This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/climate/arctic-drilling.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
G.O.P. Seizes Chance to Open Drilling in Arctic Wildlife Refuge G.O.P. Seizes Chance to Open Drilling in Arctic Wildlife Refuge
(25 days later)
Updated, Oct. 20: Republicans moved closer to opening oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with a Senate budget vote late Thursday, setting off a new political scramble over the future of the pristine habitat in northern Alaska. Updated Nov. 9: Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska introduced legislation Wednesday to open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, saying it would raise about $1 billion over a decade.
The dispute over the refuge has been simmering for decades. But with Republicans holding both houses of Congress and the presidency, the prospects for opening the refuge, at least to studies of its oil and gas potential, are better than they have been in years. The dispute over the refuge, a pristine habitat in northern Alaska, has been simmering for decades. But with Republicans holding both houses of Congress and the presidency, the prospects for opening the refuge to drilling are better than they have been in years.
The Senate’s budget blueprint, which passed 51-49, doesn’t specifically target the refuge; it directs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with legislation reducing the federal deficit by $1 billion over the next 10 years. Allowing drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, however, is considered the most likely way to raise the funds to reach that figure, and Republicans made clear they intended to act quickly to make it happen. The bill is “a tremendous opportunity,” the Alaska Republican said in a statement. Drilling in the refuge will ultimately reduce the federal deficit by “tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades to come,” she said.
“We need to be expanding our energy development in our federal areas,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a Republican who chairs the energy committee and who has long pressed for drilling in the refuge. Environmental activists vowed to protect the refuge. Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League, said the bill “would allow roads, pipelines, gravel mines and well pads to be erected across the entire birthing grounds of the coastal plain, where caribou calve and where polar bear mothers den.”
Democrats narrowly lost a vote on an amendment that would have removed the instructions to the Senate energy panel that could result in drilling legislation. But conservation groups insist there are still opportunities to quash the effort.
Here’s a look at what is happening and why, and what is at stake.Here’s a look at what is happening and why, and what is at stake.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of about 19 million acres of pristine land in northeastern Alaska. Much of the acreage was first set aside in 1960 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower; the full refuge, which is about the size of South Carolina, was established through a congressional act in 1980. About 40 percent of the land, mostly in the Brooks Range, is designated as wilderness, to remain undeveloped with no human settlement.The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge consists of about 19 million acres of pristine land in northeastern Alaska. Much of the acreage was first set aside in 1960 under President Dwight D. Eisenhower; the full refuge, which is about the size of South Carolina, was established through a congressional act in 1980. About 40 percent of the land, mostly in the Brooks Range, is designated as wilderness, to remain undeveloped with no human settlement.
The refuge, one of the largest in the United States, is the nesting place for several hundred species of migratory birds; home to wolves, polar bears, caribou and other mammals; and spawning grounds for Dolly Varden trout and other fish.The refuge, one of the largest in the United States, is the nesting place for several hundred species of migratory birds; home to wolves, polar bears, caribou and other mammals; and spawning grounds for Dolly Varden trout and other fish.
“I can say definitively that it is a national treasure,” said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society.“I can say definitively that it is a national treasure,” said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness Society.
There is private land within the refuge, including the Inupiat village of Kaktovik. A Gwich’in community, Arctic Village, is just outside the refuge. Outdoor activities, including hunting, are allowed, but there are no roads or facilities except in Kaktovik.There is private land within the refuge, including the Inupiat village of Kaktovik. A Gwich’in community, Arctic Village, is just outside the refuge. Outdoor activities, including hunting, are allowed, but there are no roads or facilities except in Kaktovik.
When Congress established the refuge in 1980, it deferred action on the issue of whether oil and gas exploration should be allowed in part of it: 1.5 million acres of coastal plain between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. This land came to be called the “1002 area,” after the part of the act that refers to it, and it was thought likely to contain a lot of oil because it was not far from Prudhoe Bay and other parts of the North Slope where large oil fields had been discovered beginning in the 1960s.When Congress established the refuge in 1980, it deferred action on the issue of whether oil and gas exploration should be allowed in part of it: 1.5 million acres of coastal plain between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. This land came to be called the “1002 area,” after the part of the act that refers to it, and it was thought likely to contain a lot of oil because it was not far from Prudhoe Bay and other parts of the North Slope where large oil fields had been discovered beginning in the 1960s.
