Facebook Instagram Linkedin RSS Twitter Youtube

Don’t Forget Alaska’s natural gas

We’ve all seen the signs: This bus runs on clean natural gas. Yet too often, too many of us fail to absorb the message: There are fossil fuels in abundant supply right in our country that, if properly developed, could reduce the need for foreign fuel and at the same time give environmentalists something to brag about.

That’s right, brag. Natural gas is such a clean-burning fuel that cities all over the country have invested in public buses and municipal fleets that run on natural gas, and then they advertise what they’re done.

Why then, is the debate over new oil and natural gas exploration in Alaska typically, and incorrectly, cast as a battle between people who love the environment and people who love oil? Perhaps a better question is, Why do the oil and natural gas interests that support more exploration in Alaska allow the opponents to frame the public debate that way?

CEA has often detailed why strong domestic oil and natural gas industries are critical to our energy independence, our economy and, yes, our environment. But for a moment, let’s just focus on the natural gas part of the puzzle. Alaska’s Outer Continental Shelf, in addition to being rich in oil, holds an estimated 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In a recent editorial, Drue Pearce, the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, grouped Arctic natural gas with wind, solar and geothermal power, as power sources that existed in abundant supply that could help the country achieve a more balanced energy policy.

It’s a message we’d all need to remember: In Alaska, and elsewhere in the U.S., we’re seeking the right to explore for and produce oil as well as natural gas. We need to remind people that natural gas is a clean-burning fuel that could help us collectively reduce emissions … and that there’s plenty of it right here at home.

A sweet deal for foreign oil importers

Anyone who has worked in the oil industry for a while understands that there’s another meaning to “light sweet,” besides the low-fat dessert the words might first bring to mind. Light, sweet is a kind of crude oil, named for its comparatively low sulphur content, the ease with which it flows out of the ground, and apparently, its sweet taste as well.

Heavy crude oil, sometimes also described as sour, tends to have a more viscous quality. This makes it harder to get out of the ground and barrel for barrel, heavy crudes typically produce less refined fuel than lighter grades.

All crude oils, in other words, are not created equal.

Now, if there was an infinite supply of light, sweet crude oil in the world, oil companies might never have bothered going to the trouble of producing the thicker stuff. Fact is, there’s significantly more heavy crude oil in the world, and a substantial amount in the U.S., particularly California. Because heavy crude is typically a lot cheaper than light crude, companies often find it economical to produce, despite its lower quality.

Factor in all the transportation costs that are saved by producing oil domestically, and that heavy stuff starts to look even more appealing.

That brief primer in crude oil economics offers a sense for why some new emissions policies being proposed are misguided. Specifically, a Low Carbon Fuel Standard being considered by Congress would effectively favor light crudes across the board, no matter where they came from and how much it would cost to produce them.

You can read more about the problem with this overly-simplistic approach to reducing emissions on the site Secure Our Fuels, which offers a scenario of how laws passed in Washington would affect the worldwide crude oil trade:

Saudi crude wins out over Canadian crude. Nigeria beats Colorado. And Libya wipes the floor with California. Just because North American crude happens to be deeper, denser and a little bit more remote than our competitors’ oil.

It might seem inconceivable that a well-intentioned policy could actually increase our dependence on foreign oil, but that is the risk you run with sweeping policies that fail to address the complexity of oil economics that we’ve hinted at above.

When it comes to achieving a balanced energy policy that is good for the environment, the economy and the country, good intentions aren’t enough. They may do more harm than good.

CEA Marks One-Year Anniversary of Lifting of Offshore Energy Exploration Ban

WASHINGTON – October 1, 2009   One year ago today, a 27-year old federal ban on offshore energy exploration and production in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans was formally retired following an extraordinary outpouring of public support for expanded domestic energy production and relief from sky-high fuel prices. But while there is reason to celebrate the end of a policy that kept billions of barrels of American oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas under lock-and-key, it is clear that much more must be done to bring those resources to American consumers, which will create thousands of new jobs and help end our dangerous dependency on foreign energy.

Once the outer continental shelf (OCS) moratorium expired, the U.S. Interior Department began developing a new, significantly expanded offshore leasing program – with strong public support from the American people. In commemoration of the first anniversary of the lifting of the OCS moratorium, and in support of a new, robust 5-year plan, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA) president David Holt issued the following statement:

“The overwhelming public support for a new and expanded OCS leasing program – as shown by the more than 350,000 comments supporting an expanded OCS program that have been delivered to the Interior Department over the last eight months – demonstrates that the American people have not forgotten the record energy price spikes of 2008 and remain committed to responsible domestic energy production. Opening new offshore areas for energy exploration and production will create thousands of new jobs, provide substantial benefits for the American economy and strengthen our national energy security.”

