One barrel of oil (42 gallons) breaks down as follows:

19 gallons for gasoline
9 gallons for fuel oil
4 gallons for jet fuel
10 gallons for petrochemicals for other products (plastics, pharmaceuticals, computers, inks, appliances, glossy magazines, lubricants, tires, hoses, kitchen strainers, toys, fishing line, lures, turkey calls, shotgun shells, fletching, camo, and a thousand other things within sight of where you sit at this moment.)

Drilling is about more than gas for cars. Only 45% of our oil consumption has anything to do with gasoline for cars. 55% of a barrel of oil goes to the rest of the things we do in life.

The cold hard fact is we need more oil for the future. We have to start drilling for it now. Regrettably , the long term vision of a modern politician is no further than the end of the current election cycle.

Drill if the US Taxpayer Owned oil is purchased at a competitive price or else if the sale of that oil and down-the-line products of it is restricted to US consumers.

Otherwise, drilling that oil isn't going to change the price of anything in the US by even a penny.

Between the lousy economy, the dollar being weak, a ridiculous national debt, foreign usage continually climbing, and speculators pushing their agenda to artificially push oil prices even higher (gee, their might be a hurricane this year, so let's drive up the prices farther!), we are effectively screwed on oil prices.

Jim

The solution to this issue does not exist in one strategy or the other. As a nation, we need to develop and implement realistic policies that cover two equally important groungs:

1. Invest in pragmatic and cost efficient renewable resources such as wind, water and solar to move home and business from fossil fuels to renewable green resources.

2. Explore and tap fossil fuels in a responsible manner - of which regulators need to balance the interest of "big oil" with national security, environmental security as well consumer's pocket books.

Long term solutions exist - but they are not parked in just drilling or strictly in renewables.

I agree with McCain that the moratorium on offshore drilling needs to be re-examined, but as a nation we should think through it in a critical fashion...Instead of rushing to get a fix.

Nationalizing the Oil Industry or Refineries are not a solution to this matter either. Nor is a windfall profits tax. How does that help you? Sure you stick it to the Man, but what you are doing is sticking it to youorself. Yes we need renewable energy, but how is that going to heat my home this winter and get me to my job 30 miles from my house without paying a huge sum?

The chinese people/residents have price controls (i.e. communism) and are/can buying gas at a much lower price than we are paying since China is eating the cost difference between price control sales price and oil barrel purchase price. That artifically drives up the demand of a product.

Also the oil price is tied to the US dollar, as the Fed has allowed the $ to slip, it costs us more to buy oil, the currency exchange rates are making us pay a premium.

Big Oil (exxon/mobil, Dutch shell) is not to blame, just like big electronics (Sony, Panasonic) is not to blame for bad TV programming.

Let the 50 (57?) states decide if they want to drill for oil, hopefully more state would use the royalty income from the oil being pumped from the land to do something worthwhile like setting up something similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, and/or lowering property taxes since the royalties cover the difference. Making sure public land is open to the public and not budget cut...

More people should have an understanding of Gov't, Public, and general Economic and Accounting rules. It would help make these arguments. There is no such thing in Gov't as individual accounts, its all in the general fund...One Large Check book. Remember these people write the laws, why would they hamstring themselves? Would you?

I just wish someone would tell the American public the truth about energy policy.

1) This is not a suprise. We have known since the early part of the 20th century that oil was a finite commodity. Henry Ford often talked about the need to find alternative fuels. He also talked about the environmental damage that resulted from burning fossil fuels--primarily smog at the time.

2) Because oil is a global commodity, it impossible to simply say that American oil is for America. Well I suppose it could be done if the government nationalized the oil industry, but that will not happen. So even if US production increased drastically, increasing demand from other parts of the world would consume these increases.

3) The vast majority of oil and gas surveys are widely inaccurate. The "Muckluck Dry Hole," which is located to the Northwest of ANWR is the most glaring example of this.

