DG I do agree with Smoothseas, the rig was drilling an exploratory well (not to be confused with exploring for oil, which I believe is the base of the disagreement here). This well was to be capped for later use.
Personally I believe develope everything so that we can respond to any potential disruption in energy supplies.
Agreed, but then you say:
To keep the best wartime economy going the electric car gives us choices.....Natural gas, nuke, hydro, coal,wind and sun can all be used to support electric cars. It takes oil to run the combustion engine.
Oil is never, in the foreseeable future, going away. Electric cars are going to take a long time to reach parity to the combustion engine. Even the combustion engines get better and better all the time. Electric cars (and industry in general) still require oil (grease, power steering fluid, transmission fluid, plastics, paints, etc.). When they can make an electric car (not a hybrid) travel cross country and an electric truck with the load carrying and towing capacity of a gas or diesel engine, then they will have something going on.
We have (or could have) an abundance of other things you mention, natural gas, coal, and nuclear, but environmentalists block extraction of these at every turn. Additionally you have the "not in my backyard" crowd. People want the energy, they just don't want it produced near them or "it's too dirty". The AGW folks have a heart attack at the mention of coal, our most abundant fuel source.
Hydro - yeah that's a great source, too bad environmentalists don't want that either. It requires a little thing call a dam which could endanger some furry little animal or a fish. We (the US) are in the process of removing dams in the northwest so salmon can spawn. The chances of seeing anything like a new Hoover dam (built in the 30's) is slim because the same environmentalists that want us off oil also don't want to build dams.
Solar and wind - wonderful, however they are always going to have limitations until we can control the wind and weather. We are also seeing the NIMBY with these too. The same people that don't want to see an oil platform from the balcony of their Malibu Beach home, seems don't want to see a giant field of wind turbines ether. Environmentalists are up in arms over dead birds killed by rotors. Sunny Spain, is losing money hand over fist on their subsidized solar adventure.
Fission - Great when it can be developed many years from now. Though I suspect that will be NIMBY too.
Fuel cells- I love this technology... water as an emmission... who wouldn't? The problem right now is making the cell. It takes much more energy to produce the fuel for the cell than the cell delivers, which then goes back to the coal, nuclear, natural gas argument I stated above.
No we need to soldier on with oil for a time yet, before environmentalists eliminate the only current 100% reliable (due to location or access) source of energy. Yes lets develop the other sources, make them affordable and cleaner. Yes lets reduce oil usage. Just don't pop the balloon and then try to figure out a way to fly as you fall.
Energy rant over.