Oil and Gas – Water Policy Consulting LLC

Our Anti-Environmental President

Op-Ed by Jessica Shepherd

President Trump’s claim in September that he is “the number one environmental president since Teddy Roosevelt” is as ironic as it is galling. In truth, it would be more appropriate to call Trump the number one anti-environmental president of all time for his assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the greater environmental community.

Trump has consistently thumbed his nose at environmental protections by withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement, his ongoing attempts to reinterpret touchstone environmental laws like the Migratory Bird Act, and through his appointments of climate-change denier Scott Pruitt, and then coal and oil ally Andrew Wheeler to head the EPA.

Kowtowing to Trump, the EPA, in defiance of their name and mission “to protect human health and the environment”, has steadily given in to industry interests — waving away concerns about pesticides, reducing constraints on toxic emissions in our air and water, scrapping requirements for mining companies to set aside cleanup funds, and loosening stream-side dumping regulations on the coal industry. Moreover, Trump has signed off on watered down EPA regulations intended to limit greenhouse gas emissions by reducing fuel economy standards and doing away with limits on methane flaring for oil and gas production on public lands. And let’s not forget Trump’s push for oil and gas leasing here in Alaska with the opening of the Arctic Coastal Plain to drilling and expansion into previously off-limit areas in the National Petroleum Reserve.

Talking advantage of a dire situation, in March 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic diverted our attention, the EPA suspended enforcement of environmental regulations on companies that were deemed unable to comply with emission standards due to the pandemic. At the same time, Trump signed an executive order scaling back the review process for new projects under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Also, in March, the Department of Justice (DOJ) scraped the longstanding use of Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) to fund environmentally beneficial projects. According to the EPA “A SEP is an environmentally beneficial project that a violator voluntarily agrees to undertake in settlement of a civil penalty action, as an option to offset some portion of the monetary penalty. One goal of the SEPs is to improve the environmental health of communities that have been put at risk due to the violation of an environmental law.” SEPs were frequently used by the EPA to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. Examples include investments in local wind and solar power generation, retrofitting diesel-powered school buses with pollution control devices, the purchase of hybrid vehicles for a National Park, and funding for energy-efficient building technology for public buildings.

Thanks to the Trump Administration, the air we breathe now contains higher levels of mercury and other toxic particulate matter from vehicles and coal-fired power plants, and CO2 levels, despite a downturn at the start of the pandemic, are once again trending upward toward an ill-fated future. Faced with another four years of Trump, we’ll need to rename the EPA the “Environmental Destruction Agency” (EDA) and rewrite its mission to better reflect its new role in destroying human health and the environment.

Mind you, this is just an overview of Trump’s egregious environmental rollbacks.

If there is any good news, it’s that Trump has not been completely successful in his vendetta against established environmental safeguards. For example, his attempt to water down the Migratory Bird Treaty Act would have resulted in a reinterpretation of the law to apply only to the intentional killing of birds, laying blameless those whose actions cause the “incidental” killing of millions of birds annually through industrial activities like power line electrocutions, toxic tailing ponds, or the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill that killed more than a million birds. A federal court overturned the policy revision in August of this year.

In contrast to Trump’s crusade against the environment, Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan would invest in net-zero emissions while creating new, green energy jobs. His 110-page plan will benefit first those communities who have been most directly affected by environmental violations, especially communities of color and the Native community. The comprehensive plan promises to “take immediate action to reverse the Trump Administration’s dangerous and destructive rollbacks of critical climate and environmental protections.”

Public Lands Management Under Trump Descends into Chaoss

President Donald Trump’s appointment of William Perry Pendley as Director of the Bureau of Land Management who is openly hostile to environmental regulations, has turned into yet another legal debacle typical of the current administration. Pendley’s inflammatory statements and open opposition to social justice and diversity including for native and African American communities, statements that public lands should be privatized, conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, support of anti-government extremists and efforts to dismantle the BLM, have outraged conservation and tribal organizations throughout the western U.S. It, therefore, quickly became obvious to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt that because of Pendley’s record, there would be no way he would obtain confirmation from congress if the administration did what was legally required and nominate him for that purpose. In fact, in a procedure that the U.S. Supreme Court calls a “critical structural safeguard” of democracy, the Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that the heads of prominent federal agencies be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate” a standard that is also found in the federal Vacancies Reform Act.