4) Barring some technological break through (e.g. nuclear fusion), the energy intensive way of life that US citizens have become accustomed to is unsustainable. And again this is not news. Literature discussing the potential energy crisis that would result from the movement of people and business out of the traditional city cores into the suburbs has been around since the 1950s.

The solution -- if there is one -- is NOT in finding another oil fix. It is in weaning ourselves from as much of the stuff as possible. Biofuels, renewable and alternative energy have to be developed and properly utilized. We are already seeing depleted fish stocks due to a combination of over fishing and environmental pollution; no matter how careful they try to be offshore drilling poses enormous environmental risks. We can not afford to take them for what is still only a stop-gap short term bandaid fix for a long term problem!
SA

Energy is a very complicated subject. It requires development of alternative sources, being more conservative in our use of it, but also using the sources available to us. Eventually economics is going to dictate what we do. Gas will go to $10 a gallon and higher. We'll find that third generation nuclear plants are safe, clean, and generate a tiny fraction of the waste of today's plants which are based on technology that is 40 years old. Research into solar will improve that technology greatly. And, some new technology could come along.

But, there is no reason why we shouldn't be developing the resources we have available today. Just as home oil heaters have become much more efficient and clean there are newer technologies for coal, oil, and nuclear we can take advantage of today along with giving consumers the choice of buying renewable energy at a slightly higher price today, but consumers are willing to pay it for the benefits down the road.

The media's presidential picks aren't discussing all of our options. The American public should be hearing from all three of the candidates that will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

Here is Bob Barr's release on energy today, and you can look up his interview with Glenn Beck on YouTube to listen to Beck and Barr discuss energy policies.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press-releases/30/explore-anwr-and-outer-continental-shelf-says-bob-barr/

Hardy:
A vote for Bob Barr, no matter how strong he is on any issue, is a vote for Barack Obama.
Jason:
This country runs on oil! The 2A ramifications of BHO pall in comparison to his proposed energy policy! We could be looking at massive unemployment if his policy on energy is enacted into government policy. Many of us in the heartland have no choice but to drive to work. Also, most of our jobs are dependant on energy. Even more frightening, he wants our vehicles to run on ethanol. The economics of this idea are totally false. It requires nearly as much fuel to produce an equivalent amount of ethanol. i.e. It requires a gallon of diesel oil to produce a gallon of ethanol. Ethanol is not nearly as efficient as fuel. Gasoline is about 60 per cent as efficient as diesel. Ethanol is about 60 per cent efficient as gasoline. Couple that with the increase in food costs associated with ethanol production and you have food price hikes that make the gas prices seem reasonable. Remember this; corn and soybeans go up in price with demand. As more of these products are funneled into ethanol, the price will rise. As demand for these products increase, more "wildland" will be converted to agriculture.
Ethanol, as a primary energy source, is LOSE, LOSE. There are no winners, and everyone ends up a loser.
YooperJack

It's nukes and hydrogen!
Oil will run out, even nukes are limited, ethanol is not a good alternative.
Hydrogen and then solar power Solar(in all its ramifications) are in our near future.

Sorry for the typo's- here I go getting all excited without my glasses on!

Hey Mike, I agree with most of what you say. I guess where I disagree is where you want to tax the rich to pay for research and development. I believe that a lot of rich are paying for that now.

I honestly believe that this situation is a golden opportunity! We're now faced with an actual gasoline price that is forcing consumers to make choices. If the government makes the choices, they will most likely, be the wrong choices. Obama's belief in ethanol is a prime example. We know that diesel fuel can be produced from any carbon source, including wood residue. Last week someone announced that an insect has been discovered, that consumes organic waste (including rotting wood), and defecates oil! I honestly believe that mankind has the wherewithall to solve most of our problems. I also believe that the hand that guides us, is the "invisible hand", described by Adam Smith, rather than the hand of government.
YooperJack