“On behalf of the 200,000 grassroots members and 125 affiliates of Consumer Energy Alliance, I am calling on Secretary Salazar to listen to the hundreds of thousands of American citizens that have asked for expanded offshore access and to request that he move forward as expeditiously as possible with an expanded OCS leasing program for 2010-2015. A clear majority of the American public has spoken on this issue in support of a new, expanded program.”

CEA has participated in more than 100 events over the past three months calling for increased American energy production – and delivered approximately 150,000 comments last month to Interior Secretary Salazar supporting a new OCS leasing program.

Over the past several years, public comments to the Interior Department have overwhelmingly favored increased offshore energy production. During the 2006 period, 72 percent of comments received during four separate comment periods favored increased energy production offshore. In 2008, 53 percent backed domestic OCS energy exploration. And, although MMS has yet to release any numbers publicly, early indications are that favorable comments will once again lead groups who are opposed to sensible offshore development by a sizeable margin. American consumers once again voiced clear support for increased energy production.

NOTE: Bloomberg reported in April that:

“The U.S. may have as many as 115 billion barrels of ‘technically recoverable’ oil in federal waters, a report today from the Interior Department found.  The report, prepared by Interior’s Minerals Management Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, also said the Outer Continental Shelf contains as much as 565 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and that the Pacific and Atlantic coasts hold more than 1,900 gigawatts of potential wind energy.”

 

Newspapers Call for Increased Energy Exploration off the Carolinas, Highlight Huge Economic Benefits, Safety

Seismic research vessel
  • “According to a report released on Sept. 16 by the Southeast Energy Alliance, offshore oil exploration and production could generate up to $250 million in annual revenue for South Carolina. That’s a significant addition to the state’s coffers if the results can be achieved in a way that doesn’t disrupt the $17 billion-a-year tourism industry”

 

  • “Studies and recent history have shown that it’s safe to drill offshore for oil and natural gas. It’s safe for the workers. It’s safe for the economy. And it’s safe for the environment”

 

  • “To be against the exploration and development of every viable form of energy in the United States isn’t a meaningful political stance”

 

  • “Conservation, alternative energy and offshore drilling all offer potential pieces to the energy puzzle. All three should be pursued”

The Greenville News, Editorial. “Gas exploration would help state … South Carolina would benefit if the federal government includes this state among those that will be allowed to conduct exploratory natural gas and oil drilling off the Atlantic Coast. … If harvestable natural gas is found off the coast of South Carolina, it would mark a further step toward energy independence for the United States. Second, such work could provide much-needed revenue to the state and create jobs for some state residents. … The reality is that current technology significantly reduces the risks of drilling for natural gas or oil offshore. … Certainly such an influx of oil and gas could help the nation’s short-term energy independence, until cleaner, renewable energy sources become more economically feasible on a large-scale basis. … According to a report released on Sept. 16 by the Southeast Energy Alliance, offshore oil exploration and production could generate up to $250 million in annual revenue for South Carolina. That’s a significant addition to the state’s coffers if the results can be achieved in a way that doesn’t disrupt the $17 billion-a-year tourism industry. Further, the alliance projects that such efforts would create 2,250 jobs in South Carolina. That’s significant in a state that has consistently lagged behind the nation in job creation in the recent past. Certainly the prospect of energy production off the coast would provide yet another economic development engine in South Carolina, and the idea deserves to be explored. The federal government should allow this pilot exploration program, and it should include South Carolina in these efforts to determine if at least some of America’s short-term energy needs can be met by safely harvesting much-needed energy resources from the Atlantic Coast.” (9/28/09)

Jackson Daily News, Editorial. “Offshore drilling now a necessity … Studies and recent history have shown that it’s safe to drill offshore for oil and natural gas. It’s safe for the workers. It’s safe for the economy. And it’s safe for the environment. … Both industry and some federal government officials have said that modern technology has made the chances of offshore exploration causing significant ecological or environmental damage quite remote. … Industry officials also note that the site for drilling for natural gas is about 40 miles off the North Carolina coast, putting it well beyond the horizon from the shore. That means that the breathtaking beauty of the Atlantic Ocean wouldn’t be disturbed by drilling. … There is no reason why ramping up power production from alternate energy sources should exclude offshore drilling. Conservation, alternative energy (including nuclear) and offshore drilling all offer potential pieces to the energy puzzle. All energy options, including some we haven’t even thought of yet, should be supported if the United States is to grow and prosper in the years ahead.” (9/27/09)

Star-News, Editorial: “Looking out to sea … It is difficult to ignore the estimate by a group representing electric cooperatives that North Carolina could reap $577 million annually from oil and natural gas royalties.” (9/24/09)

