Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/20150317_RL33872_96d1c724c3550fab12ca1759fcf61b9b58d66375__20170328_RL33872_3ac98aeebfdc2b30624e9f65e287af9c9936cd83.html
Timestamp: 2019-12-15 00:39:24
Document Index: 618248531

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1601', '§1131', '§668', '§1003', '§668', '§1701']

Changes in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview from March 17, 2015 to March 28, 2017 - EveryCRSReport.com
Changes from March 17, 2015 to March 28, 2017
March 17, 201528, 2017 (RL33872)
ActionActions in the 112th and 113th Congress
to 115th Congresses
: Current Boundaries
Figure 3. Northern AlaskaActive North Slope Petroleum Sites
Figure 4. WeeklyDaily U.S. and International Crude Oil Prices
In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one recurring issue has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska. The policy question is whether to approve development—and if so, under what conditions—or whether to continue prohibiting development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWRThe Refuge is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential, but energy development in ANWR is currently prohibited by law. Its developmentLegal status of the Refuge has been debated for more than 50 years, and sharp periodic increases in energy prices have intensified the debate at times. Low energy prices, such as those currently being experienced, negate the short-term incentives for developing ANWR asbecause Alaskan production is relatively costly. According to the American Petroleum Institute, in 2009 Alaskan drilling costs were nearly 18 times more than drilling costs in the lower 48 states. This report provides a primer on this debate, which has been given new impetus in 2015 by a presidential proposal to designate the area as wilderness. If approved by Congress, this designation would reinforce the existing prohibition on energy development.
On January 25, 2015, the Obama Administration announced a final decision on the Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement (RCCP) for ANWR.2 Public notice and comment on a draft plan, as well as consultation with state agencies and Native corporations, is required. The RCCP recommended that Congress designate the Coastal Plain3 of the Refuge as wilderness. The designation, if approved, would mean that there would be no commercial development, except to meet the minimum requirements for managing the area as wilderness. Under the Wilderness ActThis report provides a primer on this debate, which was given renewed impetus in 2015 by an Obama Administration proposal to designate the area as wilderness and then by pledges in the Trump Administration to support development of fossil fuels. The report discusses the history of the Refuge, its energy and biological resources, Native interests and subsistence uses, and options for both protection and development.
Energy development is currently prohibited in ANWR,5 and the recommendation in the RCCP does not overturn this prohibition. However, the recommendation has sparked renewed interest by some in opening ANWR for energy development. A sharpsteep drop in oil prices during 2014 and 2015 may affectsince 2014, which affects the amount of oil that might be economically recovered if low prices persist, as well as the timing of any exploration were the Refugeis economically recoverable, may affect the timing or reduce the interest in energy exploration of the Refuge, were it to be opened by Congress. In the 114115th Congress, threetwo bills have been introduced concerningthat would affect the Coastal Plain. H.R. 239 would designate the area as wilderness; H.R. 339 and S. 494 would authorize energy exploration and development in the area.5
; both bills would open the area to energy development.6 The Trump Administration also has pursued policies favorable to fossil fuel development generally.
ANWR consists of 19 million acres in northeast Alaska. It is administered by FWS within the Department of the Interior (DOI). Development proponents view its 1.57-million-acre Coastal Plain—also known as the 1002 Area—as a promising onshore oil prospect.67 According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the mean estimate of technically recoverable oil78 from multiple prospects on the federally owned land in the Refuge is 7.7 billion barrels (billion bbl), and; there is a small chancelow probability that more than 11.8 billion bbl could be recovered on the federal lands over the life of the prospective fields.89 (In comparison, the United States currently uses about 7.01 billion bbl per year; see "Oil Resource Potential.")
However, theThe amount that can be recovered depends, in part, on the economics of the oil market. When oil prices are high, more oil will be economic to produce; when oil prices are low, less oil will be economic to produce. Since January 2014, oil prices have dropped by almost half, going from an average of $96.19 per barrel (bbl) to $46.46 per bbl in 2015 during the same week on an annual comparison.9 In 2005, 94.62/bbl to $52.50/bbl in January 2017.10 For all of 2016, nominal prices ranged from a high of $54.01/bbl to a low of $26.19/bbl.11 In 2005, in the most recent analysis available on ANWR, when oil was priced at $55 per bbl in 2003 dollars (or $70.76 per 71.91/bbl in 20142016 dollars),,12 the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil10 on the federal lands in the 1002 Area was 7.141 billion bbl,13 and there was a small chance that the federal lands could have had more than 10.7 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil.1114 (See box, "Old Geological Data, Old Prices, and New Interest," on use of older data.) That amount would be nearly as much asIn comparison, the single giant field at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, discovered in 1967 on the state-owned portion of the coastal plain located west of ANWR (shown in Figure 1), is now estimated to have held almost 14 billion bbl of economically recoverable oil. However, theThe available information indicates that any ANWR oil would be scattered among multiple smaller fields rather than concentrated in a single large field, which would make development more expensive and potentially expand the area in which any environmental effects might occur.
Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA; P.L. 96-487, 43 U.S.C. §§1601 et seq.) bars energy exploration and development of ANWR. If Congress were to open federal lands in ANWR to development, that decision in itself could open adjacent Native lands, based on current law. (See "Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act" and "Chandler Lake Agreement of 1983.") In addition, nearby onshore development would make state lands (already legally open to development) along the coast more economically attractive and, as a result, these state lands also might become more attractive to industry for exploration and development. Together, the federal, state, and Native ownerships likely have multiple individual fields with oil potential. Although only fields on the federal lands would produce federal revenue from bonus bids, royalties, and rents, the 2005 USGS figures show that when state and Native lands also are considered, the mean estimate of economically recoverable oil rises from 7.1 billion bbl to 9.7 billion bbl.16 In addition, there is a small chance that economically recoverable oil in the three ownership areas might totalbring the total from 10.7 billion bbl to more than 14.6 billion bbl, if oil is priced at $66.67 per 71.91/bbl in 20142016 dollars. (See box, "Old Geological Data, Old Prices, and New Interest," for a discussion of the use of old data and old prices, and see "Oil Resource Potential," for further discussion of prices.)
Because ANWRthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been closed since 1980 to "leasing or other development leading to production of oil and natural gas from the range" unless authorized by an act of Congress, research that would require field studies or seismic exploration inside the 1002 Area (shown in Figure 2) has not occurred for more than 30 years. The most recent geological data gathered on-site in the 1002 Area date from the 1980s as background for a study completed by the Department of the Interior in 1987 that is known as the 1002 report. Any studies of geological resources in the 1002 Area that have been published after the 1002 report are based on new analyses of data from earlier field investigations, extrapolations from exploration of nearby areas, and/or improved modeling of older data. Various new industry techniques also are considered in reevaluating the area's potential. As a result, the best available informationempirical data is often old.
