As with most issues, neither side alone has a monopoly on good ideas. We need to decrease demand as well as increase supply. Projections about what might happen are no better than trying to predict who will win the Super Bowl, in 2015. For every projection claiming this will have little to no impact, there is sure to be another claiming the opposite. So let's look at the basic fundamentals.

Oil is a finite resource and we need to be developing alternative sources of fuel. That will take time and a good deal of money before we start to see the results. We also need to convert our fleet to more fuel efficient vehicles, and ideally to hybrid and electric vehicles. Again, this will take time and money to do. In the meantime, we are still reliant upon oil, like it or not. The reality is that we need to be taking steps to conserve and reduce demand, but we also should be looking for ways to increase our supply. Basic economics teach us that by doing one or the other we will reduce prices, and by doing both we will have the greatest impact on prices. The days of cheap gas are gone for good most likely, but unless we want to one day look back at when $4 a gallon was a bargain, we should let go of ideology and deal in reality.

Outstanding post!

The incremental increase in supply that can be provided by drilling off-shore will not keep pace with the increase in demand, so prices aren't likely to come down if that drilling is allowed. But even if prices stop going up, and remain where they are, they're still too high. Many forms of alternative energy become economically viable when the price of oil is below even $70 per barrel, and it's currently > $130. Given that the business models for many industries are broken at the current cost of energy, it makes no sense to continue to encourage investment, and to continue to enable our dependence on an obsolete energy technology.

The transformation from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy is already underway. Billions of dollars in venture capital has been flowing into new energy startups, and this will only increase. Diverting financial resources towards an industry that undermines the US economy by its very existence (the more dependent we are on oil, the more dependent we are on imported oil, as even with off-shore production, we can't come close to meeting our needs) will delay the availability of economically viable sources of energy.

Ignoring the question of whether the environmental risk of drilling is worth the return (the question is very valid), the real question that needs to be asked is should we deploy precious capital towards maintaining the current unsustainable energy infrastructure? Or do we make the best possible decision for long term economic, environmental, and political security, by expediting the shift to renewable energy that can be produced entirely in the United States, eliminating all dependence on foreign sources?

Sure, new electric vehicles will take time and money, but installing $billion oil platforms off the coast and building secure pipelines and wells in the ANWR isn't going to be free or ready right away.

It's going to be financed by increased oil prices, higher than they are today, as the oil companies aren't about to accept lower profits to develop new sources, and it's going to take several years for oil from these sources to show up at your local gas pump. In the meantime, we can have electric cars and more wind power (wind power in the US has already broken through parity with gas and oil-generated electricity). We can add more biofuels to the system, which will also lessen the demand for petro-based fuels.

There's no question that allowing development of off-shore drilling will be better for oil companies. It would allow them to sell more oil at the highest prices ever. I don't have a problem with them trying to do that, that's what they are programmed to do. It's in their best short-term interests, and that's what their management and shareholders care about. But it's not in the best interests for the rest of us non-oil company executives. Take it from that patron saint of oil companies (the president), who said America has an addicition to oil. Let's find the will to break that addiction now.

No actually profitable idea will ever die for lack of funding. We can have oil now and alternatives when the technology actually is available too. We don't have to choose.

nmark, you have made some excellent points. I wonder what the reality truly is? Is there vast untapped oil out there, or will the amount have little/no effect? I suspect those that would be doing the exploration/drilling would know. They are not going to invest in a platform and all the related infastructure if there is no profit potential.

A question I had previously asked: I had heard numerous times that the outer continental shelf is an area 50 to 200 miles off shore. Don't international waters start at the 12 mile limit? If the OCS is international, why isn't drilling taking place right now, or is it? Maybe not economically or technologically feasible?

A lot of profitable ideas are still bad on measure.Surely the oil giants will make huge profits, but the underlying problem is our dependency on the stuff.It is very much like drug addiction and illegal sales there is a huge profit there

And I believe we do have the technology for alternate energy, its just that the profitability of oil is keeping us from developing it.If we cut out the profit the system will figure out a way to adjust.

we live in a semi capitalist country.there is huge demand for fuel.oil companies have a duty to try to increase supply because everyone needs energy in our society.even if new oil doesn't come on stream for a decade,by that time our other supplies will be declining, as they already are .it's not a matter of reducing the price of gas at the pump, it's a matter of having supplies in the future.almost everything we buy gets trucked from somewhere.the cost of that is going up, so we all pay for higher energy costs, even if we live "green".there are huge profits in oil that's true ,but blaming the oil companies is scape goating. we have done it to ourselves.how many suv's have been sold in the last ten years?they get crappy mileage and are a menace on the roads to people in small vehicles as well.so now, those who bought them are really paying the price ( no sympathy here)

saying things like we have the technology for alternative energy doesn't cut it.Solar is very very expensive per kwt.wind is somewhat viable in certain areas , but gets the environmentalists in a tizzy over bird strikes and objections that it's "unsightly" or noisy.they can't even put a windfarm offshore in massachusetts ,because ted kennedy will see the windmills when he's out at sea in his boat.nuclear is a very viable energy source, especially if we reprocess the fuel, since we can use it 10 to 20 times till it's totally depleted.of course we can't do that in my backyard, right? we can't build more dams because it floods land and kills fish also.