Gaston Gazette, Editorial: “Introductory exploration … Studies and recent history have shown that it’s safe to drill offshore for oil and natural gas. It’s safe for the workers. It’s safe for the environment. And it’s good for the economy. … Both industry representatives and federal government officials have said that modern technology has made the chances of offshore exploration causing significant ecological or environmental damage quite remote. … Industry officials also note that the proposed natural gas site is about 40 miles off the North Carolina coast, putting it well beyond the horizon from the shore. That means that the breathtaking beauty of the Atlantic Ocean wouldn’t be disturbed by drilling. … Opponents of offshore drilling say that we should focus on conservation and alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar energy. We have no objection to using wind and solar energy and hope that entrepreneurs will soon make those sources economically feasible. But we see no reason why doing so should exclude offshore drilling. Conservation, alternative energy and offshore drilling all offer potential pieces to the energy puzzle. All three should be pursued.” (9/25/09)

Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Editorial. “Environmental activists are protesting development of every viable energy source … Unless we increase our own exploration and generation, we will become increasingly dependent on rogue states like Iran, Venezuela, Libya and Russia for our energy needs. … But today, right now, to be against the exploration and development of every viable form of energy in the United States isn’t a meaningful political stance. One might ask the Alaska Wilderness League members protesting drilling Monday, while dressed as salmon and polar bears, how they got to Washington. Unless they swam, they need to realize that opposing all domestic energy development doesn’t make much sense.” (9/24/09)

Charlotte Observer, Editorial: “’I believe that North Carolina has the capacity to position herself as a global leader in green energy,’ Gov. Bev Perdue said at a coastal area gathering last week to hear about the proposal. Perdue hasn’t endorsed the wind project. She has authorized a study of potential offshore energy resources, including exploratory drilling. That’s appropriate.” (9/29/09)

 

The Southeast Energy Alliance is a non-partisan organization of businesses, trade associations and non-profit organizations – including Farm Bureaus, Electric Cooperative Associations, Chambers of Commerce and Manufacturing Associations – across the Southeastern United States that understand the importance of the development of sound energy policies to ensure the economic viability of their organization. Utilizing grassroots, grass-tops, public advocacy and education at both the state and federal levels, SEA is dedicated to projects and activities that will ensure access to affordable and reliable energy for families, farms and businesses across the Southeast. SEA is the Southeastern regional affiliate of the Consumer Energy Alliance.

How many steel workers does it take to build a windmill?

No, this isn’t a knock knock joke. It’s an important question that probably isn’t asked often enough, because it illustrates how investing in green energy is often good for some of the country’s older, struggling industries too.

The answer, according to the American Wind Energy Association, is that it takes somewhere in the range of 200 to 230 tons of steel to make a single wind turbine. Of course, it also takes many turbines to make a wind farm, and many wind farms for wind power to get to the point where it is significantly contributing to the country’s energy needs. Start doing some math and it’s a substantial amount for an industry that was once a symbol of U.S. industrial strength but could use a little help today.

Indeed, some of the most active wind power companies and turbine manufacturers in the country are making use of this synergy in ways that are both practical and symbolic. Steel Winds is building a large wind plant on a former Bethlehem Steel site in New York state, with a pledge to help turn the country’s rust belt into a “wind belt.” And as this story notes, some recently laid-off steel workers have already found new work applying their skills to the manufacture of wind turbines.

But it’s not simply that it takes steel to make wind power, or that some workers’ skills appear to be pretty transferable from one old industry to another one that is up-and-coming. On a broader level, when you understand just how weighty those wind turbines towering gracefully in the sky really are, you see that much of the debate over traditional vs. new industry, or power sources is misguided. When the country chooses to invest in new sources of energy, it need not be seen as a move to abandon traditional sources of energy.

So-called green energy sources may be generating power in relatively new ways, but they remain dependent on some standard industrial products like steel, that are also used throughout the country’s oil refineries and production sites. From a power perspective, CEA has long promoted a holistic view that recognizes all the different sources that are needed to create a strong domestic energy industry.

At a time when the country is working to restore its manufacturing base, we should not be so distracted by distinctions between old and new, green or traditional. From steel to wind, many of these industries have a lot more in common than you might think.

CEA October 2009 Newsletter

CEA Newsletter
Issue 31

Message from CEA President David Holt
September 21st marked the close of a nationwide public comment period by the Federal Government that allowed Americans to have their voices heard in the vital debate regarding development of U.S. offshore resources, including oil, natural gas and wind projects.

Though naysayers have received prominent placement in recent media reports, the real winners here are the overwhelming numbers of Americans who stood tall in favor of reasonable and responsible development of America’s offshore areas.

