Obama Oil Drilling Plan: East Coast, Alaska Waters Could Open For Drilling

Scroll down to watch video of President Obama arguing against offshore drilling during his 2008 presidential campaign.

(Washington/AP) Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.

Speaking at Andrews air base outside Washington, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly." He addressed the expected outcry from disappointed environmentalists by saying he had studied the issue for more than a year and concluded it was the right call given the nation's voracious thirst for energy and the need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive.

"We're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America's natural resources," Obama said, according to his prepared remarks released in advance by the White House. "This announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term."

He added: "To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake."

Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision was securing Republican support for a sweeping climate change bill that has languished in Congress. But Obama has long stated his support in favor of the "tough decision" to expand offshore drilling

The plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. It allows new oil drilling off Virginia's shoreline and considers it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he's rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

A number of environmental groups have come out swiftly and strongly against the plan.

Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, released the following statement:

"We're very disappointed to see important areas like the Arctic coast and the Mid and South Atlantic stay open to oil drilling.

"What we need is bold, decisive steps towards clean energy, like the new clean cars regulations announced this week--not more dirty, expensive offshore drilling.

"The oil industry already has access to drilling on millions of acres of America's public lands and water. We don't need to hand over our last protected pristine coastal areas just so oil companies can break more profit records."

The Executive Director of Greenpeace, Phil Radford, is equally critical of the move.

"Is this President Obama's clean energy plan or Palin's drill baby drill campaign? While China and Germany are winning the clean energy race, this act furthers America's addiction to oil. Expanding offshore drilling in areas that have been protected for decades threatens our oceans and the coastal communities that depend on them with devastating oil spills, more pollution and climate change."

House Minority Leader John Boehner made the following statement:

"It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an "all of the above" strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs," the House GOP leader added. "Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution - the American Energy Act - which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation."

'The Atlantic's'Mark Ambinder writes about the politics behind the decision:

By announcing this BEFORE the Senate moves forward with its climate change legislation, which may or may not include cap-and-trade (probably not), the White House is betting that they'll force Republicans into a corner before the public debate begins, they'll give some cover to moderate Democratic members of Congress (who love it when Obama picks a fight with his own base), and they'll get some public cred with Americans who want to see the president moving quickly to find opportunities to create jobs. This isn't about votes in Congress per se, it's about perception, cover and framing the debate. It's also a move that tries to get ahead of rising gas prices.

WATCH: Obama argued against offshore drilling and supported a moratorium on it during his 2008 presidential campaign.

Comments

[tshelford]

02:44 PM on 04/22/2010

Here's what we have to look forward to if we allow drilling off the East Coast as the Repubs want: http://bit.ly/csQvjg

It's too bad that 8,000 barrels per day are leaking from this rig 54 miles from the Louisiana oyster beds. But hey, I'm sure that East Coast drilling will allow those nice oil companies to reduce prices so we can all afford that extra bag of onion rings after filling up our gas tanks, it will be soooo worth it!

Just like Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says, it's "a step in the right direction!"

[Conusmer Energy Alliance]

12:37 PM on 04/07/2010

President Obama has proposed opening large swaths of the country to offshore drilling, reversing the staunch anti-drilling stance he took while he was campaigning. It a decisive move that also marked a dramatic departure from the delays that have characterized Obama’s Interior Department in recent months.

Obama’s proposal is not perfect and today, as so many not-in-my-backyard types are attacking the new policy, it will be tempting for those of us who support a strong domestic oil sector to criticize the president for not going further in supporting drilling in many of the country’s oil rich regions, like Alaska, or to question the timing or the political motives behind his decision.

While there will be time to examine the proposal in more detail, our first order of business must be to applaud Obama’s courageous move, and offer to help him keep true to his words. In announcing a plan to open much of the Gulf of Mexico and the East Coast to drilling, he has not only opened up some major new sources of oil within our borders, he has also shown a willingness to break with his core allies for the greater good of the country.

Want to learn more about balanced energy for America? Visit www.consumerenergyalliance.org to get involved, discover CEA’s mission and sign up for our informative newsletter.

[TxAggie]

09:34 PM on 04/14/2010

RELAX TAKE A DEEP BREATH. Obama has opened up an area in the Atlantic that covers less than 600 offshore blocks in an area that has zero modern seismic, 50 miles offshore with ZERO infrastructure. He proposes to expand the eastern gulf 125 miles from Florida. The Cubans are drilling closer to Florida than the Americans can. While he has proosed to expand offshore Alaskan areas he has closed other areas in Alaska and promosing areas in the lower 48. It is a net loss in terms of access and won't do much more than irritate tree huggers. It is all political, now if he opened up offshore CA, that would be impactive.