Especially when it comes to dismantling environmental regulatory standards, however, the Trump administration has never been that concerned with federal law or, for that matter the U.S. Constitution and Bernhardt resolved the issue of Pendley’s radical anti-public land views, racism and support of extremists simply by repeatedly extending Pendley’s appointment as Director of the agency for the past 13 months.

As a result, in July 2020, the state of Montana and several conservation organizations filed a lawsuit to enjoin Bernhardt from continuing to extend Pendley’s status as Acting Director of BLM. This prompted Trump to finally put Pendley’s name before congress as required only to almost immediately remove it because of concerns of several republican senators in key states who are up for election about the audacity of the appointment. However, rather than remove Pendley as acting Director in accordance with with the law, Secretary Bernhardt announced that Pendley will “stay on leading BLM” as the bureau’s deputy director of policy and programs, who is also “exercising the authority of director.”

This, once again, got the attention of the Montana U.S. District Court which as part of the lawsuit filed by the state and conservationists a couple months before, promptly enjoined Pendley from exercising such authority and Bernhardt from unlawfully delegating the authority of the BLM director to him. In fact, the Court’s declaration that Pendley served unlawfully as the Acting Director of the BLM for well over a year, also meant that many of the decisions he made during that time were similarly illegal, threatening Trump’s strategy to dismantle protections of public lands and open them up to development.

Chief Judge Brian Morris found that “’any function or duty’ of the BLM Director that has been performed by Pendley would have no force and effect and must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious” and instructed DOI to compile any such acts and provide a full report to the Court. Therefore, any of the official actions Pendley took over the 424 preceding the decision including opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the National Petroleum reserve to oil drilling,” or vast acreages of public lands, including areas relied on by Native village communities for subsistence, to mining, are potentially unauthorized.

Unflagging Opposition to Business-as-Usual Extraction Practices

With Present Trump rolling back one environmental policy after another, ongoing efforts to slow global warming, safeguard wilderness, and provide clean water and air can seem futile. But never doubt that a handful of thoughtful, committed lawsuits can change the world. Indeed, it may be the only recourse that can.

We need look no farther than the Gwich’in Native community for inspiration when it comes to fighting to protect the environment. For more than thirty years they have resisted attempts to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Under Trump’s plan to open lease sales across the entire coastal plain, that fight has kicked into high gear. For the Gwich’in, the coastal plain, birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd which numbers approximately 200,000, is sacred ground. Their culture, history and way of life revolve around the caribou and the 1.5 million-acre expanse of coastal lands. Sarah James, Gwich’in elder, explains, “We have a special connection in that we are a part of the caribou and the caribou are part of us. It is our language, our songs, our dance…. We take care of the caribou, and in return, they take care of us, and that’s really important to my people here.”

The Gwich’in Sterring Committee, along with several other plaintives including Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, filed a lawsuit in late August, seeking to overturn Trump’s approval for oil leasing, and siting violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and likely impacts to the Porcupine Caribou Herd.

A second lawsuit to halt oil leasing on the Refuge filed by The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity sight insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife.

And most recently, a third lawsuit to overturn drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was filed on September 9th with the U.S. District Court in Anchorage by attorneys general for 15 states and led by Washington and Massachusetts. The lawsuit states that drilling will contribute to global climate change and its effects such as sea level rise and extreme weather events.

A number of other environmental legal battles continue in Alaska and Siberia. In North-western Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve, Trump seeks to overthrow Obama-era safeguards by expanding development into regions of the Reserve long slated for protection. Two recent lawsuits are pushing back against expanded development in NPR-A oil leasing. The lawsuits are in response to the final environmental impact statement released by the Bureau of Land Management in June allowing oil leasing on 18.7 million acres in the 23-million-acre reserve, including drilling in Teshekpuk Lake. Teshekpuk is the largest lake on the North Slope and provides critical habitat for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

And while a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council challenging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s reversal of restrictions on Pebble Mine was dismissed in US District Court, Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan has joined a growing rank of conservatives who are openly opposed to the Pebble mine project. The proposed gold, molybdenum and cooper mine, in South-central Alaska’s Lake and Peninsula region, is recognized as a threat to the nationally-significant Bristol Bay salmon fisheries. Following the release of secret recordings by Pebble executives, Sullivan stated in a tweet on September 24^th, “Let me be even more clear: I oppose Pebble Mine. No Pebble Mine.” This follows a surprise stipulation issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in late August to Dynasty Minerals Ltd requiring the mine owners to outline how they will offset damage to wetlands and any impacts to the Bristol Bay salmon fishery. Other conservatives who oppose the mine, at least as it is currently proposed, including Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Donald Trump Junior and Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