More than 360,000 positive comments were received by the government supporting a new 5-Year Plan for the development of resources off of America’s coastlines. This number, which accounts for more than 60 percent of the total comments received, sends a strong message to elected officials in Washington: Americans want more American energy.

Throughout the comment period, CEA stood strong in our support of offshore oil & gas drilling, as well as offshore alternative energy development. Working with our valued affiliates and individual consumers like you, CEA implemented a major campaign to get the word out about the importance of this effort and encourage Americans to comment and contribute to the discussion.

The tremendous results in favor of offshore development speak volumes. Washington has heard what you have to say. Your voice has made a difference in shaping American energy policy and will assist in leading the United States on a path of domestic energy development that will be good for the economy, Americans and the country.

CEA recognizes your hard work and we thank you for being part of our efforts to empower America! We consider you an essential part of our alliance and look forward to continuing to work with you to do what’s right for America and its citizens.

Yet, the work is not over. As we move forward from this great victory, CEA remains dedicated to working toward a national energy policy that fully leverages America’s abundant energy resources into new jobs, revenue and security for American energy consumers.

As part of this effort, please take part in our nationwide educational campaign – Secure Our Fuels, which highlights the damaging economic effects associated with the national Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) currently being considered by Congress. For more information on the Secure Our Fuels campaign, click here.

Again, thank you and congratulations! With your help, the tides are turning.

David Holt
President

 

Help Defeat Efforts to Ban North American Energy and Increase Prices at the Pump!
The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is being sold to the American public as a way to blend transportation fuels with low-carbon alternatives so that tailpipe CO2 emissions can be reduced. But the fact is that affordable and reliable lower-carbon fuel options are not yet available. As a result, an LCFS simply will increase the cost of diesel fuel and gasoline and will place certain domestic supplies of transportation fuels off limits. Increasing the cost of transportation fuel and U.S. dependence upon foreign sources of petroleum is simply unsound energy policy.

Join our effort to defeat these measures, which would put an economic stranglehold on America and leave U.S. consumers stuck with higher prices at the pump. Send in your comments today!

 

Support Development of Alaska’s Offshore Oil & Gas Resources!
At a time when the American public is crying out for more domestic energy, Alaska has enormous untapped oil and gas potential, especially in its offshore areas. The waters off Alaska’s coasts hold about 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to federal government estimates.

To begin producing energy from these resource basins, the federal government must take action. Join us in our effort as we build public support for offshore minerals exploration and development in Alaska. Send in your comments today!

 

CEA Welcomes New Affiliate Members
CEA is proud to announce the addition of the many new affiliate members who have joined our alliance in recent months: Amway, Applied Fiber Manufacturing, LLC, EarthQuest Institute, Entergy Arkansas, Entergy Mississippi, The Fertilizer Institute, New England Fuel Institute and Santa Barbara County Energy Coalition. For a complete list of CEA’s valued affiliates, click here.

 

CEA Blog: Silent majorities and dressing for success
Check out CEA’s recent blog entry about the overwhelming amount of public support for developing America’s offshore energy resources, recently brought to light by the federal government’s collection of public comments on the issue.  Join the conversation at CEA’s website. Read blog…

 

Consumer Corner: Tell Us How Energy Affects YOU!
Energy issues are important to all Americans – and they should be – because they affect all aspects of everyday life, including your businesses, your household costs and your free-time expenditures!

When you drive your kids to school in the morning or board an airplane for a vacation flight, you are affected by the energy policies that government officials in Washington put in place. Access to American energy resources affects your weekly grocery bill, how much you pay at the gas pump, your heating and cooling costs, the business decisions you make – every part of your life!

CEA wants to know your thoughts about how energy affects you. Share your energy story with CEA by sending an e-mail to info@consumerenergyalliance.org. We want to hear from YOU!

Wind Energy Could Cut Emissions in China By 30 Percent, Study Asserts
Switching to wind power for electricity needs could cut China’s emissions by 30 percent over the next 20 years, according to a recent study. Read article…

 

Venezuela and Russia Develop As “Comrades-In-Arms-And-Oil”
Ties between Russia and Venezuela are steadily growing stronger with increased economic development schemes, including energy and weaponry deals, between the two countries. Read article…

 

Affiliate Spotlight: Agriculture Energy Alliance
As farmers and agribusinesses face a looming crisis because of public policies that create demand for natural gas while restricting access to supply sources, the Agriculture Energy Alliance, which represents more than 100 growers and agriculture-related business, works to inform and educate Congress, the Administration and state-elected officials about the energy challenges facing the agricultural sector.

“The U.S. farm sector is being weakened by constraints on onshore and offshore natural gas development, even as global demand for food is growing every year,” says Coordinator for the Agriculture Energy Alliance Rosemary O’Brien, who also serves as Vice President of Public Affairs at CF Industries.

