WASHINGTON — The Obama administration cautiously offered up more areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off Alaska’s coast to oil and gas drilling Tuesday but didn’t go far enough to satisfy Republicans pushing to greatly expand drilling as a way to create jobs and wean the country off foreign oil.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar unveiled a proposal to hold 15 lease sales for areas in the Gulf of Mexico, including two in the eastern Gulf, and three off Alaska’s coast in the time frame from 2012 to 2017. The sales off Alaska, where native groups and environmentalists have objected to drilling, would be the first since 2008. They would be held late in the five-year time frame to allow for scientific evaluations in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, which Interior officials called a “frontier” for drilling. And they would be targeted to avoid areas with cultural and environmental sensitivities, officials said.
“The approach we are taking there is a cautious one,” Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes said of the Arctic leases. “We are aware of the substantial issues associated with major production.”
In the western and central Gulf, by contrast, the proposal puts all unleased acreage up for sale. There, drilling is more commonplace, infrastructure is well developed, and spill response plans have improved since the Gulf oil spill disaster in 2010.
The drilling plans are the latest iteration of President Barack Obama’s strategy for energy production, which has continually shifted to account for political realities, high gasoline prices and environmental disasters such as last year’s Gulf oil spill. Weeks before that disaster, the White House had talked of expanding offshore drilling off Alaska, in the Atlantic and throughout the eastern Gulf, in part to help move stalled climate-change legislation through Congress. It pulled back late last year after the blowout of BP’s Macondo well caused the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
In May, with Republicans in Congress passing bills to speed up and expand offshore drilling and with the public outraged over high gasoline prices, Obama directed his administration to extend existing leases and to hold more frequent sales in the federal petroleum reserve in Alaska to boost oil production.
Tuesday’s proposal goes slightly further by putting parts of the Cook Inlet, Chukchi and Beaufort seas back up for sale. President George W. Bush had opened up those areas for drilling in 2008, as part of a proposal that included drilling off the West and East coasts, and in the eastern Gulf.
Obama scrapped drilling off Virginia in early 2010, barred drilling in Bristol Bay and never considered drilling off the Pacific coast, where opposition is widespread.
Besides the Gulf and the Alaska leases, the proposal includes a sliver in the eastern Gulf about 150 miles off the Florida coast. The rest of the eastern Gulf is off limits due to a congressional moratorium.
Environmentalists expressed dismay at the decision to proceed with drilling in the Arctic.
The announcement came on a day when a near-record storm was expected to pound the western Alaska coast. The focus was in the Bering Sea, but the National Weather Service said winds of 65 to 70 mph with gusts to 90 mph also were expected along the Chukchi Sea coast.
“How do you drill a relief well? How do you put a containment system in place in those conditions? It is a very challenging situation up there to say the least,” said Marilyn Heiman, the Arctic Program Director for the Pew Environment Group.
William H. Meadow, the president of The Wilderness Society, said in a statement the lease sale plan “continues to take America down the road of putting big oil first, threatening our few remaining pristine areas with drilling and spilling.”
“It is too soon for the administration to say that they will have the necessary science, the proven spill-response techniques, and the needed response capacity and onshore infrastructure by the time of their proposed Arctic Ocean lease sales,” he said.
The American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, was also not pleased. Erik Milito, head of the group’s production section, called it “a missed opportunity” to address rising energy demand, jobs and the deficit. Royalties from energy production on public lands are one of the largest sources of income to the federal government.
The plan falls well short of proposals passed in the House and touted by Republicans running for president, who want to vastly expand drilling. They have accused the president of stifling American energy.
Still, from 2008 to 2010, oil production offshore increased from 446 million barrels to 600 million barrels.
“No new drilling or new lease sales will occur during President Obama’s term in office,” predicted Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee. Hastings sponsored three measures that passed the House earlier this year to speed up drilling approvals and open up areas along the East and West coast, Alaska and eastern Gulf to production.
“The Obama administration’s draft plan places some of the most promising energy resources in the world off-limits,” said Hastings.
