Kevin H Instead of reps spending the last week before this break clamoring for drilling, they could have been clamoring for more research spending on batteries, or alternative energy sources, or subsidies for any of those, or many many things that would probably have a much much larger effect on the future, and also, actually produced something. Because as it stands, that last week yielded absolutely 0 results.

Jason, Managing Editor Yes, Kevin.  But the politics of the situation is that a large part of the people/legislatures want more drilling and a large part also want more investment in alternatives.  Therefore, the "do both" option that you have been ignoring is the most politically palatable, the most politically sustainable, AND the approach that maximizes ALL potential benefits without sacrificing ANYTHING other than the ideological purity of some environmentalists. Indeed, if Pelosi would stop blocking it, I think a "do both" bill could fly through Congress and the necessary state legislatures in no time at all. You blame the Reps for only talking about drilling, but Pelosi's Dems won't address the issue AT ALL.

C Stanley Kevin, I'm not misrepresenting, just asking you to answer a simple question (which you're still avoiding.) You're incensed by the fact that the GOP is throwing it's political weight into drilling, yet what is the real harm in that, other than that the demagoguery annoys you? And even more pertinent, why are you not equally incensed by the Democratic party leaders who are throwing their political capital into maintaining drilling bans? And another point you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that there is no viable alternative on the horizon for gasoline powered cars. Going after wind, solar, and nuclear power is great for what it's worth, but it won't get people to work in the morning. And in all cases, the new technologies will take considerable time, if they even prove to be feasible at all. So yes, it's true that opening some of the currently restricted areas for drilling will take time, but as we've pointed out, there are reasons that it can lower oil prices now and that can help with the short term price crunch that is hurting consumers and threatening the overall health of the economy.

Kevin H we will be off oil. right now we have the technology to run your car directly on electricity. It certainly had some downsides, but would you be more willing to deal with those downsides or pay for $20/gallon gas? It's clear that as oil won't last forever, and that the free market will push oil out sooner or later. Oil prices will continue to climb, and alternatives will continue to fall. It's just a question of when they meet. It would be best if they met as low as possible. We have only a small ability to change how fast oil rises. Drilling is one way, efficiency is another. We have a lot more control over efficiency than drilling production, but as both the industrial and computer revolutions have shown us, investing in technology pays off in a big way.

Jason, Managing Editor

right now we have the technology to run your car directly on electricity.

Yep, for a maximum of 150 miles at 30 miles per hour before requiring a 4 hour recharge.  Also, there is no public infrastructure for recharging cars away from their owners' homes, and creating such an infrastructure would take many years. That is not very useful for interstate driving by individuals nor does it do anything at all to replace diesel trucks for heavy transportation. The manufacture of electric cars would also require at least a decade of ramp-up to even replace 5% of the U.S. automobile fleet. Thus, you are seriously deluded if you think electric cars are a fix that is presently available in any meaningful way. Also, are you aware that most electricity is generated by either oil, gas, or coal?  Are you aware that Democrats and environmentalists are blocking the only realistic alternative presently available for large-scale electricity generation (nuclear) and have even been blocking some wind power projects?

Drilling is one way, efficiency is another.

For the 1000th time LET'S DO BOTH. Or is your desire to make sure that Republicans lose so strong that you can't see the practical side of the issue? P.S. Other than tire inflation and some marginal gains like carpooling, efficiency gains through things like increased CAFE standards will take just as many years to provide any impact as increased drilling would, and would only do so as substantial additional costs to consumers (who have to buy new cars) and to safety as well.

C Stanley I see that Jason (in #52)brought the discussion around to the same point I was making in #53, while I was typing. You're complaining about all of this effort and expenditure of politician's time, Kevin, but ignoring the fact that it's the Democratic leadership that is being obstructionist on this issue. If they'd break out of the mode of cowing to environmentalists and pandering to Joe Blow over how bad Big Oil is, they could eliminate the need for all of this political effort in no time at all. Do two things at one time? Sure, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. But if someone is standing in our path, then it's that person blocking the way who's preventing us from doing the two things at once, not the fact that we have to do the two things.

RRRocks In the next 10 years.  All you anti drilling experts explain to me what is going to replace OIL.  Today, tomorrow and in 10 years?

