I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the Energy Expert Blog for National Journal, and I’m glad that my question has opened a serious dialogue on this important issue.

As a conservative, I have always believed we can strengthen our economy and national security by becoming energy independent. Last year we spent more than $400 billion on foreign oil and now find ourselves more dependent on overseas supplies than before 9/11. Sometimes our money even goes to fund enemies bent on our destruction.

The percentage of foreign oil we consume in the United States continues to grow, with almost half coming from OPEC nations. From a national security perspective, we must break our dependence on foreign oil by safely exploring for domestic oil and gas. Every barrel we can find in the United States is one less we have to import.

As a Senator from a coastal state, and in light of the historic oil spill off the coast of Louisiana, I think we need to find out what happened there, enact safety measures to prevent similar accidents from occurring in the future, and then build consensus for the expanded offshore drilling our nation will need in the years ahead.

The vast mistakes that BP and others have made in this nightmarish situation in the Gulf of Mexico should not override the importance of oil and gas drilling offshore and even deep water drilling. Deep water drilling is vital for US energy supplies. The US has over 1,800 deep water well with most in the Gulf of Mexico. 10% of all oil produced in the world is from deep water wells. 28% of all non-OPEC produced oil is from deep water wells.

Until we can seriously move from our massive demand for oil then we need to live with oil exploration and production. However, we do not need to live with the cutting of corners and incompetence that leads to serious environmental problems, injuries and death. We need to tighten the regulations and monitoring of offshore drilling, and especially deep water drilling, but we need to do this rationally and realistically. These better regulations and enforcements need to be done jointly with the industry and need to be vetted by oil and gas experts, most importantly the engineers and others who can judge what makes sense and whate does not. Leaving the writing of these to staffers with no experience or knowledge of the energy industry could lead to seriously negative economic and energy results. Enironmental experts who think of things systematically and with the logical long view also need to be part of this. Some of them are part of this blog group and they really need to be part of this.

In the longer run we will need to move from oil. Most likely we will move into more gas to replace that oil. We will face exploration and production safety and environmental issues with natural gas as well, although many of these will be more containable than those from oil. We need to learn now how to set the scene for the transitions to more natural gas and then on to even more creative energy futures.

The environment in the Gulf of Mexico and beyond are in grave danger from what has happened and the costs could go well into the many 100s of billions.

However, the economy of the US, the energy industry and others should not pay even higher prices due to irrational rules and regulations that so many emotionally want to apply. We need to sit back, take a deep breath (or maybe a lot of deep breaths) and really think this through.

The future of the country's economy and environment, and its energy future, will depend greatly on how we react to this situation.

We must not let the disaster the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill cloud the reality that oil and natural gas are the energy sources that drive America. Together they make up 62% of America’s energy. This important sector of our economy creates tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. Families and businesses rely on oil and natural gas every single day to run their businesses, drive their cars, and live their lives.

The oil spill is a disaster that must be treated as such. Imposing a moratorium on offshore drilling and exploration is nothing more than a reckless overreaction to a crisis. It is a political move with profound economic consequences. A moratorium would halt the offshore exploration of businesses with proven stellar safety records. These businesses, with rigs costing five million dollars a day to rent, cannot wait patiently for the moratorium to be lifted. In fact, companies are already up-and-leaving America’s shores. A moratorium will permanently drive away a huge portion of the Gulf economy, destroying tens of thousands of jobs in the process.

A moratorium not only devastates the regional economies directly affected, but it also hurts the American economy as a whole. It drives businesses away from our shores to the shores of foreign nations that welcome the tax revenues, jobs, and economic investments that come hand in hand with energy production. Moreover, the moratorium will ensure that Americans will become even more reliant on foreign oil from unfriendly nations.

Those who support the moratorium in the name of environmental concerns would also do well to research the lax environmental and safety regulations in these countries, which are much less stringent than American regulations. When tankers have to transport the oil thousands of miles to our shores, it greatly increases the likelihood of a spill. The BP oil spill is a tragic blow to the ecosystem in the Gulf, but the environment can be better protected by drilling safer here than drilling haphazardly somewhere else. If Congress is serious about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, driving oil production from the United States to foreign countries is an interesting way of showing it.

Domestic offshore drilling and exploration is absolutely crucial to the lifestyle we are all fortunate to lead in this country. Cutting off this abundant, domestic supply of American energy means fewer jobs, greater dependence on foreign oil, and higher energy prices. It is as simple as that.

