By CORAL DAVENPORTJAN. 25, 2015

Op-Ed Contributor: One if by Land, Billions if by SeaSEPT. 14, 2008

Robert Hahn is the director of the Reg-Markets Center at the American Enterprise Institute. Peter Passell is a senior fellow at the Milken Institute.

SOURCE #2: PRO DRILLING IN ANWR

CHLOE

Tapping Oil Reserves in a Small Part of ANWR: Environmentally Sound, Energy Wise

By Charli E. CoonABOUT THE AUTHOR

The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on oil and gas exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) as a provision of the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 (H.R. 4), a comprehensive energy package. The proposal, H.R. 2436 (the Energy Security Act), already has been approved by the House Resources Committee. Regrettably, some Members of Congress are hoping to delete the provision that authorizes drilling in ANWR. Such a move would be shortsighted and misguided. U.S. dependence on foreign oil rose after the Arab oil embargo in 1973 from approximately 35 percent to more than 52 percent last year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that this figure will increase to 64 percent by 2020 if domestic supplies do not increase.

Drilling in the ANWR will not threaten that natural preserve and will increase U.S. energy independence. Studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimate that drilling in ANWR could yield up to 16 billion barrels of oil -an amount roughly equal to 30 years of oil imports from Saudi Arabia. Such a resource would increase the nation's energy security as well. Members of Congress should resist any effort to delete oil and gas exploration in ANWR from H.R. 4.

How much of ANWR is involved

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, located within the Arctic Circle in northeast Alaska, consists of 19 million acres. Oil and gas development in the refuge is prohibited by the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) unless Congress specifically authorizes such activity. In Section 1002 of this act, Congress set aside 1.5 million acres of the refuge's coastal plain section for potential exploration and development of oil and gas. In 1995, Congress approved exploration in the so-called 1002 Area, but President Clinton vetoed that measure. The debate in Congress today centers solely on this small section; the remaining 17.5 million acres of ANWR lie in the protected enclave that cannot be developed.

MINIMAL IMPACT: Moreover, only a tiny amount of the section proposed for exploration actually would be involved in drilling. New production technology including multilateral wells as well as directional drilling and other horizontal underground drilling would require the use of only 2,000 acres in the 1002 Area, a parcel no bigger than Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., leaving 99.99 percent of ANWR untouched.

Section 1002 is not a pristine area

Opponents of drilling in ANWR claim it is the nation's last true wilderness, a hallowed place, and a pristine environmental area. Though such attributes describe much of ANWR, they do not accurately portray the 1002 Area. In a July 20 Washington Times article titled "Hardly a Pretty Place: Use ANWR for Oil Exploration," Jonah Goldberg, editor of National Review Online , described it this way: "[I]f you wanted a picture to go with the word `Godforsaken' in the dictionary, ANWR would do nicely." He is not referring to the ANWR parcels often highlighted in the media and on postcards with picturesque landscapes and endearing wildlife scenes. Rather, he is describing the flat, treeless, coastal plain area at the top corner of ANWR where the oil is located. As he notes in the article, winters on the coastal plain last for nine months; there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days; and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero without the wind chill. Summers are not much better. The thick ice melts, but it creates puddles on the flat tundra and attracts thousands of mosquitoes.

Drilling in the 1002 Area would occur during the harsh winter months, when operations would require the use of iced airstrips, iced roads, and iced platforms. The 16 billion barrels of oil that lie untapped there would be more than enough to replace the oil Americans would purchase from Iraq over 58 years.

The Energy Information Administration, in a May 2000 report titled Potential Oil Production from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Updated Assessment , states that the coastal plain region harboring the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area is "the largest unexplored, potentially productive onshore basin in the United States."

Drilling in Section 1002 would not threaten wildlife. Opponents also allege that drilling in the 1002 Area would adversely affect the porcupine caribou. These same naysayers predicted similar results for Arctic caribou in the nearby oil fields of Prudhoe Bay. Since drilling began there over 20 years ago, the Arctic caribou herd has grown from 3,000 to 27,500. Nor is there a threat to the polar bear. Alaska's polar bear population is healthy and unthreatened. No polar bear has been injured or killed as a result of extracting oil in Prudhoe Bay. Furthermore, the Marine Mammals Protection Act, which protects the polar bear in existing oil fields, also would do so on ANWR's coastal plain.

