Anchorage attorney Bill Walker has gone to court over the state’s recent settlement of the Point Thomson dispute.
Walker said he believes the settlement is illegal, and that state officials wrongly regard the deal as not subject to challenge.
He is bringing the court challenge as a “citizen taxpayer” and a “public interest litigant.”
His “notice of appeal,” filed June 5 in Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage, names as defendants the state, the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources and the state attorney general.
DNR Commissioner Dan Sullivan led the state’s settlement negotiations with ExxonMobil, operator of the disputed Point Thomson oil and gas unit.
‘A bad deal’
“I firmly believe that the settlement was not only a bad deal for the State of Alaska, and constituted a giveaway of historic proportions, but also exceeded the authority the legislature has delegated to the Commissioner,” Walker told Petroleum News in a June 6 email.
Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell on March 30 announced the settlement of the long-running dispute over Point Thomson.
The Point Thomson unit is located along the Beaufort Sea coastline adjacent to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Rich in natural gas as well as oil, the field became a legal battleground as Alaska officials took steps to reclaim the state acreage for lack of development. ExxonMobil and other major stakeholders in turn went to court to defend the unit.
The settlement ended the litigation, and ExxonMobil is now proceeding with a development to produce natural gas condensate from the field.
Points on appeal
Along with the three-page notice of appeal, Walker also filed a “statement of points on appeal.”
In his email, Walker said one of his main points is that state officials “provided absolutely no opportunity for public notice and comment before the secret agreement was signed.”
Walker also argues the DNR commissioner made certain best interest findings in the settlement but “did not provide the evidentiary support Alaska law requires.”
Further, said Walker, the commissioner “agreed to not follow DNR’s own regulations for certain development activities and decisions related to the unit.”
And the commissioner left the method of field development up to Exxon, Walker said, which some experts believe could leave a great deal of oil stranded underground if the field is developed primarily as a gas field.
Gas line stalwart
Walker was among candidates who ran for Parnell’s job as governor in 2010.
He has long been involved in efforts to construct a pipeline to develop the North Slope’s huge gas reserves, including that at Point Thomson. He is city attorney for Valdez, which is the terminus of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and potentially could anchor the end of a gas line as well.
In his email, Walker noted he was in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at the 25th World Gas Conference.
After the Point Thomson settlement was announced, Walker asked Sullivan by letter to reconsider the deal.
Walker received a reply from Attorney General Michael Geraghty, who wrote: “Settlements entered into by the State of Alaska are not subject to administrative challenge, by reconsideration or otherwise.”
But that didn’t stop Walker from filing his appeal in court.
Asked for comment on the suit, a DNR spokeswoman said department officials had addressed some of Walker’s points at an April 27 legislative hearing.
Sullivan has defended the settlement as a strong document that puts ExxonMobil and its partners “on the clock” to either develop Point Thomson or lose the acreage.
Other Point Thomson leaseholders include BP and ConocoPhillips.
