Should the U.S. Allow Offshore Oil Drilling?

Recommend (0) Comments (3)

Another objection to increased offshore drilling is that opening the OCS will only further our nation’s “addiction to oil.” Ultimately, oil is a finite resource, so it is feasible that lifting access restrictions will provide oil today but also push current problems onto future generations. Thus, development of new oil supplies should be considered an interim step that is part of a larger strategy designed to move us toward an economy that is not so dependent on oil and gas.

One option that could hopefully appease some of these objections would be to earmark royalties from all new OCS developments into a fund that is explicitly for research and development (R&D) in alternative energy. The OCS resources then could serve as a bridge to a new energy future. As a nation with a substantial vested interest in matters of energy security, we greatly under invest in energy research. Royalties from new drilling could provide much-needed funding for R&D.

In closing, lifting the moratoria on leasing in the OCS reduces uncertainty about future supplies, and expands our supply portfolio providing some measure of energy security.  This can be done, as has been demonstrated by the offshore industry, in an environmentally responsible manner.  It can also be done in such a way that we can transition smoothly to a new energy future. Arguing for lifting the OCS leasing moratoria need not be an argument against expanding research and development, and eventual deployment, of alternative energy technologies. Rather, it can be used as a vehicle for such a goal. To reiterate, lifting the moratorium in the OCS is important, and is only one part of a portfolio of options that should be pursued. We must develop a diversified, comprehensive energy strategy that encompasses many options, including drilling, conservation, efficiency and alternative energy.