tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416825395963643380.post1323963105683713809..comments2023-07-28T05:11:49.074-04:00Comments on Butler County Bugle: Boehner Column: "We Need an 'All of the Above' Energy Strategy"Matt Hurleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08757790776092350396noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416825395963643380.post-48238435096640953792008-07-17T11:26:00.000-04:002008-07-17T11:26:00.000-04:00Well, please don't confuse the publication of a co...Well, please don't confuse the publication of a column written by John Boehner as being my words... I do have an email in to Congressman Boehner's staff regarding your comments, but I do not speak for him.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, this is a true statement by the Congressman: "And the millions of acres some claim is just sitting around untouched is false. At today’s prices, it makes no sense that a company would sit on an oil find rather than develop it and get it onto the market." If there was oil on those lands, it seems highly unlikely that an energy company would just sit on it. And if there isn't any oil produced, those leases do become void...that is the law already. That is the point that Boehner is making when he says that the "use it or lose it" legislation sounds good, but is not necessary, nor is it a solution.<BR/><BR/>I support -- as John Boehner does -- a solution that supports expanding our energy supplies by any method that we can do so. I think the Pickens Plan (and I haven't asked Rep. Boehner about the Pickens Plan) is not likely to work to achieve the objective he has laid out, but I certainly support the effort to give it a try.<BR/><BR/>And there is certainly room for more conservation efforts as well...Matt Hurleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757790776092350396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416825395963643380.post-32037408901644264652008-07-17T11:11:00.000-04:002008-07-17T11:11:00.000-04:00Matt --I appreciate your measured response to my c...Matt --<BR/>I appreciate your measured response to my comments. Your position now is clearly not the same as that displayed in the dismissive comments of your original blog entry. I take it you DO now acknowledge that there are millions of acres already leased that aren't now producing; it's unclear exactly how much exploration has in fact occurred.<BR/><BR/>These links are quite informative:<BR/><BR/>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184<BR/><BR/>http://wid.ap.org/oilgas/lease_acres.html<BR/><BR/>http://wid.ap.org/oilgas/oilgas.html<BR/><BR/>It's also being reported today that a Senate compromise may be afoot. It takes more of the "all of the above" approach we both appear to advocate:<BR/><BR/>http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/congress.oil/index.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416825395963643380.post-58083227221397868262008-07-17T07:03:00.000-04:002008-07-17T07:03:00.000-04:00I will pass your comments along to the congressman...I will pass your comments along to the congressman's staff, but I wanted to address a few of your comments myself...<BR/><BR/>The problem with the leases is that those are lands upon which oil must be explored. Meaning no one is sure that there is oil on those lands.<BR/><BR/>As for the 8 to 10 years business... Personally, I don't think it will take that long. 2 to 5 years at most with current technology. It may have taken 8 to 10 back in the Clinton administration when this was first proposed, but oil extraction techniques have improved over the years.<BR/><BR/>And the truth is, we don't necessarily need the oil in the market to effect the price. When President Bush rescinded the Executive Order on exploring the outer continental shelf, the price light sweet crude oil dropped quite a bit. Nearly overnight. Why? Because we aren't paying for the gasoline we are putting in our cars, we are paying for the gasoline that will be replacing the gasoline we are putting in our cars.<BR/><BR/>Conservation is a good and noble purpose...and it is also already having an effect, as we are now driving at rates similar to those from years ago. But let's not pretend that conservation alone is the answer...we do need to take an "all of the above" strategy and get to work right now. The longer we delay, the longer there will be higher gas prices and the more likely that our economy takes a stronger hit.Matt Hurleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757790776092350396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416825395963643380.post-20466626681665984832008-07-16T23:31:00.000-04:002008-07-16T23:31:00.000-04:00You say "And the millions of acres some claim is j...You say "And the millions of acres some claim is just sitting around untouched is false. At today’s prices, it makes no sense that a company would sit on an oil find rather than develop it and get it onto the market."<BR/>It may seem to make no sense, but it IS TRUE that oil companies already have leases on vastly MORE millions of acres than could be "freed up" under any Bush proposal for new exploration. Just check it out, my friend. It isn't nutty left-wing propaganda either -- it just simply happens to be TRUE. Your push for a balanced approach ("all of the above") is generally sensible, but you don't acknowledge the lag of 8 to 10 years before a drop of oil from "new exploration" could reach the market. Better to emphasize conservation NOW, to have any measurable effect NOW. While we'll always need oil, we do NOT need to rely on oil for our general energy needs into the distant future.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com