Martin K - maybe you should read the news - there is now a 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling. There's a big debate about it in Washington - many lawmakers oppose it and want him to rescind it, citing the harm to the thousands of workers it would cause far exceeds the likelihood of another spill.
Here's an article from an Alabama newspaper - but it's also in the New York Times and many other sources.
Unfortunately, I agree with Eagle to a large extent - I am in direct opposition to the energy policies held by this administration. I believe that while the spill itself could have happened anywhere, the magnitude of the disaster was mitigated by the fact that it was in deep water. We have no business drilling there - and there is no reason to except that access to shallow water reserves and land-based reserves has been blocked by environmentalists. It's a true case of "Unintended consequence".
Obama is a very agenda-driven President, and he follows Rahm Emanuel's lead in "never letting a crisis go to waste". Already he is talking not only of worldwide efforts to clean up the spill, but in demonizing a greedy corporation, banning drilling, tightening regulations, and seeking green energy sources.
I'm not saying that BP should not be held accountable, nor am I saying that revisiting regulations or seeking green energy solutions are a bad thing - but it is very clear that Obama is using this disaster as a fulcrum to elevate his already restrictive agenda.
Had this explosion happened at the Dakota Shale reserve or at ANWR, it would have been capped within a day.