Proposed Interior Department rules for drilling in the Western Arctic are spurring two contradictory views: that President Joe Biden has thwarted an oil boom in northern Alaska or paved the way for one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which perspective turns out to be right has significant implications for climate change and the future of the oil industry in the Arctic, considering the size of the petroleum reserves in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Bureau of Land Management proposal, which could strengthen Interior\u2019s ability to block future drilling on protected lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, follows Biden\u2019s controversial decision earlier this year to approve the massive Willow oil project in the same reserve. Drillers say the NPR-A rules could infringe on their development rights, while green groups say it fails to shift the NPR-A away from its origins as a potential stockpile of crude oil. How Interior officials apply the new language could determine which side will eventually claim victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Earthjustice attorney Jeremy Lieb said the proposed NPR-A rules, while an improvement, don\u2019t address the serious question of how ongoing oil development in the reserve will \u201calign with climate commitments.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThose are big gaps,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The draft rules, which are expected to be finalized in the coming months, would direct BLM to consider cumulative impacts of oil and gas activity in the NPR-A \u2014 which some argue could include big consequences such as climate change \u2014 and require actions to mitigate those effects. The proposal doesn\u2019t explicitly bar development across the roughly 13 million acres of the reserve that are currently set aside for conservation, but it could make drilling far more difficult where it is allowed. BLM is also proposing to potentially change or expand the boundaries of the reserve\u2019s most protected lands every five years, which oil and gas supporters say could put the most prime drilling areas out of reach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis rule generally sets aside most of the areas that are most prospective to oil and gas development,\u201d fumed John Boyle, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, during a November congressional hearing. He said the proposed regulations would make it \u201ctechnologically infeasible for any company to put together a development plan.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dispute underscores how the Biden administration is trying to traverse a middle ground between thwarting fossil fuel development to prove its allegiance to climate action while also following legal mandates to carry out a national oil program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The administration\u2019s high-wire act is perhaps most visible \u2014 and criticized \u2014 in the Arctic, which NOAA said earlier this month experienced its sixth-warmest year on record. Thawing permafrost and changing temperatures are creating climate refugees in the region by forcing the relocation of villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Exacerbating the administration\u2019s political challenges is the fact that the NPR-A, perhaps more than other swaths of public land in the country, is governed by laws that prioritize oil and gas. For example, the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 directs Interior to manage the NPR-A\u2019s oil and gas leasing program. Signed by then-President Gerald Ford during a period of tumultuous energy prices, the law was meant to reduce the country\u2019s dependence on foreign oil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThis is an oil and gas reserve,\u201d said Mark Myers, a commissioner on the U.S. Arctic Research Commission and a former oil and gas regulator for the state of Alaska. \u201cThe requirements were always that oil and gas was a high priority \u2014 not an exclusive priority by any means, but a high priority.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Steve Feldgus, deputy assistant secretary for land and minerals management, acknowledged oil\u2019s prominence in the region during a Nov. 29 hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Pressed by Republicans angry over the proposed rules, Feldgus said the NPR-A \u201cgenerates tens of millions of dollars in oil and gas revenue each year and will remain an important energy resource for some time.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The NPR-A covers 23 million acres of public land scattered with Alaska Native villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
About half of the reserve has been set aside for conservation, greatly restricting oil and gas development due to sensitive wetlands, caribou habitat and the annual migration of thousands of birds. Where drilling is allowed, it must be done with \u201cmaximum protection\u201d of the surface environment. The Biden administration is aiming to redefine what \u201cmaximum protection\u201d means in areas of potential oil and gas development, as well as potentially expand the borders where drilling is limited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, the BLM plan would strengthen language outlining the agency\u2019s role in protecting the NPR-A\u2019s surface resources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
When making any oil and gas decisions, the proposed rules require that BLM adopt mitigation measures to offset potential damages or significant changes that those oil and gas activity would cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
That effort would have to address a broad array of potential impacts. They include indirect impacts that are \u201clater in time or farther removed in distance\u201d as well as cumulative impacts, \u201cthose that result from the incremental effects of proposed activities when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions,\u201d according to the proposed rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BLM, which did not provide comment for this story, said in the proposal that it would have the authority to \u201cdelay or deny proposed activities that would cause reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on surface resources.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BLM wrote in the proposal that the conditions of the Arctic have changed dramatically since 1977 when the current approach to protecting lands was first inked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWith climate change warming the Arctic more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet, we must do everything within our control to meet the highest standards of care to protect this fragile ecosystem,\u201d Interior Secretary Deb Haaland said in a statement when the proposal was released in September.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The biggest test for BLM\u2019s rules may be at Teshekpuk Lake, a protected area that drillers are eyeing for oil and gas production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The area has extensive, marshy wetlands along the Arctic Coast. It\u2019s home to bird species that migrate from around the world every year and caribou herds numbering the tens of thousands that support nearby Alaska Native villages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a 2018 assessment, BLM noted that the area has \u201chigh potential for oil and gas resources.