In its efforts to deal effectively with the ongoing Deepwater Horizon calamity, the federal and state governments have a politically-difficult task set for themselves. Those public officials need to reflect the thoughts and interests of the electorate, but still be aware of the vitally important long-term public policy decisions that need to be addressed. The general public and their elected leaders are understandably angry, frustrated and fearful that this disaster might be repeated. At the same time, they need to understand that a third of the nation’s oil production and nearly thirteen percent of the nation’s natural gas production comes from offshore resources. This offshore oil and natural gas production is vitally important to the entire national economy. Even a temporary moratorium to review safety procedures will have a negative impact. But that anger, frustration and fear cannot be an excuse to cut off our own nose.

When addressing the nation’s future energy exploration off our coasts, therefore, we need to rely on fact, not on emotion. This is of particular importance regarding two aspects of America’s well-being: economic recovery and energy security.

BP’s oil spill has already inflicted significant hardship on the communities throughout the Gulf region. Tens of thousands of families are seeing their livelihoods threatened by what has happened. A long-term moratorium on significant portions of our offshore production would spread that hardship across several times as many families. For example, Sen. Mary Landrieu says that her state of Louisiana – where Blacks make up 33 percent of the population – could face up to 120,000 long-term job losses due to the new moratorium. Gov. Bobby Jindal, moreover, warns that the Bayou State will experience up to $135 million in wage cuts per month.

The second aspect of America’s well-being impacted by the oil spill and new moratorium is energy security. If the actions that are taken have the effect of severely limiting offshore production, the nation is faced with only one option: more imported energy. Some portion of these oil and natural gas imports, unfortunately, will come from some regions that are far less-stable than where Gulf platforms operate and from some nations that do not share our common interests or values. What is more, importing more energy in the name of preventing another accident here at home could well have the complete opposite effect on the environment. In many of the countries that we will rely on for more imports, occupational safety, environmental standards and regulatory oversight are commonly a second-thought, if they are thought of at all. Just because an environmental disaster doesn’t happen in American waters, or on American shores, does not diminish its importance or its eventual impact on the environment that we all are called on to protect.

We are already, in fact, seeing the effects of the uncertainty this spill-generated moratorium is having on preserving America’s energy security. Throughout refineries on the West Coast, it has been recently reported that up to 100,000 barrels of oil per day are arriving in places such as Los Angeles and Seattle from the eastern coast of Russia. Imports to these refineries from the world’s second largest oil exporter have risen to this level from zero in simply a few months. Sadly, the Russian oil industry for years has been plagued by scandal, calling into question its ability to be a reliable oil exporter in the long-term. Thus, the facts speak again – importing more energy from unstable regions due to even suggested reductions of our own energy production could have a direct impact on America’s energy security.

Since its inception in the 1960s, America’s offshore energy industry has maintained an admirable safety record. And, today, it generates billions of dollars in tax revenue for ailing government treasuries and employs hundreds of thousands of people with well-paying jobs. Consistent with our responsibility for human and environmental protection, we need to avoid having the BP calamity spill over onto other oil and natural gas offshore operators, big and small, who provide America with safe, affordable and reliable energy. Nor can America afford to leave a moratorium in place any longer than it takes to assure that we have the necessary technologies, and that we are taking the steps necessary to responsibly harvest our offshore energy resources. Congress, therefore, must use sound, factual judgment when determining the direction of our nation’s future offshore energy operations. The well-being of our economy and energy security will depend on it.

The following comments were submitted by Michael D. Olsen, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the Interior Department, and currently counsel at Bracewell & Giuliani's Environmental Strategies Group.

On March 31, 2010, in the shadow of a biofuel-powered F-18 at Andrews Air Force Base, President Obama made the case for the expansion of offshore oil and gas development. Some criticized the President for actually taking more offshore energy off the table than putting it on, and others questioned what the President's announcement actually meant. One thing the President said was clear, however, "Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs, and keep our business competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy."

The President was absolutely correct about our need for traditional energy sources. America needs domestic energy, and our demand is the same as it was prior to the tragic Macondo well blowout on April 20. Thus, we should develop as much domestic energy as possible, whether conventional or renewable. Offshore oil and gas will remain critical to that broad energy portfolio. For example, roughly 30% of our domestic oil production and 13% of our domestic gas come from the Gulf of Mexico alone. Other areas of the Outer Continental Shelf will add significantly to those numbers. Moreover, as developing countries like China and India continue to experience economic growth, world oil demand will increase. It makes no sense for us to leave domestic resources untapped as we compete for foreign energy sources.