In the southern part of the state, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, and other conservation groups including the Chilkat Indian Village of Klukwan, lost lawsuits in federal district court and the Ninth Circuit court which sought to challenge federal permits issued to the Palmer mine project near Haines. The Constantine Metal Resources Ltd. obtained permits to build 2.5 miles of roads across U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands to access zinc, copper, gold and silver deposits. The lawsuit argued that BLM did not factor in future mining development at the Palmer mine and impacts on the 3,000 bald eagles and spawning salmon along the nearby Chilkat River.

In southeastern Alaska, the Trump administration is zeroing in on the Tongass National Forest, seeking to exclude this, the nation’s largest national forest, from the Clinton-era roadless rule. A much-disputed study by the U.S. Forest Service states that lifting protections “will not significantly harm the environment.” By year’s end, the Trump administration hopes to open vast tracts of pristine old growth forest to road construction and timber sales. Recent lawsuits blocking timber sales that failed to identify impacted areas, and for deficiencies in the review process have stalled the sales process several times. That pushback resulted in the Trump administration implementing the new roadless rule exemption.

Meanwhile, in the Russian far north, a lawsuit has been filed against Norilsk Nickle seeking 1.96 billion dollars in damages for a May 29^th fuel spill. The spill, blamed on melting permafrost, dumped 21,000 tons of diesel into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers which feed into Lake Pyasino before emptying into the Arctic Ocean. The spill is one of the largest ever recorded in the Arctic and has been compared with Alaska’s 1989 ExxonValdez spill, in part because both spills coincided with the spring migration — just as birds and fish are returning to their natal grounds.

The one take-away the Gwich’in can offer in this legal playing field is don’t give up. The fights for the Coastal Plains, the Tongas, and the headwaters of Bristol Bay continue, one lawsuit at a time. For Gwich’in elder Sarah James it’s straight forward. “We’re not a nonprofit. We’re not a movement. We’re not a corporation. We’re a neets’aii Gwich’in tribal government, and that’s how we’re now taking on this issue, government-to-government, and we’re standing our ground.”

There are alternatives to sacrificing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge’s coastal plain

The Trump administration recently gave the final go-ahead to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which by the end of 2020 would authorize the sale of two separate 400,000-acre oil and gas leases, encompassing a major portion of the refuge’s coastal plain and 8 percent of the 19.3 million-acre Refuge.

Opponents who have filed multiple lawsuits to stop the leasing, believe that the approval process was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts, violating prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears and laws requiring the protection of indigenous subsistence resources as well as exacerbate sea level rise, extreme weather events, the spread of diseases like and other impacts of climate change.

Alaska’s political leadership, on the other hand, seems unfazed by yet another botched Trump administration environmental analysis and the fact that more drilling in the Arctic will contribute to Alaska’s carbon footprint. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, for example, said “[t]his is a capstone moment in our decades-long push to allow for the responsible development of a small part of Alaska’s 1002 Area. … I’m confident the ROD has been developed carefully and comprehensively and look forward to the lease sales mandated by law…”

Why are our political leaders still stepping in line with President Trump’s insatiable thirst for oil no matter what the environmental cost, when economists have been warning for decades that the state is too dependent on the oil and gas industry to bail it out from spending at an unsustainable rate year after year?

It should have been obvious in the mid-1980s when global oil prices crashed sending the state into a full recession, that not only were the days of the oil and gas fueling fiscal growth over, but continuing to put all the state’s eggs in one basket would actually harm the economy. That the ongoing sugar-daddy delusion was still alive and well by 2003, however, is illustrated by then-Gov. Frank Murkowski’s announcement regarding the solution to the state’s economic crises: “Ladies and gentlemen, in a single word, it’s oil.”

Today the state’s addiction to oil is partly illustrated by the millions it provides via annual tax write-offs to oil and gas corporations who drill in Alaska but do not provide much in the way of return on this investment. in 2014, for example, the state’s largest producer, ConocoPhillips, made 68 percent of its global profits from Alaska but invested only 15 percent of its global capital in the state.

