Trump plans to open US coasts to oil drilling

[Morphine Prince 109,655]

The Trump administration is proposing to open federal waters off the entire coastline of California to drilling, as well as an area off the coast of Florida. Neither state’s waters have been open to new drilling for decades.

President Donald Trump’s Interior Department released a five-year offshore drilling plan on Thursday that would open up vast parts of California’s coastline to drilling, which hasn’t happened in that state since the late 1960s. The Department is also proposing new oil drilling in parts of the Eastern Gulf — located approximately 100 nautical miles off Florida’s coast — a decision opposed by Florida’s Republican leadership.

The Trump administration’s proposal would open the Eastern Gulf to federal oil drilling auctions starting in 2029. It would open auctions for drilling in central and southern California in 2027 and northern California in 2029.

The oil industry has been advocating for opening up parts of the Eastern Gulf that are adjacent to areas where oil production has been happening for decades in the Central Gulf, an industry source told CNN.

The proposal is sure to be met with resistance in California. The state’s coast has not seen drilling since a devastating oil spill in 1969, which drew national attention for destroying coastal wildlife and the state’s fishing industry.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the plan “idiotic” in a statement and vowed the state “will use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline.”

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/20/climate/trump-oil-drilling-offshore-california-florida

 

[Economy 52,844]

I gotta say, the fact that new technologies ended oil depletion concerns has been a double edged sword

 

While oil supply concerns anytime soon are abated it does seem like it may have influenced a sense of urgency to move away fron fossil fuels to kinda fizzle out especially in North America

 

Just because we have nearly 2 Trillion Barrels of Oil reserves doesnt mean we have to we drill and burn it all

[Lord Mayhem 3,427]

To what end? Or that's right...to keep making your oil tycoon friends happy but **** the environment and investment in clean energy...ok 

[PartySick 172,497]

Oh fun. Can't wait for red tide and black tide to duke it out to see which one will kill our wildlife here.

[Bronco 25,028]

11 hours ago, Economy said:

I gotta say, the fact that new technologies ended oil depletion concerns has been a double edged sword

 

While oil supply concerns anytime soon are abated it does seem like it may have influenced a sense of urgency to move away fron fossil fuels to kinda fizzle out especially in North America

 

Just because we have nearly 2 Trillion Barrels of Oil reserves doesnt mean we have to we drill and burn it all

I think this is the most confusing thing to me. 
Like the entire argument for capitalism that they use all the time is that "it breeds innovation" and then you have the fossil fuel industry actively opposed to innovation into other potentially infinite energy sources despite them being in the best position to do so. 

I understand that nuclear in the west has been a political clusterbomb no one has wanted to touch for a decade or two but there are plenty of alternatives - I mean the US built one of the largest hydro-electric power plants in the world in the 1930s, they finished it early, and its still operational providing power to 3 states.  

[Borisapillar 10,128]

guess who's frack in the house

[Economy 52,844]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

I think this is the most confusing thing to me. 
Like the entire argument for capitalism that they use all the time is that "it breeds innovation" and then you have the fossil fuel industry actively opposed to innovation into other potentially infinite energy sources despite them being in the best position to do so. 

I understand that nuclear in the west has been a political clusterbomb no one has wanted to touch for a decade or two but there are plenty of alternatives - I mean the US built one of the largest hydro-electric power plants in the world in the 1930s, they finished it early, and its still operational providing power to 3 states.  

To be fair not every area geologically is ideal for hydroelectricity or geothermal and the other green alternatives like solar and wind are hard to rely for more than 30% to 40% of power because they have intermitency issues

 

If you do not have enough hydroelectricity available to fill the gaps from solar and wind and you refuse to go nuclear, you end up needing some nuclear to fill the gap. Still tho, we can definitely rely on fossil fuels way less than we currently do even in areas that havent hit the jackpot geographically, so its a matter of will

 

Here in Ontario close to half of power comes from nuclear. Less than 1/4 from wind and solar. The remaining 1/4 or so Natural Gas fills the gap (but weve closed Coal Plants which are worse at least)  So 70% to 75% comes from clean sources and the 25% still from fossil fuels at least is the cleanest of the 3 main fossil fuel categories

[Nemo 4,410]

But offshore windmills, THOSE are too ugly to be allowed, says Trump.

[Nemo 4,410]

1 hour ago, Economy said:

... the other green alternatives like solar and wind are hard to rely for more than 30% to 40% of power because they have intermitency issues

This is why we have batteries (and pumped hydro, etc.).

[Economy 52,844]

3 hours ago, Nemo said:

This is why we have batteries (and pumped hydro, etc.).

Yes... but u have to have A LOT of storage capacity if u were to rely 100% purely on wind and solar alone which is neither economical, nor is that much batery material necessairily great for environment either. What if the wind stopped during the night when your not producing solar either? The entire grid would have to be fed off of stored energy alone. Pumped hydro works well too as storage and in some ways arguably more ecofriendly than bateries but again ud have to build a bunch of these to store for an entire grid. Storing power in this form also has a much lower efficiency rate since you loose energy twice as youll never get back the full amount you put in so you have to produce more to store than you can get back from storage requiring the surplus during the day to be even larger.

 

Its not as simple as store everything in bateries and ur good. Not unless u wanna spend a fortune in building and maintaining power grid

 

Having a strong mix of hydroelectricity is great because its super consistent. But for places that are not geologically blessed with hydro potential, if they refuse nuclear they make it potentially difficult on themselves to wean off fossil fuels entirely

 

This is why depending on the geographical area your in and what your best energy potentials are, in some cases refusing all nuclear can be an expensive choice if you want to also be green

Edited November 21, 2025 by Economy

[Economy 52,844]

@Bronco u said u were a bit of an international politics geek. Whats ur take on these mini civil political wars on very decentralized Countries?

 

Edit: wrong thread

Edited November 22, 2025 by Economy