To address these concerns, AEA encourages elected and appointed officials to continue the good work begun in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and take further measures to reduce natural gas demand and increase natural gas supply.

“By increasing domestic natural gas production, we increase our food security,” explains O’Brien.

Ensuring the stable development of American natural gas resources is essential to maintaining a successful agricultural economy, according to O’Brien, because the farm sector depends on significant use of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, crop protection chemicals and nitrogen fertilizer production.

“With wise development and utilization of our own national energy resources, Congress can help ensure that farming remains an economically viable occupation,” she emphasizes.

As a member of Consumer Energy Alliance, AEA’s goal is to join with other like-minded groups to work on energy policy, specifically access to U.S. offshore production.

“CEA presented opportunities to work with a larger coalition and to enhance our policy goals in a very positive way,” O’Brien notes. “We have been excited to work with CEA since their leadership has shown creativity, enthusiasm and focus on complex energy policy issues.

“CEA is the type of group AEA likes to associate itself with as perseverance and working on shared goals is the only way to accomplish results. In short, CEA is solution-oriented. We work well with CEA, and we appreciate the quality of advice and input we receive from them and their collaborative efforts on behalf of their coalition.”

For more information on the Agriculture Energy Alliance, visit www.agenergyalliance.com.

Affiliate News: National Oilheat Summit Sees Bright Future For Industry
NEFI joined nearly every national, regional and state oilheat industry association, along with various industry leaders, for a national oilheat industry policy summit in Baltimore, MD on Tuesday, September 15th.  The big news coming out of the summit – these various oilheat stakeholders are joining together to pursue a brave new future for the industry and its consumers.

Those attending the summit overwhelmingly approved a statement encouraging Congress and appropriate state bodies to help the industry move towards a “leaner, greener and cleaner” new product through adoption of an ultra low sulfur standard and expanded use of bio components.  The group also embraced solar technology as a key component of the overall industry effort to lower the carbon intensity of heating oil applications.

The summit also heard many presentations on the benefits of pursuing a lower sulfur bio-blended product, supplemented with solar technology, as well as how best to “tell the story” nationwide.  “It is an exciting time for the industry,” said Peter Carini (NEFI-member) of Champion Energy, New York, which was echoed by Robert Boltz of Pennsylvania, NEFI member Jim Townsend of Townsend Oil, and  Don Allen of E.T. Lawson of Virginia, the moderator for the summit.  He added: “As an industry, we face many challenges, but most of them can be met if we embrace this exciting opportunity to create a new product that will be environmentally responsible and competitive, ensuring that our industry is part of the solution to the energy, security and climate change challenges that face our Nation.”

Over 80 industry representatives participated in the Summit.

Affiliate News: NSBA Report Shows On-Bill Financing Improves Energy Efficiency
On September 16, 2009, the National Small Business Association released a report showing that small business collectively could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 259 million tons each year if they improved their energy efficiency by just 25 percent. The report, “On-Bill Financing:  Helping Small Business Reduce Emissions and Energy Use While Improving Profitability,” goes on to highlight the significant savings small businesses stand to achieve through on-bill financing.

“This report obliterates that old paradigm that environmental conservation is anathema to economic growth,” said NSBA President Todd McCracken. “Quite simply, small businesses can increase their profitability while reducing their carbon footprint.”

On-bill financing is a mechanism that enables small businesses to work with their utility company to improve their energy efficiency. In practice, a local utility company identifies a small business with potential savings and evaluates their energy use and the company’s financial stability. The utility company then extends a low- or no-interest loan to the small business to make energy-efficient upgrades. The small-business owner repays the loan by continuing to pay the average monthly bill and any money paid in excess of what their actual costs are will go directly to pay down the loan.

Currently implemented in several states, on-bill financing programs have made thousands of loans to small businesses with unparalleled success. According to the report, energy-efficiency programs such as on-bill financing can help the average small business save $4,932—and oftentimes more—every year on its energy bills. The report also makes recommendations on how the federal government can help facilitate additional on-bill financing programs.

“The number one reason small-business owners cite for their inability to make their firms more energy efficient is cash-flow,” stated Keith Ashmus, NSBA chair and co-founding partner at Frantz Ward LLP, Cleveland, Ohio. “Programs such as on-bill financing can eliminate this very significant barrier many small businesses simply can’t overcome.”

NSBA has long held the belief that energy efficiency and entrepreneurial growth can and do go hand-in-hand. The current state of the U.S. economy makes it absolutely crucial to have government policies that foster, not hinder, entrepreneurial growth. With 29.6 million small firms—comprising 99.7 percent of all U.S. employer firms—small businesses stand to make significant, positive and lasting improvements to both the economy and the environment.

