Ocean Industries’ Luthi discusses House action to overturn drilling plan

A video transcript by Environment & Energy TV. Reprinted with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. Not for republication by Wyoming media.

Will House Republicans succeed at overturning the Obama administration’s five-year offshore drilling plan? During today’s OnPoint, Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association, discusses the latest efforts by the House Natural Resources Committee to move legislation that would replace President Obama’s plan with one that would expand drilling on the coasts of Maine, California, Oregon and Washington, and in Alaska’s Bristol Bay.

Transcript

Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. I’m Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today is Randall Luthi, president of the National Ocean Industries Association. Randall, thanks for coming back on the show.

Randall Luthi: Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity.

Monica Trauzzi: Randall, the House Natural Resources Committee approved a bill last week that would overturn the Obama administration’s offshore leasing plan. And the bill seeks to expand drilling on the coasts of Maine, California, Oregon, Washington and also in Alaska’s Bristol Bay. Do these areas support the expansion of drilling in their regions?

Randall Luthi: Part of the question that we have is we just don’t know. Any new technology that’s been available for the last 10 or 20 years has not been used in these areas to try and determine what’s there. So far, what we’ve done as a federal government is we’ve limited our ability to look for new oil and gas only in the Gulf of Mexico. And the Gulf of Mexico has been fantastic. You know, it supplies about a third of our oil now. But we really don’t know what else is out there, so we really need the opportunity to look. Industry needs the opportunity to look. And it’s the idea of having the potential of sales there that would allow this to happen.

Monica Trauzzi: The administration says that their leasing plan would allow access to 75 percent of the nation’s known oil and gas resources. Isn’t that significant and isn’t it also a sensible approach when you are considering both the expansion of energy, but also environmental policy?

Randall Luthi: Well, it’s somewhat of a limited approach and I think of it somewhat as the Old Mother Hubbard approach to energy and that is we’ve gone to the same cupboard so many times that we’ve only looked in the Gulf of Mexico. And the reality is, when you only look in one area you say, oh, that is where most the known resources are found. But, again, we haven’t looked off the coast of South Carolina. We understand there is significant deposits off the coast of Virginia. Other areas, we just don’t know. We need that ability to look. So it’s somewhat of, I would say, a shortsighted argument. And the other thing it does is it limits our ability for energy security to the Gulf of Mexico. As we’ve seen over the past few years and before, hurricanes are not necessarily an uncommon event and we certainly don’t want any, but when they come through the Gulf of Mexico, that is where the bulk of our offshore development is. I think it would be a better approach to spread that out throughout most of the Outer Continental Shelf.

Monica Trauzzi: And, in fact, the Congressional Research Service recently released a report that shows the Obama leasing proposal includes the smallest number of sales since the planning process began in 1980. How do you think that report might influence the discussion?

Randall Luthi: Well, I hope it does, because it does bring up an interesting point. There’s fewer sales being offered by this administration than have been since the program began. Now, they offer 15, and as you look back over the history of the five-year program, even though sales were offered, they didn’t always occur. So even if you look at 15, they could be even fewer sales than that. So I’m hoping that this year our study actually gets members of Congress to read it and think about voting for the Hastings bill.

Monica Trauzzi: So, it’s most probable that this bill will die once it reaches the Senate, if it does reach the Senate. Why then this major effort by House Republicans?

Randall Luthi: Well, I think it’s very important, some of its messaging, to show the United States is serious about offshore development and it also sets the stage. You never know what’s going to happen in politics in four weeks, six weeks, a year and it sets a good firm foundation should they want to move forward in the future.

Monica Trauzzi: In the Senate though, Senators Vitter and Coats have released a bill that would take energy issues out of the hands of the Interior Department and they cite a lapse in offshore production under the Obama administration. Do efforts like this, are they effective or do they simply serve as sort of a distraction or adding more noise to the discussion?

Randall Luthi: I think what they help do is call attention to the problem and I think that’s one way to do it, is you say look at Interior. They’re now offering fewer sales than they ever have in their past. You know, is there something, another approach we should try? So I think it actually adds somewhat not necessarily to the noise, but it does shine a little more light on what we think is a very important issue.

Monica Trauzzi: At your organization you represent a wide range of industries, including renewable energy industries. Is there a conflict of interest when you’re so strongly supporting carbon-intensive production of energy?

Randall Luthi: Certainly I don’t think so. Our administration and our organization has always supported all forms of energy, all the above. And so we want renewables to move as well as offshore. The reality is, is renewables are coming more and more offshore, but it is slower. It’s taking more time, but we’re very supportive of all forms of energy.

Monica Trauzzi: OK, we’ll end it there. Thank you for coming on the show, nice to see you.

Randall Luthi: Thank you.

Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We’ll see you back here tomorrow.

Dustin Bleizeffer covers energy and climate at WyoFile. He has worked as a coal miner, an oilfield mechanic, and for more than 25 years as a statewide reporter and editor primarily covering the energy...

Leave a comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *