TCB: You sound like someone who's excuse for smoking is that they're going to die sooner or later so what's the difference if they keep smoking?

Brazil is not "Oil Free". They get 48% of their energy from Oil. 35% of their energy is from hydroelectric generation. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Backg... .
Since they have the largest river in the world, they have a resource on a scale that is unavailable to nearly every other country. Furthermore, environmentalists oppose their use of dams due to their effect on the environment. Brazil has also plowed under huge tracts of rainforest to plant corn for ethanol production, yet another action condemned by environmentalists.
Iceland is well known for their unique geothermal energy resources. Yet they still drive cars and they still use oil. They hope to be oil free soon, but they are not yet. Its estimated population as of 2005 is 297,000, less than one tenth of 1% of the population of the U.S.
We should not base our energy policy decisions on the basis of such skewed comparisons even if those countries were “Oil Free”.

They probably went oil free because they had to import all of their oil. We have oil here all we gotta do is drill for it.

http://www.nextenergynews.com This site will give you insite into what other Countries are doing. Iceland is Oil free. Brazil started twenty years ago and now they are oil free.

Ah yes, Comrades. Let’s nationalize oil production, nyet? Who is more efficient than the tireless workers of our national government! Take it all away from the money grubbing capitalists, and we will all share in the spoils, tovarich!
.
Such appalling, unbounded ignorance must have poor Adam Smith spinning in his grave like a top. In the world of oil production, if you had to pick a single, astonishingly bad idea, one that stands out from all the rest as a towering monument to unbridled stupidity, nationalizing would surely be it. Good thinking, lads. Surely someone will suggest nationalizing farming next? What could be better than the glorious workers’ communes, as we all toil away like true brothers in the fresh air and sunlight?

Nationalizing oil production isn't a bad idea.

Why not Nationalize oil production and drill our own oil instead of giving the oil companies the royalty's we keep it and use it for green energy funding?

The authors idea, that less drilling here means more drilling in other places, would make sense if the U.S. had some huge supply of easily recovered oil that could substantially increase the world supply. We don't. The world demand for oil is so high that those undesirable countries will also drill for oil.

The people apposed to drilling in ANWR or the American OCS are not only looking for the perfect solution. The difference in opinion is about the cost: Is the cost of potential and real damage to those ecosystems greater than or less than the benefit from the small amount of oil recovered from those areas? The answer to that question depends on how much value you put on the environment. The links provided by Stinky_Socks are the most accurate numbers we have on the benefit side. The cost side is a little more fuzzy, hence the debate.

"Drill here, drill now, pay less" is a slogan. Like every slogan, it does not express detail, it expresses a condensed thought. I think that it is true that drilling for more oil will not lower the price below what it is now. But, I think the price will be lower than it would be if we do not drill for more oil which means we will pay less than we would have if we don't drill.
Sacrifice may well be a useful tool to help solve our energy problems, but sacrifice only works when it is voluntary and supported by persuasion. Forced sacrifice isn’t sacrifice at all, but a dictate, and dictates are resented. Free people, particularly Americans, will resist dictates and politicians who are subject to popular election will not support them if they wish to be re-elected. Our country was formed due to resentment and rebellion against the dictates of authority. Dictates violate our traditions and our concept of freedom.
Just as dictates directed toward sacrifice will fail, so too will the dictates of government for a scientific solution. We can encourage scientific discovery, we can fund it, but we cannot mandate it, particularly on a timetable set by political expediency. In other words, we can’t just order up alternative energy solutions within the next decade as we might order up a pizza for delivery in an hour.

Oil products are relatively safe in terms of handling and storage and contains a lot of energy for its volume. It will likely be needed for some applications.

Other nations have been paying much higher prices for gasoline than the U.S. for decades. If an alternative energy solution was going to be so easy to find there should have been advances in that field long ago in those places. Some have used hydrogen, but remember that the U.S. is many times larger.
.
How do we really know how long it would take for wells to produce oil? Should we just go on the words of a political party? An environmental group?
.
What if the imported supply was cut off entirely, let's say in the case of war?
.
Have you seen a hydrogen or solar powered airliner proposed?

