{"id":3671,"date":"2008-09-04T15:09:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-04T21:09:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/09\/teague-walks-a-tightrope-on-energy-issues\/"},"modified":"2008-09-04T15:09:00","modified_gmt":"2008-09-04T21:09:00","slug":"teague-walks-a-tightrope-on-energy-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/09\/teague-walks-a-tightrope-on-energy-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"Teague walks a tightrope on energy issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>As an oilman and a Democrat, 2nd Congressional District candidate Harry Teague<\/a> doesn\u2019t necessarily fit the mold typically associated with either: He made his millions in an industry that many members of his party — including presidential nominee Barack Obama<\/a> — want to take additional dollars from through an \u201cexcess-profits\u201d tax<\/a>. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The combination of his party affiliation and profession put Teague in a difficult position: To win, he needs to tap into the energy of the progressive movement that helped his primary opponent, Bill McCamley<\/a>, nearly defeat him. But he also needs the votes of people friendly to the energy industry, including conservative Democrats who have voted three times for right-wing Republican Steve Pearce<\/a> over Democratic candidates.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

While Teague has spoken during this election season about the need to increase the use of alternative energy, and has said he opposes an excess-profits tax<\/a>, he hasn\u2019t said a lot publicly on some other key oil-related issues. His GOP opponent, Ed Tinsley<\/a>, has hammered Teague, accusing him of dodging questions related to energy.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

With that in mind, I asked Teague\u2019s campaign to state definitive positions on three key issues: drilling on Otero Mesa<\/a>, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge<\/a> (ANWR) and increased offshore drilling. His campaign initially responded by pointing me to a news release<\/a> announcing Teague\u2019s support for a bipartisan energy proposal in the Senate.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But that didn\u2019t actually nail Teague down on any issue. He included a quote in the news release stating that he didn\u2019t agree with all of the bill\u2019s provisions, and he didn\u2019t elaborate on which provisions he liked and disliked.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

So I told the campaign I needed specific answers to the specific questions I asked. Ten days after I first asked the questions, here\u2019s what I was given:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Otero Mesa<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

On the Otero Mesa question, the Teague campaign released a statement on the condition that it be attributed only to a \u201cTeague campaign spokesman.\u201d Here it is:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cHarry Teague\u2019s position on energy is the same position as Sens. (Pete) Domenici<\/a>, (Jeff) Bingaman<\/a> and Gov. (Bill) Richardson<\/a>. There should be a moratorium on drilling on Otero Mesa until the (U.S. Geological Survey<\/a>) can demonstrate that drilling there will not hurt the water supply,\u201d the spokesman said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The Teague campaign pointed out that the statement matches a quote Teague gave to the Las Cruces Sun-News for an article that was published May 18<\/a>. The newspaper reported that Teague said he doesn\u2019t support drilling on Otero Mesa \u201cuntil they determine they can protect the groundwater.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

But the campaign failed to mention, in response to my question, a July 28 Albuquerque Journal article<\/a> in which Teague, responding to a questionnaire, said this:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cI oppose drilling on Otero Mesa. The Salt Basin Aquifer beneath Otero Mesa may be the largest untapped fresh water supply in New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> and could provide much-needed water to farmers and other New Mexicans. We should not even discuss drilling in Otero Mesa until the U.S. Geological Survey demonstrates that oil drilling will not hurt the water supply.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Are those statements conflicting? Not necessarily, but they\u2019re also not entirely consistent. One statement leaves the door wide open for drilling if it won\u2019t hurt the water supply. The other begins by closing the door completely, then opening it a crack, but only if the USGS says drilling won\u2019t harm the water.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

