Overview
Title
Revising the Outer Continental Shelf Planning Areas To Address Jurisdictional Changes
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has added one more section in the ocean where they plan for oil and gas activities, so now there are 27 sections instead of 26. But even with more sections, the total size is a bit smaller than before.
Summary AI
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has announced changes to its Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas. These areas are defined sections of the ocean floor used for planning oil and gas activities. Due to updates in U.S. maritime boundaries and new policies, BOEM has expanded its planning areas from 26 to 27, even though the overall acreage has decreased slightly. This change includes the addition of a new "High Arctic Planning Area" and updates to the boundaries in the Gulf of America.
Abstract
This notice informs the public that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has made modifications to its Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas, which are geographic subdivisions of the OCS that BOEM uses for planning and administrative purposes for oil and gas activities. The OCS Lands Act (OCSLA) is the primary authority that provides BOEM with jurisdiction covering the entire OCS. As described below, changes to the boundaries of this jurisdiction have occurred since BOEM last established these subdivisions, and BOEM has modified its planning areas to account for these changes. As a result, the total number of OCS planning areas has increased from 26 to 27. The total acreage for the OCS planning areas has decreased, from approximately 1.72 billion acres to 1.68 billion acres, which does not include the OCS offshore the U.S. Territories and Hawaii. The U.S. Territories and Hawaii OCS areas, accounting for approximately 1.48 billion acres, are not considered for oil and gas leasing, so have not been designated as "planning areas." Additional information can be found at https:// www.boem.gov/oil-gas-energy/leasing/outer-continental-shelf.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register is a notice from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), a division of the Interior Department, regarding changes to the planning areas on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for oil and gas activities. These changes came about due to updates in U.S. maritime boundaries and relevant policies. Notably, the number of planning areas increased from 26 to 27, accompanied by a slight reduction in total acreage from 1.72 billion to 1.68 billion acres. Additionally, a new planning area named the "High Arctic Planning Area" has been introduced, and the Gulf of Mexico has been renamed the Gulf of America.
Summary of the Document
The BOEM has revised the Outer Continental Shelf's planning areas to adapt to jurisdictional changes. These planning areas are crucial geographic subdivisions aiding in oil and gas management activities. Despite the increase in the number of planning areas, the total acreage has slightly decreased. This recalibration follows updates from the U.S. Department of State about the outer limits of the continental shelf and amendments to the OCS Lands Act. This document highlights the jurisdictional adjustments needed to accommodate these new legal and geographical realities.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document lacks clarity on several fronts. It fails to explain the financial and administrative implications of creating a new planning area. The specifics of how existing leases may be affected or how future leasing opportunities would be shaped by these changes are not clearly detailed. Moreover, the rationale behind certain changes, such as the name change from Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, is not explored. While the document mentions a reduction in total acreage, the reason for this is not fully articulated, which might leave readers questioning the basis of these changes.
Additionally, the document references announcements and executive orders without detailing their content, potentially leaving key context underexplained. This omission could prevent readers from grasping the full implications of the changes. Furthermore, the decision to exclude areas offshore of U.S. Territories and Hawaii from planning considerations lacks a detailed explanation, which could be important for stakeholders and the public to understand.
Potential Public and Stakeholder Impact
Broadly, the modifications to the OCS planning areas could impact energy strategies, particularly regarding oil and gas activities. These changes might adjust how and where drilling activities occur, potentially affecting economic activities, especially in regions close to the newly defined or renamed areas.
For specific stakeholders like companies involved in offshore drilling, these adjustments could mean reviewing current operations and considering the impact on future ventures. They could experience either opportunities due to newly available tracts or face challenges if operations are influenced by boundary shifts.
Conversely, environmental groups might view these revisions with concern, especially if they lead to increased drilling activities in sensitive regions such as the High Arctic. These groups may call for more transparent justifications for the planning area changes and advocate for stricter regulatory controls.
Overall, while the changes underscore compliance with legal and geographic updates, the implications for environmental oversight, economic activities, and jurisdictional clarity require more detailed examination and communication to the public and interested stakeholders.
Issues
• The document does not provide clarity on the financial implications of creating a new OCS planning area and how the budget will be managed for this additional planning area.
• There is a lack of detailed information on the specific changes to the boundaries of the OCS Regions and their impact on existing leases or future leasing opportunities.
• The document does not specify how changes to jurisdictional boundaries will affect ongoing or future oil and gas activity approvals and oversight.
• The reason for the decrease in total acreage from 1.72 billion acres to 1.68 billion acres is not clearly explained.
• There is mention of a name change from Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, but the rationale for the name change is not provided, nor its possible implications.
• The notice references a December 21, 2023, U.S. Department of State announcement. Specific details from that announcement are not included, which might leave the reader without context.
• The decision not to include OCS offshore the U.S. Territories and Hawaii as planning areas is noted, but additional explanation on why these areas are excluded from consideration for leasing is lacking.
• The document references changes to boundaries that involve international jurisdiction, but does not detail how changes align with international agreements or treaties.
• The complexity of legal and bureaucratic language used in the notice could be challenging for lay readers to fully comprehend without specialized knowledge.
• The document relies on external references (e.g., Executive Order 14172), and accessing these documents is necessary for a full understanding, which could be cumbersome for readers.