In his March 31 announcement, the President also recognized his role in creating jobs and economic growth through conventional energy development. Unfortunately, in imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling and delaying permits to drill in shallow water, the Administration is doing the exact opposite. For instance, nearly one-third of the shallow water fleet sits idle because applications for permits to drill are languishing due to recently imposed and ambiguous regulatory requirements. Until the Department of the Interior provides some clarity and returns to processing applications for new shallow water wells in an efficient and effective manner, rigs will continue to be stacked and additional workers will be laid off.

In the wake of the Macondo blowout, Americans are still driving our cars, lighting our homes, and powering our computers. Policies that reduce access to much needed energy and jobs are inconsistent with the President's remarks on March 31, and certainly not what our country needs, particularly during these difficult economic times.

If the question is how to address the multiple threats of oil dependence, then the answer must include how to reduce demand as well as how to manage our efforts to secure supply. The most effective immediate and long term policies to reduce demand for oil will accelerate the adoption of electric drive vehicles in the United States.

For every vehicle that uses electricity instead of oil - be it a hybrid, battery electric or fuel cell vehicle - we reduce oil consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and spend more of our energy dollars domestically. Multiple hybrid vehicles are already available and in coming months, consumers can purchase an expanded array of plug-in electric drive vehicles that get all or part of their power from the U.S. electricity grid.

In addition to reducing oil consumption, electric drive vehicles can play a key role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector. A study by the Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council found that if 60 percent of U.S. light vehicles were powered by the electric grid, greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles would drop by one-third. Even with our existing electric grid, powering vehicles with electricity results in an estimated 25-30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

As the disaster in the Gulf focuses the nation's attention on sustainable energy supplies, it is critical that we also, finally, address the imperative for sustainable demand. For transportation, that means moving away from oil and toward electric drive vehicles. For a start, that means a comprehensive commitment to research and development in battery and vehicle technology, expanded deployment of vehicles and infrastructure, support for investment in manufacturing capacity and a national effort to grow consumer adoption.

Congress should not advance offshore oil and gas exploration until we fully understand how to prevent another catastrophic failure like the one unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico. The economic and environmental costs of another spill would vastly exceed the benefits of resuming drilling a bit sooner.

As everyone watching the news for the past three months knows, BP was profoundly ill-equipped to handle with a blowout of this scale. It took unnecessary risks with its rig and its emergency plan was a charade. Meanwhile, regulators allowed these dangerous conditions to persist.

Now as other companies and federal agencies try to assist with the clean up, it has become painfully clear that neither the oil industry nor the government has sufficient knowledge about the few tools they possess, including dispersants, well caps, and deepwater relief wells.

The Gulf disaster vividly illustrates that offshore drilling is inherently risky—whether it involves sinking a well five miles below the ocean floor or drilling in the Arctic where cold temperatures make cleanup nearly impossible. Keeping these operations safe is like swimming upstream; we will always be going against the current of their risky conditions.

A vigilant regulatory system is the best lifeline we have. Yet we can’t devise regulations that will adequately reduce the risks until we make an accurate assessment of what caused the BP blowout in the first place. As we await the findings of independent investigations, Congress should hold off new offshore exploration. And we also need to create a fully staffed and empowered oversight process to ensure that improved safety regulations are scrupulously followed.

This doesn’t mean America must become more dependent on foreign oil. We have other options. We can choose to invest in home-grown solutions that will dramatically reduce our need for oil—foreign or domestic.

The first step is to build cars that can run farther on less gas. In May 2009, President Obama announced new clean car standards that will deliver higher-mileage cars, cut global warming pollution by 30 percent, and save drivers money every time they fill up. These standards will save 10.2 billion barrels of oil by 2030--that’s more oil than is included in the entire offshore area President Obama opened to drilling in March. America is on track to save even more oil, however. This past May, the President announced further increases in car standards and the first ever standards for heavy trucks. In addition, by investing more in mass transit, we can further create good jobs, lay the foundation for a strong economy, and reduce oil demand.

The next step is to boost our domestic oil supply by focusing on enhanced oil recovery from existing fields, a process that can supply more than 10 times the amount of oil that could be produced by drilling in our oceans over the same period.

These are the oil-saving solutions we need right now.

