactive for 10,000 years. Now, you have to consider how to make it be safe WELL beyond what man has endured already. That is why WIPP is planning on embeddeding the plutonium (the main waste product from a regular fission reactor) into glass and then burying it deep. But imagine a situation where you buy 100 gallons of gas, burn 1, and then throw away the rest. Does not make sense. Instead, we do the IFR and use up about 99% of it. Now, you are left with a pile that is 1% of the mass and will be safe after 200 years, and the bulk of it will be safe after 10. So, you ask how to calculate it? You can not.
In addition, by going with IFR, America (and I believe the bulk of the world) would not need any more uranium dug for another 100 years. The current stockpile of waste from power plants and from bombs would power ALL of America’s need for the next 100 years. And that is supplying ALL of the power (not just electricity) for us at the expected rate of growth (as opposed to trying to just conserve). That would kill the CO2, and all the pollution problems that we have. In addition, it would nicely solve our issue with the current waste. It is THE solution. Funny enough, when I was in my 20’s, I use to protest against rocky flats, But never at St. Vrain.
The problem with alternatives is that they are NOT ready. Here are the main ones:
First, lets talk about several issues, then address each altnertive.:
The power grid. Since we de-regulated, the grid has going to hell. Worse, it was geared for doing a large single point to many small points. Alternatives, esp solar and wind will require a better distributed grid with large capabilities all over. That will mean a multi billion investment.
Demand != generation means that we NEED storage. Wind, solar, waves, etc all occur on THEIR time schedule, not ours. As such, we need a way to store this energy. There is no good way at this time. W. is pushing hydrogen, but that is a joke. Talk to some of the guys over at SERI/NREL and they will tell you great stuff and in 1-2 decades it will be useful. So we are left with advances elsewhere. One that I love is thermal. Skyfuel.com has a great site for it. That one can be combined with other energy inputs including solar, wind, as well as waste heat from nukes.
There is hydro, but that requires LOTS of water. In the near future, in the west, this will be a BIG issue. We are STILL aways from having it be cheap (which sux). Hopefully the next president directs NREL to do some more research as well as encourages groups like skyfuel.
All right, lets take the energies 1 at a time..
Hydro is a great one. In fact, I think that we need to develop more of these. For example, if I had the money, I would be approaching the state and the feds RIGHT now. Chatfield resevoir has the ability to generate multi-megawatts from april to end of august. I am there all the time (dog park) and I can tell you that the flow is perfect for this. To make it more useful, there is HIGH tension lines coming to about an 1/8 mile away. All in all, there is enough power capability to supply about 250-400 homes with their power ALL summer long. But can we do it everywhere this cheaply? No. In fact, America is way down the list on hydro power (though canada, Russia and China are up there). We are near our max capabilities now.
Wind. Our best choice at this time. But the plants are all small, and the biggest issue is one of variable winds. In particular, during the heat of summer (i.e. greatest demand), is when you have the least wind. But wind is going up ALL over. And there are going up without gov assistance. But again, storage is a problem.
Geothermal. My current faves. We can make more use of this than more folks realize. For starters, we can do gethermal heating/cooling of homes (and colorado should be encouraging this). Roughly, use the heat that is stored in the ground just 15 feet down. The temperature is at ~55 degrees. In the winter, we heat our homes. Some are at 72 others like myself, run 62-68 (I grew up north). That means the temp has to come up 15 degrees. Not much at all. Likewise, when cooling in the summer, you can use the 55 degrees to cool your home. One idea that I have been thinking about is to add a single solar panel (cool the ground at night during summer, heat the ground in winter during the daytime). In addition, I have realized that the current systems using closed loops have an all or nothing. There is no way to turn off loops (broken or you wish to cool or heat the ground for future uses). But even more, is the ability to create electriticy. This is not really well developed. If ritter had a decent team on board for energy, they would take advantage of the CSM’s drilling as well as CSM/CU/CSU’s engineering groups to develop technologies for this. Just from low-energy geo-thermal, we could power all of the western slope. In addition, it would be of use (i.e. future sales) throughout the world. Finally, there is some real indication that Mars has more heat down deep than we realized. As such, we may be able to power a coloney there without needing nukes. While I believe that NASA needs to develop nukes, it will mean that any colony will need help for many decades. But if they can get power from geo-thermal (wind and solar will not work), then the colony will be independant within 1 decade.
