Not to mention new wells don't always mean new oil rigs. The old ones are moved and reused. Amazing how information can be bent to help promote the entire "it's hopeless" agenda.

I'm not suggesting it's your personal agenda, just "this" is an agenda that is being promoted (your facilitating its promotion, that's fine if that is what you believe). One just has to turn on the TV, radio, or open the newspaper. It goes like this, "it takes too long to drill, so why start", "we won't see any oil for ten years" and "you must not support alternatives if you want to drill", it goes on and on. Sounds like hopelessness to me (on this issue). When did this turn into a nation of whiners as opposed to the "We can do it" society you often blog about (30's and 40's)? Instead of why "we can't (or won't)" how about a little "let's try". If this is the change that the Dem's are offering this November, keep it,because IMO it's a change for the worse.

You are right, but miss a critical piece.  OPEC did wise up in time, and kept the price at a level that would maintain their monopoly, but the other half of the equation was equally as damning.  In order to "punish" the oil companies, Congress passed the windfall Profits tax - effectively supporting OPEC in keeping the price high.  More so than OPEC or any other institution, Congress caused the Energy problems today with their desire to be punitive and the law of unintended consequences. 

Did they learn?  Did you hear Hillary and Obama?  The only difference is that Obama wants the higher prices in order to promote alternatives.  It is a good strategy, but unfortunately bad politics.

Nonsense; oil companies knew where the profits were since the 40s; piddling tax never was a disincentive to drill here--it was just too costly in comparison to OPEC's.  

While it is a favorite line of liberals who love taxes, it has been demonstrated to be false countless times.  The simple fact of the matter is that taxes are costs to businesses.  Nothing more, nothing less.  If they can pass the costs onto consumers, then no big deal, they do.  And the consumer loses.  If they cannot, the business avoids the cost by looking for ways not to pay the tax - buy overseas.

Most people do the same thing with their purchases - look for the better value - yet cannot then believe that a company would be so smart.  They are actually smarter, but since they are not a "buddy" people then assign the intelligence to some other nefarious practice - usually greed.  They are no more greedy than the guy who buys sodas on sale at the store across town instead of down the street because they are cheaper.

But a question for all liberals.  If we are to beleive that we must raise taxes when times are tight and government revenues fall short - why dont we get a tax rebate when times are good and tax revenues exceed forecasts? (I dont say need as government has not had a problem needing every penny it gets).

Well the answer is quite simple really. Give companies the option to undertake such drilling, and see if they do. If they think they will make a return on it, they will look to drill there. Hence the argument not to allow drilling because a return might not be possible is moot - if that's the case, you don't need to ban it, and if it isn't the case, then the argument falls flat by definition!

As for investing that money in alternatives, the companies will do that IF they feel the returns would be greater. That is where government policy could come in, introducing a tax on oil and/or subsidies on renewable+environmentally friendly alternatives, which could then make such alternative energy sources provide a better return for companies, but it still isn't a reason not to allow the drilling. The only reason to not allow the drilling that I can see is if the environmental costs of the drilling would be so ridiculously massive that a simple tax wouldn't be able to cover them, and a ban would prove more effective. I can't see offshore drilling resulting in nuclear scale disasters though...

It's common knowledge, but I'm not sure that the oil companies have yet applied for license, which incidentally I've said here or elsewhere that government should not be in the business of exorbitant licensing, particularly when domestic oil is critical. 

I was speaking of the state, not clinton.  Although he was gleefully rubbing his hands when he saw the surplus at the end of his term.  And no talk about a rebate (from him) even tough that was one of his promises when initially elected.

And the EIC is welfare.  Face it.  That's all it is.

They have a lease on my backyard, but they are not going to find anything.  Perhaps if they could explore areas, and if feasible, drill for it, that would be a statement.  Giving a lease in the middle of Manhattan makes for nice talking points (as you demonstrated), but hardly does anything for the issue at hand.

On this issue, the democrats are like the idiot who is crawling on his hands and knees.  A passerby asks him what he is doing. "I am looking for my car keys" said the idiot. "Where did you lose them?" asked the passerby. "Around the corner, but the light is better here."