This report was sponsored by NSBA with funding from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Please click here to access the full report.

Since 1937, NSBA has advocated on behalf of America’s entrepreneurs. A staunchly nonpartisan organization, NSBA reaches more than 150,000 small businesses nationwide and is proud to be the nation’s first small-business advocacy organization. For more information, please visit www.nsba.biz

Testimony by Dave Harbour, Air Quality Permit Proposal for Chukchi Sea, AK, Sept. 25, 2009

Dave Harbour, Executive Director of CEA-Alaska, submitted this testimony regarding an air quality permit proposed for Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., to operate the Frontier Discoverer Drillship in the Chukchi Sea, Alaska.

Good morning, Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Albright, and welcome to America’s largest state, ground zero for America’s most important storehouse of natural resource wealth.

I am Dave Harbour, a retired Alaska regulatory commissioner[1].  I publish an energy website and serve as a volunteer member of the Consumer Energy Alliance Board of Advisors[2].   I am a grandfather who will walk through fire to protect my children’s and their children’s futures.  I urge you to help protect the economic and environmental wellbeing of our children by expeditiously approving Shell’s request for a Clean Air Act permit, allowing the company to operate the Frontier Discoverer drillship and its fleet for a multi-year exploratory oil and gas drilling program in areas where it has obtained and paid the Federal government for leases.

In beginning I wanted to express appreciation for the logical and fair course Mr. Albright set when, in answer to my question a few moments ago, he said that, “Just because we make changes in the permit requirements based on information gained during this comment period doesn’t mean we will have another comment period.”

As a former regulator, I sympathize with your desire to make sure the public interest is served and believe that extending this comment period or creating a new one would raise serious ‘due process’ questions.  We all had the same opportunity to comment.  At some point, for all potential commenters the deadline comes and goes and we either have or have not responsibly responded.  It would be unfair to those who timely responded to learn that we might have had more time to prepare our testimony.

But moving to the substance of my comment to you I would offer several ways I perceive that you are or could serve the public interest with respect to this docket.

One way to serve the public interest is to properly implement regulations in accordance with prevailing law.  Another way to serve the public interest is to reasonably and timely interpret regulation requirements and permit application information.  A third way to serve the public interest is to be mindful throughout the process that consumers end up paying many fold for regulations: 1) through taxes funding your operations;  2) through the price of products reflecting cost of the regulatory processes; 3) through lost state and federal revenues that may result from stalled projects; 4) through tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of American jobs and employment taxation and economic strength that stalled projects could produce; 5) through the increased dependence on foreign energy imports that stalled projects produce, along with 6) associated, harmful impacts on our balance of trade deficit and weakened state of national security.

So, you see, you have a very great responsibility.  In fact, your decisions, combined with decisions of sister agencies could well affect the prosperity if not the survival of the United States of America.

I have read virtually all of the documents in your file, including Shell’s exhaustive filings and your repeated rejections.  I would like to have you look at your rejections with me through the eye glasses of a grand dad consumer.  You rejected the permit application last January 16 in part:

  • …because Shell didn’t provide you with the duration, frequency, hourly emission rates, and potential air quality impacts of an emergency generator on board, “FD-8”. [3]
  • …because Shell wasn’t more specific about the number of “ice management vessels”, their direct impact on the modeling analysis, and, “because there is no guarantee by Shell that the same vessels will be used for ice management and oil spill response, what assurances are available that the vessels will have similar stack parameters and emission rates so as not to contribute or violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), air quality increments, and permit conditions.”
  • …because Shell Oil didn’t tell you exactly how many 37-foot long boats would be aboard a management vessel within the Spill Response (OSR) fleet, the number, duration and frequency of the water drill exercises for these boats, and quantifying the emission rates of each boat during each exercise.

There are several score if not hundreds of requirements in rejection after rejection.  I submit to you that most normal Americans would read your many, many, many seemingly picky reasons for rejection and say to you in a big voice, “Can you possibly be serious?”

One asks, “Isn’t this entire process discriminating, picky, harassing and endangering our country’s national defense and economic survival?”