Despite the delusion of some politicians that drilling in places like ANWR could take Alaska back to the days of economic Nirvana of Prudhoe Bay, one thing that could prevent development in ANWR would be if presidential candidate Joe Biden who, if elected, has promised to “permanently protect” the refuge.

But in the end, rather than politics or litigation, it is simple economics that could stop drilling in the coastal plain. Ever sense COVID-19 — which came at a time when oil prices were already down — drove those prices to historic lows, the industry as a whole has been bleeding money, shedding jobs, and interest in drilling in the remote sites with difficult conditions, such as the Arctic refuge, may be waning.

More importantly, while oil companies are making cutbacks in drilling programs, banks
are less inclined to front them capital on future investments resulting in a vicious cycle of less funding available for future drilling. This situation has been further exacerbated by the
declaration from several global banks that they will stop financing oil and gas exploration in the Arctic due to the need to move away from fossil fuels and invest in alternative energy sources because of the rapidly increasing impacts of climate change on communities and ecosystems in the Arctic.

The good news is that with the banks turning away from fossil fuel investments while they decide what kind of energy programs could benefit from COVID-19 stimulus funding, there may not be a better chance than right now to move towards green energy. Fossils fuels have become no more than an economic dinosaur and a carbon-producing disaster, especially for the Arctic.

So, rather than sacrificing the coastal plain and Alaska’s fiscal future, why not investigate the potential local and global economic impact of renewable energy in the Arctic, including solar, and hydro and wind power as part of Alaska’s financial recovery?

This Op-ed also appeared in the September 24, 2020 edition of Arctic Today.

Lawsuits Filed on ANWR

Three lawsuits have been filed seeking to block the Trump administration’s efforts to sell oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Biological Diversity have signed off on a lawsuit sighting insufficient concern over increased greenhouse gas emissions and melting permafrost, poor air quality, and negative impacts to the region’s wildlife. The lawsuit alleges violations of the National Environmental Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Endangered Species Act. A second lawsuit, filed by the Gwich’in Steering Committee also sites violations of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and includes plaintiffs in Canada’s Yukon chapter of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. Most recently, a third lawsuit was put forth by fifteen states including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Concerns addressed in this lawsuit include habitat damage and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impacts to waterfowl hunting and a lucrative birdwatching industry for birds that breed on the Arctic plain and overwinter in the lower 48 states.

Arctic Refuge Oil Leasing Approved, Now Come the Legal Battles

Under the Trump administration, the 1.5 million-acre arctic plain on the northern edge of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now open for drilling. Next up, a call for oil lease sale nominations and industry and public comment of at least 30 days, followed by a notice of the lease sale.

Home to imperiled polar bears, the vast and far-ranging Porcupine Caribou herd, countless nesting birds, and the Gwich’in Indian Nation, this is America’s last great wilderness. After a forty-year battle to prevent oil extraction on the refuge, the announcement was a blow, but that may not be the end for this pristine ecosystem.

Opponents believe that the process for approval of drilling was rushed for political reasons resulting in a flawed and inadequate analysis of the environmental impacts in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act. In addition, they claim the approval is contrary to prohibitions on killing or harassing of polar bears under the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the protection of indigenous subsistence food-gathering rights under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Vast lakes, rivers and wetlands could be affected by drilling in the Coastal Plain through water quality impacts and mining and road building related to needed infrastructure.

Similarly, the Gwich’in Steering Committee which represents members of the Gwich’n Athabascan tribes located on both sides of the Canadian/Alaskan boarder, argues that approval of drilling violates a 1987 treaty that gives the Canadian Government oversight authority into the management of the Porcupine Caribou herd. According to Arctic Today, Steering Committee Executive Director Bernadette Demientieff the “administration has done nothing but disrespect the Indigenous peoples that have occupied these lands. Our ways of life, our food security, and our identity is not up for negotiation. The fight is not over…”^[1]

Due to the impacts of COVID-19 resulting in less transportation, which in-turned caused a drop in oil processes, oil and gas companies’ interest in drilling in remote and difficult conditions of Arctic Plain has been waning. So it remains to be see whether there will be any bids submitted on the leases. Moreover, oil-tax initiative on the ballet in Alaska in November, Ballot Measure 1 would impose a 10 percent base tax on production form large North Slope oil fields and eliminate production tax credits. And finally, major banks, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, have declared that they will not finance any development in the refuge. So the fights to save the Arctic Coastal Plain is not over yet.

