Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘President Biden’

As expected, the White House announced the largest ever permanent ban on offshore oil and gas leasing in the US, and to the best of my knowledge, anywhere in the world.

The sheer magnitude of the ban makes other such withdrawals appear modest by comparison. It’s amazing how bold Presidents (and their handlers) become when they are about to leave office.

The permanent ban includes:

  • The entire Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS): While there are no current oil and gas leases in the US Atlantic, the region is highly prospective and could contain more than 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent (BOE).
  • The Eastern Gulf of Mexico: This is the OCS area that many petroleum geologists find most attractive. The best prospects are >100 miles from shore which minimizes coastal risks, and the high natural gas potential aligns with Florida legislation supporting the use of gas for power generation.
  • The entire Pacific OCS: While the resources are substantial, their loss has been a foregone conclusion for 25 years. When you can’t even decommission old platforms or restore production on important existing facilities (i.e. the Santa Ynez Unit), how can you possibly expect to issue new leases?
  • The remainder of the OCS offshore western Alaska. The wishes of the majority of Alaskans, who support offshore exploration and development, have been largely ignored for decades.

President-elect Trump has vowed to reverse President Biden’s leasing ban, but that may not be so easy. This is not a matter of simply reversing an executive order. Sec. 12(a) of OCSLA grants the authority to withdraw lands to the President and does not provide for reversal by future Presidents. The attached NYU Law brief concludes that “a subsequent president lacks authority to restore previously withdrawn lands to the federal oil and gas leasing inventory.”

The new Administration will no doubt have a different view than that expressed in the NYU Law brief, but any reversal decision will likely be challenged in court.

Those who wrote and approved Sec. 12(a) should have had more foresight. However, 72 years ago the authors presumably thought Presidents would only use the authority to remove small, especially sensitive areas from leasing consideration, and never thought that a President would remove both of our oceans and much of the Gulf of Mexico!

Congress could of course reverse the Biden bans, but given the complexity of offshore energy issues, such legislation may be difficult to pass.

Read Full Post »

Sec. 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA, 43 U.S. Code § 1341(a)): “The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.”

As previously posted, the Sec. 12(a) authority has been cynically exercised by Presidents from both parties and should be repealed or revised.

Unsurprisingly, there are now reports that President Biden intends to permanently withdraw large areas of the OCS from leasing consideration before he leaves office in 2 weeks. Apparently, the leasing ban will include large segments of the Atlantic, Pacific, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

Sec. 12(a) facilitates (encourages?) rash, politically motivated decisions that could have major long-term implications for energy security and the economy, and allows Presidents to ignore the deliberate, multi-phase review and comment process that has been established for making leasing decisions.

Note that Presidents have exercised this authority seven times. In every case, the action was taken just prior to the end of the President’s term in office.

Questions:

  • Can a President reverse a Sec. 12(a) decision made by a predecessor? That is a massive legal question that has yet to be fully considered by the legal system.
  • Could legislative action reverse a Sec. 12(a) decision? Yes, but such legislative action would be difficult to enact (just as it would have been difficult for any of the Sec. 12(a) withdrawals to have been enacted legislatively).
  • Is a revision to Sec. 12(a) being considered? Not that I am aware of. Given that the authority has been exercised by both parties and that strong opposition is likely, a revision would be challenging.

Related:

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »