Drilling for Answers

Posted By: smokey_joe @ 05/07/2008 6:19:12 PM

Comment: Its clear that "big oil" - no matter what the country of origin - plans to squeeze us mercilessly. Various announcements of oil reserves in Brazil or wherever are years away from providing any relief to the average consumer who just wants to be able to drive to work without putting the family in debt. We consumers need the quickest solution now to bridge the gap to the future when all the promises of more plentiful gasoline are promised. We can't all go out and buy hybrids overnight. And if we did, a very large number of condo and apartment dwellers would be hard-pressed to throw an electrical extension cord from their homes out to their cars to charge up batteries overnight. We need a liquid fuel that we can put in the tanks of our current cars thats cheaper than gasoline. The only two alternatives in that category are: liquid fuel from coal produced by the Fischer-Tropisch process and ethanol from non-food biomass. The Fischer-Tropisch process allows harmful pollutents such as sulphur to be easily stipped out in the refining process and non-food biomass can be exploited without impacting the price of food commodities. This a much easier road to travel than drilling in the arctic or buying oil from Brazil ten years in the future which may simply join the OPEC conspiracy whenever it pleases.

Posted By: concernedcitizenry @ 05/05/2008 4:59:44 PM

Comment: We must rally against enivonmentalists to do the sane thing...Drill! The quiet voices need to speak up on some of these issues that minority voices seem to have a stranglehold on.

Posted By: mjkittredge @ 05/03/2008 3:37:50 AM

Comment: I'd like to know, what is so bad about drilling offshore, or in the arctic wildlife refuge? I consider myself a democrat, and love the beauty of the environment and want to preserve it as best as possible, but... Can't there be a compromise, where the environment is protected and oil is extracted? A lot of the American coast is off limits. Why? What is the big danger? Can't we work towards solutions and safeguards for potential problems rather than prohibition? Driving America into poverty with higher and higher gas prices is a risk that features into this equation.

Posted By: smokey_joe @ 05/02/2008 6:35:34 PM

Comment: Alternative scenario 1: Make ethanol from otherwise useless and discarded non-food biomass which can be produced for less than $ 1.00 per gallon, undercutting the much higher price of oil. Through marketplace competition, the price of oil is driven down or replaced altogether while the environment is cleaned up. The cost of transporting food is lowered. No food crops are being used to make ethanol because ethanol from non-food biomass is cheaper and produces more energy per acre than corn or grain-based ethanol which are also driven out of the market place by free competition. More acreage and food crops are available for growing food and transportation costs being less, the cost of grains drop dramatically. Oil refinery workers are recruited into producing ethanol from biomass. Everyone wins except oil barons. Commerce increases, productivity increases, stock market booms, more homes are purchased, life is good - except for oil barons. :-(

Posted By: smokey_joe @ 05/01/2008 6:16:40 PM

Comment: The remarks by thosfiore (below) are typical oil -company disinformation thats meant to impart a feeling of hoplessness and impotence to the fuel consumers of this country. I have just written an email to the Governor Brian Schweitzer of Montana to inform him that the coal to synfuels technology he describes in his website (http://governor.mt.gov) can be enhanced so that there are zero CO2 emissions by passing CO2 through a pipeline of green algae which eats CO2 and exhales O2 (oxygen). The details of this process created by Greenfuel Technologies Corporation can be found at: www.greenfuelonline.com and this technology is already in operation in a Phoenix, Arizona power plant (not known for having lots of water). This technology can even use "brown water" or waste water. I'm sure that the state of Montana has much more water than people to consume it. Its not a desert climate.
Many people in this country are so used to using gasoline, that the thought of doing anything else is shocking and upsetting to them. To those people, I say its time to grow up and wake up to the world of possibilities.

Posted By: Milli S @ 05/01/2008 3:41:22 PM

Comment: I wish there were more electric cars available. We were lucky to buy one of the few Rav4 EVs sold 6 years ago. With our solar panals we have had 6 years of free driving with ZERO POLUTION and NO FUEL USAGE. The technology is there. Why isn't the government doing more to make the car manufacturers build more? (We have 125 mile range per charge, governed at 80 mph top speed, no maintenance, batteries should last at least several hundred thousand miles then can be recycled. We love our EV!) Milli S. Angwin CA

Posted By: olderwiser @ 05/01/2008 12:04:16 PM

Comment: We use some petroleum for necessities. We use some for luxury and style, over and above necessity. We can hardly cut use of petroleum for necessities, but there is tremendous potential to cut that which we waste for luxury and style. Most addicts have to quit all together to conquer addiction. We can't. But we must cut down. You know who you are. We can cut down, or use it all up and then suffer. There is plenty of style and luxury left in lower consumption. We shouldn't wait too late for this. Drilling for more petroleum to feed the current addiction level without cutting down is just plain wrong.

