In the News: The Debate over Energy Policy and Offshore Drilling

04/07/10

On March 31, 2010, the Obama administration proposed a significant change to U.S. energy policy that would open up new areas of the ocean for offshore oil and natural gas drilling. President Barack Obama outlined the proposal in a speech on energy security at Andrews Air Force Base.

The proposal covers an area of 167 million acres along the Atlantic Coast from Delaware to central Florida; an area of 130 million acres along the north coast of Alaska; and a smaller tract in the eastern Gulf of Mexico that is adjacent to an area that has already been developed for offshore drilling. Several areas remain off limits to exploration and drilling under the plan, including the Atlantic Coast from New Jersey northward, Bristol Bay in southwestern Alaska, and the entire Pacific Coast.

The proposal is intended to develop new domestic sources of oil and gas that can help lower energy costs and reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Department of the Interior estimates suggest that the new areas opened to drilling could produce enough recoverable oil to meet the nation’s energy needs for three years, at current rates of consumption. Proponents also claim that the proposal will generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases, create jobs, and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

The proposal met with opposition from environmental groups and some political leaders and residents of the affected coastal states. Opponents expressed concern that offshore exploration and drilling will only produce small amounts of oil while creating significant risks for the environment. They worried that drilling would have a negative impact on environmentally sensitive coastlines, fisheries, wildlife, and tourism. They also argued that the Obama administration should place a higher priority on developing renewable energy sources. “Expanding offshore drilling is the wrong move if the Obama administration is serious about improving energy security, creating lasting jobs and averting climate change,” said Jacqueline Savitz of the environmental group Oceana. “Instead, the U.S. should focus its resources on expanding offshore wind and other renewable energy opportunities.”

Administration officials presented the proposal as a compromise that would rebalance the nation’s oil and gas policy between industry demands, environmental concerns, and economic realities. They stressed that drilling in the newly opened areas would begin only after a lengthy process that includes the completion of geologic studies, environmental impact statements, and public sales of offshore leases. “The bottom line is this,” Obama explained in his remarks. “Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we’re going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Do you agree with Obama’s decision to open new areas of the ocean for offshore drilling?

• What factors would you weigh in trying to reach an appropriate balance between environmental protection and energy needs?

• Some commentators have suggested that Obama’s decision was based in part on his need to increase political support for the passage of upcoming climate and energy legislation. If so, do you think his strategy will be effective? Why or why not?

• Defend one of the following statements: 1) Offshore drilling is good policy because it will reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and increase our energy security; 2) Offshore drilling is bad policy because it will create unacceptable risks to the environment; 3) Careful offshore drilling is necessary in the short term while we develop renewable energy sources; 4) Offshore drilling merely puts a Band-aid on the long-term issue of weaning the United States off of its unsustainable consumption of fossil fuels.

See more News >