Long overdue and considerable developments have recently been made toward finally access the job-creating energy reserves that remain under the federal government’s lock-and-key along the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The Interior Dept.’s bureaucracy that oversees offshore energy production – MMS – gave a green light for responsible production in the beginning of December, as we’ve written about.

But that’s not stopping those who are opposed to creating jobs and economic activity through accessing the estimated 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from thwarting these commonsense efforts. Predictably, they’re heading straight to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reuters reports this under the headline “Shell offshore oil drill plan in Alaska challenged”:

Environmental and Alaska Native groups have filed a legal challenge seeking to overturn U.S. approval of Royal Dutch Shell Plc’s plans to drill up to three wells this year off the shore of Alaska, representatives said on Wednesday.

Late on Tuesday, the coalition of groups filed its challenge to drilling in the remote Chukchi Sea. The petition in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeks to void the U.S. Minerals Management Service’s Dec. 7 approval of Shell’s plan for wells about 60 miles off Alaska’s northwestern coast.

Shell fired back, though, with actual facts, substance and coherence:

“It’s our belief the MMS was thorough in its technical and environmental evaluation of our 2010 Exploration Plan and that Shell has demonstrated its ability to operate in the Arctic in an environmentally responsible manner,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said in a statement. “A tremendous amount of work went into writing and evaluating this permit and we fully expect the MMS to be successful in defending its approval.”

Smith said “Shell has already completed four years of successful seismic and shallow hazard work in the Chukchi Sea – an area that could be home to some of the most prolific, undiscovered hydrocarbon basins in the U.S.“

Thankfully, Alaskans have a fighter for jobs and secure energy as their chief executive. UPI reports this about Gov. Sean Parnell’s ongoing efforts to expand Alaska’s energy economy under the headline “Drill, baby, drill, says Alaska’s Parnell”:

“We will draw on that timeless Alaskan strength and ingenuity to make it happen,” he said. “We will not settle for any less than maximizing recovery of Alaska’s gas for Alaskans’ benefit.”

He pointed to potential oil and gas discoveries in Alaska’s outer continental shelf as a further source of state revenue in a stagnant economy still crippled by the recession.

“I have made exploring and developing the OCS our priority,” he said.

It’s been a long time coming, but finally substantial and measurable progress is being made toward finally unlocking the job-creating energy resources below the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Imagine that? Well, you should. And can.

The Alaska Journal of Commerce’s Tim Bradner peels the layers back in “Shell one step closer to drilling in Beaufort, Chukchi seas”:

Shell Oil is a step closer to testing oil and gas prospects in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas this summer.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft air quality permit for Shell’s 2010 exploration program in the Alaska Chukchi Sea, and the company says it is now “guardedly optimistic” that it will be able to clear hurdles in time to drill in the summer open-water season in the Arctic, a Shell official said Jan. 8.

Pete Slaiby, Shell’s vice president for Alaska, said the agency’s release of a final draft air permit, actually a second version of an initial draft released last fall, is a positive step in Shell’s efforts to drill on leases for which it paid $2.2 billion in a 2008 outer continental lease sale in the Chukchi Sea.

Shell’s Slaiby describes EPA’s commonsense decision to move forward in the permitting process as a “big step”:

“The announcement is good news, but the length of the public comment period combined with likely appeals still pushes the boundaries of our ability to drill in 2010,” Slaiby said. “Obviously, the windows in which we have to operate are limited and a decision to move forward is an extremely expensive one. We will continue to monitor our options in the days ahead as we get closer to making that critical decision.”

Alaska’s two senators, Begich, a Democrat, and Republican Lisa Muskowski, provided important support for the permit, as did Republican Gov. Sean Parnell, Slaiby said.

Expanded access to Alaska’s sizable energy reserves, though, could all be for naught if excessive taxes in the state discourage production and drive businesses overseas. Gov. Parnell understands the need to balance responsible production with a tax code that will promote jobs and economic activity in the state.

The Associated Press reports this today under the headline “Alaska governor pushes changes to state energy tax”:

Gov. Sean Parnell said Thursday that he wants to give oil and gas companies greater incentives to do business in the state, a plan he says will boost production and create potentially hundreds of new jobs for Alaskans.

