Gas War: Biden Suspends Oil Drilling Leases in Alaska

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

On Tuesday, the Biden administration announced it would be suspending oil and gas leases issued in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge during the last days of the Trump administration. Bent on maintaining the United State’s energy independence, Donald Trump had moved to expand fossil fuel development in ways that would have been at odds with predecessor Barack Obama. But today’s White House represents a return to form, with an interest in supplanting traditional energy concerns with what it believes will be greener alternatives.

It’s bad news for the Alaskan state government, which had hoped to devote a subset of the region to rebuilding its oil industry by taking advantage of its vast reserves. But environmentalists and a subset of tribal representatives have praised the decision to prohibit development on protected lands. We expect consumers will have conflicting opinions, based largely upon how much they’re willing to pay at the pump.

White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy said Joe Biden had signaled his gratitude for “the prompt action by the Department of the Interior,” adding that the Trump administration’s policies might have spoiled the natural beauty of Alaska.

While the decision does indeed help to maintain the refuge, there are lingering questions about whether this is truly what’s best for the environment. There have been criticisms that restricting drilling and banning refineries on the West Coast has resulted in an increase in tanker traffic moving across the Pacific. Tankers have been cited as one of the worst contributors to air pollution, with marine shipping estimated to represent a third of all trade-related emissions. Many have argued that it would be more economical and ecologically friendly (from a global perspective) to move fuel via pipelines and localize refining and drilling wherever possible.

But nothing is set in stone just yet. The leases have been stalled and are awaiting an environmental review. Although the Biden administration isn’t just planning on assessing the probable pollution risks, it also wants to explore what it considered “legal deficiencies” represented in the Trump administration’s previous environmental analysis — which it believes were done in haste.

Truth be told, the leases kind of mimic the stringent emission regulations issued by Obama in his final days in office. Many argued that they were designed to make the Trump deregulation policy as difficult to enact as possible and were issued in haste. The leases kind of mirror that in reverse, with their similarly coming shortly before a change in leadership they knew would be attempting to end pipelines and drilling.

Eleven tracts were auctioned off in total, covering an estimated 550,000 acres in the North Slope Borough. The area has a population of fewer than 10,000 living in a zone that’s almost 100,000 square miles. That makes it larger than most states with a populace that’s eclipsed by one modestly sized town. Alaska had hoped the leases would bring in more jobs to its northernmost region and is heavily reliant on the oil industry already. But the planned development site would have overlapped with about a fourth of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that borders Canada.

One of the biggest concerns is that there’s effectively no infrastructure within the region, requiring the construction of roads and pipelines to help maintain the drilling sites. While the Alaskan government said those projects would yield even more jobs, environmentalists expressed concerns that this also ran the risk of harming the local wildlife. Local communities, including Iñupiat groups, expressed mixed feelings. Despite many native leaders saying they were fearful of harming the natural environment, most of the small towns in the region are accessible exclusively by air travel. Some locals felt adding infrastructure would result in more amenities and opportunities.

The Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority said it was disappointed by the decision to suspend the leases, many of which were already subject to lawsuits by various environmental and indigenous groups (e.g. the Gwich’in Steering Committee and Alaska Wilderness League). Alaskan Gov. Mike Dunleavy likewise expressed his dismay, citing that the region had been opened up for development in 2017.

“Our leases for oil and gas are valid and cannot be taken away by the federal government,” Dunleavy stated. “I oppose this assault on Alaska’s economy and will use every means necessary to undo this egregious federal overreach.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has continued to signal it wants to restrict traditional energy concerns — particularly if they’re thinking about operating on public lands. That has included executive orders ending any new leasing on federally owned land (or water), which has dissolved about a fourth of the nation’s oil sourcing. But it has more expansive goals to eliminate carbon emissions wherever possible and transition the United States’ economy toward something it believes will be more sustainable.

[Image: Evgenii Mitroshin/Shutterstock]

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 76 comments
  • Jeff S Jeff S on Jun 03, 2021

    Agree Master Baiter Congress needs to do its job and yes there needs to be a compromise solution that brings stability in the long run.

    • 28-Cars-Later 28-Cars-Later on Jun 03, 2021

      Is there some way I can vote for the "Master Baiter Congress" vs the current dysfunctional one?

  • Ol Shel Ol Shel on Jun 05, 2021

    The last Republican I spoke to said that Biden would outlaw all business and implant us all with microchips.

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next