In his State of the Union address, President Obama talked about "making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development."
When it comes to respectfully developing America's abundant oil and natural gas resources--including areas in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)--there's nothing tough about this decision. We should be developing America's Outer Continental Shelf, and we should be doing it now. It's a huge win for America. Here's why.
America needs the energy. The recession may have slowed energy demand temporarily, but one day, we expect that overall energy demand will not only return, it will grow. In fact, we're seeing growth already in China and India.
Some people point to renewables and alternatives as a silver bullet to solve the demand challenge. But as the President pointed out in his White House briefing remarks this week, the sheer scale of our energy needs requires that we focus on a comprehensive approach. The fact is, we need more of all forms of energy, including oil and natural gas--which, most projections see as providing the dominant share of the energy mix for decades.
The good news: the OCS has significant potential. Over time, it could add 1 million more barrels of oil and natural gas equivalent a day--potentially representing a fifth of the current total U.S. oil production. Advances in technology could increase that amount dramatically.
America presently imports about two-thirds of the oil it needs every day. Every additional barrel produced here at home reduces our dependence on imported energy. Every additional barrel produced here keeps American jobs and dollars at home.
That's critical. Because America needs the jobs and the economic boost that developing the OCS will provide.
My industry already provides good jobs to 2.1 million Americans directly; the industry supports another 7 million indirectly. Developing the OCS and other areas that are presently off limits could potentially create 160,000 new jobs--and provide up to $1.7 trillion additional government revenue.
For decades, the industry has been safely operating in the Gulf of Mexico, under comprehensive and rigorous government regulations. The same capability that allows us to operate in the Gulf's extremes--in over 10,000 feet of water, for example--also safeguards our people and the environment. Advances in technology provide tremendous benefit, but that's reinforced by how we operate. Even if a soft drink can accidentally fell overboard, we'd report it. We know that our ability to operate in the rest of the OCS depends on doing things in a responsible and sustainable way. We take this responsibility very seriously.
Developing the OCS is not without significant investment and financial risk. It's important to remember that both are borne by companies, not by the government. But the resulting energy and economic security benefit everyone.
That's what U.S. Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Mark R. Warner (D-VA) emphasized in a letter last month to Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar. The letter encouraged the Secretary to accelerate an offshore development process currently hampered by unnecessary delays.
Senators Webb and Warner's advocacy is in step with what many other Americans want. According to a recent poll, 68 percent of American voters think offshore oil and natural gas development should get a green light.
So how do we move forward from here? Quickly--and on three fronts:
First, we need a modern, accurate inventory of key areas of the OCS. Most of the data we have about prospective OCS areas is based on 25-year-old technology.
The Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) recently restarted a long-delayed process to take the first steps toward gathering better information in the Atlantic. But more state-of-the-art data is needed. Only then can we understand the true extent of the resource the OCS contains and which areas offer the greatest potential. That data can inform public dialogue and help make the most prudent leasing and development decisions.
Second, the MMS should finalize--soon--its proposed OCS five-year plan. It is the guiding framework for any future development. Their planning process, in place for many years, has proven to be comprehensive, in that it includes feedback from all stakeholders in the development of America's natural resources.
Third, Congress should open up the Eastern Gulf of Mexico to exploration, which we know holds significant potential for new energy. It is a proven and productive hydrocarbon basin and is nearest existing energy infrastructure, enabling industry to move from exploration to development to market in a relatively short period of time. This has the support of many Senators, who included provisions to expand access there in legislation passed by the Senate Energy Committee.
At a time when our economy is under duress, and our energy security is challenged, now is the time to move forward and develop America's natural resources. Creating jobs, generating incremental taxes and royalties to our government, and producing more energy here at home is the prudent thing to do. Let's act now--it's a huge win for America.
Your lack of basic economic understanding translates into your view of the energy picture. You consume energy starting with the heat in your home, the nice hot shower, the toaster, the clothes you put on, the car/bus/train you use, the power used at your worksite, etc. You like consuming energy -- you just don't want it to be developed by anyone. Except the equation doesn't add up, because in order for you to consume, someone has to develop. I wish there was an efficient way to cut the energy consumption of those who oppose energy development. You would be a prime candidate.