The most recent federal government studies on economically recoverable amounts of oil were published in 2005, when oil was $68.66 per 71.91/bbl in 20142016 dollars—higher than the January 2017 price of $52.50/January 2015 prices of almost $50 per bbl. Although oil prices may have some effect on how much oil ultimately may be recovered economically, the relationship is complex. (See "Advanced Technologies in Development and Production.")
Moreover, the congressional debate over ANWR has been relatively quiescent in recent yearsuntil recently, with fewer congressional documents, shorter hearings, and less floor consideration. As a result, wider exploration of issues may be found in sources that are more than a few years old.
The Refuge, especially the nearly undisturbed coastal plain, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals. The presence of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and other species in this wild area has led some to call the area "America's Serengeti."17 (See "The Biological Resources.") Several species found in the area (including polar bears, caribou, migratory birds, and whales) are offered certain limited protections through international treaties or agreements. In the past there have been proposals that the Refuge and two neighboring parks in Canada join to form an international park, with continuing prohibitions on oil exploration and development. The analysis below provides the legislative history of the Refugeanalysis below provides the legislative history of ANWR; the economic and geological factors that have triggered interest in development; the Native interests in the area; and the biological and environmental quality factors that have been issues in past Congresses.13
The balance between oil and natural gas development and the preservation of biological resources of northern Alaska has been controversial for decades, even before Alaska became a state. In 1943, the federal government withdrew all lands on the North Slope (the land north of the crest of the Brooks Mountain Range and between Canada and the Chukchi Sea) by Public Land Order (PLO) 82 to prevent certain types of development.19 In November 1957, Interior Secretary Fred Seaton filed a document protecting some of those lands (plus some additional lands south of the crest of the Brooks Range) for the benefit of wildlife and migratory birds.1420 Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959. In 1960, PLO 2214 reserved the 1957 segregated area as the Arctic National Wildlife Range. The PLO withdrew the lands from "all forms of appropriation ... including mining but not the mineral leasing laws," thus leaving oil and natural gas development as a possibility.
Despite these withdrawals, not all of ANWRthe Refuge is owned by the federal government. The history of ANWR (and its energy development restrictions) is intertwined with congressional efforts to settle land claims of Native Alaskans. As part of those efforts, some ANWR property was transferred to Native corporations. The next section provides a short history of those transfers to help explain the restrictions on development.
In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)1521 to resolve Native claims against the United States. One purpose of ANCSA was to distribute land to Native corporations, which were created in the act. Native village corporations (for example, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, based at the northern shore of the coastal plain of the Refuge) usually were entitled under the terms of ANCSA to select the surface estate of lands; they received the surface estate of approximately 22 million acres of land that had been held by the federal government.1622 Native regional corporations (for example, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, covering the area north of the Brooks Range from the Chukchi Sea to Canada) were entitled to the selected subsurface estate, meaning they got the mineral rights. Usually the regional corporations could receive the lands beneath the village corporations in their area, but subsurface lands beneath pre-1971 refuges were not available, so other lands were substituted for them. ANCSA Section 22(g) also provided that surface lands that were conveyed within a refuge created before 1971 were subject to that refuge's regulations. The restriction on subsurface selections and Section 22(g) limit Native claims regarding oil development.
In 1980, Congress enacted the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA),1724 which expanded the Arctic National Wildlife Range to the south and west by 9.2 million acres of public domain lands and renamed it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (See Figure 2.)
ANILCA Section 702(3) designated 8 million acres of the original Wildlife Range as a wilderness area. The remainder of the original refuge, defined in Section 1002 of ANILCA as the Coastal Plain and constituting 1.57 million acres, was not included in the wilderness designation. Debate over use of the area was intense, with one group favoring wilderness designation and another group (led by Alaska's two Senators at the time) favoring energy development. Instead, Congress postponed decisions on the development or further protection of the Coastal Plain. Section 1002 of ANILCA directed that all of the resources of the Coastal Plain be studied. (As a result, the Coastal PlainThis section is the reason this part of ANWR is also referred to as the 1002 Area.) That study by the Department of the Interior was completed in 1987 and is known as the 1002 report or the Final Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (FLEIS).1825 The 1002 report recommended full energy development.
For the future of the 1002 Area, the most significant aspect of ANILCA is Section 1003.26 This section prohibited oil and natural gas production in the Refuge as a whole, and it prohibitedas well as "leasing or other development leading to production of oil and natural gas from the range" unless authorized by an act of Congress.1927 Some have argued that P.L. 96-487ANILCA set aside the 1002 Area for energy development.2028 Although the requirements for an extensive study in Section 1002 would favor the assertion that the land was set aside, it is difficult to conclude from the debate at the time of ANILCA deliberations—as well as from the breadth of the required study—that one purpose was favored over another. As noted, Section 1003 expressly reserves that decision for a future Congress.
Figure 2. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Current Boundaries Source: https://www.fws.gov/uploadedImages/Region_7/NWRS/Zone_1/Arctic/Sections/Maps/shademap.jpg#a.
In 1983, a further complication was added to energy development in ANWR. As allowed by ANCSA, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) previously had selected the surface estate of certain lands near the northern boundary of the Refuge. These selections amounted to three townships. Because the Refuge was created before ANCSA, the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) was prohibited from taking title to the subsurface estate of those lands. ANILCA, in its definition of the 1002 Area,29 excluded these three townships even though, in a geographic sense, they are within the coastal plain north of the Brooks Range. ANILCA further authorized KIC to select more lands within the 1002 Area, as defined. These additional lands totaled approximately 19,588 acres. Together with the three townships, the KIC surface estate in ANWR totalstotaled more than 92,000 acres (about four townships of land), although much of the total is defined as out of the 1002 Area. (In addition, there are at least eight individually owned Native allotments within the 1002 Area that, together with the KIC lands, total nearly 100,000 acres.)
Then, in 1983, an agreement between the United States and ASRC, known as the Chandler Lake Agreement (or sometimes the 1983 Agreement), gave ASRC title to the subsurface estate beneath those KIC surface lands, even though the KIC lands all fall in a refuge area created before ANCSA.2130 The 1983 Agreement continues to prohibit development of the ASRC lands in ANWR unless Congress opens ANWR. Such an opening thereforeAn ANWR opening for energy development could affect development not only of any energy resources owned by ASRC but also of all 100,000 acres of Native lands, because they would become available for surface occupancy for storage, staging, and other development activities. These lands might even be preferred locations for such activities, depending on any restrictions Congress might place on use or surface occupancy of the remainder of the 1002 Area.
A history of congressional action on ANWRthe Refuge extends back as far as the 86th Congress, and perhaps farther. However, with little enacted legislation since ANILCA in the 96th Congress, this report will focus on more recent actions, beginning with the 109th Congress.22 The ANWR debate took two basic routes in the 109th Congress: (1) reconciliation bills (S. 1932 and H.R. 4241) under the budget process, which cannot be filibustered, and (2) other bills (H.R. 6, an energy bill; H.R. 2863, Defense appropriations; and H.R. 5429, a bill to open the Refuge to energy development), which can be filibustered.2331 These bills all would have provided for an expedited opening of the Refuge to development to address national energy needs.2432 Two bills (H.R. 567 and S. 261) would have designated the area as wilderness. In the end, the 109th Congress did not send any of these bills to the President.
