Pyle: One job killed as a result of reactionary government policy is one job too many

WASHINGTON – In response to news reports detailing the Administration’s misguided approach to the economic and employment impacts its drilling moratorium has had on Gulf Coast communities, Institute for Energy Research President Thomas J. Pyle released the following statement.

“When we first learned that the Administration would halt all deepwater exploration in a misguided attempt to respond to the oil spill, we had to assume that they just didn’t understand the importance of the industry and the thousands of jobs it provides to the communities along the Gulf Coast. After all, what government would knowingly and purposely put thousands of its citizens out of work? But now we learn that it wasn’t a lack of knowledge about the consequences that led to the unwarranted policy, it was an outright lack of concern for the livelihoods of these hardworking Americans.

“Moreover, in addition to this premeditated destruction of jobs in the deepwater, the Administration is starving the workers in the shallower waters of the Gulf by slow-walking the permit process. It now appears that even if the Administration lifts the moratorium, their deliberate stonewalling in the shallow waters of the Gulf will kill any hope of jobs and American energy production.

“While one could reasonably assume that this should be self-evident, it appears the American people need to send a message to the President, his Interior Secretary Salazar, and his offshore regulator, Michael Bromwich: one job killed as a result of a reactionary government policy is one job too many. While you write memos and hold hearings, Gulf Coast residents are suffering. And they don’t want handouts, they want their jobs back. Now is the time to end this moratorium and let these men and women to get back to work providing the American people with affordable, reliable, domestic energy.”

###

“The Administration continues its assault on US energy production, this time trying to convince us that a shortage of paperwork led to the Gulf spill.  No amount of Government Green Tape would have stopped the spill, and in fact, Americans saw that it actually made cleanup harder.

“The Administration continues to ship our energy security and our jobs overseas, and all this is just another example of their energy extremism.  And with this Administration, extremism in defense of dogma is putting the American economy in a vise.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 17, 2010
CONTACT:
Laura Henderson, 202.621.2951

EIA’s Short-Term Forecasts

Because of the global recession and the slow U.S. recovery, the EIA expects U.S. petroleum demand to increase by only 200,000 b/d in 2010 and by 170,000 b/d in 2011, an increase of approximately 1 percent in each year. Despite the moratorium, domestic production is still expected to increase in 2010, but by only about 70,000 b/d, one-fifth of the previous year’s increase. Because of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandating biofuel production, ethanol is expected to increase by 150,000 b/d in 2010. Together, domestic oil production and ethanol production will thus be able to meet the increased demand levels for 2010.

In 2011, however, the story is expected to be different. Although onshore oil production is expected to increase from 2010 levels, it will not be enough to compensate for the losses caused by the Administration’s drilling moratorium. As a result, EIA is projecting a decline in oil production of 26,000 b/d.  That production decline will be offset somewhat, the agency’s expects, by ethanol production that will increase 30,000 b/d from 2010 levels. Nevertheless, because petroleum demand is expected to increase, imports must compensate. EIA projects those imports to be petroleum products, which will be 190,000 b/d higher than they were in 2010, helping to not only meet the demand increases in 2011, but also to offset a forecasted decline in crude oil imports of 11,000 b/d.

The decreased production impacts from the Gulf of Mexico that are forecast by EIA in its July Short-Term Energy Outlook are higher than they were in the June Outlook. EIA indicates that it will continue to refine the estimates as more information becomes available. And more information has become available. The moratorium has now extended to 3 rigs in the Pacific, off the coast of Santa Barbara. A prolonged moratorium in the Pacific would impact more than 100,000 barrels of oil a day, resulting in even more dependence on foreign oil. It is unclear why the U.S. Department of Interior extended the moratoria to the Pacific, inasmuch as operations there differ from those that caused the oil spill in the Gulf and drilling operations there have been performed for over 40 years without a spill.[iii]

EIA’s Long-Term Projections

According to EIA, 30 percent of total oil production in the United States in 2009 came from the offshore area of the Gulf of Mexico [iv] and more than 80 percent of Gulf production was from deep water.[v] EIA’s long-term projections expect total offshore production to reach 38 percent of domestic production by 2035, increasing by 1 million barrels per day between 2007 and 2035, an annual rate of increase of 2.3 percent. That increase includes drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, owing to the expiration of the moratoria on offshore drilling that was permitted by both Congress and the administration in 2008. Of course, that was before BP’s oil spill on April 20, 2010, and the 6-month drilling moratorium enacted by the Obama administration.

