Regarding “Use existing gas leases first,” by Cherry DeLorenzo (Beacon, July 17, page 6):
Oil companies have “use-it-or-lose-it” leases on 68 million acres of federal land, and they are allowing the leases to expire because THERE ISN’T ANY OIL THERE. Since the leases are already “use-it-or-lose it” leases, what do you think passing a “use-it-or-lose-it” law will accomplish?
The president lifted his ban on drilling and asked Congress to lift its ban. The Democrats complained that lifting the ban would not result in new oil for a decade and said that unless the oil companies drill on 68 million acres where there is no oil, they will not lift the ban to allow drilling on federal land WHERE THERE IS OIL. Sounds to me like a plan which will never yield a drop of oil. Isn’t a decade a better goal than never?
Also, the time it takes for new leases to produce oil depends on how much governmental red tape the oil companies have to go through before they can start drilling. The companies who do the actual drilling say that, should they get permission to start drilling tomorrow, the areas where infra-structure is in place would start producing in 12 to 18 months, and even those that are the greatest distance from shore and in the deepest water would produce oil in 5 to 6 years.
The petition asking Congress to lift the ban is at www.americansolutions.com.