In the 110th Congress, there was a concurrent resolution (S.Con.Res. 70) to adjust budget levels to assume that there would be increased revenues from opening ANWR to leasing and exploration. However, on May 14, 2008, the House rejected the measure.2533 During debate on S. 2284 (a bill originally concerning flood insurance) on May 13, 2008, the Senate rejected S.Amdt. 4720 to open ANWR to energy development .26.34 Rising gasoline prices during 2008 intensified interest in opening ANWR to development, and a number of bills to open the 1002 Area to development were introduced during the second session. Two bills (H.R. 39 and S. 2316) would have designated the area as wilderness. In the end, the 110th Congress did not send any bill with ANWR provisions to the President.
Only one bill regarding the Arctic Refuge was reported from committee during the 112th Congress. H.R. 3407 was reported from the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 9, 2012.2735 Under its provisions, the Coastal Plain (defined in Section 2) would have been opened to energy leasing (Section 3). The bill named the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the InteriorDOI as the lead agency, which would have reduced the role of FWS as the managing authority.
Section 3(a)(2) of H.R. 3407 would have required the Secretary of the Interior to administer the leasing program so as to "result in no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the environment, [and to require] the application of the best commercially available technology" for energy exploration, development, and production. However, Section 3(a)(2) would have further required that this program be done "in a manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the public for the mineral resources to be leased." The bill did not clarify how the two goals of environmental protection and fair market value were to relate to each other (e.g., if environmental restrictions had made some fields uneconomic). Sections 6(a)(3) and 6(a)(5) would have required lessees to be responsible and liable for reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain (unless the Secretary approved other arrangements), and they would have required the lands to support pre-leasing uses, or a higher use be approved by the Secretary. These provisions also included requirements for mitigation, stipulations regarding the development of regulations, prohibitions on public access to service roads, and other transportation restrictions. (See "Judicial Review.")
Like previous development bills, H.R. 3407 would have limited the venue and scope of challenges. The bill (Section 9) would have required that any challenges be brought before the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Section 10 would have allocated 50% of revenues from bonus bids, royalties, and rents to the U.S. Treasury. Unlike most previous bills, however, H.R. 3407 would not have directed these funds to any specific purpose. The two bills (H.R. 139 and S. 33) that would have designated the area as wilderness were not reported during the 112th Congress.
The Energy Resources The developed parts of Alaska's North Slope suggest promise for energy prospects in the adjoining ANWR. Petroleum-bearing strata extend eastward from structures in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska through the Prudhoe Bay field, and they may continue into and through ANWR's 1002 Area. (See Figure 3 and Figure 5.) Both changing prices and changing costs affect oil and natural gas prospects. New technologies may help alleviate some environmental concerns. However, production issues in some North Slope fields have raised doubts about ANWR's potential for oil and natural gas resource development.38 Any ANWR resources would be expensive to produce and would require construction of new infrastructure, such as pipelines and processing units, due to location and environmental conditions. Current Market Conditions: Low Oil Prices Hinder Project Economics
Whether oil is produced domestically or imported, it is traded in a global market, and any one part of the market can affect other parts. The result is that oil prices are set by world markets. Figure 4 shows the interconnectedness of crude oil prices in the United States and international markets. Starting in 2010, the demand for oil increased as the global economy improved and put upward pressure on oil prices. Political unrest in the Middle East and North Africa also pushed prices up for a time, though short of an earlier peak in 2008.3141 However, since May 2014, world oil prices have dropped significantly, and companies have startedbeen cutting back on capital expenditures and postponing the development of some relatively more expensive projects.
For some oil companies, interest in ANWR likely will decrease as oil prices decline, while
Some oil companies' interest in ANWR likely decreases as oil prices are low, whereas other companies may maintain capital budgets for exploration and development in high -cost areas. Sustained low oil prices make development of more expensive oil resources less economically feasible. Even the perceptionoutlook of sustained low oil prices will prompt companies to reconsider their resource development plans and capital budgets, as has been seen with current oil prices.42 Additionally, the smaller fields thought to be present in the 1002 Area might be less attractive if prices are low.
The amount that would be economically recoverable depends in part on the price of oil. In its last economic assessment in 2005, USGS estimated that, at $55 per bbl in 2003 dollars ($68.58 per 71.91/bbl in 20142016 dollars), there is a 95% chance that 4.0 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered and a small (5%) chance that 10.9 billion bbl or more could be economically recovered on the federal lands in the 1002 Area; the mean was 7.3 billion bbl.3344 These estimates reflected newer field development practices and cost and price changes, since USGS's 1998 assessment. Prices in January 20152017 averaged less than $50 per between $50 and $55/bbl. If low prices are sustained over the long- term, the estimates of economically recoverable oil could be less than the 2005 estimate.
About one-third more oil may be under adjacent state waters and Native lands than is available in the 1002 Area alone.3445 The state waters adjacent to the 1002 Area are far from any support system or land-based development, and any oil or natural gas that may be under them currently likely would not be economic to produce, according to USGS at current prices. If onshore development were to occur, leases in state waters could benefit from onshore transportation systems (airstrips, haul roads, pipelines, etc.) and supply bases (gravel mines, water treatment plants, staging areas, etc.), and these areas might become more attractive to industry. In addition, lifting the statutory prohibition on oil and natural gas development in the Refuge not only would lift the ban on Native lands but also might make smaller fields on Native lands more attractive, if they were able to share facilities with nearby development or if they became preferred locations for support facilities due to fewer restrictions on surface development.35
Figure 5. 1002 Area of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Sources: Based on Bureau of Land Management, Comparisons Between Petroleum Systems in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, September 1998, at http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/tr.Par.13487.File.dat/ak_tr18_1998.pdf. Marsh Creek anticline added by the Congressional Research Service based on Figure 2 in the U.S. Geological Survey's map in Undiscovered Oil Resources in the Federal Portion of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: An Economic Update, 2005, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1217/pdf/2005-1217.pdf.
USGS has projected that in addition to oil, large quantities of natural gas may be found in the 1002 Area, as in other areas on the North Slope. Unlike oil, the United States imports very little natural gas (about 1110% of consumption in 20132015, mostly from Canada). Prices for natural gas are more regionally based than oil, and with ample supplies, the United States has experienced relatively low prices over the last twonine years.
compared to other parts of the world.47
Current North American natural gas prices likely would not support building the infrastructure, including a pipeline that would be required to transport ANWR natural gas to the lower 48 states or Canada.36 Globally, natural gas prices tend to be linked to oil prices, which have fallen since July 2014 by about 50%, and therefore natural gas prices around the world have declined, making additional U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) less attractive. This situation presents a major obstacle to developing ANWR's natural gas resources as well as those in the rest of northern Alaska. Natural gas prices in the United States, on average, are projected to remainstay relatively low compared to most other fuels for the restfor the remainder of the decade and beyond.37 Nevertheless, in 2014, the State of Alaska reached an agreement with ExxonMobil, BP, ConocoPhillips, and TransCanada on a project to export North Slope natural gas.3848 The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Gasline Development Corp., has taken over as the lead developer of a project to export North Slope natural gas after partners Exxon Mobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips backed out.49 If completed, the project, which is in its early stages of development, would consist of gas processing facilities on the North Slope, an 800-mile pipeline, and a liquefaction facility for export. The estimated cost is between $45 billion and $60 billion.
