One side of this argument that I've yet to see discussed here is the concept of choosing to preserve our own oil reserves for a later date.

Oil is a non-renewable resource; there is a finite amount of oil on earth.

Oil is valuable.

Global demand for oil is increasing.

Global reserves of oil are decreasing.

Given those four factors, it's unlikely oil prices are going to drop. The die has been cast. China and India are not going to turn away from capitalism and consumerism. It is more likely that oil prices will continue to rise, that existing producers will stop playing games and actually be forced to maximize output, and that we will truly run into a legitimate shortage of easily extracted oil.

If China is drilling off our shores, so should we. We should take the burden of our own refinement on as soon as possible.

However, is there not an argument for saving our own reserves within our borders for a more critical time later? Should we not develop the infrastructure to refine our own reserves before we start pumping them? I think that bowing to the pressure of $4 gas at the pump would be a strategic blunder of massive proportions when we are sure to see much more volatile prices in the next decades as China and India mature as mega-consumers. It seems short-sighted to squander our resources before we are prepared to use them in a truly strategic way. Tapping our reserves simply to give drivers a *little* relief at the pump seems like the most short-sighted strategic decision of all.

Slightly higher gas prices should force innovation, better planning, better mass-transit, and better organization: It should not cause us to lazily face the resource piggy-bank with hammer in hand.

Thoughts?

__________________
THE RAPTURE IS NOT AN EXIT STRATEGY

In the long run we're all dead.

See, you can make that argument, and it's not a bad one, but it's self defeating. If you make things more efficient, what good is our oil? What if water is the new oil? It would certainly be foolish to have not tapped the oil when it was worth $140 a barrel.

The other fact is that at these prices, other fossil fuels become more affordable. Coal can easily be turned into fuel, and it's not all that bad for the environment. Once the Chinese build their structures, they will be in the same boat as us, they will be unwilling to change due to the cost, but if they use oil (like us) they will consume our oil now, and they will do it at a pretty steep price.

Then there's the fact that our economy runs on oil. Why should we go through a decade of stagnation while we wait for an alternative to pop up (which would make our oil worthless) when we could be prospering now.

Also, about the refineries, yes we need more. I fully agree, and I think it should be done first, but in the case the congress is full of idiots, we should also fight a two front war and ask them to open up our reserves. If we can make the global price of oil go down, the price of gas will still go down. I think opening refineries is the best way to slash prices quickly, but it's not the only way to lower the cost.

First of all, thanks for the response!

__________________
THE RAPTURE IS NOT AN EXIT STRATEGY

Indeed, this reflects country's desire for a quick-fix to all of it's problems, at the expense of the future.

Kurt Vonnegut, not Bush, was the first person to say we're junkies for oil.

Despite his speech two years ago, Bush acts more like junky-in-chief than any president, ever.

So exactly how high to costs have to rise before it's time to open the piggy bank?

I keep hearing about alt fuels, but where are they? If they are such a good idea and such a wonderful innovation, private industry ought to be gobbling it up.

__________________

Private industries with the resources to develop them make too much money with the current supply/demand ratio.

Same reason opening these new lands up to drilling leases won't lead to increased supply.

In fact, they won't increase supply at all for years, even if the energy companies went against what's been garnering them windfall profits, and started drilling tomorrow.

Are we really having this argument again...

So lets wait another X years and hope that our new energy source X comes along, but until that time we'll just sit idle with our thumbs up our preverbial asses and hope that X comes with Americas new fuel source...

Your theorires and consipracies against this get more flimsy every time you trot the out. What's even more funny is how you can't have this argument or any other argument without blame GW or oil companies for it when time and time again the economics the situation have been spelled out clearly.

You have no new aspects to your case that has been slammed shut now over and over again. 76% of the people in this country are tired of hanging on to your empty promises of new fuels.

__________________

NATIONALIZE oil then it's our oil coming from our land to help our country. Until that happens it will NEVER help us.
David

I bet you also think there should be a lot more RED on our flag aye Komrad?

__________________

Apparently.

Your proposition is the equivalent of jamming our thumbs harder.

There's no theory or conspiracy to my argument: opening up these drillings will do nothing.

Noboy has proven they would do anything, at all, except give companies more reserves to inflate their stock price.


I don't blame them, actually. I don't blame a business for doing what it takes to keep growing and reaping profits.

It's not a blame-game.

I'm just highlighting that these actions are desperate and political means, that won't achieve the ends they are being sold to solve.


The bottom line is this: can you prove that opening up these lands will lower gas prices?

Can you prove that opening up more lands to drilling will incentivize alternatives in investments?

Can you even give an estimate of how much, or little, oil these drills would produce, and when?


You sir, refuse to entertain my perspective, and that's fine. But, if you don't like to have your thoughts challenged, I recommend a blog.