And American Solutions has a good summary of the worst recommendations from said report:

No new drilling in the Arctic. The report recommends applying a completely new system of approving oil and gas drilling in Alaska, a recommendation that would effectively end all new exploration in America’s Arctic waters until this massive new bureaucracy was in place. Fran Ulmer, one of the many environmentalists President Obama appointed to the spill commission, said during the roll out of the report that Arctic drilling requires “additional research and investment” before it should proceed. The Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska was discovered almost 50 years ago, and drillers in the Arctic have been constantly improving their operations to produce energy safely and efficiently, resulting (predictably) in a phenomenal safety record. The idea that, after a half century of safe operation, all new drilling should be halted until drillers prove they can operate safely is a recommendation that borders on the absurd.
Moreover, drilling processes and safety procedures in the Arctic are much different than those employed in the Gulf of Mexico, and for good reason: the climate and geography of Alaska is by no means analogous to the warm waters of the Gulf. In a report intended to focus on an oil spill in the Gulf, why would the commission recommend such radical regulatory restructuring in a region where the spill did not occur?
Delaying drilling application approval. Currently the federal government has 30 days to review a drilling application before approval. The commission recommends doubling that to 60 days, even though there is no evidence that the existing 30 day approval window had any connection to the Gulf spill. Instead, the decision is more than likely motivated by a desire to slow down the process of developing American energy until the government can expand the size and scope of the newly created Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), another recommendation of the commission. A similar provision to delay approval of new energy production was inserted into a public spending bill last month, but Congress thankfully axed it before the spending bill was voted on.
Raising insurance costs for independent producers. The report recommends a “significant increase” in the liability cap for oil spills above the existing $75 million (the report did not provide a specific number.) While this may sound like a common sense solution, it’s actually regulatory redundancy. Under current law, there is no cap on liability costs for a company responsible for an oil spill if a court determines that the driller exhibited gross negligence. Put more simply, a company responsible for a major oil spill is going to be responsible for the cleanup costs as well. In addition, because drillers must obtain insurance before they drill, and the cost of that coverage is based upon the size of the government imposed liability cap, independent companies (which produce 66% of American oil and were not responsible for the Gulf spill) will pay more just to operate. Rather than making industry more accountable, raising the liability cap would needlessly impose higher costs of American energy with no meaningful environmental benefit. Commission co-chair William Reilly even admitted today that members of the commission “don’t really know” how the insurance industry would respond to this change, which suggests the commission gave little consideration to the higher costs that would get passed down to producers and, ultimately, American consumers.

The entire report can be read here.