How do we know it's not going to help? It certainly isn't going to hurt.

Expanded offshore exploration and drilling in the U.S. will not lower gas prices, not now, not ten years from now. As long as we consume a quarter of the world's oil with only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we'll be at the mercy of the global price for oil, and we're not going to make a dent in that by adding a few more offshore oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and off the California coast.
Get the production tax credit for wind power renewed. Expand solar incentives. Institute stringent energy efficiency standards. Accelerate funding for research and development into green energy technologies. Force those who want to drill enough make some sacrifices.

Northman,
I agree that there will be no one solution (no silver bullet only silver bb's) but the trouble is that I've seen countless times on tv and in the Republican Camp (McCain, Gingrich, Bodman, etc) and the media in the past few months is "DRILL, DRILL, DRILL" heck look at what Gingrich has been promoting "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less". The big thing is that they are acting as if it is the panacea to our energy woes and that is an out and out lie. A few links
Guy Caruso, Bush appointee to the EIA says Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Drilling won’t affect prices much: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=n...
Here is the 2007 estimate for the OCS:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otherana...
Same w/ANWR which will reduce oil prices by either $.75 to $1.44 per barrel in 2025 or 7:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/a...
Again I agree we need more silver bb's like alternative energy and I'm sure even drilling for more oil but we also need to look at conservation too. Sigh, bust out the cardigans and plaid pants it's the 70s all over again!!! :-(

I don’t think anyone has ever said ANWR oil would give us energy independence. But we live in the real world, and there are seldom 100% solutions to anything. When you respond to every proposed solution by saying, “but that’s not perfect! Forget that one!” then you implicitly endorse the gridlock that got us into this mess in the first place.
.
If anyone has a perfect solution, sound off. I’d love to hear it. And you’ll be a billionaire before you know what hit you. Otherwise, you look at imperfect solutions, cull out the best of the batch, and try see if they will help get you where you need to be. If the benefit of getting there is less than the cost, then you endorse it. If you dig your heels in and say, “give me a perfect solution or nothing,” then the only thing you guarantee is a problem with no solution.

What you say is true. But do you really think that we won't need the oil in 7 to 10 years? And if alternative energy starts to have an effect by then, we may well be on our way to energy independence. If alternative energy is still years away by then, we will be glad we had the foresight to have begun this process to stave off economic disaster the likes of which would make the last couple of years look prosperous in comparison, just as we wish we had 10 years ago when President Clinton made the same 10 year argument against drilling in ANWR. If only.....

The oil beneath ANWR would not lead America to energy independence. It would not allow the country to recede from Mideast politics. It would have no impact on the current gas prices, or any shortages caused by a war in Iraq. It would take seven to 10 years even to get the first barrels of oil from the refuge.

The oil companies are making a lot of money. They have us over a barrel (pun intended, snicker, snicker).So what to do? Refuse them the opportunity to find more oil here to punish their avarice? What will they do? Find oil in other countries paying royalties to foreign governments with the money we pay them as the supply of oil shrinks with the only limiting factor on demand being the rising prices? Move their headquarters and operations to other countries to escape the punishing taxes many politicians promise to levy? Will we feel a glow of self satisfaction as oil shortages and high energy prices cripple our economy?
If we open up oil fields within our borders that we know have oil, the products of those fields benefit Americans, the taxes levied are paid to America, the oil fields are regulated under American environmental laws and the employees hired will be Americans protected under American labor and safety laws. And the world wide supply of oil will increase stabilizing prices.
Refusing to allow more drilling to get even with oil companies is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

