Is it POSSIBLE to both drill for oil to help us out with high oil prices, while SIMULTANEOUSLY develop other?

energy sources, so we can limit our dependence on oil?


WHY does it have to be one or the other??Is it POSSIBLE to both drill for oil to help us out with high oil prices, while SIMULTANEOUSLY develop other?
Of course it is possible! Finally a sensible question! Libs can't acknowledge the possibility though, because they then have to acknowledge that their obstructionist policies of the past have greatly contributed to getting us where we are today in the oil crisis.





Edit: And to Ada, the drop in prices would be MUCH more significant than you are predicting. You fail to consider the impact of just the ';threat'; of drilling on prices... much of which is based on Wall Street speculators. AND you fail to recognize that OPEC would immediately drop prices in the hopes that Congress will then back out of their commitment because the ';perceived'; crisis is over. We saw much the same thing in the 70s during that oil crisis when Jimmy Carter was exploring the idea of synthetic oil.Is it POSSIBLE to both drill for oil to help us out with high oil prices, while SIMULTANEOUSLY develop other?
I find it funny that people have answered that the ';politicians'; have to do 2 things at once. The politicians don't have to do anything.


Oil companies already have some 68 million acres that they can start drilling tomorrow. And the government already provides BILLIONS in subsidies to the oil companies to explore alternatives.


The oil companies refuse to do either. Why should they when Exxon/Mobil is raking in $40 BILLION in pure profit in one year (and that's just 1 oil company)?


I think leaving our Nation's energy future in the hands of a few oil conglomerates is the wrong thing to do. We need to stop subsidizing the oil companies, and provide that funding to others who will actually develop alternate forms of energy.
I think that's the right idea.





Make ourselves as oil-independent as possible for the present and near future, while simultaneously aggressively researching alternative feul sources.





It's only been in the last year that there has been a massive upsurge in alternative-feul research, sparked by prohibitively ridiculous oil prices. So the high prices have actually done some good, by pushing us toward finally pursuing alternative feuls.





And I disagree that because these feul sources would take years to dig up, that they would not affect prices until then. The rise in prices is mostly determined by speculation. If OPEC announces that in the future they will raise or lower oil production, it immediately affects the price of oil. The same with opening our reserves. The mere fact that it will be made available would affect the current price.
But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer Continental Shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. ';Right now the price of oil is set on the global market,'; says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move ';would not have an impact.';





The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves, but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. ';This is a drop in the bucket,'; says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
There is no ';will of the people'; or ';will of the elected officials'; to do anything about it - all I see is whine, whine, whine from both people and politicians.





Not me - I bought a bike and have reduced my driving 95%. It's good for me, good for my pocketbook, and I can say ';bite me, Saudis';





As soon as either an inexpensive air car, or electric car, or hydrogen car comes along, then I'll go for that - but all I hear is whine, whine, whine.
Alternative energies are and have ALWAYS been sought. However, there is now and shall NOT be anything to improve upon oil as the CHEAPEST form of energy for quite some time. Other discoveries should be used as auxillary until one or more can REALLY supplant oil and nuclear energy in cost.


Otherwise, get used to the MASS starvation and immense decline of quality of life that you have started to see caused by governments social experiments via intervention in the area of energy on a scale of which you have little sense.





The answer chosen ';best'; is hogwash in that it VASTLY underestimates the increasing discovery of oil since even the 1970's when liberal doomsaying scientists with leftist political leaning (and 'experts' like Whoopi Goldberg's boyfriend) made highly trumped up charges that by 2000 the world would be out of oil. We now know there is vastly MORE oil then was thought then, and future estimates and discoveries shall yet be found .





When that ploy stalled production and building of refineries in the Free World was blocked by equally dubious left-wing ';global warmist'; propaganda that has NEVER been given scrutiny or debate.





Yes, drilling and building can NOT have an immediate effect..... BUT IF NOT STARTED.....





YOU SHALL HAVE LITTLE OR NO EFFECT to save your FREEDOM or way of living from government excess at all.





