I doubt that last statement strongly. She sent back a reply - I don't mind that it was a form-letter, I just mind that it was an unthinking party-line form-letter.
And thus a reply to the reply, including a quote from her letter in bold:
"...oil supplies diminishing, exploration and development of oil fields off coastal waters and in our protected lands is not a long-term solution."
Sure it is. Why the hell not? Sez who? (And make the subject agree with the verb, willya?)
Can I make that any clearer? If you only allow one type of solution, you only get one type of answer. The desire for conservation-based solutions is purely aesthetic and romantic - it is, in a very real way, imposing private values on the populace far more than any religious group dreams of.
BTW, the email you sent back to me was truncated on both sides because of poor formatting. I had to guess at the complete quote.