User:Alanam9/sandbox

Offshore oil drilling in the Arctic[edit]

High-profile events during the Obama presidency focused attention on the safety of deepwater oil drilling in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the U.S. The April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform, operated by BP, and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurred shortly after the Interior Department released a five-year plan for oil and gas development of the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS).[6] President Obama appointed a bipartisan committee to determine the causes of the blowout and to recommend policies to prevent future disasters.[7] Just one month after the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, in May of 2008 U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar imposed a 6 month moratorium on all permits to drill new deepwater wells[8]. The purpose of the moratorium was to address both environmental and safety concerns. By October 2008 the moratorium was lifted but new rules were issued by DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement[9]. One of the requirements set forth by the Bureau was that all offshore oil operators were required to submit new applications proving that they were in compliance with the new more stringent rules. In 2015 the Royal Dutch Shell oil company announced their indefinite suspension of drilling in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska because of their insufficient findings of oil in the region. Obama faced controversy over the continued exploration because of potential effects on the ecosystem.

Still unsatisfied with the new rules pertaining to offshore oil, in 2015, hundreds of kayakers, led by a canoe from the Lummi Nation, protested further plans to drill for oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea. They surrounded a drilling rig in waters off Seattle, Washington and prevented its departure.[10][11] They were concerned that the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico spill could transpire in the Arctic and that if it did the consequences would be much worse. Biologists at the Pew Research Center suggest that oil spilled in the Arctic would remain there much longer than if it spilled in a warmer part of the world because it would take longer to evaporate and there is a high likelihood that it could get trapped under sea ice where biological degradation is slow to occur.[12][13] Crude oil spilled in the Arctic would not be weathered quickly compared to other areas of the oceans; oil trapped under sea ice would not lose its toxicity while drifting on the surface because it is unable to disperse amongst the water column. In terms of wildlife recovery, many Arctic species, particularly mammals, have slow growth rates and low reproduction rates; sea birds would also be largely effected by spilled oil in the Arctic. Their susceptibility to population decline is much higher. The lack of a spill response team also worries those who oppose drilling in the Arctic[14].

In December, 2016, under the authority of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, a new Arctic policy of Barack Obama included actions to remove almost all U.S. Arctic waters (as well as large portions of the NW Atlantic continental shelf) from the offshore oil program.[15] Ten days after the 2016 presidential election, the Interior Department released its 2017-2022 plan for offshore oil and gas leasing.[16] Shortly after Obama’s announcement Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau outlawed the potential to expand offshore drilling in Canada’s Arctic waters. This move by both Obama and Trudeau affirmed the need for protection of Arctic resources and the shift in reliance on offshore oils to more sustainable energy sources.[17] Early 2017, President Trump made an effort to try and expand offshore oil and gas development by imposing an executive order to lift the Obama Administration ban on drilling in the Arctic and NW Atlantic Oceans, as well as begin a five year development plan for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2019 US District Court Judge, Sharon Gleason, ruled the order "unlawful and invalid" because it "exceed[s] the President's authority", as the withdrawal can only be revoked by Congress.