Is the Interior Department really giving a fair and balanced review of the properties up for consideration for oil and gas leasing? Or, as the data we posted earlier this week suggest, is it engaged in a pattern of blocking any progress with repeated delays and endless red tape?

In support of the second theory, you might want to submit the recent delays to allow drilling off the coast of Virginia as Exhibit A. Except that there have been so many other instances of stalling tactics all around the country, that it’s getting hard to count them all. Far from an isolated example of the country’s Interior Department blocking responsible development of natural resources, this latest delay — in what would have been the first Atlantic coast drilling project to get underway since the ban ended in 1998 – suggests more of the same. Ban or no ban, lots of projects are still being blocked.

You don’t necessarily think Big Oil when you think of the state of Virginia. But like so many states all around the country, Virginia’s estimated reserves are substantial. The three million acre swath located 50 miles offshore that was to have been leased next year, holds an estimated 130 million barrels of oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Now, the Interior Department says any lease sales will be delayed until at least 2012, and may not go forward at all.

A few weeks ago, when we were basking in a festive holiday spirit, we made a long list of all the things CEA and its supporters had achieved in 2009. But holiday cheer inevitably gives way to the reality of the cold dark winter months, when optimism is replaced by a pressing sense of all the work yet to be done.

This year, mid-January has also brought the anniversary of President Obama’s first year in office, and as the Institute for Energy Research recently concluded, the new policies set over the past 365 days have clearly not supported a strong domestic energy industry.

For instance:

–In 2009, the Interior Department collected only a very small fraction of oil and gas lease sales it had completed in 2008.

–Less than 3% of the available public lands are leased for oil and gas development. Under Obama’s Interior Department fewer acres – both onshore and off – were leased in 2009 than in any previous year.

One story that covered these new findings quoted CEA’s David Holt blaming excessive red tape. “No administration in history has done more to ensure producers do less,” Holt said.

Meanwhile, Thomas Pyle, who heads the Institute for Energy Research, stresses that energy policy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. In this review of Obama’s first year in office, Pyle notes that the President’s efforts to create jobs have suffered from a focus on “unproven technology that is not economically viable.” Such investments have created only a small number of jobs, compared to what could be created by loosening the restrictions on oil and gas exploration and production, he said.

Just how many jobs can a strong domestic energy industry support? As American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard outlined in a recent speech, the U.S. oil industry directly supports 9.2 million American jobs and created millions of new jobs over the past decade.

As Obama enters his second year with unemployment higher than it has been in a generation and growing cries for aggressive job creation efforts, let’s hope that his administration starts to see the devastating economic impact of its energy policy and works to help ensure that Americans can have both jobs and affordable energy.

Last month, Exxon Mobil made a major investment in XTO, one of the largest shale gas producers in the U.S., and the in the weeks since then, a number of other major oil companies have moved aggressively to establish or expand their presence in the shale sector.

Earlier this week, five companies submitted bids totaling $129 million — twice as much as the amount forecasted — for the rights to drill in the Marcellus Shale natural gas formation in northern Pennsylvania. This growing interest comes amid mounting evidence of the vast volumes of shale gas, which by some estimates, on a global basis, exceed the world’s oil reserves.

Other shale areas, such as the Haynesville Shale in Texas and Louisiana, are also seeing strong interest from energy producers.

The last time we wrote about shale, we noted that improved production technologies would be key to generating a steady supply of shale gas, and helping to ensure mass production. Of course, this path to mass production is never a smooth one, even for the most promising and abundant energy resources. In addition to the technology challenges associated with production challenges, regulatory challenges are also likely. Already, shale producers in New York say that onerous regulations are driving them out of the state.

We’re not sure what the coming year has in store for the shale gas industry, but we do know that it’s an area we all must watch closely. We’re encouraged by the growing interest in these sites and we need to make sure that the projects, which could contribute significantly to our domestic natural gas supply, are allowed to proceed.

Last year, a severe budget crisis in the country’s most populous state made California the site of a lively – and unexpected — debate over reviving offshore drilling.

Now Governor Schwarzenegger has drafted a new budget, which does indeed include proposals to revive drilling in a large and controversial site, known as the Tranquillon Ridge, off the coast of Santa Barbara. It’s a site that by some estimates could generate $4 billion in revenue for the California. It seems a budget crisis is just what was needed to trigger serious policy discussions about offshore drilling as a source of new revenue.

