FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
APRIL 7, 2009
CONTACT:
LAURA HENDERSON
202.621.2951

If by “Open,” He Meant “Closed,” Salazar’s OCS Public Review Process is the Most Open We’ve Ever Seen

WASHINGTON, D.C. – IER President Thomas J. Pyle today issued the following statement in response to growing concerns surrounding Secretary of Interior Salazar’s increasing efforts to close off public access to the creation of a five-year plan for energy production on the outer continental shelf (OCS).

“Secretary Salazar and his department may say they’re interested in an open comment period, but the real story appears to be a concerted attempt to make it harder than ever for the public to be heard. The Department of Interior has changed what was formerly a simple process for receiving public comments into a closed, lengthy, bureaucratic, process full of government red-tape and void of public opinion.

“Even though polling shows that the majority of the American people want to look for American energy in American waters, we still operate under a nearly three-decade self imposed embargo. Similarly, while Salazar continually states that the U.S. has only limited reserves, he fails to mention that his own department estimates that oil from the OCS could quadruple our reserves.

“Affordable, accessible American energy is far too important to be left to a politicized policy that doesn’t take Americans’ views into account. IER will continue to monitor and delve further into what looks like behind-the-scenes coordination among Administration leaders and political organizations.”

More from IER:

Press Release: Hundreds in NJ Turn Out in Support of Offshore Energy Development
Fact Sheet: Offshore Energy Exploration: Myths vs. Facts
Press Release: Salazar’s Fantasy Land on East Coast Windmills

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.

Fact: The Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates are likely very conservative, as bans on offshore leasing have made it illegal to explore and determine how much more energy is available. In other words, this is just the tip of the iceberg­—history has proven that when people are allowed to look for energy, they generally find it.  The best way to stop them from finding it is to stop them from looking for it.

Myth: Offshore energy development would do nothing to lower prices because it would take too long for the energy resources to make it into the market.

Fact: Economists have long disputed the notion that offshore energy development would not affect consumer prices. Both economic theory and now empirical evidence demonstrate that government policies promising future oil production lead to immediate price relief. IER economist Robert Murphy made this point on a TV interview on June 26, 2008,[1] while Martin Feldstein made the point in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on July 1, 2008.

Further, while there may be areas along the Atlantic coast without the significant build-out of infrastructure needed to facilitate quick energy production, other currently unexplored areas do have that infrastructure in place, such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. No serious observer has ever suggested that it would take anywhere close to ten years to access those energy resources and deliver them to American consumers.  Furthermore, in places like California, where an infrastructure is already in place and the local community supports offshore exploration, those resources could be available in a significantly shorter period of time.

Myth: Offshore energy production is dangerous and harmful to the environment.

Fact: Offshore energy production is safe and environmentally sound.  In the last 50 years, the oil and gas industry has developed innovative technologies and exploration methods that are efficient, pose little threat to the environment, and keep workers safe.  The industry has taken additional precautions to prepare for any type of unwanted incident.

Some of those technologies include:

• Advanced 3-D seismic and 4-D time imaging technologies: enable offshore operators to locate oil and gas resources far more accurately to necessitate less drilling and allow greater resource recovery.[2]

• Storm chokes: placed on all offshore wells to detect damage to surface valves and shut down production during an emergency.[3]

• Blowout preventers: continuously monitor the subsurface and subsea-bed conditions to prepare for unexpected changes in well pressure.[4]

• Waste product reuse technology: transforms drill cuttings, a waste product of rock pieces and drilling fluids produced when drilling a well, into raw material for bricks, roads, and even rebuilding Louisiana’s wetlands.[5]

These technologies and practices are yielding results:

• According to the U.S. Department of Interior data, offshore operators produced 7 billion barrels of oil from 1985 to 2001 with a spill rate of only .001 percent.[6]

• In 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 115 Gulf of Mexico oil and gas platforms and damaged 535 pipeline segments, but there were no major oil spills attributed to either storm.[7]

Myth: Offshore oil and gas production is the number one contributor to oil in our oceans.

