The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutO 011 .~ ,..-..... OTHER ORDER FILE COVER PAGE This page identifies oversize material and digital information available for this individual Order file and weather or not it is available in the LaserFiche file. Please insure that it remains as the first page in this file. ,R¡ ! ¡ L' {J II Other Order File Date ~h ;; <I Color Materials # Added to LaserFiche File 0 Yes 0 No 0 Added (date) Digital Data 0 CD's - # 0 DVD's - # 0 Diskettes - # Added to LaserFiche File 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No Oversized Material Added to LaserFiche File 0 Maps # 0 Mud Logs # - 0 Other # 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No General Notes or Comments about this file. If any of the information listed above is not available in the LaserFiche file, or if you have any questions or information requests regarding this file, you may contact the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission to request copies at 279-1433, or email us at: AOGCC_Librarian@admin,state,ak.us '-, ,-' PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. API Nos. 50-103-20370-01 1. March 29,2001 - Appeal of the decision to approve development we1150-1O3-20370- 01 Phillips Alaska Inc. 2. Apri19, 2001 - Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay 3, May 1, 2001 - Phillips Request for Clarification of Briefing Schedule 4, May 7,2001 - Petitioners Join Request for Clarification 5, May 17, 2001- Order Denying Rehearing 6. ~ ~ ...-... COUNSEL OF RECORD CASE NO. KEEP ON TOP OF FILE NAME MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER FOR WHOM /;If¡ m 1/1/IJ If; 1// //11 j; -J. / ~ glJ &x: 1: P d j/? ~ ,JP ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e¡í:; jÞ/J ßdý-e /' ~ j/tJ ß / otJ?~ cv)z @) ~l ~ F .c TF-900 (1/98)(51;2 x 8'lí)(canary-cs) 5 ~ ,"'-"', STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Petition of Joseph Akpik, Lydia Sovalik, ) Joeb Woods, and Abraham Woods, ) for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 201-061 ) (API No. 50-103-20370-01) (Nigliq lA) ) ) ) May 17, 2001 ORDER DENYING REHEARING In its Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay, the Commission stated that it would first consider whether the petitioners have the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill and would then proceed accordingly. The Commission has reconsidered this approach and instead decides this petition on the merits. For this purpose the Commission assumes without deciding that the petitioners have the right to seek rehearing here under AS 31.05.080(a). 1. Coastal Management Consistency One of the petitioners' claims is that the Commission failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP") and with certain policies of the North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program. The Commission rejects this claim. The Division of Governmental Coordination ("DGC") in the Office of Management and Budget coordinated a review of the exploratory well program of which the well challenged here is a partl and determined on February 2, 2001, that the project is consistent with the ACMP. See Appendix 1 to this order. A consistency review evaluates a proposed project not only against state coastal management standards but also against the applicable district coastal management program, in this case the North Slope Borough's. See AS 46.40.210(3). The project description specifically listed the Nigliq 1 exploration well and noted that it might have two sidetracks. In this context, "sidetrack" is an inexact way of denoting drilling to a different bottom-hole location from the original surface location. The Nigliq lA well challenged by the petitioners is such a side-track. ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 1 of3 ~ ,..-" Thus, assuming without deciding that the Commission is required under the ACMP to ensure that drilling proposed to be permitted under AS 31.05.090 is consistent with the ACMP, including North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program policies, before a permit to drill is issued, the Commission satisfied that requirement here by not issuing Permit to Drill No. 201-061 until DGC made its fmal consistency determination on February 2,2001. II. Notice The petitioners' second claim relates to lack of notice before the Commission issued the permit to drill. As explained in the Order Denying Rehearing in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211, which is incorporated by reference and a copy of which is attached, the Commission believes that the legislature did not intend the issuance of permits to drill under AS 31.05.090 to be subject to advance notice to members of the public. Although unlike the petitioner in Permit to Drill No. 200-211 the present petitioners claim to own property in the vicinity of the drill site and therefore could potentially be affected by drainage of oil or gas from under their property, Phillips did not seek to locate its well closer to its lease boundary than allowed by the applicable well spacing regulations. If Phillips had sought a spacing exception, notice would have been given to nearby property owners. See 20 AAC 25.055(d). Nor could the issuance of the drilling permit deprive the petitioners of any property rights within the protection of the due process clause. Hence, notice of the permit application was not required by due process. IlL Compliance with Commission Regulations The petitioners cite numerous regulations under 20 AAC 25 and make conclusory assertions to the effect that the Commission has failed to comply or failed to require Phillips to comply with them. In no case, however, have the petitioners supplied any basis for these assertions, and the Commission is aware of none. Some of the regulations, moreover, do not apply at all to an application for a permit to drill. Pertinent portions of the orders denying rehearing in the matters of Permits to Drill Nos. 200-211, 201-027, and 201-041, copies of which are attached, address in more detail identical or substantially identical assertions made in those cases (corresponding to the petitioners' assertions c through n here) and are incorporated by reference. IV. Historic Preservation and Consultation with Tribal Government Finally, the petitioners complain that the Commission "failed to consult with the tribal government and failed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and Alaska Historic Preservation Act requirements." The Commission is aware of no legal ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 2 00 ,~ ~ requirement to consult with a tribal government before issuing a permit to drill, and the petitioners have cited none. Nor does it appear to the Commission that any provisions of the federal or state statutes on historic preservation constrain the issuance of a permit to drill. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 17th day of May 2001. ~~kt ~ Cammy Tayl Cha' Alaska Oil an Gas C nservatio Ç() Daniel T. Seamount, Jr., Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ~AA.~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on May 17,2001 a copy of the Above was mailed to each ofthe following: Nancy Wainwright Dan Rodgers C~o~ C øf orJ ~ Jody C~l_~~i~ Exec tive Secretary ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 3 of 3 ,~ ~ ~~&~E @¡ &~&~~~ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR OFRCEOFMANAGEMENTANDBUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION LJ SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE ~ CENTRAL OFFICE 550 W. 7TH AVENUE. SUITE 1660 P.O. BOX 110030 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501 JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-0030 PH: (907) 269-7470/FAX: (907) 269-3981 PH: (907) 465-3562/FAX: (907) 465-3075 0 PIPELINE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 411 WEST 4TH AVENUE. SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501-2343 PH: (907) 271-4317/FAX: (907) 272-3829 February 2, 2001 Mr. Mark A. Major Senior Environmental Coordinator Phillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 l\nchorage,)\J( 99510-0360 Dear Mr. Major: SUBJECT: Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Exploration Wells STATE I.D. NO. AK 001l-030G FINAL CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) has completed coordinating the State's review of Phillips )\laska, Inc.'s (P )\1) proposed project for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has developed this consistency determination based on reviewers' comments. History of Review The ACMP review began on November 16, 2000. DOC published a public notice in the Anchorage Daily News and the Fairbanks Daily News Miner on November 17, 2000. in accordance with 6 AAC 50.100(b). I notified you on December 4,2000 that the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) required additional information to determine if the Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan was consistent with the )\CMP, 1 did not receive the additional information by December 19.2000. day 25 of the review. and extended the review clock, per 6 AAC 50.170(g), I notified you on December 20, 2000 that DOC's offices had been closed due to a serious diesel spill. I received an email from DEC on December 28. 2000, stating that the additional information had been received and was considered adequate for further review. I restarted the review of your project on December 28.2000, at day 25, per 6 AAC 50.110(d). Comments on the proposed project's consistency with the )\CMP were due on day 34 ofthe review, January 8, 2001, in accordance with 6 AAC 50.070( e )(3 )(A). I did not receive any timely public comments. DOC did not hold any public hearings for the proposed project. No part of the consistency review for this project was phased, I issued a proposed consistency determination on January 26, 2001, I issued a draft final consistency determination on January 30, 2001. Appendix 1 .ft. -.._._~ M .__.._,.