By Erik Milito
After years of market swings, regulatory uncertainty, and deep staffing cuts, America’s energy workforce is overdue for a stabilizing signal. December 10th provides exactly that: the first federal Gulf of America lease sale in nearly two years, offering long-awaited certainty for the companies and workers that power America’s offshore energy engine.
In 2024, Gulf of America oil and gas activity supported approximately 428,000 jobs across all 50 states, contributed $35.9 billion in spending, and generated $7 billion in federal revenues. Few industries deliver that scale of widespread economic impact.
Mandated by President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, this sale is the first of 30 over the next 15 years, with additional sales offshore Alaska. After an unprecedented 24-month leasing gap, the door to America’s offshore future, anchored by Texan expertise, is reopening.
Regular leasing is not a bureaucratic detail; it’s the foundation of long-term offshore development. Offshore oil and gas projects are multi-billion-dollar endeavors with 20–30-year timelines, and many high-skill engineering, fabrication, marine, and logistics jobs supporting are found across the Gulf coast. More than 200 job types, from subsea engineers to welders to data scientists, pay on average 29% above the national average. When leasing stalls, workers feels it first.
Production coming online today is the result of lease sales, policy choices, and investment decisions made years ago. Wood Mackenzie projects that long-planned deepwater projects will add 300,000 barrels per day in 2025 and another 250,000 in 2026, essential to replenish offshore production volumes, offset onshore declines, and strengthen long-term U.S. energy security. None of this happens overnight: consistent leasing is the lifeline for the offshore economy.
The 24-month pause forced operators, service companies, and supply-chain firms to delay projects, scale back planning, and freeze capital, contributing directly to staffing reductions across the region. Predictable leasing restores confidence, giving companies a horizon for investment and workers the stability they deserve.
The offshore ecosystem spans subsea engineering, advanced manufacturing, offshore construction, vessel operations, robotics, data analytics, and safety training, among other innovative energy fields. Regular lease sales mean steadier workloads, predictable capital cycles, and real stability for employers and workers alike.
The benefits ripple far beyond individual operating companies. Steady offshore activity supports local suppliers, fabrication yards, and service providers, sustaining thousands of additional jobs across the nation. When companies along the Gulf coast can count on long-term projects, they are better able to invest in technology, training, and infrastructure that strengthens the city’s energy cluster and keeps it globally competitive. This ripple effect ensures that the Gulf of America remains an anchor of America’s offshore energy industry, benefiting communities, families, and the local economy for decades.
Offshore development also delivers massive amounts of public revenue. In 2024, U.S. offshore activity generated $7 billion in direct federal revenue. Through updates to the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act (GOMESA), a growing share of that revenue flows back to Gulf states funding coastal restoration, hurricane protection, community infrastructure, and other critical investments.
The Gulf of America is one of the world’s most prolific and lowest-carbon intensity offshore basins, with Gulf barrels having 46% lower carbon intensity than the global average. Every barrel produced here displaces higher-emission imports while strengthening energy security for America and its allies.
With global threats rising and energy markets volatile, predictable investment opportunities are essential to our economic future, both locally and nationally. It signals to investors that the U.S. is committed to long-term energy development. It gives companies confidence. It gives workers stability. And it gives the Gulf of America, after years of uncertainty, a clear horizon it can finally plan around.
With the December 10th lease sale, and the 29 that follow, the Gulf of America is once again positioned to anchor America’s energy future, and our workforce has a reason to look forward with confidence.
Erik Milito is President of the National Ocean Industries Association.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If only the UK had somebody sensible in charge of energy. Instead we have the Marxist mad Red Ed Microbrain, who is determined to destroy the UK oil and gas industry and destroy the UK economy.
Milliband is part of the crew determined to destroy the UK itself. The land of Shakespeare, Locke, Newton, Wilberforce, Darwin and so many others and so much else.
To save Britain, British men will have to rise up and fight for it.