Fact: Less than 1 percent of all oil found in the North American marine environment comes from offshore oil and gas development.[8] According to the National Academy of Sciences, the majority—60 percent—is the result of natural seeps through the ocean floor.[9] In many places it is higher. For example, all of the tar on the beaches of Santa Barbara is from natural seeps.[10] Moreover, these seeps are reduced when the oil is produced and transported to shore, where it can be put to use as energy for America.[11]

Oil seeps—underwater cracks in the Earth’s crust—release more than 60 percent of the petroleum entering North American waters and over 45 percent of the petroleum in waters around the globe.[12] Natural seepage of crude oil from geologic formations below the seafloor is estimated to exceed 47,000,000 gallons in North American waters and 180,000,000 gallons globally every year.[13]

Myth: Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of untapped leases and don’t need access to new areas.

Fact: Lease agreements already contain federal requirements that require oil companies to use leased land in a timely manner. The 1992 Comprehensive Energy Policy Act requires energy companies to comply with lease provisions and explore expeditiously or risk forfeiture of the lease.  Energy companies cannot “stockpile” leases (even those found to contain no oil or gas) to drive prices up.  What’s more, historical data show only one discovery results from every 60 leases granted to energy companies.

Companies are not “sitting” on the leases they now have.  Technology has allowed companies to increase their production on leased acreage.

The Hard Facts:

• 97 percent of Federal offshore areas are not leased.

• 94 percent of Federal onshore areas are not leased.

[2] U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Technology, October 1999, p. 28. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/environ_benefits/env_benefits.pdf

[3] Id. at 41.

[4] Id.

[5] See id. at 54.

[6] SAFE Commends Movement Toward Lifting Ban on Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Production, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS223711+18-Jun-2008+PRN20080618, June 18, 2008.

[7] Id.

[8] See National Research Council, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects: Report in Brief, http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/oil_in_the_sea_final.pdf.

[9] National Research Council, Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, p. 2 (2003).

[10] See Kolpack 77 and Harman 198  R. L. Kolpack, Relationship of migratin of natural seep material to oceanography of Santa Barbara Channel, California Offshore Gas, Oil, and Tar Seeps, Staff Report, California State Lands Commission p. 226-55 (1977); B. Hartman & D. Hammond, The use of carbon and sulfurisotopes as correlation parameters tor the source identilication of beach tar in the southern California borderland, 45 Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 309 (1981).

[11] Stop Oil Seeps California, http://www.soscalifornia.org/presentation-bbsw/ze.html.

[12] Id. at 2.

[13] Id.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2008
CONTACT
Brian Kennedy (202) 346-8826

IER Continues Energy Education Ad Campaign:
Only 9 More Days Until Congressional Bans on Offshore and Oil Shale Energy Expire

Washington, DC – The Institute for Energy Research (IER) continues its energy education ad campaign this week with two new radio spots, “Same Failed Policies” and “Drill More, Tax Less.”  Building on its August print and radio education campaign, IER’s new ads  will run starting today in Alaska, Georgia, South Dakota, Louisiana and Tennessee.  IER president Thomas Pyle issued the following statement:

“The continuation of our energy education campaign reminds Americans about one critical energy fact – as taxpayers, they own the federal lands and the energy resources that lie beneath them.  As such, Americans should be asking themselves why they are being subjected to an energy embargo from Washington.  By banning energy production on federal lands for the last few decades, American supplies have been restricted, contributing greatly to the energy crunch American consumers are enduring today.”

“Unfortunately, policymakers seem incapable of grasping that simple supply and demand equation.  Federal lands and their energy resources don’t belong to the government – they belong to the people.  Lifting the  bans on domestic energy production will put taxpayer-owned energy resources to work for us for a change. Our families and our economy need more American energy, not less.”

Text of the “Same Failed Policies” ad follows, and it can be heard by clicking here:

With rising gas and home heating costs – you would think that our leaders would want to help our families who are struggling to make ends meet.  But as usual – Washington has it backwards.  Some lawmakers are pushing more of the same failed policies that have led to record high energy prices.

While most Americans are calling for expanding exploration, some Washington leaders want to permanently ban exploration on most of our energy rich off-shore locations.  There is a better way to improve our lagging economy and put America back on its feet.

Opening up ALL of our taxpayer-owned offshore oil resources will make us less dependent on foreign imports from unstable nations, help grow our economy, and most importantly assist in making gas and home heating bills affordable again for American families.

A sound energy policy is one that allows for more energy, not LESS.

Text of “Drill Now, Tax Less” ad follows, and it can be heard by clicking here:

America’s energy problem is hurting our families.  With prices at the pump near historic highs, Washington is doing little to reduce our reliance on imports from unstable regions like Venezuela, Nigeria and the Middle East.

Instead of solving our energy problems, some leaders in Washington are actually trying to raise taxes on domestic energy production.  Raising energy taxes would cost America more than 600,000 jobs and do virtually nothing to decrease our reliance on foreign oil from unstable nations.

Washington needs to open our taxpayer owned land for exploration and production, but some policymakers want to permanently lock up nearly all of our energy-rich outer continental shelf.  Permanent bans on drilling and increased energy taxes mean higher energy costs for our families.

We need new American energy and lower prices, not increased taxes and empty promises on drilling.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit public foundation that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets.  Founded in 1989, IER is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought or accepted from government (taxpayers).

#####

www.InstituteforEnergyResearch.org

This bill, like the recent “Gang of Ten” proposal, does almost nothing to increase domestic energy production. Instead, it offers more of the same government imposed mandates that promote inefficient or untested types of energy.

The following is an analysis of the most recently available proposal:

Title 1—Federal Oil and Gas Leasing

While the authors may seek to open up additional areas on the outer continental shelf (OCS) to new exploration and development, the bill permanently locks up the most oil and gas-rich areas of the OCS. For example, this would permanently ban about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying off the coast of California.

Subtitle A—Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing

• Permanently institutes a ban on new offshore development out to 50 miles. [Sec. 102]
  • The vast majority of undiscovered oil and gas reserves are projected to be between the coast and 50 miles offshore. Instead of allowing the production of great quantities of oil and gas, this section locks up billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.

• Permits leasing only between 50 and 100 miles offshore only if the adjacent state legislature ‘opts-in’ to allow leasing off its coastline. [Sec. 102]
  • Section 102 fails to provide royalty revenue sharing for the states near new offshore development. States will not have any incentive to allow oil development if there is not revenue sharing from the actual production.

• Fails to open new, energy rich areas for exploration and development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. These areas in the Gulf could start producing oil and gas very quickly because they are close to existing infrastructure.

• Creates a new duty for the Secretary of the Interior, notwithstanding all current environmental laws, to make sure any activity “provides for the protection of the coastal environment.” [Sec. 104]
  • Offshore exploration and development is already subject to a large number of environmental laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
  • Because this new language is not defined in the bill nor the U.S. Code, it is an invitation for environmental groups to sue so courts will determine what it means for the Secretary to “provide for the protection of the environment.” [Sec. 104] This will only slow new offshore development.

Subtitle B—Diligent Development of Federal Oil and Gas Leases

• Requires oil and natural gas leaseholders to “diligently develop” the leases they hold. [Sec. 121]
  • The bill does not explain how this would change existing law and existing requirements because existing law already requires leaseholders to develop leases or give them back to the United States.
  • This subtitle is a reference to the myth that there is 68 million acres with economical deposits that are leased by oil and gas production that oil companies are not using. More information on that myth is available here.

Subtitle F—National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

• Accelerates leases sales on National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPR-A). [Sec. 162].
  • NPR-A is estimated to contain 10.6 billion barrels of oil but those reserves are spread out over NPR-A’s 23 million acres. This bill does not open up nearby ANWR. ANWR also holds more than 10 billion barrels of oil, but ANWR’s resources can be accessed from a very small area. More information about the NPR-A and ANWR is available here.
  • The bill states that the Secretary must offer leasing in an “environmentally responsible” manner. This section does not define “environmentally responsible” potentially allowing environmental groups to sue to define what this means.