As Donald Lambro notes in "Meeting Demands for Energy," a July 23 article in The Washington Times, oil production and wildlife have coexisted side-by-side for years. For example, there are 46 oil wells in the wetlands of Louisiana's Atchafalaya National Wildlife Refuge, where endangered species such as the American bald eagle and the Louisiana black bear are thriving.

Conclusion

The debate over drilling in Section 1002 of ANWR is not about destroying one of America's national treasures. The magnificent mountains, beautiful lakes, and precious wildlife will not be disturbed. Nor is it about enriching oil companies. Irresponsible federal policies and indifference by policymakers to the growing domestic shortages of oil, not the actions of oil companies, have made the United States more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil sources and subject to price volatility. At issue is whether to use merely 2,000 acres out of a total of 19 million acres in ANWR to ensure the nation's energy security. When it takes up H.R. 4, the full House should follow the lead of its Resources Committee, which approved oil and gas exploration and development in Section 1002 of ANWR's coastal plan, and resist efforts to delete that provision from the bill. America has much at stake, most importantly, its national energy security.

Charli E. Coon, J.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Source #3: RYLEE

ADDRESSING NATIONAL SECURITY, ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, AND DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION

Overview and Introduction The lack of sustained attention to energy issues is undercutting U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national security. Major energy suppliers— from Russia to Iran to Venezuela—have been increasingly able and willing to use their energy resources to pursue their strategic and political objectives. Major energy consumers—notably the United States, but other countries as well—are finding that their growing dependence on imported energy increases their strategic vulnerability and constrains their ability to pursue a broad range of foreign policy and national security objectives.

Dependence also puts the United States into increasing competition with other importing countries, notably with today’s rapidly growing emerging economies of China and India. At best, these trends will challenge U.S. foreign policy; at worst, they will seriously strain relations between the United States and these countries. This report focuses on the foreign policy issues that arise from dependence on energy traded in world markets and outlines a strategy for response. And because U.S. reliance on the global market for oil, much of which comes from politically unstable parts of the world, is greater than for any other primary energy source, this report is mainly about oil. To a lesser degree it also addresses natural gas. Put simply, the reliable and affordable supply of energy—‘‘energy security’’—is an increasingly prominent feature of the international political landscape and bears on the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy. At the same time, however, the United States has largely continued to treat ‘‘energy policy’’ as something that is separate and distinct— 34 National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency substantively and organizationally—from ‘‘foreign policy.’’ This must change. The United States needs not merely to coordinate but to integrate energy issues with its foreign policy. The challenge over the next several decades is to manage the consequences of unavoidable dependence on oil and gas that is traded in world markets and to begin the transition to an economy that relies less on petroleum. The longer the delay, the greater will be the subsequent trauma.

For the United States, with 4.6 percent of the world’s population using 25 percent of the world’s oil, the transition could be especially disruptive. This report concentrates on the next twenty years, a period long enough to put necessary policy measures into place but not so distant as to encounter a wider range of future geopolitical or technological uncertainties. During this next twenty years (and quite probably beyond), it is infeasible to eliminate the nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources. The voices that espouse ‘‘energy independence’’ are doing the nation a disservice by focusing on a goal that is unachievable over the foreseeable future and that encourages the adoption of inefficient and counterproductive policies. Indeed, during the next two decades, it is unlikely that the United States will be able to make a sharp reduction in its dependence on imports, which currently stand at 60 percent of consumption. The central task for the next two decades must be to manage the consequences of dependence on oil, not to pretend the United States can eliminate it. A popular response to the steep rise in energy prices in recent years is the false expectation that policies to lower imports will automatically lead to a decline in prices. The public’s continuing expectation of the availability of cheap energy alternatives will almost surely be disappointed. While oil prices may retreat from their current high levels, one should not expect the price of oil to return, on a sustained basis, to the low levels seen in the late 1990s. In fact, if more costly domestic supply is used to substitute for imported oil, then prices will not moderate. Yet the public’s elected representatives have allowed this myth to survive, as they advocate policies that futilely attempt to reduce import dependence quickly while simultaneously lowering prices. Leaders of both political parties, especially when seeking public office, seem unable to resist announcing unrealistic goals that are transparent efforts to gain popularity rather than inform the public of the challenges the United States must overcome. Moreover, the political system of the United States has so far proved unable to sustain the policies that would be needed to manage dependence on imported fuels. As history since 1973 shows, the call for policy action recedes as prices abate. These problems rooted in the dependence on oil are neither new nor unique to the United States. Other major world economies that rely on imported oil—from Western Europe to Japan, and now China and India—face similar concerns.