~ M_a. .,~ ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 0011-030G -2- February 2, 2001 Scope of Project Reviewed The proposed project is a 2000-2001 exploratory well program on Kuukpik Corporation lands. The proposed exploration wells include Alpine West I & 2, Nigliq I & 2, and Sunrise 1. Two reservoir penetrations, one well and one sidetrack are planned for all well locations except for Nigliq 1, which may have a second sidetrack. Solid, non-burnable waste will be deposited in large dumpsters and back-hauled to the North Slope Borough (NSB) landfill at Prudhoe Bay. Food waste will be stored in secure wildlife-proof containers prior to pick-up. All solid. burnable waste will be incinerated and the ash hauled to the NSB landfill. Camp wastewater will be taken to an approved disposal facility or discharged under the North Slope General NPDES permit. Excess drilling mud will be temporarily stored in an ice-bermed drilling waste storage cell on each ice pad then disposed of at a certified disposal facility. Oil from testing will be held in tanks and injected back into the formation or process through approved facilities. Produced gas will be flared. Exclusion zones around the drilling rigs will prevent the public from entering areas where air emissions may exceed air quality standards. Camp facilities will accommodate up to 70 people. Approximately 75,000 gallons of diesel fuel will be stored at each well site in lined, bermed fuel storage areas. The wells will be accessible by 24.5 miles of ice roads across the frozen tundra. lee roads will cross privately owned Kuukpik Corporation lands except for approximately 4 miles of ice road necessary to access the Alpine West 1 and 2 sites that will cross land owned by the Bureau of Land Management. The fresh water requirement for ice road construction is approximately 1,000,000 gallons per mile of ice road and 200,000 gallons per mile of ice road for maintenance, A portion of the fresh water that will be used for this proposed project has previously been approved for consistency with the ACMP under Temporary Water Use Permit No. LAS 18597 and General Concurrence GC-8 and is not subject to review, The remaining portion of the fresh water that will be used for the project has been included as a part of this review, Ice chips will be mined from lakes. Screened intake structures will be used for water withdrawal. The main ice road, which is being permitted separately, will begin at Kuparukdrill pad 2Lextend westward along the Alpine pipeline to the main channel ofthe Colville River and further westward into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). After crossing the main channel of the Colville River, a separate ice road will extend northward to access the Nigliq exploration area, A second ice road segment will extend northward from the NPR-A ice road to access the Alpine West and Sunrise 1 locations. The drilling operations will utilize up to five ice drill pads with approximate dimensions of 500 feet by 500 feet. Each drill pad will require about 1,7000,000 gallons of water to construct. Approximately 25,000 gallons per day of fresh water will be needed for drilling and camp while each drilling operation is under way. Construction of the roads and pads will begin as soon as each location can be accessed. Rolligon units, other approved tundra travel vehicles. or wheeled vehicles on an ice road will be used to transport the drilling rig and supplies to and from the ice pads where the wells will be drilled. >---,. "'-"', Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 0011~030G - 3 - February 2, 200 I The wells will be plugged and abandoned prior to the end of the 2000/2001 winter drilling season if well evaluations are completed prior to closing of tundra travel. If the well evaluations are not completed, the wells will be temporarily suspended and PAl will contact the State to discuss further review. The wells are located in the Colville River delta area near Nuiqsut. Alaska, T. 11 N., R. 4 E., Section 7, 8, and 21 for Alpine I & 2 and Sunrise 1. and T. 12 N., R. 4. E., Section 2 and 12 for Nigliq 1 & 2 respectively, in the Umiat Meridian. Authorizations Authorizations necessary for the project include the following State and federal permits, per 6 AAC 50: STATE: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Air Quality Construction Permits Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Approval Alaska Department ofFish and Game (ADF&G) Fish Habitat Permits FGOl-III-0002, Colville River Delta, Lake M9502, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0003, Colville River Delta, Lake M9908, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-0004, Colville River Delta, Lake M9909, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-0005, Colville River Delta, Lake M9701, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-OOO6, Colville River Delta, Lake M9702, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-OOO7, Colville River Delta. Lake M9703, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-OOO8, Colville River Delta, Lake M9704, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-OOO9. Colville River Delta, Lake M9706, Water Withdrawal Alaska Department ofFish and Game Fish Habitat Permits FGOl-III-OOlO, Colville River Delta. Unnamed Lake. Water Withdrawal FGOI~III-OOII, Colville River Delta. Unnamed Lake, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-OO12. Colville River Delta. Unnamed Lake. Water Withdrawal Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Division of Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Permit Permit No. MLUP/NS, Nigliq 1 & Nigliq 2 ./,-, ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AI( 0011-030G -4- February 2,2001 Plan of Operations Authorization File No. POO-Ol2, Nigliq 1 File No. POO-Ol3, Nigliq 2 Alpine West 1 Alpine West 2 Sunrise 1 Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water Temporary Water Use Permit No. A 2001-19 Daily withdrawal limit is 4,200,000 gallons per day total all lakes Sources of Water and Ice Aggregate L93-06, W2.l, 3.3 million gallons available L93-08, W 1.1, Oil Lake, no quantity limit L95-02, R5.l, 800,000 gallons available L96-0l, no quantity limit L98-0l, no quantity limit L98-02, no quantity limit L98-08, 600,000 gallons available L98-09, 700,000 gallons available L99-021X4.l, 2.4 million gallons available L99-09/P6.4, 700,000 gallons available M97-0l/S4.2, 1.7 million gallons available M97-02/S4.3, 2.1 million gallons available M97-03/R4.1, 7.1 million gallons available M97-04/R4.2, 800,000 gallons available M97 -06/P3.l, 15% rule applies, including ice aggregate Unnamed Lake, "no quantity limit Ice Aggregate Only during Winter Three Unnamed Lakes, all less than 7-feet deep Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) Permit to Drill FEDERAL: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Right-of-Way Permit No. FF-92931 Except for authorizations already found consistent with the ACMP, no State or federal agency may issue an authorization before DOC issues a final consistency determination. Most State agencies should issue permits within five days after DOC issues a final consistency determination. /'- ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 001l-030G - 5 - February 2, 2001 Determination The Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the North Slope Borough coastal resource district have reviewed your proposed project. Based on that review, the State concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP with the following modifications, which will appear as stipulations on the State permits noted: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Air Quality Construction Permits 1. PAl shall abide by all terms of the Air Quality Construction Permits for the Alpine West 1 & 2, Nigliq 1 & 2 and Sunrise 1. Rationale: This condition is necessary to ensure the protection of air quality as provided for in the statutes, regulations and procedures of DEC which are incorporated into the ACMP under the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 MC 80,140, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Oil Discharge Prevention and.Contingency Plan Approval 2. Within 30 days of issuance of the final consistency determination, PAl shall submit to DEC contracts confirming direct access, or access via ACS, to 48 snow machines, ARGOs and their trailers, as identified within the Nigliq # 2 Well Blowout scenario Table 1-28. Rationale: This condition is necessary to demonstrate that P Al has acquired and maintained sufficient response resources to effectively execute the plan consistent with the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80.140, ... .), Alpine West 1 & 2, Nigliq 1 & 2, and Sunrise I must be completed by April 1, Exploration well testing may be extended by 15 days if casing has been set and cemented through the zones to be tested. Note: DEC may approve an alternative date for completion of drilling operations and testing based upon spring-breakup monitoring information. For DEC to approve an alternative drilling schedule, PAl must submit compelling scientific evidence and documentation to demonstrate the following issues to DEC's satisfaction: a. Ice will remain stable, contiguous, and of adequate thickness for a time sufficient to complete the recovery operations required to meet the RPS (to prevent oil from reaching open water, prior to broken ice conditions); ,r----. ,--... Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AI< 001l-030G -6- February 2, 200 I c. Contiguous ice coverage must be of adequate thickness to ensure river crossing or coastal ice access for the entire time required to conduct response operations; Contiguous ice coverage for river crossings must be of adequate thickness for time required to mobilize and complete the setup of a relief well drilling pad; and PAl shall submit the request for extension as a plan amendment by March 15, 2001. b. d. Rationale: This condition is necessary to ensure PAl's compliance with spec~fic temporary measures until environmental conditions improve to reduce the risk or magnitUde of an oil discharge during periods of broken' ice when planned spill response methods are rendered ineffective by environmental limitations. Additionally, the condition is necessary to ensure that oil produced during aformationflow test or other drilling operations is collected and stored in a manner that prevents the aU from entering the land or waters of the state, in accordance with the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 MC 80.140, 4. PAl shall immediately notify DEC in writing of any change in the contractual relationship with PAl's response contractor(s) and of any event, including but not limited to, any breach by either party to the response contract that may.excuse a response contractor from perfonning, that indicates a response contractor may fail or refuse to perfonn, or that may otherwise affect the response, prevention, or preparedness capabilities described in the approved plan. Rationale: This condition is necessary because of risks associated with PAl relying upon a response contractor instead of obtaining its own response capability, Given the risk. DEC musl be promptly informed of any change of the contractual relationship between P AI and the response contractor, and of any other event that may arguably excuse the response contractor from performing or that would otherwise affect the response, prevention, or preparedness capabilities described in the approved plan. DEC may seek appropriate mod{fications to the plan or take other steps to ensure that P AI has continuous access to sufficient resources to protect the environment and to contain. clean up, and mitigate potential oil spills, in accordance the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80,140, 5. P AI shall provide a system that prevents overfills or provides for immediate liquid level detennination on the portable tanks by the 2001-2002 operating season. Rationale: This condition is based in part on American Petroleum Institute (API 653) inspection reports provided on portable tanks where the AP1653 inspectors have recommended either the installation of a high-level alarm system or some type of overfill alert 5ystem (i,e., level indicator), This condition is necessary to protect land and water quality, in accordance with the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80.140. ,-------.. ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AI( 001l-030G February 2, 2001 -7- 6. PAl must provide a description of each oil storage container greater than 10,000 gallons to be used in conjunction with drilling operations at each of the project locations. The description must include an identifying number/designation, capacity, construction date, specification, application, the date and type of the last API 653 inspection, and any other information required by 18 AAC 75.425(e)(2)(E) and 18 AAC 75.425(e)(3)(i & 2). Oil storage containers must be identified on the Drill Pad Layout As Built Drawings referenced in Condition Number 7 of this approval. Rationale: This condition is necessary to ensure specific details of the oil storage tanks are included in the plan and on the as-built drawings of the pad layout to guide responders in an emergency event or discharge, in accordance with the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, MC 80.140. 7. Prior to commencement of drilling operations, PAl must provide as-built drawings of the pad layouts, including the relative positions of the drill rig, crew quarters, fuel storage tank(s), prover tanks, pad entrance, and potential spill trajectories. Rationale: This condition is necessary to ensure site specific details are available to guide responders in anemergency event or oil discharge; in accordance with the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 MC80,140. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fish Habitat Permits FGOl-III-0002, Colville River Delta, Lake M9502, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-0003, Colville River Delta, Lake M9908, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0004, Colville River Delta, Lake M9909, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0005, Colville River Delta, Lake M9701, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0006, Colville River Delta, Lake M9702, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0007, Colville River Delta, Lake M9703, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0008, Colville River Delta, Lake M9704, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-0009, Colville River Delta, Lake M9706, Water Withdrawal 8. P AI shall coordinate water withdrawals with other companies that may be withdrawing water from the lakes to ensure the approved maximum water withdrawal is not exceeded. PAl shall provide the ADF&G and the DNR with at least monthly summaries of water removed from each permitted lake. 9. Water withdrawaland/or ice aggregate removal from Colville River Delta lakes must not exceed 15 percent of the free-water volume of the lake for those lakes in excess of 7 feet deep. Ice aggregate removal beyond the equivalent of 15 percent of the under-ice volume is not approved because of the lack of extensive shallow areas in the Colville River Delta lakes where ice will naturally ground. Note: As some lakes in the outer Colville River ~, .~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 001l-030G - 8 - February 2, 200 I 10. 11. Delta may be brackish, salinity of water removed fromthese lakes should be measured to ensure brackish water is not applied on tundra habitats. Any ice road crossings of stream channels constructed to access water source lakes must be slotted, breached, or weakened upon completion of use to facilitate breakup and to minimize potential adverse impacts to stream banks. Water withdrawal intakes must be screened with a maximum of 0.25 inch mesh. Water velocity at any given point along the intake structure must not exceed 0.5 feet per second. Alaska Department of Fish and Game Fish Habitat Permits FGOl-III-OOIO, Colville River Delta, Unnamed Lake, Water Withdrawal FGOl-III-OOll, Colville River Delta, Unnamed Lake, Water Withdrawal FGOI-III-0012, Colville River Delta, Unnamed Lake, Water Withdrawal 12. PAl shall coordinate water/ice aggregate withdrawals with other companies that may be withdrawing water from the unnamed lakes to ensure the approved maximum water withdrawal is not exceeded. PAl shall provide the ADF&Gand the Alaska Department of Natural Resources with at least monthly summaries of water removed from each permitted lake. 13. Winter water withdrawal is not authorized from the unnamed lakes. Ice aggregate removal must be limited to areas of grounded ice. Note: As some lakes in the outer Colville River Delta may be brackish, salinity of water removed from these lakes should be measured to ensure brackish water is not applied on tundra habitats. 14. Any ice road crossings of stream channels constructed to access water source lakes must be slotted, breached, or weakened upon completion of use to facilitate breakup and to minimize potential adverse impacts to stream banks. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration Permit Permit No. MLUP/NS, Nigliq 1 & Nigliq 2 15. The use of ground contact vehicles for off-road travel must be limited to those areas that have adequate ground frost and snow cover to prevent damage to the ground surface. 16. The use of ground contact vehicles for off-road travel is subject to regional openings and closure notices issued by the DNR, Operations are restricted to the winter seasonal ~. ,~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 001l-030G -9- February 2, 2001 17. opening. After April 15, the use of ground contact vehicles issubject to termination within 72 hours of written notification from DNR. Vehicles must be operated in a manner such that the vegetative mat is not disturbed, and the blading or removal of vegetative cover is prohibited except as approved by DNR. Filling of low spots and smoothing using snow and ice is allowed. Rationale: These stipulations are intended to prevent the vegetationfrom being removedfrom the underlying substrate, exposing soils to thermal degradation or hydraulic erosion. in accordance with the Coastal Development Standard, 6 £lAC 80.040; Habitats Standard. 6 AAC 80,130; and Air, Land and Water Quality Standard. 6 AAC 80.140. 18. Movement of equipment through willow (Salix) stands must be avoided wherever possible. Rationale: This stipulation is intended to protect the area's sparse willow stands which contribute to biological diversity in the area, and are valuable for browse, cover, and erosion control, in accordance with the Habitat Standard, 6 AA C 80.130, 19. Equipment, other than vessels, must not enter open water areas of a watercourse during winter. Alterations of the banks of a watercourse are prohibited. Ice or snow bridges and approach ramps constructed at river, slough, or stream crossings must be substantially free of extraneous material (i.e., soil, rock, wood, or vegetation) and must be removed or breached before spring breakup. The structures must be breached or fractured prior to breakup so that their breakup rate coincides with those of naturally occurring ice formations in the area. This should be accomplished so as not to damage or disturb the vegetation of the terrain nor introduce dirt or debris into the waterways. Rationale: This stipulation is intended to protect the water quality and habitat of over-wintering fish by preventing the introduction of sediments into the water, and the disruption o.fnatural drainage patterns, in accordance with the Habitats Standard, 6 AAC 80,130. and the Air. Land and Water Quality Standard. 6 AA C 80,140. 20. Secondary containment must be provided for fuel and hazardous substances, 21. All independent fuel and hazardous substance containers must be marked with the contents and the permittee's or contractor's.name using paint ora permanent label. PAl is ultimately responsible for contractor's compliance with these standard conditions. 22. Secondary containment or a surface liner must be placed under all container or vehicle fuel tank inlet and outlet points, hose connections, and hose ends during fuel or hazardous substance transfers. Appropriate spill response equipment must be on hand during any /"-.. , ./""'<, . Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK OOll-O30G - 10- February 2, 2001 23. 24. transferor handling of fuel and hazardous substances to respond to a spill of up to five gallons. Trained personnel must attend transfer operations at all times. Vehic1e refueling must not occur within the annual flood plain or tidelands. Containers with a volume larger than 55 gallons that contain fuel or hazardous substances must not be stored within 100 feet of a water body. P AI shall immediately notify DNR (or the appropriate land manager) and DEC by phone of any unauthorized discharges of oil to water, any discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil), and any discharge of oil greater that 55 gallons solely to land and outside an impermeable revetment. If a discharge of oil is greater than 10 gallons but less than 55 gallons, it must be reported within 48 hours by phone or fax. If a discharge is less than 10 gallons, it may be reported in writing on a monthly basis. If an unauthorized discharge greater than 55 gallons is made to a secondary containment, if must be reported within 48 hours by phone or fax. All fires and explosions must also be reported. The DNR 24-hour spill report number is (907) 451-2678; the fax number is (907) 451-2751. DNR or the appropriate land manager and DEC shall be supplied with all follow-up incident reports. The DEC oil spill report number is (907) 451-2121, fax (907) 451-2362. after business hours call: (800) 478-9300. Rationale: These stipulations are intended to protect surface waters and the chemical characteristics of habitat that contribute to its ability to support life from possible contaminat ion due to hydrocarbons or other hazardous substances by reducing the escapement of fuel, promoting early detection, and decreasing response time, in accordance with the Coastal Development Standard, 6 AAC 80,040; Habitats Standard. 6 AAC 80,130; and Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80.140, 25. Vehicle maintenance, campsites, and/or storage and stockpiling of material on surface ice oflakes, ponds, or rivers is prohibited. Rationale: This stipulation is intended to protect the sUI/ace waters and habitats from possible contamination due to escapement o.{hydrocarbons or other hazardous substances, and the introduction of man made materials into the environment, in accordance with the Habitat Standard, 6 AAC 80. J 30 and the Coastal Development Standard, 6 AA C 80.040, 26. Trails, campsites, and work areas must be kept clean. Trash, survey lath. markers, and other debris that is not recovered during the initial clean up, must be picked up and properly disposed of prior to freeze-up the following winter. All solid wastes. including incinerator residue, must be back-hauled to a solid waste disposal site approved by DEe. ~ ~, Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 0011-030G - 11 - February 2,2001 Rationàle: . This stipulation is intended to prevent accumulation of solid waste on the tundra and to prevent the loss and contamination of habitat, in accordance with the Habitat Standard, 6 AAC 80.130 and the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80,140. 