He has been also forced to say that the UK must have a ‘nuclear renaissance’* so Is treat anything he says with a large block of molten salt…
*https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/new-nuclear-firmly-in-uks-energy-plans-minister-says
Can we stop this Gulf of America nonsense? It is called the Gulf of Mexico since 1550.
It’s a name that even you knew where it was so get over it. If you prefer the Gulf of Mexico use it nobody is stopping you.
I call it the Gulf of Flynn. Get used to it.
I call it Donald’s Buttcrack. Get used to it
How about –
“El Gulfo MexiMerica”
or if some prefer –
“The AmeriMex Gulf”
This game could go on ad nauseam.
(alternatively, until we’re sick of it)
Clever.
Times change.
But not all people do at the same time, especially with little cause to do so.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controversy (my bold emphasis added):
“Issued on the day of his inauguration (January 20, 2025), the executive order only requires the U.S. executive branch to use this nomenclature, although major online map platforms and some U.S.-based media outlets have voluntarily made the change. As of February 2025, polling shows the majority of Americans oppose renaming the Gulf of Mexico. . . .
“An analysis in October 2025 found that the ‘Gulf of Mexico’ name generally predominated over ‘Gulf of America’ in news sources, with the ratio mostly shifting further in favor of ‘Gulf of Mexico over time.”
Erik Milito, author of the above article, apparently likes Trump’s EO. Go figure.
The executive order:
https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2025-02096.pdf?1738244718
Likes or merely conforms?
It seem obvious from his above article that Erik Milito both likes and voluntarily conforms with Trump’s order.
I would tend to agree except for the renaming binge begun by the PC police years ago. In a way, this is an in-your face response to that.
Calm down Art. When a Dem gets in charge you can change it back.
America was named after Italian cartographer Amerigo Vespucci after another Italian discovered it. We could have changed it to Columbia before 1886 when that country was named Nueva Granada. Too late now.
Indeed, and the fellow who chose to name the place after Amerigo was actually a German by the name of Waldseemuller. Apparently he later regretted the choice of “America” and subsequently wanted to rename the whole place Parrotland. I vote for that!
Places regularly get name changes…
In Australia, well known names of places and streets often get changed by virtue-seeking councils to un-pronounceable Aboriginal names, mostly with zero consultation.
Lee Highway in Virginia was changed.
School names change more often the many people change their socks (humor).
Just curious as to how much international marine cargo shipping, marine passenger travel, and petroleum exploration occurs along the Lee Highway in Virginia.
Nice deflection and totally misses the point.
Contending again for a Sophistry Class 1 award?
No, just wondering about the relevance of people mentioning the renaming of streets and highways and schools in comparison to renaming a geographical feature that has been internationally-recognized, mapped and travelled for many centuries*.
Of course, this is just my take on the matter.
Now, you were mentioning something about deflection . . .
*The name “Gulf of Mexico” first began appearing on European world maps in 1550 AD (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Mexico_naming_controversy )
I was responding to the post:
“Places regularly get name changes…”
“In Australia, well known names of places and streets often get changed by virtue-seeking councils to un-pronounceable Aboriginal names, mostly with zero consultation.”
The relevance of the geographical feature was not part of that.
So again, you divert from the point of discussion.
And, in turn, I was attempting—apparently unsuccessfully—to point out the distinct difference between “names of places and streets” with the name a major geographical feature on Earth, one clearly visible from the Moon or beyond, that has been in common international use for centuries.
But having now pointed this out several times in this thread, I won’t again “divert” discussion in trying to convey this point.
And that is a deflection from the point under discussion.
Yeah. Cambridge has a ‘Nelson Mandela’ house.
And the Transvaal is now Gauteng.
Nice to see Donald aping the African National Congress Communists.
How many countries across the planet have changed names since 550?
Start with all of those Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Add the Ottoman Empire to the mix.
Gulf of America is more apt since it involves both North America and South America. The gulf border on Mexico is a fraction of the total coastline.
Why did you leave out Central America? And under your argument the correct title would be “Gulf of Americas“.
Central American is part of the North American continent.