All are having difficulties in meeting the challenges of managing demand for oil. But these countries do not share the foreign policy responsibilities of the United States. And the United States, insufficiently aware of its vulnerability, has not been as attentive as the other large industrialized countries in implementing policies to slow the rising demand for oil. Yet even if the United States were self-sufficient in oil (a condition the Task Force considers wholly infeasible in the foreseeable future), U.S. foreign policy would remain constrained as long as U.S. allies and partners remained dependent on imports because of their mutual interdependence. Thus, while reducing U.S. oil imports is desirable, the underlying problem is the high and growing demand for oil worldwide. The growing worldwide demand for oil in the coming decades will magnify the problems that are already evident in the functioning of the world oil market. During that period, the availability of low cost oil resources is expected to decline; production and transportation costs are likely to rise. As more hydrocarbon resources in more remote areas are tapped,the world economy will become even more dependent on elaborate and vulnerable infrastructures to bring oil and gas to the markets where they are used.

For the last three decades, the United States has correctly followed a policy strategy that, in large measure, has stressed the importance of markets. Energy markets, however, do not operate in an economically perfect and transparent manner. For example, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), quite notably, seeks to act as a cartel. Most oil and gas resources are controlled by state-run companies, some of which enter into supply contracts with consumer countries that are accompanied by political arrangements that distort the proper functioning of the market. These agreements, such as those spearheaded by the Chinese government in oil-rich countries across Africa and elsewhere, reflect many intentions, including the desire to ‘‘lock up’’ particular supplies for the Chinese market. Some of the state companies that control these resources are inefficient, which imposes further costs on the world market. And some governments use the revenues from hydrocarbon sales for political purposes that harm U.S. interests. Because of these realities, an active public policy is needed to correct these market failures that harm U.S. economic and national security. The market will not automatically deliver the best outcome.

The Task Force recommends a policy strategy based on five types of actions. First, while the United States has limited leverage to achieve its energy security objectives through foreign policy actions,it has considerable ability to manage its energy future through the adoption of domestic policies that complement both a short- and long-term international strategy.

#1 The Task Force is unanimous in recommending the adoption of incentives to slow and eventually reverse the growth in consumption of petroleum products, especially transportation fuels such as motor gasoline. However, the Task Force did not agree about the particular options that would best achieve this objective. The Task Force considered three measures:

• A tax on gasoline (with the tax revenue recycled into the economy with a fraction possibly earmarked for specific purposes such as financing of energy technology research and development [R&D]);

• Stricter and broader mandated Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, known as CAFE standards; and

• The use of tradable gasoline permits that would cap the total level of gasoline consumed in the economy. Used singly or in combination, these measures would not only encourage higher-efficiency vehicles (although these will take time to find their way into the fleet), but also encourage the introduction of alternative fuels, as well as promote changes in behavior such as the greater use of public transportation.

While there are other domestic policies that could be adopted to limit demand for fuels, no strategy will be effective without higher prices for transportation fuels or regulatory incentives to use more efficient vehicles.

The Task Force does not believe there is a corresponding need to adopt additional measures to limit demand for natural gas. While there are reasons to be concerned about the adequacy of the near-term supply of natural gas to the North American market, at present natural gas markets work relatively well. To date, there is little dependence on natural gas from outside of North America, thus avoiding the political repercussions accompanying oil imports. There are large amounts of ‘‘stranded’’ gas available around the world that can be transported to markets using technologies that are increasingly economic. Most attention is focused on the technologies of liquefied natural gas (LNG), through which gas is cooled and compressed to a liquid, shipped on tankers, and then warmed and re-gasified to its original form. Realizing the potential for LNG will require additional facilities to receive and re-gasify imported LNG in the United States.

PRO DRILLING IN ANWR: At the same time that the United States promotes measures to reduce oil demand, it should also be prepared to open some new areas for exploration and production of oil and gas, for example, in Alaska, along the East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico.

