{ "id": "RL33872", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33872", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 585259, "date": "2018-01-09", "retrieved": "2020-01-02T13:45:51.091676", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview", "summary": "In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one recurring issue has been whether to allow oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska. ANWR is rich in fauna and flora and also has significant oil and natural gas potential. Energy development in the Refuge has been debated for more than 50 years. On December 22, 2017, President Trump signed into law P.L. 115-97, which provides for an oil and gas program on ANWR\u2019s Coastal Plain. The Congressional Budget Office estimated federal revenue from the program\u2019s first two lease sales at $1.1 billion, but actual revenues may be higher or lower depending on market conditions and other factors. This report discusses the oil and gas program in the context of the Refuge\u2019s history, its energy and biological resources, Native interests and subsistence uses, energy market conditions, and debates over protection and development. \nANWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI). Under P.L. 115-97, DOI\u2019s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is to administer the oil and gas program in a portion of the 19-million-acre Refuge: the 1.57-million-acre Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area. This area is viewed as a promising onshore oil prospect and is also a center of activity for caribou and other wildlife. It is designated as critical habitat for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71531-1544). A 1987 study of the area by DOI had recommended energy development, but the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA; 43 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71601 et seq.) prohibited development unless authorized by an act of Congress. (Development was thus barred prior to the December 2017 enactment of P.L. 115-97.) The conflict between oil and natural gas potential and valued natural habitat in the Refuge has created dilemmas for Congress, with the most contentious question being whether to permit energy development in the 1002 Area. Previous legislative proposals ranged from those to designate the 1002 Area as wilderness or a national monument (with energy development prohibited) to those to allow partial or full development. Related questions have concerned the extent to which Congress should legislate special management to guide the manner of any development\u2014for example, by limiting the footprint of energy activities. Under P.L. 115-97, surface development is limited to 2,000 acres, which need not be concentrated in a single area. Some contend that newer technologies will help to consolidate oil and gas operations and reduce the environmental impacts of development, whereas others maintain that facilities will likely spread out in the 1002 Area and significantly change the character of the Coastal Plain.\nThe history of ANWR is intertwined with congressional efforts to settle land claims of Native Alaskans. As part of those efforts, some property in the Refuge was transferred to Native corporations, including surface lands and subsurface rights within the 1002 Area. The opening of federal lands in ANWR to development under P.L. 115-97 also opens adjacent Native lands. The Native community, both between and within its villages and organizations, is divided on the question of energy development in the Refuge.\nOther legislation related to ANWR\u2019s Coastal Plain was introduced in the 115th Congress prior to the enactment of P.L. 115-97. H.R. 1889 and S. 820 would establish the Coastal Plain as wilderness, meaning there would be no commercial development, except to meet the minimum requirements for managing the area as wilderness. Such a designation would be consistent with recommendations made by the Obama Administration in its planning documents for the Refuge. By contrast, H.R. 49 and S. 49 proposed oil and gas leasing programs for the Coastal Plain, which are similar but not identical to the program mandated by P.L. 115-97. These bills address some issues that were not addressed in P.L. 115-97, such as environmental compliance, judicial review, and exports of ANWR oil. Congress could choose to consider some of these other issues in future legislation and oversight.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33872", "sha1": "e6a09800ccff6c9e39b9a098171ae445cf9b8e3d", "filename": "files/20180109_RL33872_e6a09800ccff6c9e39b9a098171ae445cf9b8e3d.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/1.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_86f1725d89957a9501ad88ef34f9dffae7b39cb3.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/5.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_ceb0e63fe5060dbace32d63f287707b404ed26ac.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/2.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_6404acfb91b5acf1c7696935c24569d9f07a2bb1.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/3.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_bde73ba66c657375d29d630e302617d679dab2bd.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/4.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_987c2c4a6d3475ecaf2beadba311f9609fc384a5.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=RL/html/RL33872_files&id=/0.png": "files/20180109_RL33872_images_dd18dde984a2cc631635684dc88c4d73f8814018.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33872", "sha1": "601a20c3ac1f0ed54daad28c3deb85da63fc0863", "filename": "files/20180109_RL33872_601a20c3ac1f0ed54daad28c3deb85da63fc0863.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4812, "name": "Fossil Energy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4907, "name": "Energy Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4928, "name": "Wildlife & Ecosystems" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 460110, "date": "2017-03-28", "retrieved": "2017-04-04T20:03:45.106823", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): An Overview", "summary": "In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one recurring issue has been energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska. The policy question is whether to approve development\u2014and if so, under what conditions\u2014or whether to continue prohibiting development to protect the area\u2019s biological, recreational, and subsistence values. The Refuge is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential, but energy development in ANWR is currently prohibited by law. Legal 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 because Alaskan production is relatively costly. This 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.\nANWR is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) under a variety of laws and executive authorities. Within the 19-million-acre Refuge, attention has focused on the 1.57-million-acre Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area. Development proponents view this area as a promising onshore oil prospect, but it is also a center of activity for caribou and other wildlife and is designated as critical habitat for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71531-1544). A 1987 study of the area by the Department of the Interior recommended development, but controversies over the years have prevented any change in current law.\nUnder the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; 43 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a71601 et seq.), the status quo of no energy development in ANWR can be changed toward development or toward additional protection only by congressional action. The conflict between high oil potential and nearly pristine nature in the Refuge has created dilemmas for Congress. The most contentious question has been whether to permit energy development in the 1002 Area. Legislative proposals have included those to designate the 1002 Area as wilderness, designate it as a national monument, or allow partial or full development. Related questions concern the extent to which Congress should legislate special management to guide the manner of any development\u2014for example, by limiting the footprint of energy activities. Some contend that newer technologies could help to consolidate oil and gas operations and reduce the environmental impacts of development, whereas others maintain that facilities would spread out in the 1002 Area and would significantly change the character of the Coastal Plain.