Opponents of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic are making a last-ditch effort to convince the Obama administration to impose the same kind of moratorium on oil and gas development that it did on major commercial fishing in the Far North.

Signatures from nearly 300,000 people supporting a halt on new drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, and also in Alaska’s Bristol Bay, were unveiled outside the Department of Interior in Washington, on the last day available for public comment before the department decides on future leases on the Outer Continental Shelf.

A group of more than 400 scientists also is joining the public push against Arctic drilling. In a letter to the president timed to the deadline for offshore oil comments, a large group of biologists, oceanographers and other scientists warned that profound physical and biological changes in the Arctic Ocean connected to the rapid shrinking of sea ice leave too many unanswered questions to proceed with new oil and gas development.

“Offshore oil and gas activity poses risks to marine mammals, sea birds and fishes from oil spills and chronic habitat degradation through noise, bottom disturbance, and pollution,” the scientists said in their letter. “Adequate technology does not exist to clean up oil spills in broken ice, and the cumulative impacts of widespread industrial activity will only grow.”

The letter urged a delay in new development until adequate studies give scientists a better understanding of the ecosystem. It also said delays would allow for better consultation with Alaska residents in the Arctic concerned about the impacts of oil drilling on the whales and other marine mammals that form the backbone of their livelihoods.

“There’s a great deal of information from different sides in the debate,” said Henry Huntington, science director for the Pew Environment Group’s Arctic program, “and I think it’s important to hear what scientists have to say about their understanding of the ecosystem, and equally important, the scientists’ understanding of … how well do we really know this ecosystem?”

“We still have a chance to do it right in the Arctic,” Jeffrey Short, Pacific science director for the group Oceana, said in a statement. “All we’re really asking is that for once we look before we leap.”

Bristol Bay is south of the Arctic Circle but has been no less controversial because it is home to one of the nation’s most productive fisheries, worth more than $2 billion a year, including the largest sockeye salmon runs in the world.

Lease sales there are scheduled in 2011 but have met opposition from a large number of fishermen and Native Alaskans who argue that the region’s fishery will ultimately generate much more income than oil and gas production.

With diminishing supplies of oil around the world and increasing worries about America’s dependence on foreign oil sources, the federal government is looking hard at untapped deposits offshore around the country, many of which have been long off-limits from drilling for environmental reasons.

The Minerals Management Service opened more than 70 million acres in the Beaufort, Chukchi and Bering seas to oil and gas development from 2007 to 2012, though the program has been largely paralyzed by environmental challenges in the courts.

The Bush administration also proposed an even more ambitious Alaska leasing program for a total of 127.5 million acres by 2015. Federal officials estimate that 27 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil reserves lie beneath the coastal waters of Alaska.

The state has been a big proponent of the drilling expansion, arguing along with federal officials who approved the leasing program that it can be done with sufficient safeguards for wildlife and adequate protections to prevent damage from oil spills in the fragile Arctic environment. Oil wells at Prudhoe Bay, on Alaska’s North Slope, have been gradually making their way offshore in the last several years with few serious adverse consequences.

U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) submitted his own six-page comment to the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, urging “careful” development of offshore resources “to fuel America and help ensure our nation’s energy security.”

“Sound science and a process that values the wisdom of local voices can safely guide this development. The economic and strategic security of our nation requires that we policy makers make these decisions so they [are] not dependent on the whims of the federal court system,” he wrote.

Begich also is arguing for a bigger local share in offshore oil revenues, similar to that awarded residents of Southern states from oil development in the Gulf of Mexico under federal legislation passed in 2006. “If Alaska had been included in that legislation, the state would have received more than $900 million in revenues,” Begich wrote.

“Alaskans are no less worthy, particularly while they arguably bear greater risks.” Download Begich’s comment letter.

Monday’s signature presentation in Washington featured wild Alaskan salmon cakes for lunch and a giant postcard turned over to Kim Elton, a former Alaska state legislator who is the Interior secretary’s official representative for Alaskan affairs.

Department officials have not said when they will make a decision on the leasing program.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, appointed to look at the escalating hazards facing the oceans — from pollution to overfishing to acidification — put the Arctic among its top objectives in the panel’s first set of interim recommendations, released last week.

