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.

Salazar: “A key component of reducing our country’s dependence on foreign oil is the environmentally-responsible exploration and development of America’s…resources”

Hallelujah. The Interior Department’s bureaucracy that oversees offshore energy production – the Minerals Management Services (MMS) – finally cleared the way earlier today for responsible, job-creating energy production in the Chukcki Sea. Well, not exactly. But, as Sen. Murkowski says: “This is progress.”

Secretary Salazar didn’t exactly wax poetic, but here’s what he said in a press release entitled “Salazar Conditionally Approves Shell’s Exploration Plan For Certain Chukchi Sea Leases”:

“A key component of reducing our country’s dependence on foreign oil is the environmentally-responsible exploration and development of America’s renewable and conventional resources,” said Salazar. “By approving this Exploration Plan, we are taking a cautious but deliberate step toward developing additional information on the Chukchi Sea.”

In 2008, Shell’s subsidiary paid $2.1 billion for leases during Chukchi Sea Oil and Gas Lease Sale 193. The 2008 sale was included in the previous Administration’s 2007-2012 Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program to cover leasing for oil and gas in the Outer Continental Shelf for that five-year period.  The Exploration Plan now approved allows Shell to drill up to three exploration wells during the July-October open water drilling season.

“Our approval of Shell’s plan is conditioned on close monitoring of Shell’s activities to ensure that they are conducted in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,” added Salazar. “These wells will allow the Department to develop additional information and to evaluate the feasibility of future development in the Chukchi Sea.

Sens. Murkowski and Begich were also quick to applaud Sec. Salazar and MMS’s for finally getting off their respective cans and moving forward with a commonsense plan that will create good jobs up here and help drive down foreign oil imports from unstable regions of the world.

US Sen. Lisa Murkowski

“This is progress,” Murkowski said. “Today’s announcement from the MMS is an encouraging sign that Alaska’s oil and natural gas resources can continue to play a major role in America’s energy security.”

“While this represents a step forward, significant hurdles remain before exploration can advance in the Chukchi,” Murkowski said.

US Sen. Mark Begich

“This is another positive step for Alaska’s oil and gas industry. While challenges remain, approval of this exploration plan demonstrates Alaska will continue to play an important role in helping meet America’s energy needs.”

“I will continue to work with Interior Secretary Salazar to include protections that address concerns Alaskans and the rest of the nation have to develop these resources in a responsible manner,” Begich said. “The successful development of these reserves and those of the Beaufort Sea are key to the long term viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and the future of the Alaska natural gas pipeline.”

While our elected leadership in Alaska continues to fight to unlock billions of barrels of job-creating energy that remains under de facto moratorium by the administration, the media elite in Washington continues to celebrate the “courage” of bureaucrats who go above and beyond the call of duty to put out “ambitious and innovative” research (with taxpayer resources) designed to make it more difficult for Alaskans to access their own energy.

The Washington Post, in its weekly ode-to-the-unappreciated-bureaucrat series, profiles how one such USGS staffer has worked relentlessly over the past few years to create a statutory justification for preventing the responsible development of energy – on the grounds that what’s good for Alaska’s economy is somehow inimical to the interests of Alaska’s wildlife.

For Leslie Holland-Bartels of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the inclusion of Alaska’s polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act was a great accomplishment.

But the 2008 federal designation also signaled much more — the broader scientific linkage between global warming and significant changes to wildlife, critical ecosystems and biodiversity.

Following their discovery, many environmental groups wanted to use the polar bear findings as justification for stronger climate change rules. Although these proposals were rejected by President Bush and then by the Obama administration, the Interior department has proposed using the data to designate more than 200,000 square miles of land, sea and ice along the northern coast of Alaska as a critical polar bear habitat.

We all care about the well-being of our wildlife, our environment and our natural resources. There can and must be an appropriate balance to protect them all, while also ensuring that economic activity is not prevented in the process.

And that’s exactly what Gov. Sean Parnell is fighting for, as we’ve written about previously on this blog. He also understands that Alaska jobs and economic security cannot be compromised.

Dan Joling of the Associated Press quotes Parnell in a piece under the headline “Alaska fights to reverse polar bear listing:”

“We’re going to take every step we can to fight for Alaskan jobs and our economy,” he says.