Solar: An interesting one. Yes, we have SHIT loads of solar energy that strikes the earth. And in CO, we have more than what we need. But there are many problems with solar cells. In general,the biggest is that they costs too much for what they give. Take for example the current “low cost” titanium mixtures. When you see the price, they sound great. Until you find out how much energy it produces. Basically, 6% eff. It turns out that this is one of the least cost effective ideas going. Why? because the costs of setting up solar is the installation. But one nice advantage is that the lifetime is expected to be 20-30 years. THen there is silicon which has something like 20% eff. More expensive, and will remain that way for years to come. Why? because the same silicon goes into chips. When will ppl want to pay the premium for solar? when the economy is great. But that is when electronics sell. The top eff. is around 45%, and that is using reflectors and tracking systems. VERY pricy. RIght now, solar is NOT cost effective. Every installation either loses money (google’s) or will require major money from govs (california, germany, etc). WIth that said, I will tell you that the reason why these cell sux is that they currently take the energy from a small spectrum. If you take more a larger spectrum, then you have more light. They are working on multiple plans, but I think that the one with cheap layers will win out (from a cost POV). When that arrives, we may see solar really take off.
BTW, solar life will vary. Silicon will typically last 15-30 years. A lot of that will depend on what kind of heat it has been subjected to. Something in Colorado will outlast something in texas. I think that the titanium roll approach may last a LONG time (50 or more years). It is simple rather than complex. Solar will not be commodity from about 15 more years. It will require that they become cost effective first, and that will take a while.
Waves/tidal: I will skip because this came about after my education and I have not had the time to stay up on it. The gist is that it is limited, though some interesting places can make use of these. In particular, hudson bay and San Fransisco may end up being HEAVY users.
Hopefully this answered what you were looking for. I will say, that alternative could be VERY viable in a 8 year presidency if they wanted. They would have to focus our research on storage, and they would have to do a gradual carbon tax (as opposed to the cap-and-trade that kyoto wants). IF we did that, then in under a decade, we would be on major wind, with solar looking better.
Just a couple of things to respond to.
One, my impression is that most wind farms are built in not just windy places, but perpetually windy places, so to speak. Granted, not 100%, but same places are damned close to that. It’s always blowing somewhere, so with enough installations, some go down and others pick up the slack. We have no problem shifting power on the grid over many hundreds of miles for fossil fueled electricity, but suddenly it’s a problem with wind?
I, too, lust after that heat in the earth. I realized that 40 years ago, don’t remember why. Or cold. I just read that Toronto has a huge “chilled water” system for large buildings near Lake Ontario. They just filter the lake water and pump it into the buildings!
A heat pump system (solar, wind powered?) with geothermal heat banking would be extremely efficient. In fact, if I recall certain efficiences, even with a natural gas plant and transmission losses, heat pumps could still double the BTU’s delivered in a home over a straight burning of natural gas in the furnace.
I think tidal will place a huge part of alternative energy in appropriate coastal settings. But it will take time, OTH less than getting a bunch of nukes up and running.
There used to be a huge solar reciever tower in CA on I-15. Do you know if it is still around? Or what happened? I think it was owned by a company called Luz.
The wind plants are placed in windy places. problem is, when the power is required, CAN it be made to come on? Nope. So, you either have to pay for another on-demand generators (i.e. have back-ups to the the back-ups), have storage, or pick it up from elsewhere.
First, let me point out that I am stepping into never never land for me. Basically, this is now close to the edge of what I know, so some is really iffy. The grid is really not all that good at this time. It was never designed to carry power over 1000’s of miles. It can do it, but not with the loads that we want. To make matters worse, assume that our wind is down. When is that likely? Middle of summer. When do we need the most power? Middle of summer. So, we are just going to borrow from elsewhere? Not likely. They are in the same boat. And they are already running their plants and grid at max capacity. You mentioned about the power shifting that occurs. Yes, to a degree it does. But remember all the black-outs that the east coast and later CA have suffered? A big part of that problem is the grid and doing power shifting. We need to change the grid or at least increase the capacity.