Posted By: gvillagra @ 05/01/2008 11:53:07 AM

Comment: Answer to Cosmon.

Sir. Can you please elavorate in what way is our oil dependancy going to go down if we drill in Alaska?? Do you understand the concept of GLOBAL OIL MARKETS??? . Let me explain it to you as simple as possible, and plese pay attention because you people never do.

If Chevron Corporation drills new deposits in Alaska the oil will be added to the world markets that will in turn look at the present situation in the world and react to it. The situation (variables) can be China with a 20% increase in their oil demands, or India's booming economy demanding added uo 10% to it's yearly consumption, or a terrorist attack in the Persian gulf, or instability in the Nigerian oil fields, or a thousand other variables..... and THEN SET THE PRICE OF OIL PER BARREL.

Get the picture pal??????

Your so called "solution" of drilling in Alaska, and that making us 'independent" reflects your absolute ignorance of how the oil markets work. The only way we would be independent is if we make our oil Corporations sign a contract commiting themselves from offering any U.S. oil in the world markets....... So why don't you and your Republican pals start asking for that NOW?

Call your Republican representative and ask him to call the CEO of Exxon and commit it's proven reserves to a set fix price and see what kind of an answer you get.

There is no such thing as "energy independence" in a global market. To pretend as you do that there is just reflects ignorance.

Posted By: Jack Pine @ 05/01/2008 11:02:50 AM

Comment: consumption*

Posted By: Jack Pine @ 05/01/2008 11:02:42 AM

Comment: consumption*

Posted By: Jack Pine @ 05/01/2008 11:00:24 AM

Comment: He failed to discuss the truth that the majority of the oil locked up in the Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is much harder to extract technologically than the great explodiong geysers of the liquid form we saw coming out of Texas 100 years ago. Its locked up in sands for a good chunk of it and extracting is much more difficult than simply putting a straw into the ground. This brings his numbers down significantly and the big whopping 5 percent of US oil consumption he touts as being extracted is actually much less. Also, he proposes that curbing our own demand would help...but in three words. Please elaborate on how we might decrease that cunsumption and put a plan in motion before proposing to drill more. Do we honestly deserve more ice cream if all we keep doing with it is smearing it on the wall and rubbing it on our faces? Please try hard to peer through that massive 'smokescreen' of manure being sprayed around by these guys and think before you leap.

Posted By: Alex Newsreader @ 05/01/2008 8:45:14 AM

Comment: People are so desperate they just can't face the fact that the global demand for oil is going up and up and up during the next decades. At the same time temperatures and environmental damage are going up. Of course that makes it not only more tempting but also easier to dig in Alaska. Except that we're speeding up the car which is headed to crash against a wall. Mr. Samuelson, have you got kids? Speaking of the future - that's not only tomorrow but also the day after tomorrow.

Posted By: burbank @ 05/01/2008 4:15:36 AM

Comment: While there are some who would decry the exploration for new sources of oil here in the United States, the fact of the matter is we can no longer afford not to. Ethanol has proved to be a boondoggle that will not even come close to supplying our country's needs. Solar and wind while having potential, cannot replace fossil fuel as the engine that drives our nation's economy. So, what to do? Start by extracting oil from ANWAR and off shore deposits using proven technologies that will not only reduce our dependence on foreign supply, but allow us to further develop evolving tecnologies that will enable us to gradually wean ourselves from the teat of foreign dependence and be able to finally assert our energy independence.

Posted By: cosmon @ 05/01/2008 2:23:36 AM

Comment: Bravo, Mr. Samuelson!

I have 3 responses to your Op/Ed and your suggestion to "Start Drilling;"
yes, Yes, and YES! It is so frustrating that our leader have been held hostage by the extreme environmental movement, who care more about any living thing, than people and familes. It wasn't too long ago, that Bill Clinton could have made a huge difference in this issue by allowing drilling in Alaska and other domestic sites. Today we would have access to that abundant supply of oil, and the American family would be much better off. Now, there is no relief in site. Compared to the other fake legacies which Clinton continues to attempt to manufacture--THAT legacy would have been a solid one, and one well earned.

Congratulations on the criticism you received below from SagaGirl. You know you are right on track when they opposition accuses you of being bought off by Big Oil. YOu know you are right again, when the only solutions they offer are conservation and pie in the sky visions of ending "our dependence on gasoline" any time soon.