Today you are seeking comment on Shell’s Air Quality Permit Application for the Chukchi operations of the Frontier Discoverer and I am sure you are getting plenty of support for delay from certain anti-domestic energy advocates.   But I would ask any member of the public who hears me to consider the cumulative effect of what you and your comrades in other departments are accomplishing:

  • On OCS leasing.  Last February, Secretary Salazar postponed the comment period on the MMS 2010-2015 draft lease sale program to last Monday, September 21.  That was unnecessary delay.  But get comment he did and when Governor Parnell visited him a few days ago the Secretary did not commit to timely deciding now that the comments are in.  By the way, most comments favored moving ahead with leasing of OCS areas around the country.  I testified at the Secretary’s hearing last April.
  • On Oceans Policy.  A White House Ocean Policy Task Force met here in August charged with recommending to the President an ‘Oceans Policy’ in less than a year.  This presidential assignment is either simply bizarre or more suspiciously like a pre-engineered strategy.  Obviously, the anti-domestic energy crowd was out in force to testify but many ordinary folks were there as well, supporting reasonable energy exploration and production.  I testified again.
  • OCS Permitting.  Now comes the EPA to Anchorage–after forcing a company that has done more to cooperate with Alaska, Alaskans and a demanding federal permitting system than any company in my memory—to ask the ‘public’ if Shell’s vessels’ air quality permits should be approved.  I am testifying again, today …

…this time ringing verbal alarm bells against the harm to America being made by the combined weight of these and other Administration initiatives.

Now, listen.  We’re living in a dangerous world.  I hope that you begin to combine your sense of honest obligation to your process—if that is what it is—to a realistic concern for the health of your country.

Please let me caution you that those combined actions, as harmful as they are to the country, are especially damaging to Alaska.

  • In becoming a state 50 years ago, we trusted the Federal government to wisely manage its resources and share the revenue with the state, to at least allow traditional access to and through Federal lands.
  • In passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Act of 1980, the Carter Administration converted huge expanses of multiple use public lands to restricted uses which can be seen as an erosion of the Statehood Compact.
  • Alaska once transported through the Trans Alaska Pipeline over 20% of domestic oil production and what was over 2 million barrels per day has now slipped by about 2/3, a trend that will continue with annual losses of throughput of about 6%.   OCS and ANWR are the two major possibilities Alaska and America have for extending the life of the pipeline, maintaining Alaska’s financial independence, diminishing foreign imports and foreign exchange losses … and providing tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of corporate income taxes to the federal treasury.  Without OCS and ANWR, the country will send more of our precious treasury abroad to buy the energy we need from foreign producers who certainly do not live within the stern regulatory structure we witness in this proceeding.

Mr. Rockwell, I don’t mean to be harsh with you personally.  You, Mr. Albright and your colleagues are very nice and dedicated people.  I do want strong laws and regulations to protect our environment, like most every Alaskan.  And as a former regulator I want the rules properly enforced.  But I also hope that the elected and appointed officials that create and execute the rules do a better job recalling for whom they work.  I adopted a slogan as a regulator which I would recommend you consider for your own use: “Regulate where you must; deregulate where you can.”

The American people are struggling because the economy is weak.  Your actions look petty and dangerous: making America weaker, month by month, with every spurious, nitpicking rejection.

I urge you, in the public interest, to issue Shell’s Chukchi air quality permits without further delay.  If you do not and if Shell’s multi-billion dollar investment in this state—in this country–is lost, you have not only endangered America but you have sentenced the 49th state to losing up to 35,000 jobs per year[4] and to poverty, absent a miracle.  I am sure that is not what you want.

[1] http://www.naruc.org/Resolutions/Harbour%20Honorary.pdf

[2] https://consumerenergyalliance.org/cms/about/

[3] http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/airpage.nsf/Permits/chukchiap/$FILE/shell_chukchi_epa_letter1_att_a.pdf, p.6

[4] http://www.commonwealthnorth.org/index.cfm?section=Programs&page=Resources&viewpost=2&ContentId=697

Silent majorities and dressing for success

You might have seen some news coverage lately about protesters dressed in cute salmon costumes and even cuter polar bear costumes, who delivered with much ceremony, bags of letters to the Interior Department in Washington D.C. that argued against new offshore drilling in the U.S. By the protesters’ own count, 250,000 letters, postcards, and whatnot were delivered.

There was another story that went largely unreported: The Interior Department received an even larger number of letters supporting responsible exploration and production. For the record, more than 360,000 Americans have sent letters of the pro-responsible drilling variety to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar over the past six months. To date, these letters account for more than 60 percent of the comments received by Interior.

That’s a significant margin, and all the more so when you consider the nature of the debate. Let’s face it: In the court of public opinion, oil often faces an uphill battle. It’s easy to call yourself an environmentalist and jump on an anti-oil bandwagon without really knowing all the facts. It can take more time and work to consider the country’s significant energy needs and develop an informed stance on how we meet them.

So first of all, Thank You! For months, CEA has been working on this blog and elsewhere to organize support for responsible offshore drilling. The matter has been in legal limbo since earlier this year, when lawmakers enacted a series of barriers that effectively reversed President Bush’s move to lift an 18-year ban on offshore drilling on most of the country’s outer continental shelf.

