|
Willow field is on hold District Court upholds challenges to the EIS and polar bear biological opinion Alan Bailey for Petroleum News
The federal District Court in Alaska has upheld appeals challenging the validity of the environmental impact statement and the associated polar bear biological opinion for ConocoPhillips’ Willow oil field development in the northeastern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The upshot is that ConocoPhillips will not be able to start any on-the-ground work to develop the field until the Bureau of Land Management has reworked and approved the EIS, and the Fish and Wildlife Service has reworked the associated biological opinion. ConocoPhillips had hoped to start gravel work and road construction for the project in February of this year.
Rebecca Boys, media and advertising director for ConocoPhillips Alaska, told Petroleum News on Aug. 25 that the company is reviewing the court decision and evaluating the options for the Willow project.
A major Nanushuk development Willow is planned as a major North Slope oil field, producing oil from the Nanushuk formation in the Bear Tooth unit, west of the Greater Mooses Tooth unit, where oil is already being produced. Oil production at Willow is projected at 160,000 barrels per day, with the field having production capacity of 200,000 bpd. Total cumulative production over 30 years is projected to be 586 million barrels. Field development would involve the construction of up to five drill sites, a central processing facility, an operations center pad, up to 37 miles of gravel roads and an airstrip, as well as the installation of necessary pipelines.
Alaska’s congressional delegation slammed the court decision.
“This District Court order vacating key approvals and permits for Willow is just plain wrong,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “In partnership with communities on the North Slope, ConocoPhillips Alaska has been responsibly producing oil from the NPR-A region for decades under the highest environmental standards and this proposed project will be no different. Although this is a setback for Willow, it is not the end. Even the Biden administration has come to understand what Alaskans have always known - that the Willow project must move forward.”
“Yet again another devastating decision by this federal judge that promotes the interests of Lower 48 radical environmental groups waging their unrelenting war on Alaska’s economy, working families, and Native communities,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan. “This decision won’t do one thing to help the environment. To the contrary, it further delays one of Alaska’s most strategic energy development projects, which will benefit our adversaries that produce oil, like Russia, Venezuela and Iran, whose environmental standards are some of the worst in the world.”
“Let me be very clear: Judge Gleason’s decision is terrible for Alaska, our energy sector, and the countless families it supports,” said Rep. Don Young. “The Willow project has immense potential for our state, and in the wake of the economic damage caused by the pandemic, we need it now more than ever. Alaskans have been responsibly developing our resources for decades; we do it right.”
Two related appeals Willow is planned as a major North Slope oil field, producing oil from the Nanushuk formation in the Bear Tooth unit, west of the Greater Mooses Tooth unit, where oil is already being produced. Oil production at Willow is projected at 160,000 barrels per day, with the field having production capacity of 200,000 bpd. Total cumulative production over 30 years is projected to be 586 million barrels. Field development would involve the construction of up to five drill sites, a central processing facility, an operations center pad, up to 37 miles of gravel roads and an airstrip, as well as the installation of necessary pipelines.
Alaska’s congressional delegation slammed the court decision.
“This District Court order vacating key approvals and permits for Willow is just plain wrong,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski. “In partnership with communities on the North Slope, ConocoPhillips Alaska has been responsibly producing oil from the NPR-A region for decades under the highest environmental standards and this proposed project will be no different. Although this is a setback for Willow, it is not the end. Even the Biden administration has come to understand what Alaskans have always known - that the Willow project must move forward.”
“Yet again another devastating decision by this federal judge that promotes the interests of Lower 48 radical environmental groups waging their unrelenting war on Alaska’s economy, working families, and Native communities,” said Sen. Dan Sullivan. “This decision won’t do one thing to help the environment. To the contrary, it further delays one of Alaska’s most strategic energy development projects, which will benefit our adversaries that produce oil, like Russia, Venezuela and Iran, whose environmental standards are some of the worst in the world.”
“Let me be very clear: Judge Gleason’s decision is terrible for Alaska, our energy sector, and the countless families it supports,” said Rep. Don Young. “The Willow project has immense potential for our state, and in the wake of the economic damage caused by the pandemic, we need it now more than ever. Alaskans have been responsibly developing our resources for decades; we do it right.”
Foreign GHG emissions Gleason found the EIS to be invalid, in part, because it failed to include foreign greenhouse gas emissions, rather than just U.S. emissions, as part of the evaluation of the Willow field’s potential environmental impacts. In reaching this viewpoint Gleason referenced a ruling over the same issue by the 9th Circuit Court, when in December 2020 that court upheld an appeal against the EIS for Hilcorp Alaska’s planned Liberty field development in the Beaufort Sea. In the case of Willow, BLM had argued that an individual field development would have a negligible impact on global greenhouse gases and that there is insufficient reliable data for foreign emissions. BLM should have either provided a quantitative estimate of greenhouse gas emissions from the overseas consumption of Willow oil, or explained more specifically why this was not possible, together with a more thorough discussion of how foreign oil consumption might alter the carbon dioxide emissions analysis, Gleason wrote.
Alternatives analysis The second issue over which Gleason found the EIS to be invalid related to BLM’s analysis of different alternatives for the Willow development. Essentially, the agency had “acted contrary to law” by basing its analysis on a view that, as a leaseholder, ConocoPhillips had the right to extract all possible oil and gas from its leases, Gleason wrote. A number of public comments on the draft EIS had urged the consideration of more development alternatives, rather than just the ones considered in the EIS. The BLM leases do not allow the lessee to drill wherever it chooses, nor do they preclude BLM from considering alternative development scenarios, Gleason wrote.
The third issue over which BLM had contravened the law was the manner in which the agency had failed in its alternatives analysis to meet a statutory directive to give maximum protection to surface values in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area, Gleason wrote. Essentially, BLM had not provided an adequate explanation for its lack of a more detailed study of a possible development alternative with modified or no infrastructure in the special area, she wrote. The Center for Biological Diversity, a plaintiff in one of the appeals, argued that there should have been alternatives prohibiting permanent infrastructure in the Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River Special Areas, or only allowing drilling during the winter in these areas.
Polar bear mitigation measures needed Gleason said that the polar bear biological opinion is invalid because it lacks specific mitigation measures that would need to be taken to protect the bears. Essentially, the opinion relies on mitigation measures required under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, including as yet unknown MMPA mitigation measures that will be specified in the future. Moreover, while on the one hand the biological opinion states that there would be some “hazing” of bears to deter bears from entering worksites or raising safety issues, the opinion also makes the contradictory statement that there would be no non-lethal take of the bears, Gleason wrote.
|