[LittleMittens]

06:29 PM on 04/05/2010

we have 40 years to create new industries and ways to power America. You might be too old to be alive by then, but for me and my progeny, it is of grave importance we start moving forward. For the continuation of our species and the economic security of the nation.

[jean desiree]

02:55 PM on 04/05/2010

President Obama's announcement is certainly disillusioning -- it's a reversal of his 2008 campaign strategy in which he argued that allowing offshore drilling would take too many years to make an impact and would not provide enough energy to justify its development -- but as others have said here, this is politics. We need to let Pres. Obama know that "America honors leaders, not politicians," as a banner with his image read that I saw used at a demonstration last year.

Here's a relevant petition on Change.org that will be taken to Pres. Obama once its signature goal is reached:

Tell President Obama it's Time to Break the Oil Addiction

http://www.change.org/greenpeacefund/petitions/view/tell_president_obama_its_time_to_break_the_oil_addiction

[charles77]

12:27 PM on 04/03/2010

Obama is smart enough to realize it is about “balance of payments”.

The more money we use to Import oil, the less money we have for green energy or anything else..

“A Balance of payments (BOP) sheet is an accounting record of all monetary transactions between a country and the rest of the world. These transactions include payments for the country's exports and imports of goods, services, and financial capital, as well as financial transfers. The BOP summarises international transactions for a specific period, usually a year, and is prepared in a single currency, typically the domestic currency for the country concerned. Sources of funds for a nation, such as exports or the receipts of loans and investments, are recorded as positive or surplus items. Uses of funds, such as for imports or to invest in foreign countries, are recorded as a negative or deficit item.”

“When all components of the BOP sheet are included it must balance - that is, it must sum to zero - there can be no overall surplus or deficit. For example, if a country is importing more than it exports, its trade balance will be in deficit, but the shortfall will have to be counter balanced in other ways - such as by funds earned from its foreign investments, by running down reserves or by receiving loans from other countries.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

[HST]

01:10 AM on 04/02/2010

Has it occured to anyone that if Obama sells the drilling rights to these areas, the oil companies could buy them up and NOT drill?

Think it couldn't happen?

America's untapped oil
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: June 29, 2008: 12:07 PM EDT

Lawmakers lay into big oil for leaving million of acres untouched while at the same time asking to drill in Alaska and off the coasts.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil companies and many lawmakers are pressing to open up more U.S. areas for drilling. But the industry is drilling on just a fraction of areas it already has access to.

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Renifer]

11:56 PM on 04/02/2010

Yes, that was one of the first things that crossed my mind. The oil companies have thousands of leases to drill, in places that they aren't drilling. Wonder why? Because it's not profitable to drill! Duh! But.. it IS profitable to show the leases on your books to inflate your stock price. Get it? You're being played Americans! Don't f*ing trust the oil industry!

[TxAggie]

10:30 AM on 04/04/2010

How is it profitable to spend millions of dollars on seismic, interpretors, overhead, lease bonus, rentals, hazard survey and then not drill? Explain the math to me please. Could it be that the majority of leases will never produce because mother nature has not put any hydrocarbons there ? You need to have an understadning of the business and the difficulty in finding hydrocarbons- it is a scarce commodity and it is damn difficult to make money doing it. That is exasperbated by gov't inaction, red tape and currently a depressed natural gas price. Carrying a large expensive offshore invetory of non-producing leases is a cost not an asset, companies methodically evaluate leases for drilling all the while paying for the priviliage of "owning" leases.

[Renifer]

11:57 PM on 04/02/2010

It is ALL about the PRICE of oil.

[rshrink]

12:58 AM on 04/02/2010

Obama must be taking money from the energy companies. He needs to seek out new consultants. He could learn about the advances of solar and wind energy producers. Solar collectors could be put in space which would magnify the amount of energy to the point where even a few of them could provide enough energy for the whole planet. We can make algae oil very easily. It is already being used by some of our drivers. It works better than diesel in a diesel engine and it is clean. A Bloombox could be in the backyard of every home and it would double the amount of energy produced by any energy source. We have numerous options and by combining, just as we have in the past, we can have the power we need and clean up the planet which is extremely important. We citizens need to make demands, just as we did and need to continue to do for healthcare. Being an American can no longer be a spectator sport. Obama and our legislators need to hear from us everyday practically and we need to vote out the ones working for the oil companies and the pharmaceuticals and big corporate food producers. They are killing all of us off slowly and soon, it won't be that slow.