The industry has looked for ways to adapt its practices to the harsh and changing environment of the Arctic region. The cost of operating in Arctic conditions has increased beyond the higher is higher than the industry costs in other parts of the United States, in part due to the remoteness of the area. Environmental concerns have prompted companies to reduce their footprint in the region, which has resulted in smaller production sites, among other changes.
The average cost of drilling and completing an onshore well in Alaska is approximately 31 times greater than drilling and completing an onshore well in the lower 48 states, according to American Petroleum Institute data.39 In 2009, the average cost of drilling and completing a well to an average depth of 6,617 feet in the lower 48 states was almost $4 million, for an average cost of $595 per foot. In Alaska, the cost per well was just over $122 million to an average depth of 11,484 feet, for an average cost of $10,628 per foot or nearly 18 times as much.40 (In 2005, Alaskan drilling costs per foot were 6.4 times higher than those in the lower 48 states.41)According to the American Petroleum Institute, in 2014 the average cost per well onshore and offshore in Alaska was 38% higher than the average cost per well onshore and offshore in the lower 48 states.50 This cost differential highlights the difficulties and challenges of producing oil and natural gas in Arctic conditions and the need for substantial finds of oil and natural gas to cover the higher costs. The presumed dispersed nature of ANWR's oil and natural gas resources may make development a difficult financial choice.
According to EIAtoo costly to pursue. Recent Energy Information Agency (EIA) analyses have reinforced earlier findings. According to an EIA analysis in 2008, "the main impact of such approaches [enhanced recovery techniques such as natural gas reinjection and development of smaller fields] on the amount of oil actually recovered from ANWR is likely to occur after 2030, the current time horizon for EIA analyses."42 EIA further states51 Although prices are down since 2014, EIA concluded, concerning changing prices, that
[t]he basic intuition that higher crude oil prices would likely result in higher ultimate recovery from whatever resource exists in place is sound. However, given the timing and cost considerations outlined above, EIA does not expect the recent increase in oil prices to affect the projected profile of ANWR development and production activities prior to 2030 .... Therefore, this current analysis of projected production from ANWR through 2030 parallels our prior recent analyses ... that have used similar or identical information on ANWR resources notwithstanding the recent run-up in world crude oil prices.43
Ice-based transportation infrastructure can serve remote areas during the exploratory drilling phase on insulated ice pads. During exploration, ice pads are approximately 10 acres in size, but they can double in area during the production phase of a project. Such small pads52
In the 1002 Area, ice-based transportation infrastructure may be modified or limited because of safety concerns resulting from the rolling terrain.55 Normally, ice-based infrastructure can serve remote areas during the exploratory drilling phase on ice roads and on insulated ice pads at the drill site. During exploration, drilling pads made of ice are approximately 3-10 acres in size.56 During the production phase, pads are built of gravel, and they can double in area. Pads are not regularly staffed during the production phase, and they are feasible when linked to larger pads providing worker housing, equipment storage and maintenance facilities, airfields, and other production support. The linkage may be by road or small airfields, which provide access for periodic maintenance or servicing. However, for safety reasons, use of ice roads and pads may be limited in the more rolling terrain of the 1002 Area: on a slope, gravel structures provide greater traction than ice structures and have been permitted for exploration on state lands south of Prudhoe Bay.
However, although oil In addition, although oil and natural gas development is becoming more dependent on ice roads and pads in some areas of Alaska, by 2007 warming trends in Arctic latitudes already have shortenedshortened heavy equipment winter access across the tundra by more than 50%44 and have and led to changes in the standards for use of ice roads. If these57 Industry has responded by creating new technologies to begin construction of ice roads earlier in the winter, using different kinds of vehicles to construct ice roads sooner in winter. Over the long term, if warming trends continue, heavy reliance on ice technology could be infeasiblereduced further and might force greater reliance on gravel structures, with inherently longer-lasting impacts and higher costs. Rigid adherence to ice technology (instead of more expensive gravel construction) might put some marginal fields out of reach due to the highhigher cost of exploration, development, or operationoperations, due to the shorter season, or difficult terrain. Moreover, fields that could begin with few roads might expand their gravel road network as the field expandsis defined. However, companies have adapted to the changing conditions, in some cases using two drilling rigs, rotating rigs at drill sites, starting ice road construction from both ends simultaneously, using aircraft to reach remote sites, and prepositioning equipment and materials so that tasks can be accomplished more quickly during the shorter winter season. Nevertheless, it is expected that projects, such as the possible development of ANWR, would need to adapt to a shorter operating season.
development and maintenance season.
Development and operating technologies have advanced over earlier decades and could reduce or mitigate some of the environmental impacts of petroleum operations, but would not eliminate such impacts. Advocates of wilderness protection maintain that facilities of any size would still be industrial sites and would change the character of the coastal plainCoastal Plain, in part because the sites would be spread out in the 1002 Area and connected by pipelines and probably roads. Instead of seeing the Alpine development (see box, "The Alpine Development Example") as an advance, they see its growing collection of footprints as indicative of the spread that would occur if the Refuge were opened for exploration and if commercial fields were developed over time.
The Native community, both between and within its villages and organizations, is significantly divided on the question of energy development in the Refuge, but some patterns can be discerned. Generally, the Alaska Natives along the North Slope (Inuit) have supported ANWR development, whereas the Natives of interior Alaska (Gwich'in) have opposed it, though neither group is unanimous.58 Some parts of the Native community are heavily dependent for their subsistence uses on the caribou herd that calves in the 1002 Area, and because of the lengthy migration of the caribou herds, this dependency is an important factor for them even if they live at a considerable distances from the coastal plain. Seeing energy development as a threat to the safety or success of calving season, these groups oppose drilling the Refuge. Among these opponents are most members of the Gwich'in tribe, whose members are found both south and east of the Refuge in Alaska and Canada.46
Among the Native groups supporting ANWR development are the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) and Doyon Limited (both Native regional corporations) and the Native Village of Kaktovik (a Native organization in Kaktovik, the only town within the coastal plain of ANWR). The chief arguments cited by these groups are the increases in both North Slope employment and revenues from increased business activity. According to ASRC, "Chevron Texaco and BP currently hold leases to all of the ASRC/KIC acreage within the ANWR coastal plain."4760 In support, they notenoted that the Central Arctic Herd of caribou has increased in the last 10 years and that this herd is found seasonally in the lands around Prudhoe Bay.for a time; however, from 2010 to 2016, the herd declined from approximately 70,000 to 22,000.61 (See "The Biological Resources," on caribou.)