The plan comes amid forecasts of slumping oil production on Alaska’s North Slope and concerns by some Republican lawmakers that a state tax on oil and gas production – passed two years ago at the urging of then-Gov. Sarah Palin – is doing more harm than good and hindering new development.

Parnell said the recommendations strike a balance between protecting Alaska’s interests and declaring the state open for business. While the state currently has billions of dollars in budget reserves, Parnell said its economy is struggling and he’s trying to create more jobs and opportunities. The estimated hundreds of millions of dollars in additional tax credits are a small price to pay, he said, for a state that runs on oil and gas revenue.

And Sean Cockerham at the Anchorage Daily News reports this in a story entitled “Parnell seeks investment incentives for oil companies”:

Parnell said Thursday he doesn’t want the tax rate lowered, but does want tax credits for investments. His announcement comes as the oil companies and many Republican state legislators maintain Alaska’s oil taxes are too high and are driving away investment. This will be a battlefront in the legislative session which begins next week and in this year’s governor’s race, with candidates running on opposite sides of the oil tax issue.

Parnell said a new Department of Revenue study found the oil-tax system generally works well and that oil companies are increasing investment and jobs in the state. But he said there are incentives the state can give to create more economic activity.

“The numbers speak for themselves. Investment has been up in the industry. But frankly it could be better, that’s why we are offering incentives and credits,” Parnell said.

The Dept. of Revenue study on oil taxes can be viewed HERE.

Bottom line: Increasing access to Alaskan energy, while keeping taxes low for anyone that uses energy, is key to strengthening our national and economic security. Folks in Alaska overwhelmingly understand this. And a clear majority of Americans are realizing this, too.

We think it’s strange, more than anything else – this near-universally held view among energy reporters from the Lower-48 that all native Alaskan communities oppose the responsible development of the state’s abundant energy resources.

Now, we’re not saying that the native population is a monolith on this question; some have consistently opposed exploration for their own unique reasons. Here, the Gwich’in community comes to mind – folks whose principles are so strongly aligned against development that they opposed exploration on the coastal plain of ANWR without even living there. But, by and large, the natives’ position on energy exploration is pretty similar to the rest of the Alaska’s: If you can do it right, and do it safely, and generate revenue and jobs in the process – why the hell would anyone oppose a thing like that?

Heck, according to the dispatch we read in the Anchorage paper this morning, some native groups are actually teaming up with local energy producers to ensure this work gets off the ground offshore:

Shell is partnering with Olgoonik Corp., the Native village corporation for the Chukchi Sea coast village of Wainwright, and Ukpeaegvik Inupiat Corp., the Native village corporation for Barrow, to operate logistics bases in Wainwright and Barrow this summer, Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said.

And apparently Shell’s not the only operator in the area looking to partner with local native communities to turn Wainwright into an effective logistics hub for its offshore exploration activities. Conoco’s contributing to the effort as well:

Conoco Phillips anticipates using Wainwright as a base for small vessels and as a helicopter base in its early exploration of the Chukchi Sea, a Conoco spokeswoman said. Conoco plans to drill in the Chukchi in 2012.

Imagine a world where one, single government agency would study all potential impacts of energy exploration offshore, and then, upon completion of its work, however long it needed to take, be empowered to issue one, single permit to allow that project to proceed. Now imagine a world with no heaven — it’s easy if you try. No hell below us; above us only sky. Good tune, right? Snap out of it, man: No such government office exists. Even so, the good guys score a win every now and again – and the news out of EPA today on Shell’s pending air permit would certainly qualify as that.  

We’ll let Reuters’ Alaska writer take the story from here:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday tentatively approved a key air-quality permit that would allow Royal Dutch Shell to conduct oil-drilling operations later this year in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

The permit would allow emissions from the drilling ship and associated vessels that Shell plans to mobilize in the Chukchi during the summer and autumn open-water season. …

“We very much appreciate the work done by EPA Region 10 to issue Shell a draft air permit for our 2010 Chukchi drilling program,” Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s vice president, said in a statement. “The issuance of this draft permit starts the clock on a critical timeline of events that will ultimately determine if we can explore our Alaska leases in 2010,” he added.