• Requires the President to facilitate construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska with unionized labor [Sec. 165-166]
• Bans the export of Alaskan oil. [Sec. 166]

Subtitle G—Oil Shale

There are more hydrocarbon resources in oil shale in the western United States than there are oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated the U.S. has 2 trillion barrels of resource of which 556 billion barrels is recoverable. A better approach would be to remove all impediments to oil shale research and development.

• Allows oil shale leasing for research, development, or production of oil shale only if states specifically pass a law permitting oil shale leasing within their borders. [Sec. 171]
  • This is only a half-measure to developing oil shale. Developing oil shale is expensive and requires experimentation to improve oil shale extraction technology. It is currently not necessary to get state approval for experimental projects, but this bill creates additional hurdles for experimental projects—the type of projects necessary to one day utilize this vast resource.

Title II—Consumer Energy Supply

• Sells 70 million barrels of light grade crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and buys heavy grade crude. [Sec. 201]
• It is unlikely this scheme will have any effect on gasoline prices, as evidenced by this information here.

Title III—Public Transportation

From 1993 to 2003 capital expenditures for public transit grew by 100 percent, but transit ridership only grew by 13 percent. By that measure, federal subsidies for public transportation has been a bad investment, but it seems measure throws good money after bad.

• Spends $100 million in new federal spending for public transportation. [Sec. 303]
• Establishes a new pilot program for contracting vanpools. [Sec. 306]
• Authorizes $1 million in spending for public transportation advertising. [Sec. 307]

Title IV—Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes

This title usurps the authority to set building codes from state and local governments and institutes new national building codes standards in the name of energy efficiency. The likely outcome of this title will be an increase in the cost of new construction and renovation of buildings in the United States.

• Requires states to revise their building codes to comply with certain energy efficiency standards. [Sec. 401]
• Increases energy efficiency standards for building renovations.

Title V—Federal Renewable Portfolio Standard

This title requires electricity providers (except for state or local governments) to provide 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, excluding hydropower, by 2020. Currently, less than 5 percent of our electricity is generated by renewable sources according to the definition in this title. Renewable electricity mandates increase the price of electricity to consumers by forcing them to use more expensive and less efficient sources of electricity.

Title VI—Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods

This title contains and myriad of subsidies and directives that interferes with housing markets in the name of “energy efficiency.”

• Creates new subsidies for people who participate in HUD programs to implement energy efficiency programs. [Sec. 603]
• Authorizes $50 million in pilot programs for more energy efficient multi-family dwellings. [Sec. 605]
• Encourages Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to favor energy efficient mortgages. [Sec. 606]
• Establishes a “duty to serve underserved markets” regarding energy- and location-efficient mortgages for “very low-, low-, and moderate-income families.” [Sec. 607].
• Authorizes $5 million for advertisements about energy efficient mortgages. [Sec. 609]
• Authorizes $10 million for “increasing sustainable low-income community development capacity.” [Sec. 617]
• Creates new requirements for state certified appraisers to consider the value of energy-efficiency features. [Sec. 620]
• Authorizes a $5 million fund for loans to states and tribes to carry out renewable energy sources activities. [Sec. 623]

Title VII—Miscellaneous Provisions

• Mandates each automotive fueling station owned by a major integrated oil company to have at least 1 alternative fuel pump. This section assesses a $100,000 fine for each gas station not in compliance. [Sec. 701]
• While section 701 appears to greatly increase the amount of alternative fuel pumps, this is not true. Only 3 percent of gas stations are owned by major oil companies.
• Authorizes $25 million in funding per year for a “National Energy Center for Excellence” at two universities. [Sec. 702]

Title VIII—Energy Tax Incentives

This final title is a hodge-podge of additional subsidies for politically-preferred and economically expensive energy projects, partially paid for by a major tax increase on oil companies. A recent IER analysis found that this could cost America over half a million jobs and tens of billions in lost household income and almost $200 billion in total economic output.

