It is completely legitimate to ask if the incentive would be there for oil companies to shift more production to the US. Either way, I prefer the option be there. The "no it is not even an option", I can't stand.
My argument was never about prices, it was about national security and the ability to supply energy from our own natural resources if the need arises. The uproar in the economy over the past 2 weeks is a good example of how quickly things can change. That being said, why would we handicap our ability to secure our own resources?
We would only handicap it if we felt that there would be significant environmental harm if we drill in these areas. And, I don't really think that there will be "significant" environmental impact to off-shore drilling (save some extremely low-probability event).
By opening the door to offshore drilling, you open up the possibility of one of these low-probability events. And, it is probably wise to weigh these risks against the risks of not having our own domestic capable of being tapped. However, an important aspect of weighing those options is...is the incentive there for the necessary capital investment to allow ourselves an out if we are cut from foreign supply.
If there is no incentive (from a price standpoint, since that is the language the oil companies will be speaking of course) at the moment to place enough equipment out there to meet our national demand...then opening it up doesn't really "secure" us that much. Let's say that we can produce 10% of what we need off-shore. Let's say that is 5 off-shore fields (I have no idea...so those of you who know...don't kill me). Now, if that is all the investment that makes sense to the companies...then we would still have to come up with 90% of our demand in the event that we are shut-down. And...it would obviously take years and years to build enough rigs to come up with that amount. In effect, opening it up now..or just in the event of a national emergency would be little different in these cases when it comes to the number of years required to become "energy independent."
I only bring this up because these numbers are important to the honest evaluation of why or why not open it up and drill. Sure, "energy independence" sounds good - but is it really a legitimate explanation of why we would open it? If the numbers don't support the investment to the level of "energy independence," then are we being honest when we use it as a reason to do it? Is 10% of our supply enough for independence...or 50%?
Without the numbers to support it, my position is that while there is some risk to opening fields off-shore - the risk is too small to place this (potentially) large externality of no-offshore-drilling-allowed on the oil markets. I don't think that it is going to give us energy independence and I don't think that it is going to lower the price of oil that much, but it might make more sense for some companies to invest in these resources over other resources elsewhere...and providing that freedom shouldn't hurt the market. And...it keeps these jobs a little closer to home which generally isn't a bad thing.
The only other point that I wonder about in the back of my head is...the governments that be in some areas of the middle east (such as Saudi Arabia) have a huge vested interest in keeping positive relationships with the west and keeping their oil flowing to us. As such, they are a friendly government. If we shift that balance, I do wonder how that shifts politics in the region....
