All I have to say is amen to that!

Drill, baby drill!

Heck, with the high oil prices, I'm paying an extra $150 per month, so I'll make it back in two months.

I really wish the Democrats wouldn't be so beholden to the greenies. I'm a Democrat myself, but seems like my party has shifted hard to the Left.

The map says it all

we need to invest in alternative energy. Plain and simple!

Oil is bad for the environment and is leading to global warming. Hopefully the higher prices will lead to more investment in alternative energy.

p.s. I drive a hybrid so doesn't affect me as much.

Yeah, that's what they said 10 years ago when Clinton vetoed ANWR drilling!

How bout we drill now so in 5-10 years we can have cheaper oil?
More oil = more supply = cheaper oil = more retirement savings.

We have no idea when some scientist will invent the perfect electric car with long-lasting electric cell or a hydrogen car. It could be 50 years away. We still need oil for other things like plastics, lubricants, cosmetics, asphalt, tires, and thousands of other products.

So even if we stop using the combustion engine today, we'll still need cheap oil

We need some short term financial pain to help protect against global warming. We can't continue to put pollutants into the air.

Talk about a Democratic talking point!

So billions of barrels of oil reserves in ANWR and the continental U.S. shelf won't affect the price of a barrel of oil? Huh... Billions of barrels of new supply doesn't affect the price. Go figure.

Funny how the Democrats fail to understand economics. Guess that's why most Wall Street folks are Republicans.

Even the announcement we WOULD drill for oil would cause the oil futures to drop (speculators) and hence the current price would drop.

I'm with Johnny - "Drill, baby drill!"

You stupid Americans! If you drilled like we do, you too could have cheap gas.

Your kids are going to grow up and when they ask to go to college and you say "Sorry, we spent it all on fuel costs," they'll say "Well why the hell didn't you vote for Republicans or Democrats who wanted to drill!"

That said, I hope you Americans don't drill. I have investments in oil in Iraq. The higher the price of a barrel the better for me.

I fear one day you Americans will wake up and like you put a man on the moon and how you defeated the Nazis and Japanese in 4 years, you will have a mission to become energy independent.

Fortunately for me, the Democrats are going to get more seats in Congress this year. So not likely until the Republicans gain power back.

Gasoline-based cars will be with us for quite a while, though with increasing percentages of hybrids and electric-only (especially for cities and inner suburbs).

Note that this also means that there will probably be a moderate reversal of the suburban (and ex-urban) exodus from the cities, and a corresponding increase in real estate values in areas closer to where people work, and closer to useful public transportation.

You may dismiss it as political rhetoric, but it's true we can't drill our way out of the current high oil prices. We don't have huge reserves that are undrilled (even ANWR isn't huge compared to our consumption), and it would take 7-10 years to bring something like ANWR fully into production.

Used to be, if there was a surge in demand or a spike in prices, someone would open a spigot (like the Saudis). They had unused capacity and easily exploited reserves. It's basically all on line now (except for Iraq, and don't bet on any sort of stable or large supply coming out of there soon), so when prices go up, even though there's lots of incentive, there are no spigots to open. The best/only chance for low (like

If you can, read the book on Peak Oil by the geologist at Princeton (I forget the title - Hubberts Peak perhaps).

BTW, ethanol from corn won't help you much if at all. It competes with food production, and the net energy gain (after the costs of raising/harvesting/transport) is minimal (you can argue over whether it's positive or negative, but it's not hugely positive). Cellulosic ethanol, when they perfect it, should be better and use a lot less energy inputs (fertilizer, irrigation, etc).

Another odd side-effect - Iraq isn't really producing now, let alone seriously exporting compared to what it could. In 20 years, when Iraq may be stable (may), they'll have bigger reserves left than anyone, ironically because we destabilized the country, and then oil prices will likely be even higher.

Partially true. Like you say, we won't get access to the oil for 5-10 years. However, some stock futures expire years from now (think stock options), so speculators will sell their existing stock futures because they know more oil supply will be coming online in 5-10 years, which could drop the price of a barrel of oil today!

>>We don't have huge reserves that are undrilled (even ANWR isn't huge compared to our consumption)

I would have to strongly disagree with you. Latest oil studies show U.S. oil reserves could be higher than the entire Middle East combined. Look up Rocky Mountains, North Dakota oil shale, and offshore (Gulf/Florida) oil reserves. Actually just googled and here's one quote: "Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil."

and here's a great link: Massive Oil Deposit Could Increase US reserves by 10x
__________________
America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times, giving western economies the trump card against OPEC’s short squeeze on oil supply and making Iranian and Venezuelan threats of disrupted supply irrelevant.