Of course, as we’ve said again and again, we’re all for healthy debates that might lead to more coastal waters being opened to responsible exploration and production. Still, it is difficult to watch this particular debate unfold without being reminded of how far we still need to go, at least in some parts of the country.

Out west, the prospect of additional drilling is too often regarded as a move of last resort rather than a logical energy and economic policy. Schwarzenegger says that revenue from the Tranquillon site will go directly toward the state’s parks, sparing them additional cutbacks. In addition, it appears broad support for the project hinges on an agreement from the project’s developer to stop oil production there after 14 years.

If you think this all sounds a little funny — dangling the future of the state’s parks systems in order to win approval for the project, while exchanging oil now for no more oil in the future — you’re probably right. Some critics have equated the terms of this proposed project to blackmail.

This is not to say that a happy conclusion is out of the question. If it takes state budget crises to get states interested in their offshore resources, that’s a good thing. Even opponents of the project may come to support it once they see the economic upside.

But it shouldn’t have to be so complicated. Hopefully, when other offshore projects come up for review around the country, it won’t be.

CEA’s recent year in review offered a long list of achievements in public policy, technology and public opinion that all helped advance our goals of fostering a strong domestic energy industry and economy.

We also noted that there was a lot more work to be done.

Indeed, word came down on New Year’s Eve that 11 states had committed to following California’s lead in adopting a Low Carbon Fuel Standard, essentially a wildly inaccurate measure of the carbon footprint left by various fuels. We’ve noted before that such standards are less likely to reduce emissions and more likely to increase imports of Middle East crude oil. Yet, because the standard has a nice ring to it and may appear to offer the sort of simple solutions people crave, it is catching on quite quickly.

It is heartening to see pockets of opposition, such as this one out of Pennsylvania that notes that the premise of carbon accounting on which the policy is based is, at best, challenging to calculate, and at worst, just like we said, inaccurate.

But from where we stand now, too many lawmakers are taking the sound byte over the hard science and signing on to what could be a devastating policy for the future of domestic energy and our dependence on foreign resources.

As we outline our goals for the New Year, educating lawmakers, businesses and the general public about this not-so-low carbon standard must be a top priority. The future of many domestic energy suppliers and refiners will be riding on the outcome.

Permafrost, as everyone who has worked in the oil sector in Alaska knows, describes soil that remains frozen year round. Back in the 1970s, when a group of oil companies collaborated on the groundbreaking (no pun intended) project of building the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska-Pipeline, permafrost was just one of a multitude of daunting challenges engineers faced. They also had to transport large numbers of workers to highly remote regions, and find a way to secure the pipeline from everything from temperature swings to gunshots. (Because of the permafrost, long stretches of the pipeline were built above ground.)

It was a project on a scale that had never been attempted and the reason so many people saw it through to a successful completion in 1977 is that they knew it was worth the effort. Establishing a reliable means for transporting crude from Alaska’s oil-rich North Slope to points south was a sort of insurance policy for companies that explored in the region that their oil would find a way to market.

Interestingly, the pipeline project was born at a time of severe recession for the country and drew support both for the well-paying jobs it created and the promise of more reliable oil prices from home-grown sources.

It is ironic, then, that today the pipeline is facing an early demise even though estimates of proven oil reserves in Alaska continue to grow. The Anchorage Daily News recently published an extensive analysis of the massive investments that are already required to sustain the pipeline in the face of diminished shipments, and the growing concerns that it will soon not be economically feasible to operate the pipeline at all.

We’ve noted this problem in the past: how the health of Alaska’s oil industry impacts the health of all sorts of other industries on which the state’s economy depends. But as concerns mount about the future of the key vehicle for moving oil through the state, you also have to wonder how a weakened or entirely shut pipeline would affect production and exploration.

It’s a chicken-and-egg argument. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built because the demand existed to transport large volumes of oil. But if the pipeline were to go away, would producers have any incentive to stay, let alone, expand in Alaska? Political climates, of course, change with the seasons, but you can’t always patiently wait for a new, more welcoming climate, to blow in. As the saying goes, you must use it or lose it.

There have been some recent victories allowing responsible drilling in Alaska, but there are many more unresolved disputes that are critical to maintaining throughput on the pipeline, and in turn ensuring that Alaska’s oil infrastructure that was installed with great effort just a generation ago, remains intact.