• Extends renewable energy tax credits. [Sec. 801]
• Creates new tax credits for “marine renewables.” [Sec. 802]
• Adds credits for pet energy projects. [Sec. 803]
• Extends credits for residential renewable energy projects. [Sec. 804]
• Authorizes $2.25 billion in tax credits integrated gas and combined cycle projects and advanced coal-based generation. [Sec. 811]
• Increases tax credits for coal gasification projects by $150 million. [Sec. 812]
• Increases the coal excise tax. [Sec. 813]
• Commissions the National Academy of Science to devise a taxation scheme to tax greenhouse gases [Sec. 815]
• Increasing subsidies for biodiesel and renewable diesel [Sec. 822]
• Creates new subsidies for plug-in automobiles [Sec. 824]
• Implements tax breaks for heavy duty trucks with idling reduction devices and thick insulation [Sec. 825]
• Implements special payroll tax breaks for governments around New York City [Sec. 826]
• Institutes special benefits for bicycle commuters [Sec. 827]
• Increases tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles [Sec. 828]
• Subsidizes loans for natural gas refueling at gasoline stations [Sec. 829]
• Subsidizes bonds for local governments to implement pet “green” projects [Sec. 841]
• Extends credits for biomass heating [Sec. 842]
• Extends credits for energy efficient commercial buildings [Sec. 843]
• Subsidizes for energy efficient appliances [Sec. 844]
• Institutes tax breaks for smart meters and smart grid systems [Sec. 845]
• Extends tax breaks for green buildings [Sec. 846]
• Retains the Gang of Ten’s tax increases on oil companies by ending section 199 credits for oil companies [Sec. 851]

National Association of Convenience and Petroleum Retailing, Who Sells Gasoline in the United States?, http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:3SO5I9pKI18J:cstorecentral.com/NR/rdonlyres/e4byydgy5rac32l3xw2ajs53o2jolqw73vsi6roq5dag2vh2hzrx4flprwtlvzgwcjukq434wwsesxqwzspln4ynzxh/Who%2BSells%2BGasoline%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUnited%2BStates.pdf+what+percentage+of+gas+stations+are+owned+by+major+integreated+oil+companies%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

According to the summary released by the Speaker of the House, the new “compromise” would:

• Institute a permanent ban out of 50 miles.
• Permit leasing between 50 and 100 miles offshore if a State ‘opts-in’ to allow leasing off its coastline by enacting state law.
• Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
• Lift the ban on energy production beyond 100 miles.

To the casual observer, this certainly seems like a reasonable compromise.  Unfortunately, it’s not.  It’s a bait and switch.  Here’s why:

• A permanent ban out to 50 miles locks-up the largest known offshore energy reserves, including those off the coast of California, that are close to existing infrastructure and be produced the fastest.
• The plan permanently bans access to 97 percent of the 10.527 billion barrels off the coast of California.  It allows the State to decide whether to produce just 3 percent, or 287 million barrels, which is highly unlikely anyway.  The remainder…10.24 billion barrels…is off limits.
• Keeping the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off limits also denies access to large reserves located close to existing pipeline infrastructure.  The plan keeps an estimated 3.65 barrels of oil and 22 trillion cubic feet of natural gas off limits
• The offshore areas surrounding the State of Alaska are not currently subject to any bans.  This plan appears to institute a 50-mile ban around energy-rich Alaskan shore for the first time ever.  Energy exploration there is just beginning.
• While the plan enables the states to “opt in” and produce energy between 50 and 100 miles, it lacks a revenue sharing mechanism, thereby making it highly unlikely that state would chose to do so.  In the case of energy production on federal lands – both onshore, and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, states split production revenues with the federal government.  Denying the states this incentive effectively prevents new production.

Of the 18 billion barrels of oil locked-up by current bans, the new plan allows access to less than four, and perhaps as little as 2 billion barrels.  And without revenue sharing, even the four states most lilely to allow production – Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia – would not do so.

For Comparison: The new plan may make available 2 billion barrels of oil available, beyond 100 miles of the shores on the East Coast.  Opening 2000 acres of ANWR’s northern coastal plain – onshore, 70 miles from an existing pipeline – would yield the United States at least an additional 10.4 billion barrels oil.

