Marathon Pundit: "Use it or lose it" oil legislation is a loser

The Obama administration is feeling the heat on high gasoline prices. Rather than solve the problem, they're trying to put the energy industry on the defensive. That tactic might lead to less oil being drilled--and it could compromise safety.

In a Fox News op-ed, Thomas Pyle of the American Energy Alliance tells us why "use it or lose it" is a loser:

With the president addressing energy security today as he continues to take flak for his energy policies and fuel prices creep toward $4 a gallon, his supporters have stepped up efforts to defend the president in anticipation of the 2012 election cycle. Their tactic is straight forward: deflect blame for his own misguided energy rationing schemes towards the "Big Oil" companies.

Senators Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., both outspoken critics of everything fossil fuel, lobbed a volley at U.S. energy companies by introducing a so-called "use it or lose it" bill to charge them per acre on federal leases which are not currently producing oil and gas. And yesterday, the Department of Interior delivered its report on the topic to the White House with great fanfare.

While these political maneuvers may play to the president's campaign apparatus, they should sound alarm bells for the American public.

This bill ridiculously assumes that there is oil and gas under every square inch of the mere 3 percent of federal lands that the administration makes available for energy exploration and production. Even if that were true, the last thing the federal government should be doing is rushing companies to drill wells without performing the necessary environmental analysis, seismic surveying, and exploratory drilling to search for the oil and gas. Furthermore, production on a leased allotment requires the very federal permits the administration continues to withhold from most prospective deepwater drillers, highlighting the fact that this measure is little more than a cheap political gimmick.