The federal government’s ocean planning should find better ways to conserve and sustainably manage Arctic coastal and ocean resources, improve coordination of U.S. Arctic policy, and improve scientific understanding of the region, the interim report suggests.

Source: www.latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace

Light, sweet crude for March delivery fell 61 cents to settle at $39.56 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Oil prices jumped earlier in the day to $42.43 as OPEC Secretary General Abdalla el-Badri’s announced that the cartel would postpone 35 of 150 new oil and gas projects.

El-Badri said the group would likely fall short of its goal to raise production capacity by five million barrels per day by 2012, according to a research note by analyst Addison Armstrong. The OPEC secretary also said the cartel is close to completing its previously announced cut of 4.2 million barrels per day.

Crude producers have been hit hard by falling prices, but industry experts warn that taking production projects off line is short-term thinking.

“They’re only hurting themselves,” said Phil Flynn, an analyst at Alaron Trading Corp.

Any spike in crude prices because of production declines from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries will make it harder for economies to recover and for demand to pick up naturally, Flynn said.

“And when demand picks up, they won’t have the production capacity to meet it,” he said.

OPEC produces about 40 percent of the world’s crude oil.

Despite OPEC’s announcement, oil prices dropped back to below $40 by midday. Oil traders and brokers have come to terms with the new state of the oil industry after a frenetic 2008 in which prices spiked above $147 a barrel, then crashed to close $30.

They’ve digested the massive jobless numbers from the government, the rounds of corporate retrenchment, and the bloated crude inventory numbers. In the past week, traders have come to a rough consensus of what a barrel of crude is worth, analyst Peter Beutel said.

“We’ve reached an equilibrium point,” Beutel said. “They’re willing to trade below $40, but by the end of the day, there’s always enough bidding to push it back above that level.”

Evidence that energy demand will remain depressed for some time continued to roll in Monday.

Nissan forecast its first annual loss in nine years and said it will slash 20,000 jobs from its work force. Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn blamed the car maker’s loss on the global economic slump and the appreciating yen.

Menswear chain S&K Famous Brands, which operates 135 stores in the East and Midwest, announced it is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. And Hasbro Inc. said its fourth-quarter profit fell 30 percent.

Meanwhile, home appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. said fourth-quarter profit dropped 77 percent, and Barclay’s PLC warned that further asset write-downs – on top of the massive $11.9 billion booked for 2008 – were likely. Britain’s third-largest bank also said executive directors would not be getting any bonuses.

Oil, which is traded in dollars, also was given a boost as the dollar fell against European currencies.

Traders on Nymex are watching what happens with a $700 billion financial rescue program in Washington.

The Treasury Department also is considering steps to broaden the use of a new lending facility at the Federal Reserve, provide government guarantees to help banks deal with their troubled assets, and continue direct infusions of capital into banks in exchange for securities and tougher accountability rules.

So-called toxic assets – securities for which markets have dried up, making them impossible to value – have been weighing on banks’ balance sheets, preventing them from lending to the wider economy and stifling economic recovery. Experts hope the Treasury’s plan to manage these bad assets would brighten the outlook for the U.S., the world’s largest oil consumer.

The national retail average price for a gallon of regular gas climbed 0.3 cents to $1.924 a gallon overnight, according to auto club AAA, the Oil Price Information Service and Wright Express. That is about 13 cents a gallon above what it was a month ago, but about $2.29 below last July when prices peaked at $4.11 per gallon.

In other Nymex trading, gasoline futures dropped 3.6 cents to settle at $1.2471 a gallon. Heating oil lost less than a penny to settle at $1.3523 a gallon, while natural gas for March delivery rose 3.3 cents to settle at $4.807 per 1,000 cubic feet.

In London, the March Brent contract fell 19 cents to settle at $46.02 on the ICE Futures exchange.

Who better to know the real story of the future sustainability and cost of oil than the leaders of oil companies? In a recent study sponsored by the consulting firm Deloitte only 17% of 50 senior oil and gas company executives believe that fossil fuels will be the most sustainable fuel source in 25 years’ time; 23% think it will be the cheapest. In 25 years most oilmen place their bets on renewable energy as the cheapest and most sustainable fuel.

