willow project thesis

•   MINDS@UW Home
• MINDS@UW Madison
• College of Letters and Science, University of Wisconsin–Madison
• Department of Geography
• UW Geography Senior Honors Theses

Settlement Colonialism: ANCSA, the Willow Project, and Colonial-Capitalism in Alaska’s North Slope

Permanent Link

Description.

Social Navigation

Willow Project

Top 10 Things to Know

Correcting the Myths and Misinformation

After decades of study, research and planning, Willow is the ideal project for a rational energy policy that supports the energy transition and U.S. energy security by producing reliable, low emissions-intensity oil from a petroleum reserve. Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about the project. Here, we compile a list of key facts about Willow to address myths and correct misinformation.

1. The Willow project is not a “carbon bomb.”

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that Willow will create only a fraction of 1% of all U.S. emissions.

The vast majority of those – approximately 0.1% of 2019 U.S. annual emissions, or 0.3% of anticipated 2030 U.S. annual emissions – will come from consumer end-use products such as gasoline for cars, diesel for tractors and fuel oil for home heating. These emissions, known as “Scope 3 emissions,” are not from sources owned or controlled by ConocoPhillips. In other words, even if Willow weren’t developed, these emissions would still occur because fuel is still needed in the United States – but in that case the economic benefits of producing the needed energy would accrue elsewhere.

• Willow will use modern technology and practices to minimize operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Government data indicates Willow direct (Scope 1 and Scope 2) emissions from the Final SEIS would be lower than 709 other GHG emitters in the U.S.
• The BLM concluded that Willow’s annualized direct and net indirect emissions (4.3 million tonnes per year) are comparable to approximately one theoretical coal-fired power plant.

2. The Willow project will not use “chillers.”

Responsible North Slope development – including Willow infrastructure – uses what are known as passive thermosyphons, which allow ground heat to transfer out of the permafrost. These devices are not “chillers” as some have falsely claimed. They are standard Arctic engineering devices that have been in use since the 1960s, and are commonly used when constructing buildings, railroads, bridges and subsistence ice cellars. They require no external power supply.

• Passive thermosyphons are simple devices, usually vertical sealed pipes that are partially embedded in the permafrost. Pressurized two-phase gas (typically natural refrigerants such as CO 2 or NH 3 ) moves through the sealed closed-loop system, driven by the difference in temperature between the cold winter air and the warmer ground temperature. As the vapor/condensate moves, heat is transferred out of the permafrost. Read more about thermosyphons and how they work here .

3. Alaska Native groups support the Willow project.

The North Slope and Alaska Native communities closest to Willow have voiced strong support for the project. In order to gather comments on the project from the people closest to Willow’s proposed site, ConocoPhillips participated in multiple years of engagement including over 150 in-person meetings with local residents and stakeholders, and the BLM held 25 public hearings in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nuiqsut, Utqiagvik, Atqasuk and Anaktuvuk Pass. Feedback from these meetings shaped the design of the project.

• Ensuring Willow will have minimal impact on the subsistence lifestyle of Alaska Native residents is a priority. As a result, many subsistence mitigation measures were built into the project design, including road access for local community members, boat launches, subsistence road pullouts and subsistence trails.
• Multi-year baseline studies in the Willow area found subsistence harvests have remained at or above previous levels for the duration of ConocoPhillips existing operations near Nuiqsut. These studies will continue throughout the Willow project’s lifetime.

4. The Willow project is on land that the federal government designated for petroleum development and is subject to strict environmental protection requirements.

Willow is located on the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) , land which was set aside 100 years ago specifically for petroleum development. Roughly the size of Indiana, the NPR-A covers approximately 23 million acres. The Willow gravel footprint is 385 acres, which is less than 0.002% of the total NPR-A. In the area where development will occur, activities are comprehensively regulated to protect air, water, wildlife and other valuable public resources.

• The BLM NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan outlines hundreds of mandatory mitigation and study requirements. Additionally, the inaugural state of Alaska sustainability report, “The Alaska Standard,” details the strict environmental protections in place, including anti-flaring regulations and spill prevention.

5. Willow was designed to co-exist with wildlife.

ConocoPhillips maintains strict operational requirements for wildlife protection, building on a four-decade track record of continuous engineering improvements to avoid and minimize wildlife impacts in our operating fields on the North Slope. Science-based engineering design features at Willow include seven-foot-high pipelines as well as road and pipeline separation to allow for continued caribou movement and herd distribution. Additionally, to minimize the risk of hazards to birds, there are no power lines at Willow.

All permanent Willow infrastructure is outside of designated polar bear critical habitat. Polar bears are not expected in the Willow area, which is inland from the coast. Willow was also designed to have minimal impacts on fish and to subsistence fishers. Facilities are designed to be greater than 500 feet from fish-bearing water.

• The company works with respected scientific firms on a variety of studies and monitoring programs including air quality, wildlife (caribou, birds, polar bears and fish), archaeology, subsistence, habitat mapping, hydrology and water quality. These studies and data are provided to regulatory agencies in connection with permitting and to document compliance and are reflected in the Willow project plans. Reports from these studies and monitoring efforts are available to the public on the North Slope Science Initiative website .

6. Alaska’s entire bipartisan U.S. Congressional delegation supports the Willow project.

Alaska’s entire U.S. Congressional delegation — Democrats and Republicans — supports Willow because of the benefits it will provide to the state of Alaska and Alaska Native communities, while also enhancing U.S. energy security.

• Hear from the bipartisan Alaskan U.S. Congressional delegation here .
• Hear from the first Alaska Native representative in Congress, Representative Mary Peltola, here .

7. The Alaska legislature unanimously approved the Willow project.

The Alaska state legislature unanimously adopted a resolution supporting Willow, urging President Biden and the Department of Interior to approve the project.

• Read the Alaska State Legislature’s unanimous resolution in support of the Willow project, here .

8. The Willow project will provide critical revenues for Alaska starting on day one.

Willow could generate between $8 billion and $17 billion in new revenue for the North Slope Borough and local communities, as well as the state of Alaska and the federal government, according to U.S. BLM estimates. The project is also projected to create 2,500 construction jobs and 300 long-term jobs.

• Federal legislation requires 50% of federal revenue from the NPR-A be made available through the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grant Program to local communities , which provides significant social and environmental justice benefits by funding city operations, youth programs and essential community projects which in turn create local jobs.
• Property taxes from the Willow project will help fund essential services such as schools, emergency response capabilities, health clinics, drinking water, wastewater, roads, power and solid waste disposal.

9. The Willow project will reduce American dependence on foreign oil.

The BLM found that if Willow doesn’t proceed, 52% of the replacement energy will be oil imported from foreign sources . Most, if not all, of the foreign sources would have lower environmental and GHG standards — and must be transported to the U.S., an additional emissions impact.

This information is detailed in the BLM market substitution analysis . Simply put, Willow’s projected production will reduce American reliance on foreign supply and support U.S. energy security by producing reliable, low emissions-intensity oil from an existing petroleum reserve.