I continue to be amazed at the Left's ability to not see this issue clearly. And it starts with a few pairings of issues to which they seem hell-bent to continue their ignorance:

1. Supply and Demand
2. China and India
3. Excessive Government Regulation and Taxation

Any discussion of high gas prices, without inclusion of these issues above is folly and a waste of time.

Chad O
Denver, CO

Posted By: SagaGirl @ 05/01/2008 12:42:27 AM

Comment: Newsweek, shame on you! Who's stuffing bills in your pocket that you would publish such a blatantly one-sided editorial that fudges all the actual concerns that those who oppose drilling in Alaska have? Our current oil squeeze is caused largely by our excessive gas consumption for the past 50 years and the only way to cut this growing crisis off before it reaches even more desperate extremes is to end our dependence on gasoline. Digging up the oil buried under Alaska is only a short-term fix--what happens in 100 years when we run out of that supply, too? What happens when we continue our air polluting gas consumption and the skies over all of America start looking like the lurid, gray-on-the-edges skies over Southern California? This editorial of yours is not only woefully near-sighted and irresponsible, it downright smacks of a pay-off. I didn't have much an opinion of this publication before, but now I can see where your funds are coming in from. Try to recall that a news publication like Newsweek bears some responsibility for printing articles that have integrity and a little more journalistic merit.

Posted By: SagaGirl @ 05/01/2008 12:41:36 AM

Comment: Newsweek, shame on you! Who's stuffing bills in your pocket that you would publish such a blatantly one-sided editorial that fudges all the actual concerns that those who oppose drilling in Alaska have? Our current oil squeeze is caused largely by our excessive gas consumption for the past 50 years and the only way to cut this growing crisis off before it reaches even more desperate extremes is to end our dependence on gasoline. Digging up the oil buried under Alaska is only a short-term fix--what happens in 100 years when we run out of that supply, too? What happens when we continue our air polluting gas consumption and the skies over all of America start looking like the lurid, gray-on-the-edges skies over Southern California? This editorial of yours is not only woefully near-sighted and irresponsible, it downright smacks of a pay-off. I didn't have much an opinion of this publication before, but now I can see where your funds are coming in from. Try to recall that a news publication like Newsweek bears some responsibility for printing articles that have integrity and a little more journalistic merit.

Posted By: Garett @ 04/30/2008 11:45:31 PM

Comment: WE will not drill because there are not enough politicians that put the people first on this issue. The approach to global warming is so radical it puts our country at risk. In reality it benifits the oil companies that some attack because it keeps supply and gas production at a minimum. Electricity is becoming a commodity that will be limited in production and availability and therefore more expensive. There is a need for significant group of people to put reasonable ideas together to address the growing crisis.

Posted By: swc29 @ 04/30/2008 11:09:43 PM

Comment: America only moves for a crisis.

Robert J Samuelson is right, without adequate oil (energy) America will be in a economic and energy crisis, in the long run.

Alternate fuels will not happen on a large scale until the crisis hits (nuclear, solar power, wind power, coal alternatives, whatever). There was an oil (energy) crisis when I was born, in the 70???s, and we haven???t changed a bit. We all still drive gas powered cars and trucks and tractors everywhere. How many cars do you see running on anything else? Alternate fuel cars are an freak show oddity.

When the lights go off and the cars stand still because of the price of oil, we will drill, we will build other sources of energy, and we will get serious about energy conservation. Moreover, yes, I agree the crisis will take decades to overcome.

Again, America only moves for a crisis.

Posted By: Jlg95117 @ 04/30/2008 9:04:59 PM

Comment: Wow. All that and there was only one fleeting reference to alternative energies. And not even a hint at the dreaded "N" word.

Without a substantial ramp-up in nuclear energy, there will never be such a thing as energy independence.