Opinion – Alaska Faces an Economic Year Like no Other

Jessica Shepherd

Back in late March, when Alaska was reporting its first spate of Covid-19 cases, Reuters published a synopsis of the state’s economy. In the article Alaska State Senator Natasha von Imhof, co-chair of the Senate Finance Committee, was quoted as having said, “We are being hit on all sides with the stock market crash, oil prices plummeting and the tourism and fishing season all but idle.” To see the original article see here.

Now, nearly six months later, we wondered how Alaska was faring based on the parameters von Imhof used to measure the state’s economic resiliency. Following is an assessment of the oil industry, the Alaska Permanent Fund, tourism, and the seafood industry for mid-August. The picture is grim, but perhaps not as dire as it looked back in March.

On March 23^rd, due to a Covid-induced stall-out in all things travel-related, oil prices plummeted from a high of $69 a barrel at the first of the year to just $23 a barrel. This equated to an overnight loss to Alaska’s treasury of some $500 to $700 million dollars. Given that the industry break-even cost of production is $39 a barrel, it was cheaper to leave oil in the ground. But the worst was ahead of us. In late April oil briefly dropped to below zero due to a glut on the market. In response, ConocoPhillips, Alaska’s biggest oil producer, announced plans to reduce production by 2,000 barrels per day and institute layoffs for 250 staff. This was followed shortly thereafter by Doyon’s announcement of 300 layoffs. As we all know, oil drives Alaska’s economic engine. As of this writing, on August 10^th, oil is back up to $45 a barrel. Still well below the price at the beginning of the year, but significantly better than the March-April outlook.

Then there was the stock market dive, which sent the Permanent Fund in a tailspin. In two weeks, the fund declined by 10% to a value of $58.7 billion. Today, even after paying out a $992 dividend in July to all eligible Alaskans, the fund is back up to $64.7 billion. The stock market, which has been oddly resilient during the pandemic, has, to date, spared the fund from a sustained loss.

The tourist season was all but on hold in the spring as cruise ship companies canceled summer sailings and Canada closed the boarder to independent travelers. As a result, it’s been a quiet summer in Alaska’s tourist destinations. Restaurants remain closed or subsist on a subdued cliental of locals and in-state travelers. Alaska’s usually clogged highways are pleasantly uncongested, and towns like Cooper Landing, Telkeetna, and Skagway are eerily quiet. And the skies over communities like Homer are oddly still now that RavnAir has folded. There’s something to be said for uncrowded sidewalks and ample parking at the grocery store, but the loss in tourist dollars has many small business owners spooked. Even with relief funding and small business loans, places like the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward, the Egan Center in Anchorage, and Chena Hot Springs Resort outside of Fairbanks, along with hundreds of bed and breakfasts, hotels, restaurants and shops have laid off staff and cut expenses to the bone, and they still aren’t making ends meet. Recovery, when it comes, will take a long time, and many of our favorite small businesses may no longer be there.

Finally, the seafood industry, which, as the second largest revenue stream in the state, contributes 5.2 billion dollars to the economy annually, faced a shortage of processing plant workers early in the season due to travel restrictions placed on the non-U.S. citizens who make up a large percent of seasonal workers. Citing concerns about Covid-spread among small, medically-underserved villages, local lawmakers in the Bristol Bay region went so far as to ask the governor to cancel the fishing season this year. In response, the state mandated a 14-day quarantine for out-of-state workers, and still, cases erupted aboard fishing vessels and at processing plants in Cordova, Whittier, Seward and Kodiak. In fact, the majority of non-residential cases in Alaska have been among seafood workers. Read more about Alaska’s fishing industry and Covid-19 cases here. Salmon runs in Bristol Bay were respectable, but the initial price came in at just 60 cents a pound, compared to $1.54 last year. And in Kodiak, Prince William Sound and Cook inlet sockeye runs were disappointing. Read more about Alaska’s 2020 salmon harvest here.

One indicator von Imhof did not take into account during her March economic assessment pertains to the state’s population. Alaska’s population has decreased for three consecutive years, declining from an all-time high of 741,456 on July 1 2016, to 731,545 on July 1, 2019. Figures for 2020 will come out later this month, but given the downturn in oil revenue and jobs, tourism, and, to a lesser degree, in fisheries, it’s likely the downward trajectory will continue.

