Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas Development

Curry L. Hagerty
Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy

Moratoria measures for the outer continental shelf (OCS) establish bans or restrictions on oil and gas exploration and development in federal ocean areas. With some exceptions for marine sanctuaries and monuments, no portion of the federal OCS has a permanent moratorium on oil and gas leasing and development. While some areas are under temporary development bans, such as suspensions or moratoria directed by either legislative or executive powers, most of the OCS is free of such restrictions and is considered permissible for offshore leasing activity.

Aspects of moratorium policy (either establishing or lifting temporary bans on oil and gas exploration and development) are derived from legislative and executive powers to direct offshore leasing activities. A shift in both legislative and executive moratorium policy during the 111th Congress signaled an end to measures that had banned development in some OCS areas since the early 1980s. Legislative moratoria enacted annually by Congress for about 27 years as part of the Department of the Interior appropriations acts expired on September 30, 2008. In areas where OCS leasing restrictions were changed, some preliminary oil and gas leasing activity has commenced, but no lease sales have been held.

Support for three national objectives coalesced in 2009, resulting in the removal of most congressional and executive constraints on oil and gas exploration and development: (1) promoting domestic energy production to improve the nation’s energy security, (2) enhancing federal revenue, and (3) spurring innovation and diversification in ocean energy technologies to help create new jobs. The shift in moratorium policy, along with two other developments—the start of federal offshore renewable ocean energy projects (e.g., offshore wind farms) and expanded oil and gas prospecting in deepwater areas—increased the responsibilities of the federal offshore energy program.

Around the world, changing ocean energy policies are affecting how nations govern offshore areas. Economic pressures and technological advances are driving changes in moratorium policy as the global search for energy reaches into deeper ocean waters. A number of countries are revisiting policies about offshore areas, and some countries are making claims to expand their reach for offshore resources. One venue for claims of this nature is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although the United States has not ratified UNCLOS, the State Department has taken measures to address the U.S. extended continental shelf areas in a manner not inconsistent with the UNCLOS process. These measures signal changes in U.S. policies about moratorium areas.

In the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the regulatory context is unsettled, and policymakers are considering many different offshore program options to restore normalcy in the Gulf region. Due to uncertainty regarding recent developments in the Gulf of Mexico, the role of moratorium policy, among other policy alternatives, is unclear. From this perspective, how or if moratorium policy will be a consideration during the 112th Congress is a matter of conjecture.


Date of Report: March 23, 2011
Number of Pages: 19
Order Number: R41132
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Keeping America’s Pipelines Safe and Secure: Key Issues for Congress

Paul W. Parfomak
Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy

Nearly half a million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids crisscross the United States. While an efficient and fundamentally safe means of transport, many pipelines carry materials with the potential to cause public injury and environmental damage. The nation’s pipeline networks are also widespread and vulnerable to accidents and terrorist attack. The 2006 partial shutdown of the Prudhoe Bay, AK, oil field, and the 2010 pipeline accidents in San Bruno, CA, and Marshall, MI, have heightened congressional concern about pipeline risks. Both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety and security over the last 10 years. While many stakeholders agree that federal pipeline safety programs have been on the right track, recent pipeline incidents suggest there continues to be room for improvement. Likewise, the threat of terrorist attack on U.S. pipelines remains a concern.

The federal pipeline safety program was authorized through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and is currently operating under a continuing resolution. The Pipeline Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2011 (S. 275) would reauthorize the program through FY2014.

The 112th Congress is considering new legislation to improve the safety and security of the U.S. pipeline network. The Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011 (S. 234) would increase the number of federal pipeline safety inspectors, would require automatic shutoff valves for natural gas pipelines, and would mandate internal inspections of transmission pipelines, among other provisions. S. 275 would increase federal pipeline safety inspectors, would require automatic or remote controlled shutoff valves on new gas pipelines, would require public access to pipeline emergency response plans, and would increase civil penalties for pipeline safety violations, among other provisions. The Pipeline Safety and Community Empowerment Act of 2011 (H.R. 22) would require automatic or remote shut-off valves for many pipelines and public disclosure of pipeline locations, among other provisions.

