I have been seeing the same silly statements popping up in comment after comment, so I thought I would save myself time and aggravation by replying to each of them right here:

1. We can't drill our way out of this problem

Yes, we can. Would you say "We can't farm our way out of starvation"? Or "I can't work my way out of poverty"? If our problem is a lack of oil, which is what high prices indicate, then adding more oil would add to our supply and reduce the price. In fact, the ONLY way to get more oil is to drill. Unless you claim we already have found every bit of oil on the planet, drilling is the only sure way to get prices to decrease.

2. Drilling [in ANWR/off shore/ wherever] won't fill all our needs.

Well, maybe, maybe not. We haven't done the exploration yet to know for sure. As it is all such statements are entirely speculation as no one has yet done enough drilling to know for sure. But even assuming they are true, so what? Even if it reduces our foreign dependence only 10%, isn't an improvement something we should welcome? Are those saying this really trying to say unless something resolves a problem 100% it isn't worth doing? Do they refuse to bandage wounds since the bandage won't instantly heal it? This position makes no sense. (Well, except as a political tactic intended to keep prices high until a certain candidate wins.)

3. Any oil will be sold on the world market, it won't go to the US.

First, transportation costs make it like most oil WILL go to the US. Alaska is an aberration, being closer to Japan than the continental US. Most offshore wells will not be in such a situation. But even if it were all sold overseas, so what? It would still reduce world price, which makes all oil cheaper. That seems beneficial to me.

4. More oil  won't lower prices.

I hesitated to even comment on this, a sit is so stupid, but I have heard it too many times. The argument is oil is somehow "special" and so economic laws don't apply. But, that is just a load of hogwash. Oil is just like every good. More on the market means prices will decline. Just look at how increased demand raised prices. Oil is a product just like any other, economic rules apply, and more supply means lower prices.

5. Speculators will just drive up the prices.

I wrote so much on this I won't repeat myself, but I will point out, you don't get rich by just buying something. You eventually have to sell to cash out, and that lowers prices. But even if we believe in the silly evil speculators some imagine are responsible for high prices, wouldn't more oil on the market make it harder for them to corner the market? Isn't that what eventually foiled the Hunt brothers. (Who are actually a good example of why I don't believe in evil speculators. Even a relatively small, static market was impossible to corner, yet somehow the massive world oil market is at the mercy of "speculators"?)


6. Green energy is the answer.

Maybe, one day. But right now, the fact that it can't compete with oil and coal says that it requires too many resources relative to its attractiveness. If it improves, perhaps, but right now, it is not a viable option.

7. OPEC controls the market and would foil any attempts to increase supply.

OPEC controls a part of the market, not even a majority. Nor are they in the business of keeping oil scarce. They do use their market influence to set prices which maximize their profits, but that is not the same as wanting oil to be scarce. In any case, the reason they control so much of the market, or one reason, is because we have made it so hard to drill in the US. Were our production back to 1970 levels, OPEC would have much less of a market share. If we drilled even more, perhaps the market share would be sufficiently small that there would not even be a reason for the cartel to exist.  Whatever the case, a big reason OPEC controls so much of the market is our own anti-drilling policy.

8. We can only reduce demand, not increase supply.

No, we can do both. Current laws and environmental dogma tell us we can only do one, but reality says otherwise.

9. Conservation is the answer.

As I said before, spending your savings is not a job. Even if we reduce consumption, our existing wells will eventually run dry. We need to drill, if nothing else, to maintain our current supply. Conservation is not a bad idea, but it is also not a source of energy.

10. Wells take 10 years to come on line, so it is not a solution.

First, I doubt the long time lines some have quoted. The Alaskan pipeline took less time than they estimate for a simple well in ANWR. But, even if they are right, doesn't a long delay argue for starting immediately? If we continue to put it off, won't that just delay it more? For example, if we had tarted drilling in ANWR when it was first proposed, instead of being blocked by the Democrats, we would either have working wells, or be within a year or two of having them. Since we delayed, we now have to wait years for the same result. So, why would a long delay before receiving the benefit suggest we should wait even longer before starting?
Well, I could go on, but I think that covered all the favorites.

It is amusing, the way that high oil prices seem to cause the loss of all common sense among such a large percentage of the population. In the 1970's and again today, we are seeing the way oil shortages, combined with nonsensical rhetoric from politicians and the media can turn an otherwise sensible public into  a mob buying into the worst of authoritarian solutions.

I realize oil is costly at the moment, but, please, don't give in to stupidities like these. If anything, a crisis the time we most need to keep a level head. So, before you buy into one of these absurd claims, think for a minute and ask if it makes any sense at all.