In a late-game move, President Joe Biden announced a sweeping ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, covering 670 million acres of coastlines across the U.S., sparking immediate rebuke and promises of reversal from President-elect Donald Trump.
Just The News reported that the decision, made with only two weeks left in Biden's presidency, aims to block Trump's energy agenda before Trump even starts his 2nd term.
Implemented under the authority of Section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), Biden's ban targets a vast expanse of the nation's waters, including regions of the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and the Northern Bering Sea of Alaska, focusing on areas critical for environmental protection.
The oil and gas sector has vehemently opposed the ban. Significant players predict dire long-term impacts on energy production and are considering legal actions. Donald Trump, echoed this disdain, calling the ban "ridiculous" on Hugh Hewitt’s podcast and vowing to remove it as soon as he takes office, claiming, "I have the right to un-ban it immediately."
Tim Stewart, president of the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, voiced a harsh critique, claiming the outgoing administration intends to "salt the earth" by imposing restrictive measures that could hamper future governmental income from oil and gas royalties.
Biden's use of OCSLA to enact the ban, rather than an executive order, could complicate Trump's plans to reverse it. This legal framework provides a permanent prohibition, contrasting Trump’s own past attempts to impose a similar but temporary 10-year moratorium.
Such distinctions highlight the potential legal entanglements that could persist beyond Trump's term, potentially becoming mired in federal courts as evidenced by historical precedents.
The oil and gas industry, understanding the long litigious road ahead, is bracing itself for what might be an extended battle in the courts. This anticipated litigation might surpass the duration of Trump’s presidency, according to several industry analysts and leaders.
Senator Mike Lee of Utah, alongside other Congressional Republicans, has expressed a desire to combat the ban using every legislative tool at their disposal. Their main goal is to undo what they see as an overreach of executive power impacting economic and energy sectors.
On the other side of the argument, environmental advocates and some policy analysts suggest that while the ban's immediate effects on oil production might be minimal, its symbolic significance is profound as it underscores a governmental shift toward addressing the climate crisis.
Biden, though not directly quoted, emphasized that the ban’s purpose was indeed to combat the ongoing climate crisis.
Experts in the energy sector, like David Blackmon and Robert Rapier, argue over the practical and political implications of the ban. Blackmon notes that environmental groups are likely to use the courts to uphold Biden's policy throughout Trump's tenure, describing it as a "lawfare strategy."
Rapier adds that while Trump may quickly undo the ban, its brief existence could still provide him with political cover should oil production decrease.
Further complicating matters is the evolving nature of energy technology. Tim Stewart highlighted that areas deemed non-viable today might become profitable as technology advances, citing how shifts in capabilities have historically unlocked new resources.
Stewart also stressed the symbolic weight of Biden’s actions, indicating that any reversal by Trump would not be straightforward and involves more than just a simple administrative decision. The enduring effects of these policies, both environmental and regulatory, are poised to influence U.S. energy strategies well into the future.
In his broad critique, Stewart lamented Biden’s term as “forgettable” yet impactful in terms of energy policy, indicating a challenging path ahead for Trump to steer back to traditional energy policies.