From the front of the room, Jeffrey Loman received each wave of criticism for oil and gas exploration and drilling in Bristol Bay with a polite "thank you for your comment."

 Members of environmental and tribal groups stood up and poured out their concerns: that drilling in Bristol Bay could hurt salmon stocks and other species that locals rely on for livelihood and subsistence, damage world perception of the quality of wild Alaska salmon and place threatened and endangered species in greater peril.

 The fact that revenue from offshore drilling would not be shared with Alaska stuck in a few craws as well.

 Loman is the deputy regional manager for Minerals Management Service, the federal agency that oversees lease sales for offshore drilling.

 At its building in Anchorage on May 13, the agency was hosting the first scoping - or gathering of public comment - for its environmental impact statement on possible exploration and drilling in Bristol Bay, where it says it could have a lease sale by the year 2011.

 Based on estimates derived from geological surveys, MMS predicts a mean expectation of 2.2 billion barrels, in terms of oil energy equivalent, of technically recoverable undiscovered oil and gas in the proposed lease sale area in Bristol Bay.

 The United States consumes 20.7 million barrels per day, according to a 2005 estimate from the Energy Information Administration.

 That would put Bristol Bay's average expected total energy yield at about 108 days of current U.S. energy consumption.

 "Generally, most of the giant fields have been discovered," MMS public information officer Robin Cacy said. "But even if the lease sale went forward and they found anything, production would be 10 or 12 years out.

 "We don't know what's there. The only way we'll know is to drill an exploratory well. The process benefits us in that we'll know what resource we actually have, and we have the production potential for 10 or 12 years down the line."

 Richard Steiner, a University of Alaska Fairbanks professor and marine conservation specialist who attended the May 13 scoping, said he thinks the risk posed by offshore drilling to Bristol Bay salmon fisheries, communities and wildlife is too great to gamble on a few months or more of energy supply.

 Tom Tilden, a Yup'ik commercial fisherman in Bristol Bay, said offshore drilling in Bristol Bay is a serious issue for Alaska Natives in the area who rely on subsistence to survive.

 "Those guys are at our dinner table," Tilden said of oil companies interested in offshore drilling in Bristol Bay, in an interview after the scoping.

 "They're affecting the food we eat. Oil comes to America's dinner plate and says, 'I'm going to do some dirty work here. Just ignore me.' Well, we live from the sea. That's who we are."

 Cacy said there are potential benefits to the Bristol Bay region from exploration and drilling, in the form of access to cheaper energy, jobs associated benefits to local businesses.

 "We have to strike that balance with the good of the state, environment and nation," Cacy said. "It's a tough balancing act."

 Ultimately, the decision on whether to put the proposed area of Bristol Bay, called the North Aleutian Basin Lease Sale 214, up for bid, falls on the shoulders of U.S.

Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne. The 8,700-square-mile, wedge-shaped proposed lease sale area sits between 11 and 115 miles offshore, from Port Moller to Unimak Pass.

 The National Environmental Policy Act, however, requires an environmental impact statement by prepared for any federal project that could have a significant

environmental impact. Gathering public input is a legally required part of that process. Initially, MMS had planned to hold just two scoping meetings, one in Anchorage on May 13 and one in Unalaska May 15. The deadline for submitting written comments was to be July 7.

 At the May 13 meeting, Lomen announced the deadline for written comments would be extended to August or September, and that more scoping meetings would be held in late summer in towns around the Bristol Bay area, including Dillingham.

 Some who attended the meeting questioned whether MMS' timetable for the proposed lease sale allowed for sufficient research to be gathered on Bristol Bay and potential impacts from exploration and drilling. Lomen said the agency expects to complete the environmental impact statement by 2010.

 "The science out there is pretty sparse," Steiner said. "It's pretty old as well."

 He said adequately researching the Bristol Bay to prepare a valid environment impact statement would take another five years.

 Steiner said he participated in an MMS workshop with other scientists two years ago to review gaps in scientific data on Bristol Bay, and that he and the other scientists identified 35 gaps or areas of concern.

 Cacy said that research collected by other agencies will be incorporated into the environmental impact statement and that current and future MMS studies will help fill in the gaps.

 "Just because we don't have it now when we start this process doesn't mean we wont' have a sufficient amount when we make a decision later on," she said.

 Tilden said that MMS should be wary of relying on old data on Bristol Bay. He said the agency should work with Alaska Natives relying on subsistence in the Bristol Bay area to collect information, because they're on "ground zero" and have observed changes in wildlife and seasonal conditions in recent years that should be taken into account.

 Another comment that was raised by some in the Anchorage scoping meeting was that MMS needed to slow down - that it was rushing the project through.

 Cacy said the agency is getting an early start on the public comment and information gathering process required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

 "Our NEPA process takes 18 months from start to finish," Cacy said. "And we are starting a year and a half early on that process, in order to provide time to talk to people and get more information. We're adding more time to this particular process than we would in another area."