If Congress Lifts the Offshore Oil Drilling Moratorium, What Happens Next?
The issue then moves to individual states. And there is no guarantee that more oil would flow
Governors would also likely have some say in this debate. At the very least, they could strike down legislation. In a notable break with both his party and McCain, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has expressed vocal opposition to new drilling near his state. So have governors in Oregon, Washington, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
But the political winds are shifting. Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama has shown a new willingness to allow expanded drilling. The Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Christ, recently changed his mind on this issue, saying he now supports drilling if it's done in an environmentally safe manner. Meanwhile, in North Carolina, where a competitive gubernatorial campaign is underway, Republican candidate and Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory has said that, if elected, he would sign an executive order to allow new drilling. That might work for state waters, but he would need federal approval to go beyond there.
Even if some states eventually do grant approval for new drilling, there are numerous other potential obstacles. Environmental reviews will need to be conducted. State officials will have to consult with the public. Lease sales—in which oil companies bid on tracts they may want to explore--will have to be scheduled and held.
These requirements can take several years to complete. In 2006, for example, Congress opened up several million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for new leasing and drilling, of which a large portion had been previously off-limits. Because of the necessary planning work, many of these tracts won't come up for bidding until next year. (And even if these tracts receive bids, and an oil company chooses to develop them, it usually takes about seven to ten years for oil to start flowing, according the Energy Information Administration.)
The best estimates now suggest that about 18 billion barrels of oil are sitting in areas currently off-limits to drilling. But the oil deposits aren't distributed evenly. Nearly 10 billion gallons lie off California, compared with only about 3.8 billion along the Atlantic.
Drilling advocates would like to see all of those areas opened up, of course, but California, with its Democratic-controlled legislature and drilling-averse governor, could well stay out of play. The state is not included in the Gang of 10 proposal, which, compared with other drilling legislation being offered, has a better chance of passing Congress because it includes incentives for renewable energy.
Reader Comments
When oil supply is discussed in terms of National Security, the situation with the gas lines in the 1970's comes to mind. OPEC cut off all oil to the US and we were required to rely on domestic production, non-OPEC members and what the Shah of Iran secretly allowed us to trans-load at sea. Everytime the subject of new drilling is broached the standard response is that we won't have production for 7-10 years. That was the reason cited 7-10 years ago and in 7-10 years we will be saying the same thing, so why not learn from this and begin planning and implementing a schedule of events for the time when the middle east imposes its will on the west once again? Drilling in Alaska should stipulate that any oil recovered in US territory be marked for domestic use or to replensh US oil reserves rather than become part of the "world oil portfolio" that would send it to India and China for the short term enrichment of the oil companies. The reason the Governor of SC is opposed to off shore drilling is that he trying his best to position himself for National Politics. He is oblivious to the looming energy crisis from a National Security perspective.
Offshore Oil Drilling
I believe we should find out how much oil is off the coast of the U.S. This alone will stop a lot of the specultion.The other reason is why should we keeping spending billons of dollars overseas with countries who do not like us until something happens.This will give us more time to develope more alternate forms of engery which we need to lesson our dependence on oil.
Drilling in Alaska
All of the oil refineries on the West Coast are operating at maximum capacity and there are no plans to build any more. There are no crude oil pipelines crossing the mountains that could delivery any increased production to where we have additional refining capacity - primarily on the gulf coast. The crude oil tankers are to large to pass through the Panama Canal. They cannot go around the tip of South America because of the danger from the weather and ice. There are no crude oil pipelines planned to bring the oil down through Canada and the oil would all be produced long before any such pipeline could be built. It would not make sense to ship oil from Alaska all the way around the world to off load it at our ports on the Gulf Coast.
In short any additional oil produced in Alaska would be shipped to markets in China and Japan. This would enrich the oil companies and would continue to provide the oil checks to the citizens of Alaska but not one drop of the oil would show up in the US.
advertisement
