Offshore drilling is the extraction of crude oil and natural gas from reservoirs beneath the seabed, using fixed platforms, mobile offshore drilling units and subsea wells. In the United States it happens almost entirely on the federal Outer Continental Shelf, which produced roughly 668 million barrels of oil in fiscal year 2024 – about 13% of total US crude oil production.
The trade-off is concrete on both sides. Offshore oil and gas generated about $7.0 billion in direct federal revenue and supported roughly 250,000 jobs and $62 billion in economic output in fiscal year 2024, according to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). It also carries blowout risk in water thousands of feet deep, continuous discharges of produced formation water and drill cuttings, and the climate cost of every barrel eventually burned.
Where you land on the question now depends as much on policy as on geology. The 2024–2029 federal leasing plan scheduled the fewest offshore oil and gas lease sales in US history, and a 2025 law then forced additional Gulf sales back onto the calendar. The nine offshore drilling pros and cons below give both sides with the numbers attached, and a dedicated section further down covers exactly where US policy stands now.
Offshore Drilling Pros
The following are the standard offshore drilling pros most people who support offshore drilling will cite as justification for oil exploration and drilling. They are not usually transferable to onshore drilling scenarios specifically because the ocean and its health are involved.
1. National Self Sufficiency
A nation that explores oil and engages in oil drilling offshore is increasing its self-sufficiency, meeting its own energy needs, and reducing its dependence on foreign oil. Offshore oil drilling can help with energy independence and allow a country to build up oil reserves for use in times of market volatility or national crisis.
The scale is measurable. Crude oil production in the federal offshore Gulf – renamed the Gulf of America in US federal usage in 2025 – was forecast to average about 1.80 million barrels per day in 2025, roughly 13% of national output, per the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). Federal offshore wells also delivered about 700 billion cubic feet of natural gas in fiscal year 2024.
Countries that do not have natural resources or do not allow oil drilling are subject to the whims of the oil market. Since the 1970s, several countries that do not allow oil drilling ended up paying immensely in the form of higher energy prices. The lack of oil and gas independence also has policy implications.
One important caveat belongs here, because it is routinely left out of the energy-independence argument: the United States crossed over into being a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products in 2020 and set a record of 13.2 million barrels per day of crude production in 2024 (EIA). Most of that growth came from onshore shale, not offshore wells. Offshore drilling adds to the total, but the US is no longer dependent on new offshore leases to be a net exporter.
See Related: Best Outdoor Jobs | Careers to Consider for Outdoor Lovers
2. Stronger Foreign Policy
Nations with a robust energy creation strategy, including offshore oil drilling, can have cleaner, more direct communications with foreign countries and less complicated foreign policy decisions. A good example of how offshore drilling production could help a nation in times of crisis is the oil crunch and industry changes caused by the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Initially, most European nations attempted to straddle the fence. Taking no side or at least only opposing Russia verbally was the strategy choice because they relied on Russia for natural gas and oil. The pressure from small businesses, government authorities, large corporations, etc., to hold off judgment because of fear of skyrocketing gas and oil prices was immense.
If some of those countries had built up offshore oil production and reserves or were more self-sufficient in producing their oil and gas, their position on the conflict might have been stronger. One way or the other, a stronger position might have helped end the conflict and save lives.
See Related: Is Natural Gas A Fossil Fuel? Here’s What to Know
3. Direct and Indirect Employment
Offshore oil rigs create both direct and indirect employment. A drilling rig has core rig workers engaged in locating and extracting oil and gas, plus catering, cleaning and laundry staff who keep a crew living offshore for weeks at a time. The wider supply chain – fabrication yards, helicopter operators, supply boats, pipeline and subsea engineering – sits onshore.
BOEM puts the total at roughly 250,000 jobs supported by Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas in fiscal year 2024, alongside about $62 billion in economic output. A National Ocean Industries Association study projects Gulf offshore employment averaging around 405,000 jobs from 2025 to 2030. Read those figures carefully: they count direct, indirect and induced jobs across all 50 states, not people working on rigs.
Onshore, the local economy relies on those jobs in the form of businesses that supply rigs. In a few cases, oil rig work helps local businesses for entire towns. Public revenue follows the same path: offshore oil and gas produced about $7.0 billion in direct government revenue in fiscal year 2024, and the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA) shares a capped slice of it with Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.
4. Lower Costs
It is not a universal principle, but in many cases, the more fungible a commodity is, the lower its price. Fossil fuels like oil are no exception. Drilling oil offshore and making more oil available on the oil market lowers the price of oil for petroleum products (for gasoline, plastics, etc.) or for filling strategic oil reserves.
When offshore drilling increases oil production, there is a direct link to the reduction of per-barrel pricing.
