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.

Imagine a world where one, single government agency would study all potential impacts of energy exploration offshore, and then, upon completion of its work, however long it needed to take, be empowered to issue one, single permit to allow that project to proceed. Now imagine a world with no heaven — it’s easy if you try. No hell below us; above us only sky. Good tune, right? Snap out of it, man: No such government office exists. Even so, the good guys score a win every now and again – and the news out of EPA today on Shell’s pending air permit would certainly qualify as that.  

We’ll let Reuters’ Alaska writer take the story from here:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday tentatively approved a key air-quality permit that would allow Royal Dutch Shell to conduct oil-drilling operations later this year in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea.

The permit would allow emissions from the drilling ship and associated vessels that Shell plans to mobilize in the Chukchi during the summer and autumn open-water season. …

“We very much appreciate the work done by EPA Region 10 to issue Shell a draft air permit for our 2010 Chukchi drilling program,” Pete Slaiby, Shell Alaska’s vice president, said in a statement. “The issuance of this draft permit starts the clock on a critical timeline of events that will ultimately determine if we can explore our Alaska leases in 2010,” he added.

Interestingly, word of EPA’s long-awaited decision on the air permit hit our mailboxes a full 18 hours before we read about it on the Reuters site. Who gets credit for breaking the story? Not exactly sure it’s the most scientific calculation ever made, but a press release from new Alaska senator Mark Begich migrated into our Outlook at 5:35 PM yesterday afternoon. And the sentiment it contained hit the target squarely on the mark:

“Alaska has long been America’s energy storehouse and a green light on this Shell development means Alaska’s energy will continue to help fuel our nation’s factories and automobiles,” Begich said. “It has become increasingly clear that energy policy is national security policy, and the U.S. needs to focus more on production of our rich energy resources right here at home. Let’s stop paying billions a year to hostile countries and start putting Alaskans to work.”

But while it might’ve slid into a home a half-second late, the Reuters piece is indispensible in one key regard: It adds some much needed context to the challenges that remain before a single drop of oil can ever be produced in the Chukchi. Shell manager Peter Slaiby lays out the landscape in an extended quote toward the bottom of the piece:

“While today’s announcement is good news, the length of the public comment period combined with likely appeals still pushes the boundaries of our ability to drill in 2010,” he said in his statement. “Obviously, the windows in which we have to operate are limited and a decision to move forward is an extremely expensive one. We will continue to monitor our options in the days ahead as we get closer to making that critical decision.”

Ah, yes: The public comment period. Where would we be without it? Seriously: Where would the Interior Department be if it weren’t able to access the sage advice and unique wisdom found in the thousands of identical form letters aggregated and sent in by well-meaning environmental groups? Of course, in reality, these folks aren’t interested in using the public comment period as a force for good – only as a means of delay.

Incidentally, the only public comment period that should matter, in our estimation, is the public hearing that EPA is holding with Alaskans next month – on February 16. The Anchorage paper sheds some additional light on how that effort is slated to go down:

The EPA is taking public comment on its proposed permit through Feb. 17, Begich said. The EPA has tentatively scheduled a public hearing for Feb. 16 in Barrow that would be teleconferenced in Wainwright, Point Lay, Point Hope and Atqasuk, communities that could be affected by Chukchi oil and gas development.

And, by the way: If you can’t make that hearing, you shouldn’t hesitate to shoot off an email from wherever you’re at. According to EPA, you should direct your correspondence here: R10ocsairpermits@epa.gov. And if you click here, you’ll find about 150 other ways in which you can make your voice heard.

Just miles away, in the North Pole, Santa’s elves are working ‘round the clock to ensure the Christmas cheer is spread far and wide. At the same, those opposed to responsible, 21^st century offshore oil and gas production – and the tens of thousands of good-paying jobs this production could generate – along Alaska’s outer continental shelf (OCS), particularly in our Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, are working just as hard to deliver a nice, big lump of coal in the stockings of those who depend on that energy.