Decisions about whether to expand offshore drilling should be based on the facts: oil and natural gas provide more than 60 percent of this country’s energy (and the petrochemicals for making countless products essential to our lives) and will continue to do so for at least a few more decades, even with rising use of alternatives. This implies a choice. We can produce at home more of the oil and gas we’ll be consuming, including promising resources off our coasts, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans and returning many billions of dollars in desperately needed revenue to our government – or we can increase reliance on supplies produced outside the United States, depriving our nation of these benefits and weakening our energy security.

If we choose to control our own energy destiny by domestically producing more of the energy we’ll need, we’re committed to producing it safely and reliably. Safety has always been a priority for the offshore energy industry as our record of safely drilling tens of thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico shows. But the tragic accident is a reminder that we must redouble our commitment to safety. Industry and government are working together to reevaluate safety top to bottom and raise our performance. We have put into place better procedures and equipment, new and strengthened industry best practices, and more oversight. And the 33 deepwater rigs in the Gulf directly impacted by the moratorium have already passed a thorough inspection.

We are profoundly concerned about the new moratorium. It is unnecessary and shortsighted to shut down a major part of the nation’s energy lifeline while working to enhance offshore safety. The new moratorium threatens enormous harm to the nation and to the Gulf region. It places the jobs of tens of thousands of workers in serious jeopardy and promises a substantial reduction in domestic energy production. We can safely resume offshore operations while continuing to build on safety improvements already implemented or underway, and we urge the administration to work to make that happen.

When the Challenger shuttle exploded in 1986, killing all seven astronauts, it led to a 32-month hiatus in the space program while a comprehensive investigation was undertaken into the causes of the disaster.

Apparently NASA managers had known about a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but they failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures on that doomed January morning.

Since the program was reinstated, more than 100 shuttle missions have been successfully undertaken.

Tragic accidents do not and cannot stop human exploration. But we must learn from our mistakes.

The Deepwater Horizon blowout won’t stop oil exploration. But the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico will pale into insignificance if we fail to heed its lessons.

With less than 150 years of fossil fuels remaining on Planet Earth and growing evidence of their damaging climactic impacts, we must surely listen to the alarm bells that this accident has sounded.

Even the most fervent environmentalist accepts that the world is not going to stop drilling for oil overnight. The events in the Gulf will interrupt exploration, but it will certainly not be terminal.

Surely it’s high time we wake up to the reality that we cannot go on like this forever. Of course regulators, government and the oil industry must ensure that no accident like this ever happens again. But that is not enough.

As the oil continues to spew into the Gulf, this is the moment for enlightened legislators to introduce measures that catalyze a transition from traditional fuel sources to renewables.

Sustainable energy technology first received a kick start back in the seventies in the wake of the Yom Kippur war and fears of long instability in the Middle East. But enthusiasm dwindled when oil prices came down.

Lack of political will is the only real obstacle to successful development of clean fuel technology.

With oil companies’ pockets as deep as the crude that they drill, funding must be found to deliver sustainable energy. This has to be the only way for the U.S. to become truly self-sufficient, as well as avoiding the otherwise-inevitably massive costs of mitigating climate change.

Much of the world depends on American innovation, technology and leadership. Now is the time for the U.S. take the lead on clean energy.

More offshore oil drilling will make our dependence on foreign oil worse – that’s why Congress should enact a moratorium. Congress needs to demonstrate that it understands that we can’t drill our way out of dependence on oil, we have to innovate our way out of it.

The death gusher at the the Macondo drill site that is only the latest demonstration of the folly of our continued reliance on oil to fuel our transportation system. We are not dependent on foreign oil because we don’t drill enough domestically – we’ve been drilling and drilling for forty years since import dependence became a serious problem. The problem only gets worse. We are dependent upon foreign oil because with 3% of the world’s reserves we continue to guzzle 25% of the world’s production of oil.

For Congress to mandate more drilling would fly in the face of both common sense and the evidence staring us in the face every day we look at the oil pouring into the Gulf. Imported oil kills; so does deepwater drilling. Imported oil destroys jobs; so does deepwater drilling. Imported oil destroys wildlife and natural system; so does deepwater drilling.

As even the Economist pointed out last week, the historic strategy of using the multinational oil companies, the Exxons, Shells and BP’s, as a counterweight to OPEC, is long since bankrupt. Those companies are allowed to produce only oil that too risky, too damaging, and too expensive – any easily exploitable oil found outside of North America will be produced by national oil companies. It is oil exporting nations, not oil companies, that control the oil market.

The US simply cannot have energy security as long as our transportation system relies on oil.

