It's weird to think that one day, people will look back on the era of Oil, and wonder how we could be so short sighted as to just keep trying to squeeze as much as we could out of the planet while knowing full well that it was a finite resource.

Is it worth the environmental cost to drill more here?  I don't think its worth it.  America is going to be dependent on foreign oil whether we like it or not. The only way we can break that dependence is through becoming a self sustaining nation by using alternative energy as our drive.  And as you said eventually we'd hit a point where we've phased enough off where we don't need foreign oil and we'll have enough we are producing here to satisfy that percent.

But that's the point of this thread.  We have so little oil that evne if we did up production in the areas that's been stated would the time differential be that significant. Not to mention we'll be spending more money as well be investing in alternative energies and extra drilling.  It's better and cheaper if we continue to take the blunt of problems we are getting from foreign oil until we can phase it out.  Not to mention we can't keep doing this to the environment anyways. 

Your idea along with the politicians is in no way something that couldn't work but it isn't ideal meaning its not an issue.  When there is something we can do that is better why wouldn't we do it?  100% attention towards changing America to becoming less dependent from oil and more dependent upon alternative energy is the best solution.  Thsi is what politicians need to be telling people because it may not be what they want to hear but its what they need to hear. 

Extra drilling just shouldn't be an option because there just are no benefits to it of what the goal should be.  For once we need to think in the long term instead of the short term.

That won't happen. We will do with oil what we did with every other form of energy. Find something better before we run out of it.

I said to my friends 5 years ago, that the only way to get off of oil, is for Gas to go to $5.00 a gallon.

Nothing sparks innovation like capitalism. The government can spend billions over many years, and never come up with what Toyota can in a few years, if profit is involved.

Now that gas is high, we have dozens of options coming out. Air powered cars, Plug in's, Diesels entering the US again, Hydrogen Electric hybrids, Natural Gas....

The alternative fuel market is going like crazy, and it has nothing to do with government involvement.

No joke, this is why domestic energy production, in whatever form it takes, is a good idea.  The only long-term solutions that are viable are nuclear and renewables (which are actually getting to be a lot more efficient and less costly, but obviously nothing is on the level of nuclear in terms of efficiency)

Actually government funding has given us many technological innovations and new sciences that the free market never did: like GPS, RADAR, SONAR, jet aircrafts, meteorology, rocket science, computer science, computer engineering, nuclear energy, better plastics, seismology, oceanography, the discovery of DNA, no-fog ski goggles, stay-dry food and clothes, a bunch of other crap, and the internet.

I'm curious what people's thoughts are on Abiotic Petrol Origins.

I've seen the theory a couple of times but never actually heard anyone address the facts of it and this article makes a few claims that to my superficial inspection seem true, but thats not exactly good enough for me.

Can any of you shed more light on it?

I (personally) wonder how people will react when they realize how much they have been lied to, and how manipulative environmental organizations have been when it comes to global warming. Now, there are other environmental impacts of drilling and using fossil fuels, and we have the choice to incur these costs in western nations where we have strict environmental legislation and people who can protest to keep the oil companies in check; or we can incur these costs in countries like China which will not consider the environmental impact, and any dissenters will be "Disappeared."

Now, I don’t think anyone would argue that you shouldn’t pursue alternative energy resources like Wind, Geothermal and Solar but I think people need to be realistic about the limitations of these energy sources, and how long it will be before they’re cost effective. No matter how much money you throw at these technologies, they’re not going to be able to replace conventional energy sources, and they (most likely) will not be able to keep up with the combination of energy use increasing and conventional fossil fuel resources are decreasing.

From what I read, almost no geologists take that theory seriously anymore. Virtually all oil samples contain easily detectable biological markers.

From that article:

This is so misleading... These new oil reserves were found in previously unexplored places, how can someone seriously take this as evidence that oil is quickly forming in front of our eyes?

The oil companies have spent billions and billions in exploration, that's the only reason why new reserves were found.

Yes it will, humanity has never had a source of energy that we have depended upon as much as oil and we certainly have never managed to go through any other resource like we do oil. Future generations will find the idea of us sucking the planet almost entirely dry of a resource quite interesting I think.

Now with some of your ideas (natural gas, hybrids and diesels) we encounter the problem that they still rely on fossil fuels. The others are more sensible alternative fuels for cars, though I had never heard of air power being seriously considered (though I have heard of a modern steam powered car). Hydrogen has the problem of a complete lack of infrastructure - it would take billions of dollars in investments to get hydrogen stations around the place. Electric cars are for the forseeable future what will replace gasoline.

@HappySqurriel. Its not just environmental organisations researching climate change. Its environmental scientists in general and there is undeniable evidence that warming is happening and a fairly strong consensus that its anthropogenic. There is of course much less of a consensus what the actual effects of this will be.

@Rath: Another problem with hydrogen vehicles is that they're 3-4 times less efficient than electric vehicles. It goes electricity->hydrogen->back to electricity, with conversion losses accumulating throughout.

Compressed air cars are extremely doubtful right now... According to wikipedia, the best prototype ran for just 7.22 km on a charge. As with hydrogen and batteries, compressed air is just a means of storing energy, which means this is just another kind of electric vehicle.

As for battery-powered electric vehicles, it's good to note that they're only as ecological as the power stations which charge them. All countries should invest in renewable electricity sources, as opposed to coal which is currently the biggest source of electricity.

Even nuclear power is preferable if electricity demand increases a lot due to high numbers of electrical vehicles. It can't be stressed enough... coal is the dirtiest form of energy, both in terms of greenhouse gases and radiation (which isn't captured by "clean coal" tech). Renewables would be much better though.

Best of all would be for people to reduce usage of cars, and rely on public transportation as much as possible. Cars are very energy intensive and people are too dependent on them. This dependency is what makes us (as a civilization) oil addicts. We'll keep drilling and burning oil until it's too expensive (which will happen well before it runs out by the way). Will we have time to change our habits and/or technologies enough until then?