The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutO 012 :-.. .'O.........._~....:... .JII ~ -- -~:"' -- - . . ¿/~. ":", ""'",,¡.,--,..._.~......-.,., ~l...., - ."'!"'~<¡ . . .. 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. () OIJ- Other Order File Date 7h2/of . I Color Materials - Added to LaserFiche File DYes D No D Added ( date) # Digital Data Added to LaserFiche File D CD's - # - DYes o No DYes D No DYes D No D DVD's - # D Diskettes - # - Oversized Material Added to LaserFiche File D Maps # - DYes o No DYes o No DYes o No D Mud Logs #'--'- D Other # General Notes or Comments about this file. I~~ /a.ye:5 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 " SCANNED JUL 1 2 2004 ~ ,~ CASE NO. COUNSEL OF RECORD -- /J~)(¡; KEEP ON TOP OF FILE NAME MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER FOR WHOM /Va fJe'l Mal ntIJr j/;113¿J3 ¿; Æê-k pj 1# /if? g~7f;&C" a,/a C?r?51? feIJ ¡;:eld/YIcur - 1"tJ¡J I- /)1- -:fl-e L/¿1¿J I/?an ¡J,rj;/J/)q a/¿z 9é/?"(}/ )COCt:1 wn.se? 8 ¡OJ( P7J~ .;¿7cf .O¡Z9 TF-900 (1/98)(5~ x 8~)(canary-cs) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. -~ ~ PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. For rehearing of approval of pe~its to drill API No. 50-029-22996-00 February 1,2001 - Appeal of the decision to approve development we1150-029- 22996-00 BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc February 1,2001- Green peace's Errata to titled document appeal February 7,2001 - Greenpeace's Petition February 9,2001 - Northstar Document index February 9,2001 - Order from Commission "Granting Rehearing for limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay" February 9,2001 - AGO's letter to Nancy Wainwright re: requests from petitioners and the actual documents requested 10. 11. 12. February 27,2001 - Greenpeace's Motion to Consolidate February 27,2001- Greenpeace's Motion for Extension of Time February 28,2001 - BPX's Response to Motion to Consolidate February 28,2001- BPX's Response to Motion for Extension of Time March 1, 2001 - Commission's Order "Granting Extension of Time" March 7,2001 - Briefing on Green peace's Right to Petition for Rehearing March 7, 2001 - Affidavit of Dan Ritzman March 19, 2001 - BPXA Briefing on Whether Green peace has the right to seek rehearing of drilling permits May 9,2001- Commission's Order Denying Rehearing 13. 14. 15. FEB 02 '01 03:32PM BPX ENDICOTT DEVP ~ P.2/6 ~ RECE\VED I-~B 02 2001 STORAGE PLAN . for TEMPORARY S~ØRAGE OF DRILLING WASTE . at NORTHSTAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Aløstta Oil & Gas Cons. CommisSion Ancnorage .. . Following is a plan for temporary .storage of drilling waste at Seal Island (North star Development Project) as required under 18AAC60.430(a) of the State of Alaska Solid Waste Management Regulations (as amended through October 29,1998). 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(l)(A) Drilling activities will be conducted by Nabors Alaska Drilling Inc. under the direction of the Northstar Drî1Iing Superintendent, Dave Cocking. He can be reached at (907) 564-4896. Mailing address is P.O. Box 196612J Anchorage, Alaska, 99519-6612 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(I)(B) The storage facility will be located in the north--central part o.f the island (see Figure 1). It will be constructed of timbers and impenneable liner and used to temporarily store drilling waste. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(l)(C) The total dimensions of the storage pit will be 145 feet long by 145 feet wide by 4 feet high; however, it will not be constructed as a single large pit. It will be constructed as a series of cells measuring approximately 16 feet wide by 145 feet long by 4 feet high. Cells will be constrocted, as needed, to handle the volume of waste generated from drillíng the Class I disposal well. Building only the storage volume needed to manage the waste will eliminate the problems of a single large-volume pit which tends to pack full of snow during winter storms, creating more snow clearing and fluid management problems. The pit walls will be constr:ucted of 12x12.inch timbers stacked four high. The timbers will be secured with three I-inch threaded rods per section of wall. A layer of 22-mil Seamans Shelterite 8218 liner material will be installed over an ice pad constructed in the north-central portion of the island. The liner wîll be secured to the top of the sidewalls in such a way to ensure that it does not sag below the top timber. All materials used in construction of the storage area. will be compatible with any drilling waste storage in the facility. Material which may compromise the integrity of the facility will not be placed in the facility. Construction drawings are submitted with this plan (Figure 2 and 3). 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(l)(D) Installation of the liner will be done in such a way as to avoid punctures or other damage to the bottom liner that might allow migration of fluids from the storage area to the gravel pad below. This wìll be accomplished in part by use of a constructed ice layer under the synthetic liner. When placing drilling waste . FEB 02 '01 03:33PM BPX ENDICOTT DEVP -... ,.