Barbara Durkin, independent wind energy researcher, has offered these thoughtful comments:

In response to, 'Is Offshore Energy Worth The Risks?' I suggest that we first consider past experiences, and the direction being taken by the world's leading offshore wind energy experts.

Offshore wind energy adverse risks, costs, and market conditions have caused U.S. largest manufacturer of wind turbines, General Electric GE; and Shell Wind; and World's Largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, to all abandon their offshore wind plans.

GE "discontinued" its offshore "prototype" 3.6 MW wind turbine that is specified by Cape Wind. Senior VP of Vestas Peter Kruse states, "the only way forward is more turbines in virgin ground onshore", and, “Politicians want offshore so they can avoid the Nimby discussion, but they are allowing a tiny minority to force the rest of the population to pay double for renewable energy.” Shell Wind has announced it will no longer invest in offshore wind as it's, "not economic".

I do not expect wind power to replace coal as Interior Secretary Salazar suggests. I do expect a higher level of due diligence to be exhibited by the Secretary of the Interior holding in trust for us the public offshore resource. A fair return to the United States, by large scale deployment of wind turbines offshore, should not be expected warns GE, Vestas, and Royal Dutch Shell.

Secretary Salazar either has the answers to the offshore technology and cost challenges that GE, Shell, and Vestas have identified as significant enough for all three to retreat to shore, or he invites these insurmountable obstacles identified by these former titans of offshore wind energy.

The energy, environmental and economic challenges facing the United States require a multi-faceted energy strategy. Energy efficiency and conservation are one key element of a comprehensive policy: saving energy reduces greenhouse gas emissions, saves money, and helps relieve pressure on stretched energy supplies. Energy diversity is also key: To cut emissions and meet growing energy demand while preventing economically damaging price increases, we’ll need a diverse range of lower-emission energy sources and technologies, including renewables and alternatives, carbon capture and sequestration, nuclear, and combined-heat-and power. While the stimulus package was a good start, much of the work and investment needed to develop and deploy clean energy remains to be done. Finally, domestic oil and natural gas development – offshore and onshore – is also vital to an effective energy policy and meeting climate policy objectives.

Public opinion surveys consistently show that at least two-thirds of Americans support offshore oil and natural gas development. They understand that an affordable, reliable supply of energy is critical to the economy, to a globally competitive U.S. manufacturing sector, and to millions of jobs. Americans may also be coming to understand how energy sources such as natural gas fit in to a clean energy economy. Natural gas is used for cleaner electricity generation, leading to a 69 percent increase in electricity-related natural gas demand from 1997 to 2007. (Natural gas price increases from "fuel switching" with insufficient supply is one of the leading concerns of chemistry companies and other energy-intensive manufacturers.) Natural gas is used to make cleaner transportation fuels such as ultra-low-sulfur diesel. It’s used for fertilizer to grow renewable energy crops, hydrogen for fuel cells, and as a key raw material, or “feedstock” for chemistry products that go into energy efficiency and renewable energy applications, including building insulation, solar panels, wind turbines, lightweight vehicle parts, lithium-ion batteries, energy-efficient appliances, automotive and industrial lubricants, low-rolling-resistance tires, and many more. (Feedstock use does not emit GHGs). The clean energy demands placed on natural gas – already high today – will grow sharply as the U.S. seeks to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’ll need an accessible, affordable domestic supply to keep pace with these demands.

As demonstrated by last year’s decision to not renew America’s outdated bans on offshore energy development, Congress has also recognized the importance of offshore domestic energy to the United States. Next, it’s vital that Congress move ahead with legislation that ensures American energy resources are fully explored, developed and brought to market before the next "crisis." We should not wait for energy prices to climb again, following economic recovery, to determine how we’ll put offshore domestic energy resources to work for our clean energy future and our economy. Among other benefits, let's not forget that offshore energy development can generate billions for the U.S. Treasury.

The other industrialized nations of the world – from the U.K. to Norway, Ireland to Brazil – make meaningful use of their offshore energy resources as part of a smart, present-day energy strategy. Given today’s offshore energy development technology and track record http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_acc/bin.asp?CID=217&DID=4703&DOC=FILE.PDF, as part of a broader energy policy, it only makes sense for the United States to do the same.

