DISQUS

For Heinrich to have been exempt from federal lobbyist regs he had to make far less than the federal poverty line. But then that would undermine his arguments about "Heinrich Consulting," his much vaunted "consulting firm." He was our lobbyist when I was Chair of the Coalition for NM Wilderness. He was definitely not making such a low amount of money that he would be exempt from lobbyist ethics laws, laws that apply to environmentalist as well as industry lobbyists. Has Heinrich released his tax records to show how much (or how little) he was making from lobbying work? That could settle the question.

For Heinrich to have been exempt from federal lobbyist regs he had to make far less than the federal poverty line. But then that would undermine his arguments about "Heinrich Consulting," his much vaunted "consulting firm." He was our lobbyist when I was Chair of the Coalition for NM Wilderness. He was definitely not making such a low amount of money that he would be exempt from lobbyist ethics laws, laws that apply to environmentalist as well as industry lobbyists. Has Heinrich released his tax records to show how much (or how little) he was making from lobbying work? That could settle the question.

Ojito was a good thing. Regardless, Martin Heinrich was not exempt from federal lobbyist ethics laws. There is no exemption for lobbying for environmental advocacy corporations, or for any other type of client. If he ever earned more than $5,000 in a six month period for lobbying, he, like all other lobbyists, was required to register and file disclosures as to the identity of his clients. I don't like hearing that he worked as a lobbyist but didn't think he had to follow the same rules as everyone else. He needs to prove his claim that he wasn't required to comply with lobbyist laws and regulations. If he was lobbying in violation of the law, that wasn't so "slick." If he was in compliance with the law, this is not much of an issue. But I expect we will hear more on this topic until it is resolved.

Ojito was a good thing. Regardless, Martin Heinrich was not exempt from federal lobbyist ethics laws. There is no exemption for lobbying for environmental advocacy corporations, or for any other type of client. If he ever earned more than $5,000 in a six month period for lobbying, he, like all other lobbyists, was required to register and file disclosures as to the identity of his clients. I don't like hearing that he worked as a lobbyist but didn't think he had to follow the same rules as everyone else. He needs to prove his claim that he wasn't required to comply with lobbyist laws and regulations. If he was lobbying in violation of the law, that wasn't so "slick." If he was in compliance with the law, this is not much of an issue. But I expect we will hear more on this topic until it is resolved.

Martin Heinrich was in fact a lobbyist, both at the federal and state levels. That was the nature of his business, "Heinrich Consulting." I know personally he lobbied on the Ojito Wilderness Act and was paid by The Wilderness Support Center and the Campaign for America's Wilderness. He also lobbied on Valle Vidal and the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness. He may have had other clients.

Martin Heinrich was in fact a lobbyist, both at the federal and state levels. That was the nature of his business, "Heinrich Consulting." I know personally he lobbied on the Ojito Wilderness Act and was paid by The Wilderness Support Center and the Campaign for America's Wilderness. He also lobbied on Valle Vidal and the proposed Sabinoso Wilderness. He may have had other clients.

Superb article, in all respects.

Superb article, in all respects.

Barb, Barb: What you forget is that a mineral lessee loses the lease after ten years if they don't work it. That means they lose the millions they paid to get the lease. Why would they sit on reserves that could potentially be worth more than they paid for the lease? It doesn't make sense. That's why I challenge you to identify one mineral lease, on land or off shore, that has economically feasible oil deposits that are sitting idle as the lease runs out. That means, in the case of a deep sea well, deposits that exceed the $100 million it costs to explore and build a platform. To make it easier, just identify one lease on land that has economically feasible oil or gas deposits that is being let to run out without development. As for the Wilderness Society release, it does not back out any acres where "dry holes'" were drilled, where the formations were found to be nonproducing, or acres held up by litigation.

Also, what is the rationale of keeping anything off the table? We need more and more oil now, and to do that you have to start development now. The oil futures markets will see these indefinite delays as a continuation of our unilateral oil and natural gas disarmament. If the futures markets knew we were finally going to go after our own resources, they would react. Just the way they react when new discoveries are announced...even though those discoveries won't produce for years to come.

