United States offshore drilling debate

Imported crude oil as a percent of U.S. consumption.

A common argument in favor of offshore drilling is it reduces United States dependency on imported oil. Geopolitically, the U.S. would be less vulnerable to sanctions by oil-producing countries hostile to the United States. It would also make the United States less vulnerable to a stop in a country's oil exports, due to, for example, a civil war or an invasion of that country. The debate often makes references to the 1973 oil crisis and 1979 energy crisis.

One motivation of increased offshore drilling is to reduce the current fuel prices. In 2007, the Energy Information Administration at the U.S. Dep. of Energy analyzed the effect of lifting the ban on oil and gas leasing on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.[12] With leasing beginning in 2012, the agency projected that production of oil would not be expected to start before 2017, and that as a result US oil production by 2030 would be 7% higher than it would be otherwise. The effect on fuel prices, however, would be "insignificant."[13]

The Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that with increased offshore leasing and drilling, the price of oil would only drop about 3–4 cents in 15 to 20 years.[14]

Oil produced from offshore drilling reduces oil imports, and thus lessens the U.S. trade deficit. From mid-2017 to early 2018, crude oil imports increased from $45 per barrel to $62 per barrel.[15] Rising oil prices have driven some with U.S. oil stakeholders to argue all options must be considered to reduce the national deficit; including expanded national oil production.

In 2005, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stated that offshore drilling would disrupt military training and weapons testing, if done in an area of the Gulf of Mexico along the coast of Florida.[16]

Although offshore drilling has long been banned in federal waters off the state of Florida, Cuba has been drilling its own offshore area near Florida.[17] The subject became an issue in the 2008 presidential race, with assertions and denials of the reality of Cuban offshore drilling. On 31 October 2008, Brazilian and Cuban presidents Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Raul Castro attended a ceremony at which the Brazilian oil company Petrobras agreed to drill for oil in Cuban offshore waters near Florida.[18] By May 2011 Petrobas had withdrawn from the agreement due to poor prospects.[19]

More recently, Russia has begun drilling in the Black Sea with a Chinese-made oil rig, Scarabeo 9. Since the rig wasn't built in the U.S. and was agreed to before the imposition of additional sanctions by the E.U. in 2014, Russia has been able to avoid sanctions and operate the rig.[20]

Offshore facilities pose an environmental risk of oil spills. On April 20, 2010, an underwater blowout and subsequent explosion and fire destroyed the Deepwater Horizon rig owned by Transocean Ltd. and operating in the Gulf of Mexico under lease to energy giant BP, resulting in the largest oil spill in United States history. Five million barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, leading to $21.5 billion (or $4300 per barrel) of clean-up costs paid by BP.

BP Oil spill costs broken down by category

As of 2010, the federal Minerals Management Service had given permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico without first getting required permits that assesses threats to endangered species.[21]

In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon explosion, aka BP Oil spill, Defenders of Wildlife and the Southern Environmental Law Center sued BP for imperiling 32 threatened or endangered species. These included the sperm whale, gulf sturgeon, manatee and five kinds of sea turtles, in addition to the surrounding water and habitats that were damaged.[22] With every oil spill, endangered species in the area get closer to extinction.