I’ll be posting several interesting comments on this question from energy and environmental experts off of our panel. Here’s another, this one from John Hunter of J. Hunter & Associates Ltd, North Vancouver, Canada:

This debate should not be about whether offshore oil will affect gasoline prices immediately. It should be about displacing foreign oil from your "friends" in Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, etc., and replacing it with American product produced by Americans with jobs and royalties for Americans instead of all benefits to foreigners. Some of these royalties can be used to fund alternative energies or health care, for example. In addition, offshore oil helps security of supply; the US is in awful shape here, importing half its oil. Offshore oil also helps the US balance of payments.

Global warming caused by new American offshore oil? NONSENSE! New American offshore oil has no effect on the environment because you are not changing the amount of oil you use, just the source - you are displacing foreign oil!

Offshore oil spills? Why do opponents foam about this but not tell the layperson that Mother Nature leaks (seeps) 13 times the oil into North American waters as the entire North American offshore industry? The history of offshore oil spills in tightly regulated and tightly operated waters such as the US and Canada has been excellent over the last quarter century plus. Santa Barbara is ancient history. Claims of big spills and dumping of drilling waste and heavy metals and the like are based on old history. Now zero discharge drilling is possible, like the newest platform in Cook Inlet, Alaska.

And please do not use the "logic" that it might take years to develop new oil. What if we took that approach to curing cancer, or Wilbur and Orville Wright had accepted such nonsense?

My bottom line is simple - to the extent you ARE going to use oil, why not use American oil and employ Americans and pay yourselves, instead of sending billions of dollars a year to unfriendly foreigners? Why not ensure the oil you do use is produced and transported in the safest and most environmentally friendly fashion possible?

Here's an interesting perspective on this question from Allen Schaeffer, Executive Director of the Diesel Technology Forum:

The Obama/Biden energy plan cites the goal of “Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.” From 1994 - 2007 in large pick-up trucks, diesel engines made by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler outsold gasoline models by 4 to 1, and in green terms, these diesel powered pickups – chosen instead of the gasoline engine-- over their useful lives these trucks will have saved 48 billion gallons of fuel, equivalent to one-third of the entire gasoline consumption in 2007; not to mention savings of 537 million metric tons of CO2 (almost equal to the emissions produced each year by New York, California and Florida combined.)

This use of (this) diesel technology alone has already saved more than two years worth of oil normally imported from Venezuela.

We must not ignore the benefits of here-and-now energy saving technology like diesel that has cut CO2 emissions and reduced dependence on imported oil.

As a footnote -- From 2003 to 2008, diesel pick-up trucks outsold hybrids 2.5 to 1, saving 21 times more fuel than all the hybrids combined.

At the beginning of this week Secretary Salazar was in Alaska for meetings in Dillingham and Anchorage. On Tuesday a full-page ad ran in the Anchorage Daily News listing the names of hundreds of individuals whose livelihoods depend on the abundant waters of Bristol Bay and urging the Interior Secretary to restore protection for the Bay’s waters from offshore drilling. “Our fish, our food, and our livelihoods should not be put at risk for the comparatively short-term benefits that oil and gas development would provide,” they said. The Wilderness Society couldn’t agree more.

Yesterday, one of those fishermen, Alan Park, had the chance to speak directly to Secretary Salazar. He told the Secretary that he used to fish for herring in Prince William Sound, but has not been able to do so since the Exxon Valdez oil spill 20 years ago. His remarks were brief but his point clear: just one spill is all it takes. Are we willing to take that chance in Bristol Bay, the source of one-third of the fish consumed in this country?

Salazar also heard from Native Alaskans whose health has already been impacted by the air pollution associated with onshore oil development. They fear that proposed plans to open vast new areas of the Arctic Ocean to oil and gas leasing could destroy their centuries-old subsistence culture. During the Bush Administration, the oil industry gained access to millions of acres of oil and gas leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Now, MMS has proposed selling more leases across 73 million acres—an area the size of Arizona. The bounty of these Arctic waters has sustained Native communities for centuries. We would do well to listen to their voices.

Oil and gas exploration and development come with huge—and likely irreversible—environmental costs. Added to the impacts of climate change, which are already taking a heavy toll on Arctic ecosystems, the risk is just too great. Spills in Arctic waters are inevitable; even the Minerals Management Service has predicted at least a 40 percent chance of a “major” spill. Yet no proven technology exists to clean up oil in broken ice.

Seismic testing in the Beaufort Sea has already had an adverse impact on whale behavior and migration patterns. Whales are only one at-risk species in the rich, diverse marine ecosystem of the Arctic Ocean. Polar bears, seals, walrus, migratory birds, and fish all depend on these waters, as do the human communities that rely on these resources.