10. The world will need oil for decades to come.

Credible net-zero projections show significant demand for oil for decades to come. The International Energy Agency’s “Net Zero by 2050” pathway shows global oil demand at 24 million barrels per day in 2050 – considerably less than today but also approximately twice what is currently produced by the U.S. During the transition, energy should come from the best possible projects and sources.

• Given this reality, it’s important to develop projects that adhere to strict environmental standards. The Willow project was studied for years before its eventual permitting and evolved based on input from Alaska Native residents and results from baseline studies.
• ConocoPhillips acquired the first Willow-area leases in 1999 and began the development permitting process in 2018. Since then, the project has undergone multiple years of rigorous regulatory review and environmental analysis.
• If Willow were not developed, other countries would produce that oil to meet demand, which means we would be sending jobs, tax revenue and other economic benefits to other countries.

Generating PDF

Your pdf is ready.

What To Know About the Just-Approved $8B Willow Project’s Potential Impact on the Planet

The project is an $8 billion development venture that will allow ConocoPhillips, a crude oil producer, to drill into the underground reservoir of oil in the region and extract 600 million barrels of oil.

On March 13th, the Biden Administration approved the Willow Project after decades of legal debates. This massive development project stands to transform a portion of the northern Alaskan landscape into a facility capable of pumping out over 180,000 barrels of oil per day over a 30-year timespan , according to ConocoPhillips.

The Willow project stands to negatively impact the surrounding wildlife habitats and Alaska Native communities, in addition to the prospect climate-focused progress.

Proponents point out that the project stands to create an estimated 2,800 jobs and generate between $8 and 17 billion in revenue for the federal government, the state of Alaska, and the North Slope Borough communities.

{{post.sponsorText}}

The project is at odds with President Biden’s climate goals to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035 . It also stands to negatively impact the surrounding wildlife habitats and Alaska Native communities, in addition to the prospect climate-focused progress.

Why was the Willow project approved?

Most of the land in the NPR-A is federally owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and is legally available to lease for oil and mining. ConocoPhillips acquired the leases to the land back in the 1990s , and in 2020, the Trump Administration gave the green light for drilling.

However, Sharon Gleason , chief judge on the U.S. District Court of Alaska, reversed this decision in 2021 , citing that the environmental analysis was flawed and failed to properly measure greenhouse gas emissions. The BLM then performed a supplemental analysis to address gaps in the initial plan.

The Biden Administration has approved this project to appease the oil company and stay “consistent with the terms of existing leases,” according to the BLM's Record of Decision . The project also received high praise from both Democratic and Republican Alaskan lawmakers for its potential to drive economic revenue and job creation.

It’s worth noting that the Biden Administration didn't grant the Willow project full approval. Originally, ConocoPhillips proposed to operate five drill sites, but the approved pared-down version of the plan includes three sites. The aim here is to mitigate negative impact on wildlife habitat by reducing the surface footprint by cutting out things like roads. While this may be an environmentally preferred alternative than more invasive proposals of the plan, it still comes with a whole host of problems.

Potential negative impacts of the Willow project to know about

Nonprofit environmental groups, like Earthjustice and the Wilderness Society , have critiqued the Willow project for its short- and long-term environmental and social justice ramifications for local communities. With regard to the social justice component, officials from the City of Nuiqsut and Native Village of Nuiqsut, which sits on the border of the National Petroleum Reserve, oppose the development due to concerns for their health and way of life . According to a statement by the U.S. Department of the Interior , even the BLM has concerns about the project, including “direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to wildlife and Alaska Native subsistence.”

This project has indirect emissions of 239 million metric tons of CO2, which is equivalent to the total annual electricity use of over 30 million homes. Environmental analysis also found that this project would also release black carbon (pM2.5), which research has found to have toxic effects on the health of community members near the pollution source. “If the BLM knows that our health is deteriorating, how can it in good conscience allow an activity to go forward, which will make our health worse?” ask Nuiqsut city mayor Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, vice mayor Carl Brower, and president of the Native Village of Nuiqsut Eunice Brower in a joint letter to the Department of the Interior .

Not only would the drilling and extraction release harmful levels of greenhouse gases into the air when the U.S. should be reducing our emissions for climate-protection efforts , but the associated infrastructure to produce and transport the oil would be massive. The final proposal selected by the Biden Administration includes 199 oil wells, 89.6 miles of pipeline, hundreds of miles of roads, bridges, boat ramps, an airstrip, a central processing facility, and a gravel mine site—among other required developments. These roadways and landscape changes stand to stress out animals, potentially altering the migration and movement patterns of caribou, wolves, and thousands of bird species.

That could yield an ecological disaster, and it would also impact the Nuiqsut population’s harvest access and ability to support themselves. A 2018 analysis found that the effects on subsistence and sociocultural systems of oil drilling in the region may be highly adverse and disproportionately born by the Nuiqsut population. According to the document, rapid modernization associated with a huge development boom (think: noise and air pollution and increased human activity) could increase stress levels and exacerbate mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression.

But while President Biden’s approval gives the go-ahead for ConocoPhillips to start building, we won’t see any oil pumped from the ground until the infrastructure is in place. In the meantime, environmental organizations and law groups are saddling up for a series of legal battles to attempt to delay development. Now is the time for concerned citizens to make their voices heard, whether through social media campaigns like #StopWillow (on platforms including Instagram and TikTok ), via donation to nonprofit organizations like Earthjustice and Wilderness Society, or otherwise getting involved in the efforts such orgs support. Because what do jobs and money matter when the health of the planet hangs in the balance?

Loading More Posts...

The Beach Is My Happy Place—and Here Are 3 Science-Backed Reasons It Should Be Yours, Too

Your official excuse to add "OOD" (ahem, out of doors) to your cal.

4 Mistakes That Are Causing You to Waste Money on Skin-Care Serums, According to an Esthetician

These Are the Best Anti-Chafing Denim Shorts—According to Some Very Happy Reviewers

{{ successMessage }}

Please wait a moment...

clock This article was published more than  1 year ago

The Willow oil project debate comes down to this key climate change question

The Alaskan oil project is a symbol of a larger argument: What matters more, curbing demand or keeping fossil fuels in the ground?

When President Biden approved an $8 billion Alaskan oil drilling project on Monday, many reacted with outrage. “Wrong on every level,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon, wrote on Twitter. “This decision betrays Biden’s own climate promises,” Jeff Ordower, the North America director of the environmental organization 350.org, said in a statement.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden had promised to prevent new oil and gas drilling on federal lands — a vow that runs contrary to his administration’s approval of ConocoPhillips’s operation, known as Willow, in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In the weeks before the decision, environmentalists, activists, and young people united to try to block the project: For weeks, #StopWillow was even a trending topic on TikTok.

But the Willow project, which the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management estimates will produce 576 million barrels of oil over the course of 30 years, is a small stand-in for what is actually a much larger debate. In recent years, the Democratic Party — and, by extension, the climate movement — has been divided on a key question. What matters more — cutting fossil fuel demand, by encouraging consumers to shift to things like renewable energy and electric vehicles, or tamping down on supply by preventing oil and gas drilling in the United States?

The Biden administration, with its huge investments in a build-out of clean energy, has largely focused on the former. Activists who paddle their kayaks out to ocean oil rigs or participate in climate marches tend to lean toward the latter. But who is actually right?