NVgrf:
.
I don’t mean to pick on you, but you’ve put words to the assumption several off the anti-drilling folks are making. As we all (should) know from Economics 101, price is a function of supply and demand. “Drill more” or call it what you will, there has been at best very minor increases in oil production in the US over the last few years. Old wells are going dry, and even using new technology to extract every last bit of oil, you still need new wells to replace them, just to stay even. So, U.S. supply is a wash, and some global sources have destabilized. Demand, on the other hand, has gone up and will continue to increase over the next decade at least. So, steady supply with increasing demand gives you higher prices. We can’t control demand, but we can increase (for a finite time) the supply.
.
Not only is it important to increase supply overall, it’s important to increase the U.S. supply, so we can decrease our foreign dependence. When our economy is dependent on countries like Argentina and Iran, who could on a whim just stop producing for a year or two, you have a potentially disastrous situation.
.
The long term goal must be to eliminate oil as an energy source. We got along very nicely without the stuff for a few millennia, and it’s only a matter of time before the boffins come up with something better. Until then, it’s in our national interest to increase domestic supply, and reduce foreign imports. If anyone can come up with a scenario that accomplishes those two objectives, without offshore or ANWR drilling, then by all means sound off. Otherwise, you’re a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

How do we know that? That is pure speculation.

Despite the unprecedented access the oil industry has been given to drill in America, we have the highest gas prices in history. Since the Bush Administration took office and implemented its “drill here, drill there, drill everywhere” platform, the price of gas has more than doubled. The “drill more” plan gives corporate welfare to Big Oil but does nothing for the prices we all pay at the pump.

The same nasty oil companies that without fail produce gasoline for us that get us to work and get us to place to place. All we have to do is pump the fuel into our cars.

Were building a huge pipeline from Canada to the United states to pipe in crude oil. We could produce our own. It would produce good paying jobs and the footprint would be minimal. It's not like off shore drilling is right on the beach. You need a helicopter to get to them. Directional drilling makes it very environmentally safe.

It's fascinating to read all the comments repeating that drilling for oil won't help, that the oil companies are dirty rotten scoundrels and that drilling for oil needlessly endangers wilderness areas as if repeating the same suppositions over and over substantiates those conjectures. It’s kind of like chanting the mantra “four legs good, two legs bad” in an effort to drowned out opposition.
I accredit the expression within quotes to a book entitled “Animal Farm” by George Orwell.

Domestic drilling would not be a bad idea if the oil were to stay in the US to be used by the US. The price would be whatever it costs less import tariffs, transportation, world market price, etc. Depending on foreign oil from the Middle East is precarious. Actually, this country has lost security in many ways. We cannot manufacture anything, our factories are either old or abandoned shells....industry has gone overseas. If an all-out war broke out today, our ability to sustain ourselves is nill. During WWII, the country converted from industry to war mode in a matter of months but we had the infrastructure, the industry, and the trained manpower to do so. We depend on foreign goods for everything now and what were once American companies are now global or have been purchsed by foreigners. Even our roads, bridges, turnpikes, and parkways have been purchased by foreign companies. Do you really think we're safe? We should not be against drilling for oil here but we should keep the oil here. I'll bet the oil companies would be very much less eager to drill with stipulations like this.

Domestic drilling will not greatly reduce gas prices at all. We still do not have the production capacity to keep up with any new drilling, all the capitol it is going to take to start up drilling and production will cancel out the cost savings of new drilling, only after a few years of production will you even see the small benefit at the pumps. Its not worth risking wilderness areas to do this.

Amen, R1234......and don't forget the record profits posted by the oil companies this week. What did you expect when the government is being headed by 2 former oil-men?

Conservation....where does it get us? Remembering the 70's when we had a deep recession and prices went through the roof as they are doing now, we conserved. One of the conservation practices was to turn the thermostat down and shut the lights off. Another was to limit gas purchases. We had record numbers of cars lined up at gas stations to get gas on their given day wasting gas as the cars idled waiting to get to the gas pump. I can recall the first Christmas without the usual light displays in stores and at homes. What, actually, did we achieve? NOTHING!!!!! The electric/gas company charged us all a surcharge for using less electricity than usual and the price per unit went up. The electric/gas company did not want to eat their percieved "loss in revenue". The cries of consumers fell on deaf ears. Consumers were screwed. Now, today, in a different century, we are doing our best to conserve gasoline, again because of the stranglehold of oil speculators. Sure, prices of gas went down by a few pennies, however, our government is threatening to enact a raise in the federal gas tax because they saw a reduction in revenue and we will be stuck with the increse forever. I have yet, in all my years seen real strides to protect the consumer's pocket or health. There have been no real strides by business or government in this country since the 70's to reduce our dependence on oil or to make our refineries more efficient. Drilling for more will not benefit us. It will be sold to the hightest bidder on the world market and our taxes will pay for the drilling and/or any new refineries. We get screwed twice.

