The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1929-03-14
Hoover Saves Oil

President Hoover's decision to withdraw govern
nlent oil lands from sale or lease except where such
disposition is mandatory by law, is wise from the
standpoint of conservation and of national defense.
No one familiar with the facts can doubt that mad
waste caracterzes the exploitation of Americas pre-
cious oil resources. key member OF the federal oil
conservation board several years, Hoover knows
those facts His policy apparently is the result of
long study of the problem
The United States has only about is per cent of
the worlds petroleum reserves. But up to five years
ago had produced 81 per cent of the worlds out
put and since that time We have produced around 70
per cent Therefore, complete exhaustion of Amer1-
can supplies is definitely in sght-some say in five
wears some say in fifteen years Even if we to
run short of oil in twenty-five years the situation is
serious.
For oil is a major essential of industry in peace
time and of the army and navy in war time.
"The allies floated to victory wave of OIL, said
Lord curzon
"OI is as necessary as blood in the battles of to-
morrow" according to Clemenceau.
ut is even probable that the supremacy of nations
may be determined by possession of available petro-
leum and Its products" says Coolidge.
To the extent that the United States becomes de-
pendent on foreign oil resources, most of which al
ready are owned controlled by foreign governments
and by foreign companies connected with foreign gov
ernments the United States will lose its freedom in
both war and peace.
And the greater the Gil shortage at rome, the more
incentive there will be for that oil diplomacy and i'm
peraliSm which so often has poisoned our relations
with Great Britain with the smaller nations of the
Near East, Latin-Anerica and Mexico.
Two criticisms are aimed at Hoovers policy. One
is that dsconnuance of the sale and leasing OF gov
eminent reserves will not materially check the pres
ent production and waste, because only about
one-tenth of present production from governments
land and perhaps less than half OF that can be
stopped by Hoover.
This is in effect valid criticism of private in
dustry which controls most production and which
hitherto has failed to conserve resources but it is
no criticism of Hoover that he unhappily finds the
government with so few resources left to conserve
Senator Walsh of Montana, famous Teapot Dome
prosecutor objects that the Hoover policy will benefit
the large oil companies and states where they operate
by shutting out little independents and widcatters
whose projection on government lands has supplied
the competition 70 keep down prices for the con-
sumers.
We share fully Walsh's concern for the consumer
and his fear of price-fxing by the so-called trusts,
but it strikes us that overproduction and waste of
nonreplaceable natural resource is too expensive a
method of guaranteeing temporary low prices.
A .rore helpful criticism of the Hoover policy is
not that goes too far but rather that it does not
go far enough 1t is to be assumed that the President
is considering supplementary action. For instance.
if shasgG Of Irregularities in leases and contracts in
the salt creek CWyomingl field are substantiated,
part of that rich government also may be with
drawn and conserved.
Finally Hoover faces the necessity of persuading
private interests which dominate production to get
together legally for elimination of waste if the
antitrust laws have to be amended to permit this
and at the same time protect the people from
monopoly.
Unless private industry puts an end to the chaos
which seriously threatens the future prosperity and
safety of the nation Or late the government viii
be driven to declare national emergency in oil and
andsr such extraordinary powers enforce conserva-
Jon.