Facts are stubborn things, it’s been said, and numbers, such as they are, often betray the annoying habit of speaking for themselves. No one knows this better than Interior secretary Ken Salazar, who earlier this month was made aware that his agency had earned itself the distinction of having leased fewer acres of onshore energy lands than any in modern history.

Now, in his defense, it should be noted the contest was not exactly a run-away: Back in 1989, scarcely one million acres (of the 650 million owned by the federal government) were put up for lease by the administration of George H. W. Bush, doubtless in response to the tragedy in Alaska involving the Exxon-Valdez in March of that year.

Twenty years later, the administration of Barack Obama has found a way to dip below that historical nadir – all the more impressive considering there’s no Exxon-Valdez to demagogue, no $10 oil to take for granted, and no measurable progress heretofore in converting billions of dollars in taxpayer (foreign and domestic) money into real jobs for real American workers.

The folks over at the Institute for Energy Research did all the leg work on this one – all the numbers, charts, and graphs you’ll need to fully appreciate just how poorly this Interior Department performed in 2009 relative to past years are available for download here. And we’d also commend to your attention a great white paper out of Denver written up by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS).

As you’ll see, the numbers, such as they do, speak for themselves. And so does Secretary Salazar. Unfortunately, instead of admitting to the American people that his agency could have done a better job at leveraging America’s enormous energy potential into jobs and revenues for the American people, this is the slop we get instead:

“We believe that our oil and gas leasing program is robust … But you wouldn’t know it if you listened to the untruths coming out of” oil and gas industry groups.

Salazar said repeated attacks have “all the flavor and deception of election-year politics” … He added that companies’ shareholders do not want industry trade groups to behave like an arm of a political party and said companies should choose a better path, to engage constructively and honestly with federal agencies.

Get all that? It’s not HIS agency’s fault that fewer acres were leased in 2009 than in any year in recent history. It’s not HIS agency’s fault that less than one-tenth the amount of bonus bid receipts were netted from energy producers in 2009 than were collected in 2008. It’s not HIS agency’s fault that it decided to outright nullify existing, legal leases to 77,055 acres of energy-rich land in Utah. No. It’s industry’s fault. And the man’s recriminations don’t end there:

“But Salazar said the department has leased a significant number of properties and noted that there are “huge undeveloped oil and gas acreages” that are under lease but not producing oil and gas.

“Large parts of the public domain have been made available,” Salazar said. “Those places are not being developed, yet we continue to make more of our public domain available for oil and gas development.”

Ah, yes: The 68 million acres canard – the last redoubt of the shameless politician. By now, you know how it goes: Oil companies are squatting on millions of acres of unused land, representing billions of barrels of oil; they aren’t producing any of it, part of a worldwide conspiracy to drive up prices; and naturally, policymakers have an obligation to compel these bad-boy producers to produce – by threatening to take away their leases before they come due.  

Thankfully, the 68 million acres talking point – a favorite of Mr. Salazar, stretching all the way back to his service in the Senate – has been about as thoroughly discredited as a talking point can get. More on that here. But before we go, we have one simple request of Ken Salazar: Mr. Secretary, please don’t pee on our leg and tell us it’s industry’s fault. And stop trying to convince the American people that your agency hasn’t played a material role in denying billions of barrels of American energy from reaching the people who own it.

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

Yesterday, a report was released in the South Carolina highlighting the potential economic benefits associated with responsible, environmentally-sound offshore energy production. The report, rolled out at press conferences in the Upstate, I-85 Corridor region in Greenville and Spartanburg, determined that offshore oil and gas production off South Carolina’s shores would create 2,250 jobs in the Palmetto state and could generate $45 billion in revenues for the government.  With South Carolina’s unemployment rate well into the double-digits, it’s fair to say that good-paying jobs – and affordable energy – would be most welcomed there if the federal government would allow this production to occur.