Posted By: olderwiser @ 04/30/2008 8:56:45 PM

Comment: The dollar has fallen drastically in recent times. It used to be advisable to hedge against a falling currency by purchasing precious metals. Gold would hold a fairly reliable value in a storm and as the dollar fell further, gold would command more dollars. When the storm blew over, one sold the gold near the peak before it fell back, and therefore did not lose to inflation.
Today, though, gold is holding fairly steady lately as the dollar continues to fall. Instead of putting money in gold to protect its value, most investors are putting it into commodities. Oil is in this market, which is expanding into grains. Corn and rice are in play here and it is appearing as if some of our trouble at the gas pump is being caused by dollars looking for a safe home as inflation is knocking at the door.
This market is driven by speculators who can neither burn the millions of gallons of petroleum in their family autos, nor eat the shiploads of corn and rice that they buy.
There is trouble for the general population with all of these hedges.
When gold was the hedge after the 1929 crash, the money that went into gold was frozen in metal and that money that bought the gold did not get into the productive economy. The Roosevelt administration made it illegal to own gold, except for rare coins. That put money back into the hands of former gold owners and they became investors again who invested in job producing businesses.
This speculative market loves to rise drastically on "bad news". A sheik breaks winds and frowns. The cry goes out that his oil production will slow down. Bang. The price of a barrel goes up immediately. A lot of the rises in the past year have been prompted by "bad news". But when the news returns to good, the price does not go back down. Hurricanes used to be only dangerous to those in the path, but now, a storm in the Gulf of Mexico causes a "bad news" rise in the price of oil for everyone who drives a car.
There are people around the world on the verge of starvation because of the sudden rise in grain and other food prices, a good part of which rises are caused by panic buying based on "bad news", such as weather, pests, floods, rice lands taken out of production by the U.S. Government, and such.
This kind of foolishness will go too far, as it always does, and one day Governments will take over control of the commodities. A sad ending.
Some entity needs to study this and bring some sensible regulation to these markets before they stumble into the wrong hands. Our investment system is leaning into the realm of pure wealth for wealth's sake and drifting away from its historical goal of wealth created by valuable production.
At least, this is how it seems to me.

Posted By: kicker29 @ 04/30/2008 8:52:20 PM

Comment: Why can't there be a little common sense and cooperation on this issue? Each political party and the special interest groups that support them paint the other as extremist and out of touch. In this environment, nothing will get done. He is a novel idea...compromise. Start drilling in the U. S., get more refineries online, and start using more nuclear technology, which would increasing supply(making Republicans happy), while setting limits on what cars and suv's have to get concerning miles per gallon and decreasing demand (making Democrats happy). Each political party would have something to take back to their constituents. Although technology and the use of alternative fuel will be the long-term solution to our energy concerns, this could be an immediate starting point for a short term solution. Though each group would not get everything they want, the American people would start to see real progress on this growing problem. Congressional approval rating might even break the 25% mark!

Posted By: kicker29 @ 04/30/2008 8:51:40 PM

Comment: Why can't there be a little common sense and cooperation on this issue? Each political party and the special interest groups that support them paint the other as extremist and out of touch. In this environment, nothing will get done. He is a novel idea...compromise. Start drilling in the U. S., get more refineries online, and start using more nuclear technology, which would increasing supply(making Republicans happy), while setting limits on what cars and suv's have to get concerning miles per gallon and decreasing demand (making Democrats happy). Each political party would have something to take back to their constituents. Although technology and the use of alternative fuel will be the long-term solution to our energy concerns, this could be an immediate starting point for a short term solution. Though each group would not get everything they want, the American people would start to see real progress on this growing problem. Congressional approval rating might even break the 25% mark!

Posted By: kicker29 @ 04/30/2008 8:50:35 PM

Comment: Why can't there be a little common sense and cooperation on this issue? Each political party and the special interest groups that support them paint the other as extremist and out of touch. In this environment, nothing will get done. He is a novel idea...compromise. Start drilling in the U. S., get more refineries online, and start using more nuclear technology, which would increasing supply(making Republicans happy), while setting limits on what cars and suv's have to get concerning miles per gallon and decreasing demand (making Democrats happy). Each political party would have something to take back to their constituents. Although technology and the use of alternative fuel will be the long-term solution to our energy concerns, this could be an immediate starting point for a short term solution. Though each group would not get everything they want, the American people would start to see real progress on this growing problem. Congressional approval rating might even break the 25% mark!

Posted By: kicker29 @ 04/30/2008 8:40:32 PM

Comment: Why can't there be a little compromise on this issue. No political party wants to lose face, so they both blame and paint the other as extreme. Here is a novel idea...start drilling (making republicans happy) while setting a minimum miles per gallon on cars and suv's (making democrats happy). Though a long term comprehensive enery plan utilizing alternative fuel is ultimately what is needed (and when technology starts to help solve these problems, this seems like a common sense short term solution that "panders" to elements of both political parties.

