You say it would be at least a decade before we realized any benefits from additional drilling. How long would it be to realize those benefits if we don't? This "at least a decade" mentality got us into this mess 10 years ago when Bill Clinton refused to authorize drilling in ANWR.

You say in ten years if alternate energy was not yet able to make up for the increase in the demand for oil that the prices would continue to rise. Isn't it astonishingly obvious that those prices would rise exponentially faster if the supply was smaller, and especially if the supply continued to be in the hands of other countries? The high price is not the sum total of the problem. Paying the high prices to our enemies is something you're not taking into account.

If alternative energies or any other scenario produced a glut of oil within the next ten years, then those poor poor oil companies would have a debt on their hands. Why not let them take that risk? Remove these restrictions now which have taken us to a precarious place and can't possibly do us any good in the future.

You look like an idiot because you did not bother to read the link I posted.

You said

Yea, like they have been doing in the gulf? Taxpayers screwed out of God knows how many millions and the Bush admin shrugs...

The link I provided described how the oil companies paid 3.7 billion dollars for the rights to explore in wait for it, the Gulf of Mexico.

If the market is selling it, there have to be willing buyers. Duh.

But not in any large numbers. If there were large numbers wanting to buy such, you'd not have any complaints, would you?

HAve a nice 'Duh'.

If the market is selling it, there have to be willing buyers. Duh.

In most cases, whenever the strict suburban zoning code is lifted even a little bit, immediate development occurs - so obviously the market DOES want to provide higher density housing.

But does the market want to BUY it? Mostly, the answer remains 'no'.

Are we now to assume that the left's claims that Wite Flight is no longer the officially valid reason for people moving out of the cities?

TJIT, Houston doesn't have the separation of uses found in traditional zoning, but it has all the other stuff (parking requirements, lot size rules, etc) which still mandate suburban crap essentially everywhere outside a small area.

1. The oil companies pay for the right to explore.

Yea, like they have been doing in the gulf? Taxpayers screwed out of God knows how many millions and the Bush admin shrugs...

As for why high gas prices haven't led to innovation - look no further than your local zoning code. The market would love to provide us with dwellings closer to work and play, but the strict suburban nature of the zoning code pretty well stymies it in doing so.

In the rare cases where zoning restrictions are actually lifted, as happened recently in the West Campus area of Austin, the crane becomes the local bird of choice.

Good point and an excellent argument for the benefits of more cities following Houston's no zoning model.

Additionally, I'm dubious about spending taxpayer dollars on a project of opening federal lands to oil exploration when the long term benefit of same might well be nil.

and

Contra what some commenters in this thread have stated, the oil companies most certainly do not bear the bulk of the risk when it comes to exploration and drilling. Taxpayers do.

That is dead, flat, ignorantly wrong. If you want your comments on this topic to be taken seriously learn the facts which are.

1. The oil companies pay for the right to explore.

2. They spend their money exploring and drilling

3. If they produce anything they pay a portion of the production to the federal government as royalties (around 12 percent of the amount of produced petroleum).

Oil and Gas Lease Sales in Gulf of Mexico Attract $3.7 Billion

Two federal sales of offshore oil and natural gas leases in the Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico attracted more than $3.7 billion in high bids today, inaugurating enhanced revenue sharing with oil and gas producing Gulf states, instituting higher royalty rates and underscoring the region’s continuing importance as a vital source of domestic energy production for the nation.

in other words "Daves not here man"

Sorry for the confusion.

You said,

the effects of offshore drilling on coral and other species that are central to the life cycles of the oceans, the effects of increased acidification of the oceans due to CO2 emissions, and, yes, climate change. I don't care about nature per se--but I do care about the Earth remaining a habitable place for the human race, and fossil fuel use threatens that future.

Unfortunately biofuels, the main proposed alternative to petroleum, are far worse for the environment then petroleum production is.

What About the Land? A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world

The hype over biofuels in the U.S. and Europe has had wide-ranging effects perhaps not envisioned by the environmental advocates who promote their use.

Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel.

If we allow oil companies to drill and pump how exactly does that cost the taxpayer?

Well, for one thing with more supplies, the government would be hard pressed to find excuses for invoking 'windfall' taxes on oil compaines.
[/smirk]

The price of oil is set right now based on demand, NOT based on marginal cost of production;

Actually, it's priced on perception and on myth. That's why it's called a bubble. All that's needed is to turn the perception. this is a point that even George Soros stipulates to. How is it you (credibly) disagree?
(Snicker)

As for why high gas prices haven't led to innovation - look no further than your local zoning code. The market would love to provide us with dwellings closer to work and play, but the strict suburban nature of the zoning code pretty well stymies it in doing so.

People simply are not interested in moving ito high crime, high density areas that our masters at the UN would have us moving into.

Bithead is right on one thing: there IS no alternative, if by alternative you mean "some kind of fuel that will let us keep driving 20,000 miles by ourselves in huge vehicles". That's why part of the solution has to be getting rid of strict suburban low-density mandates, and then investing a ton of money in rail transit (which unlike automobiles can EASILY be fueled by electricity, which IS something the Europeans have done and are continuing to do).

For zall that, though, they still don't USE it. They tend to stay at home, like good little serfs. they're priced out of the market. I do not see that as a good thing. Do you?

E.g.:Solar panels

Assuming annual electricity capture of 2.1 megawatts per solar panel, we’d have to place them on 4.2 billion rooftops. In other words, we’d have to install on them on 250,000 roofs per day for the next 50 years to have enough solar panels to offset our current annual oil usage (and this ignores things like coal; see below).

Wind power

What about wind power generators? You’d need 3 million to equal one CMO. That would require the installation of 1,200 per week for the next 50 years.

Are we supposed to wait until these critical masses are met? A journey of a 1000 miles begins...