The ‘leakage’ argument

On the one hand, there is a kind of intuitive obviousness to the climate benefits of cutting fossil fuel supply: Surely if we don’t dig up oil and gas, no one can burn it and release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. But the global oil market throws a wrench into that argument. “There’s plenty of oil and gas in the world,” said Samantha Gross, director of the energy security and climate initiative at the Brookings Institution. “If we don’t produce that oil, and there’s still demand for it, someone else will.”

In economics-speak, this is known as “leakage.” The idea is that if there is a decrease in fossil fuel supply — through a ban on drilling in one country, for example — fossil fuel prices will rise, and then another company will expand drilling elsewhere in the world. Simple supply and demand.

This also creates an accounting problem when assessing the project. Activists and opponents referred to the project as a “carbon bomb” — and indeed, according to a federal analysis released last month , the project would produce around 277 million metric tons of carbon dioxide during its lifetime, or around 9.2 million tons per year.

But that number assumes that, if the ConocoPhillips project didn’t go forward, no other oil companies would pick up the slack. Accounting for leakage, the Biden administration’s estimate for the additional CO2 from the project is closer to 70 million metric tons, or around 2.3 million tons per year — not nothing, but significantly smaller. (2.3 million tons would be around 0.03 percent of U.S. emissions in 2021.) The administration also estimates the project would release an additional 60 million tons of CO2 from increased oil consumption overseas.

Those who say supply doesn’t matter much point to these numbers as evidence that the real place to focus attention is on demand — shifting people over to electric vehicles, for example, or rapidly building up renewable energy. If people stop needing fossil fuels, they argue, there will be no need to extract them. “I ultimately think it’s more efficient and effective to go from the demand side,” Gross said.

The counterargument

But there’s another form of economic “leakage” as well. Brian Prest, an economist at the environmental group Resources for the Future, says that policies like electric vehicle tax credits or investments in clean energy can have unintended effects. If the government offers a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles, for example, that will push people away from gas-powered cars and reduce demand for fossil fuels — thus lowering the cost of oil and gas. Paradoxically, that can cause more fossil fuel use.

“If we use less gas in U.S. vehicles, that makes it cheaper for folks in other countries to consume more oil,” said Prest. “It’s conceptually symmetric.”

In a report published last year by Resources for the Future, Prest argued that the best approach is “both/and." If the United States encouraged consumers to shift away from fossil fuels, while at the same time taking careful measures to reduce extraction of oil and gas, fossil fuel prices would stay roughly constant — thus preventing “leakage” and leading to lower emissions overall. (His analysis doesn’t include possible external price shocks that could affect the oil market.)

The Biden administration, however, has not taken drastic steps to cut fossil fuel supply, even as the government spends hundreds of billions of dollars boosting clean energy. Some of this is politics: Mary Peltola, the first Alaskan Democrat elected to the House of Representatives in 50 years, supports the project.

Legal considerations also come into play. Once the federal government issues oil and gas leases, it becomes much harder to claw them back, and top administration officials feared that if they denied the Willow project outright they would face a lawsuit from ConocoPhillips, putting taxpayers potentially on the hook for billions of dollars.

So far the Biden administration’s strategy has framed climate change as many carrots and few sticks — cash incentives for clean energy, without halting oil and gas extraction outright. (The president has banned drilling in some place s, such as the waters that the United States controls in the Arctic Ocean.)

The debate also shows that the way the world counts carbon emissions matters a great deal. In the days after the decision, many outlets reported that the project’s estimated 9.2 millions tons of carbon dioxide per year were equivalent to adding roughly 2 million gas-powered cars onto the road. That’s true — and also not true. Most emissions are counted at the point of consumption — that is, when drivers put the oil in their cars and burn it for fuel. If we count the emissions both at the point of extraction and at the point of consumption, that amounts to double-counting.

But for activists and environmentalists, any amount of economic discussion doesn’t change a few simple facts: The United States has promised to reach net-zero carbon emissions, but is still extracting oil. Eventually — if the world is really going to stop emitting carbon dioxide — all fossil fuel production will have to halt. If not now, they might wonder, then when?

This piece has been updated.

• Search Search Search …
• Search Search …

Rethinking the Willow Project: Did BLM Have Other Options?

On March 13, 2023, the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”) approved a major oil drilling operation on the North Slope of Alaska. The so-called “ Willow Project ” will be developed by ConocoPhillips and involve the drilling of up to 199 new oil wells, spread across three well pads, along with the construction of various related infrastructure, including pipelines, processing facilities, roads, and boat ramps. All of this activity is expected to have serious adverse impacts on the local environment and nearby communities. It will also worsen global climate change. The Willow Project is expected to produce as much as 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak and result in around 130 million metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent over its lifetime.

Approval of the Willow Project runs directly counter to President Biden’s campaign promise to stop oil and gas drilling on federal lands. It is also counter to his administration’s goal of halving economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and reaching net zero emissions by 2050. The approval has angered many climate activists and others who see it as a “ stain ” on President Biden’s climate legacy. In the weeks since the approval was announced, the Biden administration has tried to paint a different picture, suggesting that it had no choice but to approve the Willow Project. But is that really the case? This post explores the scope of BLM’s authority to block oil and gas drilling on federally-owned land in situations where the land has already been leased to a private party for the specific purpose of developing oil and gas resources.

History of Oil and Gas Development on Alaska’s North Slope

ConocoPhillips has held leases on federal land on Alaska’s North Slope since 1999. The leased land forms part of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (the “NPR-A”)—an area covering approximately 23 million acres that was set aside in 1923 by President Harding who, believing the land contained significant fossil fuel resources, designated it as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy.

In 1976, in the National Petroleum Reserves Act (“Reserves Act”), Congress transferred authority over the NPR-A from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior. As originally enacted, the Reserves Act prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from leasing land in the NPR-A for oil, gas, or other development (subject to limited exceptions). However, in 1980, Congress amended the Reserves Act to remove the prohibition and direct the Secretary of the Interior to “conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas” in the NRP-A. The Secretary of the Interior delegated this leasing authority to BLM, which held its first oil and gas lease sale , covering 1.5 million acres of land in the NPR-A, in December 1981.

In the decades since, BLM has continued to lease land in the NPR-A for oil and gas development, offering a total of 59.7 million acres between 1999 and 2019. Interestingly, though, oil and gas developers only bid on about 7 million acres or 11% of the total land offered for lease. (As discussed in a previous post on this blog, this is consistent with BLM’s experience in the contiguous U.S., where only a small portion of the federal land it has offered for lease in recent years has received bids.)

The Legal Effect of Oil and Gas Leases

Oil and gas leases issued by BLM grant the lessee “the exclusive right to drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the oil and gas . . . in the land.” This, together with the fact that ConocoPhillips has held oil and gas leases in the NPR-A for over 20 years, has led some to conclude that BLM had to approve the Willow Project. For example, in defending BLM’s approval of the project, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters : “some of the company’s leases are decades old, granted by prior administrations. The company has a legal right to those leases. [BLM’s] options are limited when there are legal contracts in place.”