In recent months, supporters of producing oil domestically and reducing the country’s dependence on foreign oil have won a few battles, but a larger war on this matter wages. CEA is heartened by the volume of letters sent in support of our position. It underscores not just that there is a silent majority out there, but that a lot of people care deeply about energy independence.

So then, why is it that majority is so often a silent one to the media? Because polar bears do have a lot of appeal. No matter if polar bears are not really at the core of this debate. No matter if they were just polar bear costumes. No matter if those protesters enjoying an early Halloween drove all the way to Washington in cars that run on oil. They play well on TV.

You can entertain ways that our side might dress for comparable success, or comparable media attention, but we haven’t come up with anything really catchy yet. Perhaps this is because the image of responsible oil production and energy independence is really just the image of everyday people going about their business with a little more ease and a little less strain. It’s the image of the family that is not forced to cut back on food to pay for heating oil, of the worker who doesn’t pay excessive amounts of his paycheck on his commute, of the trucker who isn’t taken into the red by filling up at the pump.

If any readers out there can think of an image that might overshadow the salmon costume in Washington, please let us know. Until then, we hope you’ll continue the quiet battle for the attention of our lawmakers. Know that your voices are being heard, even if your attire goes unnoticed.

David Holt: If we don’t want it, others will benefit

David Holt, President of Consumer Energy Alliance, submitted the following Op-Ed to Boston Globe on September 23, 2009.

If we don’t want it, others will benefit

THE SEPT. 17 op-ed by James Hansen and Aaron Sanger, “Using the market to tackle the climate crisis,’’ goes to great lengths to paint as dark a picture of Canada’s oil sands as possible, using the word “sludge’’ four times in a single paragraph, and invoking imagery from “The Lord of the Rings.’’

We’re told that carbon emissions from the oil sands “are three to five times greater’’ than from conventional oil; not mentioned is that the carbon content of oil is constant, as is the carbon profile of the fuels produced from it. Every gallon of oil-derived gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. And it doesn’t matter if that oil came from Canada or Colorado, the Middle East or the Midwest.

Hansen and Sanger’s solution for destroying the oil sands market? Stop buying things from businesses that use this energy. Others have suggested an outright ban on the oil sands, and have rallied around a policy known as the low-carbon fuel standard to achieve it.

But denying Americans access to this energy won’t deprive the world of its existence. If we don’t want it, our friends in China will be more than happy to take it off our hands – and emit significantly more carbon in the production, transportation, and consumption of this energy than if it had been used to create jobs, security, and competitive economic advantages closer to home.

Saving energy in mid-air

The term “as the crow flies” is often used to explain why the actual distance between two spots is shorter than the driving distance. You might think that, unlike cars, airplanes do fly in the same way crows fly, taking the most direct route between Point A and Point B, but it turns out that they don’t. Outdated air traffic control technology doing its best to maintain order in crowded skies means that planes take quite circuitous routes, particularly during takeoff and landing, resulting in widespread delays, noise pollution and greater fuel emissions.

Now that you know this problem exists (it can be hard to follow the path you’re taking through cloud cover), know that a solution is on the way. The federal government has committed $865 million toward a Next Generation Air Transportation System and different companies are developing advanced GPS technologies that would make flight navigation a lot more efficient.

Most commercial planes today must be taken through a complex, sort of stair step landing process, in which they reduce their altitude in stages: slowing down and descending a bit and then accelerating again to maintain the new altitude before air traffic control guides them through another “step” down. That’s what pilots are describing when they say they are beginning their “initial descent.” Passengers may notice this choppy slow down/speed up cycle that begins long before touchdown. It’s a time-consuming and fuel-consuming system and when the air space is really congested, planes are often directed significantly off course as they line up for their turn at this elaborate descent to the runway.

New technology made by the Kent, Washington-based Naverus, and by a subsidiary of Boeing would help flights take more direct paths by using a satellite-guided descent that smoothly takes them from cruising altitude down to the ground with a precision that air traffic control rarely achieves.

This simulated video of a flight across America offers some sense of how so-called direct flights are repeatedly subject to a change of course, but really does not capture all the waste in time and fuel that may result. A recent story on some of the new technology now being tested at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport explains in more detail how flights are often taken significantly off course.

Alaska Airlines, which is already testing the new “Optimized Profile Descent” technology, estimates that it could save 2.1 million gallons of fuel per year, just on flights approaching Seattle from the west.

Factor in more airports using this technology on multiple flight paths, and the savings multiply. Thanks to both the government’s commitment and to some entrepreneurs’ ingenuity, the savings could be right on the horizon.

1...332333334...338Page 333 of 338

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT

© Consumer Energy Alliance