\u201d It\u2019s located just west of ConocoPhillips\u2019 Willow project \u2014 an $8 billion project moving forward this winter in the NPR-A. Both ConocoPhillips and companies led by a well-known oil and gas driller, Bill Armstrong, hold existing oil and gas rights that hug Teshekpuk Lake special area\u2019s borders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The BLM has said the proposed rules will not affect existing leases, but companies are nervous that it will. Biden\u2019s rules would open the door to change the boundaries of the Teshekpuk Lake special area, and the only way to expand that area would be to include the surrounding lands \u2014 many of which are currently leased to oil companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Armstrong, who did not respond to a request for comment, has gathered roughly 1 million gross acres of federal leases around the Teshekpuk Lake special area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a December letter to BLM, Armstrong Oil and Gas Vice President Nathan Lowe said the agency may be infringing on the company\u2019s valid drilling rights in the region by holding authority to block infrastructure that are critical to development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lowe also argued that the Biden administration is trying to prioritize land management over oil and gas management in the reserve, in conflict with congressional mandates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf Congress wanted BLM to protect surface values of the Petroleum Reserve over the development of petroleum resources, it would have clearly designated such lands,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Industry officials have long expressed interest in pushing deeper into the Teshekpuk Lake region, where they say they are confident there are large oil deposits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a 2018 interview with Alaska Public Media, ConocoPhillips Alaska President Joe Marushack applauded the then-Trump administration for trying to be more flexible for drilling interests near Teshekpuk. The Trump administration rolled back drilling and leasing restrictions in much of the reserve, a move that was later reversed by the Biden administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cWe agree that the area around Teshekpuk Lake ought to be sectioned off. Not as much as is sectioned off right now; we think that you can still do very responsible development in areas around that,\u201d Marushack said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A spokesperson for ConocoPhillips said the Biden proposed rule \u201cupsets the balance\u201d between conservation and oil and gas activity. The company declined to be interviewed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cIf adopted, the proposed rule would significantly impede future development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), diminishing our nation\u2019s energy security and reducing union jobs and economic benefits for Alaska Native communities, residents of Alaska, and our country,\u201d the company wrote in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Many environmentalists say the Biden proposal is rightly focusing on how to care more for the reserve\u2019s land and its wildlife.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Center for Western Priorities estimates that 9 out of 10 public comments support the rules, based on a random sample of 10,000 comments. The public review period on the proposal closed Dec. 7 with more than 90,000 submitted comments overall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The center said roughly 12 percent of reviewed comments called for weakening or eliminating the proposed rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe sheer number of comments submitted to the Interior department shows how much Americans care about the Arctic,\u201d said Aaron Weiss, deputy director at the Center for Western Priorities, in a statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe Arctic is experiencing some of the most severe effects of climate change, and these comments recognize there are some places that are too fragile to drill,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ben Tettlebaum, director and senior staff attorney for the Wilderness Society, applauded the BLM for its focus on conserving \u201cthe Reserve\u2019s land and resources rather than allow[ing] unimpeded expansion of oil and gas activities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But he added that the Wilderness Society is asking the BLM to fortify the reserve against development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The agency should do an assessment of the conditions of the reserve\u2019s lands at least every five years, document changes and decide what kind of mitigation would be required to protect those lands, the organization says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSuch a proactive process would mean that measures would be in place to better protect surface resources before BLM is faced with, e.g., a specific oil and gas project proposal,\u201d Tettlebaum said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Other environmentalists say Biden\u2019s proposal doesn\u2019t go far enough to address the extensive oil and gas leases that are already held by companies in the reserve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A form letter submitted to BLM from hundreds of individuals as a public comment said the proposed rules fail to tackle \u201cthe most imminent threat to the region and the planet\u2014the over two million acres of existing oil leases in the Western Arctic that this administration inherited.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cDevelopment on these existing leases\u2014like Willow\u2014threatens the sensitive habitat of the Western Arctic and the nation\u2019s ability to meet its climate goals,\u201d the letter says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is also a push, from groups like the Wilderness Society and Earthjustice, for the BLM to ink a climate analysis specific to the Western Arctic. Climate impact reviews are often included in environmental reviews for proposed oil projects. But because of the NPR-A\u2019s oil and gas potential, greens are pressing for a federal paper trail that documents how drilling in the reserve could contribute to climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Lieb, with Earthjustice, said the Biden administration should include an assessment of how to make the oil and gas program in the NPR-A compatible with climate policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cJust because they approved Willow doesn\u2019t mean that they are not willing to consider ways to improve their decision making and to put in place protections that will ideally ensure that there isn\u2019t another [Willow],\u201d he said. \u201cWe\u2019re not going to not going to stop pushing against further development that isn\u2019t consistent with responding to climate change.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Proposed Interior Department rules for drilling in the Western Arctic are spurring two contradictory views.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1238,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rop_custom_images_group":[],"rop_custom_messages_group":[],"rop_publish_now":"initial","rop_publish_now_accounts":[],"rop_publish_now_history":[],"rop_publish_now_status":"pending","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1237","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-climate"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1237","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1237"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1237\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1684,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1237\/revisions\/1684"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1238"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1237"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1237"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arcticwatch.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1237"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}