|
On to the 9th Groups opposed to exploration in Chukchi Sea take ’08 lease sale appeal to higher court following District Court February decision Alan Bailey Petroleum News
In the latest move by those opposed to oil and gas development in the Arctic offshore, the Native Village of Point Hope, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope and 12 environmental organizations have taken an appeal against the Department of the Interior’s 2008 Chukchi Sea lease sale to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
The groups had appealed the lease sale in the federal District Court in Alaska. However, following a court case that lasted several years and that involved a rewrite by Interior of the environmental impact statement, or EIS, for the lease sale, in February District Court Judge Ralph Beistline dismissed the case. Beistline said that, following the EIS rewrite, Interior had complied with all applicable laws in approving the sale.
And so the groups challenging the lease sale have now appealed the District Court’s decision to the 9th Circuit.
Shell, ConocoPhillips, Statoil and other companies bought leases in the sale — Interior received $2.6 billion in bonus bids. A ruling by the court that the lease sale was invalid would presumably invalidate the leases that the companies purchased.
Plans and schedules Shell plans to drill in its Chukchi Sea leases this year, while ConocoPhillips and Statoil plan to start drilling in 2014.
The 9th Circuit court has set a schedule for the lease sale appeal, with opening briefs by the appellants due on July 23 and Interior’s reply brief due by Aug. 22.
The court is already processing three other appeals against Shell’s planned Arctic drilling. One of those appeals, against the Environmental Protection Agency air quality permits for the Noble Discover, the drilling vessel that Shell plans to use in the Chukchi, has a briefing schedule due for completion at the end of May. The other two appeals are against the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of Shell’s Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea exploration plans: these two cases have been consolidated, with oral arguments scheduled for May 15.
Shell plans to start drilling in the Chukchi Sea in July.
Drilling controversy People opposed to Arctic offshore drilling say that too little is known about the delicate Arctic marine environment to risk the potential negative impacts of industrial activities. These people also question the feasibility of responding to an oil spill in Arctic waters, especially given the severe Arctic climate, the prevalence of sea ice and the paucity of an infrastructure for logistical support. Native groups are concerned about the potential impacts of industrial pollution and disturbance on the marine wildlife that form a core component of subsistence food supplies.
Shell says that enough is now known about the Arctic offshore environment to conduct a limited program of exploration drilling; that there are proven techniques for dealing with an Arctic marine oil spill; and that its planned wells present little oil spill risk. The company is assembling a major oil spill response fleet, with the intention of having a self-sufficient, on-site spill response capability should an emergency arise. Shell and the other companies planning offshore drilling have been conducting environmental research in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, with Interior having also sponsored environmental research programs in the region for a number of years.
Government regulatory agencies have now endorsed Shell’s plans, although the company still needs approved drilling permits and approvals for the accidental minor disturbance of marine mammals. The U.S. Coast Guard, while acknowledging the logistical challenges of mounting an oil spill response in offshore northern Alaska, has said that it thinks that Shell is adequately prepared for its planned drilling.
EIS questioned The District Court Chukchi Sea lease sale appeal that has now moved to the 9th Circuit focused on what the petitioners claimed were deficiencies in the lease sale EIS. And the court upheld claims that, in preparing the EIS, Interior had failed to adequately consider the environmental impacts of potential natural gas development in the Chukchi and had not adequately considered the significance of missing Chukchi Sea environmental information.
In a subsequent rewrite of the EIS, Interior added an analysis of the potential impacts of natural gas development; identified and commented on every instance of documented missing information; and voluntarily added a new section analyzing the potential impacts of a hypothetical very large oil spill in the Chukchi Sea. Judge Beistline accepted the adequacy of the EIS changes.
| 