Prospect of Drilling Roils Political Waters

"It's probably impossible to know, given the paucity of data," said Chris Oynes, an associate director of the service, which oversees offshore drilling.

If Congress does reopen these areas -- and Bush ends a similar presidential moratorium, as he has promised -- the decision about whether to allow drilling could then fall to the three Eastern Shore states.

So far, Maryland officials seem to be the most adamant against drilling. A spokesman said Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) is opposed. So are the state's two senators, Democrats Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin.

"You're talking about a natural treasure in Assateague Island, and you're talking about one of Maryland's premier tourist destinations" in Ocean City, Cardin said. He said that an oil spill from a platform or pipeline could devastate both. "We don't want to put that kind of risk on our state."

Delaware officials said they would at least listen to proposals from energy companies.

"It's not an automatic, 'don't-even-think-about-it,' " state natural resources official David Small said.

Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), by contrast, supports exploration for natural gas in areas more than 50 miles off the coast. State officials say that if gas or oil is actually found, they would decide whether to let companies pump it out.

Virginia Del. Christopher B. Saxman (R-Staunton), a supporter of drilling, said energy companies have indicated some interest in exploring Virginia waters. But, he said, they also were cautious because so little is known about the area.

"Whether Virginia is going to realize a significant amount of offshore drilling . . . remains to be seen," Saxman said. "But we should at least open up the possibility."

And even if states do allow drilling, it is unclear when -- or if -- oil and gas companies will be interested.

Energy analysts said such companies probably would be more interested in other now-closed areas, off the California and Florida coasts. These places are closer to existing oil pipelines and refineries, they said, and their oil and gas deposits have been studied much more thoroughly.

"There would probably be far more interested in the eastern Gulf of Mexico than they would be in the mid-Atlantic," said Stewart Glickman, an equity analyst at Standard & Poor's. But, Glickman said, "it is a possibility at some point."

And even if they are interested, federal officials say it might take eight to 12 years before final approval is granted for large-scale extraction of oil or gas.

Local environmentalists say they are against any drilling, citing concerns about leaky pipelines, new on-shore processing plants and platform lights that might clutter up a pristine night sky. They are also afraid of a large-scale oil spill -- though officials at two national seashore parks along the Gulf Coast said this week that offshore rigs near them cause few major pollution problems.

On the Eastern Shore, activists say that drilling could still harm the environment, even if nobody spills a drop. If burning the oil and gas contributes to climate change, they say, it would help raise the seas, which could swamp parts of the peninsula within a century.

"Why would we further jeopardize our coast with additional sea-level rise?" said Glen Besa, of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. He said that the drilling would also not provide an answer for long-term energy needs: "For every complex problem, there's a simple solution. And it's wrong."

Staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.