The 1002 report, issued in 1987, rated the Refuge's biological resources highly—"The Arctic Refuge is the only conservation system unit that protects, in an undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the Arctic ecosystems in North America."4862 It also stated that "[t]he 1002 area is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and is the center of wildlife activity."4963 The biological value of the 1002 Area rests on intense productivity in the short Arctic summer; many species arrive or awake from dormancy to take advantage of this biological richness and leave or become dormant during the remainder of the year. Caribou have long been the center of the debate over the biological impacts of Refuge development. Among the other species most frequently mentioned are polar bears (which were listed under the Endangered Species Act50 ( ESA)64 [ESA] as threatened after the publication of the 1002 reportin 2008), musk oxen, and the 135 species of migratory birds that breed or feed there. In addition, the effects of energy development on marine mammals (many of which are protected under ESA and all of which are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act51))65 could become an issue if expanded infrastructure development onshore made nearby offshore development more economically attractive.52
The Biological Resources Division of USGS published an updated assessment of the array of biological resources in the coastal plain in 2002. The report analyzed new information about caribou, musk oxen, snow geese, and other species in the Refuge, and it concluded that development impacts on wildlife would be significant. 5367 A subsequent memorandum5468 on caribou by one of the assessment's authors clarified that if development were restricted to the western portion of the refugeRefuge (an option being considered at that time by the George W. Bush Administration), the Porcupine Caribou Herd would not be affected during the early calving period, since the herd is not normally found in the area at that time. The memorandum did not discuss impacts that might occur when the herd subsequently moved into the area.
A March 2003 report by the National Research Council (NRC) highlighted impacts of existing development at Prudhoe Bay on Arctic ecosystems.5569 NRC noted harmful environmental impacts, including changes in the migration of bowhead whales, in distribution and reproduction of caribou, and in populations of predators and scavengers that prey on birds. NRC also credited industry for its strides in decreasing or mitigating environmental impacts. NRC cited some beneficial economic and social effects of oil development in northern Alaska and credited industry for its strides in decreasing or mitigating environmental impacts, but it also said that some social and economic impacts have been harmful.5670 The NRC report specifically avoided determining whether beneficial effects were outweighed by harmful effects.
Industry supporters counter that impacts on wildlife can be reduced or mitigated by various measures. Among these are (1) restricting activities at the exploration phase to the winter season, with maximum use of ice roads and ice platforms; (2) careful placement of gravel roads and platforms to minimize wetlands disturbance; (3) re-injection of wastes below the permafrost layer; (4) limiting human access to the oil field; (5) management of garbage to avoid build-up of scavenger populations; (6) reducing the footprint of development; and (7) other measures already in effect in the current oil fields.5771
In 2008, FWS listed polar bears as threatened under the ESA.5872 The primary factors in listing the species were the effect of accelerated polar climate change on polar bears and their prey (primarily seals) and the effects of oil and natural gas development. The ESA prohibits activities that harass or harm listed species.5973 The listing of polar bears could have a significant impact on energy development in ANWR, because the 1002 report stressed the unusual importance of the 1002 Area as a location for dens of pregnant female polar bears. (See Figure 76.) Female polar bears are known to abandon their dens when disturbed. If the cubs are young and unable to maintain their body temperature, abandonment of a den would probably be fatal to them. The arguments against listing, as cited by FWS in the Final Rulefinal rule to list the species, included observations that the species was increasing in population in some parts of the Arctic; the possibility that some species of seals (a common prey for polar bears) might increase; questions concerning the accuracy of climate models as they might affect population levels of the species; and claims that existing regulations were adequate to maintain population levels. FWS analyzed these arguments, holding that, on balance, the species warranted listing as threatened throughout its range.
Figure 76. Terrestrial Polar Bear Den Locations
(1981-20011982-2010)
U.S. Geological Survey, based on the portion of the data collected by telemetry from 1982 to 2010 in the cited report. Supplied by USGS on March 17, 2017.
In December 2010, FWS established a wide area in northern Alaska, including the 1002 Area and a considerable area offshore, as critical habitat under ESA for polar bears.6074 The designation provided a stronger role for the ESA in shaping any federal agency activities, such as energy development, taking place in critical habitat. Under ESA, federal agencies must avoid actions that jeopardize listed species or that destroy or adversely modify their designated critical habitat.6175 The action agency must consult with FWS (or the National Marine Fisheries Service for some species) to determine whether such jeopardy or destruction might occur. If there is such a risk, the action agency must modify the action to reduce the risk.6276 Scientists cite research on the risk to polar bears: many female polar bears have responded to thinning or vanishing offshore ice by moving more of their dens to locations onshore, and many females that historically denned on land to the west of Prudhoe Bay have moved their dens to the east, into or nearer the Refuge.6377 This shift increases the importance of the Refuge's coastal plain to the polar bear population and adds to the significance of consultation under ESA in any exploration, because exploration and development are more cost-effective in the winter season—the time when denning female polar bears are likely to be present.
The basic and most contentious ANWR question Congress has considered has been whether to permit energy development in the 1002 Area at all. Taking no action has left current prohibitions on development in place; proposals have ranged from designating the 1002 Area as wilderness to designating it as a national monument to allowing partial or full development. The analysis below describes some of the issues that have been raised most frequently in the past legislative debate.federal action related to exploration; this heightened importance is because exploration and development are more likely to take place in winter, when such activities are more cost-effective, but also when denning female polar bears are likely to be present. The Basic Question: To Protect or To Develop?
Interest in the protection ofprotecting the ecosystem of the Arctic Refuge and its coastal plain has focused on protecting the array of wildlife found living within its borders or using the 1002 Area of the Refuge seasonally. (See "The Biological Resources.") To date, three options have been discussed to achieve that end: (1) wilderness designation; (2) designation as a national monument; and (3) taking no actionmaintaining the status quo.
The strongest environmental protection for the 1002 Area would be wilderness designation by Congress.6579 As noted previously, the FWS Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (RCCP), approved in January 2015, recommended this protection.6680 However, the recommendation does not change current management policies. Energy development is not permitted in wilderness areas unless there are preexisting rights or unless Congress specifically allows it.6781 Wilderness designation generally prohibits commercial activities and may tend to preserve existing recreational opportunities and related jobs, as well as the existing level of protection of subsistence resources. (In the 1002 Area, this protection of subsistence resources would include the Porcupine Caribou Herd, for example.) The practical effect of the RCCP wilderness recommendation appears limited, however, because it produces little, if any, change in the current minimal management policy and no change in the AlaskanAlaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act's (ANILCA's) Section 1003, which already prohibits energy exploration and development.6882 Unless Congress acts, FWS will continue to manage the area to preserve its wilderness values:
The Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136), directly and by cross-reference in virtually all subsequent wilderness statutes, generally prohibits commercial activities, motorized uses, and roads, structures, and facilities in congressionally designated units of the National Wilderness Preservation System designated by acts of Congress. Specifically, Section 4(c) states,
Except as specifically provided for in this Actchapter, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.