Any ways, I have to get back to working on a spreadsheet. Hopefully all that helped.
I’d have shifted over to geothermal (not exactly what you think; it’s about taking advantage of the difference in temperature at various layers under the ground), as the payback period is about four years. If we passed laws requiring all new homes to meet minimum passive solar standards, lavished tax incentives upon those taking advantage of passive energy sources (it would have been cheaper than the Iraq war), imposed luxury taxes on SUVs, and generally used the tax code to grease the skids of change, we’d be a long way toward solving our energy, balance-of-payments, and security problems.
“Going green” is just good business.
Drilling through granite IS tough. But where do you live that you are on granite? You must be in the mountains.
Well, I might offer up an incentive for passive solar, but I really hate to see regulations. Overall, they do not work. That is like the CAFE standards. I would rather see them dropped altogether. In its place, put a carbon tax of graduated time-based increase on gas/diseal. By doing that, if car owners KNOW that gas will rise over time, then they will buy accordingly. Then skip the luxury tax. After all, if somebody can afford the gas on a SUV with 10 MPG, then will ignore the tax.
But Colorado really should encourage home builders to move to geothermal heat pumps perhaps through tax rebates and perhaps with some Xcell kick-ins. It would drop our maxes on energy needs esp during summer (this would use less than half of the energy that AC does and is better than gas heat). I would think that Xcell would find it particularly attractive as it means that their on-demand systems do not have to be grown so much.
…that there is so much that can be done. Most of it will just take political will and lots of honest dialogue. Our greatest enemy is the philosophy that “This is America and I can do what I want.” Every time I see a motor home towing a boat or SUV – big enough for a family vacation in the 60’s – I am livid.
The technical problems can be overcome, that’s the easy part. The more sources that we have, local buildings, wind, geo, whatever, the less distance the grid needs to carry juice during down times for whatever reason. I will also postulate that with more sources, the less we need backup power plants, at least in size.
Tidal and river current, like the experiments being conducted on the floor of the Hudson river, are very reliable, needless to say.
East of Ft. Stockton, Texas on I-10 is a huge windfarm stretching over many miles. A thing of beauty out there on the perpetual winded high plains.
See, once you set aside your court mania, you make some good points!
WB,
I don’t get it.
How come the high cost of building a nuke plant is no obstacle to you but the “high” costs of solar panels is?
When you’ve got an average of nearly 200 Watts of solar energy striking every square meter of the earth every second, who cares if you can’t exceed the 30% efficiency of a coal plant? If you’ve got a kW of free energy every 5 seconds, who cares about efficiency? Wait 5 seconds and another kW will arrive at the same price!
The “high” cost is only prohibitive for installations on existing buildings. If panels were installed on new construction, a reduction of the square footage of the building by less than 100 sq ft for each kW of photovoltaics would completely offset the costs. Less for commercial construction. The cost of the fuel becomes very attractive (assuming you consider $0.00/kWh to be attractive).
Distributed small scale power is true “power to the people!”
(Please note, I am not dismissing the issues regarding both storage and transmission. I agree that these are significant.)
BTW, Nuclear is NOT a global solution. The world will need 1000s of nuke plants to meet potential future demand. Are you comfortable with countries like Iran having nukes? This will be necessary if we attempt to use nukes to “solve” the problem.
We need every option on the table. And we need to start implementing every option yesterday. We can do this with conservation and efficiency improvements right now with off-the-shelf technology. This would buy us 10-15 years for solar and storage to improve. Those nuke plants will then be obsolete (but we’ll still be paying off the federal subsidies for building them).
Solar cells are NOT cost effective yet. None of these solar cells are capable of paying for themselves. Worse, you have to include the costs of a energy storage system with these. All in all, solar is one of the worst choices in alternatives that we have. Hydro, Wind, and Geo-thermal are ALL superior. They are all cost effective. In addition, hydro and geo-thermal do not require extra storage. The one type that I did not write about are systems that use solar heating such as skyfuel’s. They are actually quite a bit cheaper than solar cells. Companies and gov. are hoping that with enough sales, that the production costs will come down. Yet, that is true only to a degree. I already pointed out why silicon cells will not be.