But the 1002 area is also a critical habitat for much of the refuge’s wildlife. Polar bears make dens there, and it is where most of the huge Porcupine caribou herd — 200,000 animals in all — come in spring and early summer to calve and forage for food.But the 1002 area is also a critical habitat for much of the refuge’s wildlife. Polar bears make dens there, and it is where most of the huge Porcupine caribou herd — 200,000 animals in all — come in spring and early summer to calve and forage for food.
The 1980 act allowed for studies to determine the potential for oil and gas development in the 1002 area. In 1984 and 1985, a consortium of oil companies undertook seismic studies, in which special trucks “thumped” the ground and the reflected sound waves provided details about rock formations and potential oil and gas reserves in them. A 1998 assessment by the United States Geological Survey that relied in part on those seismic studies estimated that the 1002 area contained 4 billion to 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The North Slope currently produces about 180 million barrels a year.)The 1980 act allowed for studies to determine the potential for oil and gas development in the 1002 area. In 1984 and 1985, a consortium of oil companies undertook seismic studies, in which special trucks “thumped” the ground and the reflected sound waves provided details about rock formations and potential oil and gas reserves in them. A 1998 assessment by the United States Geological Survey that relied in part on those seismic studies estimated that the 1002 area contained 4 billion to 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The North Slope currently produces about 180 million barrels a year.)
Republicans have long wanted to open the area to drilling, or at least to allow new seismic studies using improved technology to get a clearer picture of where the oil is. Environmental groups say that even studying the land in this way damages it — they say there are still signs of the 1980s seismic work on the landscape — and that the area is too important to wildlife and should remain protected.Republicans have long wanted to open the area to drilling, or at least to allow new seismic studies using improved technology to get a clearer picture of where the oil is. Environmental groups say that even studying the land in this way damages it — they say there are still signs of the 1980s seismic work on the landscape — and that the area is too important to wildlife and should remain protected.
Many political leaders and business interests in Alaska favor opening the refuge. Producing more oil and gas would add to state revenues, which have fallen in recent years as North Slope oil production has declined and prices have fallen. Native Alaskans in the region tend to be divided on the issue.Many political leaders and business interests in Alaska favor opening the refuge. Producing more oil and gas would add to state revenues, which have fallen in recent years as North Slope oil production has declined and prices have fallen. Native Alaskans in the region tend to be divided on the issue.
Unlike some other federal lands that can be opened to drilling by Interior Department actions, opening the refuge requires congressional action.Unlike some other federal lands that can be opened to drilling by Interior Department actions, opening the refuge requires congressional action.
This year, Republicans opened the fight on two fronts. In a memo in August, Interior Department officials proposed changing a rule that had limited exploratory studies in the refuge to the mid-1980s. Under the proposed change, such studies could now be undertaken anytime. The proposal would likely be challenged in court by environmental groups.This year, Republicans opened the fight on two fronts. In a memo in August, Interior Department officials proposed changing a rule that had limited exploratory studies in the refuge to the mid-1980s. Under the proposed change, such studies could now be undertaken anytime. The proposal would likely be challenged in court by environmental groups.
Then there is the budget resolution instructing the Senate to reduce deficits by $1 billion over 10 years, with the implicit understanding that the money would come from oil exploration or drilling. Then there is Ms. Murkowski’s bill, which calls for the Interior Department to establish two leasing sales in the refuge’s 1002 area. The revenue would be split evenly between the federal government and Alaska.
Senator Murkowski said her panel was ready to fulfill the budget instructions. Robert Dillon, a former longtime aide to the senator, said it would not be difficult to pass a drilling measure through the committee. The measure fulfills the terms of a budget resolution Congress passed last month. That tasked the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Ms. Murkowski leads, to find $1 billion in new revenue over 10 years as part of a larger Republican effort to accelerate a major tax overhaul bill. It also provided an opening for Alaska Republicans and others who have long made drilling in the refuge a priority.