The result of the Obama administration’s moratorium on deepwater exploratory oil drilling and increased offshore drilling regulations was to shut down the operation of 33 deepwater rigs and stall permits in shallow water.  It took the Federal government until July 19^th to issue a permit to drill in shallow water.[vi] In the deepwater areas, things are even more grim. Because keeping rigs idle costs their owners $500,000 a day (in the lost opportunity costs of drilling elsewhere),  2 oil rigs have left the Gulf of Mexico for foreign countries where the rig owners feel the atmosphere is more conducive to offshore drilling; the owners of an additional rig are contemplating a move. More owners may make the move if the drilling moratorium goes past November.[vii] Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), who called for lifting the moratorium, said: “Once the rigs relocate, it could be a minimum of five to 10 years before they return.”[viii] Others are not so pessimistic, however, because of a possible surplus of newly built rigs next year. Nonetheless, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to whether the EIA’s long-term oil production forecasts will come to fruition.

That uncertainty includes whether the Obama Administration will open the waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and natural gas exploration. While President Obama had previously been open to such a move, the actions that are required to open those areas to exploration have been delayed by his administration.[ix]

Long-Term Impacts

Of course, if shut-downs in the Gulf were to continue, whether because of a moratorium or because of economic conditions that made drilling in the Gulf a sub-par investment, the short-term impacts noted above would get magnified over time.  A complete shut-down of deepwater drilling would reduce U.S. oil production by more than 27 percent by 2035, and oil imports would be 19 percent higher.[x] Further, employment would be reduced by 175,000 jobs (direct and indirect) each year between now and 2035, and GDP would be reduced by $500 billion ($20 billion annually).[xi]

The above estimates were based on the reference case forecasts from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010[xii] and projected development expenditures for deep water development in the Gulf from a 2009 IHS Global Insight study. A more recent analysis by Wood Mackenzie substantiated the project cost assumptions, indicating that higher drilling costs, an estimated 25 percent increase in capital costs from increased regulations and taxes, and regulatory delays would make the deepwater fields of the Gulf of Mexico sub-economic, that is, unable to achieve a post-tax internal rate‐of‐return of 10 percent.

Conclusion

With the oil spill from BP’s Macondo well essentially contained and only some tar balls left, the question is still open as to whether the Obama administration will restore drilling in the Gulf and the Pacific and lift the moratoria or at least not extend them past November so that the nation can benefit from its domestic resources, instead of competing with China and other countries for additional foreign oil supplies. Also at issue is whether oil companies will be subjected to unreasonable rules that will make offshore oil production unprofitable. Congress[xiii] is currently working on legislation to improve safety and to help prevent future oil spills from occurring,[xiv] but that legislation may prove too onerous for the industry, subjecting the American public even more to the whims of foreign countries.

[ii] BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2010, http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2008/STAGING/local_assets/2010_downloads/statistical_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2010.pdf

[iii] New offshore drilling moratorium lays off dozens of local workers, July 29, 2010, http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/new_offshore_drilling_moratorium_lays_off_dozens_of_local_workers/8107/

[iv] Energy Information Administration, Gulf of Mexico Fact Sheet, http://www.eia.gov/oog/special/gulf/gulf_fact_sheet.html

[v] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, Table 113, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/aeoref_tab.html

[vi] Reuters, U.S. issues first shallow-water drilling permit, July 19, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66I5DG20100719

[vii] The Wall Street Journal, Exodus of Rigs Hasn’t Happened, July 21, 2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723604575379332167380458.html?KEYWORDS=Exodus+of+Rigs+Hasn%27t+Happened

[viii] Deep Water Oil Drilling Rigs Leaving the Gulf Region, July 29, 2010, http://yoursinglesourcefornews.com/deep-water-oil-drilling-rigs-leaving-the-gulf-region/1712/

[ix] The Guardian, Barack Obama orders six-month freeze on offshore drilling and expansion, May 28, 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/27/obama-strategy-offshore-oil-drilling