Interestingly, word of EPA’s long-awaited decision on the air permit hit our mailboxes a full 18 hours before we read about it on the Reuters site. Who gets credit for breaking the story? Not exactly sure it’s the most scientific calculation ever made, but a press release from new Alaska senator Mark Begich migrated into our Outlook at 5:35 PM yesterday afternoon. And the sentiment it contained hit the target squarely on the mark:

“Alaska has long been America’s energy storehouse and a green light on this Shell development means Alaska’s energy will continue to help fuel our nation’s factories and automobiles,” Begich said. “It has become increasingly clear that energy policy is national security policy, and the U.S. needs to focus more on production of our rich energy resources right here at home. Let’s stop paying billions a year to hostile countries and start putting Alaskans to work.”

But while it might’ve slid into a home a half-second late, the Reuters piece is indispensible in one key regard: It adds some much needed context to the challenges that remain before a single drop of oil can ever be produced in the Chukchi. Shell manager Peter Slaiby lays out the landscape in an extended quote toward the bottom of the piece:

“While today’s announcement is good news, the length of the public comment period combined with likely appeals still pushes the boundaries of our ability to drill in 2010,” he said in his statement. “Obviously, the windows in which we have to operate are limited and a decision to move forward is an extremely expensive one. We will continue to monitor our options in the days ahead as we get closer to making that critical decision.”

Ah, yes: The public comment period. Where would we be without it? Seriously: Where would the Interior Department be if it weren’t able to access the sage advice and unique wisdom found in the thousands of identical form letters aggregated and sent in by well-meaning environmental groups? Of course, in reality, these folks aren’t interested in using the public comment period as a force for good – only as a means of delay.

Incidentally, the only public comment period that should matter, in our estimation, is the public hearing that EPA is holding with Alaskans next month – on February 16. The Anchorage paper sheds some additional light on how that effort is slated to go down:

The EPA is taking public comment on its proposed permit through Feb. 17, Begich said. The EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing for Feb. 16 in Barrow that would be teleconferenced in Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope and Atqasuk, communities that could be affected by Chukchi oil and gas development.

And, by the way: If you can’t make that hearing, you shouldn’t hesitate to shoot off an email from wherever you’re at. According to EPA, you should direct your correspondence here: R10ocsairpermits@epa.gov. And if you click here, you’ll find about 150 other ways in which you can make your voice heard.

Just miles away, in the North Pole, Santa’s elves are working ‘round the clock to ensure the Christmas cheer is spread far and wide. At the same, those opposed to responsible, 21^st century offshore oil and gas production – and the tens of thousands of good-paying jobs this production could generate – along Alaska’s outer continental shelf (OCS), particularly in our Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, are working just as hard to deliver a nice, big lump of coal in the stockings of those who depend on that energy.

This year has been a roll-coaster of sorts for expanded homegrown energy exploration offshore. There have been set-backs. Major ones. And there have also been flickers of hope, and commonsense advancements towards expanding oil and gas exploration in an environmentally-sound and sensitive way – potentially a huge shot in the arm to Alaska’s economy. Opening Alaska’s deep-oceans for energy exploration also represents a monumental step toward increased U.S. energy security.

KTUU-TV provides a quick end-of-year snapshot of the events that helped shaped the Alaska OCS debate this year. Among the highlights:

The Good

The Outer Continental Shelf in question is the area 20-70 miles off Alaska’s north and west coasts, where offshore drilling proponents say there is potentially 25 billion barrels of oil on tap and another 130 trillion cubic feet of gas.

In March, Northern Economics released a study on the impact of drilling. It was paid for by Shell Oil, the largest lease holder in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and showed that OCS development would employ 35,000 people annually over the next 50 years.

“Our 2010 plan of exploration was crafted as a direct result of feedback we got from North Slope stake holders that we were moving too fast, that it was too much and too soon. So the new plan reflects that. It’s one year, it’s one rig, and it’s half the number of wells we had previously planned to drill,” said Curtis Smith with Shell.

In September Gov. Parnell traveled to the nation’s capital to visit Salazar. “We’re gonna stay in full court press mode for as long as it takes to open the OCS,” Parnell said.

But last month the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service approved Shell’s plan to start exploring in the Beaufort Sea.

Earlier this month the Interior Department approved Shell’s plans to start exploring in the Chukchi Sea.

The Bad

Almost immediately, [Sec. Salazar] put OCS drilling on hold, saying he needed more input from communities affected by exploration.