(16 U.S.C. 1133(c))
Some groups seeking to preserve the 1002 Area advocate proclaiming the area as a national monument, using the President's power under the Antiquities Act.7084 However, ANILCA's Section 1326 limits withdrawals from the public lands in Alaska to 5,000 acres unless Congress passes a joint resolution to approve the withdrawal within one year of the President's proclamation. Congress could designate the 1.5 million acres of 1002 Area as a national monument, a designation which does not necessarily convey the more clearly defined statutory protections provided in the Wilderness Act.7185 Consequently, it is unclear how a congressional monument designation could restrict development any more than ANILCA already does. If Congress wished to protect the area, designating it as wilderness arguably would have a bigger impact.
Another option is to continue to take notake no new legislative action. Those supporting the compromise of delayno new action often argue that not enough is known about either the probability of discoveries of recoverable oil or the environmental impact if development is permitted. Others argue that oil deposits should be saved for an unspecified "right time."7286 Because current law prohibits development unless Congress acts, the no-action option also prevents energy development on both federal and Native lands because of the provisions of ANILCA and the 1983 Agreement. (See "Legislative History of the Refuge.")
If Congress authorizes development, it could address environmental matters in several ways. Congress could impose a higher standard of environmental protection than is currentlynormally required because the 1002 Area is in a national wildlife refuge or because of the fragility of the Arctic environment, or it could legislate a lower standard to facilitate development. The choice of administering agency and the degree of discretion given to that agency also could affect the approaches to environmental protection. For example, Congress could make either FWS or BLM the lead agency (possibly assuming that FWS management would give more support to protecting wildlife values).87 It could include provisions requiring use of "the best available technology," "the best commercially available technology," or some other standard. Existing laws such as NEPA and the Endangered Species act (ESA)73ESA already require consideration of various environmental impacts of federal actions. Or, to facilitate development, Congress could choose to limit judicial review under NEPA, ESA, or other laws, of some or all of a development program, including standards and implementation. Or, to facilitate development, CongressCongress also could leave much of the environmental direction to the Secretary. (References below to the "Secretary" refer to the Secretary of the Interior, unless stated otherwise.) A number of bills in various Congresses contain language that would require the Secretary to ensure that leasing, development, and production have "no significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment ... by requiring the application of the best commercially available technology." However, the provision wouldbill could also require "the receipt of fair market value by the public for the mineral resources to be leased."7488 The latter language appears to subordinate environmental protection to fair market value by specifying that the Secretary's duty to the former must be carried out "in a manner that ensures" fair market value for the mineral resources.
Newer technologies permit greater consolidation of leasing operations, which tends to reduce the size and the environmental impacts of development. Since the 1980s, an area of element of the ANWR debate in Congress has been the size of the footprints—or physical area—in the development and production phases of energy leasing. The term footprint does not have a universally accepted definition (e.g., the inclusion of exploratory structures, drilling pads, roads, gravel mines, port facilities, etc.), and therefore the types of structures falling under a footprint restriction are arguable.7589 In addition, it is unclear whether exploratory structures, or structures on Native lands, would be included under any provision limiting footprints.7690
For over a decade, development bills for ANWR have proposed a 2,000-acre limit on the acreage of surface disturbance.7791 Development facilities have to be dispersed, because one single consolidated facility of 2,000 acres (3.1 square miles) would not permit full development of the 1002 Area. Dispersal is necessary due to the limits of lateral (or extended-reach) drilling. If the North Slope model of about 4 miles out from the point of origin for this technology were matched on all sides of a single pad, at most about 4% of the 1002 Area could be developed. Even if the current world record (7 miles) for lateral drilling were matched, only about 11% could be accessed. Instead, fullFull development of the 1002 Area would require that facilities, even if limited to 2,000 acres in total surface area, be widely dispersed. However, it is important to remember that the location and dispersal of any potential oil and natural gas in ANWR remains unknown.
The structures themselves have the potential for impacts over a much larger portion of the 1002 Area. Research evidence indicates that the roads, pads, airfields, gravel mines, pipelines,7892 and other structures, plus associated human activity, may deter caribou cows from calving in areas that have been most frequently used in the past, cause avoidance by cows with very young calves, or deter other species that use the 1002 Area. 7993 Expansion beyond 2,000 acres likely would be opposed by development critics based on impacts on recreation, subsistence, vegetation, and wildlife beyond areas actually covered by development.8094
In some previous bills, the 2,000-acre limit was dropped in favor of a more expansive provision to limit surface occupancy to 10,000 acres for every 100,000 acres leased.8195 A footprint restriction at this standard would allow for development of more remote areas. Moreover, if the length of the winter season, when ice-based technology is feasible, continues to decline, this provision would allow more gravel surfaces generally and could make more prospects attractive to industry.
As noted (see section on "Chandler Lake Agreement of 1983"), if oil and natural gas development were authorized for the federal lands in the Refuge, then development also would be allowed or would become feasible on the nearly 100,000 acres of Native lands. Any acreage limitation applying to development on the federal lands might or might not affect Native lands, depending on how development legislation was framed. The extent to which the Native lands might fall under any management restrictions on the 1002 areaArea as a whole, and therefore could be regulated to protect the environment, is uncertain, given the status of allotments and some of the language in the 1983 Agreement cited above.82
During the 109th Congress, bills in both the House and Senate would have created ANWR leasing programs. They contained new definitions of the term Coastal Plain by referencing maps that had not been used in past legislation.8397 The Coastal Plain was first defined in Section 1002 of ANILCA as the area indicated on an official August 1980 map referenced in ANILCA. An administrative articulation of the boundary by the Secretary of the Interior was authorized by Section 103(b) of ANILCA, and has the force of law. The 1980 map is missing from FWS files.8498 Because the 1980 map is missing, evaluating whether the administrative description8599 properly reflected that map is now impossible. The description excluded three Native townships from the articulated Coastal Plain (1002 Area).86100 (Some bills in various Congresses also have excluded these same Native lands from the 1002 Area by referring to the 1980 map and the administrative description.) As noted, the fourth Native township (selected later) is not excluded from the Coastal Plain (1002 Area) by that description. The choice of new or old maps or new or old legal descriptions, with their varying inclusions and exclusions, may affect Native rights, environmental restrictions, development costs, or resource potential.