Here’s just a sample of the news coverage surrounding yesterday’s event:

Spartanburg Herald Journal. Report: SC could reap benefits of drilling

“We’re very excited about it,” said Michael Whatley, executive director for SEA, the regional chapter of the nonprofit Consumer Energy Alliance, which advocates for the thoughtful utilization of energy resources. “This highlights a tremendous economic opportunity for South Carolina.” … The report said tapping South Carolina’s resources could generate up to $413 million in increased gross domestic product and almost $45 billion in government revenues by 2030.  “In addition to creating thousands of high-paying jobs and providing substantial benefits to the state’s struggling economy, off-shore exploration and production will generate significant revenues for state and local governments,” Whatley said.

Charleston Regional Business. Study touts economic benefit of offshore oil, natural gas drilling

Offshore oil and natural gas production would create 2,250 jobs in South Carolina and could lower energy costs for Upstate manufacturers, according to a study released today by the Southeast Energy Alliance. … According to the study, offshore energy production in South Carolina would create $45 billion in federal, state and local government revenues and $413 million in gross domestic product. In addition, the state could receive a $250 million annual royalty if granted a revenue-sharing program currently afforded to Gulf Coast states, the alliance said. … “I’m having a tough time finding a downside to this,” said state Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville.

 WYFF4-TV. SC Lawmakers May Consider Offshore Drilling, Energy Group: More Jobs To Be Created Through Offshore Drilling

South Carolina may consider opening itself up to offshore drilling after an energy group reported that the move could create more jobs and bring in more money to the state’s gross domestic product. The Southeast Energy Alliance told some Upstate lawmakers on Wednesday that drilling for oil and natural gas could create about 2,250 jobs and add $413 million annually to the state’s gross domestic product. “That hits everyone in their pocketbooks at all levels, in a good way, in a very good way,” S.C. Rep. Garry Smith said.

WYFF4-TV. Is SC Sitting On A Gold Mine? New Study Shows How Much Money SC Could Make On Oil

The Southeast Energy Alliance told some Upstate lawmakers Wednesday that it believes this state could have a gold mine offshore. Lawmakers were told if South Carolina would drill for oil and natural gas, it could create around 2,250 jobs, and add $413 million annually to the state’s gross domestic product. South Carolina Rep.Garry Smith, who was at the meeting, said, “That hits everyone in their pocketbooks at all levels, in a good way, in a very good way.”

So, if South Carolina can create thousands of jobs and billions in government revenue through increased offshore energy production, why can’t Alaska, and every other coastal state in the country? That’s why Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell is in Washington this week fighting for more energy access, jobs, and economic growth for his state.

We weren’t entirely sure this moment would ever arrive – and who knows? It still might not – but in just four days, the comment period on the Interior Department’s five year energy plan for 2010 to 2015, barring hell, high water or holy hand grenades, will come to an end.

It’s a comment period that started in January, was extended by an additional six months by incoming Secretary Ken Salazar, and, if Salazar’s statements today are any indication, it’s a comment period that won’t get us a single step closer to gaining reasonable access to new offshore energy, at least anytime in the near future.

The Washington, D.C.-based trade pub E&E News (subs. req’d) was out first with the gory details:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today said it remains unclear whether offshore leasing plans his agency is crafting will supplant the existing 2007-2012 outer continental shelf program or take effect afterward. …

That [current] plan is in place until 2012. So, in a legal sense, we have until 2012 to redo a plan on the outer continental shelf,” Salazar said this morning. “Whether we take that long or not is something we’ll decide based on the information we collected and the analysis that’s been done during this period. I haven’t yet reached a decision yet on what the next steps are going to be.”

For teachers of seventh grade civics class who previously believed that only the president could execute a pocket veto, observe the maneuver that Secretary Salazar is trying to pull off here. Back in February, when he needlessly extended the comment period by an additional 180 days (on top of the 60 days already established), the real objective was extending the de facto ban on offshore energy exploration beyond the Gulf of Mexico that Congress had kept in place for 27 years, but was forced to let expire in 2008.

Now, with the time for reckoning fast approaching, Salazar informs us that the clock never mattered in the first place. You thought the comment period was six months? Think again: The law says we don’t have to even read those comments for another three years – and assuming we don’t, we’ll have been able to effectively continue the offshore ban that the American people THOUGHT they had gotten Congress to remove in 2008.

