There are further items at stake here. Beyond the ban on offshore drilling, environmental regulations have forbidden the construction of new refineries and production sites in the US, and have simultaneously banned the refineries from full production and from upgrading their technologies. Thus, although the current level of technology available for refining oil into end-user products is increasingly clean, the US refineries are stuck with 1970's-era tech. That's one problem.

Another, directly related to the ban, is the problem engendered by our existing dependence on foreign oil. Yes, America has less than 3% of the US oil reserves, but we are actively working less than 10% of our existing reserves (Saudi Arabia, home to nearly 22% of the oil, is working nearly 70%). Why? Because, until recently, it was cheaper to purchase the foreign oil than to produce it here, and because easily-mined/produced oil fields in the US were artificially (i.e. legally) restricted.

Stances from McCain and Obama also need to be put in context. McCain is advocating a wholesale withdrawal from foreign oil dependence; his plan is to use the American reserves while we develop and implement our alternative solutions. To that end, he feels that the ban is counter-productive to American interests. We in America have the advantage of being in one of the few countries in the world to have virtually all resources available to us (food, wood, mining, technology, etc). McCain wants us to use that advantage so as to remove American dependence.

Obama, on the other hand, feels that the answer to foreign oil dependence is strictly a technology issue. Rather than using existing American resources, he wants to develop the new technology to replace our need while we continue to pay for the overseas stuff until we no longer need it. I have yet to see any plan from the Obama camp that would proactively reduce our resource consumption, or that would provide alternative methods of resourcing while we got away from the foreign dependencies. Asking people to cut back on their consumption (Jimmy Carter's sweater, anyone?) is at best an immature response.

Finally, I recognize the costs, both environmental and temporal, involved in offshore drilling. However, a rather simple solution may well be at hand. Currently, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains sufficient oil for American consumption for 6.3 years, and several petroleum production companies estimate that they can be at full production (with existing technology) in slightly more than five starting from scratch. My solution: begin selling the excess stockpiled oil at just under the existing price (if oil is $140 a barrel, target $125; this ensures you can sell any quantity required). Use the money thus generated to fund new technology acquisition and development and provide for a fund to reclaim ecosystems that have been damaged by the oil acquisition. The only caveat I toss in here: the developed technology is free to all. No sucking up patents on the governmental teat.

Senator McCain's take:

"With gasoline running at more than four bucks a gallon, many do not have the luxury of waiting on the far-off plans of futurists and politicians. We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production, and I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.’"

yep. major price cuts and according to every other country that does offshore drilling, it works.

everyone quit their bitching, way better than what we have here.

It's not a matter of a quick fix. We won't be free of foreign oil overnight no matter what we do. It's going to take time and multiple administrations. Right now we just need someone to get the ball rolling. Lifting the ban will take years to produce a drop of oil. However, the longest journey starts with a single step and I think this would be a step in the right direction.

Not to condescend any other beliefs, but I consider my opinion to be a bit more sensible, because I believe in a compromise. We should devote our resources into discovering a replacement for oil as fuel as much as we can. While we are doing this, we should remove the drilling restrictions so that the pain at the pump can be eased until we find a viable alternative.

You can argue that it will barely lower gas prices, but it shows a lack of understanding about how speculation works. The drilling will increase our domestic oil supply, which will decrease our high foreign dependence. They will notice this is happening and the price will decrease, since the outlook will be more positive with us being able to have a higher amount of domestic oil. In 1982 and 1983, when gas was very cheap, we imported only 28% of our oi. Now we import at least 60% of our oil.

We definitely need an alternative to oil, which isn't a fossil fuel. In the mean time we should relieve some of the pain at the pump and allow offshore drilling.

I belive US should remove the ban on offshore drilling for several reasons. First of all, the gas prices have recently dropped, apparently JUST by the MENTION of the U.S. considering to resume offshoredrilling. Furthermore, there is an maximum of an estimated 21 billion barrels of oil, and if the U.S removes the ban, we should start offshore drilling and at the same time try to find a conventional energy source (petroleum will run out in about 2050, so these chance of extra oil will give U.S. more time to find a conventional energy source). However, many people are worried about oil spill accidents-not only are they costly, but they also have a major affect on the marine lifeforms. THESE PROBELMS CAN BE ADDRESSED BY BUILDING ARTIFICIAL SHOALS ( man-made sandbanks or sandbars that will protect marine lifeform from oil spills). Therefore, although we may find little or a large reserve of oil, I strongly belive that the U.S. should remove the ban on offshore drilling.