It is certainly true that ConocoPhillips has a legal right to the leases. As discussed in a previous blog post , BLM can only cancel NPR-A leases in two, limited circumstances:

• If a lease is not producing oil and gas, it may be cancelled if the lessee fails to comply with any legal requirement imposed on him/her/it.
• If a lease is producing or “known to contain valuable deposits of oil or gas,” it can only be cancelled “by court order.”

The land covered by ConocoPhillips’ NPR-A leases falls into the second category. It is known to contain valuable deposits of oil and gas because, in 2016, ConocoPhillips drilled two exploratory wells that “encountered significant pay.” The Biden administration could not, therefore, unilaterally cancel ConocoPhillips’ leases. But there might be other ways for the administration to limit, or perhaps even block, extraction of oil and gas pursuant to those leases.

As noted above, BLM leases grant the lessee exclusive rights to extract oil and gas, but those rights are “granted subject to applicable laws, the terms, conditions, and . . . stimulations of th[e] lease, [and] the Secretary of the Interior’s regulations and formal orders.” (It should be noted that this quote is from the current “ form lease ” used by BLM. The author was not able to review the leases BLM entered into with ConocoPhillips and thus cannot confirm that they contain similar language. Statements by BLM suggest they do, however. For example, BLM has previously said that ConocoPhillips’ leases entitle it to extract oil and gas resources, “subject to regulation.” The analysis that follows assumes the ConocoPhillips leases contain the language quoted above.)

The “applicable laws” include the Reserves Act, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to take steps to protect the “environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values” within the NPR-A. The Reserves Act further provides that, when issuing oil and gas leases, the Secretary of the Interior “shall include or provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significant adverse effects on the surface resources of the NPR-A.”

One way in which BLM seeks to minimize the adverse impacts of oil and gas development on surface resources is by regulating drilling operations in the NPR-A. Under BLM regulations , before any oil or gas well can be drilled under an NPR-A lease, the lessee must submit an application for permit to drill (APD) to BLM. The APD must include a surface use plan of operations specifying, among other things, the location of any proposed drill pads, the method of pad construction, and other activities to be undertaken in connection with drilling. A lessee can choose to submit a single plan—known as a master development plan (MDP) – that covers multiple APDs.

BLM regulations provide that, upon receiving an APD, BLM “shall take one of the following actions . . . (1) Approve the application as submitted or with appropriate modifications or conditions; [or] (2) Return the application and advise the application of the reasons for disapproval.” The regulations are clear that, if BLM selects option (2) and disapproves the APD, “[n]o drilling operations, nor surface disturbance preliminary thereto, may be commenced.”

BLM also has authority to suspend previously approved drilling operations in certain circumstances. Under BLM regulations , operations may be suspended if, among other things, BLM determines that suspension “is in the interests of conservation of natural resources” or “mitigates reasonably foreseeable and significant adverse effects on surface resources.”

Implications for the Willow Project

What does all of this mean for the Willow Project? ConocoPhillips submitted an MPD for the Willow Project in May 2018. After conducting an environmental review, BLM approved the MPD in October 2020. However, in August 2021, the approval decision was vacated by the Federal District Court for the District of Alaska in Sovereign Iñupiat for a Living Arctic v. BLM .

The court held that the environmental review conducted by BLM did not meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Among other things, the court found that BLM had inappropriately constrained the range of alternatives it considered in the environmental review because it believed that “ConocoPhillips’ lease rights precluded the agency from considering alternatives concerning the configuration or location of the drill pads.” According to the court:

“BLM maintained that ConocoPhillips has the right to extract all the oil and gas possible within the leased area. But . . . [t]he leases do not grant the lessee the unfettered right to drill wherever it chooses or categorically preclude BLM from considering alternative development scenarios. Further, BLM’s asserted restriction on its authority is inconsistent with its own statutory responsibility to mitigate adverse effects on the surface resources . . . To the extent BLM relied on this reason to not examine other alternatives, its alternatives analysis was inadequate.”

Following the court’s decision, BLM prepared a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”), in which it considered one additional alternative. Based on the supplemental EIS, BLM approved ConocoPhillips’ MDP, with some modifications. Whereas BLM had initially approved the drilling of up to 251 wells across five drill pads, following completion of the supplemental EIS, BLM approved a scaled-down version of the Willow Project involving the drilling of up to 199 wells across three pads.

The supplemental EIS has been challenged in court , again, on the basis that BLM’s alternatives analysis was inadequate (among other grounds). Environmental groups challenging BLM’s decision allege that “it has again analyzed an inadequate range of alternatives in the [supplemental] EIS based on the mistaken conclusion that it must allow ConocoPhillips to fully develop its leases.” The groups note that, in the supplemental EIS, “BLM asserted that it must allow access to at least some of the subsurface resources under all of [ConocoPhillips’] leases with a demonstrated development potential, that it may not permit a development proposal that would strand an economically viable quantity of oil, and that it is obligated to approve development of leases in some form.”

These statements arguably misrepresent BLM’s statutory authority and obligations. As noted above, under the Reserves Act, BLM can impose “conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions” on oil and gas development in the NPR-A as “necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significant adverse effects on . . . surface resources.”

Climate change is already having significant adverse effects on the surface resources of the NPR-A. According to the supplemental EIS prepared for the Willow Project, “[m]inimum temperatures in the Arctic have increased at about three times the global rate over the past 50 years,” resulting in the “loss of sea ice and snow cover.” The supplemental EIS notes that “[p]ermafrost loss in Alaska’s North Slope is already widespread.” Unless greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced, “further warming will lead to further reductions of near-surface permafrost volume.” There will also be a decrease in snow cover, “with a later date of first snowfall and an earlier snowmelt,” which will “reduce water storage and increase the risk and extent of wildland fires and insect outbreaks in the region.”

It could be argued that, since the root cause of these adverse effects is greenhouse gas emissions, BLM must take steps to reduce those emissions to fulfill its Reserve Act obligations. BLM might seek to reduce emissions by restricting, or even prohibiting, the drilling of new oil wells as part of the Willow Project. This seems entirely appropriate given that emissions from the Willow Project could, by BLM’s own estimates, cause somewhere between $3 billion and $38 billion worth of climate-related damages (depending on the social cost of carbon used to value those damages). In these circumstances, restricting or even preventing drilling arguably would not violate ConocoPhillips’ lease rights.

The courts have previously held that lessees are not automatically entitled to permits to extract oil and gas from land they lease from the federal government. This was made clear by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Marathon Oil Co. v. United States . The plaintiff in that case—Marathon Oil—had been denied a permit to extract oil from offshore land it leased from the federal government under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Similar to the Reserves Act, the OCSLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue leases for oil and gas development on certain federal land, located offshore in an area known as the Outer Continental Shelf. The OCSLA provides that, before a lessee may develop oil and gas resources pursuant to a lease, he/she/it must have a plan of operations approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

In Marathon Oil Co v. United States , the Federal Circuit noted that leases issued under the OCSLA “grant lessees the exclusive right to drill for, develop, and produce oil and gas resources.” But, according to the court, “[o]btaining a lease is one thing; obtaining the necessary permits to explore and then produce is another.”

