The US Govt bought Alaska from Russia and owned every square inch of it. But as they did with other states, they made Alaska a state, and out of that Alaska got land that the state owns. The tribes got some of the land also.
The federal govt owns the land in question, and has owned it since they bought it from Russia. Contrary to what you think, the Refuge is not being expanded or enlarged, it is being re-designated from refuge to wilderness, which means it would have a higher level of protection.
As for privately owned land, there is not much of that in Alaska.
Here's the real issue.
When oil/gas is produced on land owned by the federal govt, the federal govt shares the royalty with the state in which that land is located.
In all states, except Alaska, the feds gives the state 50% of the royalty. In Alaska, they get 90% of the royalty. So if ANWR were drilled, Alaska would get 90% of the royalty.
Alaska also has the drilling rights to the inner continental shelf, from the low tide line out 3 miles. Oil can be produced from this submerged land, it is the same oil as in ANWR. But they can't get any oil company to drill it because the cost of the infrastructure needed to get the oil to market is prohibitive. But, if the feds were to open ANWR to drilling, the infrastructure would be built, after which, the potential offshore drillers could use the same infrastructure.
So if the feds were to open ANWR to drilling, Alaska would get 90% of the royalty from ANWR and 100% of the royalty on the offshore oil.
Its a pretty good deal for Alaska, but doesn't do much for the US Treasury or the US taxpayer.
But, Obama opened up drilling in the Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea. 3 oil companies own leases in these federal waters. Shell drilled there in 2012, but damaged both their drill ships and had to send them back to Korea to be repaired. They were planning on returning in 2015, but with price of oil, they may delay.
All of this is in federal waters, so the feds get 100% of the royalty and don't have to give Alaska any of it. Its a good deal for the US treasury and US taxpayer. That's where we need to be drilling.
Thank you for that information. But I still have concerns about who owns the land according to the Constitution. (Federal government is corrupt in many peoples’ opinion, so everything it does must be questioned.)
Given the remote possibility that you have not seen the following video, it explains that feds are basically supposed to surrender all federal territory within the borders of any new state to the state upon admission to the Union.
Steven Pratt, Bound by Oath to Support THIS Constitution
Since the land didn’t become a refuge until 1960, do you know why the feds held onto the land when it became a state? I understand that several states are now asking that question about federal land within their borders.
Or if the land that eventually became the refuge actually belonged to the State of Alaska after Alaska was admitted to the Union, then Clause 17 of Section 8 remains a possible issue.
But regardless of Clause 17, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to establish intrastate wildlife protection refuges, although wildlife does need “government” protection imo.
Again, I’m just trying to establish constitutional ownership by feds of refuge and constitutionally justify of how feds are using land.