ANother issue that I did not addess, is that I can not stand our grid and lack of storage. In particular, if we develop the salt storage method for small sizes, then we can change from having a grid that tries to link ALL together, into levels of grid. That is, you get your electricity from the local storage generator and it gets its heat from the sun AND from excess power pulled off of the “upper” grid i.e. it just heats the salt. This has the advantage of fail proofing America similar to how the internet works. But that approach is not likely to be adopted.
Finally, Nukes ARE cost effective. France, Japan and many other nations have done these in a cost effective approach. But, beating that dead cow, the IFR is the way to go. No more mining. No need to store. And no increase in costs 50 years down the road. etc.
As to countries like Iran having nuke plants, they already do. They are currently building new ones. Am I comfortable with that? Heck yes. Iran is most likely not building a bomb any more than Iraq was. But Iran is BAITING us in hopes that we will be stupid and attack. We would win the battle, and lose the rest of the world. WE WOULD be the pariah of the world. For decades, we were the masters of this planets (USSR was nothing). But now, all the manufactuering is elsewhere. We are no longer in control. If W. were stupid enough to invade, the world would boycott us within a month. All that is needed is to have access to their centerfuge and account for their use and ALL material that is used there. And while Iran is baiting , they will allow UN inspectors in.
We DO need every option on the table. The problem is that we have worked our way into a corner. Alternative will take decades to work out esp WRT to storage. So we really are left with Coal, Gas, and Nukes. So again, I ask you, which one do you wish to use? Alternative is NOT an option at this time. Me? I will take nukes.
BTW, wind generators have been around for 100 years. Methane Generators (bio-fuel) have operated at CSU since 1980 (and was developed LONG ago). I believe that Solar cells started during the 30’s (before nukes). Why am I bringing this up? Because you think that 10-15 years is all that is required to shift us? Not even close. The only way that would happen is if we did a NASA project and that is not likely. Current presidents are afraid to take on Saudi Arabia like that (and some, like W., are positioned at the zipper). The truth is, that our nation has been run into the ground by reagan and W. and we are out of time. I do believe that the geothermal stands a chance (a billion dollars really is nothing). read the BTW2 that I sent to parsing. But at this time, we are really in a corner and have to make hard choices. And the bulk of alternative is NOT ready.
Al Gore proposed a 50-cent gas tax hike, which would have paid for it.
As for storage, this isn’t as much of a problem as you might think. It takes energy to make hydrogen fuel, and we could employ the periodic surpluses to that end.
Yeah, it sounds good in theory, but it does not work that way. Turns out that using electricity to get h2 is VERY inefficient. So, the current ideas (and much cheaper( are
Of course, what is the carrier? Oil (CxH2x+2 where x is typically >10). It is actually cheaper to break apart oil than to break apart water (surprise), but it is still pretty expensive. Then you have the carrying and storage issue with H2 as it will make any metal and fatigue rather quickly unless it is special stainless steel. Do you plan to put costly stainless steel piping everywhere? Then we have the costs of converting the H2 to electricity. 2 main approachs on this. Fuel cells, or ICE (internal combustion engines). The fuel cell is not only expensive, but at this time has a VERY short life time (adding to the expense), so more likely to go with the ICE/generator approach. While this is clean (water emission’s only), it is max ~60% efficiency.
So what does this all mean? A study went over the efficiency of this system and compared to plain electricity for moving autos around. What is showed is that a certain amount of energy , it would move the electric car 3600 miles (furthest distance across the lower 48) and that was based on a current electrical car (and not tesla). But based on where hydrogen tech is “EXPECTED” to be in 20 years, that same car would travel 500 miles. If the fuel cell was still not ready, then the car would travel only 200 miles.
The reason why W. killed off clintons efforts on batteries and pushed that money and a great deal more, is because the most efficient way of getting H2 is simply to strip oil. In fact, MIT has an interesting approach to making very high capacity capacitors. If it is feasible, then batteries (and hydrogen) go out the door, for it will hold more energy then a li-ion. That super capacitor in a car would outlast OUR lifetimes and charge in about the same length of time to fill a car. The only downfall is that at this time, it has a high lose of charge about 1% / day (batteries are SOOOO much lower). Of course, with such a fast charge rate, you leave it discharged and then charge it when you need it. That would allow our cars to serve as storage for the community.