The Federal Circuit held that the Secretary of the Interior did not violate Marathon Oil’s lease rights when it refused to approve a plan of operations for the development of oil and gas resources in the leased area. The court noted that, under Marathon Oil’s lease, the right to drill for oil and gas resources “was expressly conditioned on compliance with [applicable] . . . statutory and regulatory provisions” that aimed to, among other things, protect coastal ecosystems. The court determined that the statutory requirements for approval of Marathon Oil’s plan of operations had not been met. Thus, according to the court, “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, to treat Marathon’s failure to obtain the necessary approvals and permits for exploratory activity as a breach of contract by the Government would be to eviscerate these salutary protections of the nation’s fragile coastal lands and waters.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit’s decision was reversed by the Supreme Court, but on slightly different grounds. In short, the Supreme Court found that the Secretary of the Interior had not refused to approve Marathon Oil’s plan of operations because it did not meet the statutory requirements for approval, but due to other factors. Arguably, then, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not invalidate the above reasoning.

While Marathon Oil Co. v. United States involved offshore leasing, which is governed by a different statutory regime, the Federal Circuit’s reasoning could be applied to the Willow Project. Similar to the OCSLA, the Reserves Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue oil and gas leases on federal land, but provides that development pursuant to those leases “shall” be restricted or prohibited as necessary to minimize environmental disturbance. BLM arguably does not violate the terms of oil and gas leases by imposing such restrictions or prohibitions.

Supporters of the Willow Project might assert that the Reserves Act only authorizes BLM to restrict or prohibit development where necessary to “mitigate . . . adverse effects on the surface resources of the NPR-A.” They might further argue that surface resources are only indirectly affected by greenhouse gas emissions from the Willow Project—i.e., via climate change, which a wide range of other activities also contribute to—and that the Reserves Act does not expressly authorize BLM to prevent or restrict development based on indirect climate impacts. The case law suggests otherwise, however.

No court has, so far, ruled on the scope of BLM’s authority to restrict or prevent oil and gas development on climate grounds. Notably, however, multiple federal courts have held that BLM is required to consider greenhouse gas emissions and associated climate impacts when conducting environmental reviews of oil and gas projects pursuant to NEPA (see here for an example). This is significant because the courts have also held that an agency, like BLM, is only required to “gather or consider environmental information” in its NEPA review if the agency has “statutory authority to act on that information.” Thus, by holding that BLM is required to consider climate impacts in its NEPA reviews, the courts have suggested—at least implicitly–that BLM could act on that information.

These and other issues are sure to be hotly debated in the litigation over the Willow Project. The outcome of the litigation remains uncertain. It is, however, clear that there was no easy “win” for the Biden administration when it came to the Willow Project. The administration faced significant legal and political risks whatever decision it made. It is already feeling the political blowback from approval of the Willow Project and, as this blog explains, faces legal risks as well. On the other hand though, rejecting the project would also have exposed it to political blowback, and likely legal action as well.

Romany Webb

Romany Webb is a Research Scholar at Columbia Law School, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Climate at Columbia Climate School, and Deputy Director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

• The ITLOS Advisory Opinion and Marine Geoengineering: More Questions, Few Answers
• Illuminating a Path to a Cleaner and More Resilient Energy System in Cuba
• International Governance of Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Recent Developments and Future Directions
• Executive Actions to Ensure Safe and Responsible Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal Research in the United States

You may also like

Transferred Emissions Are Still Emissions: Sabin Center and Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment launch report on the empirical emissions impacts of fossil fuel asset sales by oil supermajors

On Tuesday, May 9, the Sabin Center and the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment launched Transferred Emissions are Still Emissions: Why Fossil […]

Will FERC’s New Chair Bring a New Approach to Natural Gas Pipeline Approvals?

By Jennifer Danis & Romany Webb On Thursday, January 21, 2021, President Joe Biden appointed Richard Glick as the new chair of […]

Another Hole in Methane Regulation: The Need for Stricter Controls on Gas Pipeline Leaks

By Romany Webb There has been much talk in recent weeks about the regulation of methane emissions from oil and gas operations. […]

EPA Rescinds Methane Standards for Oil and Gas Facilities

By Romany Webb On Thursday, August 13, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule rescinding the new source performance standards […]

Biden approves Willow Project. What to know about the move to allow oil drilling in Alaska

The controversial Willow Project is set to move forward after a previously uncertain future under President Joe Biden. The administration approved the project Monday despite fierce opposition from environmental groups. 

Here are some things to know about the Willow project:

Massive oil project greenlit: Biden approves massive oil project in Alaska, moves to bar future drilling in Arctic Ocean

What is The Willow Project?

The project is currently the largest proposed oil project on U.S. federal land as ConocoPhillips, a Houston-based petroleum company, looks to drill within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska

Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide

ConocoPhillips predicts it could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day, which would account for 1.5% of total U.S. oil production. 

Did the Willow Project get approved?

The administration greenlit the project Monday. However, Biden approved a scaled-back version of the plan after the Interior Department only approved three of the five drilling sites proposed by ConocoPhillips.

The exclusion of those additional sites reduced the size of the 200-well project by about 40% and eliminated the need for 11 miles of road, 20 miles of pipelines and 133 acres of gravel. 

The company also agreed to forfeit 68,000 acres of existing leases in the National Petroleum reserve-Alaska to reduce its footprint on the land by one-third.  

Alaska oil drilling: Willow project critics go viral with petition pressuring Biden

Why did Biden approve the Willow Project?

The Biden administration was limited by legal restraints in reviewing the Willow oil project, according to a White House official who said the company had valid rights on the land because of decades-old leases.

The administration was convinced the courts would have blocked an outright rejection of the Willow project and potentially imposed fines on the government, said the official, who spoke about the White House’s considerations on the condition of anonymity. 

What are environmental activists saying?

Two lawsuits were immediately filed by environmentalists and one lawsuit was filed by an Alaska Native group following Biden’s approval of the massive oil project. 

Environmental law firms Earthjustice and Trustees for Alaska both filed separate lawsuits against several federal agencies and some of the administration’s top officials, including the Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, citing the irreversible environmental impacts.     

The Willow Project faced a similar challenge in 2021, with U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason blocking the project after it was first approved by the Trump administration in 2020. Gleason struck down the project under the National Environmental Policy Act, citing issues with the approval process and inadequate consideration of the full-scale climate consequences.

Where is The Willow Project in Alaska?

The project will be located in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska , which spans approximately 23 million acres on the Beaufort Sea north of the Arctic Circle and about 200 miles west of existing oilfields at Prudhoe Bay.

When is The Willow Project starting?

A date to begin the newly approved project has not yet been announced. 

Contributing: Joey Garrison, Trevor Hughes and Nada Hassanein, The Associated Press

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Open Search

  Mobile Menu

< All Press Releases

Bureau of Land Management publishes final supplemental analysis for Willow Master Development Plan

Organization, media contact:.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska —The Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office today released the final supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the proposed Willow Master Development Plan in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A). The document, which can be reviewed online at the BLM NEPA Register Willow Master Development Plan project page , addresses the flaws identified by the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in its August 2021 vacatur of the previous administration’s approval of the project.   

Consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act, the BLM has identified a preferred alternative in the final SEIS. Alternative E removes one of the five proposed drill sites from consideration and defers consideration of another. Additional environmental analysis would be required to move forward with the deferred fourth pad, and the final record of decision may identify additional deferrals.  

The Notice of Availability for the final supplemental environmental impact statement is expected to publish Feb. 3 in the Federal Register. The final environmental analysis is not a final decision regarding the proposed project, which will be issued no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Notice of Availability. 

The preferred alternative reduces the proposed project’s footprint within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, a critical ecological area in the NPR-A that supports thousands of migratory birds and is a primary calving area and migration corridor for the Teshekpuk Caribou herd. It also reduces freshwater use for project activities as well as the overall length of infield pipelines, gravel and ice roads – all of which may impede caribou movement and impact subsistence users. 

The BLM consulted with eight cooperating agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, North Slope Borough, State of Alaska, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Native Village of Nuiqsut, and City of Nuiqsut, as well as external stakeholders in the development of the final SEIS. 

In addition to the cooperating agencies, the BLM received substantial input from the public, hosting seven public meetings and receiving a total of 218,931 written comment submissions during the public comment period that ended Aug. 29, 2022.

The BLM manages more than 245 million acres of public land located primarily in 12 western states, including Alaska, on behalf of the American people. The BLM also administers 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation. Our mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.

DSpace JSPUI

Dspace preserves and enables easy and open access to all types of digital content including text, images, moving images, mpegs and data sets.

• Shodhbhagirathi @ IITR

DOCTORAL THESES (chemistry) Collection home page

• 2 Hussen, Abdulkadir Shube
• 2 Kumar, Neeraj
• 2 Kumar, Rajeev
• 2 Prakash, Om
• 2 Sharma, Rashmi
• 2 Singh, Pallavi
• 2 Singh, Rashmi
• 1 AbdulKadir, H. K.
• 1 Abdullah, Adil Ali
• 348 CHEMISTRY
• 21 HETEROCYCLIC COMPOUNDS
• 13 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL
• 11 PHYSICO-CHEMICAL STUDIES
• 10 AMINO ACIDS
• 6 BIOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT COMPOUNDS
• 6 INFLAMMATORY DISEASES
• 6 PEROXYDISULPHATE ION
• 5 BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE
• 129 2010 - 2020
• 94 2000 - 2009
• 69 1990 - 1999
• 84 1980 - 1989
• 64 1970 - 1979
• 33 1964 - 1969
• 72 Malik, Wahid U.
• 37 Goyal, R. N.
• 35 Jain, A. K.
• 32 Gupta, V. K.
• 27 Bhushan, Ravi
• 23 Srivastava, S. K.
• 18 Mahesh, V. K.
• 18 Singh, A. K.
• 17 Sharma, C. L.
• 16 Tandon, S. N.

• Program Mission
• Program Focus
• MLA Program Options
• How to Apply
• Progress toward Your Degree
• Graduate Studio Sequence
• Research Methods Requirement
• Elective Tracks and Certificates
• Graduate Project or Thesis
• Graduate Assistantship Opportunities
• Downloadable Forms

Final Program Requirements: Graduate Project or Thesis

The graduate thesis.

Qualified students may pursue the Thesis Option (LArc 500: 7 credits), rather than the Graduate Project; or may elect to pursue the Thesis Option after they complete and defend their Graduate Project. (This option provides the student the opportunity to create a publishable journal article with the Major Professor or engage in further documentation and exploration of the Graduate Project topic.) Students must have completed an approved Research Methods course prior to beginning the their thesis.

The Thesis Proposal

The proposal for the Thesis topic is developed with the student’s Major Professor and begins with the submission of a simple one-two page document addressing the Thesis Topic, Thesis Question, Thesis Motive or Rationale, Research Methodology or Strategies and Application, Ultimately the students produces a multiple page document that also includes a Literature Search and Bibliography. Individual Major Professor’s may specify other components. (MLA students will benefit from reading Landscape Architecture Research, Inquiry, Strategy, Design , Deming and Swaffield, Wiley Press, 2011.)

University of Idaho Thesis Guidelines and Format

There are specific guidelines published by the College of Graduate Studies (Thesis Dissertation Handbook) that detail the timeline, process and final format for the Graduate Thesis. Students must conform to these if they choose the MLA Thesis Option. The following forms with instructions are available at www.uidaho.edu/cogs/forms :

• Authorization to Submit Thesis or Dissertation
• Appointment of Major Professor and/or Committee Form
• Request to Proceed with Final Defense 
• Committee Change
• Thesis/Dissertation Handbook

Thesis Defense

Deadlines and products for the Thesis Defense are outlined in the College of Graduate Studies Student Handbook. In addition to these requirements each student must schedule a defense of the thesis and deliver a presentation that communicates the overall thesis question, process and conclusions. Each student must also produce an “E” size poster for the purposes of display that includes at the minimum: an Abstract, Thesis Problem Statement, description of Research Methods and Process, Research Conclusions, Application and Selected Bibliography and Glossary of Terms.

The Graduate Project

Students pursuing the graduate project option must have completed at least two of the four MLA graduate studios as well as an approved Research Methods course. The Graduate Project is developed with advising from the student’s Major Professor and typically includes a design application component that demonstrates how the student’s research impacts design process and product. Often the graduate project develops from work in preceding graduate studios, addressing and researching specific issues in greater detail. Emphasis is placed not only on the theoretical framework of the project, the quality of the design project but also the effective communication of the project.

The Graduate Project Proposal

The proposal for the Graduate Project topic is developed with the student’s Major Professor and begins with the submission of a simple one-two page document addressing the project Topic, important questions and issues, rationale, methodology and design application, Ultimately the students produces a multiple page document that also includes a Literature Search and Bibliography. Individual Major Professor’s may specify other components. (MLA students will benefit from reading Landscape Architecture Research, Inquiry, Strategy, Design , Deming and Swaffield, Wiley Press, 2011.)

Graduate Project Defense and Submission

Deadlines and products for the Graduate Defense typically follow those of the Thesis Option. Individual Major Professors may require specific products or the defense of the graduate project however each student is required to schedule a defense and deliver a presentation that communicates the overall objectives of the graduate project and demonstrates successful application of the student’s research. Each student must also produce an “E” size poster for the purposes of display that includes at the minimum: an abstract, problem statement, description of research methods and process, research conclusions, design application, selected Bibliography and Glossary of Terms.

Thesis vs. Project

Use the left panel to access the information that interests you, but don't hesitate to contact us by using the information below, if you have any questions..

