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.

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.

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.

“The enemy of conventional wisdom,” John Kenneth Galbraith, who coined the term, once wrote, “is not ideas, but the march of events.” And although it doesn’t appear as if the former U.S. ambassador to India was talking about offshore energy’s record of environmental stewardship when he wrote it, that doesn’t make his words any less relevant to an age-old debate that surrounds a fairly simple and straightforward question:

Does energy production offshore pollute our waters? Conventional wisdom might suggest that it does. Can energy production offshore actually help reduce pollution in our waters? Conventional wisdom would suppose that it can’t.

In this case, both would be wrong. We’ll let the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) pick it up from here:

New estimates indicate that the overall amount of petroleum released to the marine environment may be lower than earlier thought. This reflects, in part, advances over the last decade in marine transportation and oil and gas production techniques.

How much “lower than earlier thought” are we talking here? Quite a lot, according to NAS. Turns out that of the measurable hydrocarbon pollution in place in U.S. waters today, 63 percent of it comes from a single, devious source: Mother Nature, in the form of natural seepage. And how much comes from efforts to produce oil and natural gas offshore? Would you believe if it was less than one percent?

Conventional wisdom wouldn’t. Thankfully, the march of events and the efforts of a single man in California are starting to bend the narrative back.  

Go ahead: Just ask a fella named Bruce Allen how hard he’s worked over the years to find folks willing to listen to the facts: He’s testified on Capitol Hill, been published in newspapers across the country, and just this week, even teamed up with The Heritage Foundation to publish a detailed background primer on how increased access to energy offshore would actually help our natural environment, not harm it. From his paper:

The economic benefits from increased domestic hydrocarbon production are well known, but many erroneously assume they come at an environmental cost. In truth, there are opportunities … to achieve substantial environmental benefits from drilling as a consequence of reduced seepage of oil and natural gas into the air and water. Expanded offshore oil and gas production can genuinely be a win-win proposition.

Is it so difficult to understand how this would work? Billions of barrels of oil – and more trillions of units of natural gas – seeps naturally into our nation’s waters each year, literally bursting through the ocean floor and immediately assuming the form of natural pollution.

What if there existed a way – follow us here – that allowed us to access that energy BEFORE it bled out on its own? What if there existed a way to turn a form of pollution into a means of economic revitalization – in so doing, materially reducing the amount of oil that seeps naturally into our nation’s oceans?

Boy, that would be awesome. Wonder if we’ll ever come up with a method for doing it.

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.

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

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.