Kevin H @53, see #51. It's about making a poor choice that based mostly on what polls well instead of about would actually help this country. Jason do you think what happened last week has anything to do with changing Palosi's mind? If anything it has made it harder for her to every agree to voting on this issue because now it will look like she lost a fight. I'm a pragmatist. There is no reason in trying to change an environmentalists (or anyone's) mind by bullying. They are in power right now and they are going to use that power. Provoking a fight doesn't work. If people want drilling, they are going to have to work WITH environmentalists, not try to ram drilling down their throat. They have to be calm, and reasonable, and say to them, 'look, we can do this, but we'll tie it to increase millage standards, or have a special tax that goes to solar or polar bears, or whatever'. that is the responsible way to deal with this issue. But no, reps found an "issue" that polled well, and then decided that a fight would have more positives for them, and so we get nothing done on a serious issue. And again, this whole thing started off because people want to pretend that drilling will help gas prices, which is just a big fat lie.

Kevin H And, if you offer environmental groups as much as your willing to offer and they STILL won't say yes. The responsible thing to do becomes to walk away, and spend your effort on something that will make a difference.

Kevin H But still, in the final analysis, domestic drilling isn't that important. It is a small side project. Not a national agenda. Unless you want to talk about trade deficits, then it probably makes much more sense. Probably still not the whole picture, but at least a reasonable, and truthful, argument.

C Stanley Kevin, this is maddening. First, you never addressed the points I made about why the removal of bans WOULD affect short term pricing (just as, yes, tapping the Strategic Reserve would in the very short term, as it did when Clinton did it, though that's an inappropriate use of the emergency supply.) Not only is it not a lie that price will be affected, it's a lie that it won't; there's just no doubt that a signal from the US to the world's other oil suppliers that we are going to stop hoarding would have some downward pressure on pricing (and a short term increase in world supply as the Saudi's would open the spigot wider.) Also, how could you NOT be aware that all of the concessions that you mention have already been part of energy policy, and part of every attempt to get the bans on ANWR and OCS drilling lifted? Yet you think that since the environmental lobby still won't compromise, it's the people who favor comprehensive policy that includes more drilling that are being irresponsible by not allowing them to bully Congress into the no more drilling stance? I guess the North was highly irresponsible for starting the Civil War when they refused to walk away and allow states' rights for slavery, huh?

kreiz RRRocks @57.  The answer is clear- something heretofore undiscovered, untested, or presently infeasible will surface and provide reliable, limitless, clean, and renewable energy.  We're not exatly sure when that'll happen. (2050 is a nice round number.)  We'll let you know when it pops up.  For now, you'll just have to take it on faith.  Keep hope alive!!!

Jason, Managing Editor

I’m a pragmatist. There is no reason in trying to change an environmentalists (or anyone’s) mind by bullying. They are in power right now and they are going to use that power. Provoking a fight doesn’t work.

Exposing them as obstructionists who prioritize pettiness over the lives of real people may be a necessary part of getting them out of power.  I don't suggest that Republicans just keep up with their Congressional stunt forever without moving on, but I support them for right now on this issue.   It is not like Pelosi was open to compromise UNTIL the Republicans started their stunt.  She was in the pocket of radical environmental groups all along from her roots in San Francisco politics.

C Stanley Yes, Kevin, the only policy that could in fact give price relief in the short term and bridge the need for oil until other transportative energy solutions are on board is a 'side project'.

C Stanley kreiz- of course what we do know for certain is that the main reason the new, clean, renewable and cheap energy source isn't here yet is that the evil oil corporations and Darth Cheney have delayed its arrival.

Kevin H please, show me anything, anywhere, by anyone, that has any evidence to support the idea that domestic drilling will give meaningful price relief to the American people in the short term. It is a lie.

Kevin H Jason, the only lives domestic drilling will effect is the lives of the workers on the wells, and the companies that own those wells. That's it. It is what can't seem to get through to you. you even admitted it yourself. Q:"Is drilling in Alaska or anywhere else in the US likely to significantly effect either gas prices or energy independence?" A: "No, I never said it would. "

C Stanley Anyone, anywhere? OK, here you go: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html

Jason, Managing Editor Kevin, citing someone's concession while ignoring their additional context is a bit dishonest, don't you think? Yes, I conceded that exploration will not have a significant impact on current gas prices, but I also have argued consistently (with no acknowledgment from you) that additional drilling is necessary to find additional supplies to either provide more time for researching alternatives or to extend the supply of oil for as long as we remain stuck on it anyway. Your arguments premised on the tradeoff are completely without foundation because you have not shown how drilling slows down research into alternatives AT ALL.  You just keep asserting it without any evidence.