Faculty of Landscape Architecture

College of Art and Architecture

The University of Idaho

Address: Landscape Architecture, AA 207 P.O. Box 442481 Moscow, ID 83844-2481

Phone: 208.885.7448

Fax: 208.885.9428

• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Teacher Certification Options
• International Admissions Information
• Financial Aid & Scholarships
• Undergraduate Majors and Minors
• Master’s Programs
• Certificates of Advanced Study
• Doctoral Programs
• Online, Hybrid, and Flexible Programs
• Faculty and Academic Advising
• Career Services and Certification
• Undergraduate Peer Advisors
• Student Organizations
• Learning Communities
• For Families
• Study Abroad
• Field Placements & Internships
• Bridge to the City
• Spector/Warren Fellowship
• Orange Holmes Scholars
• Engaged BIPOC Scholar-Practitioner Program
• Research News
• Faculty Bookshelf
• Faculty Publications
• Grants & Awards
• Doctoral Dissertations
• Research Resources and Support
• Office of Professional Research and Development
• Atrocity Studies Annual Lecture
• Antiracist Algebra Coalition
• Ganders Lecture Series
• InquiryU@Solvay
• Intergroup Dialogue Program
• Otto’s Fall Reading Kickoff
• Psycho-Educational Teaching Laboratory
• The Study Council
• Writing Our Lives
• Center for Academic Achievement and Student Development
• Center on Disability and Inclusion
• Center for Experiential Pedagogy and Practice
• Latest News
• Upcoming Events
• Education Exchange
• Get Involved
• Advisory Board
• Tolley Medal
• Administration
• From the Dean
• Convocation
• Accreditation
• Request Info
• Grants & Awards

Disability Studies Graduate Alexis Wilner ’24 Wins Orlin Prize for Outstanding Honors Thesis

Alexis Wilner ’24 was awarded the David Orlin Prize for Overall Outstanding Thesis Project, as well as best professional studies thesis, at the 2024 Renée Crown University Honors Program Convocation on May 10. Wilner is a graduate of Syracuse University’s College of Visual Arts and Performing Arts’ drama program and the School of Education’s (SOE) Disability Studies minor program.

“By understanding the reasons for a lack of legal repercussions, support from unions, and training available, I reveal the consequences of a lack of accessibility in our industry,” Wilner explains. “Based on digital scholarship and personal interviews, I suggest a variety of ways in which companies and organizations can make their practices more inclusive.”

Wilner’s thesis provides examples of accommodations and initiatives to support all disabled theater artists. She also presents three case studies on exemplary productions and organizations that have curated authentic inclusion for their disabled production artists.

“Alexis’ work is truly exceptional and in line with the University’s commitment to accessibility, inclusion, and human thriving,” says Ashby. “All people deserve access to theater, be that as an audience member or through careers in all aspects of stage craft. It was an honor to work with Alexis on this project, and I can’t wait to see where she takes this work next.”

During her four years at Syracuse University, Wilner translated theory into practice by serving as a student representative for the University-wide Disability, Access, and Inclusion Council (DAIC), by consulting with Syracuse Stage on accessibility, and by organizing an inclusive theater collaborative cabaret and gallery night through DAIC’s Access Arts SU project in 2022.

“I am immensely grateful to win the Orlin Prize. Receiving a commendation from the Honors Program has been absolutely surreal,” Wilner says. “I have been interested in publishing my research in industry journals since the beginning of this process and am excited to finally pursue doing so with this award.”

Professor Danielle Taana Smith, Director of the Crown Honors Program , notes that the honors prize committee—made up of University faculty—choose best theses across five categories: creative, humanities, social sciences, science and engineering, and professional. These recipients receive an award of $1,000. The Orlin Prize winner for the “best of the best” thesis receives an additional $2,000.

“The Honors Thesis Project is an outstanding example of research and scholarship,” says Smith. “The threshold for receiving a prize is extraordinarily high, and the selection is always difficult.”

Ohio State Marion's Anna Willow is teaching others what makes us human

She’s an artist turned anthropologist — with an eye to the future.

“As a kid I was into dance and then art,” Anna Willow said. “But I was always also an avid reader and thoughtful observer. I always loved animals and nature. It took me some time to develop a clear career path. I wanted to be an artist, then work in environmental education, and then in the end anthropology chose me, rather than me choosing it.”

Today, Willow is a professor of anthropology at The Ohio State University at Marion.

More: Ohio State Marion applauded for Marion Microfarm Project efforts

“I teach classes, supervise graduate students, conduct ethnographic research and publish books and articles,” she said.

“When I discovered the anthropological way of seeing the world,” she added, “it seemed like it had always been my way. I just didn’t have the words for it yet. I didn’t necessarily think I’d become a professor, but I did have several family members in academia, so it didn’t seem out of the ordinary.”

Her educational journey

Willow was born in Cincinnati and grew up in Milwaukee. She graduated from high school there in 1994, then studied at the San Francisco Art Institute.

“I enjoyed living in California, but I decided to return to Wisconsin to pursue a more academic major," Willow said. "I transferred to the University of Wisconsin-Madison my junior year, where I majored in anthropology and minored in environmental studies.

“I emerged from my undergraduate degree wanting more than anything to have a positive influence on the global environment," she said. "I didn’t set out to pursue that goal within academia, but I enjoyed graduate school and was good at it. I love that as an anthropologist I got to see other ways of living and thinking and realize that we aren’t locked into the cultural patterns we see today. Another world is possible. I also love the combination of teaching and research that being a professor make possible.”

Willow earned her first master’s degree from the University of Michigan in natural resources and environment, with a focus on environmental behavior.

“After that,” she said, “I returned to the University of Wisconsin for my PhD studies. I ended up with a second master’s degree along the way. I finished my degree in 2008.

“I thought I would pursue a career in environmental education after my first master’s degree,” she added, “and I did do this for a while. I led nature hikes and taught kids to spot and identify birds and pond life. Unfortunately, I couldn’t even pay my student loans on a naturalist’s salary, which is unfortunate given how essential this kind of work is for the future of the world.”

Willow started in 2009 at Ohio State Marion, where Leslie Beyer-Hermsen is the assistant dean.

“When I think of Anna, I think of advocacy and activism,” Beyer-Hermsen said. “She encourages our students to explore what’s important to them and to actively engage and make a difference in their communities. She’s encouraging and positive, while at the same time not shying away from asking the tough questions, which results in our students stepping up to the task and excelling.”

“I came here because I wanted the stability of a tenure track job, instead of moving around for multiple postdocs and visiting positions," Willow said. "I would like to think that my life’s path is far from over. I’m excited to see what new research projects and new courses I develop in the years still to come.”

Aces of Trades is a weekly series focusing on people and their jobs — whether they’re unusual jobs, fun jobs or people who take ordinary jobs and make them extraordinary. If you have a suggestion for a future profile, let us know at [email protected] .

How it works

For Business

Join Mind Tools

Article • 9 min read

The MoSCoW Method

Understanding project priorities.

By the Mind Tools Content Team

(Also Known As MoSCoW Prioritization and MoSCoW Analysis)

You probably use some form of prioritized To-Do List to manage your daily tasks. But what happens when you're heading up a project that has various stakeholders, each of whom has a different opinion about the importance of different requirements? How do you identify the priority of each task, and communicate that to team members, stakeholders and customers alike?

This is when it's useful to apply a prioritizing tool such as the MoSCoW method. This simple project-management approach helps you, your team, and your stakeholders agree which tasks are critical to a project's success. It also highlights those tasks that can be abandoned if deadlines or resources are threatened.

