The Obama administration just released a new offshore oil and gas drilling plan, to be finalized after public comment. It includes proposals for opening areas 50 miles offshore along the coasts of Virginia, the Carolinas and Georgia, and new portions of the Gulf of Mexico. The draft plan also includes restrictions on drilling off northern Alaska’s coastline.
Interior Secretary Sally Jewell called the plan a “balanced proposal” because it makes available nearly 80 percent of recoverable oil resources but protects areas “too special to develop.”
Yet it is balanced only in the way it permits development in some locales while prohibiting it in others, and in how it offers something to every politically important constituency.
Sadly, it does little to wean the nation from dependence on fossil fuels, conflicts with other presidential initiatives, and puts coastal waters at serious risk from oil spills.
Recalling the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, environmentalists condemned the Interior Department plan for what they see as excessively risky drilling off the Atlantic coast, but applauded the new restrictions in Alaska.
Not surprisingly, Alaskans were furious over constraints on drilling off their state’s coasts and promised an all-out fight against them. The oil and gas industry praised the Atlantic Coast drilling plan, but objected to limitations placed on Alaskan waters and many other offshore areas.
The plan reflects the administration’s pursuit of energy independence for the nation, a long sought and desirable goal.
Yet will expanded offshore oil development undercut U.S. leadership at a time when we are trying to persuade other nations to sharply reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
The drilling plan is designed partly to placate elected officials along the Atlantic Coast who have been fierce opponents of the administration’s energy and environmental policies.
For example, Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina and other southeastern state governors strongly support the plan, saying it will spur job growth and economic development throughout the region.
However, local drilling opponents point instead to impacts of oil spills on beaches and estuaries, and thus on vital tourism and fishing industries.
Presumably, drilling will proceed only if the risks are deemed acceptable and if the price of oil justifies such expensive drilling.
The oil company BP, found to be negligent in the Deepwater Horizon accident, knows well the costs of reckless behavior. It faces fines of up to $14 billion for violating the Clean Water Act on top of more than $40 billion in litigation and settlement, cleanup and restoration costs it already has spent or approved.
We can only hope such experience persuades other oil companies to have deep regard for environmental and financial risks as they eye potential profits in new offshore drilling, and that tighter federal safety regulations will further motivate them to act with care.
Leave a Reply