Little recognized fact: small portions of Brazil and Ecuador, most of Colombia, and all of Venezuela, Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana—all nations designated to be in the continent of “South America”—are actually in the Northern Hemisphere, or north of the equator. The rest of South America is in the Southern Hemisphere.
)
(see:
What’s in a name?
As an aside, Central American countries were part of the Organization of American States.
Personally, I would embrace the “Gulf of the Americas.”
True, but it is a larger fraction than the gulf’s border on the United States.
“Mexico has a little more than 2,046 miles of coastline on the Gulf of Mexico, pertaining to the states of Tamaulipas (which shares a border with Texas), Veracruz, Tabasco, Campeche and Yucatán. The US on the other hand has a little less than 1,632 miles of Gulf coastline belonging to the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.”
— https://en.as.com/latest_news/google-maps-controversy-who-has-a-larger-percentage-of-the-gulf-of-mexico-the-united-states-or-mexico-n/ (my bold emphasis added)
Hint: that’s 414 miles more Gulf coastline being owned by Mexico than by the USA.
If one include the geography, the area surrounded by US coastline is substantially larger than that of Mexico. Florida is a major factor in this.
Uhhhh . . . only the western side of Florida borders on the Gulf of Mexico, and this fact was included in my my post above that states that Mexico alone has a greater amount of Gulf shoreline than does the United States.
But please feel free to provide an objective reference that establishes “US coastline is substantially larger than that of Mexico”.
In terms of your ambiguous phrase “area surrounded by US coastline”, by UN agreement the “territorial waters” of an nation extend outward to a maximum of 12 nautical miles from a country’s coastline and these waters are considered sovereign territory, subject to the laws of the coastal state.
A different source contests those coastline numbers.
US 1970 miles on the gulf
Mexico 1360 miles. on the gulf
The coastline of Mexico extends past the recognized demarcation for the gulf.
Unclear if the Florida Keys or any of the inlets and bays are included in the coastline numbers.
Too late to edit.
Typo correction 1550, not 550.
Apologies for the error.
That was the time the US did not exist, but now it does.
Calling it the American Gulf is at least 125 years overdue.
If useless Obama had made the change, you would be cheering, but if peacemaker Trump does it, you are dissing.
BTW, the bs about low GHG is misplaced.
We need more CO2 to increase flora and increase fauna, and decrease desert areas, and increase crop yields per acre to better feed 8 billion people
Really? . . . then wouldn’t calling it “Gulf of the United States of America” have been, oh so much more, appropriate?
Some people just love nonsense
Hmmmm . . . I never knew . . . thanks for the update.
/sarc
If you have read the ‘Peter Principle’ you will be aware that one of the signs that someone is operating far beyond his level of competence is the ‘Utter Irrelevancy Syndrome‘ where the incumbent busies himself with the interior decor of the boardroom toilets, and not the actual economic survival of the corporation.
White house ballrooms spring to mind.
I look forward to seeing what the Donald J. Trump White House Ballroom looks like when they are finished with it.
Donald said not to call it the Donald J. Trump Ballroom, but I think it sounds good.
Donald can chew gum and walk at the same time. He can build a ballroom and stop eight wars before breakfast.
The Orange Man has a propensity for taking credit for things he NEVER accomplished, not the greatest of which is the claim of stopping eight wars.
Is D. J. Trump busying himself with the details of the ball room or did he just decide it needed to be done and others are dealing with the minutia?
Oh, no . . . Donald Trump is intimately involved with the details of the soon-to-be-constructed White House ballroom . . . specifically calling out the details of guilding that will match that he recently had installed in the now-garish White House Oval Office, mimicking that in the palace of a certain Saudi sheikh/royal highness.
(see story and pics at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/01/trump-oval-office-gold-before-after-decor-white-house-makeover )
ROTFL!
The thing is that in the world we have standards for a reason and the authority on naming is the International Hydrographic Organization of which the US is a member. The IHO is the recognized competent authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting If the IHO decide to change then name, then so be it. Anything else is just politics, regardless of which political faction drives this.
Americans don’t care what “international organizations” have to say about anything. WE are in charge of US and if you don’t like it maybe ask mommy for a hug and a diaper change.