27. 28. Unless approved by DNR, in consultation with the DFG, operations must avoid occupied grizzly bear dens by 1/2 mile. Known den locations must be obtained from (DFG) Division of Wildlife Conservation (Fairbanks 459-7213) prior to starting operations. Previously undocumented dens encountered in the field must be reported to the above and subsequently avoided by a distance to be determined on a case by case basis through consultation with the applicant, DNR, and DFG. Unless approved by the DNR in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), operations must avoid known polar bear dens by one mile. Known den locations must be obtained from the USFWS (786-3424) prior to starting operations. Previously undocumented dens encountered in the field must be reported to the above and subsequently avoided by a distance to be determined on a case by case basis through consultation with the applicant, DNR, and the USFWS. Rationale: These stipulations are intended to prevent the unnecessary disturbance of hibernating or denning bears that might result from interaction with equipment, personnel. and the vibroseissweep, in . accordance with the Habitat Standard, 6 AA C 80,13 O. 29. To avoid additional freeze down of deep-water pools harboring over-wintering fish. watercourses must be crossed at shallow riffle areas from point bar to point bar. Compaction or removal of the insulating snow cover from the deep-water pool areas of rivers must be avoided, Rationale: This stipulation is intended to avoid additional freeze down of deep-water pools harboring over-wintering fish. Deep-water pools that do no!freeze solid during the long arctic winter are limited in abundance and fish depending on these sources may have few alternatives once the area freezes, in accordance with the Habitats Standard, 6 AAC 80. 130. 30. 31. 32. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas Plan of Operations Authorization Blading or removal of the vegetative mat is prohibited unless approved by the landowner, Filling of low spots and smoothing by the use of snow and ice is allowed. The Division of Land will determine cross-country travel opening and closure based on snow cover and frost depth conditions, Cross-country travel must be completed within seventy-two (72) hours of notification of tundra closure from the Division of Land, The /""'-- . /'"""""... Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 0011-030G - 12 - February 2, 2001 33, 34. 35. winter operation of ground contact vehicles for off-road travel must be limited to areas where ground frost and snow cover are adequate to prevent damage to the vegetative mat and underlying substrate. Ice roads and ice pads may be constructed in the work areas as long as they are thick enough to prevent damage to the tundra and underlying substrate. No other ice roads are authorized under this permit. Vehicle maintenance, campsites, and storage or stockpiling of materia] on the surface ice of lakes, ponds, or rivers is prohibited unless specifically approved by the appropriate land manager. Incidents of tundra damage and follow-up corrective actions that may have taken place while operating under this authorization, must be reported to the appropriate land manager within 72 hours of occurrence. Rationale: These stipulations are necessary to protect the vegetation from being removedfi'O111 the underlying substrate exposing soils to thermal degradation or hydraulic erosion and to protectthe surface waters and habitat from possible contamination through the loss of hydrocarbons or any other hazardous substance, . in accordance with the Coastal Development Standard, 6 AAC 80.040; the Habitats Standard, 6 AAC 8O, J30;and the. Air, Landand Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80.140, 36. 37. Trails, campsites, and work areas must be kept clean. All solid waste including incinerator residue and fuel drums must be backhauled to a solid waste disposal site approved by DEe. Trash, survey lath, roadway markers, and other debris must be picked up and properly disp;)sed. of prior to freezt-up of the following winter. Rationale: These stipulations are necessary to prevent accumulation of solid waste on the tundra and to prevent the loss of and/or contamination of habitat and to protecl state land\'.fì'ol11 unauthorized solid waste disposal or burial, in accordance with the Habitats Standard. 6 AAC' 80,130, and the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AAC 80,140, 38. 39. 40. Secondary containment must be provided for fuel or hazardous substances, All independent fuel and hazardous substance containers must be marked with the contents and the permittee's name using paint or a permanent label. Secondary containment or a surface liner must be placed under all container or vehicle fuel tank inlet and outlet points, hose connections, and hose ends during fuel or hazardous ~ ~, Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 00 11-030G - 13 - February 2, 2001 41. 42. substance transfers: Appropriate spill response equipment must be on hand during any transfer or handling offuel or hazardous substances to respond to a spill of up to five gallons. Trained personnel must attend transfer operations at all times. Vehicle refueling must not occur within the annual floodplain or tidelands. This restriction does not apply to water-borne vessels provided no more than 30 gallons of fuel are transferred at any given time. Containers with a total capacity larger than 55 gallons which contain fuel or hazardous substances must not be stored within 100 feet of a waterbody. Rationale: These stipulations are necessary to protect the surface waters and habitat from possible contamination through the loss of hydrocarbons or any other hazardous substance. in accordance the Coastal Development Standard. 6 AAC 80,040; the Habitats Standard, 6 AAC 80,130; and the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard, 6 AA C 80,140. 43. P AI shall immediately notify DNR by phone of any unauthorized discharges of oil to water, any discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil), and any discharge of oil greater than 55 gallons solely to land and outside an impermeable revetment that occur on state land. If a discharge .of oil is greater than .10 gallons but less than 55 gallons it must be reported within 48 hours by phone or fax. If a discharge is less than 10 gallons it may be reported in writing on a monthly basis. All fires and explosions must also be reported. The DNR 24-hour spill report number is (907) 451-2678; the fax number is 451-2751, The Northern Regional office of the Division of Mining, Land and Water must be supplied with all follow-up incident reports for spills on state land. Rationale: This stipulation is intended to protect the surface waters and habitat from possible contamination through the loss of hydrocarbons or any other hazardous substance. in accordance with the Coastal Development Standard. 6 AAC 80.040: the Habitats Standard, 6 AA C 80,130: and the Air, Land and Water Quality Standard. 6 AA C 80.140. 44. 45. 46. Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water Temporary Water Use Permit No, A 2001-19 Ice aggregate harvested in fish-bearing waters must be from grounded ice. Pumping operations must be conducted in such a way as to prevent petroleum products or hazardous substances from contaminating water sources. All lakes in the outer Colville River Delta must be tested prior to use, and must not be used on tundra habitat if found to be brackish. ~. ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 001l-030G - 14- February 2, 2001 This permit will also carry a combination of the stipulations already listed above on other agency authorities. I enclosed a copy of the relevant ACMP standards with the proposed consistency determination, This final consistency determination represents a consensus reached between you as the project applicant and the reviewing agencies listed above regarding the conditions'necessary to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the ACMP. We are informing the federal agency responsible for approving a federal authorization for your project that your original proposal has been modified subject to the conàitions in this consistency determination. This final consistency determination is a final administrative decision for purposes of Alaska Appellate Rules 601-612. Any appeal from this decision to the superior court must be made within 30 days of the date of this determination. Advisories. Your consistency determination may include reference to specific laws and regulations, but this in no way precludes PAl's responsibility to comply with all other applicable State and federal laws and regulations. This consistency determination is ONLY for the project as described. If PAl proposes any changes to the approved project, including its intended use, prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, you must contact this office immediately to determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. Changes may require amendments to the State approvals and this consistency determination or require additional authorizations. If the proposed activities reveal cultural or paleontological resources, please stop any work that would disturb such resources and immediately contact the State Historic Preservation Office (907-269-8720) and the North Slcpe Borough so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. By copy of this letter I am informing the Corps of Engineers of DGC's determination. If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact me at 907-465-8798 or email Jackie - Timothy@gov.state.ak.us, Sincerely, V/Í~ Jackie TimothYU Project Review Coordinator . .. /', ~ Kuukpik Lands Oil and Gas Wells AK 0011-030G February 2, 2001 - 15 - cc: Lisa Pekich, P AI, Anchorage Glenn Gray, DGC, Juneau Kirsten Ballard, DEC, Anchorage Robert Watkins, DEC, Anchorage Jim Baumgartner, DEC, Juneau Al Ott, DFG, Fairbanks Jack Winters, DFG, Fairbanks Leon Lynch, DNR, Fairbanks Kellie Westphall, DNR, Anchorage Gary Prokosch, DNR, Anchorage Steve Schmitz, DNR/DOG, Anchorage Matt Rader, DNR/DOG, Anchorage Bob Crandall, AOGCC, Anchorage Mike Holley, USACE, Anchorage Larry Bright, USFWS, Fairbanks Jeanne Hanson, NMFS, Anchorage Ted Rockwell, USEPA, Anchorage Don Meares, BLM,Fairbanks Isaac Nukapigak, Kuukpik Corporation, Nuiqsut* Rex Okakok, Sr., North Slope Borough, Barrow Arnold Brower, Jr., Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, Barrow* Mike Frank, Trustees for Alaska, Anchorage* Eli Nukapigak, Mayor, City ofNuiqsut* Nancy