In late April a Washington, DC court of appeals said the federal lease program did not conduct adequate environmental studies. The court ordered all lease sales to a halt. Shell feared their $2.1 billion in leases in the Chukchi Sea would be taken away.

Shell is still in litigation regarding its five-year plan to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf.

And The Ugly

 The secretary said he’s in no rush to make a decision on offshore drilling.

While some maintain that proper environment and wildlife protections cannot be balanced with responsible, job-creating offshore energy production, the reality is actually quite the opposite. The good news is that these critical facts continue to come to the surface, helping to move the needles of public opinion. The bad news? We ain’t there yet – not by a long shot. And without the help of policymakers in DC, we can’t expect to get there either. Not gonna lie: It’s a bit of a helpless feeling – having bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. control so much of your land, resources and destiny.

As the sun sets on 2009, it’s fair to predict that in a year from now, KTUU will be once again looking back at another year of OCS developments in Alaska. With hope, the story they’ll be telling then will be one of the huge amounts of homegrown energy that is reaching working families, seniors and small businesses; recounting the enormous uptick in economic activity in Alaska and the job created through offshore energy development; and demonstrating that both the environment and wildlife can coexist with offshore drilling. With hope. And this kick-ass blog.

We may live in a crazy, crazy world, but when it comes to energy here in Alaska, we try to keep things real simple-like: Oil comes from the north, and natural gas comes from the south. Of course, in truth, there’s plenty of natural gas up on the North Slope as well – “large volumes,” according to the federal government – but as yet, we don’t have the means of getting it to the folks who need it. It’s a reality we hope to change in the future, to be sure, but for now, Alaska’s natural gas is used (basically) just by Alaskans. And the vast majority of it comes from the Cook Inlet’s 28 producing gas fields in Southcentral.

Now, for folks who don’t know, the Cook Inlet (and not the North Slope) is considered the birthplace of Alaskan oil and gas — with the first commercial discovery of oil taking place in the Swanson River field in 1957. Today, the buzzword is gas, and these fields help provide the region with reliable energy for electrical power generation and heating. It’s also gas that’s helped spawn and support Alaska’s petrochemical industry – an industry that churns out the fertilizer (especially urea fertilizer, which has more nitrogen than all the rest) that farmers use to put food on America’s table.

So that’s the back-story. What’s the front one? Well, flipping through the Anchorage Daily News this morning, we come across a lovely piece filed by Elizabeth Bluemink reporting on a new analysis released this week by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Turns out Cook Inlet’s got a ton of available natural gas.

Despite recent public debate about future natural gas shortages in Southcentral Alaska, the Cook Inlet area contains enough known natural gas to supply the region’s energy needs for a decade or longer, according to a new study by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

The department’s staff reviewed data from the 28 producing gas fields in Cook Inlet and estimated that roughly 1.14 trillion cubic feet of gas in those fields remains to be tapped.

According to EIA, 88.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas is delivered to Alaska’s consumers each year. Which means 1.14 trillion cubic feet of Cook Inlet gas – and just Cook Inlet gas, mind you — can keep our state humming for another 13 years. The complete Alaska DNR report, incidentally, can be found here. One sentence in particular, maybe a throw-away line to some, struck us as especially worthwhile in the report:

It will be critical for all stakeholders to recognize the significant impediments that will hinder development of the remaining gas resource in the Cook Inlet basin, and work together to overcome them.

Naturally, the impediments about which it speaks are plain to anyone with even a passing interest in responsibly developing Alaska’s natural resources: lawsuits, federal access restrictions, federal wilderness laws, and byzantine state, local and federal permitting rules. That’s true not only in Cook Inlet, as we know – but throughout the state, both onshore and offshore.

But we’ll leave those gripes for another post. Today, the news is good: Lots of gas for Alaskans in Alaska, and a ton more energy to offer the nation in the future – if those in power in Anchorage, Juneau, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. allow us to step up and deliver it.

Hey, maybe this is the way it’s always gone, but you tell us if you see anything wrong with this picture:

Federal agency (we’ve changed the names to protect the guilty) informs private companies that, after years of environmental assessment, areas offshore Alaska will be available for lease; private company makes good-faith bid for the right to lease that acreage, wins bid, and turns over billions to federal agency; after a few more years of wrangling, federal agency informs private company that exploration may proceed, albeit conditionally; a third-party doesn’t like that decision, and files a lawsuit to stop it; the conversation over the future of that lease now expands to include the third-party litigant, the courts, and the federal agency – but contracted to exclude the company that invested those billions of dollars in the lease in the first place.