The Bottom Line: It appears as though the new plan would take the America from banning access to 85 percent of the OCS acreage surrounding the lower 48 states to banning access to roughly 90 percent of its most-promising and easy-to-produce offshore energy reserves.  By opening only the farthest reaches of the OCS where no infrastructure exists, denying the states a share in the revenues, and locking up the reserves that are closest (and largest), this proposal ensures that (1) new production would be sparse, at best, and (2) new supplies would not come online for a long, long time.  Combine these facts with the plan’s new taxes and government handouts, and the American consumer gets little more than an expensive energy bridge to nowhere.

Click here for charts which illustrate the points above.

· Link to full BLM Report: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/EPCA_III.html

· Link to BLM news release: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2008/may_08/NR_052108.html

TOTAL OFF-LIMITS ENERGY

The new report, known as EPCA III, puts the total figures for energy supplies withheld by the Congress at 117 billion barrels of oil and 651 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (The U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that America’s outer continental shelf contains nearly 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas). This is enough oil to replace our OPEC imports for over 50 years, and enough natural gas to supply all US needs for 30 years.

The complete BLM press release follows:

Report Offers Road Map for Energy Relief

With average national gas prices hovering around $4 per gallon, the Bureau of Land Management today released a study that shows vast untapped oil and natural gas resources exist on public lands in the U.S.

“America has abundant energy resources,” said Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Minerals Management C. Stephen Allred. “However, for a variety of reasons, many of these resources are not available for development. At a time when energy prices have reached record levels and Americans are feeling the impact, we must find ways to develop those key energy resources that are available to us right here at home, on our public lands.”

The report is the third in a series of congressionally mandated scientific studies of U.S. onshore Federal oil and natural gas resources and limitations on their development. All onshore Federal lands throughout the U.S. believed to have energy potential are included in this latest study. These public lands are estimated to contain 31 billion barrels of oil and 231 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The BLM administers leasing of onshore Federal oil and gas resources.

The inventory found that 60 percent of the onshore Federal lands that have potential as domestic sources for natural gas and oil are presently closed to leasing, making 62 percent of the oil and 41 percent of the natural gas inaccessible for development. An additional 30 percent of onshore Federal oil and 49 percent of onshore Federal gas may only be developed subject to restrictions over and above standard environmental lease terms, including seasonal timing limitations. The study found that in the inventory areas just 8 percent of onshore Federal oil and 10 percent of onshore Federal gas are accessible under standard lease terms.

The 279 million acres inventoried are managed by various Federal agencies, including the BLM and other agencies in the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, which is part of the Department of Agriculture. Some of these acres are split estate, where the subsurface mineral resources are Federally owned but the surface is privately owned.

“Public lands have a significant role to play in meeting our domestic energy needs securely and affordably,” said BLM Director Jim Caswell. “Current technology allows us to develop energy resources without adversely impacting the environment or permanently diminishing other non-energy resources found on public lands. With the means to make energy development a temporary use of the land, we don’t have to choose between energy security and healthy lands.”

The latest inventory expands on earlier reports published in 2003 and 2006 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2000, or EPCA. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also directed that the EPCA study consider conditions of approval, which are restrictions attached to drilling permits (e.g., no drilling permitted during seasonal migration of sensitive species), and to which companies must adhere during lease development.

The new report was prepared under the direction of the BLM. Co-authors, contributors, and reviewers include the U.S. Geological Survey, the USDA-Forest Service, and the Department of Energy and its Energy Information Administration. Copies can be obtained by writing to the Bureau of Land Management, Office of Public Affairs, 1849 C Street, N.W., MS-LS 406, Washington, D.C. 20240. The report and a related fact sheet are also available online at: www.blm.gov

The BLM manages more land – 258 million acres – than any other Federal agency. Most of this public land is located in 12 Western states, including Alaska. The Bureau, with a budget of about $1 billion, also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, and cultural resources on the public lands.