Fortunately, in the past few years clear strategies have emerged for getting us off our century long addiction. We can build a rail system equal to China’s, put our cars on electricity, our trucks on natural gas and our airplanes on sustainable biofuels. We can kiss big oil, OPEC, and a $500 billion balance of payments deficit, dependence on the Persian Gulf and the destruction of our environment and the climate goodbye.

It’s not rocket science. It’s auto mechanics. . By 2030 our dependence on oil should be a nightmare from the past. More off-shore drilling merely delays solving our problem – it’s an addict's last fix.

Each day that oil continues to gush into the Gulf of Mexico should serve as one more nail in the coffin of dirty fossil fuels. Each wave that brings thick crude upon formerly pristine beaches, each pelican that struggles to spread its oil-coated wings, each fisherman who wonders how he’ll feed his family now that his livelihood has been compromised.

So the answer to the question posed by Senator Graham is NO. America’s dependence on foreign oil and dirty fossil fuels has already reached critical mass – and in light of the Gulf oil disaster and everything that is at risk from oil and gas exploration, it’s time for the country to make a serious push for the development of clean, renewable sources of energy.

Offshore oil and gas drilling is a risky, dangerous operation that threatens American lives, jobs, environment and natural resources. By expanding offshore drilling, Congress would open the Gulf region, Arctic and Atlantic coast to more disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon spill. We now know that oil companies cannot promise that their drilling procedures are safe, either in the Gulf or in the Arctic, where it will be even more difficult to control a spill. Without a moratorium on new offshore drilling, we can anticipate even more costly spills in the future, destroying coastal communities and wildlife habitats.

Instead of continuing to feed an unhealthy addiction to dirty, climate-changing fossil fuels like oil, it is time to rapidly expand our investments in clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Renewable power from large-scale solar and wind farms can help to speed up the transition to a clean-energy future, as long as we also make sure that renewable development is done right, in the places that it makes the most sense. In developing these resources, we create jobs for Americans that can’t be outsourced and strengthen the country’s energy independence and national security.

Congress should move forward on renewable energy and clean energy jobs and towards a future of clean energy produced here at home. We have the technology, we have the innovation and we have the resources; a moratorium on offshore drilling will provide the final push. With commitment, our clean-energy future can start now.

Offshore oil drilling is beyond my ken, but safety isn't. What strikes me about the contributions--the answers to Sen. Graham's questions--is that none of the responders suggest we ought to start by getting the facts on the safety of the existing wells, especially the deep water wells. It seems to me it's an abstruse subject that is not understood outside the small fraternity of drillers, and perhaps not even fully by them. We know about one dreadful accident (although we still haven't pinned down exactly what happened) at one well, but what does it tell us about the rest? Interestingly no one mentions the commission on deep sea drilling the president appointed to come up with recommendations. My own sense is that by background of the members this is not the hard-edged technically-knowledgeable group we need. I hope I am wrong, but it didn't inspire confidence when the commission's chairman said that if anyone wants an answer right away they should turn to the Interior Department. From what we know, that's about the worst place to inquire. In fact, no agency in the the federal government seems equipped to deal with this subject in a competent and disinterested manner. A good question to ask now is whether the president's commission is adequate to the task of assessing deep sea drilling safety, and if not, what do we need to get a satisfactory and credible assessment reasonably quickly.

First, I applaud the efforts of Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, including our guest moderator, who have worked with good faith and an open mind to find real solutions to America’s energy and climate challenges. There is no single solution; in fact, our narrow reliance on just one commodity—oil—for transportation and other energy needs has made us extremely vulnerable. Diversification of energy sources will be critical to achieving true energy security, but that does not mean that all options are equally worth pursuing. We should be investing our future energy dollars in the most cost-effective, least-risky strategies possible. Unfortunately, we have already tapped most of the cheap and easy oilfields to be found within U.S. borders. The full costs and increasing risks of offshore oil make it a poor bet for the future.

If you are an oil company, offshore drilling, even in deep water, makes sense. Sure, it costs a lot more to produce than onshore drilling, more than $70 per barrel on average—about twice the cost of U.S. onshore oil and four times the cost of Middle East Oil; but with oil prices likely to rise over the long-term, it is probably a good investment. However, an oil company does not shoulder all the costs and risks of offshore drilling, as the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico illustrates all too clearly. No matter how much BP would like to “make it right”, the economy, communities, and ecosystems of the Gulf region may never be the same.

