Interesting. #1 was proposed by Al Gore in 2000. #3 has been proposed since Carter (and likely before that). #2 he's got partial support from Democrats on -- oil companies should drill on the leases they already hold, before seeking new lands in areas that have been restricted for environmental reasons.

Too bad the slogan is "drill here, drill now", kinda gives me the impression he's just interested in the Outer Coastal Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

The shale oil thing is still a non-starter. It's not been economically viable to extract, provides a low EROI (Energy Return-On-Investment), and the process is very detrimental to the environment. It might now be profitable for companies to exploit it, but as a method of reducing price, it's fundamentally flawed, because it's so expensive to extract.

Why not make it "Invest now for the future", and make the development of alternatives the primary thrust? Even if we start tomorrow, OCS oil wells would take 7-10 years to come online, and the amount gained would be trivial.

The only true path to energy independence is with alternatives, focusing primarily on oil supply just kicks the can down the road.

If we nationalized the oil reserves, and then sought reserves that could meet our demand, the strategy would make sense. Something tells me that's not what Newt's suggesting. Without doing that, we'd have to increase global supply to exceed global demand for the foreseeable future, and we just don't have that kind of supply within our borders, period.

Let's, for sake of argument, say that all three of these methods were to lower the price of oil. These methods are still just a band-aid on a more serious issue: Our world has an ever increasing need for energy and we're trying to squeeze it from a finite source.

Just because you're going to die before we see the end of it, Newt, doesn't mean you can justifiably overlook the real problem at hand.

This is bullshit.

#1 is a ridiculously low amount. The 50% he's suggesting is about 5 (five) days of world oil consumption. Dropping the price of oil by 50 dollars? This is a joke.

#2 Oil shale and deep-sea oil is very expensive to produce (EROEI), production would take significant capital investment and at least a decade to ramp up. ( (Enron for example is not drilling even in places where it does have a license to drill... It's too friggin expensive.)

#3 Alternatives are a _long_ term answer. They won't make a difference in the next 12 months.

How about this for a real solution, to the real problem of which "gas prices" is only a symptom?

Invert the gas tax holiday. Levy a federal tax that states the cost of gas will NOT go down, take all the money raised, and fund a whole range of X-prize style milestones for increasing the infrastructure of alternatives. Don't award for the development of technology, but it's deployment at levels which make a difference.

This does two things:

1) Guarantees a market for alternatives by keeping the price of petrol from fluctuating down.
2) Invests large chunks of money into successful businesses to allow them to quickly recoup their development costs, if their products serve the public interest.

The market can do the rest.

"Don't award for the development of technology, but it's deployment at levels which make a difference."

I think you hit the nail on the head there, nobody wants to take the risk or at least the immediate hit in investment if there's a cheaper easier implemented option.

I think wind and solar are reasonable source of alternative energy in many areas of the US, but its too hard and/or expensive to implement them despite any long term benefits.

c'mon Americans have probably the cheapest gas/petrol prices in the world.. Count yourselves lucky. Here in UK we're paying £1.32 a litre (equivelant to US$5 a US gallon)