[x] Potential Impacts of Proposed Increases in Regulations & Taxes on Deepwater Drilling in the Gulf, http://www.scribd.com/doc/34950965/Potential-Impacts-of-Proposed-Increases-in-Regulations-Taxes-on-Deepwater-Drilling-in-the-Gulf

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html

[xiii] The U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of the “oil spill” legislation (H.R. 3534)  on Friday, July 30, 2010. See http://www.eenews.net/eed/

[xiv] Bloomberg Businessweek, Congress Moves to Restrict Drilling, Shelves CO2 Cap, July 28, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-28/congress-moves-to-restrict-drilling-shelves-co 2-cap.html

The Obama Administration’s offshore moratorium is already sending jobs overseas.

Last week, Diamond Offshore announced that it was sending the Ocean Endeavor rig from the Gulf of Mexico to Egypt. This week it announced that it was pulling the Ocean Confidence out of the Gulf of Mexico and sending it to the Congo.

Bloomberg reports that the Congo project is expected to generate $234 million in total revenue—revenue and jobs that should have been created in the Untied States.

Besides the actual production of oil, workers on the rigs and people that supply the rigs will be adversely affected. According to the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association:

• Each drilling platform averages 90 to 140 employees at any one time (2 shifts per day), and 180 to 280 for 2 2-week shifts
• Each E&P  [exploration and production] job supports 4 other positions
• Therefore, 800 to 1400 jobs per idle rig platform are at risk
• Wages for those jobs average $1,804/weekly; potential for lost wages is huge, over $5 to $10 million for 1 month – per platform.
• Wages lost could be over $165 to $330 million/month for all 33 platforms

There are also impacts to people who supply the rigs:

• Supply boats – 2 boats per rig with day rates of $15,000/day per boat – $30,000/day
• Impacts to other supplies and related support services (i.e., welders, divers, caterers, transportation, etc.)

This is the problem with the Administration’s overly restrictive moratorium. Rigs are portable and they will go where the work is. When a rig leaves the Gulf, not only the jobs on the rig are endangered, but also the jobs of those who supply the rig. As noted above, each job in oil and gas exploration and production supplies 4 other positions.

The Administration’s policies are forcing rig owners to move their rigs out of the country. This means fewer jobs for Americans, less domestic energy production, and greater oil imports.

“This moratorium is nothing but a kick in the face to the hardworking men and women who have lost—and will continue to lose—their jobs as a result of this Administration’s politically motivated actions. A federal court and an appeals court ruled the first moratorium was illegal, in large part because the Administration overrode the advice of engineers and experts with a political decision. In addition to politicizing science, the Obama Administration is putting the wishes of anti-energy special interest groups ahead of the American people. Americans will now undoubtedly face higher prices at the pump, more job losses and even more uncertainty each day energy exploration is banned in the Gulf of Mexico.

“In addition, this new moratorium will force Americans to purchase more oil from unfriendly nations—compounding an economic disaster with potential national security concerns—despite the fact that America has a plentiful supply of job-creating, energy stimulating energy resources right here at home. Unfortunately, these resources are now off limits as a result of this politically driven ban on domestic energy exploration. ”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
July 12, 2010
CONTACT:
Laura Henderson, 202.621.2951

The White House has launched a coordinated PR campaign to argue that it is not anti-business. That is a difficult argument to make when we look at the Administration’s record on energy. Time after time the Administration has acted to make it more difficult to produce energy domestically and they are actively seeking to make energy more expensive. This only makes an economic recovery more difficult.

The Administration’s Assault on Domestic Energy Production and the Use of Energy [Partial List]

The Administration has been working around the clock to achieve President Obama’s goal of bankrupting coal companies and making electricity prices necessarily skyrocket.

Within days of taking office, the Administration cancelled 77 oil and gas leases in Utah, postponed a new 5-year plan for offshore resources, and cancelled commercial oil shale research leases. But that was just the beginning.

In the wake of the Gulf oil spill, the Administration is trying to put cap-and-trade legislation back on the agenda, calling multiple White House meetings to try to find consensus on increasing the cost of energy. And the Administration has announced a variety of other regulations that will increase the price of energy.

The most impactful new regulation is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation on greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has already announced regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. According to EPA itself, this will increase the price of automobiles by $1000 a car and reduce global temperature (the whole point of the rule) by only a maximum of 0.015 °C  90 years from now.