So what do we make of this information? Alaska has ridden out the first six months of the Covid-19 pandemic a little better than expected, thanks to the whims of the stock market and oil prices. Unfortunately, the private sector hasn’t fared as well, and as we approach the fall and winter with no further federal support in sight, the difficulty of keeping small businesses afloat until next year may be prove to be too much for many shops, restaurants and other service industries. They will only survive to the degree that we, as consumers, support local businesses rather than relying on Amazon.com and Walmart. Please think on that the next time you shop.

Melting Permafrost Linked to Russian Oil Spill

In late May of this year, a huge oil tank collapsed in Norilsk, an industrial city in north-central Siberia. An estimated 21,000 tons of diesel fuel spilled into the Ambarnaya and Daldykan rivers coating the water with an oily crimson layer. A failed attempt to contain the spill lead to further contamination downstream as the oil spread northward, entering the 45-mile-long Lake Pyasino, a on its way to the Arctic ocean. One of the largest spills documented in the Arctic, the Norilsk spill has been compared to Alaska’s 1989 ExxonValdez oil spill. As with the ExxonValdez, the spill occurred during spring migration, poisoning the waters just as fish and birds are returning to their natal grounds.

Russian mining firms identified melting permafrost as the culprit – destabilizing the soil under the tank. Clearly, as the arctic warms, the potential for lethal spills increases. Better surveillance of melting permafrost with inexpensive temperature probes would likely have prevented the spill. Despite the up-front costs, preventative measures save hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up efforts and safeguard wetlands and the wildlife and human inhabitants they support.

Voluntary compensation for damages from Norilsk Nickle in the amount of $148 billion rubles, or $2 billion dollars.

The Trump administration continues its push for offshore Arctic oil development

Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt and Secretary of Commerce Wilbur RossIn U.S. District Court in Anchorage recently, filed notice that they are appealing the March 29 ruling that threw out Trump’s executive action reopening closed Arctic and Atlantic waters to oil leasing.

In that ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason said Trump violated the law with a 2017 executive order that reversed President Obama’s actions withdrawing most U.S. Arctic waters and portions of the Atlantic Ocean from the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program. Presidents have the right under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw areas from leasing, but adding areas to the leasing program requires Congressional action, Gleason said in her ruling.

The ruling erected a new hurdle to a planned 2019 Beaufort Sea lease sale and threw the Trump administration’s entire five-year leasing plan into question

Trump Administration’s Alaska ANWR Strategy Hits Speed-Bump

Memos drafted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifying outdated vegetation maps and studies of the impact of oil development on caribou, insufficient air quality modeling, and studies of the impacts of the development on Polar bears, could expose the Trump administration to litigation. The memos were hidden from public view until environmentalist published them the day before the comment period ended on the Trump administration’s draft study of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The significance of the USFWS comments are the legal leverage they will provide to environmental groups who have vehemently opposed drilling in ANWR and will not be able to resist the administration’s criticism of it’s own plan to challenge the leasing plan in federal court.

According to Dermat Cole, an Artic Today columnist “It’s ironic that ever since the approval by Congress in late 2017 of oil leasing in ANWR, the biggest threat to oil leasing in ANWR has been the Trump administration. It’s willingness to cut corners to make oil drilling a reality before the next shift in the political winds in Washington, D.C. has come at the expense of the careful analysis required by law.”

Because the Obama administration, did not study the relationship of the issues raised in the comments because there was no chance of oil and gas drilling taking place in ANWR, the lack of such analysis is the primary weakness in the Trump plan.

Yet, the Trump administration has only compounded the potential for legal violations of drilling in ANWR by rushing the drilling proposal through the required rigorous environmental review due to potential threats to water quality and critical habitat, by planning to start auctioning off oil leases within a few months. In record time to assess the complex and potentially irreversible impacts on endangered species including caribou and polar bear, in a recent speech at the annual conference of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Joe Balash, Interior’s assistant secretary for land and minerals management said the environmental impact statement for ANWR coastal plain leasing drafted by the Bureau of Land Management, will be followed by a final environmental impact statement “by the end of this summer… And once we have a final EIS we’ll be in a position to issue a record of decision and notice of lease sale. And that lease sale will happen in 2019.”

Pointing out that federal agencies typically take much longer than a few months to address public comments on a draft EIS, Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska Wilderness League says that “[i]n the history of environmental reviews, there’s been nothing like this” and that the BLM’s record breaking short timeline for ANWR “They’ll be very vulnerable to legal challenges.