Nearly half of Gulf coast oil was exported in 2008

So much for that "drilling offshore promotes energy independence" myth...

"Even after the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, many politicians continue to insist that the United States must expand offshore oil drilling despite the huge health, economic, and environmental damages in the event of a blowout. They assert that this oil is essential for U.S. economic health and national security. For instance, two weeks after the BP disaster began, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reiterated that the United States needs “more environmentally responsible development of America’s energy resources.” These are code words for more offshore oil drilling.

<>

The Gulf Coast region produces an annual average of 2.7 million barrels of oil per day (2008) to 3.2 million barrels day (2003). Slightly less than half of this oil—43 percent (2008) to 49 percent (2003)—is produced offshore.

During this time, the proportion of oil exports to other nations from this region has nearly doubled, from 22 percent in 2003 to 43 percent in 2008. Major importers of U.S. oil include Mexico, Canada, and the Netherlands."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/gulf_oil_exports.html

We are, for instance, net importers from Canada and Mexico.

is a joke, and the meager output (relatively speaking) from increased offshore drilling will lower domestic prices about one percent.

It has to do with whether or not we HAVE to buy internationally.

Independence is also a relative thing. Net imports of 75% of your total demand is obviously more dangerous than 50%.

You're confusing two different concepts, energy independence and energy security:

"Put another way, the "debate" over energy independence is not only disingenuous, it's also a major distraction from the much more crucial question—namely, how we're going to build a secure and sustainable energy system. Because what America should be striving for isn't energy independence, but energy security—that is, access to energy sources that are reliable and reasonably affordable, that can be deployed quickly and easily, yet are also safe and politically and environmentally sustainable. And let's not sugarcoat it. Achieving real, lasting energy security is going to be extraordinarily hard, not only because of the scale of the endeavor, but because many of our assumptions about energy—about the speed with which new technologies can be rolled out, for example, or the role of markets—are woefully exaggerated. High oil prices alone won't cure this ill: We're burning more oil now than we were when crude sold for $25 a barrel."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/seven-myths-energy-independence

There's virtually zero likelihood that we'll ever be completely self-reliant for oil, with neighbors like Canada and Mexico, and there's no way offshore drilling can reduce our net imports by 25% without draconian tariffs on imports (that won't happen).

We can double offshore drilling and everything will be exactly as it was before, except a lot more risk to the environment and a few pennies at the pump.

You're responding to just the first statement.

If you CAN produce all of the energy your nation needs, then you have energy independence.

Because of domestic demand, we will never be oil independent because we don't want to be - and the world does not want us to be. The only time such a consideration would even make sense is if we were an island nation and another superpower had blockaded our ports.

"All of the energy your nation needs" is completely dependent on price, otherwise we're energy independent right now - shut off imports, watch gas go to $10.00/gal and the economy tank - but we'd still have "enough" gas.

If we truly want energy independence we need wean ourselves from oil completely.

The entire conversation is hypothetical. We aren't going to GET to independence (or security) by drilling even the entire gulf.

I merely corrected your misperception that just because some of the oil is exported means that it doesn't get things closer to independence. "We'll never get there" doesn't mean that one option isn't closer than the other.

unless you consider a few cents off every gallon as being more "independent".

You can't be closer to something that's a myth to begin with.

just correcting your statement.

It's ridiculous to claim that we wouldn't be any closer. Simple math proves otherwise.

The question (as always) is whether that "closer" is worth the risk compared to other alternatives.

I think that most here would say "no".

You can't be closer to something that's a myth to begin with.

A convenient way to define the terms of the debate so that you cannot be wrong. Unfortunately, that isn't reality. Of course independence is a possibel reality... LOADS of nations have it. Being a really REALLY long way away from something doesn't mean that you never get closer.

The guys on Biggest Loser at 500+ pounds may never run a marathon, but neither means that marathon runners are a myth, nor that jogging 100 yds isn't closer than the 50 yds he made it a week ago.

It's also incorrect to pretend that we're talking about "a few cents". How much oil is produced there and how much did oil prices jump the last time OPEC cut production by that amount?

Doesn't this oil get sold on the open market to the highest bidder?

The bankers and commodity traders ALWAYS win in this game...

Proponents of offshore drilling like to make it seem as though this "abundance" of extra oil will be a windfall for American consumers.

Not a chance.

isn't most if not all the oil on the north slope going elsewhere also?

Oh, bother.