And at the Resource Development Council’s 30^th annual conference, Parnell told the crowd this (AUDIO):

“The Endangered Species Act is not a land-use planning tool and must not be used to complicate, delay, and ultimately halt energy exploration and production in Alaska,” Governor Parnell said. “We’ll take Alaska’s fight to the mat to make sure the ESA is used only to protect species threatened with extinction and not as a tool to lock up our land.”

Thanksgiving is near. And while many families and friends will travel long and far to celebrate and give thanks for their blessings this holiday season, it’s safe to say that seasonal travelers will be universally unthankful for higher gas prices they will pay at the pump.

USA Today reports that AAA “expects 2% more travelers on roadways this year than last, for a total of 33.2 million people.” Under the headline “Higher gasoline prices greet Thanksgiving travelers,” America’s newspaper also reports:

Thanksgiving travelers will find gasoline prices much higher than last year with little hope for respite heading into the rest of the holiday season, oil and gas analysts say.

The national average for a gallon of regular gas was $2.64 on Monday, slightly less than a month ago but up 72 cents a gallon from a year ago, the auto club AAA says.

Increasing domestic energy production – especially in Alaska’s resource-rich Beaufort and Chukchi Seas – would help drive down and stabilize prices at the pump for every single American family. At the same time, safe, responsible, 21^st century energy exploration could create much-needed economic activity and hundreds – if not thousands – of good paying jobs at a time when they are most needed. With unemployment at a 26-year high, and real jobless rate near 17.5 percent, producing more homegrown energy cannot wait.

So how much energy do we have, and what’s stopping us?

Well, in a recent Washington Post column, George Will writes:

In 1914, the Bureau of Mines said that U.S. oil reserves would be exhausted by 1924. In 1939, the Interior Department said that the world had 13 years’ worth of petroleum reserves. Then a global war was fought, and the postwar boom was fueled. In 1951 Interior reported that the world had . . . 13 years of reserves. In 1970, the world’s proven oil reserves were an estimated 612 billion barrels. By 2006, more than 767 billion barrels had been pumped, and proven reserves were 1.2 trillion barrels. In 1977, scold in chief Jimmy Carter predicted that mankind “could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.” Since then the world has consumed three times more oil than was then in the world’s proven reserves.

But surely now America can quickly wean itself from hydrocarbons, adopting alternative energies — wind, solar, nuclear? No.

In his column entitled “Awash in fossil fuels,” Will adds this:

Today, wind and solar power combined are just one-sixth of 1 percent of American energy consumption.

Edward L. Morse, an energy official in Carter’s State Department, writes in Foreign Affairs that the world’s deep-water oil and gas reserves are significantly larger than was thought a decade ago, and high prices have spurred development of technologies — a drilling vessel can cost $1 billion — for extracting them.

Despite these huge, known energy resources – particularly in the Beaufort and the Chukchi – Washington and Secretary Ken Salazar’s Interior Department have failed to move forward with commonsense policies that will help realize America’s energy potentials.

And experts are speaking on this critical issue.

The American Petroleum Institute’s chief economist, Dr. John Felmy, writes about the economic benefits, the environmental safeguards and technological advancements the energy industry continues to make each day in today’s Fort Myers News-Press under the headline “Oil and gas drilling is the right solution for Florida right now”:

Today, rigs and operations are clean, green and safe. The oil and natural gas industry has reduced its environmental footprint and minimized any lasting impact on ecosystems or surrounding wildlife.

Offshore rigs are located far from the horizon, and advanced technologies enable nearly pristine development and delivery of natural resources.

After decades of investment and billions of dollars spent on research, companies can now access previously unreachable depths.

Informed lawmakers and pro-drilling advocates have it right.

Let’s protect our economy — and our shores — through safe, clean energy exploration.

Some state legislative leaders right here in the Last Frontier are working to encourage more oil production, even though our state’s offshore reserves – which would generate taxes, revenues and royalties, helping to fund schools, roads, bridges and hospitals – are largely controlled by Washington’s far-away, forceful grasp.

The Anchorage Daily News recently editorialized about the multi-tracked energy plans being advanced in Juneau. Under the headline “What now on energy?,” the paper writes this about the Senate energy proposal:

Other goals on the Senate’s list include promoting a North Slope gas pipeline, encouraging more oil production, preventing energy price gouging, and coordinating the state’s various energy programs. Few would argue with those goals, but Alaskans don’t necessarily agree on how to achieve them.