But that’s only one part of the Administration’s efforts to drive up the cost of producing and using energy. EPA wants to revise the Bush-era ozone rule. If EPA ratchets down the ozone level too far, many counties – even those with no industry – will fail the standard. EPA also wants to tighten particulate matter regulations and mercury regulations nationwide and it has announced a new “transport” rule to further regulate SO2, NOx, and mercury in Eastern states. Finally, the Administration is preparing a new boiler rule to regulate hazardous air pollution from boilers and process heaters.

Administration Cancels 122 Previously-Issued Permits in Texas

Besides imposing new burdensome regulations, EPA is cancelling previously-made decisions to further ratchet up the cost of doing business for domestic energy manufacturers.  In Texas, the Administration cancelled 122 previously-issued air quality permits under a program started under the Clinton Administration. E&E News reports:

According to figures touted by [Gov.] Perry and state regulators, Texas beat national averages over the past 10 years by achieving a 22 percent reduction in ozone emissions and a 27 percent drop in nitrogen oxide emissions.

…

“We are defending our flexible air permitting program because it works,” TCEQ [Texas Commission on Environmental Quality] Chairman Bryan Shaw said earlier this month. “EPA is not able to demonstrate how our program is less protective of the environment than the bureaucratic federal approach. EPA’s philosophy of more bureaucracy by federalizing state permits will not lead to cleaner air, but will drive up energy costs and kill job creation at a time when people can least afford it.”

According to industry representatives, it will cost millions of dollars for each company to change their pollution control technologies. This could cost a lot of jobs. According to a story in the Houston Chronicle:

Corporations said the decision creates uncertainty for their companies.

“Valero has six refineries operating under flex permits, employing more than 2,700 people,” the company said in a statement, noting the EPA did not object to the program when it was created. “Now, 16 years later, EPA is reversing course, and our facilities are caught in the middle, creating significant uncertainty at a time when our economy can least afford it.”

Also, one likely reason the Administration cancelled these permits now is to force these plants to get carbon dioxide permits under EPA’s new carbon dioxide regulations.

Conclusion

We need to be vigilant about air pollution, but the Obama Administration’s carbon dioxide rules, for example, have nothing to do with air pollution. The carbon dioxide regulations are supposed to address global warming, but even EPA admits (as seen above), they will have miniscule impacts on global temperature.

The President says he wants to be pro-jobs, pro-consumer, and pro-market.  If that is indeed the case, then he needs to consider holding off on his regulatory assault on the American economy. One of the reasons that unemployment rates are high and people have been unemployed for so long is because of uncertainty about future regulations and the cost of those regulations.

The American economy is hurting and this regulatory assault needs to be reconsidered for the economy to have any hope of recovering and – more importantly – for enabling the private sector to create real jobs.

“This moratorium, wisely overturned, was never about safety – it was about politics, and politics at its worst. And while the Obama Administration has chosen, once again, to be directed by anti-energy special interests and appeal this decision, today’s ruling is at least a step in the right direction.

“The Administration’s decision to appeal this order means that today’s ruling will amount to little more than a morale boost to the hardworking men and women along the Gulf Coast who received pink slips as a result of this politically motivated drilling moratorium.”

Following are selected excerpts of Judge Feldman’s opinion:

If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy handed, and rather overbearing. (pg. 19)

Nonetheless, the Secretary’s determination that a six-month moratorium on issuance of new permits and on drilling by the thirty-three rigs is necessary does not seem to be fact-specific and refuses to take into measure the safety records of those others in the Gulf. There is no evidence presented indicating that the Secretary balanced the concern for environmental safety with the policy of making leases available for development. There is no suggestion that the Secretary considered any alternatives… (pgs. 19-20)

An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country. (pg. 22)

More on the deepwater drilling ban:

• Gulf Oil Spill Moratorium Decision: Hornbeck v. Salazar CA 10-1663
• Deepwater-Gate: Administration Modifies “Peer-Reviewed” Report After it was Reviewed by Scientists
• IER Press Release: Mr. President, Focus on Capping, Containing and Cleaning Up the Oil – Not Politics

#####

Washington, DC – In the days following the Gulf oil spill, President Obama requested that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a 30-day review of the offshore drilling program in the United States and issue a report with recommendations. This report was to be “peer reviewed” by a team of seven engineers recommended by the National Academy of Engineering.

