This is simply hogwash. What you say is not true. In fact it's not even close. Supply concerns may affect day-to-day fluctuations, but that is not what is driving high oil prices. There are two major factors involved: a) Unregulated commodities markets and greed and b) the loss of value of the dollar

You've just proven yourself a hack of the first order. That is simply a ridiculously selective survey of a multi-faceted problem reflecting your own anti-capitalist and anti-Bush agenda. Every analyst worth his salt recognises that there are genuine concerns regarding elasticity of supply in the face of record and relatively inelastic demand. That's not the same, necessarily, as a supply problem (eg. a lack of available oil in the ground) - supply problems and concerns stem from a huge number of sources - geo-political problems, underinvestment and mismanagement of extraction and refining capacity, a lack of signficant new discoveries, and yes, commodity speculator greed. But much as you'd like to squeeze the situation to fit your hack agenda, the reality is far more complex.

The high oil prices are not a result of supply and demand since OPEC is still capable of expanding supply to keep up with demand (although they keep it close to keep the price high).

So they say. When you say OPEC you mean Saudi Arabia - they are the only OPEC nation with sufficient surplus capacity to increase production in any meaningful way - and in fact they did so a number of weeks ago, though not by very much. But there are huge question marks and doubts about its capacity to increase production signficantly and, for that matter, its capricious estimation of its reserves which are not verified by any outside source.

More drilling isn't about increasing supply in any meaningful way. The US imports more than two-thirds of its oil and more drilling isn't going to double its production. .

It's about many things, including signaling to the markets that the US is diversifying supply, increasing security of supply, and yes, marginally increasing domestic supply. The US is the only nation I know of where a small faction of its political class prevents it exploiting its natural resources on the ridiculous pretexts. Oil shale - of which the US has the largest reserves on earth - should also be part of any energy plan.

Who sets the price of il is irrelevant to the oil companies' profits. Yes, the oil companies don't determine the market price for oil (although you don't seem to have a clue who or what does)

Your first sentence proved you a raving, tunnel-vision hack on that subject who doesn't have a clue himself.

they are just riding the wave. Higher oil prices mean higher profits because markup is a percentage of cost.

Yes, I just pointed that out to you.

It's not surprising that you don't get the point. I expect that happens a lot.

That's twice my line has been ripped off today. Get your own material.

More drilling won't increase supply in any meaningful way and it won't lower gas prices in any meaningful way.

As an isolated measure, I agree. America needs to be building nuclear power stations, exploiting its natural reserves, oil shale, driving renewables development and pursuing energy economy measures. It needs to be an holistic approach, driven by practicality, not political hacks. The fact is though that thanks to barking partisans like you and Nancy, it'll be lucky if it ever manages any of those measures. Renewables are not in a position (or even close to it) to form base supply anytime soon, and yet the left paralyses us from pursuing the best possible interim measure - nuclear power.

There may be some outrage at the obscenely high oil company profits, especially when, as you point out, most of the world lives in abject poverty, but what is more outrageous is that big oil and the Republicans want even higher profits which they hope to get by more drilling while they try to pass off more drilling as a way to increase supply and reduce prices. This is just the old bait and switch that the Bush administration is famous for.

Don't forget Obama. He's come around to the idea now. What a dirty, corrupt, money-grubbing bastard in the pocket of big oil, eh?

As for going away, you seem to be the one who is out of his depth here, economically illiterate, and pushing hogwash as economic fact. I suggest you go back to playing in the shallow end of the pool.

I think it's fairly clear you are an anti-capitalist activist hack who lacks any objectivity. Go play in your puddle.

Opening up new drilling areas, which companies may or may not actually drill, is Republican theater. It is cynical, dishonest, insulting, and does nothing to solve the national energy problem. Shame on them.

Regardless of how much development of domestic oil takes place, OPEC, which controls roughly 75% of the world's oil production, can simply cut their production by a similar amount--and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. This is why they are called the oil cartel, I believe. They control this stratigic resource. No matter how much new oil we develop, they can zero-out that production (on the world market) by cutting their own production quotas.

imo, the only rational national response is to turn oil into a non-strategic resource--to find alternatives that break the cartel's control of transportation energy.

"So they say. When you say OPEC you mean Saudi Arabia - they are the only OPEC nation with sufficient surplus capacity to increase production in any meaningful way - and in fact they did so a number of weeks ago, though not by very much."

Perhaps you would be so kind as to explain what you mean by the phrase "meaningful way" when you add the phrase "though not by very much" in the same sentence.

It seems to me that if something affects something else in "any meaningful way" it shouldn't also be described as "not very much".

Just what do you mean by that sentence?