Deepwater is also cheaper to produce than its reputation suggests. Rystad Energy cost-curve analysis puts the average deepwater breakeven near $43 per barrel, marginally below North American shale at about $45 per barrel, against an average breakeven of roughly $47 per barrel of Brent for new non-OPEC projects generally. The counterweight is time: an offshore field can take a decade from lease to first oil, so a lease sale today does nothing for prices at the pump this year.
Offshore Drilling Cons
Opponents have several offshore drilling cons. The following are a few of them. One interesting aspect of offshore drilling objections is that they are comparable to onshore drilling concerns.
5. Damage to the Environment
Of many risks that help bolster the arguments against offshore oil, environmental damage is probably the least defensible and the most compelling. Everyone has seen pictures of dead marine life or oil-drenched birds from oil spills. The risk profile is unusual: most offshore spills are small, but the tail risk is a blowout – an uncontrolled release of oil and gas from the well – and a blowout in deep water is extremely difficult to stop.
While technology has improved, recovering crude oil from oil spills and safeguarding the local environment once the oil gets into the local ecosystem is almost impossible.
The BP Deepwater Horizon catastrophe is the reference case, and the numbers are not vague. On April 20, 2010, a blowout caused an explosion that killed 11 workers and injured 17. The well flowed for 87 days; a 2015 federal court ruling set the legally liable volume at 3.19 million barrels – nearly 134 million gallons of oil into the Gulf. The environmental impact reached more than 1,300 miles of shoreline, roughly the driving distance from New Orleans to New York City.
The wildlife toll was measured, not guessed. NOAA scientists estimate that as many as 167,000 sea turtles of all ages were killed, and at least 22 stocks representing at least 15 species of dolphins and whales overlapped the spill footprint, with documented increases in mortality and reproductive failure. Scientists are still finding elevated oil levels in ocean life in the area more than a decade later.
The financial reckoning was equally concrete: BP and the five Gulf states reached a $20.8 billion civil settlement finalized in October 2015, and BP has estimated its total cost for the disaster at about $61.6 billion once private class-action settlements, criminal fines and cleanup are included. That single event is the strongest argument in the entire offshore drilling debate, and it is why blowout preventers and well-control rules are now the industry battleground.
See Related: Don’t Read This If You Think Climate Change is Fake
6. Non-Drilling Pollution
Oil spills, particularly ocean spills, are always the most newsworthy, but oil production generally is a major source of air, water, and ground pollutants. As a natural resource, refining oil creates toxic gasses like carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate matter. Local groundwater can be polluted by discharge as well as when there are industrial accidents.
The pollution that never makes the news is the routine kind. BOEM identifies produced formation water and drilling muds and cuttings as the bulk of waste materials generated by offshore oil and gas activity – produced water being the saline, hydrocarbon-bearing water that comes up the well alongside the oil, in far greater volume than the oil itself over a field’s life. Deck drainage, produced sands, excess cement and bilge water add to it.
These discharges are regulated rather than eliminated. EPA Region 6 reissued its offshore general permit (GMG290000) on May 11, 2023, covering discharges from roughly 3,500 oil and gas extraction facilities more than three miles off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. Waste streams are either treated and released at sea or shipped back to shore for disposal.
Drilling oil has an immense impact on the marine environment, particularly in the event of an accident. Still, that damage is dwarfed by the mass pollution of refineries and the damage they cause to the earth’s surface, water and air.
7. Unkept Employment Promises
The industry makes a lot of promises regarding how more drilling will help the average consumer and how offshore oil drilling will create multiple oil extraction employment opportunities. Unfortunately, the reality of the impact of an oil rig on a local economy tells a much different story.
The gap is usually definitional rather than dishonest, and knowing the difference is what protects you from both sides of the argument. Headline figures such as 250,000 or 405,000 jobs are economy-wide totals that include indirect supplier jobs and induced spending across all 50 states. The number of people actually working offshore on a given project is a small fraction of that, and a producing platform needs far fewer workers than the construction and drilling phase that precedes it. A coastal community promised a jobs boom often gets the construction spike, not the permanent workforce.
8. Inflated Economic Promises
The economic growth predictions are also usually inflated. Perhaps, in a perfect world, production from offshore drilling would create massive economic growth. When, though, the employment numbers total in the hundreds versus thousands, relying on the energy industry, or petroleum production segment, more specifically, rarely pans out.
The tax and royalty story is similar – the money is real, but it mostly does not stay local. Offshore oil and gas generated about $7.0 billion in direct federal revenue in fiscal year 2024, and the overwhelming share of that goes to the US Treasury rather than to the coastal parishes and counties that host the supply bases and absorb the spill risk. GOMESA revenue sharing sends a capped portion back to four Gulf states; the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act raised that cap from $500 million to $650 million a year for fiscal years 2025 through 2034.
See Related: Which Energy Source Generates the Least Greenhouse Gases?
