Despite campaign promises to the contrary, President Obama does not think the sun has set on off-shore fuel exploration.

After denouncing off-shore oil drilling almost two years ago, President Barack Obama’s new plans for reducing the United State’s energy dependency includes carrying out the same steps that Bush Administration and former foe John McCain supported all along.

Last week, in front of a crowd at Andrews Air Force Base, Obama announced his plan to open up parts of the United States coast to off-shore drilling sites, while putting a stop to drilling in current off-shore zones. Obama believes that combining biofuel production, wind energy, nuclear energy with exploring for oil and natural gas sites, will help the U.S. become free from foreign oil all together. However, Obama’s proposal for oil and natural gas expiration in parts of Northern Alaska, parts of the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico raise questions about the viability of the plan as well as contempt among environmentalists.

Obama stated in the speech that he will strive to open up the Atlantic Coast from Delaware down to Florida, Eastern Parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Northern seas of Alaska, including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for exploration. In turn, oil drilling will be shut down in the Atlantic from Delaware north, the Pacific coastline and Bristol Bay in Alaska.

One possible explanation for the White House’s change in direction is because of recent reports from the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, predicting that undiscovered, recoverable resources in Beaufort Sea could yield 7 billion barrels of oil and 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Chukchi Sea holding potential yields of 12 billion barrels of oil and 54 million cubic feet of natural gas.

Obama also said that the decision, even though it will be highly controversial, is necessary to protect our economy and create jobs. Also, those will strongly disagree with the plan, but it is part of a broader strategy of keeping the reliance on home grown resources instead of relying on foreign sources.

“Given our energy needs in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel,” said Obama.

In the President's 2010 "State of the Union" address, Obama received applause when he described "making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. "

Obama still insists that drilling must be kept to a minimum and stressed the importance of developing clean burning fuels. The reason behind making his speech at Andrews was because of the military’s goal of using a minimum of 50 percent biofuel in military planes, vehicle and ships in the next ten years. He said that the military leads by example.

That being said, it is indisputable that Obama’s stance on offshore drilling has veered substantially from promises he made in his presidential campaign throughout 2009. Prior to his election in 2008, Obama delivered a speech in front of media and Florida residents denouncing, Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain’s backing of the Bush Administration’s plans to explore for oil reserves along the U.S. Coastline. At that time, Obama was critical of the Bush administration for permitting a twenty-five year Congressional moratorium on new off-shore drilling to expire.

In the 2008 speech, Obama addressed the record high gas prices and suggested ways to fix the problem, but specifically said that new drilling was not the solution.

‘What would not do a thing, to lower gas prices, is John McCain’s new proposal, a proposal adopted by George W. Bush as well, to open Florida’s coastline to offshore drilling,” said Obama in the 2008 speech. “There would be long term consequences for our coastlines, but no short term benefits since it would take at least ten years to get any oil.”

Obama went on to say in the 2008 speech that drilling would not help gas prices at all and that full production of new oil reserves would not reach full potential until 2030. New drilling would only worsen our addiction to oil and when he would become president, he would continue to support the moratorium on off-shore drilling.

Some environmentalist groups have already spoken out against Obama’s new plans stating that ecosystem damage is unavoidable.

Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club, in a public statement said that his organization was upset over the decision. Brune said that the U.S. should be taking steps toward clean energy, referring to recently enacted clean air regulations and not “dirty, expensive off-shore drilling.”

Brune said that drilling in the Arctic will threaten marine life and there will always be the danger of oil spills and drilling could jeopardize beaches and tourist economies.

A single B&W mPower™ nuclear reactor module inside its own independent, underground containment.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama referred to a “new generation” of nuclear power plants. The President was either exceedingly prescient or he knew more than he revealed because one week later the new generation has arrived–introducing the Babcock & Wilcox reactor. The energy world is taking notice.

Three large utilities, Tennessee Valley Authority, First Energy Corp. and Oglethorpe Power Corp., signed an agreement with McDermott International Inc.’s Babcock & Wilcox subsidiary on Wednesday, committing to get the new reactor approved for commercial use in the U.S.

While the three companies have not yet committed to purchase any of the reactors, their commitment to obtaining regulatory approval for the enterprise is a critical initial step toward implementation.

Approximately one-tenth the cost of conventional nuclear power plants, the newer designs are smaller than a rail car, offer greater flexibility of site location and theoretically can be built in half the time. These advantages, most notably the price, make the Babcock & Wilcox reactor a more attractive nuclear option for energy companies than conventional reactors.

Traditional nuclear reactors may produce more energy than the new “mini-reactors” but they cost many billions of dollars. The Babcock-Wilcox reactor runs closer to $750M. “We think the probability that things will go wrong with these large projects is greater than the probability that things will go right,” said Jim Hempstead, senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service.

Comparatively, the cheaper reactors offer less risk of financial ruin. The reduced risk translates into a self-fulfilling prophecy for an investing corporation’s financial future. Larger, riskier ventures are more apt to damage a corporation’s credit rating than a more “bite-sized” investment in smaller reactors.

