I wonder how many people would change their votes if they knew that from site authorization to end of test drilling (which all must occur before any production drilling can happen) is a minimum SEVEN YEARS. In that time and with the same amount of money we could build a FOREST of windfarms.

How many people know that existing fields can pump faster than they are? They'll run out faster of course, but the current problem isn't supply. Oil producers can increase it in a short time whenever they want. This is the point that needs emphasizing over and over.

The time lag before ANWR or off-shore can start producing doesn't work, because the rejoinder is that if drilling had been allowed years ago when it was proposed, then we might be getting oil by now. Far better to note the ease with which Saudi Arabia increased output.

"...we could build a FOREST of windfarms."

Sure we could, as long as we don't try to build 'em where the Kennedy family will be likely to see 'em.

"How many people know that existing fields can pump faster than they are?"

How many people know that, due to a veritable jungle of regulations and the costs and time necessary to comply with them, no new petroleum refineries have been built in the US in 32 years?
That our consumption has increased by 25% over that time, and that the number of operable US refineries has actually DROPPED from a high of 324 in 1981 to 149 by 2006?
Repeated pledges by politicians from BOTH parties to cut our reliance on foreign oil notwithstanding...

What use of Pumping it Out faster when we couldn't Refine it any faster if we Did?

The Law of Supply and Demand simply Can NOT be repealed.

The issue of high oil prices has nothing to do with physical demand but rather everything to do with speculative demand. Financial organizations, due to a loop hole in legislation passed a few years ago, have been allowed to speculate on energy markets without having any commercial interest in oil. It also does not help that margins are low so that these same speculators do not have to put up near the cash they should in order to speculate on the markets. The problem according to the U.S. senate hearing two weeks ago is that there is very little regulation of energy speculation on Wall St.

Drilling in Alaska is a pure waste of time, considering the recent Dept. of Energy (DOE) report on ANWR Drilling suggest that the American public would have to wait two decades to see gas prices drop by about four cents a gallon. Offshore drilling is wasted money as well because there are pivotal points where a society can embrace new ideas and technologies to move ahead or continue business as usual and fall behind. A great example of a society/country embracing new technology is Brazil and their bio-fuel production. That infrastructure is now about 32 years old and able to export bio-fuel at about 60 cents per gallon far below the U.S.'s ability to export bio-fuel at $1.50 per gallon.

Perhaps if we had continued on investing in alternative energies decades ago (such as under the Carter Admin.) the discussion of drilling, pumping and building refineries for oil would really be a last century or outdated idea.

The idea of committing and building an infrastructure of wind farms that could serve to meet some of our energy needs is a great idea. Considering the recent DOE report suggesting that wind farm electricity could meet approximately a quarter of U.S. needs and create 500,000 jobs over the next 20+ years, if we invest in it. The technology is changing and even wind turbines are advancing, search for Frank Fish, a professor at the University of West Chester and his work on humpback whales and how they relate to wind turbines (very cool stuff).

Anyhow point is that in order to move beyond fossil fuels, we need to invest in alternatives and perhaps high gas prices are a great thing because it can only help push or spur innovation!

["The issue of high oil prices has nothing to do with physical demand but rather everything to do with speculative demand."]

NOTHING to do with the Law of Supply and Demand, huh?
I guess today's higher food prices have nothing to do with the costs of production or the diversion of food crops to fuel production (subsidized by the taxpayers via the Congress) and are purely the fault of the commodities markets that have been functioning for centuries? With investors trading in crop futures who have nothing to do with the production or delivery of foodstuffs?
Same rule has to apply, No?

["The problem according to the U.S. senate hearing two weeks ago is that there is very little regulation of energy speculation on Wall St."]

Gee.., CONGRESS says the solution to some problem is for CONGRESS to seize greater control of the trade!
What a STUNNER!
Who would have predicted THAT?

Maybe they should seize control of the illegal drug market, since that seems to be a pretty sizable problem.

Weed prices are WAY too High, dude!

If Clinton would not have vetoed the bill to drill in Alaska, we would have 5million more barrels a day of crude. I know that AK has more oil then Saudi Arabia. Vote GOP for real change.

There is not a single alternative energy technology or project mentioned in the above posts that will not be fought bitterly with every legal tool possible.
"Green" extremists do not want any energy supply increase period.
Energy shortages are a societal change tool that they welcome.

Actually Anonymous Bosh, it was never stated that Congress proposed regulation but that this was proposed during the Senate hearing. The idea of regulating the market came from such people as George Soros who was one of the individuals on the panel testifying. If you look at physical demand, it has remained about the same for the last five years, even with China and India competing for the same resources.

Also I am not sure what you are driving at with food commodities, considering the discussion is on energy/oil.

Perhaps the same rule does apply but currently the speculators are not flooding the food commodities market and betting on the futures like they are with energy/oil markets, atleast not as severely!

Sure the price of food is going to increase if corn and soybean in the U.S. are diverted to produce bio-fuels but what again does that have to do with oil markets? Has oil been diverted to some other use than gasoline, heating oil and other petroleum based products? Have the prices of food commodities been increased based on speculation, yes in fact soybean and corn have increased based on speculators. Small scale bio-fuel plants are struggling to find affordable raw materials to maintain business because of the price increase, but bio-fuels as of right now have no real direct bearing on the public's energy needs. Although food prices do directly involve the public and hence the reason why scientist, engineers, etc.. are looking to other resources for production of bio-fuels. The conflict of food and fuel is one that is very concerning, but to reiterate here the prices of certain food commodities such as soybean increased do to speculation (this comes directly from a local bio-fuel plant manager but luckily there process uses a batch system and therefore they are not reliant on only soybean or corn). Speculators jumped at the opportunity to get involved in the "hot" or "new" market of bio-fuel and thus the end result is higher food prices.

