The amount of new oil produced from off shore drilling would be too small to affect world oil prices. - Inspired by Robert Kaufmann, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, Boston University

Although this is true for offshore drilling, it isn't true for Alaska. With the amount of oil up there, drilling on the North Slope of Alaska would affect supply/demand dynamics on the global scale and domestic drilling could lower prices even further for US consumers.

An effort to forge "clean" drilling processes in Alaska should be made, putting management of the arctic wildlife preserve at the forefront. This combined with an aggressive campaign at federal and state levels to adopt "smart growth" tactics for sustainable cities (promoting less fuel-reliant lifestyles) and a shift into "green" energy development (bio-based fuels, hydrogen fuel cells...)+ production at all levels can provide the impetus for a price drop.

Offshore drilling may or may not bring down oil prices. Same with drilling in the North Shore in Alaska. I'm on the fence about drilling, but I can't help but think: where do we draw the line with tapping natural resources? What happens when oil is gone? Should we save some for times of emergency, like when the nation is mobilized for war? You can't simply "make" new oil. Once it's gone, it's gone. Then what?

I think it is a misconception that offshore drilling needs to create actual supply in the short term to affect oil prices. If you look at what drives commodity prices, a lot of it is psychological. Oil prices sold off somewhat when President Bush lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling even though legislative action was still required. Lifting the ban would affect oil prices immediately because of the belief that it would create more supply in the future. There is a school of thought that we should ignore offshore drilling and devote all our resources to alternative energy. The latter is a good idea, but the fact remains that 30 years from now, 2/3 of our energy will be from oil even if we invest in alternative energy. I think the assertion above is short-sighted, and offshore drilling will have a marked affect on global prices from the start.

The issue isn't 'off shore drilling.' The issue is finding ENERGY from whatever source derived. Focus people, focus. To keep ANY source off the market hinders the world's NEED for energy. That will never change. Stop hindering those that provide energy. They need your help in providing what YOU demand, no matter what source it comes from.

In my mind the question has more to do with our dependency on foreign sources of energy then the price of world oil. China and India will continue to have an increasing thirst for oil, which will keep the price high.
My concern is to do what we can to keep our hard-earned dollars here in the USA rather than lining the pockets of foreign dictators.

Why are higher fuel prices a problem? By rising prices we are reducing demand of all products, thus causing less consumption, and improving overall environmental standards. As Gas prices go up, people will buy less, eat less, drive less, have less offspring and live in smaller homes.

Actually, the effects have already been felt without any drilling. Just the indication that off-shore drilling may occur has adjusted oil speculator's positions having an immediate effect on oil prices. Whether it takes 7 years or 15 years to actually have the new oil available at the gas pump, it still is a clear signal that additional resources will soon be available to consumers which impacts supply and demand (even if only psychologically) thereby driving prices downward. None of our current sources of oil want to lose the US as a customer so they will drop their prices making it less profitable for oil company's to drill here as an attempt to maintain control of the market supply.

I am pretty much in agreement with everyone here except for the last poster. I am not in favor of reverting back to the 19th century standards of living and I would wager that most Americans are not in favor of it either. Don't be fooled by enviornmentalist, socialists, and others that oppose taking advantage of all of our domestic energy sources. They simply want to control your lives through oppressive regulations and taxation.

All energy sources should be on the table at this time if we are going to reduce the amount of foreign oil we consume; we are also going to need to fill the gap between now and when solar, wind, and other "green" alternatives are actually viable sources of energy. These alternatives are simply not where they need to be at this time.

Lastly, I believe you will see a drop in the price of oil if congress let the moratorium on off shore drilling lapse. It won't drop to $20 a barrel, but it will certainly drop below $100 and maybe below $75 over an extended period. It will all be due to the percetion around the world that we are serious about energy independence and advancing newer, cleaner, and more sustainable sources of energy.

Following this logic, we should plant crops only if we're hungry. We should build highways only when we can no longer move on the gridlocked systems in place. And we should continue to watch Russia and China become world powers by exploring the waters 100 meters beyond our territorial waters. Brilliant. I respectfully disagree.

The same excuse was made 10 years ago and the Congress voted against off-shore drilling. If they had voted for it, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

The questions posed here sure are slanted to the left. The relevant question pertains to inland and off shore drilling. Anyway, if you have doubts about how much oil is in the USA, Google " the Bakken formation" according to analysts latest estimates there is enough oil there alone to supply the entire US for 40 years. Regardless, we need to have the ability to acquire as much of our own oil as we can as a measure of national security and further more it 100% would impact the current price of gas. I live in Florida every time a hurricane evacuates the drilling platforms in the gulf of mexico it drives gas prices up and that is in response to a week of no drilling. Last but not least the government controls much of the proposed land where drilling would be done. In a recent speech by Obama he spoke of fleecing the wicked oil companies of some of their profits and giving it to the middle class. I dont know about any of you but I am not testing alternative energy at my home???? Its obvious that the proceeds needed to push alternative solutions could be derived from the profits of domestic drilling instead of funding our enemies. WAKE UP