Posted By: jaymaliff @ 04/30/2008 8:12:17 PM

Comment: This article is apparently biased in favor of continued dependency upon oil in America. It is very sad that the most advanced nation in the world cannot develop policies that impliment changes to decrease our dependency on oil. Brazil faced a similar problem in the 1970's, that America faced, depency on oil. However, the Brazilian government set policies that enabled the country to decrease its dependency on oil over the last 35 years, from 1973 to 2008. America, on the other hand, is even more dependent on oil now than it was in the 1970's. Our government could have done something. Initially, the government tried. But, many of the energy independence programs were dropped after funding was cut. Our problems today are not much different than they were in the 1970's. It's sad that such a powerful nation has allowed itself to continue to be so dependent on oil. Had this country continued alternative energy development for the past 35 years, we would not be in the mess we are in today. We haven't learned much. We have allowed smaller and less developed countries such as Brazil pass us by in its ability to protect its economy from the negative effects of oil dependency. It the United States does not change its ways, we may continue to be powerfurl militarily, but countries such as Brazil and China will pass us by as the economic powers of the world. Do, we really want that to happen?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 8:08:32 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 8:07:27 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:59:38 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:59:27 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:59:15 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:59:06 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:58:58 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:58:40 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:58:31 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:58:22 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: OrlandoFla @ 04/30/2008 7:58:09 PM

Comment: This article by Robert J. Samuelson wreaks a lack of common sense and begs to question how Newsweek can allow this "cartoonish" representation of a writer to spew his non-sense on it's pages. Does he really think that Exxon is going to spend any of it's record breaking profits for exploration purposes? Talk about stupidity. They simply don't need to. Not now anyway. Energy independence is possible but only after the same oil companies that are making record profits stop sabotaging the progress toward this technology. I refuse to believe that the same country that put a man on the moon almost 40 years ago, and already has the technology to produce cars that are at least partially powered by electricity or alternative fuels, cannot come up with an alternative to petroleum as a source of energy. Did I already say "talk about stupidity"?

Posted By: smokey_joe @ 04/30/2008 7:54:52 PM

Comment: The other night, conservative talk show host Glen Beck interviewed the Governor of Montana who says that his state has a 200-year supply of auto fuel for the entire USA waiting to be extracted from Montana's vast coal reserves. He also stated that the price of this liquified coal fuel would be $50 per barrel. One barrel is 55 gallons, therefore that works out to be less than $ 1.00 per gallon. Coal deposits in all the other states with coal reserves can be used for power plant fuel or whatever. The technology to do this has existed, at least, from the 1940's and environmental safeguards can be applied. The more diversity in the auto fuels market, the better for the consumer because it means more consumer choice and free competition of many suppliers brings the price down. I still remember the "gas wars" when each gasoline brand tried to undersell the other and gas stations resorted to giving away free steak knives with each fill-up of gasoline.

And if ethanol from NON-FOOD BIOMASS was added to fuel that can be produced from the vast reserves of coal this country has, oil prices would be driven down in short order. The oil lobby apparently doesn't like this idea very much because they have flooded this discussion board with a phenomenal number of garbage messages since yesterday.

Posted By: gwtwbmwz3 @ 04/30/2008 7:46:10 PM

Comment: It is true that we need to look into new technologies and new ways to conserve what resources we have. The trouble we have is relying on politicians to get things done for the people. What we have here is "a failure to communicate". Lets get back to the garden so to speak and not over utilize what Mother Nature has provided.

Posted By: taddbartley @ 04/30/2008 7:41:11 PM

Comment: I wish people would spend some time and read the science behind global warming and its causes. It's not a hoax - please read the science. We need to get AWAY from fossil fuels, and we can. We must. Please see the bigger picture...

Posted By: tg1001 @ 04/30/2008 7:38:21 PM

Comment: If you believe that drilling for oil is all that is needed, think again. We have sufficient, we need more for the future, but the truth behind the high price today is SPECULATION! Limit the speculation in the market and the price will fall to the where supply equals demand. OPEC has said that merely increasing production will not drop the price. Our refining capacity in this country is also part of the problem. We need to increase that capacity and allow more competition in that area. There is one benefit to today's high price, alternative sources of energy will actually become more efficient and new technology to use it more effective. Let's hope we get tired of being at the mercy of speculators and oil producers and discover more effecient means of energy.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:19:25 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:19:15 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:17:49 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:17:18 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:16:51 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:16:26 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:14:08 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:13:56 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:13:48 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:13:40 PM

Comment: This article is just another example that Americans are too short sighted. Drilling more, eliminating gas taxes, and increasing the production of biofuels are the most ridiculous ideas out there. We need to be coming off gas, putting our money into new technologies rather than continuing to rape our planet for a resource that in a few years will be economically impossible to exploit. There is no way gas prices are going down any time soon, and continuing to drive giant SUVs because "You need the size" is going to make the little oil price crisis we are going through look like nothing compared to what will happen next. Please ignore this article, the only way to help ourselves is to work towards some other means of transportation, and quick.