\nThe history of ANWR is also intertwined with congressional efforts to settle land claims of Native Alaskans. As part of those efforts, some property in the Refuge was transferred to Native corporations, including surface lands and subsurface rights within the 1002 Area. If Congress were to open federal lands in ANWR to development, that decision also could open adjacent Native lands. The Native community, both between and within its villages and organizations, is significantly divided on the question of energy development in the Refuge.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33872", "sha1": "3ac98aeebfdc2b30624e9f65e287af9c9936cd83", "filename": "files/20170328_RL33872_3ac98aeebfdc2b30624e9f65e287af9c9936cd83.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33872", "sha1": "459bd396437288e504c918395c504ab19f3c88c8", "filename": "files/20170328_RL33872_459bd396437288e504c918395c504ab19f3c88c8.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4812, "name": "Fossil Energy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4841, "name": "Federal Land Management" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4907, "name": "Energy Policy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4928, "name": "Wildlife & Ecosystems" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 447161, "date": "2015-03-17", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:21:17.606537", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): A Primer for the 114th Congress", "summary": "In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one issue has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, or the Refuge) in northeastern Alaska\u2014and if so, under what conditions\u2014or whether to continue prohibiting development to protect the area\u2019s biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential, but energy development is currently prohibited by law. Its development 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 as 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.\nProcedurally, the status quo of no energy development in ANWR can be changed toward development or toward additional protection only by congressional action. Over the years, controversies have prevented any change in current law, either to open the Refuge to development or to give it further protection. \nA number of issues have been raised. Development advocates assert that\nANWR oil would further reduce U.S. energy markets\u2019 exposure to political instability in the Middle Eastern crises, contribute to lower oil prices, and extend the economic life of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS);\ndevelopment would create jobs in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States; and\nANWR oil could be developed with minimal environmental harm, with some arguing that surface development could be limited to a fraction of leased acres.\nWilderness advocates counter that\ndevelopment of oil from other sources and lower world oil prices have obviated the need for production from ANWR, which would have a negligible effect on oil prices and job creation, while irreparably damaging the environment;\nintrusion on this ecosystem cannot be justified on any terms; and\nif economically recoverable oil is found, it would provide little additional energy security.\nThis primer provides background for analyzing the various claims through an examination of ANWR\u2019s history and an analysis of its geological, biological, human, and economic resources.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33872", "sha1": "96d1c724c3550fab12ca1759fcf61b9b58d66375", "filename": "files/20150317_RL33872_96d1c724c3550fab12ca1759fcf61b9b58d66375.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33872", "sha1": "f48cb1bffe5ba60d627a11e8d91fa5629de04c81", "filename": "files/20150317_RL33872_f48cb1bffe5ba60d627a11e8d91fa5629de04c81.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 2481, "name": "Oil and Natural Gas Markets" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 314, "name": "Federal Lands" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86658/", "id": "RL33872_2011Jun15", "date": "2011-06-15", "retrieved": "2012-06-15T10:07:48", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): A Primer for the 112th Congress", "summary": "In the ongoing energy debate in Congress, one issue has been whether to approve energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR or Refuge) in northeastern Alaska or whether to continue to prohibit development to protect the area's biological, recreational, and subsistence values. ANWR is rich in fauna, flora, and oil and natural gas potential. Its development has been debated for more than 50 years, but sharp increases in energy prices from late 2000 to early 2001, in 2004-2008, and in 2011 from a variety of causes (e.g., terrorist attacks, oil spills, and energy infrastructure damage from hurricanes), have repeatedly intensified the debate. This primer provides background for analyzing the various claims through an examination of its history, and an analysis of its geological, biological, human, and economic resources.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20110615_RL33872_5731dd9ea2ccdd7d7fa689db7cdde40a451b303e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20110615_RL33872_5731dd9ea2ccdd7d7fa689db7cdde40a451b303e.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wildlife refuges", "name": "Wildlife refuges" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Public lands", "name": "Public lands" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Biological diversity conservation", "name": "Biological diversity conservation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Natural resources", "name": "Natural resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Conservation of natural resources", "name": "Conservation of natural resources" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94098/", "id": "RL33872_2008Jun18", "date": "2008-06-18", "retrieved": "2012-07-24T12:39:36", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress", "summary": "This report provides background and analysis regarding the legislative history of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in northeastern Alaska. It also discusses actions in the 109th Congress, the energy resources, oil and natural gas and the impact they have on wildlife.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20080618_RL33872_6a2e924e1ed37fad085f5bc184137593ca10a9cf.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20080618_RL33872_6a2e924e1ed37fad085f5bc184137593ca10a9cf.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wildlife", "name": "Wildlife" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wildlife conservation", "name": "Wildlife conservation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Protection of wildlife", "name": "Protection of wildlife" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wildlife management", "name": "Wildlife management" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819815/", "id": "RL33872_2007Apr11", "date": "2007-04-11", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070411_RL33872_f3884c603a775d20b46c7b2472ac4dc8cfdd7821.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070411_RL33872_f3884c603a775d20b46c7b2472ac4dc8cfdd7821.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810152/", "id": "RL33872_2007Feb08", "date": "2007-02-08", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR): New Directions in the 110th Congress", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070208_RL33872_21503e9d1253bca98fbee83f0b33afa26e915b8c.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070208_RL33872_21503e9d1253bca98fbee83f0b33afa26e915b8c.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy", "Industry and Trade" ] }