In addition to modestly increasing supply, encouraging domestic production is a valuable, if not essential, element for increasing the credibility of U.S. efforts to persuade other nations to expand their exploration and production activities. Ultimately, technology will be vital to reducing the dependence on oil and gas, and to making a transition away from petroleum fuels. These benefits of improved technology will come in the future only if investments are madetoday in research, development, and demonstration (RD&D). The Task Force notes that higher energy prices are unleashing remarkable forces for innovation in this country.

Entrepreneurs are seeking new ideas for products and services, such as batteries, fuel cells, and biofuels. Private equity capital is seeking opportunities to invest in new energy technologies. Large corporations are investing in RD&D in all aspects of energy production and use.These activities will undoubtedly result in a steady improvement in the ability of the U.S. economy to meet energy needs. The U.S. government has an important role in supporting this innovation in the private sector, especially for technologies that require significant development efforts to demonstrate commercial potential. The Task Force recommends that the federal government offer greatly expanded incentives and investments aimed at both short- and longterm results to address a wide range of technologies that includes higher efficiency vehicles, substitutes for oil in transportation (such as biomass and electricity), techniques to enhance production from existing oil wells, and technologies that increase the energy efficiency of industrial processes that use oil and gas.

Government spending is appropriate in this context because the market alone does not make as much effort as is warranted by national security and environmental considerations.

Second, we recommend that the United States take several initiatives to encourage the efficient, transparent, and fair operation of world oil and gas markets. The United States must not act alone in this endeavor, as all consumer nations have a common interest in well-functioning international markets for oil and gas. The United States should continue to urge governments in all countries to reduce subsidies and deregulate the prices of oil and gas where they have been held below world market levels. While progress has been made over the last three decades, many countries—notably large developing countries, such as China, and large energy producers, such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela—still regulate and subsidize their consumption of fuel. Russia, among many other gas-rich countries, still subsidizes its internal consumption of natural gas. These arrangements result in a world market that is not properly responsive to underlying supply and demand. The United States should also take the lead in revising cooperative agreements originally reached in the International Energy Agency (IEA) in the early 1970s.

These agreements require their members to maintain adequate national oil stockpiles and to follow procedures for coping with shortages in case of a disruption in supply. The most important revision would find a mechanism to include the large, rapidly growing economies, notably China and India, so that they can build adequate strategic reserves and coordinate the use of those reserves with other major oil importers. The best approach would involve expanding the IEA. However, an alternative institution, such as a greatly strengthened International Energy Forum (IEF), could also serve this purpose.

1 TheUnited States should remove the protectionist tariff on imported ethanol, as that makes it much harderf orU.S. refineries totake advantage of efficient ethanol producers outside our borders, such as in Brazil.

2 The executive branch and Congress should also reexamine the management of the United States’ strategic stockpiles and consider whether the procedures for using these stockpiles should be updated so that they are more consistent with today’s realities, such as the presence of large private stockpiles and strong oil and gas futures markets.

3 Third, producing and consuming countries have a common interest in reducing infrastructure vulnerability, whether to terrorist attacks or natural disasters. In the last year alone, there has been one attempted major attack on the Saudi oil processing facility at Abqaiq, and hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused substantial damage to oil and gas processing and transport infrastructure in the United States. The United States must work more closely with major oil suppliers, notably Saudi Arabia, to detect and deter attacks on their infrastructure.

Greater efforts are needed to harden the energy infrastructure against both attacks and natural disasters. Over the coming decades the importance of these infrastructures is likely to grow as low-cost oil resources close at hand are depleted and hydrocarbon resources in more remote areas are tapped.

4 Fourth, there are too many examples of countries that exploit their oil and natural gas resources while failing to manage the revenues in a way that improves the social and economic prospects of their people. While there are limits to what can be accomplished, the Task Force believes the United States must play a stronger role in promoting better management of hydrocarbon revenues. Too often, these revenues accrue to a small minority that is unaccountable to any representative political authority, which not only undermines governance, but also risks the political stability that is essential to reliable production of oil and gas.

5 The International Engergy Federation (IEF) was established in 2003 as a ministerial-level dialogue between major energy producers and consumers. Such actions are in the U.S. interest, both because stably governed countries are better able to attract the investment needed to maintain and increase hydrocarbon production, and because it supports the long-standing American goal of encouraging progress toward democracy and good governance.