What’s urgently needed right now is a time-out on all new Arctic OCS oil exploration and development. Secretary Salazar should not approve any new oil and gas leases in the Arctic Ocean or Bristol Bay until the government has a far better understanding of the species and the ecosystems at risk—particularly in the face of climate change. More scientific research is needed to better understand how the Arctic’s unique resources might be impacted by development.

Furthermore, it is time to develop a comprehensive conservation and energy plan for the Arctic. With sea ice melting at rates faster than scientists imagined possible, the need for real solutions to address climate change, protect our fisheries and marine resources, and transition from reliance on oil to more renewable sources of energy is more urgent than ever.

At last week’s public comment hearing of the Minerals Management Service (MMS) in Atlantic City, the Institute for Policy Integrity made a set of recommendations that, if accepted could avoid wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on offshore drilling leases. Essentially our advice is that Interior Secretary Salazar should take the option value of selling OCS leases into account before proceeding with a plan.

In the current plan for selling offshore-drilling rights (drafted by Bush Administration officials prior to President Obama’s inauguration), MMS failed to value the option of waiting to auction drilling leases. The problem stems from the use of an overly simplistic formula to determine the value of offshore leases that is appropriate for “now-or-never” decisions but does not take into account the potential value of waiting. In situations where decisions are irreversible (like removing oil and gas from below the ocean) and conditions are uncertain (like the price of oil which has fluctuated from $50 to $140 per barrel and back down again within 8 months), the potential value of waiting can be particularly large.

Economists agree that under these circumstances, we should use a model more like the one corporate executives use when receiving compensation packages; one that takes financial options into account. While such executives are not the most popular actors in the public mind right now, few would argue that they typically do a bad job of maximizing the value of their paychecks. In the financial context, experts have developed methods to put a value of waiting to exercise options, and these methods can be applied in the offshore drilling context.

For MMS, applying the wrong economic model to the question of off-shore drilling leads them to sell too many leases or sell leases too cheaply without regard for the price they might command down the line. If decisions are based on the current report, American taxpayers stand to lose billions in option value.

Our recommendation is for MMS to update their economic models to include "option values." It is true that even a speedy transition to a low carbon economy will take decades and we may eventually need to extract these resources, but we must not place a zero value to the option to wait. Doing so would be like a CEO exercising executive options at too low a stock price—costing ourselves billions of dollars and getting nothing in return.

Probably no single factor has as much potential for influencing the global competitiveness of American manufacturers as the price of energy. While American manufacturers’ efficiencies and innovations are significant marketplace advantages, unless we can power our facilities with low-cost energy, we cannot effectively compete against overseas competitors' lower labor and regulatory compliance costs.

Even though America’s forest products facilities produces more than 60 percent of their energy needs onsite from renewable biomass, purchased energy remains our third-highest manufacturing cost. While energy prices are lower today due to the economic downturn, it was only a few years ago that they risked swamping our economy. Between 2000 and 2005 natural gas prices quadrupled, costing consumers approximately $100 billion in higher prices for food, manufactured goods and home heating. The fundamentals remain for energy price spikes to return when demand increases after the recovery. If that happens, it could be an economic setback for a country and an industry struggling to get back on their feet.

Ensuring access to reliable and abundant energy supplies is therefore critically important to our economy, and needs to be a top priority as Congress and the Administration develop energy reform strategies.

For example, the estimated 300 TCF of natural gas natural gas deposits in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) are the largest untapped gas reserves in the continental U.S. that can be recovered with existing technology. Additionally, significant wind resources exist offshore that can be harnessed to help meet the growing demand for renewable energy. With the right technologies, this energy can be put to use safely and efficiently to meet America’s growing energy needs. The only potential danger is inaction that denies American manufacturers, workers, and consumers the economic benefit of increased energy security and affordability.

Manufacturing has taken its share of hits over the past several years, and the forest products industry is no exception. Since 2006 we have lost 250,000 workers—19 percent of our workforce. Only the nation’s economic recovery, and policies to provide for affordable and reliable energy, will allow our industry—6% percent of U.S manufacturing GDP and approximately 1 million workers—to continue contributing to the economic and environmental health of our nation.

Because the U.S. needs all its fuel sources, we are in favor of opening America’s offshore areas to increase domestic energy production, including wave energy, wind and solar development, and yes, natural gas and oil. Pairing natural gas and renewable energy sources offshore is particularly attractive, because natural gas is what makes renewables a reliable source of energy. All of this is consistent with President Obama’s goals to increase domestic energy production.