C Stanley I should add, regarding the WSJ link above, that I think the author is probably overstating it because it's widely believed that most other countries are already pumping at full capacity, with the exception of Saud Arabia. And I don't pretend to know enough about the real global supply, and even what I have read tells me that even the experts don't really know (it's believed, for example, that the Saudis aren't necessarily truthful in their disclosures and want the rest of the world to think that they have far more residual oil underground than they really do.) So it's quite possible that the effect that the author describes would be minimal, but the basic concept is sound.

RRRocks please, show me anything, anywhere, by anyone, that has any evidence to support the idea that domestic drilling will give meaningful price relief to the American people in the short term. The price of oil is down from 147 dollars per bbl to just over 118 dollars per bbl of oil today. Why? Two reasons.  One the world is slipping into a downward turn on productivity and thus is using less oil.  The second reason is that the United States is actively trying to get drilling okayed so that oil can come to market. I am an oil man.  My family owns an oil business.  I have been in the oil business for 40 plus years.  It is pure unadulterated BS that we cannot get oil to market in less then 10 years.  We can be producing in 18 months to tankers and have pipelines laid and pumping in 5 years.  With that all as an aside.  Lets look at the dynamics of what drives oil prices.  Futures.  Buyers and sellers buy and sell future contracts up to 7 years out in anticipation of the FUTURE price of oil.  If they believe that their is going to be significant pressure on oil in 5-7 years they will bid up the price of oil.  If they believe that there are mitigating circumstances that oil will not be under pressure due to finds and potential production then the price will fall. Lifting the ban on oil will bring the short term, intermediate term and long term prices of oil down condsiderably if the US opens up exploration and actively begins developing Anwr and the OCS.  Why?  Because futures is a gamble on what the future of oil will be and if the USA is actively looking to add to the available oil supplies while the Saudias bring online their expanded capacity as well as Belarus can get their pipeline built then the downward pressure on oil will most likely bring the prices down to the 75-85 dollar range within 2 months and drop the price of gasoline back to the 265-280 range.

kreiz Christine @ 65- duh!  Darth Cheney and the Big Oil.  Sharks, man, sharks. Kevin @ 66.  Short term price relief?  Not so much- but that isn't the only measure, as yet-uninvented alternative energy methodogies will likely have no price relief- short or medium term.  I'm thinking back on 1995- when Bill Clinton's vetoed ANWR drilling.  That would've been online in 2005 (presumably).  Nothing much came of that now, did it?

kreiz Couldn't agree more, Rocks.  Besides, oil, in contrast to not yet uninvented alternatives, is known to have a market and be kinda useful in modern economies.  Nothing against those cool flying cars on The Jetsons, however. 

kreiz  Kevin, I sense that your antipathy to an "all of the above" approach (Gingrich used this phrase today in a DC press conference) is founded, in large part, upon a belief that it will be the federal government that will see our way through this problem.  Because of its limited resources, government will be unable to handle an 'all of the above' approach.   In contrast, many of my pro-drillers in this thread see the private sector as playing the lead role in this process.  Because it's not top-down and more diffuse, it will lend itself to being more conducive to multiple solutions.

HobbesDFW The simple fact is this: the Democrat plan for energy production is - nothing.  No Oil, No Gas, No Nuclear, No Coal.  Only conservation and continued investment in alternative energy sources which have been receiving federally funded investment for nearly 30 years and which today do not even provide 1% of our energy needs when combined together.  And when pressed, the strongest advocates of these technologies cannot see or predict a point when, even with gasoline at $4/gallon, these alternative source could supply even 20% of our current energy needs. RRRocks has detailed how permitting drilling now will address prices in the short term.  Simple economics - supply and demand - will address prices in the long term.  The simple fact is this - until alternative sources can fulfill a significant role in energy production, something must take its place.  And our choices in that scenario are to either continue transferring massive amounts of wealth to unstable, corrupt, and hostile middle eastern petro-states, or to drastically reduce our standard of living.  Either choice represents economic emasculation.