Another issue is whether Congress may validly provide for a disposition of revenues other than the 90% state-10% federal split mentioned in the Alaska Statehood Act.87 (P.L. 85-508)101 A court indicated that the language in the Statehood Act means that Alaska is to be treated like other states for federal leasing conducted under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), which contains (basically) a 90%-10% split.88102 Arguably, Congress could establish a different, non-MLA leasing regimen—such as the existing separate leasing arrangements that govern the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, where the revenue sharing formula is 50%-50%—but this matter was not before the court and hence remains an open issue.89103 Most development bills in the past have opted for a 50%-50% federal-state split, often allocating a small part of the federal share to aid Alaska in dealing with impacts of development and the remainder to benefit one or more federal conservation, land acquisition, or energy efficiency programs. Sometimes these last provisions provided for mandatory spending.
In general, Project Labor Agreementsproject labor agreements (PLAs) are a recurring issue in federal and federally funded projects. The issue is whether project owners or contractors should be required, by agreement, to use union workers under PLAs. Such agreements have been a feature of most ANWR development bills over the last 2030 years. PLAs establish the terms and conditions of work that would apply for the particular project, and they also may specify a source to supply the craft workers. Construction and other unions strongly support PLAs and argue that PLAs ensure a reliable, efficient labor source, help keep costs down, and ensure access for union members to federal and federally funded projects. PLA provisions in past ANWR bills have led to labor endorsements from some unions, such as the Iron Workers and the Plumbers and Pipefitters.Teamsters104 and the Iron Workers.105 (Union support of ANWR development has not been unanimous, however, as some unions see more job creation in other energy strategies.) Opponents, including nonunion firms and their supporters, believe PLAs inflate costs, reduce competition, and unfairly restrict access to those projects. There is little independent information to weigh the validity of the conflicting assertions.
Export of North Slope oil in general, and any ANWR oil in particular, has been an issue, beginning with the authorization of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The export issue was illustrated in the Trans Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act,90 which specified that oil shipped through the pipeline could be exported internationally,106 but only under restrictive conditions. In the mid-1990s, high volumes of Alaskan oil that could legally be shipped only to the four Pacific states resulted in falling oil prices on the West Coast.91107 As California prices fell below the world market in the mid-1990s, there were complaints from both North Slope and California producers. Congress responded by amending the MLA to provide that oil transported through the pipeline may be exported unless the President finds, after considering specified criteria, that exports are not in the national interest.92108 North Slope exports rose to a peak of 74,000 bbl per day in 1999, or 7% of North Slope production. These exports ceased voluntarily in May 2000 as West Coast buyers had to pay moreworld prices to compete with foreign buyers for Alaskan oil.93109 The first crude export cargo from the North Slope in a decade left Alaska in September 2014 destined for South Korea.94
110 Since 2014, additional cargos of Alaskan crude oil have been exported, with total Alaskan crude exports for 2016 at about 3 million barrels or 8,400 bbl per day.
NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to examine major federal actions with significant effects on the environment and to provide the opportunity for public involvement in agency decisions. The last full EIS examining the effects of development in ANWR was the 1002 report, which was completed in 1987. NEPA requires an EIS to analyze an array of alternatives, including a no-action alternative—a process that can take years for complex or controversial actions. To hasten development in ANWR, some bills have included provisions to truncate the process by stipulating that the 1002 report would be considered as satisfying NEPA requirements. The 2830-year gap and changed circumstances since the last analysis could necessitate a thorough update of the 1002 report if development is authorized unless development legislation were to waive a new examination.95111 The 2015 RCCP is simultaneously a final environmental impact statement, which could obviate the need for some more recent analysis of some matters, though addressed therein; notably, the document does not analyze impacts of energy development, anbecause the activity is prohibited under current law.
Under current law for the management of national wildlife refuges (16 U.S.C. §668dd), and under regulations at 43 C.F.R. Section 3101.5-3 for Alaskan refuges specifically, an activity may be allowed in a refuge only if it is compatible with the purposes of the particular refuge and with those of the National Wildlife Refuge System as a whole. Many past bills have addressed this issue by stating that the energy leasing program and activities in the 1002 Area would be deemed to be compatible with the purposes for which ANWR was established and that no further findings or decisions would be required to implement this determination. This language (found in some previous bills) appears to eliminate the usual compatibility determination that would be conducted by FWS. If a bill did not specify that development is to be considered compatible, the extent of leasing "activities" that might be determined to be compatible is debatable. For example, a compatibility test that rejected necessary support activities, such as construction and operation of port facilities, bridges, gravel mines, staging areas, and personnel centers, could prevent development.
To put an ANWR leasing program in place promptly, the expediting, curtailing, or prohibiting of judicial review could help to achieve that goal. Congress could expedite judicial review through statute by reducing the time limits within which suits must be filed, avoiding some level(s) of review, curtailing the scope of the review, or increasing the evidentiary burden imposed on challengers. The counterargument raised in such discussions is that the prospect of judicial review leads to better decision-makingdecisionmaking by the agency, in full consideration of all statutory factors, and that judicial review provides the opportunity to correct any errors.
The coast plainCoastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an area that has been prized for decades for its biological and geological resources, and for generations by the people who have lived in it or depended on it for their livelihoods. Energy development has been prohibited since 1980, and the Obama Administration has recommended further protection through congressional designation as wilderness. Basic choices for the last 35 yearsCongress has not acted on this recommendation nor enacted legislation related to ANWR development since that time. Interest in ANWR development and ANWR protection is now an active topic in part because of efforts by the Trump Administration and other federal and state policymakers to support fossil fuel development broadly and oil development in Alaska specifically. Basic choices for over three decades have focused on the relative value of all of the resources and, if energy development were to be legislated by Congress, the degree to which the environment and Native interests would be protected and at what cost. AtAlso at issue is whether relevant factors and priorities have changed in a manner sufficient to affect policy decisions and significantly to alter the debate going forward.
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Energy Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed]) [author name scrubbed], Analyst in Natural Resources Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], former legislative attorneyLegislative Attorney, and [author name scrubbed], specialistSpecialist in Industry Economics (retired), contributed to an earlier versionversions of this report.
In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)ANWR debate, the term coastal plain can have two meanings. First, it can be used in a geographic sense, to refer to the broad area extending from the northern foothills of the Brooks Range and north to the ocean, and from the Canadian border in the east to the Chukchi Sea in the west. Second, it is used by many (including authors of many bills that have been introduced in the past) to refer to the specific area in ANWR defined in statute, legislative maps, or regulation. When used in the latter sense, the term is generally capitalized: in effect, the Coastal Plain is a small, eastern portion of the coastal plain. To avoid possible confusion, this report will use the term 1002 Area when referring to the area at issue for development in legislation (See "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," below, for the origin of this term).
P.L. 96-487, §1003. 6. Specific legislation will not be explored in detail in this report.
10Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products, March 1, 2017, at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_spt_s1_d.htm.
Economically recoverable means the portion of technically recoverable resources that could be produced at a given price and, accounting for costs, and including a return on capital. It is not accurate to assume that the amount of economically recoverable resources will go up in the same proportion as prices may rise (i.e., if prices double, the amount of economically recoverable resources does not necessarily double).
