|
Beaufort Sea drilling plan appeal ends 9th Circuit Court says appeal against Shell’s exploration plan is moot following the company’s withdrawal of the plan in May Alan Bailey Petroleum News
A court case involving appeals by the North Slope Borough, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and several environmental organizations against U.S. Minerals Management Service approval of Shell’s 2007-09 Beaufort Sea exploration plan came to a quiet end June 30 when a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit issued a one-page order declaring the case moot.
In May, after withdrawing the disputed exploration plan in advance of filing a new slimmed-down plan for proposed Beaufort Sea exploration in 2010, Shell had asked the court to dismiss the appeals. And the court agreed with Shell’s position, given that MMS has declared the disputed plan null and void.
“The MMS rescission of its approval of the exploration plan, which was the agency action at issue in this appeal, renders petitioners’ challenge moot,” the panel of judges said in its June 30 order. “Accordingly, Shell’s unopposed ‘Motion to Dismiss the Appeal as Moot’ is granted.”
The case has in effect blocked for three summer seasons Shell’s efforts to commence exploratory drilling offshore the eastern end of Alaska’s North Slope, although the company has been able to conduct Beaufort Sea seismic surveys and carry out non-drilling operations such as drill site shallow hazard surveys and the surveying of a potential subsea pipeline route.
Filed 2007 The appeals were originally filed in May and June of 2007, the year in which Shell planned to dispatch two drilling vessels and a support fleet to drill three wells in its Sivulliq oil prospect on the west side of Camden Bay.
North Slope subsistence hunters had expressed strong concerns about the potential impact of the drilling program on their hunting activities, in particular the hunting of bowhead whales. And the North Slope Borough opposed offshore oil and gas development, in part because of worries about the potential for an offshore oil spill. Environmental groups said that offshore drilling would threaten various marine animals.
However, in July 2007 Shell signed a conflict avoidance agreement with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, an agreement that included the cessation of drilling operations during a nearby whale hunt.
In August 2007 the 9th Circuit court issued a temporary injunction against Shell’s drilling activities, pending settlement of the appeals, thus nixing the company’s 2007 drilling plans. And in December 2007 the court heard oral arguments in the case.
In February 2008 Shell, still waiting for a court decision, announced that it hoped to mount a scaled down Beaufort Sea drilling operation in the 2008 open water season. That operation would involve the use of just one drilling vessel, the Kulluk floating drilling platform, to drill what are termed “top-hole wells” — shallow wells drilled in preparation for eventual deeper drilling — at Sivulliq, without penetrating any hydrocarbon-bearing rock formations. However, in June 2008 the company cancelled that plan, saying that it could not continue to keep workers and contractors on hold in hopes of the court allowing the drilling to proceed.
2008 decision In November 2008 Shell asked the court to lift the injunction, to enable the drilling of two specific wells at Sivulliq using the Kulluk during the 2009 open water season. However, shortly after Shell’s request the panel of three judges issued an opinion upholding the appeals, with one judge dissenting from a majority opinion that MMS had not carried out an adequate environmental evaluation of Shell’s exploration plan. And although Shell requested a rehearing of the case by the full 9th Circuit court, the company decided to cancel any Beaufort Sea drilling plans for 2009.
In March, without explanation, the panel of judges withdrew its November decision. Since then the court has neither explained why it decided to withdraw its decision nor issued a revised opinion in the case. And with the June 30 court order, the court’s final position will presumably never be known.
| 