National ENERGY POLICY , and Louisiana
Louisiana oil and gas industry is in hard times. Our rig counts are low and too many people are not working. The price of oil is low and our production costs are high. Much higher than low production cost in the Middle East. The low price is good for farmers, fishermen and consumers, but is bad for oil industry employment in Louisiana. To compete internationally and to return to more robust oil field activity our Congress should direct the Federal Government to help lower production costs so that oil can be produced economically for consumers and profitably for the oil industry.
The government can help lower oil production costs by : 1). lowering corporate income tax as Mr. Trump is suggesting. 2). eliminating unnecessary oil industry regulation and by eliminating harmful employment taxes such as Obamacare. 3). and by making public offshore and land leases more available for exploration and drilling in areas that will have access and production costs that will be lower than deep water, arctic or other expensive drilling sites.
Forty years of national "policy" has promised and failed to achieve affordable "energy independence" because of misguided emphasis on reducing consumption. Energy policy has overlooked our vast known reserves in the U.S. of accessible oil, gas and coal. Congress can improve our national energy policy by changing focus from "how can we use less?" to "how do we produce more?", and "how do we produce it more economically?"
A National policy for energy will need to be attractive to other states in order for legislation to pass Congress. Lower corporate income tax will benefit , not just oil and gas , but all industry and business in all states. It should be easy to enlist other states to help pass this type of legislation. Other states will also be enthusiastic in joining us to eliminate Obamacare. Other states will also join our efforts to expand lease opportunity on public lands and eliminate unnecessary regulation in order to keep energy affordable.
Congress must remove obstacles to exploration and production found in government "energy policy". Much of our known undeveloped oil and gas resource lies off our coast or rests in public lands that the federal government has made unavailable for natural resource development. These public lands can be made accessible by expanding lease opportunities to private industry whose ingenuity, technology and investment can accomplish exploration and production that will bring more energy to our domestic markets at lower prices. We can more than meet all of our domestic need and remain prudent and environmentally conscientious in managing these resources.
Current policy also imposes obstacles to energy development projects by requiring redundant applications, reviews and permit processes by multiple federal agencies, and by imposing heavy handed regulation that results in unnecessary moratoria and restrictions. Congress must improve policy with a simplified and efficient permit process. The Canadian system is a good model that has been described as "one project, one review, completed in a specific time period."
Congressmen have authority over energy policy yet are allowed to accept, and have come to expect, money from energy industry as campaign contributions. This creates conflict of interest that undermines good policy. I accept no campaign contributions and spend no money of my own on a campaign. I am uniquely qualified to serve in Congress with no conflict of interest and advocate on your behalf for good energy policy.
The government can help lower oil production costs by : 1). lowering corporate income tax as Mr. Trump is suggesting. 2). eliminating unnecessary oil industry regulation and by eliminating harmful employment taxes such as Obamacare. 3). and by making public offshore and land leases more available for exploration and drilling in areas that will have access and production costs that will be lower than deep water, arctic or other expensive drilling sites.
Forty years of national "policy" has promised and failed to achieve affordable "energy independence" because of misguided emphasis on reducing consumption. Energy policy has overlooked our vast known reserves in the U.S. of accessible oil, gas and coal. Congress can improve our national energy policy by changing focus from "how can we use less?" to "how do we produce more?", and "how do we produce it more economically?"
A National policy for energy will need to be attractive to other states in order for legislation to pass Congress. Lower corporate income tax will benefit , not just oil and gas , but all industry and business in all states. It should be easy to enlist other states to help pass this type of legislation. Other states will also be enthusiastic in joining us to eliminate Obamacare. Other states will also join our efforts to expand lease opportunity on public lands and eliminate unnecessary regulation in order to keep energy affordable.
Congress must remove obstacles to exploration and production found in government "energy policy". Much of our known undeveloped oil and gas resource lies off our coast or rests in public lands that the federal government has made unavailable for natural resource development. These public lands can be made accessible by expanding lease opportunities to private industry whose ingenuity, technology and investment can accomplish exploration and production that will bring more energy to our domestic markets at lower prices. We can more than meet all of our domestic need and remain prudent and environmentally conscientious in managing these resources.
Current policy also imposes obstacles to energy development projects by requiring redundant applications, reviews and permit processes by multiple federal agencies, and by imposing heavy handed regulation that results in unnecessary moratoria and restrictions. Congress must improve policy with a simplified and efficient permit process. The Canadian system is a good model that has been described as "one project, one review, completed in a specific time period."
Congressmen have authority over energy policy yet are allowed to accept, and have come to expect, money from energy industry as campaign contributions. This creates conflict of interest that undermines good policy. I accept no campaign contributions and spend no money of my own on a campaign. I am uniquely qualified to serve in Congress with no conflict of interest and advocate on your behalf for good energy policy.