Continuing right of way

On March 16, two days before the recent National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska oil and gas sale, the federal District Court in Alaska issued a preliminary injunction temporarily staying the cancellation of a right of way in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. Nuiqsut Trilateral Inc. had filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of the Interior’s recent cancellation of the right of way, which allows the nearby Native village of Nuiqsut to, in effect, regulate oil and gas exploration and development activities across a wide area around Teshekpuk Lake in the northeastern part of the reserve.

The injunction will remain in place until the court case is settled.

In the court filing announcing the injunction, Judge Sharon Gleason said that the plaintiffs in the case can prohibit the issuance of new oil and gas leases, and the exploration and development of oil, gas and mineral resources within the right of way.

In the lease sale ExxonMobil Alaska, Epoch Oil & Gas LLC and SE Partners LLC made the highest bids on tracts within the right of way. At the time of Petroleum News going to press, BLM had not made any statement on the status of these bids.

Right of way issued in December 2024

BLM had issued the right of way in December 2024 in order to meet a requirement of the development plan for the nearby Willow oilfield. The plan required long-term protection for the Teshekpuk caribou herd, including the protection of the surface of Teshekpuk Lake, a buffer around the shores of the lake and caribou movement corridors.

The action in 2024 took place under the Biden administration at a time when a relatively restrictive 2022 version of the integrated activity plan for the NPR-A was in place. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress in July 2025, required BLM to resume oil and gas lease sales under the terms of a less restrictive IAP that had been issued under the Trump administration in 2020. However, the 2025 act makes no mention of the Teshekpuk Lake right of way, Gleason wrote.

In December 2025 BLM sent a letter to Nuiqsut Trilateral notifying the organization that the agency had cancelled the right of way. Hence the subsequent lawsuit.

Reasons for preliminary injunction

In her order imposing the injunction Gleason wrote that Nuiqsut Trilateral had clearly demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

Also, while the National Petroleum Reserves Production Act, the statute governing the management of the reserve, expressly grants the secretary of the interior the ability to grant rights of way, “it does not expressly authorize the secretary to unilaterally cancel those rights of way,” Gleason wrote.

Moreover, the NPRPA does not state that the secretary of the Interior can only grant rights of way for oil and gas activities, and not for the protection of surface values, the judge wrote. And, since the right of way was established before the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the defendants cannot argue that the issue of the right of way was illegal, she wrote.

Consequently, the plaintiff in the case has demonstrated serious questions regarding the validity of the right of way cancellation, Gleason wrote. Moreover, in the absence of a preliminary injunction until the court case is settled, the permitting of exploration activities within the disputed areas could cause considerable harm to the plaintiff, she argued.

“The public interest weighs against allowing the government to unilaterally cancel the agreement it made with a private party without providing basic procedural protections, such as notice and an opportunity to respond,” Gleason added.