The team of engineers reviewed, approved and signed off on a version of the 30-day review that was presented to them by the Administration. However, after they signed their names to this document, a significant change was made – a change that led to the 6-month suspension of deepwater exploratory drilling. Click HERE and HERE to view the section of the report that was changed after the scientists signed off on the report.

William LaJuenesse, a reporter with the Fox News Channel filed this report earlier today on this very topic:

Click HERE to watch this report
June 11, 2010
3 minutes 5 seconds

What They’re Saying About Deepwater-Gate:

“The eight panel members said they disagree with the moratorium on all exploratory drilling.” In justifying its broad moratorium on deepwater drilling, the Obama administration emphasized that the measure was recommended by an Interior Department report prepared in consultation with scientists and industry experts.The May 27 report to President Barack Obama said the experts “peer reviewed” its recommendations, including the six-month moratorium and 22 safety measures. But eight of the 15 members of the review panel are charging that the administration misrepresented their position by suggesting they supported a blanket moratorium that they actually oppose. Their criticism, and the administration’s response, are evidence that the six-month stoppage is based on politics rather than on science. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6.11.10)

“The seven experts explained that the report draft they had reviewed did not include a six-month drilling moratorium. That was added only after they signed off.” The Obama Administration is under political pressure to reverse its ill-considered deep water drilling moratorium, and the latest blowback comes from seven angry experts from the National Academy of Engineering who say their views were distorted to justify the ban. In the wake of the oil spill, President Obama asked Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to produce a report on new drilling safety recommendations. Then on May 27 Mr. Obama announced a six-month deep water drilling ban, justifying it on the basis of Mr. Salazar’s report, a top recommendation of which was the moratorium. To lend an air of technical authority, the report noted: “The recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” That would be false, sir. (Wall Street Journal, 6.10.10)

“A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the nation’s economy…” Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose. Salazar’s May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts “peer reviewed” his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had reviewed only an earlier version of the secretary’s report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling, and then only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6.9.10)

“[T]he experts say they never agreed to the administration’s six-month moratorium on exploratory drilling on the outer continental shelf…” A group of technical experts who advised the Obama administration on how to bolster the safety of offshore drilling operations say they oppose the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling. Halting the work risks “harming thousand of workers” who “were and are active responsibly and are providing a product the nation demands,” they said. The eight experts – all longtime petroleum engineers, some affiliated with major universities – are listed in a report published by the Interior Department last month as having “peer reviewed” Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s recommendations on improving the safety of drilling on the outer continental shelf in the wake of the April 20 oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. The experts said the language about the moratorium did not appear in the draft they had reviewed. (Wall Street Journal, 6.9.10)

Eight of 15 experts named in a May 27 Interior Department report on drilling safety sent a letter to Landrieu, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal insisting they did not endorse the document’s recommendation for a ban on drilling. The scientists said that recommendation was added after they reviewed the report. The experts, including Robert Bea of the University of California at Berkeley and Martin Chenevert with the University of Texas, said Salazar was using their names to justify political decisions. “We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts,” the group said. “However, we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling.” (Houston Chronicle, 6.9.10)

“…Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose.” Salazar’s May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts “peer reviewed” his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had only reviewed an earlier version of the Interior secretary’s report… “We broadly agree with the detailed recommendations in the report and compliment the Department of Interior for its efforts,” a joint letter from the panelists to various politicians says. “However, we do not agree with the six-month blanket moratorium on floating drilling. A moratorium was added after the final review and was never agreed to by the contributors.” An Interior Department spokeswoman agreed that the experts had not given their blessing for a moratorium, and said the department did not mean to leave the impression they had. (New Orleans Times-Picayune, 6.8.10)

#####

IER President: “Canceling lease sales is purely a public relations move designed to show that the White House is doing ‘something’ to address the tragic accident in the Gulf. But the truth is, if these lease sales move forward, exploration in those areas would not take place for years.”

Washington, DC – President Barack Obama announced today that his Administration will delay, ban or cancel existing offshore lease sales in Virginia and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as scheduled exploration set to move forward in Alaska and the deepwater Gulf. Unfortunately, this politically calculated announcement will do absolutely nothing to help stem the current flow of oil or clean up the Gulf Coast’s environment.