Posted By: PlanoEast04 @ 04/30/2008 7:09:08 PM

Comment: I would have to disagree with this article. We should not ruin our environment because we are being punished for our past actions. It would be much more sensible to promote newer technologies rather than continue exploiting something that will be economically impossible to use in a few years. This article just goes to show that Americans are way too short sighted and would rather continue driving their big SUVs and raping the planet instead of working a little harder to better our situation. The bottom line is that if we do not start drastically changing things now, and ignore idiotic ideas such as drilling more, taking away gas taxes, or increasing biofuel production, the next few years are going to make this little oil price crisis look like a steal in comparison.

Posted By: fasted64 @ 04/30/2008 7:05:55 PM

Comment: We'll, I say the government steps in and regulates oil. I hate to say that as I am very conservative and really hate regulation of anything. But drastic times call for drastic measures.... It will hurt for a while. Tell Opec we will pay only $60.00 per barrel. Stop buying it if they refuse. Gas prices will surge as supply will dwindle. It will hurt for a while, but only for a while. Once OPEC realizes we will not budge on price, they will eventually cave in. It's the Saudis and Russia that have all the oil. It's them who want the money from sale of oil... Stop buying it. They will eventually cave in.... I'll walk for a while. I'll ride my bike in the meantime. I am willing. Is the rest of America willing? OPEC will cave eventually and sell on our terms.. Gas pricess will then return to $2.00 per gallon prices....

Posted By: ChrisCZ @ 04/30/2008 6:59:56 PM

Comment: All of this is a short-term solution. Ruining our environment so we can drive more is ludicrous. I understand that we do have Americans whose jobs absolutely depend on less-expensive oil. For them, such as truck drivers, taxi drivers, etc., perhaps we can give them a higher mileage rate on their income taxes to help create higher deductions for them. The rest of us will just have to take the bus more often or lessen pleasure trips, etc. There are other and maybe better ideas. But drilling for more oil in our protected areas is so short-sighted and ridiculous that I can't imagine why this article was published without an equal rebuttal article. Oil is a finite resource. Shouldn't we be planning for the future and not just lessening complaints now about high prices? .

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:43:37 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:43:28 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:42:59 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:42:35 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:42:27 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:42:19 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: dsantanaocca @ 04/30/2008 6:42:02 PM

Comment: Although what has been proposed in this article may seem to resolve or reduce any short term dependence on foreign oil what is not mentioned is the fact that oil is not an infinite resource. Sooner or later it will be gone - period! There will be no more oil, foriegn or domestic. I'm surprised that no one talks much about this. Taking this fact into consideration the only rational comclusion is that we must find an alternative energy source or the world risks falling into chaos. The US should make an effort to lead this effort. We americans are creative people. But we need government officials to get on board with this - and do so now rather than later. We need, as a country, to involve ourselves in finding someting other than oil. Thinking exclusively in oil terms may be of benefit to the oil companies and to their politcal cronies but it does no one any good. WE NEED TO GET OFF THIS JUICE. Lets get serious about researching alternatives - and I'm not referring to planting more corn or using land that should be allocated for growing food. I'm referring to other possibilities.

Posted By: tired-of-excuses @ 04/30/2008 6:40:48 PM

Comment: I love to read the comments. Apparently, all those commenting only read the article's title and then immediately objected. Yes, there are many things we should have done; however, we didn't. Yes, we should pass all sorts of legislation to coerce a move to alternate energy sources. However, we have to deal with the fact that other countries are currently happy to rip us off. As our increased production lowers the price we pay for oil, we can increase taxes to pay for infrastructue AND to apply to alternate energy technologies (and not biofuel that simply trades saving a small amount of oil for much higher fuel prices AND even a greater effect on our environment than burning gasoline. I don't want to hear "woulda shoulda" remarks because it doesn't get the job done. Right now, we don't have the technology to produce alternate energy at reasonable prices. The cheapest energy is derived from coal which we have in abundance but it pollutes. We can certainly switch to nuclear, but not with the "not in my back yard" mentality that aflicts everyone in the country (especially those complaining about high fuel costs). THERE IS NO PANACEA! For now, we can use oil, coal, or nuclear. The other so-called alternative are niche solutions. If we don't do something, todays oil prices will, in a few short years, seem like a bargain. Of course, our economy will be totally destroyed by then and people will be call today "the good old days". SCARY ISN'T IT!?

Posted By: cubeman4 @ 04/30/2008 6:39:05 PM

Comment: The comments so far demonstrate exactly the problem that is pointed out in this article. All that you guys are talking about is conservation and alternative energy. We can only conserve so much and what we do conserve will be nothing compared to the increased demand in China and India. Alternative energy has been the cure for 30 years and hasn't helped in any significant way. In fact, ethanol is causing a worldwide spike in food prices.