Salazar might claim membership in the Democratic party, but, to the extent he decides to sit on these comments and do nothing to accede to the will of the American people (and Congress) on offshore energy exploration, it’ll be quite the undemocratic act, indeed. Let’s hope he doesn’t do that, but let’s prepare as if he will.

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.

Look and you shall find, find and you shall see, see and you shall know – if that’s not contained in some ancient Hindu urtext somewhere, it probably ought to be. But despite being profound, it also happens to be true.  And news this week out of the Gulf of Mexico of BP’s massive new oil find got us to thinking what might kind of energy resources might be lying in wait up here in Alaska as well.

But first, let’s give our friends in the Gulf their due:

British energy giant BP has made a “giant” oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico after drilling one of the industry’s deepest-ever wells, it said Wednesday, in a further boost for crude supplies.

“BP announced today a giant oil discovery at its Tiber Prospect (well) in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico,” the company said in a statement.

“The Tiber well was drilled to a total depth of approximately 35,055 feet (10,685 metres) making it one of the deepest wells ever drilled by the oil and gas industry,” it added. …

The discovery is larger than BP’s Kaskida discovery in the same geological area three years ago, which contains around three billion barrels of oil.

Talking about a lot of oil in that field – but still, only a relative drop in the bucket compared with what might be available in Alaska. Of course, we’ll never know either way if a few well-connected bureaucrats in DC win the day.

But oh – imagine the possibilities if producers up here were able to unleash new seismic technology that allows them to see 4-D imagery (you thought there were only three dimensions, didn’t ya?) of energy-bearing formation underground. 4-D’s got all the axes covered, that’s a given – but it also allows scientists to observe the flow of energy over time, sometimes in near real time.

That way, we not only know where oil and gas was tomorrow and is today – we have a good chance of pinpointing where it’s going to be tomorrow.

And not for nothing, but we’re likely talking about an epic amount of energy that remains under de facto lock-and-key here. Last spring, the Bureau of Land Management put a conservative number on it:

According to a new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) report, vast untapped oil and natural gas resources exist on public lands in the U.S. These public lands are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, but are presently closed to energy production.

Many of those formal bans have been lifted, but an informal prohibition on accessing those vital resources remains very much intact today. Chief among those informal bans: Interior’s institutional ennui when it comes to discharging its responsibilities in Alaska.

When news broke a couple weeks back of the Obama administration’s decision to lend $10 billion of taxpayer money to aid in Brazil’s development of its offshore energy resources, reactions to the announcement were much more restrained than one would’ve expected. Certainly much more than we expected, if our post on the issue at the time is any indication.

Maybe it was that the story was initially reported by Spanish newswire EFE and no one else — and only picked up in the U.S. afterward by an outfit calling itself “Rig Zone.” Maybe it was the fact that the Export-Import Bank was involved in the transaction, and no one actually knows what that office does or why it’s important (although it was able to prepare a snazzy fact sheet in defense of the transaction). Maybe it’s the fact that we’re talking about Brazil – not exactly America’s closest friend in the hemisphere, but not exactly its greatest adversary either.

Whatever the reasons for the delayed reaction, the mainstream press eventually (if grudgingly) picked up on the story. A great editorial was filed in the Wall Street Journal subsequent to a quirky take on the decision offered up by Investor’s Business Daily. Other news outlets took note, but perhaps because we were only talking about a paltry $10 billion, it never really caught fire. Even considering the patent outrageousness of it all.

Thankfully, proof is starting to surface that our representatives on Capitol Hill are finally taking note of the story as well. Earlier today, Louisiana senator David Vitter sent the following letter to President Obama – applauding him for his recent interest in expanding the supply of oil on the world market, but inquiring also (reasonably, in our judgment) why he isn’t as keen on doing the same thing in the United States:

While I appreciate your efforts to expand offshore energy production in Brazil, it is my hope that your Administration will move forward quickly with a commonsense 5-year plan that opens our OCS, including the Eastern Gulf region, the Southeast region, and Alaska’s oceans.

Look at that – even tossing in a brief mention at the end of the struggle we’re having up in Alaska on this very same question. Actually, though, it’s not exactly the same. Alaska was included in previous five-year plans, and even still, areas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas that scientists say hold more than 25 billion barrels of oil continue to lie in wait. Some of these areas, keep in mind, have already been bid on, leased, and paid for. But none of them have been explored – a distinction, albeit for different reasons, that we share with our friends along the Atlantic seaboard.