Please feel free to respond, only if you can check your sarcasm and if not then stick to the discussion boards on AOL. Wonderful you made an attempt at being funny by drawing "weed" into the discussion.

{"The conflict of food and fuel is one that is very concerning, but to reiterate here the prices of certain food commodities such as soybean increased do to speculation (this comes directly from a local bio-fuel plant manager but luckily there process uses a batch system and therefore they are not reliant on only soybean or corn). Speculators jumped at the opportunity to get involved in the "hot" or "new" market of bio-fuel and thus the end result is higher food prices."}

I happen to live in a farming community in the midwest, and raise a few hay eaters.

It's NOT speculators who are behind the rapidly rising prices, unless you consider farmers to be speculators.

You see, ever since Congress decided to subsidize ethanol production in a big way, farmers who were using their land to grow other crops or agricultural products such as hay (which is FAR less depleting of the soil) have been turning it to corn production, due to the much higher, Subsidized prices they get by putting corn on the market.
Several farmers have told me straight-up, when I was calling my hay sources about supply/price.
As small businessmen, they can't afford NOT to take the higher return from planting corn rather than keeping a field in grass (hay). (duh..)

As a result, wheat, hay and other crops are moving into shortage mode.
Dairy and meat prices are going to skyrocket, due to the much higher prices the feed costs for the animals.
Bread and flour based products will become much more pricy, amd on and on and on.
Poor third-worlders are already being severly pinched on the cost of basic foods, and it's only going to get worse.

Government meddling ALWAYS skews a market one way or another, because they NEVER understand all the unintended consequences of their actions.

It is an interesting argument, but considering Mother Jones recent article "Who Benefits From High Food Prices?", I am not so sure that I buy into the farmers switching crops as the only reason for high prices. Also I was under the impression that most industrial animal farming operations used corn to feed their livestock? (in other words not solely reliant on hay, unless your insinuating corn being diverted only for bio-fuel production).

Suggesting that "government meddling" skews markets is something of a misconception. I am guessing from that statement, that you are propositioning free markets (correct me if I am wrong as far as your supporting free markets) but free markets do Not work. Some regulation and oversight is always needed in any market. To understand the case for market regulation look to the South American countries and how their economies and peoples were decimated during the introduction and post free market era (Chile saw inflation rise 375% by the mid 1980s, the only thing that kept them from economic collapse was Pinochet's (a tyrant) refusal to privatize the copper mining industry which accounted for 85% of Chile's GDP). The unfortunate part of our government is the lobbyist behind some of the legislation passed, in the case of agriculture look to Cargill or ADM to be behind more sinister actions (or actions that only benefit their financial desires).

As far as farm subsidizing goes, yes it is a broken system that was not originally like this but thanks to the desires of a few during the Nixon era, the end result is what we are experiencing today. I would look to see who is benefiting from higher prices and subsides to understand who is reaping the benefits of high prices.

We don't need to screw up any more of the earth in our selfish pursuit of gasoline. We've done enough of that. And Mother Earth is pissed. Look at the weather changes we are dealing with now. That is the earth in survival mode, trying to throw off these parasites that are destroying her ecological balance.
Clinton's veto of Alaskan oil drilling was exactly the right thing to do.
Bush and Congress: do us all a favor and get your grimy hands off one of the few natural areas left on earth. Isn't killing the polar bears with global warming enough already?
Why have more entrepreneurs not taken Floridian Denny Klein's HHO/gas powered car invention and run with it (literally)?

If a process of splitting a water molecule with power generated by a car battery to enhance gas efficiency by 40-50% EXISTS, WHY are we not ALL being offered the conversion tools along with a hefty tax deduction for clean energy alternative use?

And why don't we see this advertised every day on tv instead of the thousand and one USELESS "as seen on tv" products?

The military is now working with Klein to develop this hydrogen-based fuel system for hummers. I understand a major auto mfgr is negotiating with him also.

So...why isn't the general car-driving getting on the bandwagon?
Is it because corporate television is pandering to auto and gas companies in exchange for advertising revenue?
ALL that silence in exchange for money? Easily so. .
I talked to a local mechanic --young man in business with his father, sharp dude--about converting my car.He had not even heard of this technology until just a few days ago, he said, even though the technology has been around for decades and Klein's particular application for at least 2 years.
The water for gas actual retro-fitted car has been talked about on the web since at least 2006. But the driving public is being kept in a bubble of ignorance purposely.
What a shocker.

The "natural" disasters will hopefully "help" our two mainline candidates to move toward the truly ecological energy solutions. Here in France, there is a fat, pudgy-cheeked politician who regularly appears on television to express his disagreement with the "thesis" that air pollution is connected with global warming. You want to ask him how he dares make those kinds of statements in 2008, how he can possibly equate the survival of the planet with a few points on the French GNP, how he allows himself to encourage consumers to keep guzzling gas and especially ... why he doesn't go on serious diet.