While the President’s initial response to the accident — freezing the issuance of new permits — was appropriate, the outright suspension of current and planned exploratory drilling will add to the economic damage this tragic accident has already caused.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued this statement:

“Canceling lease sales is purely a public relations move designed to show that the White House is doing ‘something’ to address the tragic accident in the Gulf. But the truth is, if these lease sales move forward, exploration in those areas would not take place for years.”

“There’s an inherent disconnect here, especially as it relates to Alaska’s offshore energy reserves, where exploratory drilling was scheduled to begin this summer. Not only is President Obama failing to acknowledge or recognize the fact that the production environment in the Arctic is completely different than the deepwater Gulf, but his Administration is discounting the years of environmental assessment that have taken place to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place.

“Nothing in life, including offshore energy exploration, is without risk. However, the only thing the President’s misguided actions guarantee is a deeper and more dangerous reliance on foreign oil, from unfriendly nations and increased tanker traffic into our ports. Rather than focusing on a short-term bump in the public opinion polls, this Administration should be working to unlock more job-creating American energy.”

Quick Facts on offshore energy production:

• Since 1985, more than 7 billion barrels of oil have been produced in federally owned outer continental shelf (OCS) – with 0.001 percent of it spilled into the water. (MMS)

• According to MMS, the approximately 43 million leased along the OCS, account for about 15 percent of America’s domestic natural gas production and about 27 percent of domestic oil production. (MMS)

• This equates to roughly 600 million barrels of oil and 4.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, on average, annually. (MMS)

• To put this into perspective, the United States imported roughly 550,000 million barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia in 2008. (EIA)

• According to the National Academy of Sciences, offshore facilities and pipelines are responsible for only 2 percent of the oil in U.S. waters and 4 percent worldwide. The vast majority of oil in U.S. waters (63 percent) comes from natural seepage, with 22 percent coming from municipal and industrial runoff. (NAS / MMS)

#####

The tragic Deepwater Horizon accident and the ensuing oil spill that has become the new rallying cry for opponents of increased domestic energy production, will undoubtedly change the debate in Washington. But should it?

From what we can tell, this was an accident. While the finger pointing began before the families of the missing could mourn, here in Washington, some can’t resist but to turn one man’s tragedy into another’s political gain. The best and brightest minds in the world are working to contain the spill and clean-up the areas affected. We know this. The White House has said so, industry has said so, and most Americans would agree that everything is being done to get this under control and cleaned up. When that is accomplished, we’ll learn from it, and move on. That’s what America does. We address adversity head on, then move on.

Those responsible for this accident will foot the bill for the cleanup. And they should. Leaving not one penny to the taxpayer to pick up. Again, you would be hard pressed to find someone to dispute this or somehow argue that the government should expend taxpayer resources without full reimbursements.

What we also know is that politicians on Capitol Hill and political pundits who make of living off of talking about what they don’t know much about, are the least qualified to investigate and assign blame in this matter. As clearly stipulated by law, the United States Coast Guard and their able team of apolitical public servants will find out what occurred and issue a report. Let’s let them do their job.

Political witch hunting is a sport some in Washington have mastered. Unfortunately, when you add a tragic accident such as this on top of a hyper-partisan tone, politicos of all stripes don’t want to miss an opportunity to get on camera or mentioned in the newspaper. It’s a sad fact that plays out whenever something of this magnitude occurs.

Now let’s face a few other facts that some seem not willing, or wanting to address. Oil powers the global economy, and will continue to do so for decades to come. This in no way is a bad thing, as oil is a spectacular resource that we are blessed with. It enables us to live the lifestyle we live. It is the foundation for medical advancement and manufacturing. It allows us to move where we want, when we want. No other fuel can provide us with the versatility that oil does. And to use this accident as a medium to call for a new moratorium on domestic energy production will do more economic harm to our country than this spill could ever cause.

Let’s put the politics aside until this spill is contained and cleaned up. Let’s focus on the families and communities of those affected. And let’s let the experts investigate.

If there is one moratoria that should be adopted as this incident continues to play out, it’s on the sport of political witch hunting.

This Op-Ed was originally published on May 5, 2010 on National Journal.