If Congress Lifts the Offshore Oil Drilling Moratorium, What Happens Next?

Reader Comments
Back to article

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.

Pinckney - Charleston of SC 7:45AM January 21, 2009

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.

of 3:51PM January 19, 2009

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.

Ken. Rein of KS 2:03PM September 06, 2008

Offshore drilling has nothing to do with lowering gas prices.
Pure and simple welfare for the oil companies, paid by US taxpayers - so they can keep gas prices high and republicans in office.
US cannot afford subsidizing foreign oil companies.
All this crude about offshore drilling for the most part is lobbying for subsidies for multinational oil companies who have no intention of lowering the price of oil. Why would they, they are making a killing, and no one will investigate their collusion, not while McCain/Bush is in office.
McCain/Bush are doling more welfare for their oil cronies who are financing the republicans' elections. Offshore drilling is a issue paid for and provided for the oil companies
British Petroleum or a Dutch companies like Shell could care less about the American economy as long as we buy their gas, which we don't have much choice, do we?

Paul of WA 10:02PM August 28, 2008

First and foremost should be the release of land by careful "environment and ecological parcelling" in an attempt to save as much as possible for future rebuilding of the land environment. A solid land plan with all disciplines input into ways to agree show to sustain each ecosystem would provide the answer to the need to drill immediately. We can produce the less expensive rigs and tankers for land use here in the states and provide additional jobs. We add to all levels of the economy.
We must find a way to overcome the legal challenges to drilling.
Off shore is a long, long term solution when there are no billion dollar platforms and billion dollar tanker ships available for transport of any oil they may find in 4 years. This provides little to our economy at all. Why is this still the first thing we hear about and the last thing we need to consider. Is the Bekkan (sp) field in Montana and South Dakota a viable field or not? One should clearly know that answer now.
Anyone can write the compromise solution and while I appreciate that all of you are making a bi-partisan effort at anything, it would be wise to focus on the short term solutions first by empowering the citizens with facts that are real and realistic. You will receive 90% support from the citizens going forward if they could believe the truth from anybody who is not in this entire political arena as the credibility is shot based on the fact that the facts will eventually get to the public and we have to constantly wait and wait for the dust to settle.

Susan Biondo of GA 12:45PM August 25, 2008

The oil leases are the biggest land grab since the Railroad scandal of turning land over freely to private RR moguls. Privatization of the ocean will lead to corporations owning one of the main food sources we have and will allow the control of sea harvests. We have all seen what industrialization of food, via genetically altered food crops can do and know where that is headed.
If all the oil in the oceans were drilled for, we would not have a cent cheaper gas, meanwhile the biggest oil corporations will continue to become more powerful and wealthy. As it stands today scientists are alarmed by the spread of worldwide DEAD ZONES in all oceans, where nothing lives. Carcinogen's in oil of only 2 parts per billion are causing mutations in salmon according to scientists in Prince William Sound.The Exon oil spill will go down in history as totally devastating to all wild life, including salmon. The Exon spill has never been re mediated. I hope all those that want to drill for the paltry amount of oil the Corporations will get, eat dirt. Then when the oxygen that the sea provides to all people is gone, they can suffocate.

ann of CA 8:49PM August 24, 2008

Why let the states decide? Beyond 3 miles it is a federal question, so let's drill.

Arthur Tranakos of GA 6:46PM August 22, 2008

Less than 1 percent of all oil found in the marine environment comes from offshore oil and gas development. According to the National Academy of Sciences, the majority - 62 percent - is the result of natural seeps through the ocean floor.

John of OH 10:34AM August 22, 2008

Here are a few points to ponder for the crowd who fool themselves into thinking that going green is some sort of competitive advantage:
1. Whether you like it or not, all of the economically recoverable oil in the world will be used, regardless of the wishes of the global warming crowd. The only question is who will do the using.
2. All of our best efforts to reduce consumption of oil and coal in the US, Europe and Japan will actually accelerate this process.
3. Those who use that oil will gain an enormous economic advantage over those who foolishly rush to "alternatives".
It is simple economics. Oil is, by a wide margin, still far cheaper to produce than solar, wind, geo, and virtually all of the alternatives. The fact that it is priced very high today says nothing about the average cost of production.
If we in the developed countries speed the move to alternatives significantly, we will be trading cheap-to-produce oil and coal for expensive-to-produce alternatives. We will destroy our competitiveness. Our new rivals (China, India, Russia, Brazil, and others) will revel in the $25 oil that results from our headlong rush to expensive alternatives. They will eat our lunch in even more industries. We will have all kinds of alternative energy and no industry left to use it.
I'm not suggesting that we should not pursue alternative energy, but the fanatical rush, advocated by some politicians and many others with very little understanding of economics will, if we get carried away, lead to economic disaster.
One small example of how this works. Take a look around and you will see that our chemical industry is in serious trouble. Imports are rising and domestic production stagnant. If you're interested in understanding why, you can point to high natural gas prices. Natural gas is a common feedstock to chemical production. And if you want to know why natural gas prices have gone through the roof, look no farther than all the new natural gas plants springing up in California and elsewhere. They bring us "clean" energy, and a formerly powerful american industry is headed for oblivion. Clean energy, and no money or jobs to buy it with. Brilliant!!!
Be careful what you wish for....

Steve of CA 11:23PM August 21, 2008

Wake up! The environmental impact is global warming. The oil biz loves the "lazy" American who pulls up to the pump. The answer is not having more oil. The answer is to not use it. Short term; conserve cut back etc.
By the year 2020 we should already be looking at oil at half price, because we won't be using it! Now wouldn't that be a laugh on big oil, the Middle East, and stubborn politicians!

gibson Craig of NY 9:22AM August 21, 2008