Less than two weeks from now (Sept. 21), the Interior Department will formally close the public comment period governing the development of our country’s new five-year energy plan – concluding what has been an unnecessarily contentious process from the get-go.

Fans of this site will remember that, on February 10, 2009, Secretary Salazar announced he was extending this comment period by an additional 180 days, ostensibly for the purpose of holding a series of field hearings at which the American people could make their views known on the dimensions of the plan.

At least that’s what his press release said. In reality, it’s widely accepted that the real reason for kicking the can down the road an extra six months was to ice out proponents of responsible offshore exploration, and just as important, give opponents extra time to rally their forces and ultimately win the comment period. Win the comment period, from his perspective, and he’d have all the justification he needs to toss out the Draft Proposed Plan and start again from scratch – with the new version of the plan essentially codifying the existing de facto ban on accessing America’s offshore resource base.

Whether or not the outcome of the comment period has been predetermined, time will certainly tell. But Alaska governor Sean Parnell isn’t about to sit idly by and let the process proceed without registering his state’s views on the imperative of Alaskan OCS energy development.

In a letter sent to Salazar last week, Parnell lays out in clear detail what Interior has on its hands in the federal portion of Alaska’s offshore waters, noting also how this energy can complement the president’s plan to promote an “all of the above” vision for America’s energy future:

A comprehensive energy future must include oil and gas, in addition to conservation and greater reliance on renewable sources. Alaska accounts for a significant percentage of the nation’s technically recoverable oil and gas resources, including an estimated potential of 27 billion barrels of oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Alaska OCS alone.

But the Parnell letter is more than a simple laundry list of the number of jobs, units of energy and measure of energy security that can be obtained through the safe exploration of Alaskan resources. He also takes great care to explain to the secretary the relationship between the development of these energy reserves and the continued well being of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), a conduit through which more than 15 billion barrels of secure American energy has made its way to the U.S. mainland.

At its peak in 1988, the 800-mile pipeline transported 2.1 million barrels of oil a day, or approximately 24 percent of the nation’s crude oil production. In February 2009, the pipeline carried on average 14 percent of the nation’s crude oil production, and throughput is now 680,000 barrels per day and falling at an average of 4.95 percent per year.

We are quickly approaching the minimum throughput rate, beyond which the flow of oil cannot be maintained. Without development of new sources of Alaskan oil, TAPS could shut down within the next decade. New sources of oil must be discovered now in order to realize production in time to sustain TAPS operations and provide oil to the nation beyond the immediate future.

Here’s an element of the debate that heretofore has been lost among policymakers from the Outside. Plainly put, the pipeline was not designed to send a trickle of energy down the pike – it was designed to send millions of barrels a day. Dip below a certain minimum rate, and the thing just won’t work – a function of simple (it’s actually not so simple) physics and liquid dynamics.

So, OK: The pipeline currently sends down around 680,000 barrels of oil a day. How much lower can it afford to go? The state of Alaska tells us:

Recent studies projecting when the TAPS pipeline might shut down have variously estimated that the minimum technically feasible sustainable TAPS throughput … is in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 million [barrels a day].

Catch all that? Drop below 600,000 barrels a day, and all of a sudden, you find yourself in serious danger of rendering the thing inoperable. Render it inoperable, and the laws on the books say it needs to be torn down. Tear it down, and you no longer have a means of utilizing the vast majority of Alaska’s energy. And that’s an eventuality that seems to suit opponents of responsible energy development just fine.

Starting to understand the implications of this previously obscure comment period? In a very real sense, the future of our pipeline – and the American economy at large – depends on it. Kudos to Gov. Parnell for seeing the big picture here. And shame on us if we remain silent on this new five-year plan in the 12 days we have left before the comment period closes. Click here to participate.

A column that ran earlier this week in the Washington Times — authored by Alaska’s longtime (and sole) representative in the U.S. House, Don Young – explores the recent back-and-forth on cap-and-trade between former Alaska governor Sarah Palin and Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). It’s a good read. But the piece also harkens back to some of the important lessons that Alaskans (and everyone else, for that matter) learned during the deliberation over the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) – at its time, the single largest construction project North American had ever seen.

