Stock Groups

U.S. ditches Trump-era policies for Arctic Alaska oil reserve -Breaking

[ad_1]

© Reuters. FILEPHOTO: Two cubs and a polar bear sow are seen along the Beaufort Sea Coast in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 1002 Area. This undated handout photograph was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alaska Image Library December 21, 2005

By Yereth Rose

ANCHORAGE (Reuters) – The Biden administration overturned a Trump-era controversial policy Monday that would have allowed oil development in Arctic Alaska.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is part of the Department of Interior. It revived Obama-era management practices in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. This 23-million-acre (9.3 millions hectares), area lies on Alaska’s North Slope.

The plan was issued in 2013. These reinstated policies allow oil leasing in approximately half of the reserve. However, they increase protections for Arctic communities and indigenous people.

Trump’s administration issued a 2020 plan to permit oil development in more than 80% off the reserve. The plan would have permitted leasing at Teshekpuk Lake – the largest North Slope lake, and an area that is highly prized by wildlife. It was protected under Reagan’s rules.

Two lawsuits were filed against Trump’s plan in Alaska federal court. Under it, no lease sales were held. Interior was responding to the lawsuits with a BLM decision that reinstated Obama-era management practices.

National Petroleum Reserve is America’s largest undeveloped tract of public land. This has attracted the attention of oil companies looking to expand their operations further west, on the North Slope. Clusters of development are found in the Northeast corner, which is the most close to state-owned legacy oil fields as well as existing pipelines.

ConocoPhillips is the largest company within the reserve. There are several interests, including the Willow Project (multibillion dollar), which is estimated to contain 600 million barrels oil.

U.S. American Senator Dan Sullivan (an Alaska Republican, supporter of expanded leasing) criticized the decision saying it was against energy security. He did this at a time Russia had invaded Ukraine. Despite the fact that the Trump-era plan didn’t expect to increase production any immediate, if at ALL.

“Ukrainian grandmothers bravely resist tanks. But President Biden cannot even get up to the woke Left and unleash American energy production,” Sullivan stated on Twitter.

Although environmentalists were pleased with the BLM’s decision, they called for stronger protections.

Kristin Miller, Alaska Wilderness League said that “the answer to energy security is not beneath the Arctic permafrost thaw,” but rather in moving to cleaner and renewable power sources.

[ad_2]