Nearly 16 million people are officially out of work in America today. That’s the good news. The bad news is that number shoots past 25 million when you account for all those folks who are unemployed, under-employed, or simply didn’t take the time to fill out the silly reporting forms. But don’t worry: The White House is hosting a Jobs Summit later this week. No word yet if the president will be serving beer.

Thankfully, when it comes to coming up with new ways to spur immediate and sustainable job creation in this country, we’ve got options. One of those options is to start getting serious about developing Alaska’s massive homegrown energy reserves for the benefit of the American people. And thankfully, that option – let’s call it the “public option” for kicks – is starting to get a lot more attention in the corridors of power in Washington, D.C.

In recent US Senate hearing, top brass for a handful of energy companies took to Capitol Hill to passionately make the case for Congress to expand America’s responsible offshore energy access. This, after all, is a commonsense approach to not only help keep prices at the pump stable, but to also put Americans back to work.

The Houston Chronicle’s Jennifer Dlouhy reports this under the headline “Energy companies defend their offshore work”:

“Access to the vast resources in the (outer continental shelf) is critical,” said Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co. “Developing more of our own resources will … avoid the hypocrisy of being willing to buy (oil) from other countries rather than produce our own.”

“There’s a need for balance,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, adding that though the U.S. “has some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world,” those safeguards could be undermined if new restrictions in drilling leases and other limits encouraged companies to abandon American territories for countries with weaker protections.

Is offshore energy production environmentally safe? You betcha.

Odum emphasized Shell’s environmental safeguards and touted new technological advancements that have allowed drilling from smaller footprints that can reach oil and gas within a 30-mile radius.

Alaskans – who are blessed with huge amounts of job-creating resources – deserve action from Washington, not more doubletalk. Thankfully, we have a congressional delegation that continues to unwaveringly fight on our behalf, and on behalf of commonsense energy policies that promote – not discourage – 21^st century offshore energy development, especially in the Beaufort and Chucki Seas.

Just over 2 months into his position as Alaska’s chief executive, Governor Sean Parnell has been a man on a mission for increased Alaskan energy production. However, his commitment to affordable energy and more jobs in Alaska, through safely expanding energy development in Alaska’s resource-rich oceans, is nothing new. As the state’s lieutenant governor, he worked as tirelessly as he is now to promote Alaska’s energy industry and the economic and security benefits associated with it.

Having already penned op-eds and traveled all the way from Juneau to Washington to personally urge Congress to help fight for access to Alaskan energy, Gov. Parnell took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal on Friday to make his state’s case for responsible offshore energy exploration. Under the headline “Alaska Can Meet U.S. Energy Needs,” the governor wrote this:

The United States is now facing a decision on how to meet its future energy needs. In the coming months, the U.S. Department of the Interior will weigh whether to allow oil and gas exploration on Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to be expanded. Such exploration could set the country on a clear and sustainable energy path for decades to come.

Alaska’s OCS contains an estimated 27 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That’s more than twice the amount of oil that has been produced on Alaska’s North Slope since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System went online in 1977. Counting its OCS reserves, Alaska likely has more than 30% of the nation’s recoverable oil and gas. Developing these resources will advance our national interests in three significant ways.

Parnell on Economic Benefits of Alaskan OCS Development

Alaska’s OCS contains an estimated 27 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. That’s more than twice the amount of oil that has been produced on Alaska’s North Slope since the Trans Alaska Pipeline System went online in 1977. Counting its OCS reserves, Alaska likely has more than 30% of the nation’s recoverable oil and gas. Developing these resources will advance our national interests in three significant ways.

First, increasing oil and gas exploration and production will create good-paying jobs for Americans, particularly if this is combined with the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48 states. Increased production will reduce energy prices and lessen the kind of price volatility that contributed to our economic downturn last year.

Parnell on National Security Benefits of Alaskan OCS Development

Third, developing Alaska’s OCS will significantly advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. As our population grows and our economy expands, we will have to get our energy from somewhere. Right now, too much of our oil comes from unstable regimes hostile to the United States—some of what we spend on Middle Eastern oil ends up funding global terrorist operations. Blocking OCS development will only exacerbate this national security threat.

