Navy Opposes VA Offshore Drilling. Period. End of Debate.

By: Eileen Levandoski
Published On: 7/30/2008 2:16:13 PM

Little Virginia plucked out of the whole AtlanticIn an letter prepared by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy who responded as the Defense Department's Executive Agent for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) matters, Donald R. Schregardus writes, "We have considerable concern, however, with the proposed lease sale areas within the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off the coast of Virginia."  (Click here to read full Navy letter and view map at MMS.)

"The draft program option of greatest concern to the Department of Defense involves the special interest sale proposed for the Mid-Atlantic off the coast of Virginia.  The proposed area lies within the Virginia Capes (VACAPES) Operations Areas where the Navy's training and test and evaluation community conducts significant activity."

"The VACAPES undersea, surface, and air space areas are critical to the development, fielding and certification of naval weapon systems; as a consequence, the Navy requires unencumbered access to the full expanse of this operations area."

"Because hazards in this area to operating crews and oil company equipment and structures would be so great, the Department opposes oil and gas development activity in this OCS planning location."


Navy Activity in Virginia's OCS area
This letter was dated April 6, 2006 as comments on the Department of the Interior's Draft Proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. Recently, Captain Joseph F. Bouchard, U.S. Navy Retired, a former Commanding Officer of Naval Station Norfolk and a current Delegate in Virginia's House of Delegates, called the office in the Secretary of the Navy's staff that prepared this letter and verified that this remains the official Navy position on offshore drilling. He also stood on the floor of the House of Delegates and delivered these remarks which reinforce the Navy's adamant and continued opposition.  

Yet here stands little Virginia, all alone on the Atlantic Coast, pegged on the Department of Interior's Mineral Management Services' "Proposed Final Program 2007-2012" map, and completely poised along with Western and Central Gulf of Mexico for lease sales the moment Congress lifts the moratorium on offshore drilling.

Notice however an area of Florida's western coast (Eastern Gulf of Mexico) where they respect the Navy's opposition to offshore drilling. Map source

Florida respects the Navy's opposition to offshore drilling

The Department of Defense fought hard to have the Eastern Gulf exempted from offshore drilling due to the Navy and Air Force training ranges there, and Florida joined forces with them in that fight.  See the contrast to Virginia?  What exactly are Rep. Thelma Drake and Sen. Frank Wagner trying to tell our military?  The unmitigated disaster for military training presented by offshore drilling says what about their regard for our national security?  

The Navy's objection is one of twelve reasons why offshore drilling is wrong for Virginia. Read the other 11 reasons here.  

Comments



The letter does conclude with this paragraph (floodguy - 7/30/2008 2:50:52 PM)
"We support the promotion and production of offshore oil and gas exploration that is critical to our country's energy and national security, and look forward to working with you and your staff in the period ahead to ensure success in this area."


Yet here's Government's 2007 response (Eileen Levandoski - 7/30/2008 3:02:05 PM)
to that "working with you" suggestion.  Gosh, the drilling area gets bigger!

null



Politics Certainly Makes Strange Bedfellows (HisRoc - 7/31/2008 2:15:13 PM)
I find it interesting that the Sierra Club supports the Navy in their opposition to off shore exploration in the Virginia Capes, but on almost the very same day opposes the Navy's use of the exact same area for SONAR testing.

http://virginia.sierraclubacti...

How about this headline?  It makes just as much sense.  
Navy Supports SONAR Testing, Despite Danger to Marine Life.  Period.  End of Debate.



so (spotter - 7/31/2008 5:05:20 PM)
when can we expect Hoeft to salute smartly and take his orders from civilian leadership?  Unless, of course, he outranks an Assistant Secretary of the Navy.


Love ya', spotter (elevandoski - 7/31/2008 5:51:54 PM)
nt


It's a campaign issue now (Teddy - 8/1/2008 12:13:35 PM)
because Republicans have determined that yowling that offshore drilling will bring down gas prices and add to national security. They have obviously received their marching orders from the petroleum industry and our petro-president. Constant repetition of this meme ignores the facts: it will not reach our gas tanks for at least ten years, probably more, so it's not a quick fix; it interferes with naval training (just as it would off Florida); there isn't that much oil there; it will adversely impact the lucrative tourist industry, and so on---- do not expect the corporate media to bring up any of these facts when talking about the Republican campaign claims.

Hollering about drilling offshore and in ANWAR is being used to portray Obama and the timid Democrats as against national security, out of touch and anti-working class guys who drive to work, etc.  More fear and panic to elect Republicans and serve their oily master. Therefore, logic does not enter into the debate.



Yes, but now we have 5 weeks to regroup! (Eileen Levandoski - 8/1/2008 6:40:14 PM)
Nancy Pelosi today gaveled the session closed for its August recess.  All that polling that indicated support for offshore drilling will be now be seen as simply a knee-jerk reaction to the blow these gas prices are delivering to our families' budgets.  This is completely understandable, BTW.  

But follow-up polling however indicates that support for drilling plummets when surveys note that drilling would not produce new, usable gas for years and would not immediately affect gas prices.

We've got to get out there and educate voters ASAP!



Then again there may be no need to (floodguy - 8/2/2008 12:51:10 AM)
In tonights headlines:  

"Obama shifts, says he may back offshore drilling"

"My interest is in making sure we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices," Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.    "If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done."

"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact."

Like energy efficiency and conservative, every little bit helps.  And if expanding domestic oil production helps to increase the excess capacity available in the market, when threats which would derail stability in energy markets really do exist, then why not give the next president of the United States, all the resources available at his disposal for future determination?

Lifting the ban to explore in the OSC, merely allows industry and the DOE to obtain a full inventory.  The process which would allow any drilling would still require the normal permit procedures.  Any drilling which may come from this would certainly help to smooth the rocky transition period the economy, society, and the energy industry will endure, as it undergoes a revolution transforming our energy consumption from dirty to clean.  While (total) energy independence is a pipedream and drilling in the OSC will not provide us with that, it will definitely aid efforts to maintain our nation's energy resilience.

This is a relief to me, and in my opinion, good news for the Obama candidacy, and not so good news for McCain.  This should tell voters and environmentalists, Obama is capable of understanding the wide discussion which is energy, despite what hard-line environmental interests believe, and without big oil money awash in his campaign.  Let's hope this statement is for real and not a temporary statement pandering to voters, as the latest poll now shows even support b/n the two presidential candidates.