![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.302083333333333in" height="1.125in"}

# RSC Backgrounder:

**National Petroleum Reserve---Alaska**

![](media/image2.png){width="4.623611111111111in"
height="1.823611111111111in"}

In light of reports that the House will soon consider legislation
accelerating the leasing process in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve,
the following background information and talking points on the Reserve
could be useful.

-   The National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPRA), also known as the
    Naval Petroleum Reserve, is an [energy reserve set aside by a
    President Harding executive order in 1923]{.underline}, in order to
    assure availability of fuels for the Navy, which had been converting
    its ships from coal to oil.

-   In 1981, [stewardship of NPRA passed from the Navy to the Department
    of the Interior]{.underline}. The Naval Petroleum Reserves
    Production Act (P.L. 96-514) authorized the Secretary of the
    Interior to conduct oil and gas leasing and development in NPRA.

-   As is apparent in the map above, NPRA lies west of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and west of Prudhoe Bay,
    [encompassing some of the most desolate areas of
    Alaska]{.underline}.

-   NPRA contains about [440 barrels of oil per acre]{.underline}
    (compared to ANWR's 5,475 barrels per acre), which translates to
    281,600 barrels per square mile (compared to ANWR's 3.5 million
    barrels per square mile).

-   NPRA contains a potential [10.6 billion barrels of recoverable
    oil]{.underline} (compared to ANWR's minimum 10.4 billion barrels),
    potentially equal to 16 years of Saudi imports.

-   Some NPRA oil and gas fields are more than [250 miles from the
    existing pipeline infrastructure]{.underline} (compared to ANWR's
    75-mile distance to the pipelines).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   NPRA's oil and natural gas fields are [spread over about 23 million
    acres]{.underline} (compared to 1.9 million acres for ANWR).

-   [All NPRA lands]{.underline} that are available to be leased under
    current Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning documents (about 3
    million acres) [have been offered for lease]{.underline} in the past
    or will be offered before the end of the year. But not all of NPRA
    is currently available for lease. To see maps of the NPRA leases
    since 1999, visit this webpage:
    [**http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/npra_maps.html**](http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/energy/oil_gas/npra/npra_maps.html).

-   [Much of NPRA was opened under the Clinton
    Administration]{.underline}, on the notion that exploration can be
    done in an [**environmentally safe
    manner**](http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/42646_621.htm).

-   [Opening up *all* of NPRA for oil and gas leasing would require a
    legislative exemption]{.underline} for NPRA from the [**National
    Environmental Policy Act**](http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/nepa/) and
    the BLM Land Use Planning process.

-   There currently is no active production in NPRA because of a variety
    of [lawsuits, appeals, and the refusal of the U.S. Corp of Engineers
    to grant a permit]{.underline} to allow an oil pipeline to traverse
    a river.  Furthermore, drilling windows in NPRA are set by
    regulation at 3-4 months (as opposed to year-round), [forcing
    exploration and development drilling to take even
    longer]{.underline} than it otherwise would without such
    restrictions. 

-   H.R. 6, as it first passed the House in January 2007 as one of the
    signature Democrat bills in the 110^th^ Congress, contained a
    provision [removing certain incentives for energy exploration in
    NPRA]{.underline}. See Section 205(c)
    [**here**](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6:/).

**[Sources for the above information]{.underline}**: Winningreen, U.S.
Geological Survey, House Natural Resources Committee (Republican staff),
the Congressional Research Service, and the office of Alaska
Representative Don Young.

**[Analysis]{.underline}**: Republicans generally believe in an "all of
the above" approach to expanding America's energy supply, and as such,
many may support a stand-alone bill expediting the permitting of NPRA
and otherwise making it easier to get more energy supply from NPRA.
However, while NPRA and ANWR contain comparable amounts of known oil
reserves, numerous factors point to ANWR as being a more suitable place
to focus Congress' immediate attention. Some may also question why
Democrats would retreat from their no-new-drilling posture for NPRA but
not for ANWR---and similarly wonder why just last year the Democrat
Majority *removed* incentives for NPRA exploration and now suddenly want
to reverse that course.

As is indicated above, NPRA's resources are much more spread out than
are ANWR's, are significantly farther from existing pipeline
infrastructure than are ANWR's, and are subject to pending lawsuits and
other actions to block the construction of NPRA infrastructure. And
according to press reports, the legislation to expand exploration in
NPRA will not open any additional areas to leasing nor deal with the
litigation issues involved. In short, some conservatives may view this
legislation as a useful but largely insufficient step toward tapping
even the *NPRA's* reserves---let alone a sufficient step toward
achieving American energy independence in general.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718