This year has been a roll-coaster of sorts for expanded homegrown energy exploration offshore. There have been set-backs. Major ones. And there have also been flickers of hope, and commonsense advancements towards expanding oil and gas exploration in an environmentally-sound and sensitive way – potentially a huge shot in the arm to Alaska’s economy. Opening Alaska’s deep-oceans for energy exploration also represents a monumental step toward increased U.S. energy security.

KTUU-TV provides a quick end-of-year snapshot of the events that helped shaped the Alaska OCS debate this year. Among the highlights:

The Good

The Outer Continental Shelf in question is the area 20-70 miles off Alaska’s north and west coasts, where offshore drilling proponents say there is potentially 25 billion barrels of oil on tap and another 130 trillion cubic feet of gas.

In March, Northern Economics released a study on the impact of drilling. It was paid for by Shell Oil, the largest lease holder in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, and showed that OCS development would employ 35,000 people annually over the next 50 years.

“Our 2010 plan of exploration was crafted as a direct result of feedback we got from North Slope stake holders that we were moving too fast, that it was too much and too soon. So the new plan reflects that. It’s one year, it’s one rig, and it’s half the number of wells we had previously planned to drill,” said Curtis Smith with Shell.

In September Gov. Parnell traveled to the nation’s capital to visit Salazar. “We’re gonna stay in full court press mode for as long as it takes to open the OCS,” Parnell said.

But last month the Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service approved Shell’s plan to start exploring in the Beaufort Sea.

Earlier this month the Interior Department approved Shell’s plans to start exploring in the Chukchi Sea.

The Bad

Almost immediately, [Sec. Salazar] put OCS drilling on hold, saying he needed more input from communities affected by exploration.

In late April a Washington, DC court of appeals said the federal lease program did not conduct adequate environmental studies. The court ordered all lease sales to a halt. Shell feared their $2.1 billion in leases in the Chukchi Sea would be taken away.

Shell is still in litigation regarding its five-year plan to drill on the Outer Continental Shelf.

And The Ugly

 The secretary said he’s in no rush to make a decision on offshore drilling.

While some maintain that proper environment and wildlife protections cannot be balanced with responsible, job-creating offshore energy production, the reality is actually quite the opposite. The good news is that these critical facts continue to come to the surface, helping to move the needles of public opinion. The bad news? We ain’t there yet – not by a long shot. And without the help of policymakers in DC, we can’t expect to get there either. Not gonna lie: It’s a bit of a helpless feeling – having bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. control so much of your land, resources and destiny.

As the sun sets on 2009, it’s fair to predict that in a year from now, KTUU will be once again looking back at another year of OCS developments in Alaska. With hope, the story they’ll be telling then will be one of the huge amounts of homegrown energy that is reaching working families, seniors and small businesses; recounting the enormous uptick in economic activity in Alaska and the job created through offshore energy development; and demonstrating that both the environment and wildlife can coexist with offshore drilling. With hope. And this kick-ass blog.

We may live in a crazy, crazy world, but when it comes to energy here in Alaska, we try to keep things real simple-like: Oil comes from the north, and natural gas comes from the south. Of course, in truth, there’s plenty of natural gas up on the North Slope as well – “large volumes,” according to the federal government – but as yet, we don’t have the means of getting it to the folks who need it. It’s a reality we hope to change in the future, to be sure, but for now, Alaska’s natural gas is used (basically) just by Alaskans. And the vast majority of it comes from the Cook Inlet’s 28 producing gas fields in Southcentral.

Now, for folks who don’t know, the Cook Inlet (and not the North Slope) is considered the birthplace of Alaskan oil and gas — with the first commercial discovery of oil taking place in the Swanson River field in 1957. Today, the buzzword is gas, and these fields help provide the region with reliable energy for electrical power generation and heating. It’s also gas that’s helped spawn and support Alaska’s petrochemical industry – an industry that churns out the fertilizer (especially urea fertilizer, which has more nitrogen than all the rest) that farmers use to put food on America’s table.

So that’s the back-story. What’s the front one? Well, flipping through the Anchorage Daily News this morning, we come across a lovely piece filed by Elizabeth Bluemink reporting on a new analysis released this week by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Turns out Cook Inlet’s got a ton of available natural gas.