Not every corporation moving toward nuclear power needs to rely solely on strong credit ratings for financing, however. President Barack Obama recently pledged to guarantee 8.3 billion dollars in loans for the construction of large nuclear power plants in Burke, Georgia.

The White House pledge was somewhat groundbreaking for a country that has not built a new nuclear power plant since the Chernobyl meltdown in the Soviet Union several decades ago. It was a particularly surprising development because President Obama is viewed by many as a leader whose primary focus is the environment.

Environmentalists are not happy with the President’s new trend. Between the President’s shifting toward off-shore drilling and nuclear power he seems to be turning on his own political base. The White House’s recent trending toward the right has not passed unnoticed by the left.

Friends of Earth President Erich Pica is not smiling about recent White House decisions.

“Green” enthusiasists like Friends of the Earth president, Erich Pica, feel that Mr. Obama’s recent policy emphasis amounted to “unilateral disarmament.”

“We were hopeful last year; he was saying all the right things,” Mr. Pica said. “But now he has become a full-blown nuclear power proponent, a startling change over the last few months.”

If eco-diehards are disgruntled now, that frustration is likely to build. Some experts believe that introducing small reactors to the industry could pave the way for more pervasive, nuclear power in the U.S. because more utilities would be able to afford them.

“There’s a higher likelihood that there are more sites that could support designs for small reactors than large ones,” said David Matthews, head of new reactor licensing at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The President has gone on record as saying, “the fact is, changing the ways we produce and use energy requires us to think anew, it requires us to act anew, and it demands of us a willingness to extend our hand across some of the old divides.”

That ideology is consistent with the new wave toward mini-reactors.

“If we can’t figure out how to build large plants economically, then small ones may be the way to go,” said Ronaldo Szilard, director of nuclear science and engineering at the Idaho National Lab, part of the Department of Energy.

President Barack Obama is facing pressure from environmental groups and the oil and gas industry on the issue of offshore drilling.

The hot issue of offshore drilling for oil and gas deposits is forcing the Obama Administration to walk a fine line between encouraging economic growth and preserving the environment.

Days after environmentalists conducted an anti-offshore drilling protest in South Beach, Florida labeled “Hands Across the Sand” a new study placed a price tag on acquiescing to their proposed drilling moratorium – a hefty $2.4 trillion. That is the cost that maintaining the status quo will have on the U.S. economy over the next two decades according to a recent study.

The report, prepared for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, also said that without access to the energy resources, foreign imports of crude oil, petroleum products and natural gas would increase by $1.6 trillion over that period. Additionally, the United States is expected to pay the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) $607 billion for an extra 4.1 billion barrels of crude, the report said.

“We encourage lawmakers to heed the results of this study and take a closer look at the energy-rich areas in our country that are currently off limits.” said David Parker, president of the American Gas Association. “It’s clear from this report that the status quo on energy production simply won’t suffice.”

Encouragingly, the report claims that the level of untapped domestic oil hidden beneath protected areas has been underestimated by approximately 43 billion barrels. If the report is accurate, there are 229 billion barrels available, enough to support the United States at its current consumption levels for 50 years. Estimations of available natural gas were bumped by 286 trillion cubic feet to 2,034 trillion cubic feet.

Environmentalists however remain skeptical of permitting drilling in any new areas.  Much of the disputed territory received federal protection by statute twenty seven years ago.  During the final year of his presidency, amid a recession that was partially the result of an oil crisis, George W. Bush began easing back restrictions in most U.S. waters beyond the western and central Gulf of Mexico ended in 2008.  The Interior Department is now considering whether to expand exploration in only a small part of the formerly closed areas.

The White House faces pressure from environmental groups who feel the United States should rely less on oil and gas and more on cleaner energy sources like wind and solar. President Obama hinted at his ambivalence on this hot topic in his recent State of the Union address.  While the President pressed for increasing reliance on renewable energy he would not commit to maintaining a moratorium on drilling in areas that have been protected for over two and a half decades.  Quite the contrary, the President preceded his call for profitable green energy by referring to “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” His conflicting remarks left advocates on both sides bewildered.

Perhaps it was the President’s straddling that motivated environmentalists to make a demonstrative protest on Florida’s beaches this past weekend. As part of a statewide show of support to continue banning offshore drilling, protesters created a human chain for the “Hands Across the Sand”.

Promotions for anti-drilling protests began popping up around Florida shortly after the President delivered his first State of the Union of the Address.

“There has been a ban and a moratorium on new offshore drilling for years,” said organizer Andrea Cuccaro. “It’s not going to help us with prices for oil in the near term, and we have a lot of solutions like solar and wind power that are really great solutions that we can give more incentives and tax breaks.”

To environmentalists like Cuccaro, President Obama is reneging on a major element of his campaign platform by not being a steadfastly staunch supporter of the environment.  Despite the fact that drilling would be three miles from the coastline, eco-enthusiasts have concerns about the long term impacts of offshore drilling.  Some Florida politicians are concerned that drilling could threaten the State’s economy by hurting its tourism.