The natural gas industry has proven over the past 30-plus years that they can extract such materials while respecting the environment. In addition to the national security benefits, offshore production benefits American taxpayers who receive billions of dollars in royalties and other payments each year from the production of natural gas. Perhaps more importantly, we need America’s coastal areas opened now to help boost employment in the short term while providing domestic energy security in the long-term. That’s something the American public continues to support, even though energy prices have gone down. A survey released just over a week ago by Public Agenda (a nonpartisan and nonprofit organization formed in 1975) found that 65 percent of Americans now favor drilling for oil and natural gas in coastal areas along the mainland and Alaska. That is nearly exactly the same number that indicated support for offshore drilling last year when energy prices were much higher.

The American public understands that we need more domestic energy. We hope America’s political leaders continue to understand that as well.

As this nation gets back on the road to economic recovery, it must address meeting the energy needs of American consumers now and in the future. Energy means jobs, economic growth, and global competitiveness. Opening the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to increased energy development is a vital step in the right direction.

Oil and natural gas offer the most promise and best options for OCS energy development. A recent ICF International study found that developing off-limits areas of the OCS could generate $1.3 trillion for federal, state and local goverments and create thousands of jobs. Many of these jobs would be in energy exploration and production, which pay more than double the national average. Furthermore, putting more of America's oil and natural gas to work for Americans would greatly improve U.S. energy security and provide the fuels and chemical components needed to power the economy. All credible forecasts show that oil and natural gas will continue to provide the majority of the nation's energy for decades to come.

Unfortunately, a pattern of delay has emerged. Recently, the implementation of the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) five-year offshore leasing plan was delayed, despite the fact that a majority of comments submitted by the public favored increased offshore drilling. Similarly, the Interior Department pushed back the second round of oil shale research and development leases, and Virginia's Governor Kaine called for the delay of the proposed Virginia offshore lease sale. These actions ignore the urgent need to increase domestic oil and natural gas development to ensure an adequate supply in the future.

The oil and natural gas industry has the advanced technology and the know-how to develop offshore oil and natural gas in an environmentally sound way. Since 1980, OCS operators have produced 4.7 billion barrels of oil with a spill rate of only 0.001 percent despite major hurricanes. According to MMS, about 460 barrels of oil has spilled from platforms annually from 1991 to 2000. MMS data also show that for each barrel spilled from OCS facilities in the past 10 years, 80 barrels of oil were released from natural seeps in Santa Barbara, California, alone. The Department of Energy acknowledges that the industry's culture is infused with an unsurpassed environmental and safety ethic that undergirds its operations.

Our nation must have a multi-pronged energy policy that includes all sources of domestic energy. Government should not pick winners and losers or delay development that could give a much needed boost to our economy. Increased offshore oil and natural gas development is vital to putting our nation on the road to economic recovery and to meeting the energy needs of American consumers.

The first rule of filling a hole is to stop digging. We already understand that our dependence on fossil fuels has dug the US economy into a huge hole -- we simply don't have enough of the world's cheap oil for a fossil fuel based economy to be our best strategy, and the world's climate can't tolerate a coal or tar sands based transition to replace oil with another fossil fuel.

So we need a new energy economy, and the sensible thing to do is not to view our coastal regions as a final, last gasp of the old oil economy -- let's develop them as the first wave of the new, sustainable energy economy. Remember, our coastlines and waterways need to serve many needs -- transportation, fisheries, tourism, as well as energy. If we try to squeeze more oil and gas production into these very valuable and sensitive areas, we'll have less ecological and economic space for the energy technologies of the future -- wind and wave.

We have to stop being hijacked by the past, and our coastlines are a good place to start.

Our coastal economies rely on clean coastal waters, and it will be vital to keep our coasts clean and vital as we move forward to develop renewable energy sources such as offshore wind energy, wave arrays and tidal generation, and seek to at least evaluate the potential expansion of offshore oil and gas drilling within some of our less sensitive coastal areas.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the primary manager of America’s coastal waters on behalf of the Obama administration, has inherited a magnificent legacy of careful bipartisan ocean stewardship maintained by five presidents. This legacy also comes to President Obama as a result of 27 consecutive years of bipartisan congressional coastal protection, which was kept in place until late last year when it was removed by former President Bush.

As a result, the coastal waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone – an area far more extensive than the land mass of the terrestrial United States – is now the topic of an intense debate over how, or whether, we can maintain our nation’s substantial coastal-dependent economy while developing offshore energy resources.