We are not a serious country.
I applaud you for sticking your neck out here. I agree that we are going to need all the energy we can get if we are to survive this century in some civilized manner.
But, but, but, but, but..., where is your understanding and willingness to teach the American and world publics about what we are facing? You and your cohorts can drill until you are blue in the face and rich as kings, in what ever inhospitable, expensive areas where you can find ever smaller and smaller pockets of oil and gas, and it's not going to come close to replacing the ever more depleting cheap, mature fields of the planet. When you will admit this stark reality so that public policy can be developed on real facts rather than bumper sticker lies, then you should receive permission to develop oil in any environmentally responsible fashion, but not before.
Energy independence with your products is nothing but a fiction, so stop trying to hide behind it to continue to bugger us. We need you more than ever to provide the energy to build a sustainable energy infrastructure and environment, Don't try and avoid the carbon taxes in whatever form, that might possibly allow that infrastructure to develop, and your dirty energy to be of help, in time. Embrace them and show that you really care about your fellow man. Time is very short. Put some ethics back in your business
We also need US oil too.
The offshore wells should be primarily NG wells with the oil used too.
There back send your chemtrail photos too nhchemtrails@yahoo.com
The Tea Party people say we will still be importing 10.5 million barrels a day in 2030. Is this true?
Drill liberals, drill.
Liberals say, "it will take ten years..."
Of course, how else will liberals have gas for their wasteful vehicles? Bob Beckel, liberal news "commontator" on Fox bought his 15 mpg Jeep. When he bought it, did he ask where the gas was coming from 8 years down the line? ANGOLA or ANWR? When he sells it, another sucker will have to keep it alive. Or sell his house.
Now if Bob, Rachel, Biden, my Congressman, and Mr Obama, who I voted for, would have bought a 4 door 43mpg Chevy Geo Metro over the last 2 decades, then future gas needs would be more predictible.
If kids saw Obama driving a small subcompact car at the COPE meeting, they would want to emulate him. Yes? No? Watch MTV. I don't see the kids wanting small cars. Not cool enough. Why not attack MTV for its wastful programming. Do a story about Sweet 16, where all the kids get 17 mpg BMWs and 15mpg Land Rovers, etc. for their birthdays and all the young kids love it. . These cars will also be around for 10 years. SO DRILL MTV, DRILL.. Why does the NYTIMES still advertise 17mpg vehciles and no small 40mpg cars? DRILL NYTIMES, DRILL. See you at the end of your life cycle.....
Joe Vecchio,
I am a liberal who is discriminated against because I am pro-drilling. The Liberal Democrats in SYRACUSE stopped my movie about energy and liberal hypocrisy from being shown. TRUE STORY Democrats did this. Not Republicans who I don't vote for.
Went to a anti-oil rally in Syracuse last week and the leader who hates you big oil guys, drove away in a two ton, V6, AC, elelctric windows and locks, pearl paint
( MORE TOXIC TO MAKE AND REPAIR ) 4 DOOR ,17mpg VOLVO. This car will have a life cycle of ten years. So in 2018 where is he going to buy the gas for the vehicle HE CHOSE to buy. He could have bought a 40 mpg vehicle but he didn't. Rachel Maddow from the RACHEL MADDOW SHOW did the same thing.. Bob Beckel liberal analyst from FOX news did the same thing. He bought a 15 mpg JEEP and not a 45 mpg Geo. What does a political journalist know about energy issues other than what she/he is told by the NRDC and the Sierra Club? Watch her show about mocking Energy Tomorrow and watch her call liberals like me, NEANDERTHALs. Yet watch her show about electric cars. She supplied no educational information about EVs. How could the producer make such an inefficient show about EVs?
As a terorist expert. I see that many Arabs want us to drill in our own land.
Joe Vecchio, liberal,
Borodinobullett.com
Gary Luquette, makes a good case for off shore drilling as a partial solution. However, I'd like to see him in his next editorial be more comprhensive and also make the case for other alternative sources.
Barr Jozwicki
Investors411.com