Like a lot of people, I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what President Obama would do what he said he would not do during the campaign.
If the intention is to actually benefit the US energy supply, it's foolish. US oil production peaked in 1972, the largest field in the country (Prudhoe Bay) is in steep decline and no new discovery will replace it. Last year the US produced around 5.27 million barrels / day on average -- which was actually quite a large increase. So some might point to the 2009 increase as evidence that we can improve our position. However, that increase was the result of two things: a good deal of drilling that started over a decade ago finally coming on line and the fact that 2008 was such an awful year (hurricanes dented production that year to the tune of 200,000 barrels / day). Even so, in 1970 the US was producing 9.64 million b/d. All the drilling in the world won't arrest that long term trend. Add to that the recession and our imports of oil last year were way down -- and still the reliance on foreign oil was over twice what it was during the oil crises of the 1970s. If we drill every area available, its expected that the US may be able to hold a production "plateau" around 5 million b/d for the next decade. That's the most optimistic outlook. However, over that same decade oil production out of Mexico will fall severely, meaning that we'll actually be importing more oil from Middle East sources. You can drill Yellowstone and the south lawn of the White House, but at the end of the day the US will not not end utter reliance on oil sourced from areas subject to being under control of people who do not have our best interests in mind. Drilling, as a means of improving our position for energy independence and national security, is a loser.
If the intention of this announcement is to provide a negotiating position, either as a trade off for higher fuel standards or any other factor, then surrendering your one best bargaining chip up front seems like an extremely bad idea. As with health care, it seems like we're starting the argument far out on the side of the field where the Republicans have been playing for a decade. Now we may argue for a few things that actually do improve both the nation's access to energy and the environment -- maybe -- but what else will we have to surrender to get it? WIth offshore drilling already in the bag, what are you going to give away if you need a vote?
Finally, if the intention here is to position any further action on energy as bipartisan... that's seriously disappointing. I would have thought that learning not to try and negotiate with people calling you a anti-American baby-killing socialist was one of the few good things to come from the health care ruckus. On the face of it, this action seems to buy into the false dichotomy between energy and the environment that the Republicans have been building for decades. It smells like surrender.
Overall this seems like a tremendous loss of focus, loss of the initiative, and misdirection of the public at a time where we could use some real leadership on energy.