At any rate, Sen. Vitter seems to be onto something here – and best we can tell, he seems to be the only one on Capitol Hill currently onto it. His office number in Washington is (202) 224-4623. Maybe it’s worth giving him a quick shout and letting him know to keep asking the important questions. And maybe see if his colleagues might want to join him at some point.

Don’t get us wrong — we’ve certainly got plenty to gripe about when it comes to the Interior Department’s Five-Year Plan. One day we’re in, the next the whole thing is tossed out the window, the day after that – who knows? But at least the energy-rich areas along Alaska’s OCS are recognized by the plan as being a critical component of America’s long-term energy security – in word, if not in deed.

Our friends residing along the Atlantic OCS can’t say the same thing. For more than 25 years, oil and gas-laden tracts well beyond the sightline of shore have been locked away by the federal government. Maybe that made sense when the ban was first imposed – back when oil was going for $20 a barrel. Today, it stands as a monument to the extent our government will go to appease a small group of special interests in Washington at the expense of millions of hard working, middle-class Americans. The formal offshore moratorium may have finally and mercifully been retired, but make no mistake: a de facto one remains firmly in place. And it’s no less devious or effective as the one it replaced. 

Not everyone living in coastal states along the Atlantic OCS is prepared to take this reality lying down. Far from it. Two items in the news this week underscore the urgency of the situation down there – and the creative ways in which disparate interests are being brought together to promote an energy plan founded on commonsense, supply-oriented principles.

Check out what happened this week in Myrtle Beach:

A group of elected officials, business representatives and environmental advocates met on Wednesday to discuss offshore energy production. … “I think it’s crucial for the folks around this table to have this conversation, and it’s important that the government weighs what they will say,” said Michael Whatley, the executive director of the Southeast Energy Alliance at the meeting held at the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce. … The South Carolina Natural Gas Exploration Feasibility Study Committee, chaired by state Sen. Paul Campbell, R-Goose Creek, is set to release a report within the next 10 days. “I think it’s an excellent opportunity for the state,” said Campbell. “We need to look in South Carolina to open the offshore area for exploration.”

 Not to be outdone, South Carolina’s neighbor to the south (once removed…thanks to Georgia) is also actively investigating the potential for new jobs, new revenues, and a boatload of affordable energy along its portion of the OCS. We’re talking about Florida here – home base for the most aggressive elements of the anti-energy reform movement, and a state whose political leadership (Republican and Democrat) have for years fought the safe development of resources on the grounds that that’s what their constituents wanted. Except that it wasn’t. 

But Florida is also home to something else – the space program (sorry, Houston – all you’ve got are the switchboards; they’ve got the rockets). And earlier this week, Apollo 11 crew member Bob Morrison (Tom Hanks was unavailable) penned an op-ed in Florida Today drawing the parallel between the space-aged technology of offshore energy exploration, and the space-age technology of, well, space travel. 

According to Mr. Morrison:

As a member of the launch team, it was clear that the success of Apollo 11 didn’t come from one region of America. Like all of our great national achievements, the success was a result of a broad cross-section of Americans working together.

We obtained boosters from Washington and Alabama. California produced the spacecraft. The guidance system was assembled in Wisconsin. The landing module was produced in New England. A successful mission relied upon all of these systems working together.

And just as the Russians were committed to beating us to the moon, our global competitors today, China and India, are moving forward with energy policies that stand to leave America behind.

 But today’s solutions are not unlike the ones we used to put a man on the moon. A similar approach could help solve our energy crisis.

40 years later, the Russians and Chinese are looking to eat our lunch once again – this time, in the worldwide competition for reliable access to affordable, abundant energy. Contrary to what you’ve read – China is very much an active participant in the Cuban offshore program. So is Russia. And India. Heck, even Vietnam is drilling for oil and gas within a 20-minute boat ride of Florida. VIETNAM!

What’s our issue with doing the same? Grab a seat, this may take a while. Or better yet – stand up and fight. Click here to find out how.