We can speculate all day long and say that drilling for oil here won't help with the price of gasoline. It seems interesting to me that as soon as this debate started the price of oil went down. Just by talking about it the speculators are noticing and is it coincidence that the price of oil has come down? We need to do both drill foe more oil and find reasonable alternative fuel sources. Nothing is going to happen overnight and they will both take time but, if we don't do something today we are all going to be looking at $10.00 a gallon gas in another 8 years and nothing will be done and the fingers will still be pointing. Even if we find an alternative fuel source tomorrow it's going to take time to get everyone off of fossil fuel burning cars.

President Bush's approval numbers are by no means great, but why does nobody want to talk about the numbers from congress????? Since SHE took over, gas prices have gone threw the roof. What does congress do anyway? It seems to me that all they do is reconvene when it is a better time for them, or go on vacation at the best time for THEM. They never actualy do anything but go on vacation.

I'd like to personally thank the Gazette for printing this article so we no longer have to be subject to justsaynotomath's comments. Unless that is, they come back with another screen name (clouds555).

A new development on energy occurred today in the House of Representatives. The Republicans wanted to bring drilling offshore to a vote and in response Speaker Pelosi adjourned the chamber for its 5 week recess at about 11 am this morning. Some Republicans and one Democrat stayed in the chamber and continued their discussion. Then the Democratic leadership had the lights microphones and the C-Span cameras turned off. Those still in the chamber continued to discuss the measure they wanted the house to vote on. Then the Democrats had reporters kicked out of the Speaker's Lobby, the space next to the House floor where they normally interview lawmakers. Then the Democrats tried to have the Capitol Police remove the reporters from the House Gallery, but a Republican went there to do an interview so the police had to leave the reporters there. The Republicans stayed about 5 hours infuriating some Democratic staffers with what they called a “stunt”. I guess they don’t like Code Pink-like tactics used against Democrats. For more on this click this link- http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0...

Great article. Pelosi is wrong.
http://www.glennbeck.com/

A commen misconception is that all the oil recovered from ANWR would come directly to the U.S., thereby reducing the amount of foreign oil we have to buy. That is not the case. The oil will be sold on the world market. Also, this extra oil will add little to the global supply and will only reduce the price of fuel by pennies.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/a...

Will we have to drill there eventually? Probably, when the world is truely running out of supply. But there is no compelling reason to drill ANWR now.

Nancy Pelosi has not a leg to stand on. NBC News poll from July 18-21 2008 has congress at a 15% approval, Rasmussen has congress at a huge 9% approval in early July 2008. Pelosi was going to work for the people and has failed to do her job, as well as many politions on both sides. She and the rest of the democrats and republicans need to start listening to the public. Isn't that what they were "hired" to do? dkush21-Why should it be up to our govenerment everytime something like this happens? What about China, India, and the other countries that don't give a crap what happens to the rest of us? They are just looking out for number one, themselves.

This is quote from CNN. This is the entire reason to drill "Iran is OPEC's second largest oil producer and signs of instability in the region can cause volatility in the oil market"

Where will we get the energy for all the hydrogen and electric cars? Not fossil fuels, too dirty. Solar or wind production? Takes up land used for food production and other environmental concerns. Nuclear plants produce waste to dispose of, no one wants them nearby. All would need a larger transmission grid. Hydro? More environmetal concerns.
.
I've yet to see new technology discussed that will get an cargo/airliner off the ground. So maybe we won't get "weaned" off oil after all.

I drink your MILKSHAKE!!!

News flash for all you Dem's and Rep's out there. Both parties are screwing up big time! It is pretty ignorant to think the "W" did this whole thing himself. Some of the groundwork for the state we are in was put in place by our adultering president. Both parties are at fault and all they want to do is continue the pissing match with eachother rather than helping us out. We have the technology and resources to look into alternative fuel types but we are not doing it quickly enough! Honda has a car that will operate on hydrogen but is only being released in CA because they have the places to refuel this vehicle. IMHO, it really doesn't matter who you vote for in November not much will change!