Don't drill for NEW oil for 30 years. (under liberal rule)


Don't build facility to refine OIL for 30 years (under liberal rule)


Ignore nuclear power for 30 years (under liberal rule)





SURPRISE????? That we have a DANGEROUS energy problem???





Oh, my.... who would have guessed?








What next ';bread and circuses';? When Rome wanted their populace ';happier'; more shows were put on in the Colisseum... paid for by pulling back some of its outside defenses and selling the nation's grain reserves.





Oh, by the way, praise be to the government....don't forget that next year your old tv needs replacing and so many more of us shall enjoy the new digital reception.





Won't Big Brother be so much more easy to love in all his enhanced features?
Yes, it is possible. And why not? Part of what determines the price of oil is speculation. So what if it takes ten years to actually get oil. Not drilling for more oil still means no hope for more oil.





And who knows. Maybe in ten years we will develop a truly viable alternative to oil.
It wouldn't happen that way.





That was what we've supposedly been intending to do since the mid seventies.





You are talking to a nation of addicts. What will an addict promise to get his next fix? Anything.





Oh sure, we'll get RIGHT ON that alternative development stuff. We just need a LITTLE MORE oil to get us by.





This is not the first time the nation has been in this spot. You go ahead and enable the addict, it won't do you any more good than it has all the other fools that tried it before.





It doesn't matter a whole lot. Once all our domestic reserves are tapped out, the alternatives will be developed anyway.





We'll just have to do a whole lot of hoping, once those reserves are gone, that we won't need a lot of oil real sudden like any time ever again.





You know, like to run the army. To defend the country. That kind of stuff.





But hey, commuting in SUVs is real important, right?
it is possible.. drilling today won't make oil prices drop tomorrow, but, it will put us on a path of less dependance on foreign oil.. as far as developing new energy sources.. it has to make economical sense first and foremost.. and the best way for that to happen is keep government out of it and let free markets and enterprise do their thing.. it is what has made this country the most powerful on earth. no more subsidizing. no more forceful switches (lightbulbs). no more importing of foreign oil. increase nuclear usage. increase the leasing areas of exploration and drilling. allow new refineries to be built. allow partnerships with canada and mexico to be a N. American OPEC of sorts.. we should've gotten this ball rolling decades ago, and we're paying the price for our lack of fortitude and action.





and btw, i agree that individuals and businesses need to be more aware of their energy habits and buy accordingly as well as not be so wasteful.. if they do so, the markets will adjust.. the best way to force electric cars (for example) is to not buy the 80,000 navigator.. if the car company doesn't sell them (as they aren't selling many SUV's right now), they will adjust and put something out there that people WILL buy.. and what they want to buy right now is something that's more enviro friendly, more pocket book friendly.. you'll see a major overhaul on vehicles in the next 5-10 years. i promise.
Woah woah woah hold your horses there. You want politicians to do 2 things at once simultaneously. Not only that 2 right down that will actually help the country at once? come on now, let get realistic here, and try and get them to do one thing right first, I dont even think they can handle that though.
Yes. The problem is the politicians. Boh parties are so dug in on their ideas that neither of them is willing to come o the other side and work on a compromise. Dems won't budge on not drilling, the Repubs will not on budge on alernative energy sources.
“We can no longer allow America’s dependence on foreign oil to compromise our energy security. Instead, we must invest in inventing new ways to power our cars and our economy. I’ll put my faith in American science and ingenuity any day before I depend on Saudi Arabia.”
We can do both.





However the problem still remains, we will still be dependant on oil and we still consume too much of it. Will the price drop, yes, but we will go back to our old ways and than become dependent on Forgien Oil.
No. ';Drilling for oil'; offshore will take ten years to pump the first drop. It will take a few years after that to reach the full market and yen to twenty years after that to impact prices.
nope, drilling in the U.S. won't lower the price of gas.





unless you think a deduction of about 1.8 cents per gallon will mean something
I'd think so. It may be going on as we speak. I just wonder if they'll withhold the new fuels in order to wring the last dollar out of the old.
Absolutely. The only way to go.
Absolutely. It's what needs to be done.