Most proposals for better management of hydrocarbon revenues rely on encouraging investors and governments to disclose payments and improve accounting, on the theory that greater transparency will make it easier to detect corruption, encourage better spending of revenues, and generally lead to better governance. Most notable of these is an initiative by the British government, working through international institutions, to implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Making such schemes work is very difficult because, while voluntary,they can be seen as intrusions on a nation’s sovereign prerogative to manage its own revenues. Yet there are encouraging signs— such as efforts in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Nigeria to apply the EITI’s accounting standards—that these systems have a significant and positive effect. The United States should play a more active role in promoting the use of these mechanisms through its own actions and by working to convince others, such as the governments in China and India, of the importance of these measures.

6 Sixth, the U.S. government is not well organized to address the threats to national security created by energy dependence. There is a need to mobilize the resources of the government in a manner that better ensures continuity of attention and integration of the political, economic, technical, and security perspectives needed for energy policymaking. Closer attention to organization is needed mainly in the executive branch, but complementary actions by Congress,through legislation and hearings, will also be needed. The success of any prescription to integrate energy issues into the foreign policy process is made difficult by the enormous range of other issues that demand the attention of high-level policymakers. The Task Force recommendsthat a small energy security directorate be established within the National Security Staff to coordinate interagency policymaking on energy security issues. It also recommends that the secretary of energy be engaged in any foreign policy deliberations that involve energy issues. In addition, the Task Force suggests that the terms of reference of all planning studies at the National Security Council (NSC), Department of Defense, Department of State, and the intelligence community include energy security considerations. The Task Force cautions that it would be neither practical nor wise to insist that energy security be the central foreign policy priority of the United States.

Source #4: CHLOE T

Top ten reasons to support ANWR development

Aug 16, 2013

1) Only 8% of ANWR would be considered for exploration. – Only the 1.5 million acre 10-02 Area (8% of ANWR’s total area), is being considered for exploration. The remaining 17.5 million acres of ANWR is permanently off limits to any exploration. If oil is discovered, current legislation allows only allows 2000 acres of the 10-02 Area can be used for surface structures. That’s less than half of 1% of ANWR’s total area can be impacted by an oil field.

2) Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury - Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Lease sale revenues alone are estimates by the Office of Management and Budget at between $4-6 billion. Royalties and taxes are estimated @$100 per barrel to be between $84.6-237.5 billion.

3) Jobs to be Created – Materials, services and infrastructure needed for oil production in the 10-02 will create tens of thousands of manufacturing and high skilled service jobs nationwide. Every state in the nation would be impacted by this.

4) Economic Impact – Between 1977 and 2004 the Arctic oil industries spent over $50 billion within the nation’s economy. Almost all products and infrastructure used in Arctic oil field production come from the lower 48 states.

5) America’s Best Chance for a Major Discovery – The United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1998 study on ANWR shows the 10-02 Area Coastal Plain of ANWR has the highest potential for a super-large oil field of any other place on the North American continent. If you are going to explore for oil, the best chance to find it, in the largest quantity, with the smallest footprint would be the 10-02 Area.

6) North Slope Production in Decline – Oil from Prudhoe Bay oil fields only 50 miles to the west of ANWR have been in decline for nearly a decade. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) is 1/4^rd full at 520,000 bpd. Alaskan North Slope oil supplies the West Coast of America and without new oil the TAPS will eventually be shut down and removed by law, thus stranding all Arctic oil. TAPS has the capacity to supply 1/10^th of the nations daily consumption of oil.

7) Imported Oil Too Costly – Today the US imports 50% of our oil from abroad. That represents over $300 billion dollars a year being sent abroad. Oil imports are the single largest contributor to our national debt. Every barrel of ANWR oil would replace a barrel imported from abroad. With ANWR oil the jobs, the money, and the infrastructure stay at home

8) No Negative Impact to Animals – Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska’s Arctic. The Central Arctic Caribou Herd migrates directly through the Prudhoe Bay oil field has grown from 5,000 animals in the early 70s to well over 50,000 animals today. The Arctic oil fields are monitored daily by state and federal wildlife specialists and are home to a very healthy brown bear, fox, musk oxen, bird and fish populations equal or better to the surrounding area.