2030? It will not take more than twenty years to draw oil from these offshore sites, that is simply political spin. The research is already done and we know where to drill. Most estimates are 3-7 years. Granted, this won’t help us immediately, but it’s a smart way to hedge our bets. Had we started drilling these offshore sites eight years ago when this debate first came up we’d already be using these resources. However, I agree we need alternative resources. A combination of the republican drill at home and the democrat find alternatives type policy would be the most effective. On the other hand, the two sides can keep bickering and get nothing done, which is the norm.

The funny thing about the oil debate is that both side are correct, but neither wants to admit it. Drilling now would help for the short time and allows us some time to research other alternatives. The only problem I really have is with Pelosi, she told the President that he should lift the executive order that wouldn't allow us to drill in Alaska and off shore. He did and now she won't even put it up for debate or a vote. That is because she knows that if congress doesn't pass a bill then the Dems will be blamed and she is right. The other good laugh comes from people like justsayno to math when they say "under Clinton we didn't have to pay$4 a gallon". Justsaynotomath, do the math there are around 30 million or more new drivers in INDIA and CHINA, WHICH MEANS MORE PEOPLE WITH CARS + MEANS MORE GAS NEEDED = HIGHER GAS PRICES. It's called supply and demand.

What we need to develop is a really long straw.

Drilling in these offshore areas will produce little oil compared to existing fields, and the oil will not be flowing until 2030. How about everybody in Washington work together (now there's a concept!) to help reduce consumption and find alternatives NOW. We DO need to look at new sources - but this is not going to bring gas back down to $3/gallon in time for the election.

Captain Planet to the rescue!

You want Oil prices to go down, Lets work on making the dollar stronger.

Kush:

The sun is going dark in 2 billion years. All humans will die, how are the democrats going to stop it?

Ideologues such as Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid and even some of the posters on GazetteXtra accept some propositions as self-evident truth that need not be supported with facts and reason. When challenged for such support, their reaction is usually condescension and characterization of their challengers as intellectually deficient. With such partisans no reasonable discussion can occur on propositions of this type. They intend to do what they think is best for us regardless of what we think.
For those who claim that conservation will save us, how do we make the whole world conserve? Haven’t Americans reduced driving of late lowering demand and thus the price of oil? If we continue to reduce our consumption lowering the price even more won’t that encourage people around the world to use more due to the price decrease setting off yet another round of price increases? Only increasing reserves and capacity will balance out the inevitable and uncontrollable increase in demand.
For those who blame the greed of the “Rich Oil Companies” I remind you that since ¾ of our oil is imported, the bulk of the profits go to those who sell those “Rich Oil Companies” their product. Those record profits that these companies have made and which you seem to think are so outrageous were made legally under the law. This reminds me of a quote from Adam Smith, the 18th century Scottish economist “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.”

For the reading impaired out there, this is indeed *Commentary*, not *News*. That’s why you’ll find it under the “Opinion” tab on the web, or on the editorial pages in the paper. Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist, not a reporter for the Gazette. It’s good to get these little details right before having an Emily Litella moment right here in front of everybody.
.
Where’s the outrage, indeed? If the government was pouring billions into researching new technology for alternative fuels, I would be outraged. The government is the last entity you would want directing research. They do, however, provide tax incentives for industry to conduct the research, and companies either go broke or get rich depending on how well they do. Where is the outrage that we can and should be building nuclear power plants to provide energy, instead of gas turbines to burn vast amounts of natural gas? Talk to the liberals about that one.
.
One day, but not soon, we will wean ourselves off oil. Somebody, using insight and the right technology, will find a much better and economical fuel. But until then, we need oil, and it’s much better to drill our own than buy it from states that sponsor terrorism. If you actually read this article, Krauthammer makes some good points about Pelosi’s incredible hypocrisy.