ANWR<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

On the question of drilling in the Alaska<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> refuge, the Teague campaign released a statement to me on the condition that I not quote it directly. The campaign spokesman who provided it said I could only paraphrase it and had to attribute it to \u201cthe Teague campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It states that there are other, more accessible and less environmentally risky options, so Teague sees no reason to consider drilling in ANWR.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Former President Dwight Eisenhower<\/a> set aside the Alaska<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> refuge in 1960 and Congress has upheld that decision three times since. Teague agrees with that decision, according to the statement, which points out that the Energy Information Administration believes there are 7.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR and 120 billion barrels elsewhere in the United States<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region>.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Teague has previously said little publicly about drilling in ANWR.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Offshore drilling<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Teague has also said little publicly about offshore drilling. His campaign gave me a statement but, as was the case with the ANWR statement, released it only on the condition that I paraphrase it and attribute it to \u201cthe Teague campaign.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It states that Teague supports drilling offshore in areas where it won\u2019t hurt the environment. Such drilling, according to the statement, is an important part of a plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The statement claims there are many oil reserves offshore than can be tapped into without harming environmentally sensitive areas and that such oil can be brought to market more rapidly than oil from ANWR and other remote areas.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Chasing progressive and conservative votes<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Asked to answer the same questions — Does your candidate support drilling on Otero Mesa, drilling in ANWR and increased offshore drilling? — the Tinsley campaign gave this answer:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cYes to all three — in an environmentally protective manner,\u201d spokesman Jim Pettit said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Tinsley can take such a simple position. This conservative district likes its oil and it has a long history of electing Republicans. Teague has a more difficult task. To win, he has to grab the support of some of those conservative voters and fire up progressives at the same time.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

To that end, the Teague campaign also released this statement, which it said is attributable to Teague:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve worked in the energy industry my whole life. We need a congressman who understands the energy industry — someone who understands how to space a well and someone who knows that one day the well will run dry,\u201d Teague said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The Teague campaign also pointed to an article<\/a> authored by Teague and published recently on The Hill\u2019s Congress Blog. In it, Teague states that Congress needs \u201csomeone who understands the oil and gas industry, and who is ready and able to work with alternative energy.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cFor too long, our energy policy has been dictated by extremes, none of which are willing to work together to find a comprehensive solution to the mess we\u2019re in,\u201d Teague wrote in the posting. \u201cI want to change that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Update, 9:45 p.m.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

After this article was originally published, Teague Communications Director Alex Cole called to say that the Journal edited out part of the statement on Otero Mesa that was provided by the campaign — the part that stated that Teague agreed with the position taken by Domenici and Bingaman — before publishing it. Considering that, he said, Teague\u2019s position on Otero Mesa has remained consistent in statements provided to the Journal, Sun-News and me.<\/p>\n

He said this is the full statement that was provided to the Journal:<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cLike Senators Domenici and Bingaman, I oppose drilling in Otero Mesa. The Salt Basin Aquifer beneath Otero Mesa may be the largest untapped fresh water supply in New Mexico<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> and could provide much needed water to farmers and other New Mexicans. We should not even discuss drilling in Otero Mesa until the U.S. Geological Survey demonstrates that oil drilling will not hurt the water supply.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Cole also gave permission to publish the exact statements the campaign had previously given me on ANWR and offshore drilling with the condition that they be paraphrased only. Here they are, attributable to Teague:<\/p>\n

ANWR: \u201cPresident Dwight Eisenhower put aside ANWR in 1960 and Congress affirmed that decision three times since, and I don\u2019t see why we should revisit that decision now. The Energy Information Administration estimates that there are 7.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in ANWR and 120 billion barrels elsewhere in the United States<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region>. With so many other options that are less environmentally risky and more readily accessible, I don\u2019t see why we need to consider drilling in ANWR.\u201d<\/p>\n

Offshore drilling: \u201cIncreasing domestic oil production is one important piece of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and bringing down gas prices. To boost production, I support drilling offshore in areas where it will not harm the environment. Many offshore drilling reserves can be harvested without damaging environmentally sensitive areas and many reserves are more readily accessible and can bring more oil to the American market more rapidly than remote areas like ANWR.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As an oilman and a Democrat, 2nd Congressional District candidate Harry Teague doesn\u2019t necessarily fit the mold typically associated with either: He made his millions in an industry that many members of his party — including presidential nominee Barack Obama — want to take additional dollars from through an \u201cexcess-profits\u201d tax. The combination of his […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}