Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Obama’s “use it or lose it” policy makes sense

This letter has not been edited

Aaron P. Bradford, Denver

Published September 4, 2008 at 6 p.m.

Text size  

I would humbly request a shift in focus, away from Recreate 68, and toward “the Unused 68.” Today, 68 million acres of oil leases go unused by oil companies, many of which are off shore. If drilled, these leases would double domestic oil production and increase natural gas production by 75%. Obama’s “use it or lose it” policy, which gets virtually no coverage, simply makes sense. We should put these acres into production before we move into new areas off-shore.

The drill-first-ask-questions-later policy adopted by Senator McCain and President Bush was perfectly manufactured for this campaign. If offshore drilling would have served our national security interests, why did Senator McCain and George Bush wait until six months before the election to raise the issue? Why didn’t they lift the ban when they controlled Congress for the first six years of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answer is simple - new off-shore leases will not change a thing. I work on the assumption that oil companies like making money and are willing to spend it to make it (consider the $2 million spent on John McCain to ensure $4 billion in tax breaks and loop holes). If drilling on the outer continental shelf would have created a reasonable return on investment before gas reached $4.00 a gallon, oil companies would have drilled holes all over the 68 million acres already available to them.

If new leases would have presented a better “return on investment”

before we reached $4.00 a gallon, Bush and McCain would have lifted the ban when they controlled Congress. Problem: gas was too cheap back then.

The reality - drilling offshore will only make sense if gas stays at $4.00 a gallon - a horrific side effect of McCain’s one dimensional energy policy. We need a different future. We must seize our future today by investing in truly domestic sources of energy which are powered by American ingenuity: wind, solar, hydro, thermal, improved efficiency standards (Obama is pushing for 150 mpg) and revolutionary changes in rechargeable battery technology. Any one feel like going to the moon in five years!

Comments

  • September 5, 2008

    4:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    navymom writes:

    I am going to be guilty of copying and pasting one of my previous posts on another thread in order to address this letter.

    Here is a direct quote from Obama's energy plan posted on his website: "With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security. But U.S. oil and
    gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas."

    Nowhere in his energy plan does he talk about opening up more drilling. If he is now for additional drilling offshore, he has not revised his plan. He does talk about existing leases and looking at the "infrastructure obstacles/shortages and federal permitting process delays."

    Nowhere in his energy plan does he address the obstacles to drilling such as environmental lawsuits, protests, slow state permitting processes, and state regulatory deterrences to drilling.

    If he was really serious about allowing drilling on existing leases, he would address all the obstacles and declare that, as energy production is critical to the economic well being and national security of the United States, all states should be required to expedite drilling permits, set aside regulatory hindrances to drilling and expedite any and all protests and lawsuits pertaining to drilling leases or have federal funds for road construction cut off. If they could cut off highway funding for not adopting the 55 mph speed limit, they can do it for hindering drilling which would help us move toward energy independence and stop sending money out of our economy and into OPEC's hands.

    I will admit that Barack Obama believes that drilling is undesirable. Just because he states his opinion does not mean that his opinion is necessarily the correct opinion. To my children, doing schoolwork was undesirable, but necessary.

    Yes, we may not be able to drill our way completely out of foreign oil dependence, but I am for drilling here at home and drilling now. I am also for working to develop other sources of energy to help us move away from foreign oil. In other words, I am for putting all options on the table. Nothing should be ruled out and private companies should be encouraged to do everything they can to help us move toward energy independence.

  • September 5, 2008

    4:11 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    navymom writes:

    Now to address a blatant fallacy in this letter. Mr. Bradford states "I work on the assumption that oil companies like making money and are willing to spend it to make it (consider the $2 million spent on John McCain to ensure $4 billion in tax breaks and loop holes)." I am assuming that he is talking about campaign donations and the energy bill. I don't know where he gets his information, corporations cannot donate to political campaigns. Oil executives and PACs can donate and do.

    In fact, since Barack Obama first ran for his senate seat and his subsequent presidential bid, he has received $470,765 from oil and gas sources. This ranks him 19th in the senate for receiving oil and gas contributions. It to John McCain his whole career to rack up $1,642,810 in contributions. At the rate that Obama is going, it will take him less than 14 years to get the contributions that McCain got in 27 years.

    As to the second part of his statement, "to ensure $4 billion in tax breaks and loop holes", John McCain voted against the bill that gave $14 billion in tax credits to the energy industry, $9 billion to oil and gas and $5 billion to clean coal and renewables, while Barack Obama voted for it. McCain, at the time, believed that profitable energy companies could make it on their own and develop new technologies with their own money.

    Whether you agree with McCain or Obama, at least get the facts straight.

  • September 5, 2008

    3:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DakotaPlainsman writes:

    Obama's use it or lose it plan exposes his failure to understand business in a free market. Since he never held a real job with a bottom line, that's easy to grasp.
    If those areas were profitable, they would have already been pumped dry.
    The community organizer is just wrong.... again.