which will vehemently appose any attempt to expand supply

Not exactly. It's not the "supply" that's the issue. The issue is where this sort of "expansion of supply" is to take place.

The environmental movement will attempt to block any sort of drilling, pipelines, whatever that goes through National Park, National Forest, and other assorted federally-designated wilderness/preserve/park lands. Because of the often horrific environmental impact these sorts of activities have historically produced.

Since that is only a minute fraction of the land holdings in the West, this shouldn't really be a problem.

But somehow this always comes up in Congress. Every time we get into some sort of energy crisis, it seems, there is immediately a call to start auctioning off park lands.

Depends on the group, I'd say. There's also a fair amount of double-speak on both sides. A developer will say something like it'll only be 1 hole per square mile so most everything stays pristine. The designs and plans actually allow for this.

Then comes the implementation team, spills occur, etc.

If we can extract said oil by some of the water fractionation or forcing methods I've read about and do so in a relatively clean manner - then go after it. If we can avoid parks in the process - go after it. If the parks are unavoidable, let's work towards a reasonable compromise.