“The language is in the drawer,” Mr. Dillon said, noting that Ms. Murkowski has introduced legislation every year she has been in Congress to allow for the opening of the refuge. The committee is expected to vote on the legislation Nov. 15. It would then be subject to special procedures in the full Senate and would require only a simple 51-vote majority to pass. Republicans in the Senate, who hold 52 seats, would not need the 60 votes required to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
That language would be sent to the Senate Budget Committee, which would bundle together provisions for a final reconciliation bill. A compromise House-Senate plan, which presumably would involve selling oil and gas leases in the refuge as the way to generate the revenue, would need only simple majorities for passage. Republicans in the Senate, who hold 52 seats, would not need the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster. This approach to opening the refuge has been tried before, once during the Clinton administration — when it was vetoed by the president — and in 2005, when opposition from moderate Republicans scuttled the idea.
This approach has been tried before, once during the Clinton administration — when it was vetoed by the president — and in 2005, when opposition from moderate Republicans scuttled the idea. This time environmental activists say the drilling measure will live or die on whether Republicans can successfully maneuver their tax overhaul to final passage — something that is far from certain.
Senate Democrats are likely to take another crack at an amendment to block Arctic drilling, according to multiple congressional aides. Thursday’s amendment, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, won the support of a single Republican: Susan Collins of Maine. Yet Democrats also lost one of their own, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who voted with Republicans to open the refuge. The amendment failed, 48-52.
Republican leaders hope to use the budget resolution to set the stage for tax reform legislation. That, activists asserted, means the drilling measure will live or die on whether Republicans can successfully maneuver tax reform to final passage — something that is far from certain.
“The fight is long from over,” said Robert Dewey, vice president of government affairs with the Defenders of Wildlife. “This is really just the beginning of the budget process.”
There is no certainty that oil companies would rush to study or further explore the potential for oil and gas production in the refuge, especially with oil prices, currently just above $50 a barrel, far lower than they were earlier this decade. Shell pulled out of plans to drill for oil in Arctic waters off Alaska two years ago, citing high costs and other factors.There is no certainty that oil companies would rush to study or further explore the potential for oil and gas production in the refuge, especially with oil prices, currently just above $50 a barrel, far lower than they were earlier this decade. Shell pulled out of plans to drill for oil in Arctic waters off Alaska two years ago, citing high costs and other factors.
If the refuge were opened, the first step would be to conduct new seismic studies, likely using technology that produces three-dimensional images of underground formations. Then, exploratory wells would be drilled; if they proved successful, production wells would follow. How long the process would take would depend on many factors, but one estimate is that oil could be flowing within five years.If the refuge were opened, the first step would be to conduct new seismic studies, likely using technology that produces three-dimensional images of underground formations. Then, exploratory wells would be drilled; if they proved successful, production wells would follow. How long the process would take would depend on many factors, but one estimate is that oil could be flowing within five years.
Proponents of drilling in the refuge sometimes cite a proposal offered by Republicans more than a decade ago to limit the footprint of oil and gas wells and any related activities to 2,000 acres, just a tiny fraction of the refuge’s 19 million acres. They note that technologies like directional drilling, which allows multiple wells to be drilled outward from one platform, would reduce the overall impact.Proponents of drilling in the refuge sometimes cite a proposal offered by Republicans more than a decade ago to limit the footprint of oil and gas wells and any related activities to 2,000 acres, just a tiny fraction of the refuge’s 19 million acres. They note that technologies like directional drilling, which allows multiple wells to be drilled outward from one platform, would reduce the overall impact.
But environmental groups say that the 2,000-acre footprint is misleading. Even if the wellheads cover relatively little area, roads, pipelines, facilities for workers and other structures could have a much bigger environmental impact. Among other things, they say, the infrastructure and activity could disturb caribou and lead them to abandon their usual calving sites for less suitable locations outside the 1002 area.But environmental groups say that the 2,000-acre footprint is misleading. Even if the wellheads cover relatively little area, roads, pipelines, facilities for workers and other structures could have a much bigger environmental impact. Among other things, they say, the infrastructure and activity could disturb caribou and lead them to abandon their usual calving sites for less suitable locations outside the 1002 area.
“There is a large and growing segment of the public that really understands there are some places we protect,” said Sarah Greenberger, vice president for conservation at the National Audubon Society. “And there’s a continued sense that this is one of those places.”“There is a large and growing segment of the public that really understands there are some places we protect,” said Sarah Greenberger, vice president for conservation at the National Audubon Society. “And there’s a continued sense that this is one of those places.”