Follow all that? In 114 words, that’s basically the situation as it presently exists up here in Alaska. On Dec. 7, we blogged on this very site that Secretary Salazar’s MMS agency had tentatively approved of Shell’s plan to do preliminary work on three of the wells it leased from the government in 2008 – not talking about anything major here, just drilling a couple of test wells to see whether the $2.1 billion investment it made in the area last go-round could potentially bear fruit.

Is it possible the anti-energy groups read that post? Tough to know for sure, but it sure didn’t take ‘em long to strike. Last week, two separate rounds of lawsuits were filed in San Francisco’s Ninth Circus court: one by a long-time anti-energy group here in Alaska supported by national environmentalists, and the other? Well, by those same national environmentalists themselves:

A coalition of environmental groups and Arctic communities has filed a second lawsuit aimed at blocking a Shell Oil subsidiary from drilling in the Beaufort Sea.

The group sued Tuesday, hours after a group that helps manage Eskimo whaling in Alaska filed a similar lawsuit.

Both suits aim to block plans by Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. to drill two wells off Alaska’s north coast.

On one hand, none of this should’ve come as a surprise to anyone who’s been following this issue with any intensity. Back in September, we passed along some interesting numbers compiled by the Institute for Energy Research on how many energy-related leases have been the object of litigation from these folks over the past few years:

The number of suits filed in federal court to delay, defer or outright deny the development of domestic energy resources has grown more than 700 percent in the past decade; from 167 protests per year between 1997 and 2000, to 1,180 a year from then until now.

How amazing is that? 1,200 lawsuits a year – three-and-a-half separate instances of suit filed each and every day. It’s quite a racket this groups have going, if you ask us – and none plays the racket any better than the Crag Law Center in Portland, Ore. According to its own website, this outfit is responsible for locking up millions of acres of taxpayer-owned land, working to prevent dead trees and under-brush from being taken off the forest floor, and even filing suit to prevent a McDonald’s restaurant from opening its doors. Seriously, guys? You’ve never had the McRib?

In any event, folks who actually live here in Alaska and care about its economic future and well-being aren’t taking the news of these lawsuits lying down. By way of the Juneau Empire (did you know that Juneau’s the only U.S. state capital that’s inaccessible by roadway?), we get word from the governor’s office that the state of Alaska “will intervene” in the case:

Gov. Sean Parnell said the state intends to show its support of a federal decision allowing Shell to proceed with offshore oil exploration.

The governor said the state will intervene in a lawsuit brought by environmental groups challenging the decision by the Minerals Management Service.  Shell plans on drilling three exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea next year off Alaska’s northwest coastline.

Environmental groups bitterly oppose drilling.

That last line has it right: these groups bitterly oppose both the process for, and the product of, exploring for American energy. We get that. Unfortunately, now that the folks charged with actually exploring for that energy have been cut out of the process, the conversation on how to proceed in the future is now limited to the entities on this list: 1) Groups that “bitterly” oppose exploration, 2) Courts that bitterly oppose it too, and 3) a federal agency headed up by a man who, though not bitter, seems to oppose it right along with the rest.

Oh boy: we can’t WAIT to see how this whole thing turns out.

Sure, we caught the piece in the USA Today this week about how salaries for U.S. government workers have jumped a staggering 46 percent during “the worst recession since the Great Depression,” as President Obama describes it.

And sure, like you, our first reaction was to be a bit taken back – what, with a full 20 percent of the federal workforce now making in excess of $100,000 a year, and the average federal wage $30,000 a year more than what the average private sector employee takes home. Did we mention that 15 million Americans are currently out of work?

But hey: At least some of these taxpayer-funded employees have been working their tails off lately, right?

Consider the case of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A previously obscure sub-agency of a third-tier cabinet office, NOAA made news twice this week: First, for putting out an impressive, 32-page document establishing a formal process for re-zoning offshore energy development off the map in this nation; and second, for getting some serious loot appropriated its way by Congress. E&E News has the details:

The omnibus allots more than $4.7 billion for NOAA, which would be the largest budget ever for the oceans and climate science agency. The nearly 9 percent increase is a greater spending boost than either the House bill or the White House had requested.