The questions posed here sure are slanted to the left. The relevant question pertains to inland and off shore drilling. Anyway, if you have doubts about how much oil is in the USA, Google " the Bakken formation" according to analysts latest estimates there is enough oil there alone to supply the entire US for 40 years. Regardless, we need to have the ability to acquire as much of our own oil as we can as a measure of national security and further more it 100% would impact the current price of gas. I live in Florida every time a hurricane evacuates the drilling platforms in the gulf of mexico it drives gas prices up and that is in response to a week of no drilling. Last but not least the government controls much of the proposed land where drilling would be done. In a recent speech by Obama he spoke of fleecing the wicked oil companies of some of their profits and giving it to the middle class. I dont know about any of you but I am not testing alternative energy at my home???? Its obvious that the proceeds needed to push alternative solutions could be derived from the profits of domestic drilling instead of funding our enemies. WAKE UP

Offshore Drilling when done right can have a dramatic effect on supply and demand. The naysayers that argue any point to keep us from drilling are missing the point. It's not to replace foreign oil supplies, it is to have them as as accessible reserves should we lose access to middle eastern reserves. Russia has shown us it is willing to be aggressive in a region that harbors large reserves and hosts the Trans-Caucasus-Pipeline. Americans would be foolish to assume that when supplies really do get tight that there will not even more aggressive moves by countries with developing economies like Russia and China. The whole idea is to start the process now BECAUSE it will take 10 years to wind through the EPA and MMS maze to get the wells permitted and drilled. Like T. Boone Pickett says, "We need a bridge to a sustainable non-petroleum based energy strategy." Drilling buys us time it should never been touted as a panacea for our transport fuels problems, that needs to be solved and solved quickly by Americans, or one day this nation will hand the keys to the kingdom to our new owners . . .

As a moderate,I can plainly see how narrow-minded and ignorant both the left-wing liberals and right-wing conervatives are....and how both of them are screwing things up....including issues like energy.

For one thing,we have all these ignorant and energy illiterate people out there who think that solar energy is still exotic or not feasilble....or that it's something too futuristic....which is ludicrous nonsense because solar is the oldest and most conventional energy source on the planet.

But then again,as long as ignorant and uninformed people believe this(to big oil's advantage)....when we could have done already exploited more solar energy use ages ago....conservatives are also still going to continue to be correct about how we need an oil production bridge to the future now.

When most people think of solar,they think of the futuristic high-tech method of photovoltaic eletric power and battery storage.But there are many other different ways to use solar that have been around since anchient times that don't involve electric power....such as space and water heating(don't tell me absurd nonsense about how walking barefoot on asphalt road pavement with no shoes in the summertime and getting your Ouch! Ouch! soles of feet scorched is exotic)....and also good ol' fashioned biomass(anything that burns).People have been using indirect solar such as old fashoined wood-burning and windmills for centuries.The anchient Greeks lived in houses that used passive solar heatig design over 300B.C.The anchient Greeks considered it the most efficient way to heat a house.And yet Ronald Reagan and large oil companies tell us that an America that puts Astronauts on the Moon can't do it.

But since modern day energy illiterate Americans are still not as informed and enlightened as Anchient China,Greece and Rome over 300B.C.,then yes,we still need the petroleum production bridge to the future(alternative energy past?).

My take on things as a moderate who is neither liberal or conservative is plain and simple: George Bush screwed the country and now Barack Obama is going to screw-up the country some more.God help us.

T.Boone Pickens is a smart oilman who has enough sense to wake-up and smell the coffee(when many other lame-brains still have'nt).Yet many dumb people still think smart people like Boone Pickens is the one who is dumb.I say go ahead and drill....provided of course that any new economic wealth petroleum creates is first invested in things like wind,solar and renewable biodiesel....and NOT just all blown-out the tailpipe of an SUV.The main problem America has(besides ignorance and energy illiteracy)when it comes to cheap oil addiction is that America is full of spoiled-rotten gripers and complainers who want something for nothing.If you want energy,then you have to pay for it.A tax on gasoline probably would stimmulte less waste and more efficient cars.However,from a realistic standpoint,this would be very politically unpopular and would cost Barack Obama getting re-elected four years from now....like taking candy away from a baby only worse.America must continue sucking the nipple of the petroleum bottle.Waahh!Waahh!Give it back....I'm a hydrocarbon addict!

Although most conservatives are opposed to any government regulations,maybe they should have passed a law decades ago requiring all new homes built by the housing and construction industry to be of passive solar design and super insulated.This would have helped to reduce consumption in the residential and space heating sector of the economy at least,anyway.But instead,many more millions of homes have been built that cannot be easily retrofitted for solar heating.This has only helped make the infrastructure and economy even more wasteful and hopelessly addicted to petroleum rather than it serving as bridge to the future.But alas,now that it's already been done,it's neither here nor there.

Although most conservatives are opposed to any government regulations,maybe they should have passed a law decades ago requiring all new homes built by the housing and construction industry to be of passive solar design and super insulated.This would have helped to reduce consumption in the residential and space heating sector of the economy at least,anyway.But instead,many more millions of homes have been built that cannot be easily retrofitted for solar heating.This has only helped make the infrastructure and economy even more wasteful and hopelessly addicted to petroleum rather than it serving as bridge to the future.But alas,now that it's already been done,it's neither here nor there.