Found an interesting link. Check out the pdf. I have only skimed this, but it is right on the money. Kind of nice that we could invest only 1 billion dollar(less than a single nuke plant) and increase our total electricity output by 6%. That is DAMN cheap. Sadly, W. will not do it. And at this time, I have serious doubts about ritter and his knowledge of what geo-thermal is.
The 18-member panel calculated that there is more than enough extractable hydrothermal energy available to generate the entire 27 trillion kilowatt-hours of energy consumed in the US in 2005. In fact, a conservative estimate of the energy extractable from the hot rocks less than 10 kilometres beneath American soil suggests that this almost completely untapped energy resource could support US energy consumption, at its current clip, for more than two millennia to come.
If we did this, it will take a couple of decades to develop, but it is still a good thing to look at. The amazing thing is that it would be one of the cheapest ways to power America. The funny thing is that W. et. al. is looking at hydrogen/bio-fuels, will ppl like ritter is pushing wind and solar. Here is probably the BEST chance of getting into alternatives (with colorado being one of the leaders), and we are blowing it at the federal and state level. Sad, really.
If we headed down this path, then we could kill off the coal/gas plants and limit the nukes to the IFR. BTW, we should still build them. Why? Because it is far better AND cheaper to use the energy then to bury it.
I’m ready for that knife now:)
All of you drinking the Penry Kool-Aid should take note of a couple of inconvenient facts:
Income from Roan Plateau oil, gas leases uncertain
http://www.rockymoun…
[Rep. White] said if current lease rates were paid, up to $1 billion could be generated.
But the industry says that does not seem likely. And Rep. Kathleen Curry, D-Gunnison, said the projections are not a sure thing.
“The dollar numbers are coming from the industry and are based on a fairly high number per acre, so the dollar amounts aren’t really known,” she told the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel.
Greg Schnacke, executive vice president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, said he thinks $500 million is closer to the amount likely to be paid. Environmental restrictions imposed by the Bureau of Land Management will lower the value of the leases, he said.
———-
And this education funding proposal is kind of odd, since White told the GJ Sentinel last weekend that
http://www.gjsentine…
White said such a massive influx of money could allow Garfield County, Mesa County and other affected areas to fix all their current energy impacts before the Roan drilling actually starts.
———–
Ah, but that wasn’t the most conniving way to pitch this plan, was it? Somebody at COGA realized that the Roan Mollification Plan needed a little extra kick. Bang zoom! Those public schools the Republicans always tell you don’t need money because of Ward Churchill suddenly are going to get “rescued.” And forget all that stuff about “energy impacts.” What a colossal load of hooey.
What’s really funny is how Penry just acknowledged a bunch of facts about higher education funding in Colorado that will otherwise make Republicans a little uncomfortable. Guess he wasn’t thinking long-term while the Big Oil lobbyist was whispering sweet nothings in his ear.
Nice one, JeffcoBLue. Point to a skirt from Gunnison to make your point. Anyone that’s sat in the same room with Kathleen Curry realizes rather quickly that she’s never been runner up for any academic awards.
The Dems want to pretend that the Roan doesn’t have any sort of major potential for our state. They’re wrong. It’s an area that was once dedicated for oil shale development — and COngress WANTED the DOI to develop it. They told BLM that they SHALL lease the land. That’s what they’re doing some 10 years later!
Finally, quit using the big oil moniker. No one buys it. This Penry/White plan has nothing to do with big oil — it has everythign to do with higher ed and impacted communities.
Al White throws out the wildly unrealistic figure of $1 billion in revenue, and Penry mentions that higher ed is underfunded by $800 million annually. Sounds good until you actually look at the numbers.
Trouble is, everybody knows $1 billion is a concocted BS number. COGA itself only predicts $500 million, and that only for one year based on the one-time leasing bonuses paid, after which it will be considerably less, and now their plan is to split the money between education and energy impacts.