Despite recent public debate about future natural gas shortages in Southcentral Alaska, the Cook Inlet area contains enough known natural gas to supply the region’s energy needs for a decade or longer, according to a new study by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

The department’s staff reviewed data from the 28 producing gas fields in Cook Inlet and estimated that roughly 1.14 trillion cubic feet of gas in those fields remains to be tapped.

According to EIA, 88.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas is delivered to Alaska’s consumers each year. Which means 1.14 trillion cubic feet of Cook Inlet gas – and just Cook Inlet gas, mind you — can keep our state humming for another 13 years. The complete Alaska DNR report, incidentally, can be found here. One sentence in particular, maybe a throw-away line to some, struck us as especially worthwhile in the report:

It will be critical for all stakeholders to recognize the significant impediments that will hinder development of the remaining gas resource in the Cook Inlet basin, and work together to overcome them.

Naturally, the impediments about which it speaks are plain to anyone with even a passing interest in responsibly developing Alaska’s natural resources: lawsuits, federal access restrictions, federal wilderness laws, and byzantine state, local and federal permitting rules. That’s true not only in Cook Inlet, as we know – but throughout the state, both onshore and offshore.

But we’ll leave those gripes for another post. Today, the news is good: Lots of gas for Alaskans in Alaska, and a ton more energy to offer the nation in the future – if those in power in Anchorage, Juneau, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. allow us to step up and deliver it.

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.

Nearly 16 million Americans officially unemployed. “Real,” unofficial unemployment reportedly past 25 million. And another 11,000 Americans lost their jobs last month. You know what we need? We need a summit. That was the message offered by President Obama yesterday, joined at the White House by lots of folks who loved to be there (“Can I get a box of presidential M&M’s?!) – but not many who are actually on the frontlines of job creation in America today.

You know who is creating jobs, though? Creating jobs despite an aging workforce, winnowing access to resources, and the specter of confiscatory tax rates from the federal government? America’s energy producers. And even though that industry is responsible for more than nine million direct and indirect jobs in this country – and seven and a half percent of its GDP! – you’d have been hard pressed to find a single voice representing those interests at the White House yesterday. Wasn’t a single one of them there.

Guess it’d be sort of like convening a summit on annoying people and forgetting to invite folks like Joan Rivers and Carrot Top, are we right? Consider: One recent study found that 1.2 million jobs could be created if the Administration simply moved forward with a commonsense plan to unlock our nation’s offshore energy reserves.

Another study from the University of Alaska Anchorage study examined how many Alaskan jobs could be created if Washington would finally give us a green light to produce our energy resources safely offshore. Hope you’re sitting down while you’re reading this.

So, how are jobs are we talking? Economists say 35,000 — that’s more than 3 times as many jobs that were lost nationwide last month.

And in terms of payroll; ball park figure? Can you say $72 billion?

But what’s an enormous figure like that mean to every day Alaskans and Americans looking for work? These energy production jobs pay almost $110,000 each year — more than twice the national average income of $43,500.

These economists also determined that “OCS-related employment growth could more than offset losses from the decline of petroleum production on state lands and could help sustain the economy for several decades.”

Here are few key excerpts from the study entitled “Economic Analysis of Future O!shore Oil and Gas Development: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, and North Aleutian Basin”:

Besides the direct jobs in the oil and gas sector, jobs would be created in other sectors of the economy; these jobs are referred to as indirect and induced jobs. These jobs are generated as a result of the multiplier effects of in-state spending—industry purchases from other Alaska businesses, government spending of OCS-related revenues, and household spending of wages and salaries.

It is estimated that total annual average employment from OCS development—including all the direct, indirect, and induced employment—could be about 35,000 per year on average through 2057, with a peak employment of over 50,000 in 2038. Total wages and salaries associated with OCS development over the 50-year period are estimated to be about $72 billion (2007$).

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.

“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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And experts are speaking on this critical issue.

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

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

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

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

Informed lawmakers and pro-drilling advocates have it right.

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

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

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

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