9) Arctic Technology = Advanced Technology – Arctic exploration technology is the most advanced in the world. It represents the cutting edge in minimal impact with maximum return. Advanced drilling technology has allowed the footprint of development to shrink over 64% in the past 30 years while doubling technical rates of return to over 60%. ANWR development would increase and better this trend.

10) Alaskans Support –78% of Alaskans favor exploration and production on the Coastal Plain of ANWR. Over the past 30 years almost every member of the democratically elected Alaska State Legislature, every single Alaskan Congressional delegate, and every single Alaskan Governor has supported environmentally sensitive development of the 10-02 Area of ANWR. ANWR development is not a partisan issue in Alaska, it is strongly supported by all.

SOURCE #5: President trump has made ANWR Development a Priority (www.bloomberg.com March 10, 2017)

Senator Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump is interested in opening up new coastal waters for oil and gas drilling and reversing Obama-era policies that restrict energy development in Alaska.

Both Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are weighing ways to expand opportunities to drill in Arctic waters though the changes could take years to accomplish administratively, Murkowski said in an interview on the sidelines of the CERAWeek conference in Houston.

“It’s fair to say we are looking at how we might be able to -- how the administration might be able to -- allow for opportunities within this important area, offshore Alaska,” Murkowski said.

Murkowski, who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, joined her fellow Republican senator from Alaska, Dan Sullivan, in a meeting with Trump and Zinke earlier this week to discuss the issue. Trump “clearly understood the impact of taking off-line” oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska, Murkowski said.

“What was very clear was a recognition that what Alaska has to offer is considerable, important and we need to be working to undo much of what the Obama administration did in terms of locking up these resources,” Murkowski said of her talks with Trump.

Wildlife Refuge Drilling

Among her targets: making it easier to develop parcels in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a 23-million-acre (9.3 million hectare) region set aside 94 years ago because of its oil and gas potential, and allowing the activity in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Any decision to open up ANWR would fall to Congress, where Murkowski and Sullivan are pushing legislation that would allow oil and gas development in as much as 2,000 acres of the refuge.

The president can set some changes into motion immediately by directing the Interior Department to rewrite a plan for selling offshore oil and gas leases over the next five years and add auctions of tracts in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans that the Obama administration left out. But wedging those sales back into the plan would require environmental analysis and public comment periods -- perhaps consuming a year for the Arctic and even longer for parcels along the U.S. East Coast.

The Trump administration also is weighing how to undo an executive order that President Barack Obama used to withdraw almost all U.S. Arctic waters and underwater canyons in the Atlantic Ocean from future oil and gas leasing. Environmentalists say it would be unprecedented for any president to rescind such a designation, and the reversal would almost certainly be challenged in court.

‘Legal Scrutiny’

“You would have opponents lining up, so it must be done in a way that can survive legal challenge,” Murkowski said. Although an executive order reversing Obama’s decision would be the cleanest option, she said such action isn’t imminent because Zinke still needs to assemble a legal team to help craft an approach capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.

“What that requires is a good solid legal team that is walking you through the steps of the process, and right now the secretary is without a team,” Murkowski said. “I know for a fact that has been a level of frustration for Secretary Zinke. He is itching to go and is very frustrated by the fact that he doesn’t have his folks in place.”

Trump has repeatedly pledged to expand U.S. energy development and remove “obstacles” holding back exploration of America’s “vast untapped domestic energy reserves.”

Obscure 1953 Provision

Most federal decisions over offshore oil and gas development happen in five-year increments, through the government’s schedule for selling leases. But Obama aimed to set permanent policy in 2016 when he invoked an obscure provision in a 1953 law to withdraw U.S. waters from future oil and gas leasing. The provision previously had mostly been used to permanently protect coral reefs, walrus feeding grounds, and marine sanctuaries.

Any move by Trump to undo Obama’s protections is sure to draw a legal challenge, but it could take years before a lawsuit is ready to be filed, and there is scant legal precedent on the matter.

Presidents have modified decisions from predecessors to indefinitely withdraw areas from drilling, but have never rescinded them altogether. The statute doesn’t include a provision for reversal. And a legal opinion from the U.S. attorney general in 1938 on similar designations under a different law said they “do not imply a power to undo.”

Whether the oil industry really wants the territory is an open question.