TCB: Maybe the incentive of not destroying our planet!? Gee, you would think that would be enough?

Kush:

Why should "Our government better get on the ball and start looking into technology that would eliminate the use of fossil fuel instead of supporting big oil so they can make their huge profits." Why is this a govt solution and not a solution by the private sector?

Govt receives more money in gasoline taxes than all of the big oil companies (with no risk of capital)-what incentive is there for govt to seek alternatives?

To the extent that renewable and non-fossil fuel energy alternatives can significantly replace conventional sources anytime soon, they'll do so only at considerably greater expense. Ironically, the most efficient non-fossil fuel energy source is nuclear but is opposed by envirologues like Democrate Nacy Pelosi, I wonder why?

opinionsforfree: I am a Democrat and I will still vote Democrat. I won't cave into big oil and Republicans just because they are starting to pull our strings and making it very uncomfortable for us right now. I will fight and not jump ship when times get tough!

Some of you people just don't get it. We don't need to drill our earth for more oil so we can detroy it! Our government better get on the ball and start looking into technology that would eliminate the use of fossil fuel instead of supporting big oil so they can make their huge profits. Do you think they really care about us "little people"! Why don't we just give in to big oil, we can't afford gas these soaring gas prices, boy how our government has us by a leash. If they would have put as much effort into looking into technology as they do trying to push more oil drilling down our throats, we might not be in this predicament now! I would like to live a little longer than to see our earth destroyed by these money hungry mongrels!

yes as everyone can see the REPUBLICANTS have been doing such a great job. gas was $4.00 a gallon when Clinton was president too right, NO WRONG ! this is the last straw gazette ! i will no longer read your crap paper and i will tell everyone i know not to support the gazette either.

I'm disappointed that in this political season almost no one is talking seriously about conservation as a tool to reduce dependence on oil and cope with high gas prices.
.
Taking just a few tips from hypermilers, the typical driver could reduce consumption by 10% with no change in life style, 20% with a few minor changes in life style. If everyone did this we wouldn't be having these other discussions about prices or drilling.
.
If high gas prices really bother people so much, why are they still flying down the roads well above the speed limits?

Where is the equal demand and outrage that our industries/government aren't producing technology that would eliminate the need for ANY fossil fuels? To drill or not to drill is a moot point since oil is a finite resource anyways. My concern lies with what are we going to do when that oil runs out also...

And just think people are blindly going to Vote for Obama

Being a Democratic. I wont vote for a Democratic just for the reason they wont help with the fuel prices. I will be voting Rep this year

This is not news this is political commentary.
I often wonder how the gazette chooses what political commentary they chose to run here. Are the just trying to get a rise out of the conservatives here in town?

Wanna save money on gas?

Obama's right. Inflating your tires to the optimum pressure and performing routine maintenance will reduce gas use up to 15% (and reduce the wear on your expensive tires and engine parts). Drive the speed limit on highways and reduce gas use up to 20%.

That's the small part we can do to help. Congress has some work to do on their side, and more drilling is not the answer.

Why is that everyone thinks drilling for more oil will lower energy costs? Domestic oil production has increased steadily since 2002 and prices have gone up 250% in that same timeframe. And where did the money go? Record profit for oil companies. Why do Republicans want to drill for more oil? Record profit for oil companies.

This ain't about us, people. It's all about money.

73% Of Americans want to drill for our own oil but, the democrats (and some Republicans) don't want to. Makes no sense aren't they suppose to be working for us?

Democrats are always saying they are looking out for the middle class, yet when they have a chance to do something to help they don't. The majority of Americans want to drill, but yet this congress who says they are in touch with americans are out of touch. Remember Pelosi's big speech about how this congress will debate and pass bills that the american people want passed. BS again.

Did Obama work at a jiffy Lube?

From Obama "If we keep our tire inflated and get regular tune-ups, we would'nt need to drill." It's that simple! Problem solved, let's move on!

I wish these same lawmakers would spend just a week not using oil. No plastic, no car, no plane, electricity only from non fosil means, no electronic gadgets (they contain plastic)...then report back to us on how easy it is and we should all do it. We would be drilling before years end.