President Obama's order to withdraw 30 million barrels of crude from the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a shortsighted decision that has too much of the whiff of presidential politics and not enough of the clear strategic thinking on energy policy that this nation requires.
Moving that oil onto the market is a Band-Aid solution to a problem that is already getting better on its own. Prices at the pump have been coming down recently, and the trend is generally expected to continue.
This sort of circumstance is not what the SPR was designed for anyway. It was set up to be a resource to help the country cope with a genuine crisis. Never was it envisioned to serve as a quick fix to soothe a sitting president's concerns about drops in his popularity ratings with a close election on the horizon.
The SPR shouldn't be trifled with in this manner. Heaven forbid that there may come a hurricane or man-made disaster that forces a situation of real shortage of supply. As a result of Obama's ill-considered decision, the nation will have 30 million barrels less in reserves to help counter circumstances that could extend beyond mere inconvenience. Who's to say? That could make a critical difference.
Stopgap steps like this one are simply no substitute for the real thing — a well-thought out national energy policy presented in a straightforward manner with conviction by the president. We're still waiting.
Meanwhile, this newspaper, along with many others, has emphasized numerous times the need to accomplish this strategic objective. How? By building a bridge to a sustainable energy future with resources that are plentifully available domestically and could be used to insulate us from areas of political instability and the whims of dictators while employing Americans in the production of abundant domestic energy reserves. The most widely discussed possibility for doing so is natural gas from the nation's vast shale formations that has been made more accessible by a (not new) technology called hydraulic fracturing.
We are well aware of the questions about this fuel: the environmental concerns relating to the fracking method used to release it from the shale formations; worries about harm to water supplies; concerns that wells peter out prematurely and that the scope of domestic supplies has been overstated; debate about the economic viability of shale gas in the marketplace; talk of Ponzi schemes luring investors into risky investments; blue flames coming out of water spigots and all of the rest.
Most recently, The New York Times carried a lengthy news analysis raising more of these questions. These and other questions deserve answers from an industry that has too often been unwilling to give them. As supporters of the energy industry, hopeful about the possibilities raised by shale gas, we strongly encourage the energy sector's leadership, much of it based in Houston, to be forthcoming.
On the other hand, we also are keenly aware of the politicization that has too often characterized the views of some opponents of shale gas development.
We take the middle position: This is too important to be colored by politics. Conclusions must be based on the unbiased judgments of scientists, environmentalists, geologists, petroleum engineers and others committed to call balls and strikes fairly.
We feel certain the questions recently raised will be objectively addressed by the University of Texas team recently formed to examine the subject.
We also like the ground-breaking decision of the Texas Legislature and Gov. Rick Perry to insist upon disclosure of the chemical makeup of the fluids used in the fracking process.
This is the right course to take. Let's get the facts, sans politics, and get on with the critical business of creating a sensible energy policy for this country.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment