However, the development of a new National Outer
Continental Shelf Program that would replace the one
approved in 2016 became a crucial part of President Trump’s
America-First Offshore Energy Strategy. That strategy was
outlined in Executive Order 13795, released on April 28, 2017.
Following a mandatory Request for Information and comment
period during the summer of 2017, the Administration issued
its draft 2019-2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Leasing Program on January 4, 2018.
The Draft Proposed Program represents a departure from
prior outer continental shelf leasing programs in several
respects. Most significantly, nearly all U.S. waters have been
proposed for offshore drilling for oil and gas. The document
itself refers to “unprecedented increases in access” and
specifically states that the proposal would make more than 98
percent of the Outer Continental Shelf available to consider
for leasing during the 2019-2022 time frame. 1 Many of the
areas being considered for leasing under the Draft Proposal
have never experienced drilling or have had no drilling for
more than 30 years, so there are unanswered questions about
the impact on marine life and ecosystems. Concerns have also
been raised about the federal government’s ability to monitor
the proposed 49 lease sales given budgetary constraints and
the relatively short (five-year) time frame. 2
For purposes of the Draft Proposed Program, the Atlantic
Region includes the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South
Atlantic and the Straits of Florida. South Carolina, Georgia
and Florida fall within the South Atlantic for purposes of
the draft proposal. Under the controlling statute, the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Secretary of the Interior
is required to consider nominations of areas to be excluded
from leasing.
The release of the Draft Proposed Program was followed
by a 60-day comment period during which 2,058,752 total
comments were submitted to the Bureau of Ocean Energy
SUMMER/FALL 2018 • VOLUME 40
Management (BOEM). BOEM also held field hearings during
this period, one of which took place in Columbia, SC. Under
the mandated process, BOEM is required to read, analyze and
respond to all comments it receives before the issuance of the
“Proposed Program.” While there is no prescribed timing, the
release of the Proposed Program is anticipated sometime in
November of 2018. 3 Following its release, the public will have
90 days to comment after which a Proposed Final Program
will go to Congress for a 60-day review before final approval.
Many local residents attended the February 13 BOEM
field meeting in Columbia and/or submitted comments to
BOEM. The meeting also drew more than 200 protestors
from around the state to the capital, including Representative
Mark Sanford and 13 state legislators, who oppose drilling. 4
According to the Coastal Conservation League, 196 East
Coast Communities have passed no-drill resolutions; 25
of these communities are in South Carolina. While the
desire to preserve South Carolina’s unspoiled beaches, sea
islands, marshes, and the marine, bird and wildlife life they
support is universal among those who wish to limit offshore
drilling, more specific concerns seem to fall into four
general categories: South Carolina’s economy, likelihood of
an oil spill, seismic testing, and the United States’ emerging
dominance in the international oil and gas market.
First, tourism and fishing, both commercial and
recreational, are the economic backbone of hundreds of
towns and cities along the South Carolina coast, representing
billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Tourism depends
on a pristine coastline to bring visitors from across the
globe and fishing depends on a vibrant ecosystem beyond
the immediate shoreline. As Governor McMaster noted
in a January 16, 2018 letter to Secretary of the Interior,
Ryan Zinke, “Massive refineries, gas storage tanks, and
other large-scale maintenance and operating facilities are
not economically compatible either with existing coastal
residential and resort development or with our protected sea
islands, estuaries and tidal marsh refuges.” Such impacts to
coastal areas have led states to pass (California) or consider
(New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Florida) measures that
prohibit the development of wharves, piers, pipelines, and
other facilities in state waters (up to three miles offshore) that
could be used to expand oil production. Such restrictions are
intended to dissuade the oil industry from submitting lease
bids in areas where they have no way to bring oil to shore. 5
Compared to the $20 billion tourism industry, the
economic benefits of offshore drilling would be limited.
Industry estimates of $3.7 billion a year are demonstrably
high given the decrease in the price of oil and gas since the
analysis generating that figure was done in 2013. Also, the
nature of the work does not result in good local jobs. Training
21