Lawmakers from Alaska, who have pushed to tap its energy resources, hailed the plan as a positive step Tuesday.
But Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate energy panel, and other Alaskan lawmakers, said the permitting process would ultimately determine the success of the lease sales.
Shell Oil Co. paid the federal government $2.1 billion for petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska’s northwest shore in 2008, the last time federal waters in Alaska were auctioned off. But nearly four years later, the oil giant has yet to drill an exploratory well because of lawsuits brought by environmental groups and delays in its air pollution permit.
The company hopes to start drilling in 2012.

Comments (20)
Add commentRepublicans pee all over
Republicans pee all over themselves when they make the oil industry happy, its just disgusting.
Thank God at least the "Federal Government" is concerned about how ill prepared the oil industry is to drilloff our coast line!
Our state needs new leadership. We need leadership that cares about safety, accountability, and preparedness.
Is this really too much for Alaskans to ask? I don't think so!
Shame on you Lisa Murkowski why dont you just go and work for the oil industry, oh, actually you already are.
Lets vote in a new Senator folks, we need one.
Lisa Murkowski blocked a Bill
Lisa Murkowski blocked a Bill in May of 2010, that was introduced by U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) after the Gulf Spill disaster, the bill would have increased the Oil Industries Liability for Oil Spills from $75 million to $10 billion.
The responsible party in an oil spill covers all costs related to clean up; however, there is a $75 million CAP in place on the oil industries liability for economic damages, such as lost business revenues from fishing and tourism, natural resources damages or lost local tax revenue and oil spills leave massive holes in our economy.
In 2010 Bp Oil profits were 5.6 "billion" this was a 133% increase from 2009
When Senator Robert Menendez introduced this legislation he said "I remain dedicated to keeping the Jersey Shore clean and our fishing, shellfish, and tourism industries strong."
Don't Alaskans deserve someone to work for them like this?
No alternative
Our backs are against the wall. We need a real revenue source for our Federal Gov't., and fast. Our country is going broke as we sit here. We can put all our oil rich areas under lock and key, but how will we protect it? Already we can't afford to replace the aging Coast Guard ships in the area, or pay the crews to man them. Maybe Obama has finally realized his "green energy" is a huge financial failure.
we dont have to sell our state out
Jim - We do not have to sell our state out to industry like our reps and governor are doing, period. We just don't have to do it.
Raising taxes back to the rates seen under the Clinton administration on the top income earners would generate billions in revenues...
Our country has always raised taxes to cover the costs of war and we are in two wars now and the Republicans have still not allowed taxes to be raised on the wealthy to pay for the costs of these wars. This is unheard of!
check out this artical Five
check out this artical Five facts every american should know
in the debate over the federal budget:
Type in: www.
examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/five-facts-every-american-should-know-the-debate-over-the-federal-budget
(empire not allowing my link to artical to post so I am trying to break it up)
"The $75 million cap is
"The $75 million cap is waived if the responsible party is found to have acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct, an issue which has not yet been resolved regarding BP. Even so, BP has repeatedly stated it will pay all costs incurred by the oil spill."
Here's a long, but good, article by Heritage that explains what reforms should look like.
Replace (dot) with a .
http://www.heritage (dot) org/research/reports/2010/08/oil-spill-liability-a-plan-for-reform
trinity writes - "In 2010 Bp Oil profits were 5.6 "billion" this was a 133% increase from 2009".
So. Like a lot of corporations, oil profits are up because there's no great expansion in American business. Everything is pretty much at a stand still with Obama as President. Businesses have cut work forces to the bare bones and the owners and officers are sitting and watching. Businesses need certainty. Right now there isn't any. What will taxes look like in the future? How is BOCare going to play out? There are too many questions in the business arena so they sit and wait as the profits pile up - if they're lucky enough to even be making any profits.
Your whining plays out well for fomenting more class warfare though.
chicken little
I guess the sky is falling to those who hate oil. But they drive their rusty Subaru's to Eaglecrest.
If we raised taxes on everyone the feds will still not balance the budget. Reducing spending to what is constituional is a better way and not emotional spending.