[TxAggie]

10:31 AM on 04/04/2010

Yes he (and you) make money off of oil companies. OIl and gas revenue is the #2 source of revenue to the US Treasury.

[rshrink]

12:10 AM on 04/05/2010

No, I don't think so. You look at this in a very narrow way. You are not looking at the costs born by the taxpayers to keep using this now obsolete form of energy and how much it contributes to pollution which ultimately will cause costs beyond our ability to pay.

[qzulix]

01:45 PM on 04/01/2010

Nobody else see the real reason for these trifling offshore leases? (I'm embarrassed, 'cuz I do love the Pres.) Healthcare Consolation Prize!

Not So Bad

"You wouldn't believe where we ended up last night, dog! Didn't I tell you to ditch those chumps and come with us? But nah, you had to hang with those loud tea-baggin fools you call your crew. Y'all missed out. But, hey, here's that Ohio Players you had your eye on. You can have it, it's yours, dog."

Kinda Worse

Have I not zealously pursued you with golden oratory and lavished billions in useless tax cuts which are the song of your heart?

Yet you mock and revile me.

Are not the policies I've followed and sterling laws I've written fashioned in your own image, by the One who knows your soul as though it were my own?

Yet you assail me with epithets, you call me "Liar!" and strike my cheek with your foaming, rabid spittle.

As one you set your stone hearts against me, as I turned mine against my own flock for your sake, thus you turned my open hand into a fist.

Behold! To soothe your convulsions of lamentation I pour on the balm of deep offshore waters. I anoint your fevered brow with oil leases, the sweet, cool crude you treasure above honey, that you may turn to me when your sorrows are no more.

How long shall I put up with you, o' stubborn TeaNation?

[charles77]

01:18 PM on 04/01/2010

It is not about price, it’s about balance of payments.

Why would any logical person oppose drilling to get energy in America?

The typical answers here are, “we need to use less oil not more” or “burning oil is bad for the environment”.

Well no argument there, but I challenge anyone to explain how stopping drilling in the US accomplishes either of those goals.

If the US was an isolated country (no exports or imports), then you could make a reasonable argument that opposing drilling would lead to less petroleum use in America.

But we do not live in an isolated country. When you stop Americans from getting US oil, you do not change in any way how much petroleum we use!

You only increase imports of oil.
That increases how much money we send abroad to countries we do not like!
That exports both our money and our JOBS!
That is the only effect of stopping drilling here, it makes us poorer, we have less money for green energy or health care or education or anything else, and if you don’t believe that, google “balance of payments”.
Why would any sane American be FOR that?
As long as we are importing ANY oil it makes no economic sense to not use American energy. Most people realize this simple economic truth and they are mad about it.

[aflevine]

03:22 PM on 04/02/2010

IMO, what we're seeing is a deal cut with OPEC to perpetuate Petrodollars. Who is going to get these exploration rights directly or indirectly? OPEC. If it is possible to buy oil in some other currency than the Dollar, that will destabilize the US economy. We saw a good deal and took it.

[Renifer]

12:03 AM on 04/03/2010

This argument ignores a very real fact. America does not have the lion's share of oil, far from it! Drilling for oil off the coast will not only be costly, and not happen for many many years, but it will also inflate the price of oil, and yes, it is ALL ABOUT THE PRICE OF OIL. Anyone who says different is lying. America uses more than one quarter of the world's oil supply. American has less than 2% of the world's oil supply. We need to move away from oil as an energy source, or else become dependant on foreigners. It's that simple.

[charles77]

01:23 AM on 04/03/2010

Obama is smart enough to realize it is about “balance of payments”.
The more money we use to Import oil, the poorer we get.
“A Balance of payments (BOP) sheet is an accounting record of all monetary transactions between a country and the rest of the world. These transactions include payments for the country's exports and imports of goods, services, and financial capital, as well as financial transfers. The BOP summarises international transactions for a specific period, usually a year, and is prepared in a single currency, typically the domestic currency for the country concerned. Sources of funds for a nation, such as exports or the receipts of loans and investments, are recorded as positive or surplus items. Uses of funds, such as for imports or to invest in foreign countries, are recorded as a negative or deficit item.”
“When all components of the BOP sheet are included it must balance - that is, it must sum to zero - there can be no overall surplus or deficit. For example, if a country is importing more than it exports, its trade balance will be in deficit, but the shortfall will have to be counter balanced in other ways - such as by funds earned from its foreign investments, by running down reserves or by receiving loans from other countries.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

[TxAggie]

10:33 AM on 04/04/2010

How will drilling off of our costs "inflate" the price of oil? The price is set on the world market, drilling in the US can only serve to put downard pressure on the commodity not increase the price!!