I am all for developing better technology and alternative sources of energy. I think plug-in hyrbids and nuclear power plants would be fantastic and practical ways of reducing our use of oil. But the fact remains that for decades oil is probably still going to be the most important transportation fuel and it is ridiculous to talk about "energy independence" while banning drilling for oil in our our country! It's so absurd that it does not stand up to any scrutiny that goes beyond, "oil bad!". If we want less dependence on foreign oil we have to depend more on... domestic oil. We will transition towards other sources of energy but we cannot ignore domestic oil consumption.

Posted By: BCNU @ 04/30/2008 6:36:57 PM

Comment: For those with short memories look at the news articles in 1972 and 1973 talking about the oil embargo and the lines at the gas pumb. We as a country saw the need to become energy independent. We looked at off shore necular power plants, wind turbins, hydro electric, cafe standards, and after everything got said and done the ENVIRONMENT FREAKS got their way. That is why we are where we are today.

Posted By: gandolf @ 04/30/2008 6:24:49 PM

Comment: I have to disagree. This artilce should begin by saying we consume ~20 million barrels per day. That's 7 billion a year. So let's think.. 33 billion in reserves last 6 years. Wow.. in all the programming and artilces I've read I never heard it put like that. Of course we only produce ~40% of what we consume.. but if our reserves are 7, 14 or 28 years.. who cares.. it's far to little.

I thought you had it when you said we should have started 10-20 years ago. Doing what? How about:

*) increasing fuel economy standard in a compelling way. No hummers or SUVs.. what were we thinking.
*) how about building more nuclear reactors and subsidizing electric and hybrid technology. We could have been leaders but now we are followers an the big 3 are the dying 3 in detroit. They really symbolize how far technology and initiative (which you hint at) has fallen in the US.
*) with increased electric power we could power more recharageable electric vehicles or subsidize the development of cheap hydrogren production and hydrogen fueling stations/vehicle devleopment.

I think this is what we should be doing. Let's get serious and discuss some real solutions. Alaska isn't even a stop gap option.. we need to lower consumption.. there's no extra supply. I worked in Saudi Aramco and worked in the Middle east as a perfromance consultant... the reality is we are not able to bring on extra capacity and the US doesn't have any "CHEAP" production reserves.

Posted By: gandolf @ 04/30/2008 6:23:56 PM

Comment: I have to disagree. This artilce should begin by saying we consume ~20 million barrels per day. That's 7 billion a year. So let's think.. 33 billion in reserves last 6 years. Wow.. in all the programming and artilces I've read I never heard it put like that. Of course we only produce ~40% of what we consume.. but if our reserves are 7, 14 or 28 years.. who cares.. it's far to little.

I thought you had it when you said we should have started 10-20 years ago. Doing what? How about:

*) increasing fuel economy standard in a compelling way. No hummers or SUVs.. what were we thinking.
*) how about building more nuclear reactors and subsidizing electric and hybrid technology. We could have been leaders but now we are followers an the big 3 are the dying 3 in detroit. They really symbolize how far technology and initiative (which you hint at) has fallen in the US.
*) with increased electric power we could power more recharageable electric vehicles or subsidize the development of cheap hydrogren production and hydrogen fueling stations/vehicle devleopment.

I think this is what we should be doing. Let's get serious and discuss some real solutions. Alaska isn't even a stop gap option.. we need to lower consumption.. there's no extra supply. I worked in Saudi Aramco and worked in the Middle east as a perfromance consultant... the reality is we are not able to bring on extra capacity and the US doesn't have any "CHEAP" production reserves.

Tim

Posted By: Patton34 @ 04/30/2008 6:23:36 PM

Comment: So the answer to alleviating our dependance on foreign oil is to make our own? Why not develop the technology to rid our selves of oil all together? Even if the Governments (Bush) estimates are dead on and there is 30 billion barrels of oil in each of those spaces protected right now how long will that last by our current level of consumption? As a country we consume 31billion barrels of oil per year (86 million barrels a day X 365 days) NOW. What about 4 years from now wit ha population that grows every year? So these 4 or 5 places will last the US MAYBE 4 years. Wouldnt we be wise to just put oil out of business and go with something something cold turkey? There isnt just one "magic pill" for our gas problem. But there doesnt need to be. We can use a combination of available power sources. Instead of lip service that car companies are paying us with "Hybrids" make cars that run on Solar, energy created by our wheels spinning (like a hydrolic generator used in dams or the generator used to recharge military Humvees batteries). These are all viable sources but we as a nation are afraid to make the "leap" so we keep selling our lives to the terrorists who collect checks from the Arab nations we give our paychecks to every time we go to the pumps.