Yikes — NOAA got more cash from Congress than the administration even wanted? But at least we know what the agency will be spending it on.  Almost three months to the day after NOAA first published its “interim report” on the feasibility of establishing a nebulous “Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force,” it was back at it again this week – promulgating a formal “framework” for implementing its “marine spatial planning” policy. Its purpose? To “improve ecosystem health and services by planning human uses in concert with the conservation of important ecological areas.” Orwell would doubtless be proud.

Of course, none of this should be considered unexpected – both the September “task force” document and the new NOAA administrator herself have been clear in declaring the ultimate intent of this bureaucratic exercise. Heck, Administrator Lubchenco didn’t even try to keep this a secret when asked to testify about her plans before the House Natural Resources Committee in September, remember?

The head of [NOAA] strongly opposes ocean planning and aquaculture provisions in a sweeping House bill focused on overhauling the federal royalty system. …

Lubchenco said the bill’s ocean use provisions should be considered as part of a more comprehensive plan. …

“As urgent as energy needs are today, a broader strategy that recognizes the importance of energy along with other critical uses of oceans is more likely to produce long-lasting benefit to the nation,” Lubchenco told the Natural Resources Committee.

Might not seem like much of a scolding to you, but trust us – Chairman Rahall got served.

Thankfully, and as we’ve written on this blog in the past, some folks understand the severity of the gathering threat before us, and are starting to take positive steps to inform their friends, neighbors and constituents of the serious implications associated with this policy becoming law.

In October, 69 members of Congress – 59 Republicans, 10 Democrats – wrote a letter to the White House detailing their concerns with the NOAA plan. And just last month, AIF’s Barney Bishop took the pages of the Bradenton Herald to lay out his case for why “NOAA’s arc,” such as it is, is a bad deal for Florida:

The plan calls for nothing less than the “zoning” of our ocean areas, treating vast expanses of submerged federal tracts as if they were blight on a city block. You want to get rid of an undesirable business down the street that’s been making too much noise? Zone it off the map. You want to make sure that no energy exploration is allowed? Do the same.

And make no mistake: that’s what this thing is really about here. Lots of folks in the federal government – very many of whom earning in excess of $100,000 a year – would prefer to shut down all forms of energy development offshore. They just don’t trust the Interior Department to do it. The solution? Have NOAA do the dirty work for ‘em, all in the name of “sound science.”

That’s the plan, at least. Any chance you’d have any interest in commenting on it?

UPDATE: We see from a quick search of the interwebs that the inestimable Dave Harbour over at Northern Gas Pipelines has commented extensively on this Marine Spatial Planning scheme as well. As you can see, he’s been tracking this thing like a bulldog from the start.

So, OK. Secretary Salazar found his way into our good graces earlier this week by approving a modest 2010 offshore exploratory plan for the Chukchi – basically will allow Shell to drill three separate test wells further than 60 miles from shore, and maybe, just maybe, provide some clarity regarding whether the $2.1 billion investment it made there in 2008 is worth its salt.

As noted, the news out of Washington wasn’t exactly an unconditional slam dunk. As Shell’s Pete Slaiby noted in the Washington Post on Monday, the Salazar announcement is only one half of the equation — to actually start exploring out there, EPA will need to get off its can as well:

Shell officials called the MMS conditional approval a positive step but noted the company is still waiting for an air discharge permit from the Environmental Protection Agency.

“It’s critical that we achieve this permit in a timeline manner to enable a go-ahead decision on our 2010 program,” said Shell Alaska Vice President Pete Slaiby.

But, OK. At least the secretary is doing his part to move this thing closer to the goal line; and for that, he deserves some encomia. Consider those granted. But then we get press releases from his department like the one we got yesterday – ones that make us stop, reflect, and occasionally laugh out loud.

The release is entitled: “Salazar Announces MMS Plan to Establish Atlantic Renewable Energy Office” – a title that belies the hilarious nature of what’s contained therein. But then you go ahead and read the first sentence:

COPENHAGEN – Today, as he toured the Middelgrunden wind farm near Copenhagen Denmark, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will establish a new regional office in 2010 to support renewable energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the Atlantic seaboard.

Apparently, Secretary Salazar was so inspired by his boat-ride to Middelgrunden this week that he felt compelled – right there and then – to declare it his government’s intention to do something bold – something unprecedented: open up a regional permitting office for offshore wind at the Jersey Shore.

