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.

Only one state in the Union produces more American oil each year than Alaska, and no: contrary to conventional wisdom (see below), it’s not Rhode Island. Of course, that honor goes to our friends from Texas – but here’s an interesting nugget for you: For as much oil as Texas produces onshore, even more comes from the state’s adjacent (and federal) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

This prolific tract is more commonly known as the Gulf of Mexico – and for the offshore doubters out there, it stands today as a vexing monument to what can be achieved when cutting-edge, space-age technology meets a localized federal energy policy that encourages producers to go out and look around.

Of course, that same technology is available up here in Alaska. What’s lacking, however, is the federal policy piece – one that would finally allow our state to do for the nation (and itself) what states along the Gulf Coast have continued to do, and successfully so, for the better part of three generations.

You can take a look at the numbers for yourself on this phenomenon; they don’t lie. Alaska produced 249,874,000 barrels of oil for American energy consumers in 2008 – not a single drop of it from energy-rich areas along the state’s adjacent federal OCS. And it’s not as if folks have gone out to look for some out there and come back empty-handed. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that as many as 157 billion barrels of oil – 15 ANWRs! – lie ready, willing and able to be gotten above the Arctic Circle – much of that in areas within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

So that’s the policy as it exists today: Yes, there are staggering amounts of energy available for production up here, but no: none of it will be available to create jobs, revenue and opportunity here in the United States. But wait. A column we came across today in the San Luis Obispo (Calif.) Tribune from Earthjustice advisor Buck Parker says it’s “time to correct past wrongs in Arctic oil development.” From the piece:

Salazar should follow the advice of NOAA and hold off permitting new oil and gas activity in the Arctic until we have a better idea of how to respond when oil inevitably leaks and until we know a lot more about Arctic wildlife. … It is not too late for Salazar’s Interior Department to correct course and protect the Arctic Ocean.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but let us reiterate: Not a stitch of oil development has taken place in the Arctic – not because there’s no energy in the area, but because the federal government has done everything in its power (real and perceived) to deny us access to it. Apparently, this point isn’t fully known by this fella from Earthjustice – because, after all, he wouldn’t knowingly mislead his readers into thinking otherwise. Would he?

The full column is probably worth your read, if for no reason than to fully appreciate the lengths to which anti-energy activists will go to convince the American people that oil exploration in Alaska’s OCS is happening right now, that it’s ruining a pristine environment, and that federal officials must act at once to “correct past wrongs” in the region by bringing existing development to an immediate end.

But there’s no need to worry, Mr. Parker. Your apparatchiks in Washington are doing a bang up job at preventing that development as it is.

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 about everyone in America not living in the city of Houston knows that local planning and zoning ordinances are a basic fact of life.

But what would happen if the federal government attempted to apply those same local rules to 1.76 billion acres offshore? Carving up our oceans as if they were city blocks – using the same system to prevent domestic energy exploration as the anti-development crowd uses to defeat the local Wal-Mart. Sounds outrageous, right?

If you thought the Department of the Interior was bad, wait until you get a load of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). An office run directly out of the White House, CEQ has teamed up with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to put forward a new “science-based” approach to regulating our nation’s oceans. The eggheads at NOAA call this thing “marine spatial planning.” All you need to know is that it will result in less access to less energy (and fishing, and tourism opportunities) along America’s outer continental shelf.

Thankfully, if news out of Washington, D.C. is any indication, our elected leaders on Capitol Hill aren’t letting this scam go unnoticed. Led by coastal state representatives and Alaska’s own Don Young, 69 members of the House (59 Republicans, 10 Democrats) sent a letter to CEQ head Nancy Sutley this week demanding an explanation for why they’re doing this, and a clarification on just how many jobs we expect to lose under a policy that bigfoots Interior on offshore management policy. From the AP:

Dozens of U.S. representatives sent a letter Monday to the head of the President’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force with concerns that the policy will block offshore energy development and cost jobs.

Sixty-nine House members, including Alaska Rep. Don Young, signed the letter in which they responded to the task force’s interim report released last month.

We’d be remiss here if we didn’t mention the role that NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco is playing in all this. Previously a big-time marine professor at Oregon State, Ms. Lubchenco has written extensively in the past about “our unsustainable use of resources,” the “explosive growth of the human population,” and the “social compact” that “exploiters” such as fishermen and other commercial interests violate daily.

