Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium
WTF #1: There is a moratorium on oil shale development??? Seriously dude, WTF? Why is there anything slowing down development of this important counter-weight to OPEC’s control of our economy and National Security?The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.
senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.Ahhh, WTF #2: Even at $120+ a barrel the envrio-nutballs get final say?
“If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people’s lives,” Allard argued.WTF #3: Partisanship?? naw… couldn’t be… National Security and the economy (the very foundation of our freedoms) is out of bounds for partisanship, right????But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.
One of the key votes was from Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who said Sen. Ken Salazar had urged her to reject the amendment even though she personally thinks the moratorium on oil-shale development is unjust.WTF #4: Senator Landrieu thinks the moratorium is “unjust”, yet can be persuaded to vote to uphold this “injustice”…
Landrieu vowed to try to lift the moratorium when the large appropriations bill reaches the floor of the U.S. Senate in coming weeks.WTF #5: Does anyone believe this? It seems like, if she really believed that the moratorium was “unjust”, this was the perfect opportunity to insert the language. So she passed up the chance now in favor of an undefined vague promise???
WTF #1 is really the shocker. We have heard all about how the oil shale was going to be a big part of the energy plan of the future. How it would “save” ANWR and how it is potentially among the largest oil reserves in the world. How the hell does a moratorium like this get put in place?
Seriously, WTF?
Coal is the nasty “C” word. It ranks slightly worse than “pedophile” and only slightly above “conservative”. Nothing connected with or sounding like “coal” may be supported. Trying to introduce facts is just “spinning” the issue.
Really, why would democrats want to encourage coal or any other alternative fuel? High gas prices mean much more tax revenue and what alternative industries can match the bribes and contributions of oil producers other than ADM, and they are getting their’s already. As long as people will let them get away with blaming Bush and the war the high costs are a win/win situation for them. They even get the support of the environuts for reducing driving.
Coal is an abundant, cheap, domestic resource and is therefore a threat to the gravy train.
Comment by Machinist — May 16, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
This really isn’t coal, though you are right that “shale” invokes the thought of coal. Oil shale (and the Canadian tar snads) are chock full of “black gold” and “Texas tea”. The problem is extraction as it is bound directly into the rock/sand. Currently the way to do it is to melt the mass and drain off the good stuff. It never made sense to do because of the cost, about $50 to $60 a barrel. When Oil is $120+ it makes darn good sense and develops a controlled source of the juice of economic life.
Comment by Sinner — May 17, 2008 @ 9:54 am
I was aware of this but as you mention, it is tainted by sounding like coal. Any look at alternatives SHOULD look at coal as well, if not first.
As for making economic sense, the politicians only lose when gas is cheaper for us. What’s in it for them?
Comment by Machinist — May 17, 2008 @ 2:45 pm