As Congress debates reauthorization of the federal pipeline safety program and oversees the federal role in pipeline security, key questions may be raised concerning pipeline agency staff resources, automatic pipeline shutoff valves, penalties for pipeline safety violations, and the possible need for pipeline security regulations. In addition to these specific issues, Congress may wish to assess how the various elements of U.S. pipeline safety and security activity fit together in the nation’s overall strategy to protect transportation infrastructure. Pipeline safety and security necessarily involve many groups: federal agencies, oil and gas pipeline associations, large and small pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an oversight challenge for Congress.


Date of Report: March 17, 2011
Number of Pages: 33
Order Number: R41536
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Nuclear Power Plant Sites: Maps of Seismic Hazards and Population Centers

Anthony Andrews
Specialist in Energy and Defense Policy

Currently, 104 commercial nuclear power plants operate on 64 sites in the 48 contiguous United States. 1 Sixty-nine of the 104 are pressurized water reactors (PWR) and the 35 remaining are boiling water reactors (BWR). The PWR plants are based on Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, and Westinghouse designs. The BWR plants are based on a series of General Electric designs. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received 28 Combined License (COL) applications for new reactors based on advanced reactor designs (Table 2). Three COL applications will involve new sites.

CRS determined the coordinates of plant sites using web-based applications and overlaid the sites on base maps of: 

1. Quaternary faults, 
2. Seismic hazards in terms of percent gravitational acceleration, 
3. Levels of horizontal ground shaking (gravitational acceleration) that have a 2-in- 100 (2%) probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period, and 
4. Metropolitan populations 

To map the proximity of plant sites to faults (Figure 1), CRS referred to the USGS Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.2 This database contains information on faults and associated folds in the United States that are believed to be sources of greater than magnitude 6 (M>6) earthquakes during the Quaternary (the past 1,600,000 years). It is important to note that this map is not a prediction of an earthquake event.

To map the proximity of plant sites to seismic hazards (Figure 2), CRS referred to the USGS Seismic Hazard Map for the United States.3 This map displays quantitative information about seismic ground motion hazards as horizontal ground acceleration (in terms of gravitational acceleration) of a particle at ground level moving horizontally during an earthquake. It is important to note that this map is not a prediction of an earthquake event.

To map the proximity of plant sites to geographic areas with levels of horizontal shaking having a 2% probability of being exceeded in a 50-year period (Figure 3), CRS referred to the 2008 United States National Seismic Hazard Maps.4 The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps incorporate the latest findings on earthquake ground shaking, faults, seismicity, and geodesy to display earthquake ground motions for various probability levels across the United States. The resulting maps are derived from seismic hazard curves calculated on a grid of sites across the United States that describe the frequency of exceeding a set of ground motions. The Seismic Hazard maps are the basis for seismic design provisions of building codes to allow buildings, highways, and critical infrastructure to withstand earthquake shaking without collapse.5 The NRC requires that every nuclear plant be designed for site-specific ground motions that are appropriate for their site locations. In addition, the NRC has specified a minimum ground motion level to which nuclear plants must be designed. For further information about nuclear power plant siting criteria, refer to 10 Code of Federal Regulation, Appendix A to Part 100— Seismic and Geologic Sitting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants. It is important to note that this map is not a prediction of an earthquake event.

For further information about earthquake hazards, refer to CRS Report RL33861, Earthquakes: Risk, Detection, Warning, and Research, by Peter Folger.


Date of Report: March 29, 2011
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: R41729
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Clean Energy Standard: Design Elements, State Baseline Compliance and Policy Considerations

Phillip Brown
Analyst in Energy Policy

During his State of the Union speech on January 25, 2011, President Obama announced an energy goal for the country: “By 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources.” The White House, on February 3, 2011, released a Clean Energy Standard (CES) framework focused on U.S. electricity generation. The framework describes the fundamental goals and objectives of such a policy to include doubling clean electricity, sustaining and creating jobs, and driving clean energy innovation.

Congress, if it chooses to take up CES legislation, will likely sort through and evaluate a number of policy options that might be considered during the formulation of a federal Clean Energy Standard policy. Understanding previous CES proposals, the Administration’s CES policy framework, state-level baseline CES compliance, and policy considerations might assist a CES debate during the 112th Congress. These areas are the focus of this report.