We know that offshore oil drilling produces routine toxic discharges amidst our sensitive fisheries and brings the inevitable threat of major oil spills. Oil from these spills endures for decades in the environment when containment and cleanup efforts fail – as they always seem to do. We also know that the continued dependence by human societies on carbon-based fuels is the primary cause of the rapid acceleration of global warming. Burning carbon fuels is dramatically increasing the acidity of our oceans and literally removing habitats right out from under important species throughout the globe, including habitats that human communities depend upon.

We now know with certainty that it is clearly time for a thoughtful move toward renewable energy sources that have less of a carbon footprint. Energy efficiency and conservation is obviously our first and foremost need, because with no change in lifestyle, we can easily stop the profligate waste of energy that our outmoded power grid and other antiquated energy systems bring. How renewable energy projects are to be responsibly sited is now one of the most compelling issues facing ocean scientists and coastal planners throughout the world, and the survival of wildlife and humans alike depends on how we answer these urgent questions.

We need to bring together the best and brightest of our ocean scientists to focus on how to restore our damaged fisheries, how to avoid further harming our oceans with dangerous hydrocarbon extraction and acidification of our coastal waters, and how to avoid the pitfalls of poorly-sited ocean industrialization as we move beyond carbon as the fuel of choice for human society.

If it’s fair to ask whether expanding America’s energy potential offshore is worth the risk to our environment, perhaps it’s equally fair to consider whether not doing so is worth the risk to our economy. In offshore oil and natural gas alone, we’re talking about a resource potential that be safely and efficiently converted into millions of new jobs and billions (even trillions) in new revenue – all while displacing decades (even generations) of energy imports from unstable regimes. It’s never been a bad idea to pursue a public policy course consistent with those aims; given the state of our economy, it’s never been a better one than right now.

Those who argue otherwise base their opposition on four revolving premises: 1) that significant volumes of oil and gas do not exist offshore; 2) that even if they do, we can’t access those resources without spoiling our environment; 3) that even if we can, it will take years to get them; and 4) that even if it won’t, we should be focusing our efforts on wind and solar, not as a supplement to conventional energy, but to their exclusion. Let’s take a look at the facts.

The only portion of America’s outer continental shelf (OCS) for which we have reliable, firsthand resource assessments is the western Gulf of Mexico. Why is that? Simple: We’ve never been able to look anywhere else. Even still, geologists and federal experts put the potential resource take offshore at 420 trillion cubic feet of gas and 86 billion barrels of oil (median). For scale, that’s nearly 2.5 times the total amount of gas – and more than 5 times the amount of oil – we’ve produced in federal waters since the first exploratory well was drilled 61 years ago (or 7 times the amount of oil we’ve gotten from Prudhoe Bay, North America’s single largest oil field). Given the government’s history of underestimating our untapped resources, it’s probably a lot more, but we’ll never know until we are finally allowed to look.

But can we access those resources safely? Thankfully, we don’t need to rely on government estimates to answer this question. The last offshore spill of any significance occurred in 1969. Since then, more than 50 billion barrels of offshore oil have been produced in America without a major incident. And while serious spills have been all but eliminated, advancements in new technology allow operators to produce twice the energy today with fewer than half the wells.

Ah, but that discussion is moot, say opponents of new exploration, since new energy resources are decades away from realization. Not so. A 2008 report by Wood Mackenzie suggested new energy could be produced in 18 months in areas along the Pacific OCS. The same is true for the coveted eastern Gulf of Mexico, where infrastructure already in place could ensure new supplies of American oil and gas are achieved in months, not years or decades.

If you can get an opponent of OCS exploration and production to engage you this far into the debate, consider it an extraordinary event. But if you do, the last parry you’re likely to encounter is the familiar refrain that, even if all this is true, we need to be doing an awful lot more to promote alternative and renewable energy.

But why can’t we do both? After all, the federal government has over the past 20 years invested billions of taxpayer dollars with an eye on giving these technologies a chance to take hold in the market. Advocates of responsible energy development offshore aren’t asking for a taxpayer-directed hand-out – just an end to the government-directed lock-out that’s prevented the safe acquisition of resources offshore for more than 30 years.

Separate the fact from fiction, science from speculation, and hype from hope – and you’re left with a simple truth: Our economy runs on affordable energy; affordable energy is available offshore; and we can acquire that energy without bringing undue harm on the environment. Those are the facts. Now let’s get to work on using them to America’s benefit.