You don’t own the Gulf of Mexico.
Wrong. The IHO does not have authority to name bodies of water.
The IHO works to ensure that seas, oceans, and navigable waters are surveyed and charted uniformly for navigation and safety purposes.
IHO recommendations for names are not legally binding.
Naming of international maritime areas typically requires an extensive international process and consensus among bordering nations
No single country has the authority to unilaterally rename international waters or the geological features that lie beneath them.
Whoever:
It was posted above, that the EO only mandates the name change in the executive branch. The source, for what it is worth, is Wiki.
These are great observations by you:
Can you please forward them to the White House at comments@whitehouse.gov .
Thank you.
P.S. And as for your last, snide sentence, here is a independent source confirming what Wikipedia posted on this subject:
“. . . Trump’s order applies across the federal government . . . Outside of government, untold businesses and nonprofits are also deciding whether to use the new name.”
(source: https://www.courthousenews.com/gulf-of-tbd-the-crusade-to-change-a-500-year-old-name/ )
No. And you’re lying about the time frame by almost 200 years
Named by a conquering murdering empire after the name of another conquering murdering empire, the Mexica, aka Aztecs. America is more general for the Hemisphere, and is at least nominally associated with the concept of freedom. I do not find it inappropriate.
What are the continental names? Hint north and south.
Really? Earth’s hemisphere north of the equator (the “Northern hemisphere”) includes the northern part of the continent of South America, the continents of Europe and Asia, the northern two-thirds of Africa, and most of the continent of Asia. Earth’s hemisphere from 0 to 180 degrees west longitude (the “Western hemisphere”) includes the continents of North and South America, as well as parts of the continents of Africa, Europe, Asia and Antarctica.
Geography 101.
Chuckle. Perhaps you should study it with greater care. You might realize where the Gulf in question is. Hint: it is nowhere near Africa, Europe, Asia, or Antarctica. The bulk of inhabited landmass in the Western Hemisphere, largely surrounding it is comprised of continents bearing the name “America”. Difficult to grasp, for some, it seems.
Who, exactly is the official geographic naming authority? Is it a democratic process, and if so, who gets to vote? I think that naming two major continents after the first name of some 15th century sailor (God bless Vespucciland) seems a bit over the top. Anyway, geographic place names change all the time. Just ask anyone from Persia, Burma, Siam or Ceylon.
“Anyway, geographic place names change all the time. Just ask anyone from Persia, Burma, Siam or Ceylon.”
Or Tibet.
I didn’t hear you squawking when Squaw Valley had its name changed, not Mt McKinley. Those and more were changed under Obama. Get over it.
Less hydrocarbons, or diluted with energy free fillers?
The production volume offsets the “carbon intensity” of establishing the well.
Like a windmill generally does not include the “carbon emissions” emitted during fabrication, transportation, installation, etc., but only the “wind is free” part.
Story Tip.
Victims of Typhoon Rai to sue Shell in UK.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0r9p1ypyjyo
So, those “victims” are not responsible at all for their use?
After more than 50 years of this nonsense, they can not claim they did not know anything about the “issue.”
Story Tip
Not everyone is happy about Data Centers being built in their town:
https://protectss.org/
“Lights, Noise, Pollution, NO!!
At Protect Sand Springs Alliance, we are dedicated to bringing together the voices of our community to vehemently oppose the City Council and the companies trying to ruin our beautiful community. Small communities across the entire country are being devastated by data centers and all of their negative effects being forced into their back yards with little to no input or recourse from the residents who suffer the consequences.”
Data Center companies have some work to do explaining themselves to the people.
“The Gulf of America is one of the world’s most prolific and lowest-carbon intensity offshore basins, with Gulf barrels having 46% lower carbon intensity than the global average. Every barrel produced here displaces higher-emission imports while strengthening energy security for America and its allies.”
Can we please just stop repeating the language of the misguided “climate” worriers? Emissions of carbon dioxide from using natural hydrocarbons as fuel are not capable of driving “warming” or any trend of any climate variables. No need to sound apologetic. It just encourages the opponents to pile on with the false guilt narrative.
