There are far better things to do with oil OTHER than to light a match to it. But in the short term we have to get to work (well, other people do. Most of us have to at least go to the grocery store.)

Let's take a look at some alternatives:
Motor transport fuel: Electricity - batteries are expensive, heavy and require re-charging. Contrary to what Presbo might try to convince his acolytes of, this country does not have the electrical grid infrastructure to charge them, nor will people pay for the battery cost without serious subsidy. Who pays for it?
LPG: Liquid PETROLEUM gas. Must be drilled for, converted out of the product of drilling. Somewhere. If not here, then there is continued dependence on foreign sources. LPG is presently the same price as diesel (#2 heating oil) but road taxes, etc. skew actual btuh costs.
CNG: We have natural gas. Compressing it is expensive, requiring substantial costs to compress it. Requires HEAVY tanks to contain it. Since there is no infrastructure to distribute it, all that would have to be added. Who pays? The customer, of course. Unless the government subsidizes it. Then we all do. I remember something about a national debt rearing it's ugly head. Infrastructure to provide even 20% of the coverage that gas and diesel have will costs in the hundreds of billions. Plus you have to allow fracking to provide for the additional supply. Oh, yes. And...drilling.
Ethanol: Even the inventor of the internet has finally agreed: Burning food as fuel is a bad idea. Ethanol is great fuel if you drive an Indycar. But while it provides a lot of horsepower, it is not very efficient.
Biodiesel: Possible. There are a lot of sources of wasted nitrogen that can be fed to algae to produce hydrocarbons, and a lot of wasted or available organic hydrocarbon sources. Hemp comes to mind....OH, yeah the DEA says we can't grow hemp. Never mind!
Hydrogen: Contrary to what some people think, hydrogen is a not actually a fuel, in so far as it isn't mined or grown nor occurs in any natural free state in sufficient quantity
to matter. It is extracted from water by electrolysis, so the cost depends on the cost of the electricity to extract it. Add the cost of compression, storage of a difficult to store product; transport or extraction station construction costs and it is a rather expensive way to store electricity. Makes nice water, though.

Stationary sources.

Wind: A large wind turbine produces 2 mega watts. A small to medium size coal plant produces 1000 megawatts. Projects in Spain and England prove that both land and ocean based projects a: cost FAR MORE than predicted. and b: produce FAR LESS than predicted. So 500 hundred bird shredders for one medium size coal plant. Oh, the coal plant produces power when the wind doesn't blow. Oh, yeah, the environmentalist are okay with them as long as they are placed somewhere else. (Mars, maybe. Got a long cord?) They have fought them in NC and MA. We will likely need a couple of terawatts more in a few years. Do the math.
Solar Photovoltaic Panels: will eventually reach a cost benefit price that will appeal to those making less than $500k per year without state and federal subsidies. Until then each of us is subsidizing all those who have them. Probably another 10 or so years out. And then they will be made by the Chinese who don't have the EPA, IRS, and who knows who to answer to.
Solar hot water panels. (Domestic) Doable now...but the payback is long and variable depending on the availability of sunlight and other fuels, such as natural gas. Not for the short term budget minded. (Industrial)- expensive, less reliable and require maintenance. Specific applications can work.
Solar concentrator: Possibly feasible. Project plants are in place but the longevity is still under analysis.
Waste biofuels: Some potential, but expensive to implement. Hog manure in NC is being used to generate methane fueled generators. Expensive, looong payback and then if natural gas is available not competitive without subsidy.
Tidal action: Ok on the coast, but like the surf, it sucks in Dallas or Chicago. Just has an unknown payback at this time.
Hydro: Wonderful...but oh yeah, you gotta have a dam. And lots of CONTROLLABLE water.
Geothermal: Fine if you have it. Just not many convenient locations.
Nuclear: We have both the fuel and the technology. Gen 4 units are self regulating and do not require pumps or a lot of water to cool them. Discarded fuel rods can be recycled...but not in this country; Thank You, Jimmie Carter! If we had spent the same amount of money on nukes that have been poured into Iraq (much less Iraq AND Afghanistan. Did I hear something about...Libya?) we could have practically ended our foreign oil dependence by now; at least eliminated the amount that goes into producing electricity and a bunch more. A typical older model produces 1200-1500 megawatts. Newer gen models 2000+ megawatts. Do the math.

For transport needs it's going to be gasoline or diesel for quite a while.
Stationary should be nuclear, natural gas combined cycle supercritical steam and the new generation supercritical coal fired plants. They can produce clean, reliable, safe electricity at reasonable prices. We have plenty of in country sources of petroleum in both liquid and semi-solid to solid forms.

We just have to FREAKIN' DRILL! Government is the problem....NOT the answer!