Louis Dapilma
Journal Contributor

The Obama administration announced last week that it would lift its moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after intense pressure from elected officials in the region and business leaders who have complained about the impact on local business. The moratorium, which was supposed to last until Nov. 30, was originally struck down by a judge, then later reimposed put into effect until this week. In a telephone conference this week, Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, announced the resumption of deep water drilling. Although environmental groups have asked for a continuation of the freeze and even a further look at shallow water drilling, the administration lifted the moratorium.

Looking at the events of the Gulf oil spill and the after effects of the catastrophe, it may be easier to say that drilling should be halted indefinitely until the effects have been looked at and decisions made. However, if this were to occur, there would be a downside: the US would be importing more foreign oil, leading to an increase on the already high dependence on foreign oil (which has been cited as something the administration would like to reduce). Also, the region’s oil employees would still be without a job.

The oil spill was a massive disaster on many levels and showed the flaws of the industry to deal with a potential disaster when it finally arrived. It lead to an argument of who should clean up the Gulf – whether BP (British Petroleum) or the Federal Government should deal with the disaster. Initially BP was left to clean up the mess, a decision comparable to allowing a criminal to deal with the evidence of a crime scene. After a public outcry, the government stepped in and soon worked with BP to deal with the spill.

With the gushing well “capped” recently, however, BP has minimized its profile and has made image changes including a series of commercials featuring BP workers helping with the relief effort and claiming that BP is “doing all it can to help the people of the Gulf.” The workers also claimed to be from the region and knew “what it takes to help the people of the Gulf.” Such assurances are hard to trust in such situations, as history has shown that corporations and companies will often do or say anything publicly for the sake of profit.

Economically, the impact on the Gulf region is not limited to the oil business, but  also to the other businesses that used to coexist with the oil industry of the region. Tourism has suffered and so has the local fishing industry and wildlife.

To those arguing that deep oil drilling should resume in order to boost tourism and local business, I ask this question: Did we not see the consequences of taking such a risk?

The region is dependent on oil, but oil is not the only industry and other industries should have been considered when this decision was made. Tourism, which brought a steady profit, was doing well, as was fishing with the ever-increasing demand for shrimp and other seafood that may now be black balled (no pun intended) due to where they are from.

Environmentally, this disaster was proof for things such as a need for change in national energy policy and a reduction on oil as our largest source for fuel. It also exposed the risks of deep water drilling and showed that the oil industry, when left to its  own devices, would be like letting children run the day care as opposed to adults. Strong government regulation coupled with a deeper emphasis on shallow drilling would be a middle ground on the matter and hopefully lead to a better and safer pursuit of environmental and economic progress in the Gulf region.