In the next 30 days the USGS (U.S. Geological Survey) will release a new report giving an accurate resource assessment of the Bakken Oil Formation that covers North Dakota and portions of South Dakota and Montana. With new horizontal drilling technology it is believed that from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil are held in this 200,000 square mile reserve that was initially discovered in 1951. The USGS did an initial study back in 1999 that estimated 400 billion recoverable barrels were present but with prices bottoming out at $10 a barrel back then the report was dismissed because of the higher cost of horizontal drilling techniques that would be needed, estimated at $20-$40 a barrel.

It was not until 2007, when EOG Resources of Texas started a frenzy when they drilled a single well in Parshal N.D. that is expected to yield 700,000 barrels of oil that real excitement and money started to flow in North Dakota. Marathon Oil is investing $1.5 billion and drilling 300 new wells in what is expected to be one of the greatest booms in Oil discovery since Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
_____________________

Putting aside ANWR since that's too divisive -- if President Bush and Congress in a bi-partisan manner announced a major U.S. initiative to drill offshore and scale-up oil shale production in North Dakota & Montana we could see oil come online sooner. When America sets her mind to something, there's almost nothing she can't do.

I agree on Ethanol. Not a good solution except in Brazil where they use sugar cane which is more energy efficient in producing ethanol than corn. And as you know, food prices have shot up due to increased ethanol use. I heard one estimate that 20% of corn now goes to Ethanol production. That's less corn feed supply for cattle, chickens, etc. thus higher prices.

I for one will celebrate the day I can drive an electric car that doesn't require the $3000 batteries to be replaced every few years. Better yet, give me hydrogen or something better. Till then, we should drill where we can. Technology has come a long way and there is much less chance of environmental damage, including horizontal drilling.

There is no excuse to not start drilling today.

I agree with Don Green's comments above:
>>How bout we drill now so in 5-10 years we can have cheaper oil?
>>More oil = more supply = cheaper oil = more retirement savings.

He's right to take a forward thinking view. In 10 years, we could have cheaper oil if we start drilling today. That means more retirement savings, more money for the economy, etc. Like Don also said, we'll always need petroleum since it's used in plastics, tires, lubricants, etc. So we'll always need/want cheap oil for cheap products even if the combustion (polluting) engine goes the way of the dinosaurs.

Drill baby drill! is going to be my new motto. wonder if I can get a bumper sticker? ;)

There's a great YouTube video on the site worth watching about America, oil, and our can-do attitude.

I already signed the petition. :)

Could help temporarily, though current prices are more related to current demand and demand in the next year or two than 10 years out. On the other hand, the speculators might not blink at the chance of large finds, and that those finds would be exploitable and not get delayed or stopped for one reason or another, and that those finds would be large enough to produce an excess in the market.

On the other hand, the sooner you drill those, the sooner they're gone and that physical capital is gone. From a strategic perspective, the *last* oil you want to use is domestic. You want to use other people's oil first (when prices are lower), so when it gets increasingly scarce, you have a dependable supply.

Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil."

Sure, there's lots of oil there (though the amount claimed is highly variable). However, take a look at the technology for exploiting it. Right now, it's basically not there. Funds for oil shale research were cut back by Reagan/H.W.Bush (if I remember), and current funds are being "gamed" to collect the money as subsidies without any real work on making large-scale oil shale exploitation workable. The best idea I've heard of for oil shale is to literally freeze a cylinder around a well to produce a wall, and inject super-heated steam/water to cook the oil out. This is far from commercially viable; it's still in the idea stage I believe.

The quote you gave is highly misleading, since oil shales can't simply be "drilled" - they have to be processed in-place or by (usually strip) mining and processing. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_extraction and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale The article you quoted sounds like an investment come-on article.

Horizontal drilling is good for new wells, and useful to exploit remainders left by earlier straight wells, but while re-exploitation will generate profits and oil, it won't really affect prices much, and it's being done already. It doesn't really help much with oil shale (other than part of how you do in-situ processing).

Oil isn't going away, but it will (eventually) become too expensive to simply burn except in unusual cases, but this won't be for quite a while. It may well fall (some) in price temporarily, and very likely the price will become more volatile. See the Hubbert's Peak book (cheap on Amazon) which has a nice graph of whale-oil prices as whale oil become increasingly scarce. It's not a straight climb; it sawtooths and becomes increasingly volatile. But don't expect $9/barrel oil(or even $30/barrel like before Katrina) again