The oil companies found that it was easier to go overseas for crude than to continue to fight the regulation and environmentalism in this country.
More complicated than that.
U.S. oil companies (in fact, all oil companies throughout the world) have relied on multiple sources for their oil since around 1880. In fact, Standard Oil of California (Socal) was getting oil from Bahrain in 1932 and Saudi Arabia in 1934. Gulf Oil and Texaco followed as well.
The reason was the way oil companies were structured, they were fully "integrated." In other words, they found, drilled, refined, transported, marketed and distributed the stuff. They were the customers for raw crude, and the suppliers for the refined product. Companies wouldn't let competitors get control of sources of oil, since doing so would effectively cut their marketshare, as well as enhance their competitor's ability to
control the price of oil.
John Rockefeller did just that with Standard Oil in the late 1800's. He controlled so much of the world's known oil reserves (most were in the U.S. at the time) that he could squash competitors by simply selling at below-market prices in his competitor's markets--knowing that he could make up the losses by simply selling for far higher elsewhere in markets that he controlled.
As for the effects of the environmental movement of the 1960's; that led to a drop in coal burning, and actually caused "reliance on cleaner-burning oil [to grow]." But, thanks to a seepage of 6000 barrels of crude from a Santa Barbara offshore well, public outcry led to a shutdown of California offshore drilling. If you're wondering, it was the Nixon administration that banned it.
Source: "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power," Daniel Yergin.
There is more oil in Alaska and under the gulf than in the entire middle east
Nope. The top five proven oil reserves are all in the Middle East. Saudia Arabia at #1 almost equals numbers 2-4 (Iraq, Iran, Kuwait) combined. Notice that Russia is #6 and China is #10. U.S. isn't even in the top 10.
See:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html
but the fight to drill for it isn't worth the effort.
Even if it were, it really comes down to the price of a barrel of oil. The higher the price, the more oil you can pull out of Prudhoe Bay and ANWR economically. Ironically, if oil were to go back to $25, even $35/barrel, the financial case for drilling in Alaska makes less sense. It won't be worth the expense to add production capacity.
Another problem with tapping into Alaska is the structure of the oil business itself. While companies are still integrated, today they are far more reliant on buying and selling oil on the spot market. The U.S. is no longer insulated from the world oil market. ExxonMobil, being a publicly traded company, seeks to make the most profit in the most efficient way. I have no confidence that, based solely on patriotism, they will only keep Alaskan crude for U.S. energy demands. It wouldn't surprise me if ExxonMobil thought it could make more money selling Alaskan oil on the open market, that it would do so.