@Julian Assange: the
@Julian Assange: the constitution makes no mention of what government spending should be. Perhaps you should read it. Also, if we raised taxes enough on everyone we could, indeed, balance the budget. Not saying we should, just saying you should think through your statements before writing them down.
standby them
I see nothing in the constitution that says we bail out private companies. Be they large or small. The fed government has become so courpt that we the 53% who pay federal income tax and those who also pay a state income tax are shouldering the burden of those who don't. We are broke and the feds give our money away like it is theirs. Bush dug a hole and Obama is digging it deeper. They have no conscious.
And there's nothing in it
And there's nothing in it that says we can't, either. The fact of the matter is that while not bailing out the banks would have been so satisfying on an emotional level, it would have caused the country to descend into a depression and we'd be really hurting right now. The real issue is why we didn't enact legislation to prevent firms from becoming too big to fail, and that reason is largely Republican obstructionism.
Also, nearly everyone pays income tax. The 53% statistic, for the last [filtered word] time, refers to those who owe money on April 15th. Many of us don't because our federal withholding adds up to more than our tax liability over the course of a year. Your usage of that statistic is inherently dishonest.
Here's an idea: get your facts straight before you even form an opinion. You should be embarrassed over the tax thing alone.
deregulation for the banks
PP, If you took the time and look at the deregulation of the banks was passed the congress in 1999 and signed by Bill Clinton. Check it out.
I am aware of that fact, and
I am aware of that fact, and since it obviously didn't work, it should have been fixed at the same time the banks were bailed out. But it wasn't due to a certain filibuster-happy minority party.
Geez, p, settle down. You're
Geez, p, settle down. You're so quick to attack - use your gigantic pool of wisdom more effectively. Like try to teach all of us peeps by using a little kindness!
I think you're wrong with your income tax rant. I'm no tax expert but although most with some sort of income from whatever source pay income tax, there are a huge percentage of filers that get all that back and then more with deductions. I don't think the percent statistics have anything to do with April 15 and writing a check to the IRS.
You also can't say what would have happened without TARP. That's living in a parallel universe and we can't do that.
What really should have happened during the bailouts was bringing Frank and Dodd up on charges and throwing the bums in prison.
Umm, no, I've posted links a
Umm, no, I've posted links a few times explaining the tax thing, and if you'd take a mere 10 seconds on Google, you could figure it out again. Something like 70-ish percent of all people pay federal income tax. And everyone who has a job pays into FICA, which you do not get refunded.
Once again, the most cursory examination proves you completely wrong. Maybe I'd be a little more kind if you abandoned ideas when they were proven wrong rather than repeating them verbatim over and over.
No way, p. I'm not buying
No way, p. I'm not buying your explanation. I don't think FICA taxes are part of the statistics to explain the percent of people not paying taxes. I think the percent numbers have to do with all the other deductions and refunds when the final tax form is filed. Everyone has to pay FICA but not everyone gets all the other deductions - like dependents, childcare, medical, mortgage, etc.
I think you're pulling a Warren Buffett on us!
The statistics are for people
The statistics are for people who pay money at tax time. I don't owe anything come April 15th because I keep my withholding high, so I don't technically count as the 53%, even though I do pay taxes.
Again, Calypso, a quick Google search would solve all of this, but obviously you don't want it solved. It's too bad the filter won't let me post links.
Taxes give me a headache!
Taxes give me a headache! Post a link to prove your point and I'll repent, p.
Just put (dot) in for the . and a link will usually go through.
p.s. Make it a credible link. Leftist sites won't convince me.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!
"Make it a credible link"?!?!?!
"Leftist sites won't convince me"?!??!
By definition, ANYTHING that disagrees with Calypso's viewpoints is inherently "leftist", "dishonest", "socialist" or in some way Machiavellian. Convenient.
Hey, dust, right back at
Hey, dust, right back at ya!
Kinda like you and man-made global warming!
wikipedia: "taxes". Problem
wikipedia: "taxes". Problem solved.