Here’s what Rep. Young had to say about the connection between the TAPS debate of yore and the national energy dialogue in which we’re presently engaged:

American energy marvels such as the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) are the real drivers of the American economy. TAPS didn’t require a government mandate; it required the federal government to get out of the way. This pipeline would never be built today. TAPS was successful only because of the oil embargo and, more significantly, because the legislation curtailed the ability of environmentalists to file lawsuits to block the project — an effort in which, unfortunately, they have become well versed. …

This summer, as TAPS prepares to send its 16 billionth barrel to the consumer, I am reminded that Sarah Palin is correct and Mr. Kerry and Mrs. Boxer are again on the wrong side of energy issues.

That got us to thinking about some of the statements made on Capitol Hill during those touch-and-go debates on whether to authorize the pipeline – a structure that, as Mr. Young mentioned, has delivered the lower 48 more than 15 billion barrels of American oil over its 30+ years of service.

For instance: Most folks don’t know that Vice President Joe Biden, the former senior senator from Delaware, was very much in the thick of the discussion back in 1973 when the Senate was deciding on how to proceed.

New to the Senate back then, at the ripe old age of 30, Biden nonetheless took on a leadership role in trying to strangle the pipeline in the cradle – not only voting NO on the famous Spiro Agnew-tie-breaking vote of July 17 (which streamlined the NEPA process, and allowed the construction to proceed), but then voting NO again the next day on final passage of the authorization, a proposal that carried the support of 77 of his colleagues.

Of course, the debate didn’t end there. The authorization was sent to the House, where changes were made, and eventually made its way back to the Senate in the form of a conference report. There again, as liberal Democrats joined conservative Republicans in support of TAPS, Sen. Biden refused to support it. The final vote on TAPS was recorded in November 12, 1973. Biden found himself on the wrong end of an 80-5 vote. Even Walter Mondale ended up voting for final passage, insisting upon his colleagues that “however great differences may be regarding the particular means in transporting these resources, virtually everyone agrees we need this oil.”

Not everyone, apparently. Worth remembering as Congress continues to drag its feet on a plan that would guarantee the future viability of the pipeline by making available billions of additional barrels of oil in Alaska’s Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

For a state so large that 420 Rhode Islands can fit inside it, and so wide that both America’s westernmost and easternmost points are found within it (see if you can figure that one out), it’s awfully easy sometimes to forget the massive contribution that Alaska makes to continued health and economic well being of the United States.

Maybe it’s the fact that 30 percent of the state resides above the Arctic Circle, or that only 683,000 people occupy a land of 665,000 square miles. But for far too long, far too many Lower 48’ers have known far too little about the fundamental role that Alaska plays in heating our homes, fueling our cars, and more generally, enriching our lives. And the tragedy of it all? Thirty-two years and 15 billion barrels since the first shipments of Alaskan oil arrived on the U.S. mainland, the state and its people have so much more to give.

So much more, that is, if we let them. Unfortunately, even as the vast majority of Alaskans support the responsible exploration for and development of their homegrown energy resources, courts and congressmen in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere have acted forcefully and creatively to deny full and fair access to the billions of barrels of American oil and trillions of cubic feet of American natural gas that consumers need to raise their standards of living, and improve their quality of life.

The state flower of Alaska is the Forget-Me-Not, and on this site it’s a command we intend to follow with care. Along the way, we hope to educate our friends, foes, and casual onlookers alike about the critical link between responsibly developing Alaska’s natural resources, and the growing our economy in a way that puts Americans back to work, and stands as a bulwark against the encroachment of our reliance on foreign energy. All while protecting our environment and reducing our footprint.

To do that, we’ve included a library section capturing the latest and greatest studies, research papers and fact sheets on Alaska’s energy potential, along with a news and views section that brings together some of the perspectives on these issues that are informing the policy debate across the country. It’s a debate in which we hope you will participate, and one this new online platform seeks to facilitate.

Welcome to “What About Alaska?”. Welcome to the future of American energy.