The drilling dodge
While the Obama administration dithers with green energy fantasies, it's sitting on 3,500 applications for oil and natural gas drilling on federal lands, according to a report by the Interior Department's inspector general.
Although the report points no finger of blame, the IG notes “inefficiencies” by the feds have led to long review times that aren't bound by time limits — meaning oil and gas permits can be delayed indefinitely, The Daily Caller reports. Subsequently, some proposed wells never are drilled.
“This adversely affects developing the nation's domestic energy resources,” the IG says.
Among issues is why it takes the feds 71⁄2 months, on average, to approve permits, which states typically approve in 80 or fewer days. (Texas reportedly takes only about five days).
Is this deliberate foot-dragging? The Obama administration's own data show that coal, gas and oil production on federal lands has dropped 15.5 percent since 2009.
“Since President Obama took office, gasoline prices have doubled and our federal energy resources have been put under tight lock and key,” says Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
And all the while Team Obama pushes pie-in-the-sky alternative energy programs and squanders billions of dollars on crony projects that are guaranteed to fail.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Merging school districts? Some fundamental criteria
- The ‘Truthy’ project: We are suspect
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Dumping duties: A fishy & Pyrrhic victory