Parnell on the Environmental Safeguards of Alaskan OCS Development

Some suggest that developing Alaska’s offshore reserves, especially in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, will harm the environment. However, my state has a strong record of responsible offshore oil and gas development that demonstrates sensitivity to the environment and respect for Native American culture. Over more than three decades, 84 oil and gas wells have been drilled in Alaska’s OCS without incident. The federal government has also spent $300 million since 1973 studying Alaska’s waters to ensure that oil and gas development occurs responsibly. Moreover, without increased domestic production, we will continue to import more oil and gas than we have to from countries that have far weaker environmental laws than we do.

The governor makes a compelling closing case in his Journal column, noting that:

The U.S. has long supported offshore oil and gas development in other countries. The Obama administration is even offering political and financial support for Brazil to develop its offshore oil fields. If we are willing to finance offshore development overseas, certainly we should be able to support it domestically.

President Barack Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar have both acknowledged that greater energy conservation and increased use of renewable resources will not do enough to meet our energy needs unless we also increase oil and gas production. The responsible development of Alaska’s OCS is essential and should be part of the administration’s energy plan.

But it’s not just Gov. Parnell that is highlighting the economic and national security benefits that come along with increased offshore energy production. In yesterday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch, Vince Haley, vice president for policy at American Solutions, wrote this in a column entitled “Offshore Drilling Will Create Jobs in Virginia”:

Last September, the United States Congress chose to support American jobs and American energy by allowing the ban on offshore drilling to expire. For the first time in more than 25 years, drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) became legal, offering America the opportunity for more energy, more security, and more jobs.

Unfortunately, the current administration was quick to slow down this opportunity to create jobs and decrease our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced in February that he would extend the public comment period by six months, effectively prolonging the now-expired ban on offshore energy development in America. And recently, Secretary Salazar hinted he might delay the process even further and not make a decision on drilling until 2012.

This obstructive action has serious national security consequences while restricting job creation and economic growth. Offshore drilling has the potential to generate an astonishing $273 billion per year in additional economic growth and create millions of new, high-paying jobs. It would also generate almost $75 billion in revenue per year for federal, state, and local governments in the form of royalties and new tax revenues.

Echoing Gov. Parnell’s point that the federal government has helped finance offshore energy production in Brazil, while keeping in place a de facto ban on domestic energy production, Haley wrote this, and noted the overwhelming public support for increasing energy exploration offshore here at home:

At a time of widespread job loss, the federal government could help create jobs here at home instead of Brazil by simply accelerating the administrative process that would allow drilling to begin.

Despite the bureaucratic delay, hundreds of thousands of Americans submitted their comments to the Department of Interior — in support of offshore exploration. The comment period ended on Sept. 21, after which the government will tally the comments and decide if any leasing at all will take place between 2010 and 2015, including whether Virginia will be given permission to create jobs for its citizens.

As Secretary Salazar continues to move forward with the 5-year offshore energy production planning process, it would be in his best interest to listen to folks like Gov. Parnell and Mr. Haley – as well as the hundreds of thousands of everyday Americans that are concerned about rising energy prices and our increased dependence on foreign sources of energy. Responsibly and safely producing more American energy offshore – particularly in the known resource-rich areas like Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas – is in our nation’s best interest.

We’ll start off with the obligatory caveats that it’s “too early to tell for sure,” that “nothing official has been released yet,” and that “all we have to go on right now are back-of-the-envelope estimates” – but gotta tell you: It sure as hell looks like Interior received more comments in favor of new, responsible energy exploration than ones opposed to it.

We don’t have a lot to go on in right now, but according to Consumer Energy Alliance, a Houston-based group that advocates an “all of the above” approach to securing our energy future, it sure looks like we have them beat. From CEA’s release:

More than 325,000 American people sent letters to Interior secretary Ken Salazar over the past six months urging his agency to expand responsible access to critical energy resources offshore, and Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) helped deliver more than 150,000 of them. …

While the closure of this comment period marks a very early step in what is designed to be a long, deliberative process, the volume and intensity of public response on whether responsible offshore energy exploration should be part of our energy future suggests the status quo energy policies of the past will no longer be an option in the future. What we need now, and what these letters demand, is decisive action from this administration – not an effort to pocket veto these critical offshore energy resources.

Ok, so the good guys scored in excess of 325,000 – how about the other side? Turns out they’ve been working this one hard as well. This comes from Reuters:

The Alaska Wilderness League, along with about 20 other green groups, symbolically delivered comments to the department Monday from nearly 300,000 people opposing the proposed offshore leasing plan that would open much of the Arctic Ocean to drilling. … [The] group is pushing to halt all drilling in the Arctic Ocean until a comprehensive plan is developed to protect the area’s fragile ecosystems.