More here about why the guilt meter should stay at zero.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Thank-you David. I’ve downloaded the swag. 🙂
The ReadMe and graphics are very convincing
Thanks for your supportive reply, Pat. BTW, I often check your “replies” on X to note the nature of the objections to your points and to your published works. Please keep on.
Climate variables?
But, but, but, climate is exclusively GAT!
/s
You have one typo here, it is Gulf of Mexico
You really should bone up on the definition of “typo.”
While lower “GHG” emissions per barrel is interesting, it is irrelevant to the Earth energy systems.
These lawsuits fall squarely into the category of “just because a thing can be done does not mean it should be done.”
Oh, the plaintiffs better be prepared to explain how they can identify which CO2 molecule came from Shell and which from elsewhere. They have to prove the Shell CO2 directly affect their micro climate.
“Gulf of America” . . . ummmmm, would that be North America or South America or Central America?
Places
Argentina
Colombia
Mexico
United States
Other
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_America
You do like chasing grasshoppers.
Central America is part of the North American Continent.
I piss my pants every time I hear ‘Gulf of America’….
I suppose it is cheaper than actually having a coherent economic policy though
. . . or, heaven forbid, a stable position on international trade tariffs.
I saw a Vietnamese immigrant proudly wearing a “Gulf of America” hat a couple months ago. He was proud of this country and loved the opportunities it offered and that’s good enough for me. You can take your TDS and stuff it.
Or more lightly, it was the cheapest Mexican import he could find.
Hmmmm . . . more likely labeled “Made in Vietnam”.
Trump’s economic policy is so good it is going to make your head swim.
Trump’s taxcuts have not even kicked in yet. Not until the first of the year. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. No tax on Social Security.
Trump has 18 TRILLION in investments coming into the United States. Biden saw about $500 million in investments in his four years. Consider the magnitude of the difference. It is unprecedented. Nothing like it has ever happened. And Trump is just getting warmed up.
Trump is going to bring in hundreds of billions of dollars to the Treasury from tariffs. I think he is planning on giving American taxpayers back an additional $1,000.00 each from money he received from tariffs.
Trump is giving Amerian farmers $12 billion dollars from tariff money to make up for China reneging on their deal to buy American soybeans. Trump gave the farmers $16 billion during his first term, again derived from tariffs on China, and for the same reason, China reneged on their deal to buy American soybeans.
Trump’s tariff’s are bringing back to the U.S. all the strategic industries necessary to make the United States self-sufficient enough to defend itself and keep itself healthy.
Trump is giving every child born during his term $1,000.00 (from tariff money) that can be invested in the stock market and the child can take charge of the account when they are 18 years old. Spend it on whatever they want. The billionaire, Michael Dell, is donating an additional $6.25 billion that will give children as old as 10 years a nest egg to invest, and Dell says other donors are waiting in the wings.
And I could go on and on and on.
And you don’t think Trump is doing a good job. I don’t know what you are looking at, but it isn’t reality.
I’m impressed . . . impressed that nowhere did you mention that the current US national debt is $38.4 TRILLION and currently growing at a rate of about $3 million every minute.
(ref: https://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html )
During his first term as US President, Donald Trump’s administration added about $8 TRILLION to the US debt/debt obligations.
— sources: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/how-much-did-president-trump-add-debt and https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO00/20250205/117856/HHRG-119-GO00-20250205-SD008.pdf
Trump’s planned spending/handouts (mostly directed by Executive Orders, not by Congressional action) during the first-year of his second term as US President, is on a pace to exceed the worst-annual rate during his first term, assuming Congress ever gets around to passing a budget in line with his proposals. And the increased Federal revenue from the much-touted tariffs on US imports will be so much as chump-change relative to that increased spending.
It’s quite easy for anyone to spend money to appease political constituents when financial “accounting” (hah!) allows you to “borrow money from the future”, and there are no constraints/checks on your “orders” to spend.
Yes, my head is already spinning . . . but NOT for the reasons you imply.
