The Drilling Moratorium

The Anti-Moratorium Perspective

Many have already lost their livelihoods as a result of the oil spill in the Gulf. Louisiana's commercial fishing industry has been severely marred, and will likely remain that way in the coming decade.

Imposing a moratorium, which will harm the local economy even more, is the absolute last thing Louisianans need to bear.

Preventing another oil spill does not require shutting down a large portion of our economy. Examination of British Petroleum, the company responsible for the spill, reveals a long history of contempt for safety regulations. They have a dismal record, which includes violating the Clean Air Act as well as the precedents set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Their current negligence - opting to not install a deep-water valve, which would have prevented this disaster - only further displays their tendency to flout industry standards. BP's unsavory history sets them apart from their peers, meaning a moratorium in reaction to their mistake is an overreaction.

The regulations are not the problem, and do not need to be revamped from the ground up. However, the way regulations are enforced in regards to companies like BP should be addressed. Retribution needs to be more specific, rather than manifesting in blanket fines or moratoriums, which dilute the damage from the individuals responsible.

Though some may concede the point that a moratorium is a disproportionate response, they may excuse its use due to the belief that moratoriums can serve as excellent tools for weaning the United States off her dependence on oil. Though the idea of being free from oil is appealing, imposing a moratorium to accomplish this is a heavy-handed solution and smacks more of opportunism than strategic planning. Some may not want to let a good crisis go to waste, but using an accident as a springboard for change is unwise. Such a vast undertaking as moving to new energy sources requires extensive premeditation and careful planning, and should never be accomplished in the wake of a tragedy and at the expense of the people.

Regardless, the technological advances we need to transition to another energy source simply do not exist yet. Quitting an energy source cold turkey only works when there is another we can transition to immediately.

In the meantime, however, careful thought must be given to the methods we plan to use to make said transition. Using disasters should never be regarded as a viable method, considering the reactionary nature of the policies penned in their wake.

Linnie Leavines

---

The Pro-Moratorium Perspective

In light of the BP oil spill, a dilemma: how can the federal government shut down what makes up an entire local economy?

That's exactly the standoff between Gulf Coast residents and the Obama Administration as a result of the deepwater drilling moratorium. Beginning in earnest, the drilling ban was meant to force the oil industry to comply with safer, more efficient standards of drilling, especially drilling a mile under the surface. But like many times before, when a massive company's lax safety/efficiency standards create a disaster, it is often those earning the lowest of wages in the company bearing the brunt of the burden.

A useful allegory in this situation has to do with the current economic crisis. When Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns both failed after risky decisions from the top, thousands of jobs were lost from the ground up. Those working at the lowest levels of massive companies lost their jobs by no fault of their own.

Today, the Obama administration's ban on offshore drilling threatens thousands of jobs, but for the only allowable reason: one more broken well and we won't have a Gulf Coast anymore.

This problem stretches across the whole of the Gulf Coast, and simply put, our inattention to our oil problems (we import over eight times what we have, and we'll be cleaning up this spill for the next decade) has left the Gulf Coast as the odd region out when America finally ends its oil addiction and converts to renewable energy. Charlotte Randolph, president of Lafourche Parish and a strong opponent of the drilling ban, told Obama's presidential oil spill commission that nine of the top 10 taxpayers in her parish work for the oil and gas industry. It would be impossible to convert to renewable fuel and lessen our oil addiction without wiping out the major source of income for the entire parish of Lafourche.

Like it or not, this is where we are. How we're "used to doing it" isn't enough anymore. Because of decades of lax regulation and outright corruption between the federal government and the heads of oil companies, the Gulf Coast is covered in oil, thousands of oil industry jobs (many held by honest, hard-working Americans) are in limbo, and the government and BP both struggle to contain both the spill itself and the justifiable outrage of an entire region.

With all of that said, the moratorium is still the best course. Despite the damage to the economy, the cost of another spill is unimaginably worse.

Eric Freeman, Jr.