If you are a nation deciding how to fuel its future, a wise strategy would be to consider all costs and risks of different options, plus the added benefits of getting off oil. Not only is offshore oil among the most expensive sources of fuel, its production costs are rising as drilling expands into increasingly extreme environments, while costs for other transportation fuel alternatives, such as efficiency, biofuels and electricity, are declining. From an economy-wide perspective, with limited capital to invest in alternatives, there is a huge opportunity cost of diverting investment resources to offshore oil drilling, and perpetuating the notion that we have no choice but to stay hooked on oil.

Then, there are the external costs of our oil dependence that neither oil companies nor consumers pay directly, but which all Americans pay for in profound ways. First, there are the shock waves that move through the U.S. economy when oil prices spike and fall as they have historically. Some observers attribute past recessions to the prominent oil spikes that preceded them—cause is hard to prove, but there is certainly a strong correlation.

Plus, there are the military expenditures of defending oil transit corridors in the Middle East and elsewhere. A study by the RAND Corporation estimated that oil protection accounts for more than 10 percent or $70 billion dollars of the Department of Defense’s budget. This does not include the additional costs—in dollars and lives lost—of conducting wars in either Iraq or Afghanistan, which have not only consumed precious resources, but have constrained America’s power to deal with other global threats, such as Iran and North Korea.

On top of these substantial economic, military, and geopolitical costs, our oil-intensive economy (we consume about twice as much oil per person as most other industrialized nations) has substantial health and environmental costs. A National Research Council study estimates that air pollution from cars and trucks alone accounted for roughly $56 billion in health costs in 2005. These costs would be proportionally reduced, and lifted off the backs and lungs of ordinary Americans, with each barrel of reduced oil use.

Adding up all the costs, the real “price” of oil is likely more than twice what we pay at the pump. Considering the avoided costs and numerous benefits of getting off oil, efficiency, non-petroleum fuels and other alternatives start to look like a real bargain.

Thirty years ago, America was importing about 30 percent of its oil. Today, we import more than 60 percent, some from countries that aren’t necessarily friendly to the US. Without question, the offshore drilling moratorium will make us even more reliant on imports should it remain in place for any length of time. And it’s not just deep water drilling that’s at risk. Regulators have now made the permitting process for shallow water drilling so onerous that it constitutes a de facto moratorium on all drilling along the Gulf Coast. Drilling companies cannot afford to keep their half-billion dollar rigs idle. If they can’t resume drilling in the Gulf of Mexico quickly, they will relocate to Brazil, West Africa or other offshore fields. Not only will the U.S. wind up importing more oil, but we’ll lose the jobs, income, spending and tax revenue that result from offshore drilling operations.

Like any other energy policy option, whether to ban or to expand offshore drilling in the U.S. is a complex question that requires a careful assessment of the costs and benefits of numerous energy policy alternatives. Every policy option has its trade-offs. The impact of offshore drilling on local economies as well as our oil dependency should certainly be considered – as should its impact on greenhouse gas emissions. But more importantly, it would be a mistake to consider this issue in isolation.

In early April, before the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, I wrote in response to an earlier National Journal Energy & Environment Expert Blog, “A Little Energy Security but More CO2,” “while there might be important political reasons for expanding offshore oil exploration, the President's proposal to increase offshore drilling is unlikely to have a significant effect either on the supply of natural gas or on energy security in the U.S. In fact, the end result might simply be to increase greenhouse gas emissions.” Today, in the shadow of the Gulf Oil spill, I would add only one word – “while there might be important political reasons for NOT expanding offshore oil exploration…” The underlying analysis, however, is the same.

At the time, I cited work by RFF researcher Stephen Brown and Stanford economist Hillard Huntington – who showed that while producing oil in the U.S. reduces our dependency upon foreign oil – it does not do so on a barrel per barrel basis (because more oil production in the U.S. slightly reduces world oil prices which increases demand). To understand the relative value of reducing our dependency on foreign from offshore drilling, they estimated the social welfare benefits to the U.S. economy from reduced risk of supply disruptions from supplying one more barrel of oil to be only about $1.00 per barrel.

