Willow injunction request to 9th Circuit after court dismissal

Alan Bailey

for Petroleum News

Following rejection by the Federal District Court in Alaska of a request for an injunction, to put a halt to ConocoPhillips’ Willow oilfield development, the appellees in the court case have filed an urgent request to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, asking the 9th Circuit court to issue the injunction. Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic and four environmental organizations filed the appeal against the Willow development in November. In December the organizations requested the injunction, pending resolution of the court case.

The appellees argue that the injunction is urgent because ice road construction, gravel mining and gravel road construction for the Willow project are about to start.

The appellees have claimed that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Administrative Procedures Act when approving the ConocoPhillips project. The development includes the construction of drill sites, a processing center, an operations center and access roads.

In a Feb. 1 District Court order, rejecting the injunction request, Judge Sharon Gleason found that the plaintiffs in the case had not demonstrated that winter construction activities planned by ConocoPhillips are likely to cause irreparable damage to polar bears - potential impacts on polar bears formed a key component of the injunction request.

Gleason said that the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate likely irreparable damage to the bears negates the probability of an Endangered Species Act infringement as a consequence of ConocoPhillips’ upcoming Willow activities. The issuance of an injunction requires a demonstration of the likelihood of irreparable harm, the court order says.

Gleason also rejected an argument that, when issuing the final environmental impact statement for the project, BLM had infringed the National Environmental Policy Act by inadequately considering alternative projects and global greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development. Essentially, the judge upheld a BLM argument that the plaintiffs had failed to meet a legal requirement that any request for a judicial review of the EIS must be filed within 60 days of publication of the EIS.

- ALAN BAILEY