so for now we are stuck with oil if we like it or not.sure, alternatives are being developed, but that will also take a long time to be commercially viable.in a free market, alternatives have to make economic sense or they will not succeed.that's why corn ethanol is a loser and only is viable with huge government subsidies.it would be cheaper to import ethanol from brasil than making corn ethanol domestically.

saying that we should do this or that might be possible in a dictatorship,but doesn't work in a democracy.the only things the ave person can do is get a high mileage vehicle, keep it tuned up ,check your TIRE PRESSURE, don't speed , install compact florescent lights in the house etc.

it's not just oil, but every commodity is going up dramatically.steel is up 60 % over the last year.all petrochemicals are also way up.building materials continue to rise. well maybe there will be a worldwide recession,thereby lowering demand for chinese goods, which may put some brakes on this wild ride, but probably not.

well that's my rant for now

we are all so screwed.

This is a very complex issue indeed. I don't have much to add to the debate beyond what I wrote originally as I mostly agree with the comments that were left in reply, but just wanted to voice my appreciation for being able to be part of such an interesting and enlightening forum as The Fray. It is encouraging to see that there is intelligent life out there, and in this whole string, nobody called anyone an idiot, shouted at each other using all caps, or went off on a tangent about how the whole thing is Bush's fault. How refreshing. I'm always interested in learning about new sites and sources, but I have to say that Slate has become my favorite online magazine, and The Fray is easily the best online posting site I have come across. Thanks to all who make it so.

You embarass me a bit since I got off on Americafirst yesterday. Every once in a while, somebody drops in here to opine that he hates all of us but usually doesn't contribute anything to the thread, either in agreement or in opposition to the arguments which appear. There isn't much to be done with that kind of poster except to invite them to leave. Some have occasionally come and posted the same meaningless message numerous times with different subject lines just to reduce the efficiency with which ideas can be exchanged here. I assume that their true target must be ideas as such.

smelly:

A lot of profitable ideas are still bad on measure.Surely the oil giants will make huge profits, but the underlying problem is our dependency on the stuff.It is very much like drug addiction and illegal sales there is a huge profit there

And I believe we do have the technology for alternate energy, its just that the profitability of oil is keeping us from developing it.If we cut out the profit the system will figure out a way to adjust.

You really want the gov't to "cut the profits" out of oil so they stop producing the stuff? Seriously?

I do want to tax them fairly, they are getting by with highway robbery right now.

I heard a debate on Sunday morning television, apparently the Oil company logic is that 80% of their leases turn out to be either unprofitable or unproductive, so even without exploring 80 of their leased territory they want more.And if 80% is a real figure,how do they figure that the ones at issue (off shore and Anwar) will be hits.

I don't think we are getting the straight stuff from either the oil industry or from the government.What I do know is that we need to reduce and finally eliminate the use of oil as a fuel source.

[I do want to tax them fairly, they are getting by with highway robbery right now.]

How so?

[I heard a debate on Sunday morning television, apparently the Oil company logic is that 80% of their leases turn out to be either unprofitable or unproductive, so even without exploring 80 of their leased territory they want more.And if 80% is a real figure,how do they figure that the ones at issue (off shore and Anwar) will be hits.]

So, what's your point? Are you imagining that the oil companies actively prefer to drill in environmentally sensitive areas just so they can kill caribou or something?

Neither you nor I are oil geologists. But one thing I do know. Exxon isn't going to spend a billion dollars developing an oil field that won't produce oil.

[I don't think we are getting the straight stuff from either the oil industry or from the government.What I do know is that we need to reduce and finally eliminate the use of oil as a fuel source.]

Why?

I guess you are asking why we should stop using oil as a fuel source.Its finite, America doesn't have enough to support its own market, we have no control over the world market, and we can come up with alternatives.

Just in case you havn't noticed its getting so expensive people can't afford it. Transportation services are being curtailed so that mass transit is in trouble.Airlines are going broke.

Thats why.

If you don't think that the oil companies are treated better than just about every industry on taxation then you are just wrong.

They get tax breaks and breaks on their leases (they claim 80% are worthless).

Have you considered that oil companies are interested in buying these long-term leases as a competitive measure, to keep other oil companies from buying them? They may have no real intention of drilling or otherwise developing those regions, but only a wish to control them if they should change their outlook.