# # #

The Top Five Steps Your Federal Government Can Take to Increase Supplies and Lower Prices:

1. Lift the Presidential and Congressional moratoria on deepwater outer-continental shelf (OCS) energy exploration and production. The US is the only developed country in the world that restricts access to its offshore resources. Currently, 97% of America’s 2 billion acres of OCS are not being used for their energy potential. The U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) estimates that the outer continental shelf contains nearly 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. (The U.S. consumes roughly 7.5 billion barrels of oil and 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually)  The MMS estimates are conservative due to the fact that “true knowledge of the actual volume of oil and natural gas resources can only come through the drilling of wells,” and in many places in the US, exploratory wells have not been allowed to be drilled. Simply put, the government does not know exactly how much energy lies beneath the OCS because it has been illegal to look.According to MMS, it has been more than twenty years since any exploration activity has been conducted on the Alaska and Atlantic OCS, and “no meaningful” exploration offshore Central and Northern California, offshore Oregon and Washington and the South Florida Basin, has been conducted since the 1960’s.
   
   
2. Repeal the Congressional prohibition precluding the production of oil shale leases on taxpayer-owned federal lands.As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress directed the U.S. Secretary of Interior to develop a program to enable the production of America’s oil shale resources – the largest oil supply in the world – for American consumers.The United States has 2 trillion barrels of oil shale. This is more than 7 the amount of crude oil reserves found in Saudi Arabia, and is enough to meet current U.S. demand for over 250 years. According to the U.S Department of Energy (DOE):
   
   “Once developed, U.S. oil shale resources will be similar in extent and energy potential to Alberta’s tar sand reserves. When oil shale and tar sands are considered together, the United States and Canada will be able to claim the largest oil reserves in the world.”However, in 2007, Congress adopted a rider that prohibited the Department of Interior from completing the task it was assigned in 2005. Consequently, the United States is still without a program to bring this massive resource to market for American consumers.
3. Open the “1002 Area” of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil and natural gas development. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter and the Congress set aside 1.5 million of ANWR’s 19 million acres for potential oil development, subject to Congressional approval. This area is often called the “1002 Area” because it was set aside in Section 1002 of the law. It is located on Alaska’s Northern Coastal Plain. According to U.S. government estimates, the mean estimate of the oil beneath ANWR’s northern coastal plain is 10.4 billion barrels, or, nearly half of the total proven reserves of the entire United States. At peak production, ANWR could produce approximately 1 million barrels of oil per day, which is roughly equal to the amount the entire state of Texas produces each day, and about as much as we currently import from Nigeria. Moreover, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently estimated that ANWR energy production would generate about $180 billion in federal tax and royalty revenue.If approved by Congress, ANWR would be the single largest producing oil field in America and the entire Northern Hemisphere.
4. Appoint the U.S. Commission on North American Energy Freedom as mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sections 1421-1424). As part of the federal government’s national energy policy, Congress established the 16-member Commission on North American Energy Security, and directed the President to appoint representatives from the United States. The President has failed to do so. North America’s energy resource base is enormous. It includes the world’s largest oil shale deposits, the world’s largest coal deposits, and the world’s largest oil sands reserves. Combined, these resources are sufficient to power North America for centuries, giving us plenty of time to transition to new energy sources as they become affordable. Meanwhile, all of North America would benefit from more indigenous energy production. A coordinated effort between the United States, Canada and Mexico – as envisioned by the law – would facilitate the development of a comprehensive North American energy policy that seeks to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 2025 within the three contiguous North American nation areas of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.
   
   
5. Repeal Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which prohibits federal contracting for “nonconventional” sources of petroleum. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 prohibited U.S. federal agencies from contracting to procure non-conventional or alternative fuels that may emit higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions than ‘conventional petroleum sources.’ Investment in non-conventional fuels will play a critical role in reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources of energy. Advanced fuel technologies, including coal-to-liquids, natural gas-to-liquids, fuel from oil shale, an fuel from Canadian tar sands are specifically targeted by Section 526. Strategically, Section 526 was especially unwise, given America’s massive coal and oil shale resources, and the fact that Canada is America’s largest supplier of imported oil. Arbitrarily preventing the U.S. Government from procuring advanced non-conventional fuels could have negative impacts on the military, and therefore, our security. In the event of a national emergency, the U.S. military could be forced to obtain a greater percentage of petroleum from unstable regions of the world.