Wainwright, public, Anchorage Joseph Akpik, public, Atkasuk* * = hard copy 1 ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3539 Re: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC., for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (API No. 50-029-22996-00). ) ) ) ) May 9, 2001 ORDER DENYING REHEARING In its Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay, the Commission afforded Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("BP") the opportunity to brief the question of whether Greenpeace has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a pennit to drill. The Commission noted that after consideration of the arguments presented by Greenpeace and BP on that issue, "the Commission will determine whether it may hear Greenpeace's petition on the merits and will proceed accordingly." Having now considered the briefs filed by Greenpeace and BP in this matter, the Commission declines to rule on what might be called this "standing" issue but instead denies rehearing on the merits. I. Is Greenpeace a "Person Affected" under AS 31.05.080(a)? AS 31.05.080(a) provides, in relevant part: Within 20 days after written notice of the entry of an order or decision of the commission. . . a person affected by it may file with the commission an application for the rehearing in respect of the matter determined by the order or decision, setting forth the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. (Emphasis supplied.) Greenpeace asserts that it is affected by the challenged pennit approval because of its interest in use of public resources such as fish, wildlife, marine mammals, and water that may be harmed from a well blowout, aquifer contamination, drilling mud spills, or other failures. In addition, a Greenpeace member asserts that his "navigational, scientific, recreational and aesthetic use of the area [in the vicinity of the Northstar project] is currently, and was, adversely affected by Northstar oil and gas activities that blocked [his] access to navigable waters, and impaired [his] ability to engage in the activities, or to use public resources." As a preliminary observation, Greenpeace appears to have an exaggerated notion of the legal criteria that guide the approval or disapproval of an application for a pennit to drill. Under AS 31.05.090, the issuance of a permit to drill is mandatory unless "the drilling of the well is contrary to law or a regulation or order of the commission, or unless the person is in violation of a commission regulation, order or stipulation pertaining to drilling, plugging or abandonment of a well." So long as the proposed drilling complies with applicable legal requirements, the Commission has no authority to deny a permit on the ground that the drilling activities may impair access to navigable waters, adversely affect ~ 1 someone's recreational use of the area, or even pose a residual risk to "remarkable and unique" public interest resources.l Those concerns, while certainly legitimate, are addressed in other forums, such as the decisions of the Department of Natural Resources regarding oil and gas lease sales and plans of operation and the decisions of local government regarding land use. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that in a practical sense, the asserted interests of Greenpeace and its members could potentially be affected by an erroneous permit decision on the part of the Commission. The question is whether Greenpeace is "affected" in a legal sense: i.e., whether AS 31.05.080(a) is intended to allow persons besides the permit applicant (and perhaps others owning interests in the affected property) to fe-open Commission decisions on permits to drill? Perhaps because of a paucity of pertinent authority, the briefmg provided to the Commission is less informative on this question than had been hoped. The Commission remains dubious that AS 31.05.080(a) is intended to apply to members of the public or entities such as Greenpeace that do not claim an ownership interest in directly affected property. Nevertheless, the Commission is hesitant on this record to rule as a matter of law that such persons may never qualify to obtain rehearing of a permit decision. For purposes of this order, the Commission assumes without deciding that Greenpeace has the right under AS 31.05.080 to request rehearing. II. Was the Commission Required to Undertake a Second Consistency Review under the Alaska Coastal Management Program? One ground on which Greenpeace seeks rehearing of the Commission's permit decision is the assertion that the Commission has failed to comply with the requirements of the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP"). The Commission disagrees. Because multiple authorizations from state "resource agencies" as well as federal agencies were required before BP could begin drilling (or conducting other activities under the Northstar Project), an ACMP consistency review process was coordinated by the Office of Management and Budget, Division of Governmental Coordination. See AS 44.l9.l45(a)(11); 6 MC 50,030. Pursuant to this consistency review, in which the Commission participated (see Appendix 1 to this order), the Division of Governmental Coordination made a fmal determination, on February 4, 1999, that the Northstar Development Project is consistent with the ACMP. See Exhibit 4 to Briefmg on Greenpeace's Right to Petition for Rehearing. It is clear from the Project Description and other portions of the consistency determination documents that this consistency determination covers the drilling of wells such as that whose permit Greenpeace seeks to challenge on rehearing here. The project description stated, in relevant part: Twenty-three wells will be drilled initially. One well will be a Class I disposal well for non-hazardous and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act To the extent that the Alaska Coastal Management Program has supplemented the Commission's authority, such considerations might be addressed under that additional authority, This question is considered below. 2 No doubt every government decision has the potential to affect the public or members of the public (which probably explains why the government is involved in the first place). For example, an improvidently issued driver's license might lead to vehicle collisions on the part of an unqualified driver. As far as the Commission is aware, however, the Division of Motor Vehicles is not required to accept petitions from members of the public to rehear decisions to issue a driver's license, ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 2 of6 1 ~ (RCRA) exempt waste generated by drilling and camp activities. Fifteen wells will be for oil production, and 7 wells will be for gas injection into the reservoir to boost production. ¡d. at 2-3. Moreover, Attachment C to the consistency determination, to which the Commission contributed, includes an extensive analysis of the risk of blowouts during the drilling of wells and a decision to impose seasonal restrictions on drilling. See Appendix 2 to this order. The basis for Greenpeace's contention that a second consistency review must be performed for these same wells appears to be the fact that the Commission's permits to drill are not listed in the February 4, 1999, consistency determination as among the state and federal authorization to which "[t]his fmal consistency determination applies." Exhibit 4, supra, at 3. This omission is immaterial, however. A consistency determination covers activities or projects, not permits. The listing of federal and state authorizations is presumably provided as a convenience to the permitting agencies. In relevant part, 6 MC 50.990(a)(6) defmes "consistency determination" as (A) a document that (i) contains a brief description of the project under review and the scope of the project; (ii) states whether the project is consistent, consistent with stipulations, or is not consistent, and provides a brief statement of the reasons for that determination; . . . . (Emphasis supplied.) "Project" in turn is defmed as "an activity or use that will be located in or may affect the coastal zone ofthe state and that is subject to consistency review under 16 D.S.C. l456(c) . . . ." 6 AAC 59.990(a)(22) (emphasis supplied). Thus, there is no doubt that the drilling of wells as part of the Northstar Development Project has been determined to be consistent with the ACMP, Assuming without deciding that the Commission is required under the ACMP to ensure that the activity proposed to be permitted under AS 31.05.090 is consistent with the ACMP before a permit to drill is issued, the Commission has satisfied that requirement here by not issuing Northstar Project permits to drill before the Division of Governmental Coordination made its final consistency determination for that project. Greenpeace, of course, had abundant opportunity to participate in the public process by which that fmal consistency determination was reached. ITL Was Greenpeace Entitled to Notice of the Permit Application? In accordance with the Commission's long-standing practice under and interpretation of AS 31.05.090, the permit to drill in this case was issued without public notice or other notice to persons besides the permit applicant? Greenpeace asserts that this violated its due process rights as well as the provisions of AS 3l.05.050(b). The Commission believes the due process claim is without merit. Due process protections are not triggered by every government action, but only by those government actions that potentially impair a Pursuant to 20 AAC 25.537(a), following issuance of the permit the Commission published the fact that the permit had been issued and certain information about the well in question. ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 3 of6 'J ~~ person's property or liberty. Greenpeace has not claimed any property or liberty interest within the purview of the due process clause that might be at stake in the decision to approve the pennit to drill in this case. See State, Dept. of Natural Resources v, Universal Education Society, Inc., 583 P.2d 806 (Alaska 1978). The statutory provisions cited by Greenpeace are inapposite. AS 31.05.050(b) does not address when notice must be given but rather specifies how notice is to be given when notice is "required by this chapter." AS 31.05 requires notice for well spacing exceptions, AS 31.05.100(b), and for compulsory unitization, AS 31.05.110(b), but not for permits to drill, AS 31.05.090. Seemingly more pertinent to Greenpeace's concern is AS 31.05,060(b), which in relevant part provides: Any action by the commission under this chapter that has application to a single well or single field need not comply with the provisions of AS 44.62.330 - 44.62.630 [the adjudication provisions of the APA], but shall be performed in accordance with regulations of the commission designed to afford persons affected by the action notice and an opportunity to be heard. Contrary to Greenpeace's claim, the Commission has promulgated notice and petition regulations. See 20 AAC 25.540 (general provisions for hearings on petitions ("request[s] to issue an order affecting a single well or a single field"»; 20 MC 25.055(d) (specific notice provisions for spacing exceptions); 20 AAC 25.252(i) (notice for underground disposal or storage). These regulations do not, however, cover applications for permits to drill. Pennits to drill are addressed in 20 AAC 25.005, which does not mandate notice. The question is whether the Commission is required to provide notice of those applications to others like Greenpeace. The Commission believes the answer is no. Pennits to drill are governed by a specific statutory provision that contemplates a limited and abbreviated administrative process. AS 31.05.090 requires the Commission to issue a permit to drill in the absence of a violation on the applicant's part. And it requires the Commission to act "promptly" "upon receipt of notification and fee" from the applicant. These provisions do not appear to be consistent with public notice or any other extended administrative process for deciding on applications for permits to drill. The Commission's practice has in fact been to act promptly on such applications, typically issuing a permit less than two weeks after receiving the application Sometimes, as where an operator decides to substantially change the drilling objective (bottom-hole location) after beginning drilling operations, an even more rapid decision on an application is needed to avoid keeping a drilling rig in costly stand-by status. This would not be possible if public notice were required. Furthermore, as pointed out in the Commission's earlier order, under 20 AAC 25.537 almost all of the material submitted in support of an application for a permit to drill must be kept confidential. This would make participation in the pennit decision by others besides the applicant awkward at best and next to meaningless at worst. The Commission believes, then, that the legislature did not intend the issuance of pennits to drill under AS 31.05.090 to be subject to advance notice to members ofthe public. If AS 31.05.060(b) applies at all to those permits, the permit applicant is the only person deemed to be "affected," It is worth noting in this connection that when the legislature enacted AS 31.05.060(b) (Sec. 7, ch. 160, SLA 1978), it was with the purpose of expediting the decision-making process in matters concerning a single well or single field by exempting those matters from the adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Speaker Malone, a co-sponsor of the legislation, explained in ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page40f6 'J ~ committee meeting that it was "designed to be an 'anti-red-tape' provision for special consideration of a single field." H. Fin. Comm. Minutes, Apr. 27,1978. See Appendix 3 to this order. A lot of times, he advised, it isn't in the best interest of the State to go through the Administrative Procedure Act for a minor situation. He stated there ought to be simplified procedures in instances involving a single well or field. Id, By comparison, the AP A itself requires notice only to "the parties," AS 44.62.420, who consist of "the agency, the respondent, and a person, other than an officer or an employee in an official capacity, who has been allowed to appear in the proceeding," AS 44.62.640(b)(4). Certainly by enacting an "anti- red tape" provision the legislature did not intend the' concept of "persons affected by the action" under AS 31.05.060(b) to be broader than the very limited class of persons entitled to notice in APA adjudications. In the case of an application for a pennit to drill, the equivalent of the "respondent" is the applicant. See 1978 Inf. Op. Att'y Gen. (Jan. 31; 663-78-0446), 1978 WL 18334, Appendix 4 to this order. IV. Has Greenpeace Demonstrated Any Substantive Basis to Revisit the Commission's Decision to Issue the Permit to Drill? Greenpeace asserts that the Commission failed in various respects to comply or to require BP to comply with substantive requirements of the Commission's regulations. However, Greenpeace has provided no basis for its conc1usory assertions, and the Commission is aware of none. In addition, some of the regulations Greenpeace cites do not apply at all to an application for a pennit to drill but instead apply to post-drilling operations, some of which have their own review and approval procedures. For example, Greenpeace complains that the Commission "failed to require abandonment plans in accordance with 20 AAC 25.105," but that regulation requires an operator to submit and obtain Commission approval of such a plan "before work is begun to abandon a well," not at the time an application for a pennit to drill is made, Greenpeace also asserts that the Commission failed to "conduct an analysis of coastal impacts from the well drilling, well operations, the underground injection well, or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation." As the Commission noted in its earlier order, coastal impacts were addressed as part of the ACMP consistency review and mitigation of coastal impacts are also implicitly addressed in the Commission's regulations. There is no further requirement for the Commission to analyze coastal impacts. Contrary to Greenpeace's assertion, geophysical hazards were considered by the Commission in reviewing the permit to drill. See 20 AAC 25.005(c)(4). Accordingly, the Commission fmds no basis for rehearing with respect to its permit decision in this matter. v. The Commission Is Always Open to Receiving and Considering Information Bearing on Compliance or Non-compliance with Applicable Laws. Regulations. Orders. or Permit Conditions. Finally, it is worth repeating what was said in the Commission's earlier order, Whether or not the AS 31.05 .O90( a) rehearing procedures apply or are invoked in a given situation, the Commission itself has continuing authority to consider, investigate, and act on information received from whatever source, concerning compliance with the ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 5 of6 ..~ /~ ~ statutory and regulatory provisions that the Commission administers. See. e.g., AS 31.05.030(b); 20 AAC 25.535. . .. Consequently, any material information that Greenpeace [or others] may choose to supply the Commission, whether through a rehearing proceeding if held or by informal means, will be given due consideration. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of May 2001. aniel T. Seamount, Jr:, Commissioner Alaska Oil. and Gas Conservation Commission JuL<Þ M. ~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on May 9, 2001, a copy of the above was mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BPXA Attome(\J 0 ~~ Orlansky J o~e,~ecutlve Secretary This decision is the final order of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Any Appeal to Superior Court must be brought within 30 days from the date that this decision is mailed or otherwise distributed. ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 6 of6 ",.--- 6. ~. ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3539 Re: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, ) INC., for Rehearing of Approval of ) Permit to Drill No. 201-027 (API No. ) 50-029-22003-00). ) May 9, 2001 ORDER DENYING REHEARING In its Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay, the Commission stated that it would fIrst consider whether Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill and would then proceed accordingly. The Commission stated that it would base its determination on any briefmg filed by Greenpeace and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("BP") in the similar matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (which briefmg could also address any additional considerations specific to this Permit to Drill No. 201- 027). Having now considered the briefs filed by Greenpeace and BP, the Commission declines to rule on what might be called the "standing" issue but instead denies rehearing on the merits. Because the petitions and the issues in the two matters are identical in almost all material respects, the Commission's decision here is based on the reasons set out in the attached Order Denying Rehearing in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211, as supplemented by the following. 1. North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program One of the claims Greenpeace made regarding Permit to Drill No. 200-211 concerns compliance with the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP"). Greenpeace has repeated that claim here but has added the assertion that the Commission "failed to comply with the North Slope Borough CMP Policy 2.4.4(b);(f)." Greenpeace's reference to the North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program ("NSBCMP") is redundant, because the Northstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination encompasses consistency with the NSBCMP. "Standards of the ACMP include state standards found in regulations. . , and the enforceable policies of the local coastal districts. In this case, the North Slope Borough is the affected coastal district for the Northstar Project" Northstar Development Project Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Analysis at 1, copied as Appendix 1 to Order Denying Rehearing, Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (emphasis supplied). The NSBCMP policies identified by Greenpeace were specifically addressed in this Consistency Analysis, at 30-32. See Appendix A to this order. II. Other Alleged Errors In addition to the same substantive errors alleged in Greenpeace's petition regarding Permit to Drill No. 200-211, Greenpeace alleges here that the Commission has failed to protect freshwater from contamination and has failed to witness certain tests or operations. The petition does not specify, however, the nature of the alleged failure(s) concerning protection of freshwater or how such failures ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page I of 2 ~, ~ 6 ~ might relate to the Commission's decision to issue Permit to Drill No. 201-027. As pointed out previously, the Commission is required under AS 31.05.090 to issue a requested permit to drill "unless the drilling ofthe well is contrary to law or a regulation or order of the commission, or unless the person is in violation of a commission regulation, order or stipulation pertaining to drilling, plugging or abandonment of a well." Protection of freshwater is an objective of several provisions ofthe Commission's regulations, but Greenpeace has not explained, nor is the Commission aware, how the drilling of the well in question would be contrary to any of those provisions. Similarly, even if it were true that the Commission failed to carry out certain inspections (and as far as the Commission is aware, the appropriate inspections have in fact been carried out), such failure would not retroactively invalidate a permit to drill that was necessarily issued before the occasion to perform the inspections could even arise. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of May, 2001. ~M,~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: ::;/9/0/ W ainwright/F eldmaniOrlansky J~~~ This decision is the fmal order of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Any Appeal to Superior Court must be brought within 30 days from the date that this decision is mailed or otherwise distributed. ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 2 of 2 ~ 8 ~ ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Petition of Greenpeace, Inc., ) for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 201-041) (API No. 50-029-23005-00) (Northstar Unit 29) ) ) ) May 9, 2001 ORDER DENYING REHEARING In its Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay, the Commission stated that it would first consider whether Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a pennit to drill and would then proceed accordingly. The Commission stated that it would base its detennination on any briefmg filed by Greenpeace and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("BP") in the similar matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 and on any supplemental briefmg filed here. (No supplemental briefing was filed.) Having now considered the briefs of Greenpeace and BP, the Commission declines to rule on what might be called the "standing" issue but instead denies rehearing on the merits. . Because the petitions and the issues in this matter and in the matters of Pennit to Drill No. 200- 211 and Permit to Drill No. 201-027 are identical in almost all material respects, the Commission's decision here is based on the reasons set out in the attached Order Denying Rehearing in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 and the attached Order Denying Rehearing in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 201-027, as supplemented by the following. 1. ACMP, EIS, Pennitting, and mc Analysis One of the claims Greenpeace made regarding Permit to Drill Nos. 200-211 and 201-027 concerns compliance with the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP"). Greenpeace repeats that claim here but also separately asserts that the Commission has permitted wells to be drilled "that have not been analyzed as part of the ACMP . . . process." In its previous orders the Commission pointed out that drilling wells under the Northstar Development Project has already been found to be consistent with the ACMP and that no further ACMP review is required. Greenpeace's additional assertion here merely repeats its earlier allegation in different words and is fully addressed by the Commission's order in Pennit to Drill No. 200-211. Greenpeace also asserts that the wells "have not been analyzed as part of the. . . EIS process." As a factual matter an environmental impact statement on the Northstar Development Project was prepared by federal agencies, but that is beside the point. The Commission has no authority to deny a permit to drill on the ground that the proposed well has not been analyzed as part of an EIS process. Nor may a permit to drill be denied for lack of what Greenpeace vaguely tenns "appropriate federal and state permitting analysis," as long as the requirements of AS 31.05.090 have been met. Greenpeace further asserts that the Commission has pennitted wells to be drilled "with no . . . UIC analysis." This presumably refers to the underground injection control program implemented through 20 AAC 25.402 and related regulatory provisions. Under 20 AAC 25.402, Commission ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page I of2 c c authorization to inject fluid must be obtained before injection occurs, not before a well is drilled. There is no requirement for a "VIC analysis" in order to obtain a permit to drill. ll. Public Comment on "Spare Well" Finally, Greenpeace states: "There has been no ability of the public to comment on NS 29 because it was noted as a spare well." The Commission does not understand the reference to "spare well," but such designation is immaterial in any event, because the same review and approval process applies to all pennits to drill, and in no case does that process include public notice and comment prior to permit issuance. This issue was addressed at length in the Commission's order in Pennit to Drill No. 200-211, where the Commission concluded that the legislature did not intend the issuance of permits to drill under AS 31.05.090 to be subject to advance notice to members of the public. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of May 2001. c ~t6: C~~ Taylor, Chair Ø":~an as Conserv .0 ColDmission D!f~eamount, r., Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ~M,~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on May 9, 2001, a copy of the above was mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BP~. ttomeY~s JeffFe~:r~sky --~. 0 Jody 0 m~E c tive Secretary This decision is the [mal order of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Any Appeal to Superior Court must be brought within 30 days from the date that this decision is mailed or otherwise distributed. ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 2 of2 4 " ;------ ~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 R€C£/I/£D MAY 0 7 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas A~ Cornrn; PETITION TO THE SSion ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-103-20370-01 Phillips Alaska, Inc. ) ) ) Petitioners Joseph Akpik, Lydia Sovalik, Joeb Woods and Abraham Woods, join in the Request for Clarification of the "Order Granting Hearing for Limited Purpose of Denying Request for Stay" filed by Phillips Alaska, Inc. The timing of the order and the information requested by the order were unclear to Appellants. It was unclear whether the Commission was relying upon other evidence previously submitted in a different case or whether Appellants were requested to submit additional evidence, and the date by which that evidence was required. These Appellants are Native Allotment holders affected by the Commission's decision, in many ways. First, these Appellants are Native Allotment holders in the area where the drilling is to take place (Allotment numbers FF-011949; FF 011951; FF-11947; FFOl1943). These allotments are located immediately west and southwest of the proposed drill sites and are in close proximity to the drill sites. Second, there are archeological sites on the Appellants' allotments that are in close proximity to the drilling Request for Clarification (Negliq Well) Post-it'" Fax Note 7671 pa To 'V1o$ t\J\\~tt Co./Dept. Phone # Fax # Date i]íl Itaa~s. Jj From) . to /0 (YJßr . ¿, Co. Ú»CfCC Phone # J Fax # .. /~ .,~ activity. The allotment of Lydia Sovalik contains sites that are on the National Register of Historic Places. There has been no consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer prior to allowing the drilling, and it is not known whether the drilling will cause harm to the historic sites. These Appellants are subsistence users of the resources, including aquifer resources that are in proximity to the drill sites. It is respectfully requested that the Commission clarify its prior order, and clarify whether testimony on the ways and extent to which these Appellants are affected is supposed to be submitted. If actual testimony is requested by the Commission, then a translator will be required and a teleconference will be necessary. If affidavits are required, then some of these Appellants request that they be permitted to submit their affidavit in Inupiaq, with a translated version provided to the Commission. Respectfully submitted this 4th of May 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT íf~ , ., ,.' ". Nancy S¡'Wainwright on behalf of Akpik, et al. Requestfor Clarification (Negliq Well) page 2 . . .. /~ /"""'. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on May 4,2001 a copy of the following were served by mail on: Ms. Barbara Fullmer Phillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-0360 Documents served: Document Served: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Dated: 5/4/01 t / . , ~\ r lL{t, !(t; Nancy ~/Wainwright '\ Attorney for Appellants AOGCC Request for Clarification Certificate of Service 05/04/0 I 3 , ~ é,. /~ ~. 1 Barbara F. Fullmer, Esq. Phillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-0360 (907) 265-1341 MAY 0 1 ZO01 2 RECEIVED 3 4 Alaska Oil & Gas Coos, Commission Anchorage 5 6 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 West Seventh Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 7 8 Re: 9 10 11 12 The Petition by Joseph Akpik, et al ) of the Decision to Approve Development) Well 50-103-20370-01 Phillips Alaska, Inc. ) ) Nigliq 1 A Well April 9, 2001 REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF BRIEFING SCHEDULE 13 On April 9, 2001, this Commission issued its "Order Granting Rehearing for Limited 14 Purpose and Denying Request for Stay" in the above-captioned matter ("Order"). The Order 15 provided that Petitioners must file an explanation as to how Petitioners are "affected" by the 16 Commission's decision to issue the permit to drill about which Petitioners complain, and that 17 Petitioners "may file at the same time briefing addressing the questions posed by the 18 Commission in its order regarding Permit to Drill No. 200-211, or they may indicate that they 19 will rely on the briefing previously filed in the latter case." Order at pages 1-2. The 20 21 Commission also provided that "Phillips may file a response within 1 0 days after the petitioners' 22 filing." Order at page 2. 23 The original order to which the Order refers sets a schedule for the petitioner to file its 24 explanation and briefing 10 days from the date of issuance ofthe order, and the permit holder 25 was allowed 10 days from the date it received a copy of the petitioner's memorandum to file a Request for Clarification Well 50-103-20370-01 ORIGINAL - /~ ~ 1 response. See February 9, 2001, Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying 2 Request for Stay in Re: The Petition of Greenpeace, Inc., for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to 3 Drill No. 200-211 (API No. 50-029022996-00). 4 As of noon, May 1, 2001, Phillips Alaska, Inc. has not received any filings from 5 Petitioners in this matter beyond the initial Petition, and according to a review yesterday 6 (April 30, 2001) of the Commission's files, Petitioners have not submitted any filings nor any 7 8 request for extension of time to file, 9 Phillips Alaska, Inc. requests that the Commission clarify the specific date by which 10 Petitioners should have filed or shall file their explanation and any briefing so Phillips Alaska, 11 Inc. will know when its response will be due. 12 Respectfully submitted this 1st day of May, 2001. 