CES and related concepts have been debated for more than a decade and several Clean/Renewable Energy Standard proposals were offered during the 111th Congress, although none became law. The scope of this report includes a comparative analysis of four proposals of the 111th Congress: S. 20, Clean Energy Standard Act of 2010; S. 3464, Practical Energy and Climate Plan Act of 2010; S. 3813, Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010; and a substitute amendment offered for H.R. 2454, American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This analysis, which illustrates commonality and key differences among the legislative proposals, includes an assessment of each bill based on a uniform set of design elements. While the proposals considered generally agree on the definition of “renewable energy” (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.), they differ on certain policy aspects including (1) base quantities of electricity, (2) target/goal for the standard, and (3) alternative compliance payments, among others.

The Administration’s proposal states that 40% of delivered electricity is generated from “clean energy” sources today and 80% should be generated from clean energy sources by 2035. Clean energy sources are defined to include (1) renewable energy, (2) nuclear power, and (3) partial credits for clean coal and efficient natural gas. However, the amount of partial credits received by clean coal and efficient natural gas generation is not explicitly defined.

CRS analysis of 2009 electricity generation data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) also suggested that 40% of electricity generated could considered clean energy if renewable energy, nuclear power, and 50% of electricity generated from natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants are classified as clean energy. Further analysis of EIA data assessed the amount of clean energy generation in each state. This work revealed differences among the states regarding existing clean energy generation, with some states currently generating more than 80% of electricity from such clean energy sources and other states generating less than 5%.

Finally, the Clean Energy Standard debate involves several policy design options that Congress might consider, including (1) Should the policy credit existing and/or incremental clean energy generation? (2) What should be the value of alternative compliance payments? (3) Should utility companies of a certain size be exempt? (4) Should preference be given to renewable energy generation? and (5) Which generation sources would qualify as clean energy? These, and other, policy options are presented and discussed in this report.


Date of Report: March 25, 2011
Number of Pages: 24
Order Number: R41720
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary

Gene Whitney
Section Research Manager

Carl E. Behrens
Specialist in Energy Policy

Carol Glover
Information Research Specialist

Discussions of U.S. and global energy supply refer to oil, natural gas, and coal using several terms that may be unfamiliar to some. The terms used to describe different types of fossil fuels have technically precise definitions, and misunderstanding or misuse of these terms may lead to errors and confusion in estimating energy available or making comparisons among fuels, regions, or nations.

Fossil fuels are categorized, classified, and named using a number of variables. Naturally occurring deposits of any material, whether it is fossil fuels, gold, or timber, comprise a broad spectrum of concentration, quality, and accessibility (geologic, technical, and cultural). Terminology is adopted to reflect those characteristics.

For oil and natural gas, a major distinction in measuring quantities of energy commodities is made between proved reserves and undiscovered resources. Proved reserves are those amounts of oil, natural gas, or coal that have been discovered and defined, typically by drilling wells or other exploratory measures, and which can be economically recovered. In the United States, proved reserves are typically measured by private companies, who report their findings to the Energy Information Administration, and also to the Securities and Exchange Commission because they are considered capital assets. In addition to the volumes of proved reserves are deposits of oil and gas that have not yet been discovered, which are called undiscovered resources. The term has a specific meaning: undiscovered resources are amounts of oil and gas estimated to exist by examining geologic characteristics in unexplored areas. If they are considered to be recoverable using existing production technologies, they are referred to as undiscovered technically recoverable resources (UTRR). In-place resources are intended to represent all of the oil, natural gas, or coal contained in a formation or basin without regard to technical or economic recoverability.

In the United States, certain institutions are designated to determine and report quantities of oil, natural gas, and coal reserves and undiscovered resources. Other institutions also estimate these values, but differences in estimating methodology can produce significantly different values.

U.S. proved reserves of oil total 22.3 billion barrels, and reserves of natural gas total 283.9 trillion cubic feet. Undiscovered technically recoverable oil in the United States is 134.5 billion barrels, and undiscovered technically recoverable natural gas is 1,176.2 trillion cubic feet. The demonstrated reserve base for coal is 486 billion short tons, of which 261 billion short tons are considered technically recoverable.

Comparisons of different fuel types can be made by converting all of them to a common unit, such as barrels of oil equivalent, based on their heat content. The amounts of fossil fuels found in other nations as reserves and undiscovered resources are much more difficult to determine reliably because data are sometimes lacking or unreliable, but gross comparisons of national endowments can be made using available data.


Date of Report: March 25, 2011
Number of Pages: 28
Order Number: R40872
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press  or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.