Basically, we are being asked to roll over on drilling atop the Roan Plateau in exchange for wildly inflated promises that 1) won’t materialize and 2) will drop to a fraction of even the “realistic” number after the initial leasing process.
The people of Colorado will be left with an exploited and permanently marred former wilderness area, and a trickle of money that will neither solve the higher ed funding crisis nor effectively remediate energy impacts on the Western Slope and could easily be found elsewhere.
Simply put, this is a giant swindle meant to split and confound the fierce opposition to drilling on top of the Roan Plateau. Conceived by COGA and EnCana, packaged by Al White and Josh Penry for cynical half-truth distribution, and all agglomerable into the words “Big Oil Scam.”
“…A former wilderness area…” You’re on crack. This area is not and has never been a wilderness area. IF you had the first idea what you were talking about, you would understand that it’s Congress alone that has the power to designate an area as wilderness. In this case, they have not. Which makes one wonder — why aren’t Udall and Salazar introducing a bill to make the Roan Plateau an official (Congressionally designated) wilderness area? If all of the citizens of western Colorado believe that the Roan needs to be protected instead of developed (as they claim) then why are they so afraid to simply drop a bill to designate?
Ponder that one. The bottom line is that they are pussies and they know that it’s only environmental groups and their shills that want to obstruct development.
If we apply any reasonable definition of wilderness beyond the formal designation, the Roan meets it. It is unsettled, roadless territory outside small private parcels. You know that, convenient semantics aside.
In addition, you are a bellicose prick. But whatever flips your “skirt.”
You have made the most mysogenist comments I’ve probably ever read on Pols. Why don’t you climb back in your cave with all the other good ole boys and have a nice circle jerk?
“a skirt from Gunnison?”
You just referred to State Representative Kathleen Curry, (D)-Gunnison, as a “skirt?”
Care to justify that remark before I tear your sexist head off?
Was that referring to her acting and speech capabilities or her looks?
I’m thinking you are a bigot. Please prove me wrong if you aren’t. “You got a lotta ‘splaining to do, Lucy.”
So you hate women? Calling a legislator a skirt because she’s a woman with an opinion is completely uncalled for, insulting, and disgraceful.
You have ruined your own argument with your vulgar language and intolerance towards those that disagree. You are a dinosaur with your fear and smear tactics.
It just feels better to rake working Coloradans over the coals with crackpot solutions like illegal mill levies.
just ask the folks in southern Louisiana. They have the best roads, the best higher education, and the residents love it. Of course the delta is swiss cheese with all of the oil rigs which is actually contributing to land loss. But don’t worry, the oil companies will get it right this time.
And the Texas Cowboy mob he brought with him in 1998. It’s legendary like Al Capone except with white guys.
And no, I never did say hello to his icky “little friend.”
Al Capone was white. Open mouth, insert foot?
Before bashing Mexicans became popular, we had the Italians. Open mouth, insert fact.
and always have been. but they made the same arguments about developing oil and gas as Penry and White are making. So?
It’s been a while since shills have launched such an attack. Oh well.
I agree with Dave – Dems ought to co-sponsor this because if we’re going to spoil the Roan Plateau for quick money then it ought to go to good use.
You’ve bought Penry’s idea of spoiling the Roan for quick money.
To each his own.
Aristotle and Dave. This will be decided by the feds not the state, but the fund allocation should be done in a way that makes sense and avoids pet projects.
negatives
1. smell–I’ve smelled it others haven’t but there are complaints by residents
2. Impact on tourism–you can’t tell me that truck traffic, stink and sunsets over well pads is positive
3. BoomBust cycles that come with energy production and problems with infrastructure scaling.
4. general environmental issues such as noise, water and open space–I love when the plugs on old wells break.
Positives
1. money–question is how much to state and local above and beyond the amount necessary to develop infrastructure to support the OG industry
2. Job–how many jobs are created for local communities.
I just want some accurately sourced credible data.
I am just saying, I hope this is clear, the actual decision on drilling is a Federal issue not state. State would just decide how to spend severance payouts if it is passed. They have no say in passing it just in spending POTENTIAL funds. The issue of allowing drilling one is much more intense than Penry’s bill and that is what most people here started discussing. Frankly I think now is not the time for drilling there for a plethora of reasons but I think we need to be prepared as a state.