Basic information on the Refuge can be found in CRS Report RL31278, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Background and Issues, by [author name scrubbed] et al.Kenneth J. Bird and David W. Houseknecht, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, USGS Fact Sheet FS-028-01, April 2001, p. 4, at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.pdf.
18. For legal background, see CRS Report RL31115, Legal Issues Related to Proposed Drilling for Oil and Gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), by [author name scrubbed]. State lands on the coastal plain are shown at http://www.dog.dnr.state.ak.us/oil/products/maps/mapsdog.dnr.alaska.gov/GIS/ActivityMaps.htm. An extensive presentation of arguments in favor of development can be found at http://www.anwr.org, sponsored by a consortium of groups. Opponents' arguments can be found at http://www.alaskawild.org/ and http://www.protectthearctic.com/.
1419. PLO 82 is available at https://www.loc.gov/item/fr008024/ (see p. 121). According to BLM, "Public Land Orders (PLO's) implement the authority granted to the Secretary of the Interior by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [and earlier statutes] to make, modify, extend, or revoke land withdrawals. A withdrawal removes an area of Federal land from settlement, sale, location, or entry under some or all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting activities under those laws to maintain other public values in the area or reserving the area for a particular public purpose or program. Withdrawals are also used to transfer jurisdiction over an area of Federal land from one department, bureau, or agency to another." See https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/public_land_orders.html. 20.
27. The requirement in Section 1003 of ANILCA is statutory and therefore cannot be overridden by an executive order. See.
For more on the budget process and budget enforcement, see CRS Report RS20368, Overview of the Congressional Budget Process, by [author name scrubbed] For ANWR and reconciliation, see out-of-print CRS Report RS22304, ANWR and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation Legislation, available upon request from the authorauthors.
For details of these bills, and of House and Senate actions on them at that time, see, see out-of-print CRS Report RL33523, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): Controversies for the 109th Congress, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]109th Congress, available upon request from the authors.
Roll Call #321, 185-yeas:185; nays: 229.
Roll Call #123, 42-yeas: 42; nays: 56.
H.Rept. 112-393. Frequently mentioned controversiesissues are discussed here. For more on this bill and how it compares with past controversiesdebates, see individual headings under "Development Options and Issues."
Emil D. Attanasi and Philip A. Freeman, Economic Analysis of the 2010 U.S. Geological Survey Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas in the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey, May 2011, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2011/1103/ofr2011-1103.pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration, Product Supplied, March 9, 2017, at https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm.
33Arathy S. Nair, "Factbox: U.S. Oil Companies Cut 2016 CAPEX by $54 Billion or 40 Percent," Reuters, December 1, 2016, pp. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oilprice-capex-usa-factbox-idUSKBN13Q5KE, United States edition.
For more information, see CRS Report R40963, The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline: Background, Status, and Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed]BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2016, June 2016, p. 27.
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2014 with Projections to 2040, April 2011, p. MT-22, at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2014).pdfU.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2017, Reference Case, Table: Energy Prices by Sector and Source, at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=3-AEO2017&cases=ref2017&sourcekey=0.
Margaret Kriz Hobson, "Agreement signals start of early work on multibillion-dollar pipeline, export project," Energy Wire, July 7, 2014, at http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1060002366/Alaska Advances LNG Project Against Long Odds," Energywire, February 6, 2017, online edition.
44American Petroleum Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association, Joint Association Survey on 2014 Drilling Costs, December 2015. 51. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, May 2008, p. 6, at https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/2008/anwr/.
See http://www.asrc.com/Lands/Pages/Oil.aspx, viewed on Jan. 30, 2015More recently, the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration summarized the situation:
58. For views of Native groups supporting development, see http://anwr.org/2014/11/residents-of-anwr-support-opening-the-refuge/. For views of Native groups opposing development, see https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/alaska-natives-mount-resistance-latest-anwr-drilling-legislation. 59. The Gwich'in Steering Committee is the lead organization expressing this view. See http://ourarcticrefuge.org/. 60. See http://www.asrc.com/Lands/Pages/Oil.aspx, viewed on March 6, 2017. Many Native supporters argue that development and production practices can be carried out so as to avoid damage to the caribou that calve in the area. For a sample of Native expressions of support, see statement of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation regarding ANWR development "Alaskan Natives Support Development" at http://www.anwr.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=52.
For more information on biological resources of the 1002 area, seeArea, see the ANWR Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan, at https://www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp/. The changes in the polar environment due to climate change are affecting polar ecosystems. How these changes will affect the ecosystem of the ANWR coastal plain is uncertain. For more on climate change effects on the polar environment, see CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by [author name scrubbed], and discussion of "Polar Bears" in this report.
Examples of impacts include marked increases in average local personal income of North Slope residents, changes in cultural traditions to both inland (GwichGwichi'in) and coastal (Inupiat) peoples, dependence on a monetary economy that would eventually require significant sources of external revenue to maintain, lack of jobs in industry, effects on subsistence hunting and whaling, health impacts, and more. See NRC report, p. 214-240.
See out-of-print CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, available upon request from the authorauthors.
For more on wilderness uses, see out-of-print CRS Report R41649, Wilderness Laws: Statutory Provisions and Prohibited and Permitted Uses, available upon request from the authorauthors.
RCCP, Executive Summary, p. S-47; also see Table 1, S-25-26 for details on a range of activities that are permitted in the ANWR areas recommended for wilderness status. Section 707 of the AlaskanAlaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act also directs management of wilderness areas in accordance with the Wilderness Act.
74The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is "to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans." (16 U.S.C. §668dd). In contrast, for BLM, Congress declared that "the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, food, timber, and fiber from the public lands including implementation of the Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1876, 30 U.S.C. 21a) as it pertains to the public lands.... " (43 U.S.C. §1701(a)(12). 88.
It is unclear where the specific figure of 2,000 acres originated. It first appeared in legislation in the 107th Congress on August 1, 2001, when the House passed the Sununu amendment (H.Amdt. 297) to H.R. 4 to limit specified surface development of the 1002 areaArea to a total of 2,000 acres (228-201, recorded vote #316). With small variations (e.g., see S. 352 in the 112th Congress), it has been a common feature of ANWR development bills since that date. The language of the provision is not entirely clear on whether all surface disturbances necessary to development would be included under the restriction.
DisplacementThe question of displacement of caribou during the calving period has been one of the most frequent issues raisedraised frequently in this debate, and has been documented in various studies. See, for example, C. Nellemann and R.D. Cameron, "Cumulative impacts of an evolving oil-field complex on the distribution of calving caribou," Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 76 (1998), p. 1435.
Only four years after the 1002 report was issued, a court in a declaratory judgment action (NRDC v. Lujan, 768 F. Supp. 870 (D.D.C. 1991)) held that DOI should have prepared a Supplemental EIS (SEIS) at the time to encompass new information about the 1002 Area in connection with the Department's recommendation that Congress legislate to permit development. With the passage of 2426 additional years, it is still more likely that an SEIS or a new EIS would have to be prepared, absent specific direction to the contrary.