Following the Gulf Oil spill, Stephen Brown issued a report, titled, “Some Implications of Tightening Regulation of U.S. Deepwater Drilling,” on the impact of a U.S offshore oil drilling moratorium. Brown cites U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) figures that U.S. offshore oil accounts for approximately 8.7% of total U.S. supply of oil – about 1.7 million barrels per day. Prior to the oil spill, EIA projected that offshore oil production would grow to 2.4 million barrels per day, about 10.7% of U.S. supply by 2035. Most of the growth would come from deepwater (1000-4999 feet) and ultra-deepwater (5000+ feet) areas. Further, he noted that “Current production and reserves in the Gulf of Mexico suggest that deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas will contribute to the growth of offshore natural gas production, but not by nearly as much as they contribute to oil production…” This is because it is much more difficult to move natural gas long distances from offshore than it is oil.

Brown estimates the impact of a total ban on U.S. deepwater and ultra-deepwater drilling and concludes that “oil prices would rise by about $2.58 per barrel (3.54 percent) above baseline in 2011 and by about $4.03 (3.03 percent) above baseline in 2035. Projected gasoline prices would be about 7.2 cents per gallon higher in 2011 and 11.3 cents per gallon higher in 2035.” While there is no doubt that we would feel the impact, he notes that “the large international oil market would blunt the effect on prices. The United States would import more oil to offset some of its reduced oil production – with imports running about 0.2 million barrels per day higher in 2011 and approximately 1.2 million barrels per day higher in 2035 than in the reference case.” To put these numbers into perspective, Brown estimates that U.S. net imports of oil would increase in 2035 from 9.66 million barrels a day to 10.92 million barrels – a 13% increase in our imports. So, the bottom line is that a ban on deepwater and ultra-deepwater oil drilling is estimated to result in a 3-3.5% increase in oil prices, about a 2% reduction in overall oil demand in the U.S., and a 13% increase in our foreign oil dependency. Impacts for natural gas are smaller. To put the foreign oil dependency impacts into perspective, Brown goes back to his earlier work with Huntington and estimates that “a permanent ban on drilling in U.S. deepwater and ultra-deepwater areas would increase estimated U.S. oil security externalities by a total of about $31 million in 2011 and by about $405 million in 2035.”

Importantly, Brown’s analysis ignores other policy options that could accompany any offshore drilling ban. In fact, a recent study by RFF researchers led by Alan Krupnick (joint with the National Energy Policy Institute), “Towards a New National Energy Policy: Assessing the Options,” examined 35 policy options for reducing both U.S. oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions and found numerous policies that could offset the impact of an offshore drilling ban. For example, liquid natural gas conversion for heavy trucks would reduce oil dependence by well over 2 million barrels a day by 2030 – almost twice the negative impact of an oil drilling ban.

Thus, the question of whether to continue offshore drilling should not be made in isolation. An informed judgment that attempts to balance the risks to the environment from future spills, the impact on local economies, our foreign oil dependence, and greenhouse gas emissions, should consider a portfolio of policy options.

As we search for solutions to the tragedy in the Gulf, our country cannot and should not turn a blind eye to the energy needs of our country. To protest offshore oil production is to ignore the fact that much of our economy is oil-dependent – from the jobs dependent on the oil industry to the transportation of goods and the consumer economy. Halting offshore oil production will absolutely increase our dependence on foreign oil, while not necessarily improving the environmental impact of oil production at all.

In the wake of April’s tragic accident, we can all agree on the need to improve drilling safety and to take steps to ensure that this never happens again. But we all also need to recognize that our continued reliance on foreign oil have left us held hostage to unstable energy prices, in addition to having a huge political impact on our country. Also, we must not continue to ignore the fact that all oil comes from someone’s backyard and when we refuse to drill at home, we often wind up importing oil from places around the world that do not share our tough environmental standards.

All energy production comes with some costs and pretending that the halting of offshore oil production in the Gulf is the answer to safer drilling, or that it will somehow magically lesson our need for oil is just naïve and could have dangerous consequences.

We should continue to pursue stricter safety standards that ensure that a catastrophe like this never happens again, and we should refuse to make short term, knee jerk reactions that have the potential to harm our economy while having no positive impact on the environment.

Answers to questions regarding the benefits of continued offshore oil and gas exploration versus the effects of a moratorium should be self evident. The fact that federal officials now assessing a ban as if the known rewards and effectively managed risks of domestic production are tenuous is a reflection of political bias trumping established facts.

When weighing our options, Americans should keep the Gulf spill in perspective. From driving a car to crossing the street to flying on an airplane, risk is a part of life. Tragedies can occur even with the best efforts to avoid them. Therefore, pursuing elimination of risk through an off oil agenda is the pursuit of a dangerous illusion whose unintended consequences are far greater than any assumed benefits.