[Gatormouth]

12:17 PM on 04/01/2010

"...the right call given the nation's ... need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive."

Wow. Overdue for this attitude. Now we can expect Fair trade to replace Friedman "Free Trade", and Sherman Anti-Trust for the same reason. Right? ... Right? Aw, it's just the Dem branch of the Corporate party picking up the slack of an imploding Repub branch, isn't it. D...N.! And I thought we were getting close.

[picval]

11:42 AM on 04/01/2010

Listen up, All those on the right want to drill, let them! It's going to be years, many law suits will be filed which will delay any drilling. By the time they can go forward, we will have cheaper alternatives. It will not hurt the left and will possibly hurt the right.

One must pick the topics to fight, and this was a no brainer.

[DesertShores]

02:12 PM on 04/01/2010

Dream on hockey puck.

[Renifer]

12:08 AM on 04/03/2010

Yes, let the righties allow the oil companies to drill off the coast of Virgina, Mexico and Alaska. Good luck to them! They won't find large oil fields, those have all been found already. They will not be drilled immediately, and in fact, it will take years, maybe MANY years to even begin to make those places profitable to drill. It's all about profitability! If the oil companies can show that they have these leases, then their stock will go up! It's that simple. It's about the future of oil, which is bleak at best.
So, let the righties have their fallacy of drilling to make up the difference. They will soon realize that it's a pipe dream. There are no more large oil fields left! They're all tapped out! It's time to bit the bullet and deal with this problem, and stop being deniers.

[TxAggie]

10:34 AM on 04/04/2010

You are an expert on the subject? You can make that call based on what?

[cslib]

10:02 AM on 04/01/2010

Why not put all this money he wants to waste in nuclear power and expanding drilling and put it towards green energy projects and maybe finding an oil alternative or battery research that would lead to electric cars that could get energy from those green energy sources? China is doing it why can't we?

[charles77]

01:20 PM on 04/01/2010

Because the government GETS money from drilling leases, it does not Spend money for them.

[TxAggie]

10:13 AM on 04/11/2010

Charles that is a good point, offshore drilling is a profit center for the US gov't, oil and gas revenues are the #2 source of income to Uncle Sam.

[Renifer]

12:11 AM on 04/03/2010

Obama is playing it smart. He knows that the oil supply is dwindling and coming to an end. He's trying to force the right to acknowledge that the end it in sight. He's calling their bluff. It's good strategy. When the oil doesn't materialize, he and the Democrats can say "See? No oil. So.. let's move on to green energy." It's a good gamble.

[Manhattanite]

09:26 AM on 04/01/2010

What's up with this? Who, in the administration, came up with that brilliant idea?

[mathme]

01:17 PM on 04/02/2010

I think it's a strategic political move and really has nothing/very little to do with energy policy. I've been hearing speculation from talking heads that obama essentially pulled one of the struts out of the GOP platform with this move. It's also very possible that the NIMBY instinct will kick up and that the states themselves will be again' drillin' so there won't actually be any drilling once the states are allowed to drop the hammer and protect their shorelines.

I HOPE that's the move, but I'm not totally sold on that belief. I do hope, however, that this might at least confuse some GOP voters to stay at home (though I think it will do the same to more eco-issues voters).

I kind of want to believe in the strategic explanation-- otherwise it means that he's not too different from the GOP on this issue (though let's see if more alternative energy initiatives move ahead. This could hvae also been a way to silence people who protest investment in alternative energy with cries to "drill baby dr..[barfs]"). Though, again, it's possible that I'm getting pulled into wishful thinking.

[cdstusi]

08:27 AM on 04/01/2010

see the exploding heads are all over this turn of events with their usual moronic comments. You people wouldn't know a good thing from a bad thing without your Palin/Tea party people telling you what to think. When was the last time any of you actually had an independent thought of your own?

[tweedledeedumb]

07:48 AM on 04/01/2010

And still no taxes on oil consumption to make saving attractive. "but there is an election coming!" There always is.

[TxAggie]

10:17 AM on 04/11/2010

No taxes on oil consumption, where? THere are taxes and fees every step of the way.