Why is there a ban on offshore drilling in the first place? Every drop helps, and if it didn't make economic sense, then companies wouldn't come in and do the drilling when the ban was lifted. That's the free market.

Absolutely. The US should remove it as soon as possible. I do not understand why people are against lifting the ban. It seems as if proponents of the ban are under the assumption that it's 1000 yards offshore and will have a detrimental impact on the beach environment. Not true. In reality, these platforms are built on the outskirts of the continental shelf - over 30 miles off the coast and are not visible on the shore. So as long as it’s out of sight, why not start drilling? We need to have every opportunity for oil and gas exploration in desolate areas. Congress, what are you waiting for?

Oh and while they're at it, they need to crack open that Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska immediately. I’m not going to lose any sleep if we have to club a few seals so I can fill up my SUV at $3.00 a gallon.

Regardless of its effects on gas prices and the economy, lifting restrictions on oil exploration should be cardinal in a free market system. It's just a matter of principle.

Further, the government especially has no right to restrict exploration which would allow us to exploit our own resources instead of spending billions just to be at the mercy of half a dozen Arabs. Just the fact that the moratorium is lifted would, in theory, immediately alleviate the anxiety of speculators who are going wild. It's been estimated that once the oil starts flowing, it would lower gas prices by 50 cents a gallon. Oil won't start flowing for a while, but at the moment there is no reason to not do it, and we will be thankful we did in the future. It may take 10 years, but over 10 years ago drilling in ANWR was filibustered because of the same reason. We could use those 2 million barrels now, and we will need even that and more in the near future.

50 cents off a gallon of gas is not pandering. Even if it were, Obama and his cult have given no rational reason why a moratorium should exist in the first place. It's not an environmental issue. Hell. Other less advanced countries are dilling off the coast of Florida with no problems. China, Vietnam, and others are either drilling or will be drilling in the future off American coast with Cuban leases. If America wants to last it needs considerably more energy independence, and if the Democrats and Republicans in congress want to play self-righteous nonsense games as the average American demands action, energy independence will never happen and oil prices will continue to sky-rocket.

Hell yea! Do it now!! And to piss off some hippies make sure to spill alil of it!

Economics alone may dictate this answer. Remove the ban and the price of a gallon of oil will drop by 30% immediately. OPEC will lower the oil cost and flood the market with oil to keep the US and other out of the oil business by making it too expensive.

WE don't have to do it we just say we are doing it!

While offshore drilling may not solve the energy crisis, it will definately have an impact. Oil prices are all about speculation. Regardless of the fact that it would take 10 years to produce the oil from offshore drilling, just knowing that we are investing in it will drop fuel prices. LOOK AT THE COST NOW! its dropping faster and faster everyday and its all because democrats finally agree that drilling has to happen.

Here's am engineer's answer to your question.

An efficient car engine burns 0.35 pounds / horsepower hour. That's cruising on the highway and not in town traffic. With gasoline weighing 5.9 lb / gal, a gallon is good for 5.9 / 0.35 = 16.86 HP / gal. One HP = 0.746 kW of electricity, so a gallon of gasoline is worth 12.58 kW. At $4.50 / gallon, you get 2.8 kW / dollar, or $0.36 / kW. I pay $0.226 for electricity at 130% to 200% of my baseline; it goes higher from there! However, the charging system to convert AC to DC for the battery is no better than 90% efficient; $0.229 / 0.9 = $0.251 / kW. A battery has losses, also, so let's call it 90% efficient; $0.251 / 0.9 = $0.279 / kW. The motor in the car has, at best, 60% to 80% efficiency; $0.279 / 0.8 = $0.349 / kW. Wow! That's not that much different than gasoline! But wait! according to a PG&E;engineer, the overall thermal efficiency of power delivered to a home from the power plant is 28%. That means it takes 3.6 gallons of fuel to give us one gallon's worth of energy to our home from a fuel-oil powered power plant. WOW! talk about electric cars reducing pollution and using less oil!