We should make prudent use of offshore energy resources. No other country in the world has denied itself the benefit of domestic offshore resources through sweeping moratoria as the U.S. has done. The path forward should include obtaining the best information available as to what resources are there. Updated seismic surveys should be undertaken. Technology has improved greatly in the 25+ years since the last surveys were conducted. Armed with the best information, rational decisions can be made about benefits and risks, with full involvement of states.

Development of this nation’s energy resources in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is essential to our long term energy and economic security and international competitiveness however; such development is running directly into very successful efforts by environmentalists and congressional leaders to literally de-industrialize the nation. These environmental groups and congressional leaders constantly offer misleading statements that somehow this country can successfully function using less and less fossil fuel because we can somehow, between increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy, have all the energy we need to run this vast country and its $13 trillion economy.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Literally every energy expert in the world predicts the use of fossil fuels increasing until 2050 and beyond but after 2050 it is predicted that we will have the technology to use fossil fuels in a cleaner form and the cleaner technology will be used. But we will still be using fossil fuels and yes we will be using more renewables and will be using our energy more efficiently. Moreover, these same groups that oppose oil and gas exploration in the OCS are also the same groups that oppose nuclear and now most forms of renewable energy both on land and in the OCS.

To clearly address both issues this blog will be divided into two parts: (1) oil and gas exploration in the OCS and (2) efforts by environmental groups and congressional leaders to also block renewable projects.

The Need and Benefits of Oil and Gas Exploration in the OCS

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) should allow all 31 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) lease sales proposed in its January 2009 Draft Proposed OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program to proceed as soon as possible. Development of oil and natural gas resources on the OCS will help keep energy prices stable, create jobs, and produce significant federal revenues to help counter our nation’s growing debt and unfavorable balance of trade.

Energy prices have fluctuated wildly over the past several years, and in response Americans have demanded access to our nation’s vast oil and gas resources. Polls conducted last summer by CNN, Reuters, Zogby, Fox News, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg, Rasmussen and Quinnipiac University all showed that 60 to 70 percent of Americans favor increased offshore oil and gas exploration. Although there is no “silver bullet” to our energy supply problems, American energy consumers know that access to our own resources is a great place to start.

When the President and Congress lifted their moratoria on exploration in the OCS, MMS swiftly undertook the process of a new five-year leasing plan that would allow for production in these newly-available areas. On January 16, 2009, MMS announced the proposed OCS leasing program with a 60-day comment period ending March 23, 2009. However, on February 10, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior announced that MMS would extend the comment period by 180 days—a truly outrageous amount of time, given the number of comments MMS has received on various rulemakings and solicitations on the issue.

MMS’ decision to further delay exploration and development in the OCS is potentially very shortsighted. We are less than nine months removed from “drill baby, drill,” mantra and although oil prices have temporarily calmed, consumer attitudes have not substantially changed. Americans believe their government listened to them in 2008 and took action to keep oil prices low. If oil prices spike again in the summer of 2009, Americans will wonder why this administration is dragging its feet on domestic oil and gas production.

By allowing all 31 lease sales at issue to remain in the OCS leasing program for 2010–2015, MMS will be doing its part. The National Petroleum Council (NPC), a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy, estimates that OCS areas previously off limits in the lower 48 states contain roughly 18 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The resources expected to be found in these areas represent enough natural gas to heat 15 million households for more than 77 years and produce enough oil to power over 20 million cars and heat 956,000 households for 30 years. However, these areas have been off-limits for so long that government officials lack a true grasp on just how much energy they hold: NPC reports that the last acquisition of geophysical data and drilling of exploration wells occurred 25 to 40 years ago.

Section 357 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed MMS to revisit these OCS estimates. In response, MMS reported that the OCS contained mean estimates of 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 85 billion barrels of oil. That amount of natural gas would heat all residential homes for about 93 years, and the oil would fuel 82 million cars for 35 years. The difference between older data and MMS’ new data is enormous, and is all the more reason for us to be exploring.

In addition, as the federal government continues to incur new debt in order to aid our nation’s economic recovery, it should not be ignored that royalties from OCS leases can serve as a robust federal revenue source. In 2008, the federal government collected over $23 billion from the energy industry, which was distributed to state, local, American Indian and federal accounts. A recent study released by the American Petroleum Institute estimates that development of the resources on federal offshore areas and onshore lands that had been off-limits for decades could generate up to $1.7 trillion in revenues for federal, state and local governments. Other studies estimate that drilling in the OCS could generate as much as $10 Trillion of GDP over the next 30 years. And, just as important, development of these areas can increase the nation’s energy security while adding 160,000 thousand jobs in the oil and natural gas industry.

