I believe that the letter “Collins votes with big oil” (BDN, Jan. 5-6) is a political hit piece. If the senator had really sided with big oil her op-ed would have advocated exploiting our own oil reserves like our competition does. No solutions in this letter can significantly compete with oil or free us from the grip of OPEC.

For example, Sen. Susan Collins, similar to the referenced letter, stresses marginal sources of solving the problem and doesn’t advocate exploration and development of our sources of energy that can adequately sustain our way of life. She does mention insufficient refining capacity, but even more refineries are useless without more crude. We should be going for our own crude vigorously for economic reasons. It’s political malpractice to limit exploration and production, letting $100 a barrel oil result while we have untapped sources, arbitrarily off limits. Our competition is leaving no well untapped while we dither, self-limit ourselves, fall behind and pay the price.

On alternates, take ethanol, for example. Congress encouraged ethanol production with rhetoric and subsidies, production expanded past demand before the infrastructure to transport and distribute it was ready, and now ethanol even with subsidies is an economic loser. A representative ethanol stock I bought (and others) last year lost at least 60 percent of value, and investors have fled ethanol in droves. Without heavy subsidies all alternate sources (except nuclear) right now would not be economically viable.

One answer: Testing indicates there may be enough oil under the Colorado Rockies to challenge the aging Saudi fields, and Bush has apparently approved exploration there. Go for it!

Orin Lowe

Holden