13 PHILLIPS ALASKA, INC. 14 ~ ~. , $1~.'L? Barbara F. Fullmer Alaska Bar # 9011114 15 16 17 Certificate of Service 18 I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served by facsimile to the facsimile numbers shown below and by US, mail to the addresses shown below on the 1st day of May, 2001, on the following parties: 19 Nancy S. Wainwright, Esq, 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 Facsimile: 907-345-3629 20 21 22 Robert Mintz, Esq. Office of the Attorney General Oil, Gas, and Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Suite 200 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Facsimile: 907-276-3697 23 24 25 ~~ j(-~. Kathryn E, HOlls~ Request for Clarification Well 50-103-20370-01 2 2 '" /~ ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Petition of Joseph Akpik, Lydia Sovalik, ) Joeb Woods, and Abraham Woods, ) for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 201-061 ) (API No. 50-103-20370-01) (Nigliq lA) ) ) ) "' "--- . April 9, 2001 ORDER GRANTING REHEARING FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY On March 21, 2001, the Commission approved an application filed by Phillips Alaska, Inc. ("Phillips") for a permit to drill a well, pursuant to AS 31.05.090 and 20 AAC 25.005. On March 29, 2001, the above-named petitioners filed a petition challenging the permit approval under AS 31.05.080. The petition also requests "a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of this petition." This petition is similar to the petition Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") filed on February 1, 2001, challenging the Commission's approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211. In that matter, the Commission granted rehearing for the limited purpose of allowing briefmg and consideration of the question of whether Greenpeace has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill. For the reasons set out in that order, the Commission will also grant rehearing in this matter for the limited purpose of considering the equivalent question. As in the first matter, the Commission will then determine whether it may hear this petition on the merits and will proceed accordingly. The petition in this matter did not explain in what respect(s) the petitioners assert that they are "affected" by the Commission's decision to issue the permit to drill. See AS 31.05.080(a). The Commission will not be able to reach a decision in this matter until the petitioners file such an explanation. They may file at the same time briefing addressing the questions posed by the Commission in its order regarding Permit to Drill ORDER GRANTING REHEARING FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY Page 1 of2 . , ~ / ~ No. 200-211, or they may indicate that they will rely on the briefing previously filed in the latter case. Phillips may file a response within 10 days after the petitioners' filing. Regarding the petitioners' request to stay the permit pending a hearing on the merits, the Commission is not aware of any facts showing that a temporary emergency order is needed "to protect against immediate harm to public health or safety," see 20 AAC 25.539, or that a stay is otherwise warranted. Accordingly, the request for a stay will be denied. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: 1. The petition for rehearing is preliminarily granted for the limited purpose of allowing consideration of the question of whether the petitioners have the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill, as more fully set out in the February 9, 2001, Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay in Re: The Petition of Greenpeace, Inc., for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (API No. 50-029-22996-00). 2. The request for a stay is denied. ~ .itA, ~~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on April 9, 2001 a copy of the Above was mailed and Faxed to each of the following: Nancy Wainwright Dan Rodgers C\. C oJ ~ ~ Jody J. colombieO~ Executive Secretary ORDER GRANTING REHEARING FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY Page 2 of2 <'- ~ / /"~ ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 WEST 7TH AVENUE, SUITE 100 ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99501-3539 FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: Nancy Wainwright (907)345-7666 Dan Rodgers (907)265-6998 Jody Colombie Executive Secretary DATE: April 6, 2001 Total No. Of Pages Including Cover: 3 Re: Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay. NOTES/COMMENTS Phone No. (907) 793-1221 Fax No. (907) 276-7542 ******************************************************************************************************** * Po 01 * .--':' * ' TRANSACTION REPORT * * APR-09-01 MON 03:08 PM * * * ;;:: SEND(M) * * ;;:: * DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M# DP * * * * APR-09 03:06 PM 2656998 l'11N 3 SEND ( M) OK 115 * * ;;:: ******************************************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************************************** * P.Ol * * /'-- TRANSACT I ON REPORT ~ * * APR-09-01 MON 03:20 PM * * * * SEND(M) * * * * DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE M~ DP * * , * * APR-09 03:20 PM 3457666 **'**N 0 SEND ( M) BUSY 116 * * * ******************************************************************************************************** 1 -'! ~ ~ ~ , Nancy S. Wainwright R l"c Attorney at Law /..- I [ If" 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 114. V £ D Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 ,(1!,~sk V4R J 0 20 ¡:¡ Oil & G. 01 as c. PETITION TO THE 4nchor.°t¡s. CO ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 19ge 'IlJlJJisSiO/ì STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-103-20370-01 Phillips Alaska, Inc. ) ) ) Petitioners Joseph Akpik, Lydia Sovalik, Joeb Woods and Abraham Woods, hereby petition the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, State of Alaska, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and provides the following information: (1) This petition is timely filed within 20 days of the notice of AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-103-20370-01 (3) Decision on which petition is filed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow permit the development well 50-103-20370-01 PHILLIPS ALASKA INC. NIGLIQ 1A 201-061 APPROVED: 03/21/2001 EXPLORATORY SURF: 210FT FSL AND 1170FT FWL, SEC 02, T12N, RO04E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 1458FT FNL AND 198FT FEL, SEC 02, T12N,RO04E,UM LSE:ADL0380092 (4) Statement of Points Raised in Petition: Petitioners specifically allege: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling Fax # Dme ~¡I~. -7 , Fro~/If (..!O!õJf78¡ t! Co. êJ jâ (! (í --- Phone # -,/q.q./a?- { Fax # Petition to the AOGCC 3/29/01 (Negliq Well) Post-it" Fax Note" 7671 T°fJ;13 /Î/J J1tz Co.lDept. 11 (}, (;l Phone # ~ ~~ ~ " permit. AS 46.40; 6 AAC 50. The AOGCC failed to comply with the North Slope Borough CMP Policy 2.4.4(b);(f);(g). b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and petition regulations, or give notice of the single well permit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The adion of the AOGCC to approve the permit, without notice, violates Petitioners, administrative due process rights. c. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient primary well control for drilling. 20 AAC 25.033. d. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient secondary well control for primary drilling and completion 20 AAC 25.035. e. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 AAC 25.036. f. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 AAC 25.047, or to facilitate the safety of the drilling operation, and to prevent contamination of freshwater, seawater, and damage to the surface environment. g. The AOGCC has failed to require abandonment plans in accordance with 20 AAC 25.105. h. The AOGCC has failed to require automatic shut in equipment to meet the requirements of 20 AAC 25.265. i. The AOGCC has failed to require, and Phillips Alaska, Inc. has failed to comply with 20 AAC 25.526. in that Phillips has failed to carry on all operations and maintain Petition to the AOGCC 3/29/01 (Negliq Well) page 2 ~ ~ "" the property at all times in a safe and skillful manner in accordance with good oil field engineering practices and having due regard for the preservation and conservation of the property and protection of freshwater. j. AOGCC has failed to conduct an analysis of coastal impacts from the well drilling, well operations, the disposal wells, or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation. k. AOGCC has failed to protect freshwater from contamination by oil/gas/mud during drilling, exploration, and abandonment operations; 1. The AOGCC has failed to carry out its duties to (1 )witnesses Blow Out Prevention Equipment (BOPE) testing following installation of the surface casing on each rig at start up, after major moves and every two months on a routine basis; (2) conduct diverter tests; (3) witness, new rig or reactivated rigs start-ups where a diverter is required, and all wells requiring a diverter because of known or probable shallow gas sands. m. The AOGCC has permitted the operator Phillips Alaska, Inc. to drill wells that have not been analyzed as part of the ACMP process, and for which appropriate state permitting analysis has not been conducted. AOGCC has permitted these wells to be drilled with no ACMP or UIC analysis. n. There has been no ability of the public and property owners to comment on this well. Petition to the AOGCC 3/29/01 (Negliq Well) page 3 --, ,---- '" o. AOGCC has failed to consult with the tribal government and failed to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act and Alaska Historic Preservation Act requirements. Notice of Intent to file Supplemental Petition Petitioners hereby notify the AOGCC that it will supplement the points raised in this petition, after receipt of the agency record. Request for Stay Petitioners hereby request a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of this petition. Request for Information Petitioner requests that the following information be provided: total depth, bottom-hole location and well status after the Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Form 10-407) is filed; regular production data and regular production reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month; injection data and injection reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month. Respectfully submitted this 29th day of March, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT Nfls.W~it on behalf of Akpik, et al. Petition to t/æ AOGCC 3/29/01 (Negliq Well) page 4 . ~ .. ~ .~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifY that on March 29,2001 a copy of the following were served by mail on: Mr. Daniel G. Rodgers, Esq. Phillips Alaska, Inc. P.O. Box 100360 Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0300 Documents served: Petition to the AOGCC re: 50-103-20370-01 Phillips Alaska, Inc. Dated: 3/29/01 ( .. ì ' vtc~ f tUrA-, ~~U Nancy S. W~inkight Attorney for Appellants Akpik et al. AOGCC petition re: 50-103-20370-01 Phillips Alaska, Inc. Certificate ofServiee 03/29/01