Our federal officials certainly like to spend money but drilling in the OCS will give them a new experience, it will let them actually produce wealth. Our nation needs the money, it needs the jobs, it needs to reduce our use of foreign oil. Drilling in the OCS will address all of these needs, so why not try wealth creation for a real change.

Environmental Groups and Congressional Leaders Are also Blocking Renewable Projects

Yes, it is true, there are mounting efforts to block renewable projects and these efforts are similar to those that block oil and gas exploration, coal mining and the use of coal as an energy source and the development of nuclear energy. The effort is simple – attack the permit conditions, challenge the zoning, question the environmental impact statement, find an endangered species and drag the time for starting the project out so long that the project losses its financing. Each one of these attacks can be deadly by itself but the combination of attacks is a certain death sentence for the project, notwithstanding the questionable nature of the claims raised. Not only are these efforts troubling but they are a clear illustration that the real goal of the efforts is the de-industrialization of the nation.

Just from reading newspapers accounts of attacks on energy projects it was obvious there is a much bigger effort underway to stop all new energy projects. With this nagging thought in mind the U.S. Chamber started “Project No Project” which is a search to identify all the energy projects in the U.S. that are being attacked. It is an interactive project that lists the sites that the Chamber has identified and then asks private citizens and communities to identify other energy projects that are being challenged and significantly delayed or killed. The Chamber identifies all its sources of information and asks the public to provide its sources of information so that anyone anywhere can determine the seriousness of the attacks.

In only a few weeks the Chamber was able to identify over 60 renewable energy projects and 13 grid segments under attack. Below are three recent examples of just offshore wind and wave projects killed or stalled by NIMBY that are available on the Project No Project website:

-----------------

PG&E Humboldt County Wave Project

STATUS: Killed

OPPOSITION: California state government; NGOs, including Fishermen Interested in Safe Hydrokinetics, Surfrider Foundation

PROSPECTS: Dead

BACKGROUND: However, on October 16, 2008, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) nixed a power purchase agreement for wave energy by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) with British Columbia-based Finavera. The Canadian firm planned to construct a 2 MW wave energy project off the Humboldt County coast. The CPUC's ruling denying the project found "Finavera's wave technology is pre-commercial." In its decision, the CPUC noted that a prototype Finavera wave energy buoy deployed in a test off the Oregon coast in 2007 sank before completing a six week test period. The commission also found that the project cost was above the market price and "unreasonable" to finance with ratepayer money. NGOs opposing the project cited potential impacts to ocean recreation, near shore ecology, public safety, aesthetics, and fishing access. In February 2009, Finavera surrendered its preliminary permit citing inability to secure funding and the financial climate.

SOURCES: Finavera press release; California Energy Circuit; Surfrider.

---------------

Finavera Renewables Makah Bay Wave Energy Project

STATUS: In progress

OPPOSITION: Local residents (fishermen, environmental activists)

PROSPECTS: Highly Likely

BACKGROUND: Finavera Renewables filed an application to construct the Makah Bay project, a 1 MW an offshore wave power demonstration plant, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in November 2006. The project is expected to generate 1500 MWh/year, enough energy to supply about 150 homes. According to Finavera, the location was chosen for several reasons: depth proximity to shore, very good wave climate, shoreline transmission line, electricity demand in coastal communities, a participating publicly supported utility, and an interested landowner, the Makah Indian Nation. Due in part to the relative newness of the technology, the permitting process has been very slow. Construction was initially not allowed until Finavera received all necessary federal and state approvals, including sign-off of the State coastal zone management agency. On March 20, 2008, FERC amended the license to allow construction of the project to proceed as the necessary conditions had been met. Because this is only a demonstration project, Finavera does not plan to continue operating the facility after five years have elapsed. Ironically, research on environmental risks posed by this project will serve to add fuel to the fire for future NIMBY challenges to other wave energy projects.

SOURCES: Makah Bay Project Official Website; Seattle Times.

