Despite downside, oil drilling needed

Julie Federico (Aug 29 Fencepost) was correct when she stated that conservation must be at the top of the list of actions to be implemented. I personally practiced conservation when I used Pace, Metra & CTA when I commuted to my job in the Loop area. Additionally, when I leave my home to run errands they are planned to minimize trips and miles driven.

Conservation should be everyone's goal in the use of liquid fuels; however, it is up to each individual to embrace and practice.

I believe that both sides of the drilling new oil/gas wells question agree that we must do and try everything in Ms Federico's list (and even more) to reduce our need for liquid fuels. I agree that we cannot drill our way out of the current situation. But I also believe that in the near and medium term not one or all of the alternatives discussed will solve the problem, either. Our economy will continue to grow, our population will continue to grow, and our children and grandchildren will purchase cars that consume liquid fuels.

There are over 270 million non-truck vehicles in the U.S. plus all of the diesel fueled trucks. For the next 20 or more years they will require liquid fuels. Drilling here in the U.S. is needed and will supply the needed liquid fuels which are needed as a bridge to the future.

Some areas which are "just over the banned line", think the Gulf of Mexico, which are extensions of known oil- and gas-producing geology, will be productive in a year or so because virtually all of the exploration and seismic work and infrastructure is in place.

Other areas, think off-shore New Jersey, may require 5-10 years to become productive.

Drilling will also create jobs, stop sending so much of our wealth overseas, improve our balance of payments, and improve our balance of payments national security.

Douglas Dallmer

Naperville