OK, so maybe it’s not buckle-over-in-writhing-pain hilarious, but seriously – if the rest of the world doubted our country’s commitment to addressing climate change before, there simply can be no doubt any longer. Secretary Salazar and his new seashore permit stand has officially put an end to all that.  

We know he’s busy in Copenhagen this week, but wonder if he’ll ever get up to Alaska to see some of the energy resources we’ve got offshore as well?

UPDATE: Interesting sequence of events here, upon further inspection.

On Wednesday, the Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas announced its intention to continue paying 500 employees at a currently idled plant in Salazar’s home state of Colorado – you heard that right: continue to pay them full salary for producing ZERO new wind turbines. And then on Thursday, Salazar visit a Danish wind farm – one in which Vestas has a significant stake (as would be expected, considering it’s Denmark). Probably just a coincidence, is all.

UPDATE II: In addition to wind, did we mention that greener-than-thou Denmark produces a ton of oil and natural gas offshore as well? Secretary Salazar’s press release didn’t indicate whether he visited any of THOSE offshore installations on his boat ride to Middelgrunden – so just in case that little part of Denmark’s history was omitted from his briefing materials, we include this (by way of the Toronto Globe and Mail):

In reality, the Danish economy is more dependent on fossil fuels and the wealth they create than at any time in the country’s history. The fuels come from the North Sea, whose reserves gave Denmark its first oil production in 1972.

In 1990 Denmark’s oil production was 7-million cubic metres (one cubic metre equals 6.3 barrels). Production peaked at 22.6-million cubic metres in 2004. In 2007, the figure was a still-hefty 18.1-million. Natural gas production has doubled since 1990.

A reader reminds us that Maersk Oil is especially prolific in these parts of the North Sea; this map of its existing offshore production facilities (lifted from its website) would seem to confirm that.

Nearly 16 million Americans officially unemployed. “Real,” unofficial unemployment reportedly past 25 million. And another 11,000 Americans lost their jobs last month. You know what we need? We need a summit. That was the message offered by President Obama yesterday, joined at the White House by lots of folks who loved to be there (“Can I get a box of presidential M&M’s?!) – but not many who are actually on the frontlines of job creation in America today.

You know who is creating jobs, though? Creating jobs despite an aging workforce, winnowing access to resources, and the specter of confiscatory tax rates from the federal government? America’s energy producers. And even though that industry is responsible for more than nine million direct and indirect jobs in this country – and seven and a half percent of its GDP! – you’d have been hard pressed to find a single voice representing those interests at the White House yesterday. Wasn’t a single one of them there.

Guess it’d be sort of like convening a summit on annoying people and forgetting to invite folks like Joan Rivers and Carrot Top, are we right? Consider: One recent study found that 1.2 million jobs could be created if the Administration simply moved forward with a commonsense plan to unlock our nation’s offshore energy reserves.

Another study from the University of Alaska Anchorage study examined how many Alaskan jobs could be created if Washington would finally give us a green light to produce our energy resources safely offshore. Hope you’re sitting down while you’re reading this.

So, how are jobs are we talking? Economists say 35,000 — that’s more than 3 times as many jobs that were lost nationwide last month.

And in terms of payroll; ball park figure? Can you say $72 billion?

But what’s an enormous figure like that mean to every day Alaskans and Americans looking for work? These energy production jobs pay almost $110,000 each year — more than twice the national average income of $43,500.

These economists also determined that “OCS-related employment growth could more than offset losses from the decline of petroleum production on state lands and could help sustain the economy for several decades.”

Here are few key excerpts from the study entitled “Economic Analysis of Future O!shore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North Aleutian Basin”:

Besides the direct jobs in the oil and gas sector, jobs would be created in other sectors of the economy; these jobs are referred to as indirect and induced jobs. These jobs are generated as a result of the multiplier effects of in-state spending—industry purchases from other Alaska businesses, government spending of OCS-related revenues, and household spending of wages and salaries.

It is estimated that total annual average employment from OCS development—including all the direct, indirect, and induced employment—could be about 35,000 per year on average through 2057, with a peak employment of over 50,000 in 2038. Total wages and salaries associated with OCS development over the 50-year period are estimated to be about $72 billion (2007$).