In this article, we'll examine how you can use the MoSCoW method to prioritize project tasks more efficiently, and ensure that everyone expects the same things.

What Is the MoSCoW Method?

The MoSCoW method was developed by Dai Clegg of Oracle® UK Consulting in the mid-1990s. It's a useful approach for sorting project tasks into critical and non-critical categories.

MoSCoW stands for:

• Must – "Must" requirements are essential to the project's success, and are non-negotiable. If these tasks are missing or incomplete, the project is deemed a failure.
• Should – "Should" items are critical, high-priority tasks that you should complete whenever possible. These are highly important, but can be delivered in a second phase of the project if absolutely necessary.
• Could – "Could" jobs are highly desirable but you can leave them out if there are time or resource constraints.
• Would (or "Won't") – These tasks are desirable (for example, "Would like to have…") but aren't included in this project. You can also use this category for the least critical activities.

The "o"s in MoSCoW are just there to make the acronym pronounceable.

Terms from Clegg, D. and Barker, R. (1994). ' CASE Method Fast-Track: A RAD Approach ,' Amsterdam: Addison-Wesley, 1994. Copyright © Pearson Education Limited. Reproduced with permission.

People often use the MoSCoW method in Agile Project Management . However, you can apply it to any type of project.

MoSCoW helps you manage the scope of your project so that it isn't overwhelmingly large. It is particularly useful when you're working with multiple stakeholders, because it helps everyone agree on what's critical and what is not. The four clearly labeled categories allow people to understand a task's priority easily, which eliminates confusion, misunderstanding, conflict, and disappointment.

For example, some project management tools sort tasks into "high-," "medium-," and "low-" priority categories. But members of the team might have different opinions about what each of these groupings means. And all too often, tasks are labeled "high" priority because everything seems important. This can put a strain on time and resources, and ultimately lead to the project failing.

Using the MoSCoW Method

Follow the steps below to get the most from the MoSCoW method. (This describes using MoSCoW in a conventional "waterfall" project, however the approach is similar with agile projects.)

Step 1: Organize Your Project

It's important that you and your team fully understand your objectives before starting the project.

Write a business case to define your project's goals, its scope and timeline, and exactly what you will deliver. You can also draw up a project charter to plan how you'll approach it.

Next, conduct a stakeholder analysis to identify key people who are involved in the project and to understand how its success will benefit each of them.

Step 2: Write out Your Task List

Once you understand your project's objectives, carry out a Gap Analysis to identify what needs to happen for you to meet your goals.

Step 3: Prioritize Your Task List

Next, work with your stakeholders to prioritize these tasks into the four MoSCoW categories: Must, Should, Could, and Would (or Won't). These conversations can often be "difficult," so brush up on your conflict resolution, group decision making and negotiating skills beforehand!

Rather than starting with all tasks in the Must category and then demoting some of them, it can be helpful to put every task in the Would category first, and then discuss why individual ones deserve to move up the list.

Step 4: Challenge the MoSCoW List

Once you've assigned tasks to the MoSCoW categories, critically challenge each classification.

Be particularly vigilant about which items make it to the Must list. Remember, it is reserved solely for tasks that would result in the project failing if they're not done.

Aim to keep the Must list below 60 percent of the team's available time and effort. The fewer items you have, the higher your chance of success.

Try to reach consensus with everyone in the group. If you can't, you then need to bring in a key decision-maker who has the final say.

Step 5: Communicate Deliverables

Your last step is to share the prioritized list with team members, key stakeholders and customers.

It's important that you communicate the reasons for each categorization, particularly with Must items. Encourage people to discuss any concerns until people fully understand the reasoning.

Zhen is a project manager for a large IT organization. She's working with a team of designers, marketers and developers to redesign a large corporate client's website.

At the initial meeting, each group has strong opinions about which tasks are most important to the project's success, and no one wants to give up their "high priority" objective.

For example, the marketing team is adamant that the new website should gather visitors' personal information, for use in future marketing campaigns.

Meanwhile, the designers are arguing that, while this is important, the site may be more successful if it had a professionally produced streaming video. They also want a feed streaming onto the website's home page from the client's social networking accounts.

The developers counter that the current prototype design won't translate well onto mobile devices, so the top priority is retrofitting the site so people can view it on these.

Zhen can see that, while each priority is important, they're not all critical to the project's success. She decides to use the MoSCoW method to help the group reach consensus on which task is truly "mission critical."

She starts with a key question: "If I came to you the night before rollout and the following task was not done, would you cancel the project?" This question helped everyone in the group drill down to the project's most important priority.

The group finally agreed on the following priorities:

• Must – The retrofit website must be easily viewable on mobile devices.
• Should – There should be a social networking stream included.
• Could – There could be a streaming video on the site to help users.
• Would – Personal information would be gathered for future marketing efforts, but not on this occasion.

The MoSCoW method helped everyone agree on what was truly important for the project's final success.

The MoSCoW method is a simple and highly useful approach that enables you to prioritize project tasks as critical and non-critical. MoSCoW stands for:

• Must – These are tasks that you must complete for the project to be considered a success.
• Should – These are critical activities that are less urgent than Must tasks.
• Could – These items can be taken off the list if time or resources are limited.
• Would – These are tasks that would be nice to have, but can be done at a later date.

The benefit of the MoSCoW approach is that it makes it easy for team members and key stakeholders to understand how important a task is for a project's success.

Apply This to Your Life

Try using the MoSCoW method to prioritize your daily tasks. Look at what you completed at the end of the day. Did prioritizing enable you to get more done?

You've accessed 1 of your 2 free resources.

Get unlimited access

Discover more content

How to use burndown charts.

Keeping Your Projects on Track

Kanban Boards

Managing the Delivery of Your Projects

Add comment

Comments (0)

Be the first to comment!

Sign-up to our newsletter

Subscribing to the Mind Tools newsletter will keep you up-to-date with our latest updates and newest resources.

Subscribe now

Business Skills

Personal Development

Leadership and Management

Member Extras

Most Popular

Latest Updates

Using Mediation To Resolve Conflict

Mind Tools Store

About Mind Tools Content

Discover something new today

Resolving workplace conflict through mediation.

Managing Disputes Informally

Personal SWOT Analysis

Making the Most of Your Talents and Opportunities

How Emotionally Intelligent Are You?

Boosting Your People Skills

Self-Assessment

What's Your Leadership Style?

Learn About the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Way You Like to Lead

Recommended for you

Exploring your options.

This Exercise Tests How Your Team Picks Options

Business Operations and Process Management

Strategy Tools

Customer Service

Business Ethics and Values

Handling Information and Data

Project Management

Knowledge Management

Self-Development and Goal Setting

Time Management

Presentation Skills

Learning Skills

Career Skills

Communication Skills

Negotiation, Persuasion and Influence

Working With Others

Difficult Conversations

Creativity Tools

Self-Management

Work-Life Balance

Stress Management and Wellbeing

Coaching and Mentoring

Change Management

Team Management

Managing Conflict

Delegation and Empowerment

Performance Management

Leadership Skills

Developing Your Team

Talent Management

Problem Solving

Decision Making

Member Podcast