I also forgot to mention…there are already plenty of jobs. Too many, in fact. The unemployment rate is essentially nil (1.4% for GarfCo last I checked). Help Wanted signs are everywhere, wages have to increase to attract workers and everyone who wants a job has one. It can be difficult for government entities to attract workers to such a place when the vacancy rate has hit zero in the past two years.
Energy booms do provide a ton of money…but the short-term demands on goods and services can really mess up a small economy in the long run.
Many town employees have left for higher paying oil related jobs and the positions aren’t filling quickly.
I don’t support drilling there at all – see my earlier comment.
However, that doesn’t make this bit of lege worthwhile. As CC and Dave note, it’s not a state decision. If Dems sign on, it will accomplish a couple of things – one, it will defuse a lot of bombs that the ‘pubs will try to throw in 2008 like the idea that Dems are anti-business tree huggers; and two, IF this sorry scheme to boost Exxon’s profits gets the green light from the Feds, at least the money we realize would be put to good use.
Now then, if this can be shown to be nothing more than a shallow stunt by a clearly ambitious politician aimed at creating the impression that Colorado wants this then I’ll oppose the idea.
First sentence in second paragraph should read:
However, that doesn’t make this bit of lege worthless.
I was just needling you 🙂
Penry got him one shill today.
Or maybe Kathy Hall is paying him.
Username: Aspinall Dem
PersonId: 6530
Created: Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:14:00 PM MDT
Username: whisperfruitandbaskets
PersonId: 6531
Created: Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:19:57 PM MDT
Username: asianpearspalisade
PersonId: 6532
Created: Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 16:35:32 PM MDT
Username: White Trash with Monie
PersonId: 6534
Created: Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 17:53:06 PM MDT
Did you come over just for this one thread or do you have something else you want to shill for?
that the diary was posted at 16:05:04, so it was up for less than 10 minutes when they started registering.
and former county commissioner.
Kathy Hall is the current Chair of Club 20 as well as a lobbyist for COGA.
Former Mesa County Commissioner. Treasurer of the campaign committee for Craig Meis’s successful campaign for Mesa County Commissioner. Worked for Senator Bill Armstrong. Etc.
Me thinks that all this is just Ralphie arguing with himself, kicking his “juice” up to Josh “junior Tony Soprano” Penry and attempting to get his faux left credentials with various names here. He’s even doing it with weak arguments on his own blog. Everyone should get a good laugh from this strunzo strategy as the jamook plays with himself in the corner.
I don’t believe anyone is foolish enough to believe Josh Penry gives a damn about higher ed. This is a political maneuver, to gain political points for Political Opportunist Penry.
Over 85% of the BLM lands in the Piceance Basin (home to N.America’s largest migratory deer herd) are already leased for oil and gas development, and large portions of the private lands in the area have long been owned by oil and gas companies. Roan Plateau–one of Western Colorado’s top area’s in terms of species diversity–remains an undeveloped, and for now 50,000 acres of unleased BLM lands–amid hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands that are already leased, or in production, for oil and gas. The few BLM lands not yet leased in the Piceance Basin include this small part (about one-third) of the Roan Plateau planning area, a few Wilderness Study Areas, and that is about it. The rest is already either being drilled or having the plans drawn up to be drilled.
Roan Plateau is home to some of the purest strains of Colorado River cutthroat trout, species that occur no where else on earth, and wilderness-quality public lands. There is no need to immediately lease and drill these lands, and local communities remain steadfastly opposed, jobs or not. In fact they know that the jobs in the gas fields will remain plentiful for the next thirty years until they drill every place they are allowed. Then they will all go away. Western Slope communities know that too.
Communities don’t know that jobs will be plentiful over the next 30 years. There’s no evidence that Colorado will have extensive oil/gas drilling in the next five years. The availability of the oil and gas isn’t the factor in drilling, it is the price of the commodity.
If the price makes it worthwhile, the drilling expands. I’m willing to bet you were around when the Western Slope felt the effects of this in the late 70’s.