------------------

Cape Wind Offshore Wind Farm

STATUS: In progress, with opposition

OPPOSITION: Government officials (Sen. Edward Kennedy, Cape Cod Commission), celebrities (Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.), local residents (Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound)

PROSPECTS: Likely

BACKGROUND: Cape Wind, the nation's first proposed offshore wind farm, is perhaps the nation's most infamous example of the horrors of NIMBY. Since filing for its first permit in 2001, the 130-turbine project planned for Nantucket Sound has been forced to navigate through a gauntlet of permit-related hurdles. Cape Wind received final environmental approval from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on March 30, 2007. On January 14, 2008, The U.S. Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) issued a highly favorable Draft EIS. On January 16, 2009, MMS issued a highly favorable Final EIS on the project. Cape Wind is set to receive a "super permit" from the Energy Facilities Siting Board that would satisfy nine required state and local approvals, as well as overturn a Cape Cod Commission procedural denial of the project. The Minerals Management Service has not yet issued a favorable Record of Decision and Lease to Cape Wind. At peak generation, Cape Wind will generate 420 megawatts of renewable electricity. This is enough to meet the needs of 420,000 homes. The project has faced strong opposition from some senior politicians in Massachusetts and a deep-pocketed and politically connected local group, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. It is reported that the Alliance has poured more than $15 million into fighting Cape Wind tooth and nail ever since the project was unveiled in 2001. The Alliance says that the project poses a threat to public safety, would impact shipping lanes, and would adversely affect tourism and Cape Cod's economy due to its impact on Nantucket Sound's natural beauty. Opposition groups and the Town of Barnstable sued to stop the project; on June 20, 2008 the Barnstable Superior Court dismissed four of five counts filed by those groups. The fifth count was not considered ripe for a ruling since the matter was still pending before a state agency.

SOURCES: Cape Wind Official Website; Cape Cod Times.

Visit www.projectnoproject.com where you can read about the attacks on almost every type of renewable project both off shore and on shore. You will even read about how leading proponents of renewable energy find it acceptable anywhere but in their back yard. The most recent being the effort by a California Senator to place large sections of the Mojave Desert off limits to any type of wind, solar or geothermal energy. And California is a big back yard and its utilities have a mandate to use renewable energy that cannot be sufficiently developed in their own backyard.

Let’s all be honest with ourselves; this nation needs all the energy it can get and it needs it now. So let’s decide what we are all fighting for because the choice is simple; we can either develop our own energy resources, or we can purchase them from foreign sources or we can simply de-industrialize and create more and more unemployment and become less competitive in the world. In the end the choice is our choice but my vote is to develop more and more of our energy resources since it will create good paying jobs for American, generate more tax revenue, reduce our foreign debt since we will not have to purchase as much energy from foreign countries and we will be more competitive in the world. How would you vote? Let the National Journal and the other experts know by responding to this blog.

Access to clean, affordable and reliable domestic sources of natural gas and oil are vital pieces of the puzzle that will fuel America’s future growth, prosperity and energy security. Americans deserve an honest discussion on the policy issues and a real path forward to reduce our reliance on foreign energy.

Polls continue to show that a vast majority of Americans support the development of American energy in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Especially at a time when Americans are hurting the most, President Obama and Congress should be promoting job creation through all forms of offshore energy development, including natural gas, oil, wind and wave. While we look to grow wind, wave and other sources of renewable and alternative energy production for the next several decades, the fact remains that natural gas and oil are projected to account for more than 60 percent of America’s total energy mix by 2030 -- so these sources must be included within this energy mix.

Last year, when former President Bush lifted the executive moratoria on OCS development and Congress let its ban expire, vast new areas of resources were finally opened for safe and environmentally responsible development. We know that America’s OCS holds billions of barrels of oil and huge amounts of natural gas. In addition, based on our experience in exploring offshore basins in the Gulf of Mexico, we know once we begin exploring the amount of resources discovered often exceeds original estimates.

America’s independent producers stand ready to safely develop these resources and to provide secure domestic supplies of energy for the future. Independent producers drill 90 percent of the oil and natural gas wells in the United States, producing 82 percent of U.S. natural gas and 68 percent of U.S. oil. As they have proven in the past, with the best engineers, geologists and state-of-the-art technology available to the industry, producers can access these valuable resources while protecting the environment. The fact is energy development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. If other countries, such as Norway, can find ways for tourism, energy, and environmental industries to coexist, why can’t the United States?

Not only would these offshore resources address our need for additional and diverse American energy sources, but it would also help to create jobs when American families need it most. New energy production would also mean new industry tax and royalty revenues for state and federal treasuries -- already one of the government’s largest sources of income. And, increasing homegrown energy will create a safety net against increased reliance on foreign oil. All of these energy resources are necessary to meet the President’s aggressive clean energy agenda.