9. Fossil Fuels and Global Warming
The more drilling permitted, the less the world relies on renewable energy sources. The equation for that is not zero-sum, but it is pretty close. If getting fossil fuels is easier or opportunities more prevalent, the impetus is to maintain the status quo.
The timescale is what makes this a climate argument rather than an energy-market one. A deepwater field sanctioned today is typically designed to produce for decades, which locks in emissions long past the dates most national climate targets are set for. That is the core objection: not the barrels produced this year, but the infrastructure commitment. The consequences show up in the ocean the platforms sit in – see our guide to the ways climate change is affecting animals – and in the shrinking room to act, covered in is it too late to stop climate change.
Where US Offshore Drilling Policy Stands Now
Most articles on the pros and cons of offshore drilling describe a policy landscape that no longer exists. US offshore leasing rules changed substantially between 2023 and 2026, and the direction reversed more than once. Here is the current state of play.
The five-year leasing plan
The 2024–2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, published in December 2023, schedules just three lease sales – one each in 2025, 2027 and 2029, all in the Gulf. The Department of the Interior described it as the fewest oil and gas lease sales in any five-year program in history. It includes no sales in Atlantic, Pacific or Alaskan waters.
The 625-million-acre withdrawal and the legal fight over it
In January 2025, the outgoing administration used Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw more than 625 million acres from future oil and gas leasing: the entire Atlantic coast, the eastern Gulf, the Pacific OCS off Washington, Oregon and California, and part of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea. On January 20, 2025, Executive Order 14148 sought to lift it. Whether a president can unilaterally revoke a Section 12(a) withdrawal is genuinely unsettled – the statute grants withdrawal authority but says nothing explicit about revoking one – so the question is expected to be resolved in court or by Congress rather than by executive action alone.
The 2025 law that added sales back
Separately, the 2025 budget reconciliation law (P.L. 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) mandates additional semiannual Gulf lease sales beyond the base 2024–2029 program, plus sales in most years in Alaska’s Cook Inlet planning area. Implementing it displaced the existing schedule: Lease Sale 262 was deferred, and BOEM instead held the first mandated sale on December 10, 2025. It drew $279.4 million in apparent high bids on 25 blocks covering 140,753 acres, with 18 of the 25 blocks in water 800–1,600 metres deep and four in ultra-deep water beyond 1,600 metres.
The practical takeaway for anyone weighing offshore drilling pros and cons: bidding interest is concentrating in deep and ultra-deep water, which is where costs, technical difficulty and blowout consequences are all highest. Any honest assessment of the risks has to be an assessment of deepwater risk specifically, not of shallow-shelf drilling.
FAQs
What are the negative effects of offshore drilling?
The negative effects of offshore drilling range from routine to catastrophic. Continuous discharges of produced formation water and drilling muds and cuttings are, per BOEM, the bulk of the waste generated offshore. At the extreme end, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout killed 11 workers, released 3.19 million barrels (about 134 million gallons) over 87 days, oiled more than 1,300 miles of shoreline and killed as many as 167,000 sea turtles. Air and water pollution also affect human health and coastal economies that rely on tourism and fishing.
What are the pros and cons of offshore oil drilling?
Offshore oil drilling is the process of extracting oil from beneath the ocean floor. The main pros are energy security and revenue: the US federal offshore Gulf supplies about 13% of national crude oil production, and offshore oil and gas generated roughly 7.0 billion dollars in direct federal revenue and supported around 250,000 jobs in fiscal year 2024 (BOEM). The main cons are blowout and oil spill risk, routine pollution, worker danger, and the decades of emissions locked in by each new field.
What are the challenges of offshore drilling?
Offshore drilling is the process of extracting petroleum from beneath the ocean floor. The challenges include blowout and oil spill risk, harsh weather, and the specialised equipment deep water demands. Cost is less of a barrier than it used to be: Rystad Energy analysis puts the average deepwater breakeven near 43 dollars per barrel, slightly below North American shale at about 45 dollars. Time is the real constraint, because an offshore field can take roughly a decade from lease award to first oil.
What are 3 negatives about oil rigs?
Three negatives about oil rigs are their environmental impact, safety risks, and high cost of operation. Oil rigs can cause significant harm to the environment through oil spills, pollution, and disruption of marine ecosystems. Safety risk is not theoretical: the Deepwater Horizon explosion killed 11 workers and injured 17 in a single night, and BP has estimated its total cost for that disaster at about 61.6 billion dollars, including a 20.8 billion dollar civil settlement finalised in 2015.
Finally, oil rigs require significant financial investment to construct and maintain, making them a costly endeavor for companies and potentially driving up the price of oil for consumers.
Related Resources
- Important Pros and Cons of Fracking
- Important Pros and Cons of Hydrogen Energy
- Important Pros and Cons of Wind Energy
See Related: 15 Green Revolution Pros and Cons to Know
See Related: 13 Pros and Cons of Fossil Fuels: Benefits, Risks, and Alternatives
