The offshore drilling gambit is, like the gas tax holiday, a whole lotta nothing. Americans truly don't have the luxury of their own ignorance in the 21st century. Oil is sooo 20th century; we need to seriously adopt a forward-thinking alternative energy policy for this century, rather than trying to find every last remaining, fleeting oil reserve we can to squeeze out a few more years of oil dependency. Rather than throwing bones to the oil industry, America needs to get behind safe and clean alternative power sources. This offshore drilling nonsense is just that; a distraction by the GOP to avoid facing the reality that we are moving to a post-oil future for our country and the world. The GOP, ever the tireless shills for Big Oil, would like to have one last big party for oil, at the expense of the country's future. But will Americans fall for the snake oil sales pitch yet again? I sure hope not.

I am hoping that maybe someone could answer a question for me. When Mr. Bush and friends talk about opening up ANWR for drilling, and setting up more off-shore oil rigs, they often claim that this will reduce America's dependence on foreign

oil. However, if I understand correctly, there is nothing to keep oil that is removed from under US land or water to stay in the US. These same people who advocate drilling also abhor the concept of nationalizing the US oil industry. Therefore the oil would simply enter the global oil market, and then be sold to the highest bidder.

Am I missing something here? How would drilling oil in the US lead to a reduction in dependence of "foreign" oil? Though I almost always disagree with Bush and friends, usually I am able to understand their (twisted) logic. But here I am simply confused. Perhaps it has something to do with tariffs, or the global oil market? I would really appreciate it if someone could help me out.

Years ago I talked to an independent oil driller in New Mexico and asked him about oil drilling in southern New Mexico. He said the policy was not to drill there, they were our reserves, and that in the interests of national security we were going to drain the world dry first and then use our reserves. So, it seems short sighted in the extreme to push to use our resources now. Obviously it's a ploy. How no one has pointed out the short sighted nature of it only shows how dumb the Dems are.

I agree completely, save it like a second tier strategic petroleum reserve for future generations. If we do actually manage to switch to using non-petroleum energy for powering cars, there will still be plenty of need for petroleum by the chemical industry for plastics, lubricants, and whatever other chemical processes it is used for. And it be worth comparatively more as the global supply gets more and more scarce.

50% of the American population will apparently believe absolutely anything.

All the evidence suggests that we are doomed.

We need a beneficent dictator to do the right thing in spite of what people want or think.

Drilling for petroleum which will hit the market 10-15 years from now would be like Thomas Edison working on a more efficient way to hunt whales for lamp oil.

A single off-shore drilling rig cost a little more than a half billion dollars to build, and most of the current U.S. fleet is in need of replacement, never mind the additional units that would be needed to access this extra bit of oil.

Let's assume that 6 rigs need to be built (a conservative estimate). That is 3 Billion dollars + about two years of construction time IF the rigs were built simultaneously (the facilties needed to build such machines would basically rule that our, but I'm trying to be generous).

Let's compare what 3 Billion dollars over two years can do in terms of constucting and researching alternative methods of energy generation?

Sure drill for that extra drop in the bucket, but I think the energy companies (which is how any "oil company" that will still exist 30 years from now better start thinking of themselves) should consider the true ROI.

It ain't pretty.

Never under estimate the stupidity of the American public.

When someone else is buying the drinks, you might as well keep your wallet in your pocket.

There are a bunch of estimates out there, but the common idea is that there are maybe 3 years worth of recoverable oil in these off shore locations.

So the question is, do we pump those three years now, drop it on the market and lower prices for the next three years. Or do we keep buying Saudi Arabia's oil, and when they run out, bust out our oil and run for another three years while the rest of the world is begging for oil?

It just seems foolish to me to blow our safety oil before we need it. That oil will be drilled so long as there is a market for oil, but I think it's best to keep our oil to ourselves, burn Canada's oil, Vensuallia's oil, Russia's oil, and the Mid-East's oil while we can.

All pumping our own oil does now is make it easier for China, India and Africa to buy oil at low low prices.

You're right, althought I imagine that the natural resource extraction payment [ahem...oil bribe] each Alaskan receives softens the blow.

One fact that most accurately illustrates the tenuous link between gas prices and where oil is produced is that at $4.65 per gallon, Alaska has the highest average price in the country. And yet Alaska is the source of more oil than any state except Texas. Oil companies are truly global in scope and run their operations accordingly. If U.S. offshore production ends up in the tanks of Chinese cars and motorcycles, so be it. It is simply a business decision to maximize shareholder value. U.S. oil production does not guarantee U.S. citizens a lower price for gasoline—just ask the Alaskans.