Good for charismatic Trump, we have seen these economic policies before & they were very successful.
In under 6 years, a charismatic Hitler took a bankrupt Germany and made it great again;
He did it by increasing the national debt, tariffs, and borrowing money from the future, so they became strong enough to wage war on the rest of Europe for 5 years.
You may recall it did not end well.
There will be only one winner in a tariff war with China… China.
** There’s some fascinating history on how Hitler was financed by Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan & others on Wall Street.
So you think Trump is following in Hitler’s path? You usually make some sense. What happened here? TDS?
Trump is already winning on tariffs. China is paying the United States billions of dollars in tariffs and will continue to do so.
Why don’t we look at the full equation: that is the balance between what China pays the US for our tariffs versus what the US pays China for its tariffs.
China, as well as most other US “trading partners”, have threatened to enact reciprocal tariffs.
“So you think Trump is following in Hitler’s path?”
Well, in the 1930s …
Hitler’s Germany became isolationist in trade but expansionist in
territorial terms.
The population was enthused by speeches promising a brighter future.
Hitler removed all opposition to his ideas & surrounded himself with yes men. Hitler ruled by decree (executive order), & blamed all ills on others (mainly Jews & immigrants ).
Hitler’s monetary policy ultimately led to boom & bust cycles.
Hitler thought he could manipulate Russia.
*
Trump is going down the road of …
Isolationist in trade but expansionist in territorial terms. (Canada, Greenland, Gaza.)
Enthusing his followers with speeches & tweets, promising a brighter future.
Removing all opposition to his ideas & surrounding himself with yes men.
Ruling by decree (executive order), & blaming all ills on others (mainly China, poor blacks, & immigrants ).
His monetary policy will ultimately lead to a boom & bust economy, like we had in the 1980s & 90s in the UK.
Trump thinks he can manipulate Russia.
*
So many similarities !!!
If you want to know the future … read history.
BTW, in the 1930s UK had Oswald Mosley, the pound land Hitler;
today we have Nigel Farage, the pound land Trump;
but using similar scripts.
Excellent post!
I like your comment:
“If you want to know the future … read history.”
and will add this:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,”
— attributed to philosopher George Santayana,1905
This was subsequently, and famously, modified slightly by Winston Churchill to:
“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
What should be done is a program to find and put into production abandoned wells that were drilled, good oil supply found, then plugged or capped. Thousands of abandoned and lost holes are in the Gulf and on land. Many companies have gone out of business and their records lost.
Many of those abandoned and lost wells are leaking oil. It would be good for the environment to find them and use them to stop the leaks.
The rule should be if you find oil you *must* put a pump on it and start producing. Put a bounty on abandoned wells. Find one and it’s yours, you have a specific amount of time to open it and find out if it’s a good well or not. If it’s good then you have to put it into production.
There should be a central well location and information database so well locations won’t get lost. The records should be kept sealed until the company they belong to goes out of business. Then the well data could be made public, without locations. Auction them off, with the locations provided to the winning bidder.
Next thing should be ending the oil futures market. Sell oil? You must be able to produce it *now*, either pumping from wells or from storage. Buy oil? You must have somewhere to put it, at least a good portion of it and places to sell it so that as your storage empties you can fill it up from the oil you bought.
Although I stand to be corrected by a good petroleum geologist (where are you, Mr. Middleton?), I suspect that there is far more oil being released into the environment by natural seepage than through abandoned or lost wells. Except for the rare drilling platform explosion, most slow leaks are degraded naturally in the environment.
Both the GOM and Cal offshore have always seeped. But that is NOT a good excuse for slacking on diligence in preventing spills. Spills tend to originate from point sources and spread from there. Then, there is a damaged area with haz waste concentrations high enough and persistent enough to cause economic and environmental harm. Yes, over geologic time, those losses “naturally” diminish, but – again – it’s better off to avoid them ITFP.
I fully agree with the oil futures market, but I suggest the concept be expanded to all energy.
You buy it, you must physically take possession of it.
More good news we are moving forward.