Massive new infrastructure is going in, billion dollar pipelines, multi-million dollar roads. The industry is here to stay until they get the last of the gas and go away. The drilling will continue at a similar (or greater) rate over the next 10-15 years. Sure, commodity prices mean a lot, but looking at what is happening–field development v. exploratory–it is as much as a given as anything in the job market to postulate that the jobs will be here for a couple of decades–and that drilling or not drilling that last unleased 1/3 of the Roan will not matter either way, vis a vis how many jobs exist in the area or how quickly they all go away.
is not required nor are they able to keep up with the rate of drilling. As the ones who offer the land for lease, they could and SHOULD choose to function within their means instead of opening a larger office in GSprings and then realizing they can’t even get people to come work there because the housing costs inhibit them. Moderation in the development process would do us all a lot of good.
If O&G development is so good for the communities of Western Colorado, why–pray tell–is Rep. White lamenting all the current impacts from this activity that need funded….?
Taking public monies (from publicly owned land and publicly owned minerals) to pay for the current impacts and externalities of the EnCana’s and Williams’ march across the Piceance, is a bit like using the credit card to pay the mortgage. It may meet the monthly bill but its poor fiscal policy. In this case its a subsidy, burdening the public treasury with paying for the impacts of private industry.
Not sure what you would have us do then. If taxing the industry is a burden on the public treasury than where are we supposed to get the money to pay for industry impacts?
We don’t tax the industry enough. We should get rid of the tax credit the industry recieves. We should make sure our accounting for all tax receipts is fair and accurate for the industry so that none slip through paying fewer taxes than they should.
Al White is trying to make sure that the energy impact money is sufficient for the impacted areas. It isn’t now and it needs to be.
that the BLM gives the industry a “credit”–although not an identifiable tax credit– by moving as quickly as the industry wants to guarantee these lands will be approved for drilling. When an input to your business is essentially guaranteed faster than you can even ready other inputs such as rigs, you are sure to do good business!
If Sen. Penry was interested in ensuring the funding of education and addressing the impacts of massive industrialization of rural counties and heretofore agricultural infrastructure, then he might work to ensure that the revenue coming from development AS IT OCCURS is sufficient to address these many burdens, on roads, social services, public health, the environment, housing, local business… In neighboring states–radical hotbeds of communism such as DickCheney’s old stompin’ grounds–tax the production of oil and gas companies at a slightly higher rate, bringing in hundreds of millions of additional tax revenue (and guess what, the industry hasn’t fled there screaming, plunging Wyoming into darkness, freezing old ladies, and drying up all jobs in the state. That hasn’t happened, Mr. Schnake and Smith). Unlike the (unknown amount of) revenue from Roan leasing, it is not a one time ‘bonus’ but a dedicated stream, year in and year out, as long as production lasts (which is long after the jobs are all gone, btw). But of course Schnake, Smith, and the OilLobby do not want that higher couple of percent in taxes, but boy-oh-boy do they wanna drill the Roan. And, how oh so convinient, Mr. Sen. Joshua Penry steps up t the plate, to do their bidding.
As long as it is worth their time and money, the industry will not cap the wells and leave. My issue is some environmental groups believe that Colorado would be better off without this industry. That isn’t true.
We can find the balance between industry and environment, and if that means not drilling on the Roan and increasing the taxes on industry, ok.
Both of us are talking about impacted areas. What I worry about are the multitude of proposals surfacing that would deflect money from impacted counties and give it instead to other parts of our budget, i.e. education. Why should DPS or higher ed benefit from significant funding if the impacted areas can’t build enough schools or hire enough law enforcement?
“My issue is some environmental groups believe that Colorado would be better off without this industry. ” Name an environmental group in Colorado that wants to stop all drilling or that argues that the state would be better off without this industry altogether. Just one (you say ‘some’ environmental groups, so finding one should be easy).
Although most mask their hatred for the industry by promoting how completely sufficient renewables supposedly are right now.
One issue I DO take with your post is the mention of being unable to build schools…this is not the case, they have plenty of funds for building projects (which actually begs the question of if they will overbuild and be burdened with high maintenance costs).
They can not, as you correctly stated, hire law enforcement and other government personnel because the housing does not exist to lure in outsiders. The personnel issue is huge, as is the future potential for high maintenance costs of infrastructure built to provide for the boom.