About face for oil

The sentiments expressed in the study come from the same industry leaders that have in the past sought to downplay either the viability of renewable energy sources or the need to transition to a new energy economy, while dismissing outright the reality of climate change. The future was oil, baby, oil.

The number of oil executives that still think oil will be the cheapest energy source in 25 years has dropped a full 48 percentage points to the current 23%, according to the Deloitte study – that’s worse than president Bush’s approval rating.

The times they are a’changin’.

Reality bites

Oil company execs can see the writing on the wall. Not only in terms of a new administration ready to spend billions in renewable energy projects, but also in the reality of a dwindling supply of “cheap and easy” oil. There may be lots of oil to be had in tar sands and oil shale, but those projects are economically tricky with oil trading at $140 a barrel, let alone $45 – with the added bonus that those methods of extraction bring with them environmental catastrophe.

You can stand in the way of progress only so long. Then reality takes over.

Concern about foreign oil

Gary Adams, vice president for Deloitte’s oil and gas division, says that most oil company executives think their industry should play a significant role in helping America transition to a new energy economy: “…more than half of the executives in our study felt that petroleum companies should work toward helping America transition to the use of more renewables and other alternative fuels,” Adams said in a press release.

Three in four industry leaders expressed “strong concern” about America’s dependence on foreign oil, a concern shared by just about everyone else in the country (with legendary oilman T. Boone Pickens leading the charge).

Nothing you and I didn’t already know

In a separate study of registered voters across the country, Deloitte found almost everybody agrees with the newly converted oil company executives. An overwhelming percentage of voting citizens believe that renewable energy is the way of the future, and that oil will ultimately be unsustainable and more costly than alternative sources within 25 years. Virtually no one likes importing 70% of our oil from foreign sources.

The concern from the oil industry, according to the report, is realistic expectations for that change:

“It’s clear from our survey that most voters believe renewable energy is the way of the future,” said Adams. “While this is very important, many voters may not understand the current costs and complexities of developing renewable energy.”

Renewable energy – are you feeling confused?

Adams further states that there is confusion among voters about the real costs of renewable energy: “Right now, renewables simply are not as cheap as fossil fuels, which adds to the challenge of satisfying the public’s desire to move away from conventional oil and gas in a short time period.”

Adams stresses the need on the one hand for a comprehensive energy strategy promoting investment and development of renewable energy, while on the other pushing for domestic exploration and development of oil and gas as a sort of “bridge loan” to fill the gap. Says Adams:

“The world will be primarily reliant on fossil fuels for at least two generations – the bridge to tomorrow’s new energy future depends on this. The key is to have a sensible plan to transition to a new, cleaner energy era. It is also clear that the oil and gas industry needs to do more to educate the public on the challenges ahead.”

There is no doubt, as Adams says, that there are costs and complexities involved with transitioning an entire economy from oil to renewable energy. Its an enormous task, and one made all the more urgent by the appalling lack of leadership in energy policy of the past eight years. Need we be reminded that it wasn’t all that long ago that president Dick, er, vice president Dick Cheney said “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy”.

It was never really clear to me what did, in Bush and Cheney’s mind, constitute a sound, comprehensive energy policy. Obviously nothing to do with personal virtue.

But all that is nearly behind us now. From the average voting citizen to oil company executives (if driven by different motives than you or I) are chomping at the bit for change.

Despite the “confusion” and complexities Adams speaks of, I think the American public is ready to step up to the challenging road ahead. I see enormous momentum for change and a great upwelling of talent and innovation coming to bear that may bring along the transformation to a new energy economy quicker than Adams suggests, despite the ongoing recession (perhaps to some degree spurred on by it). In some cases, wind and solar are already at or within a few years of grid parity.

There is certainly a long way to go before we are free of the “addiction”, but let now be our “bottom”. Whatever the time frame or cost, there is no turning back. Everyone knows that; from the oil company CEO’s to Joe Q. Public.

We live in revolutionary times.