The 2016 Arctic Drilling Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
WASHINGTON, DC—Resources for the Future (RFF) today continues its series of reports on the Trump administration’s efforts to repeal or modify Obama-era energy regulations. The new report assesses the costs and benefits of repealing or modifying the Arctic offshore drilling safety rule.
The Arctic Drilling Rule was promulgated in 2016 under the Obama administration. Its goal was to ensure “safe, effective, and responsible exploration” of offshore Arctic oil and gas resources. The Department of the Interior stated that it is considering “full rescission or revision” of the 2016 Obama rule in response to President Trump’s executive orders seeking to review policies that potentially burden the development of domestic energy.
RFF Senior Fellow Alan Krupnick and Research Assistant Isabel Echarte have analyzed potential impacts of repealing or modifying this rule in their report The 2016 Arctic Offshore Drilling Safety Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go? The authors state: “While we find evidence that the costs of the Arctic rule may be large enough to outweigh benefits, we likewise find that any benefits’ measures are too uncertain to accurately assess whether repealing or modifying the rule would in fact be beneficial on net. Given the lack of information, regulators should not make any adjustments that could potentially increase the risk of a spill in the Arctic, in light of the potentially catastrophic consequences. The large costs of the rule warrant further examination, as they could potentially be reduced without commensurately increasing oil spill risk. Large changes to relax the rule would, in our view, require further study to understand and estimate the added risks such a relaxation would pose. We suggest expert elicitation and stated preference methods as promising ways forward.”
The report is part of the series The Costs and Benefits of Eliminating or Modifying US Oil and Gas Regulations. The goal of this series is to estimate the potential impacts on industry and the public if the regulations are eliminated, modified, or delayed.
Read the new full report: The 2016 Arctic Offshore Drilling Safety Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
Read previous reports from this series:
PHMSA’S 2015 Tank Car Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
EPA’s 2016 Methane Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
The 2016 Blowout Preventer Systems and Well Control Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
The 2016 BLM Methane Waste Prevention Rule: Should It Stay or Should It Go?
Upcoming report:
- PHMSA’s “Pipeline Safety: Integrity Management Program for Gas Distribution Pipelines” rule
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.