So spare us the press release, please. There can be little doubt that the new NOAA administrator is using this plan to initiate massive changes in the way Americans access their energy offshore – despite what’s being said about the plan publicly.

Here’s an excerpt from the House letter that address these specific points:

We are particularly concerned about the Task Force’s impact on our nation’s ability to safely develop its own offshore energy, including oil, natural gas and renewable energy.  It is critical that the Task Force’s proposals do not inhibit energy activity offshore in domestic waters and undermine the Department of the Interior’s Five Year Leasing Program for offshore energy development.

So, where does any of this leave us today? Tough to say. The oceans plan was recently put up for public comment for a measly 30 days – roughly 210 days fewer than the Interior Department’s five-year energy plan was available to comment on by the American public. How did that comment period end up? CEQ won’t say. We wonder why that is.

Readers of this blog remember well the four-state barnstorming PR tour that Interior secretary Ken Salazar embarked upon earlier this year – at the time, justified as a means of ensuring “we have an open and transparent government” when it comes to implementing a new five-year energy plan.

Make no mistake, Mr. Salazar said: “These are not decisions that are going to be made behind closed doors.” So off he went: first to New Jersey, then to New Orleans, up to Alaska, and rounding out the circus in a city that loves it some Alaskan oil (even if it’s loath to admit it): San Francisco. At each stop, he heard from folks who support offshore energy exploration, folks who oppose it, and occasionally from some colorful birds as well – like the guy in Louisiana who called on the secretary to convene a national summit on (human) population control.

Malthusians aside, the events were supposed to lay the groundwork for a successful public comment period – one in which stakeholders of all shapes, sizes and interests would send in their comments to the secretary, and then wait for the secretary to tally them all up and announce just how the American people felt about expanded energy development here at home.

That’s how it was supposed to work. Unfortunately, more than a month after the comment period expired, we still don’t have so much as a shred of official information on how this thing actually went.

But as the Houston Chronicle reports today, that may be about to change – thanks to none other than former House speaker Newt Gingrich?! From the piece:

A conservative group today prodded the Obama administration to reveal the breakdown of roughly half a million public comments lodged on a Bush-era plan to open up broad offshore areas for oil and gas drilling.

The group, American Solutions, headed by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, made the push in a Freedom of Information Act request to the federal government.

The sad thing, of course, is that the American people have to sue their own government to get the results of a PUBLIC COMMENT period. The happy thing? Turns out people over at Interior already have a pretty good sense how this thing turned out – and not many of them, apparently, know how to keep a secret.

According to one group, Consumer Energy Alliance, more than 325,000 pro-energy comments were delivered to Interior over the past five months. But how many letters in TOTAL were sent? Salazar had the good sense not to keep that data point a secret:  

The federal government has received more than 450,000 comments from the public regarding the development of a comprehensive offshore energy strategy for the Outer Continental Shelf, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced today.

325,000 positive comments out of a total of 450,000? That’s better than 2:1; heck, it’s actually closer to 3:1. Not to play conspiracy theorist here, but anyone think these totals might have anything to do with the radio silence emanating from the Interior office in Washington?

In any case, this FOIA request is just what the doctor asked for here – not only asking the secretary to tell us how the number shook out, but also requesting that he make public all the emails and memos that have been bouncing back and forth between Interior and MMS. Once we get our hands on those, maybe we’ll finally be able to tell, once and for all, whether this secretary is serious about promoting American energy security.

Until then, though, here we wait – thankful, I suppose, that “we have an open and transparent government” of which we can be eminently proud.

It’s not every day (or millennium) that we get to comment on some good news on this blog, a function not of our generally misanthropic outlook on life, but rather: the fact that good examples of good news are so darn tough to come by.

But there’s just no way to pooh-pooh the breaking news today from the Interior Department. Turns out that after five years of back-and-forth in the courts, in Congress, and in and around the executive branch, Shell has finally been told that its offshore energy plan in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea is ready to go – paving the way for the company to begin developing exploratory wells next year on two leases in the area.

The Associated Press has the most thorough wrap-up:

A federal agency announced approval Monday of a plan by Shell Offshore, Inc.’s to drill exploratory wells next year on two leases in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s north coast … The Minerals Management Service said Shell must meet certain conditions, including federal air and water quality rules and marine mammal protection requirements.

Shell Alaska vice president Pete Slaiby called it a positive step toward drilling next year.

Keep in mind that these areas were first included for lease by the Interior Department way back in 2002 – and as readers of this blog should know by now, tracts don’t end up in the five-year plan by accident, not without years of pre-study, analysis and, unfortunately, litigation.

All of which is to say: It’s been a long, hard fight for Shell up here, but it seems to be one they’re willing to continue. Seriously: This is a company that has invested billions of dollars to create permanent jobs here and work with and accommodate native communities – all for the opportunity to risk even more money in the pursuit of American energy resources offshore. But no matter how hard bureaucrats in Washington or judges in San Francisco make it to do that work, these guys just keep coming back for more. Good for Shell. And good for Alaska’s Senate delegation for recognizing how good a piece of news this is:

Alaska’s two U.S. senators praised the announcement. Republican Lisa Murkowski called it an encouraging sign that Alaska’s oil and natural gas resources will continue to play a major role in America’s energy security.

Democrat Mark Begich said the decision showed that Interior Secretary Salazar and the Obama Administration recognize the importance of Alaska’s abundant offshore oil and gas resources, including safeguards for important subsistence resources.

Sure, we can talk about how this is just a drop in the bucket; how so much more offshore acreage in Alaska remains under agency lock-and-key; how Shell, BP and others continue to get the run-around in the Chukchi; how the plan approved by Interior essentially forbids exploration activities for the entire months of September and October. But we won’t do that. Today’s a day to tip a cap, and so consider this a formal doff.

UPDATE: You know what they say: When it rains, it pours. Just a day and a half after Interior gave the go-ahead for Shell in the Beaufort, the agency finally came through with an announcement today that the company’s environmental plan for the Chukchi is “complete” along with it. Here’s the latest from the Anchorage paper:  

The federal Minerals Management Service this week deemed Shell Oil’s application to drill exploration wells in the Chukchi Sea next year to be complete.

That triggers a 30-day deadline for the MMS to review the plan and decide whether to approve it, reject it or require changes.

A previous Shell plan for drilling in the Chukchi was rejected by a federal judge, who ordered a new analysis of the impacts of the drilling.

We don’t usually take on issues related to cap-and-trade on this blog; that space appears to be pretty well occupied at the moment. But a story posted today out of South Carolina referencing U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s recent announcement of support for that initiative caught our eye – since he seems to be drawing a connection to it and continued efforts to promote responsible energy exploration offshore.

Here’s how E&E News (subs. req’d) characterized his position on that today:

Graham said he is working with Kerry to expand offshore drilling and increase nuclear power to limit the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. He said making compromises on capping greenhouse gases was a worthwhile trade-off to get the bill through the Senate.

Seems reasonable enough, right? Reach across the aisle and be willing to give a little to get a little so that decades-long federal bans preventing Americans from accessing their own energy are finally lifted. So what if you have to hold your nose and support an economy-wide cap on energy use – just so long as we can finally claim victory on an issue that has eluded the American public for the better part of 30 years. Right?

There’s only one problem with that strain of analysis: The bans are gone. The moratoria have been lifted. The American people saw to that themselves, rising up last summer to demand of their Congress an end to the blockade of American energy offshore.

So: Not to put too fine a point on this, but if Sen. Graham is as interested in offshore energy exploration as he’s letting on, shouldn’t someone pull him aside and explain that he doesn’t need to support cap-and-trade to get us further along offshore? Explain that we don’t actually need new legislation. Explain that his efforts would be much better directed by sending Interior secretary Ken Salazar a letter? Explain that if Interior were doing its job, we could be out there today trying to do what we can to deliver a better energy future for tomorrow?

UPDATE: Well, at least the senator’s messaging on all this seems to be a lot better off than his policy justification. Responding to a recent round of radio ads posted by the American Energy Alliance in his state taking him to the mat over his cap-and-trade flip, it looks as if Sen. Graham’s people are trying to accentuate the positive:

[Sen. Graham’s] office released a statement Thursday that focused on the Senator’s support for nuclear energy and offshore drilling but made no mention of cap-and-trade.

“Energy independence will be a 21st Century job creator in South Carolina,” Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop said. “Few states would benefit more from energy independence than South Carolina.”

He’s right – South Carolina is uniquely positioned to do for the East Coast what Alaska has been doing for the West Coast for 35 years: Fuel, power and light its economy. How any of that relates to cap-and-trade, though, is anyone’s guess.

UPDATE II: Looks like American Energy Alliance is upping the ante a bit on Sen. Graham, releasing a Halloween-themed television ad on top of the radio spots to run statewide in South Carolina.

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.

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.