A judge has thrown out Bill Walker’s challenge to the state’s Point Thomson settlement with ExxonMobil and other oil companies.
Walker is an Anchorage attorney and a former candidate for governor.
He filed an administrative appeal in state Superior Court following the March 29, 2012, resolution of the dispute surrounding the Point Thomson field on the eastern North Slope.
State officials were demanding development of the field, discovered in the 1970s, and the settlement lays out a schedule to that end.
Suing as a “citizen taxpayer,” Walker argued the settlement was illegal and a bad deal for the state. He brought the action against the state attorney general and the Department of Natural Resources.
State lawyers filed a motion to dismiss Walker’s suit, and Superior Court Judge Catherine Easter of Anchorage granted the motion on Dec. 7.
The arguments
Asked whether Walker would appeal Easter’s decision, Walker’s attorney, Craig Richards, told Petroleum News on Jan. 8: “Bill has not yet decided what course to take.”
Richards noted the court “did not reach the merits of the case,” but instead determined Walker would need to take a different approach to challenge the Point Thomson settlement.
In her five-page ruling, Easter wrote: “To the extent Mr. Walker seeks to challenge whether the AG’s entry into the Settlement Agreement was constitutional, he must bring an original action because an administrative appeal is not the proper forum for such a claim.”
Walker is a longtime supporter of Point Thomson development.
However, he questioned the legality of the Point Thomson settlement on numerous levels. State officials failed to put the deal out for public comment, and failed to obtain legislative approval for some provisions, Walker said. He further contended the agreement contained no firm work commitments, and that Point Thomson leaseholders could choose a wasteful development option to exploit the field’s rich gas reserves while leaving valuable liquids behind.
His attorney, Richards, argued Walker had the right to appeal the Point Thomson settlement under the Administrative Procedure Act and DNR regulations.
The state, however, argued the attorney general has “broad authority” to settle litigation, that the Point Thomson settlement was not subject to challenge, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear Walker’s ‘purported’ administrative appeal.
The judge’s holding
Easter agreed with the state that the court lacked jurisdiction over Walker’s appeal.
She held that Attorney General Michael Geraghty entered into the Point Thomson settlement under executive discretion, and DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan’s signature on the deal was “not an appealable decision.”
“Therefore, there is no legal basis to challenge the Settlement as an administrative appeal,” the judge said.
State officials say the Point Thomson settlement will force ExxonMobil and its partners to either develop the field or lose the acreage. Construction is expected to begin this winter, with numerous contractors involved.
Sullivan was pleased with the court’s dismissal of Walker’s case.
“Why anyone would sue to shut down hundreds of jobs at Point Thomson is beyond me,” Sullivan told Petroleum News in a Jan. 9 interview.
—Wesley Loy