Udall did answer my question: In today's Journal he restated his opposition to lifting the moratorium on developing an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Barb, Barb: What you forget is that a mineral lessee loses the lease after ten years if they don't work it. That means they lose the millions they paid to get the lease. Why would they sit on reserves that could potentially be worth more than they paid for the lease? It doesn't make sense. That's why I challenge you to identify one mineral lease, on land or off shore, that has economically feasible oil deposits that are sitting idle as the lease runs out. That means, in the case of a deep sea well, deposits that exceed the $100 million it costs to explore and build a platform. To make it easier, just identify one lease on land that has economically feasible oil or gas deposits that is being let to run out without development. As for the Wilderness Society release, it does not back out any acres where "dry holes'" were drilled, where the formations were found to be nonproducing, or acres held up by litigation.

Also, what is the rationale of keeping anything off the table? We need more and more oil now, and to do that you have to start development now. The oil futures markets will see these indefinite delays as a continuation of our unilateral oil and natural gas disarmament. If the futures markets knew we were finally going to go after our own resources, they would react. Just the way they react when new discoveries are announced...even though those discoveries won't produce for years to come.

Udall did answer my question: In today's Journal he restated his opposition to lifting the moratorium on developing an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Nice article, David. But it would have been nice for Tom Udall to hold his town hall with more than a few handpicked people, say at a UNM conference hall where the public in general was invited with advance notice. Also, if he can hold a staged meeting like this, why can't he debate Steve Pearce on energy policy? We need to hear the both of them on this most important issue of the day. That said, Tom needs to elaborate on the "I favor responsible drilling" line and state where exactly he will allow drilling. He's reiterated his opposition to allowing development of the estimate 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Will he vote to ever lift the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf? He says he's not against drilling "everywhere" off the coasts, but until the moratorium is lifted, we can't begin to tap any of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas believed to be there. I wish a journalist would ask Tom Udall point blank: yes or no, will you vote to lift the offshore drilling moratorium?

Nice article, David. But it would have been nice for Tom Udall to hold his town hall with more than a few handpicked people, say at a UNM conference hall where the public in general was invited with advance notice. Also, if he can hold a staged meeting like this, why can't he debate Steve Pearce on energy policy? We need to hear the both of them on this most important issue of the day. That said, Tom needs to elaborate on the "I favor responsible drilling" line and state where exactly he will allow drilling. He's reiterated his opposition to allowing development of the estimate 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. Will he vote to ever lift the moratorium on drilling on the outer continental shelf? He says he's not against drilling "everywhere" off the coasts, but until the moratorium is lifted, we can't begin to tap any of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas believed to be there. I wish a journalist would ask Tom Udall point blank: yes or no, will you vote to lift the offshore drilling moratorium?

I don't think so, chemboy. National liberation movement means a movement that takes up arms to throw off colonial rule. The Lebanese Civil War wasn't about that. Lebanon was not ruled at the time by a foreign power. It fractured along religious and ethnic lines. Since then Hezbollah (this is not a defense, just an observation) has participated in governing Lebanon with its previous enemies.

A more accurate theoretical test case of her theory would be the Tibetans if they took up arms and did not use terror against Chinese civilians.

I don't think so, chemboy. National liberation movement means a movement that takes up arms to throw off colonial rule. The Lebanese Civil War wasn't about that. Lebanon was not ruled at the time by a foreign power. It fractured along religious and ethnic lines. Since then Hezbollah (this is not a defense, just an observation) has participated in governing Lebanon with its previous enemies.

A more accurate theoretical test case of her theory would be the Tibetans if they took up arms and did not use terror against Chinese civilians.

The author shows a limited understanding of Hezbollah. Perhaps David posed Hezbollah as a straw man to test the limit's of Wilson's view. But Hezbollah is not a national liberation movement. It is a political party (The Party of God) that has participated in Lebanon's elections. Lebanon is not a colony of any imperial power.

I don't see much that's controversial here. After all, we are nation born out of armed rebellion against an imperial power.

The author shows a limited understanding of Hezbollah. Perhaps David posed Hezbollah as a straw man to test the limit's of Wilson's view. But Hezbollah is not a national liberation movement. It is a political party (The Party of God) that has participated in Lebanon's elections. Lebanon is not a colony of any imperial power.

I don't see much that's controversial here. After all, we are nation born out of armed rebellion against an imperial power.