Earth to Alaska Wilderness League: Know this plan you spent millions of dollars to kill? The one you sent 300,000 letters in opposition to? Yes, well: It IS a comprehensive plan “to protect the area’s fragile ecosystems.” The five-year plan addresses lots more things than drilling, sweetheart. And maybe if you’d have read it, that would’ve become plain.

No need to cry over spilled rhetoric, we guess. Still, it’s worth noting that, despite all the press accounts out there suggesting that the greens ran up the score on the comment period, the reality of the situation appears to be this: They lost. We won. End of story. Hit the showers. And we won the previous comment period as well, fwiw – according to the Interior Department, opposition groups got crushed during the 2007-12 five-year plan process too. What was the carnage there? The final tally of four separate comment periods was 91,000 in favor, 32,000 opposed. That’s a 72 percent favorable rate.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the story was the same for the first comment period held for the 2010-2015 plan. Interior conducted that one from August to October 2008. And the tally was 86,000 in support of new exploration, and 79,000 opposed.

Well, the day has finally arrived. Later this afternoon, around COB over at the Interior Department in DC (which, if we know how those folks work, might be as early as 3:30 PM), the agency will officially close down the comment period attached to the Draft Proposed five year offshore energy plan.

This comment period, our readers can attest, has gone on for what seems like 130 years. In reality, though, it’s only been in place a little more than eight months, just enough time for Secretary Salazar to rally his forces in opposition to it, and thus provide himself all the justification he needs to receive these comments with a smile, thank everyone in earnest for sending them in, and then toss ‘em straight into the furnace downstairs.

The foundation for that effort started to be laid last week, when he told a group of reporters that, in “a legal sense,” he wasn’t obliged to lift a finger on this thing for another three years. Later today we’ll hear how many Americans piped up over the past six months to implore the secretary to actually do his job, but this morning we got word for more than one-third of the U.S. Senate that any effort to pocket veto this plan and continue the de facto ban on responsible offshore energy access would not be abided.

The letter, which includes five Democrats and was directed to Sec. Salazar, brings some serious heat. Here are a couple excerpts:

It is more important than ever that the federal government allow for development of domestic offshore energy supplies made available in the [Draft Proposed Plan]. By offering new leasing opportunities, the DPP is appropriately expansive and provides the Department with maximum flexibility to properly utilize our nation’s domestic resources.

Ok – it wasn’t as scorching as we made it out to be. But we’re talking about the U.S. Senate, after all – the cooling <insert appropriate kitchenware here> of democracy.

Complete listing of who signed this bad boy can be found below. If you’re in a spot to thank these group of forward-looking men and women – which includes both of Alaska’s senators, fwiw – please do it.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Lead), Byron Dorgan, Lisa Murkowski, Blanche Lincoln, Kit Bond, Richard Burr, Mike Enzi, Jim DeMint, Richard Shelby, Jeff Sessions, John McCain, Saxby Chambliss, Jim Risch, Mike Johanns, Thad Cochran, John Cornyn, Bob Corker, David Vitter, George Voinovich, Sam Brownback, Lamar Alexander, James Inhofe, John Barrasso, John Thune, Roger Wicker, Jim Bunning, Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts, Johnny Isakson, Tom Coburn, Robert Bennett, Mark Begich, Ben Nelson, and Mark Pryor.

Oh, and lest we forget – not to be outdone by their colleagues in the House of Lords, House Democratic energy leaders also got together to send their own fine letter to the secretary, this one a bit more focused on what might happen if Mr. Salazar decides to sit on his hands. To wit:

Without significantly more production, commodity prices can be expected to rise dramatically. The effects of sudden energy price increases are acutely felt by my constituents, many of whom live in poor and rural areas. Offshore exploration can help alleviate these pains by ensuring a more constant fuel supply.

In case you’re having trouble reading the signatories on that one, we’ve gone ahead and done the hard work for you below:

Reps. Dan Boren (LEAD), Mike Ross, Jim Matheson, Solomon Ortiz, Charlie Melancon, Gene Green, Bobby Bright, Jim Costa, Henry Cuellar, Chet Edwards, Jim Marshall, Collin Peterson, John Salazar, John Tanner, Harry Teague, and Tim Walz