So Sir who wrote this article you are diluded into thinking this is a solution. Within 4 years we are right back where we started from. If we dont get away from Oil it will ruin us and make us a perverbial tweeker. Stealing and begging for the next hit. A crack head crawling around the toilet bowl for loose rocks. We need "rehab" to kick the habit. The best way is not "methadone" it is COLD TURKEY. Stop making gas cars all together and develop new technology. It will create new jobs it eliminates and spark a renaissance that will eclipse the industrial revolution. But not as long as we listen to Oil men

Posted By: gandolf @ 04/30/2008 6:23:30 PM

Comment: I have to disagree. This artilce should begin by saying we consume ~20 million barrels per day. That's 7 billion a year. So let's think.. 33 billion in reserves last 6 years. Wow.. in all the programming and artilces I've read I never heard it put like that. Of course we only produce ~40% of what we consume.. but if our reserves are 7, 14 or 28 years.. who cares.. it's far to little.

I thought you had it when you said we should have started 10-20 years ago. Doing what? How about:

*) increasing fuel economy standard in a compelling way. No hummers or SUVs.. what were we thinking.
*) how about building more nuclear reactors and subsidizing electric and hybrid technology. We could have been leaders but now we are followers an the big 3 are the dying 3 in detroit. They really symbolize how far technology and initiative (which you hint at) has fallen in the US.
*) with increased electric power we could power more recharageable electric vehicles or subsidize the development of cheap hydrogren production and hydrogen fueling stations/vehicle devleopment.

I think this is what we should be doing. Let's get serious and discuss some real solutions. Alaska isn't even a stop gap option.. we need to lower consumption.. there's no extra supply. I worked in Saudi Aramco and worked in the Middle east as a perfromance consultant... the reality is we are not able to bring on extra capacity and the US doesn't have any "CHEAP" production reserves.

Tim

Posted By: GregHere @ 04/30/2008 6:14:05 PM

Comment: ..........................Has anyone put in any time thinking about petroleum conservation??...........Conservation is something that should have been implmented back in the 1960s and if better conservation measures were put in place at that time we would be in a much better position now and maybe we would not be fighting wars over petroleum resources. America used very little petrolium before 1900 to where now it is used with reckless abandon. We need to re-think the situation with petrolium powered vehicles that we are using in this time frame of history without much thought to the whole impact of their usage.

Posted By: StephanRogers @ 04/30/2008 6:11:30 PM

Comment: I am sorry, but if this is the best thinking we have for how to get out from under our oil dependency, I think its time to give up all hope. At best we might be able to replace 5%, maybe, of our current oil consumption by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. And what will that give us,"With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity". Is this the best America has to offer at a time of crisis. Doesn't the country have the wherewithal to attack this problem on multiple fronts without pretending that one solution will get us out from under. Maybe energy independence is a joke, but we better be trying every solution at our command or our boys and girls will continue dying in the middle east for the foreseeable future, more of our resources will go overseas, and the climate will get warmer. This prescription is sad and pathetic and appears to be paid for by the oil companies.

Posted By: StephanRogers @ 04/30/2008 6:10:31 PM

Comment: I am sorry, but if this is the best thinking we have for how to get out from under our oil dependency, I think its time to give up all hope. At best we might be able to replace 5%, maybe, of our current oil consumption by drilling in environmentally sensitive areas. And what will that give us,"With luck, this might widen the worldwide surplus of production capacity". Is this the best America has to offer at a time of crisis. Doesn't the country have the wherewithal to attack this problem on multiple fronts without pretending that one solution will get us out from under. Maybe energy independence is a joke, but we better be trying every solution at our command or our boys and girls will continue dying in the middle east for the foreseeable future, more of our resources will go overseas, and the climate will get warmer. This prescription is sad and pathetic and appears to be paid for by the oil companies.

Posted By: Patton34 @ 04/30/2008 6:06:11 PM

Comment: Enter Your Comment

Posted By: Patton34 @ 04/30/2008 6:05:05 PM

Comment: Enter Your Comment

Posted By: squidler @ 04/30/2008 5:59:00 PM

Comment: Mr Samueulson, you forgot to mention that many of the largest producing fields are also in decline - namely, North Slope in Great Britian, Canteral in Mexico and the mother lode - Anwar in Saudi Arabia. I like the way Matt Savinar put it in the Peak Oil documentary - if you have to scrub oil from sand, chances are we've already used up the good stuff. Chances are, this could get pretty interesting.

Posted By: jp_negri @ 04/30/2008 5:58:1