As one of the largest accidental oil spills was occurring following the explosion of a BP drilling rig in April 2010, the Obama administration promptly issued a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Although environmental activists who feel that it should be extended generally laud the moratorium, the directive has oil executives and Gulf Coast officials concerned for the economic repercussions of drilling cessation. At this time, the necessity of offshore drilling validates the removal of the moratorium, given that obligatory precautions are taken for environmental purposes. Even though the moratorium was the correct response to the oil spill for the time instituted, we eagerly await its imminent removal.

The order immobilized 33 exploratory drilling projects and suspended new permits in an attempt to further investigate the cause of the explosion. Nearly six months later, it is time to allow those jobs to resume. Importantly, the drilling will not recommence without added precautions; recently, the Interior Department released new rules regarding offshore drilling, regulating processes of cementing, blowout preventers, safety certification, emergency response, and worker training. These rules should provide offshore drillers with unambiguous guidelines and terms under which drilling may resume when the current moratorium is lifted. The Gulf oil spill—which killed 11 people aboard the oil rig Deepwater Horizon and leaked approximately 60,000 barrels of oil per day into the Gulf waters until the oil rig was capped—was partly a result of incompetence and partly due to culpable dealings between the industry and regulators. As such, more stringent regulations are an appropriate response to negligence and improper monitoring of oil rigs before the spill and will hopefully keep such issues at bay in the future.

Still, the regulations should not have a sizable impact on the industry in terms of dissuading companies from continuing to drill. Oil companies can likely charge forth without significant adverse effects from regulations while also implementing safer practices for offshore drilling that will ideally minimize spills—although the new regulations will make drilling safer, they will not revolutionize the entire process. Moreover, because the technical features of off-shore drilling—including being remotely located from infrastructure and the sheer quantity and cost of required accommodations and equipment—make the costs of drilling on offshore rigs itself higher than land-drilling costs, the significant expenses of offshore drilling are inherent in the act of drilling itself. Therefore, it is not expected that the regulations will not make it cost-prohibitive.

Although we believe that drilling is acceptable for the current stage we are at in terms of oil usage, we do hope that there is an eventual move toward the utilization of nuclear energy. Developing alternative forms of energy could eliminate the controversial and possibly catastrophic political and environmental ends that accompany offshore drilling and America’s continued dependence on oil. Therefore, though we advocate for the lifting of the moratorium and find offshore drilling with strongly enforced regulations a viable option at the present time, it is worthwhile to consider the possibilities of alternative forms of energy for the future.