Shell Gives Up

While the U.S. Arctic is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, energy companies have struggled to tap those resources in harsh conditions at the top of the globe. Exploration costs are high in remote Arctic waters, where work is confined to just a few months each year and there is sparse infrastructure to support the activity.

Oil major Royal Dutch Shell Plc spent more than seven years and roughly $8 billion trying to find a large stash of crude in the Chukchi Sea, which lies between Alaska and Siberia, but it ended the quest in 2015 after a test well yielded disappointing results.

Industry leaders say Arctic crude is needed to meet the world’s energy needs and help keep oil flowing through the 40-year-old Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The activity also may support the development of infrastructure that could help buttress U.S. security as climate change and melting sea ice opens up new shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean.

Still, there are signs that Alaska’s oil prospects may be looking up. The Spanish oil company Repsol SA on Thursday announced a 1.2 billion-barrel discovery on Alaska’s North Slope, the biggest U.S. onshore oil find in three decades. That follows a 2016 announcement by closely held Caelus Energy Corp. claiming to have found at least 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil far beneath Smith Bay, in northwestern Alaska.

Source #6: Arctic Oil and the Privileged FewYou hear a lot in Washington about the plight of the middle class. Politicians are often quick to condemn any policy they claim will help the rich but harm middle-class workers.But it's a different story when it comes to drilling for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). You hear little concern about continuing a policy that benefits an elite group of wealthy tourists while denying a century's worth of fuel to millions of households.Little, if anything, vexes Americans today as much as the high price of gasoline. If members of Congress really cared about the middle class, they would open up ANWR and dispense with the phony tears and lip service. Politicians who dismiss opportunities to lower gasoline prices while professing great concern over tight family budgets are too busy protecting the privileged to care that they're choking economic freedom.

According to figures from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, every dollar increase in the price of gasoline costs the average household about $1,100 per year. So, the $2 increase in the last two years adds $2,200 to their annual gasoline bill. Goodbye, summer vacation.Unless, of course, you're a member of the well-heeled elite who visit ANWR. At 19 million acres, it's bigger than 10 states, such as Maryland, Massachusetts and even West Virginia. But in a good year, about 1,700 tourists visit the refuge. That's only one-fourth the numbers who visit Ohio's Cuyahoga Valley National Park on an average day.In the early 1990s, when annual visits approached 2,000, many of them questioned whether the refuge could handle that many people and still provide a high-quality experience. One tour operator said, "You're not getting what you go up there for if you end up sharing the river with 20 other people and jockeying for campsites."Some people are hard to please. If all the visitors went on the same day, they could each have more than 10,000 acres to themselves.But there will be little need for ration coupons to cap the number. Travel agency Web pages show that low-end packages to ANWR are $3,500 per person plus airfare to Fairbanks.

With the cost of a one-week family vacation exceeding $20,000, there's no reason to expect much of a stampede.Bear in mind, too, that drilling today isn't the oil-spewing mess it was 50 years ago. The caribou herds don't care - their population in the nearby North Slope is greater now than before oil started pumping in the 1970s. Besides, most tourists don't go to the one-tenth of 1 percent of ANWR where the oil would be drilled. So the harm (an interrupted vista) is to only a fraction of this select group of tourists anyway.What about the oil? Estimates of the reserves vary from 5 billion to 15 billion barrels. Past experience shows such estimates are often significantly below the actual amounts found. But even the intermediate value of 10 billion works out to 420 billion gallons.The average household has two cars, each of which uses 600 gallons a year. A little math shows that ANWR holds enough petroleum to fill the tanks of all the cars for 3.5 million households for a full century. For perspective, note only eight states have more than 3.5 million households.

The question is: Do we provide a necessity for millions of cash-strapped Americans, or do we stiff these hard-working families so we can provide a luxury for the rich and few? Drilling in ANWR would reduce gas prices, reduce payments to suspect oil exporters, strengthen the dollar. In addition to the balance of trade, drilling in ANWR would help the federal budget and, more importantly, the working family's budget.Unlike anything else, the ANWR debate brings into focus a legislator's priorities. If lawmakers really want to help the middle class, they should focus on the millions who would benefit from additional oil supplies instead of pandering to a wealthy group of eco-tourists.

Part II: The Debate

Introduction - Norman Chance

GOVERNMENTAL PRESENTATIONS

Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil & Gas Development on the Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain: Historical Overview & Issues of Concern - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [January 17, 2001]