Until the April 20th Deepwater Horizon accident, companies had safely drilled over 50,000 offshore wells in US waters over a period of 41 years. Worldwide, the number of successful deep water wells drilled tops 14,000. These facts are testimony to advances in exploration technology and safe operating practices. From initial reports, it appears that BP did not follow these proven industry operating practices. If this turns out to be the case, a moratorium would punish companies that follow those practices as well as residents and workers on the Gulf coast. That would be perverse, to say the least.

As tragic as accidents are, they often lead to improvements in safety. That will undoubtedly happen as a consequence of this tragedy. The billions in costs BP will incur in clean up, restoration, and compensation will serve as a very strong incentive to make further improvements in operating practices, blow out prevention, and clean up technology.

Congress and the Administration should be focused on indentifying reasonable and realistic steps to reduce the risk of future accidents and minimize the consequences of any that do occur. Instead of using this spill as an excuse to push an off oil agenda, they should commit to a long term energy policy that reflects economic, energy, and technology realities.

Serving the nation’s interests should take precedence over self-serving special interests.

It’s counterintuitive to our nation’s best interests for Washington to advocate policies that would have the effect of a self imposed embargo. It is an undisputable fact that our society and the global society will rely on oil and gas for decades to come. The reason is not complex. Energy is essential to economic growth and a rising standard of living. And no alternatives currently exist that are as abundant, versatile, or as reasonably priced as traditional fuels. If the cost of our most abundant source of energy rises as a result of government action, the wide-spread economic consequences will be borne by workers and consumers.

Off oil advocates are too quick to dismiss and discount the value of mobility. Mobility made possible by efficient internal combustion engines, reasonably priced gasoline, and full size vehicles has enabled more people to own homes, to have a wider range of employment options, and for families to travel safely and conveniently. While engineers are making progress with hybrid technology, today’s hybrid cars and SUVs are more expensive. The trucks that move products from coast to coast run on diesel fuel and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

How is the rest of our energy mix shaping up? Natural gas should play an increasingly important role in generating electrical power to meet the needs of a larger population and a growing economy. Nuclear power is presently too costly. Coal has negative environmental consequences. And so called "alternatives" are not practical or economic.

If we don’t produce oil and gas here, we will import them from other countries -- some of which are located in unstable and unfriendly regions. And, if we import more than we need, investments that could be made here will be made in other countries and the good paying jobs created by those investments will be abroad rather than at home. Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and other states directly affected by the spill have already suffered tremendous economic damage. And the region will take many years to recover. A moratorium on drilling in the Gulf would inflict even more economic damage on the region. And that harm would be intentional, not the result of an accident.

As oil continues to spew into the Gulf of Mexico at an enormous rate approaching 100,000 barrels (or over 4 million gallons) daily, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and his caucus have consistently reaffirmed their support for continued — and additional — offshore oil drilling. Graham recently announced: “I remain committed to safely expanding offshore drilling because I know oil will be part of our nation's energy plan for years to come.”

Senator Graham is correct when he says oil will be with us ‘for years to come,’ in that the horrific damage caused by the disaster in the Gulf will last for decades. The BP catastrophe once again demonstrates the necessity for America to move immediately away from our dangerous reliance on fossil fuels. But supporting increased offshore oil drilling after the largest offshore oil disaster in U.S. history is equivalent to pressing your foot on the accelerator as you approach a cliff. If we cannot begin to break our addiction to fossil fuels now, and specifically institute a moratorium on all offshore oil drilling, one needs to wonder if we ever can. Further, “reliance on foreign oil” has become a shroud slogan by industry supporters who have little interest in actually conserving energy or reducing consumption. For example, even if we were to literally suck out every drop of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that is estimated there, it would only be enough for roughly seven years of U.S. use and the odds of another spill disaster would be very high given the increasingly more difficult places left to drill underwater. Indeed, if solar, wind and geothermal were given as much federal subsidies as the fossil fuel industries, we would not only keep transmission lines busy, but also catalyze incredible economic opportunities for America and the rest of the world.

While we appreciate the fact that the senior senator from South Carolina has broken with the “know nothing” orthodoxy of many in his party, acknowledging that global warming is a serious problem is quite different than doing something constructive about it. Expanded offshore drilling is a false and dangerous option. It is the easy “give everyone a lollipop approach.” A true conservative would seek ways to break American addiction to oil and incentivize individual behavior that prevents catastrophic damage to our natural world upon which society depends.