-, DRILLING ..8TE STORAGE PLAN - NORTHST. P.3/6 . , into the storage area, care will also be taken to ensure that the bottom liner is not damaged. Heavy equipment will not enter the storage area until it is being closed out The area will be monitored routinely. Fluids collected in the pit will be removed and disposed of at an approved facility. Careful installation of the liner and routine dewatering of the storage area will prevent leachate from the storage area to the land or water. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(l)(E) There are no plans to transfer drilling waste to another storage facilitYt however, if waste is removed and hauled to another disposal facility, it may be placed temporarily in a lined storage area associated with that facility pending disposal. 18 AAC60.430 (a)(l)(F) Drilling waste will be stored at this site beginning in December 2000 as the Class I disposal well is drilled at Northstar. Use of the storage area will continue at least until ice road access is established to the island early in 2001 at which time the drilling waste may be removed from the storage area and hauled to the Grind and Injeçt Facility at OS 4 within the Greater Prudhoe Bay Unit At this location, the waste will be placed temporarily in a permitted, lined storage area pending disposaL Once the Northstar Class I well is completed, the drilling waste in storage may be injected on-site at Northstar. In either: case, drilling waste will not be stored on- site for more than one year. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(2)(A) The storage area will be of adequate size to contain all waste and coUected precipitation. Again, the design of this facility, using smaller cells constructed as needed rather than a single, large pit will mininÚ:Le the collection of snow and rain, and reduces fluid management r:equirements. 18 AAC 60.43(1 (a)(2)(B) The storage area will be leak proof. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(2)(C) The liner will be compatible with aU wastes placed in the facility. This storage area is for water-based drilling muds and cuttings. It will not be used to store hydrocarbon contaminated solids or other materials. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(2)(D) The storage area will be Hned with a synthetic liner material compatible with drilling muds and cuttings. The liner in combination with the ice layer underneath will meet the regulatory objective to contain the drilling waste and be protective of human health and the environment. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(3)(A) AfteT all drilling waste has been removed, the storage area will be visually inspected to verify that all waste has been removed. 18 AAC 60.430 (a)(3)(B) ADEC will be notified within seven days after the final site inspection and pr:ovided information regarding waste volumes and the final disposition of the waste. RECEIVED ì"~8 02 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commis8ion Anchorage FEB 02 '01 03:33PM BPX ENDICOTT DEVP P.4/6 :: ~- "; ~ f\¿CEIVED: ,"::8 02 2001 .. :: ' Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Com~ Anchorage . , t' ~ ~ ¡ . . TEMPORARY STORAGE AREA TO BE PLACED WITHIN THE NORTHCENTRAL CORNER OF íHE ISLAND I MLLW 1- I PERMANENT } FUEL TANK WITH CONTAINMENT I UTILITY MODULE - 60' X 60' í l MEDICAL FACILI'TY FUTURE LIVING QUARTERS - 60.' x 60' IWAAEHÔUSE f SHOP I 6O'X150' . I HELIPAD I 55' X 62' .. . BPEXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FACILITY LAYOUT TEMPORARY STORAGE PIT LOCATION MAP DATE: October 2000 SCALE; NOT TO SCALE FIGURE; 1 ><p\4314.dgn FEB 02 '01 03:34PM BPX ENDICOTT DEVP P.5/6 ~ .----. 145' t . ~ . ... - .. CELL 9 ~ , .. CELL 8 CELL 7 '. ... .'" .. . CELL 6 _A..... - CEllS ~ ..... ... ... CELL4 _..... ...., . . OELL 3 . ., , .. . . A~ .'.. '.1.. CEU- 2 ._, ...... ..0 0 CELL 1 ~,~_J .-' PLAN VIEW DETAIL a (SEE FIGURE 3) DETAIL A (SEE FIGURE 3) RECEIVED NOTes: DimensIons: Total Pit Is apprO(, 145 feet wide x 145 feet long)( 4 feet high; Designed 10 be constructed one cell at a time. The first cell is 145 feet long X 16 feet wide x 4 feet high; cells are added on 16 feøt per cell, Capacity: The Pit Is divided Into 9 cells, cells 2 tl1ru 9 of which has Ii usable volume of 143' x 15')( 3.5' "" 1350 bbl$. Cell 1 has a usable volume of 143' x 14' x 3.5 .. 1250 bbls. The total estimated usable pit volume Is 12000 bbls. ',::3 02 2001 AlaPka Oil & Gas Cons. Çemmission .. Anchoi'~& . . . ,.. BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FACILITY LAYOUT TEMPORARY STORAGE PIT PLAN VIEW ~.=="::.:.~~~:.~;~~~...._-----_..~ õt~ ~. .. ""':':- .--.-:~i ...!... CROSS SECTION A-A' DATE;; October 2000 SCALE: NOT TO SCALE FIGURE; 2 J<P14314.dgn 16' "I L-..I L---J 1..--' L---J '-----' L-...I L--J 1--J '6" . I.. 16' ;-c ... FORK POCIŒTS i ~ l' '---' '----J I '----' '----' t ,I '---' '--' II '----' '---' '--' ~ I. '---' '--' \ . I I . I '---' '---' I I <---J '---' I I I - ~1. . 15' . "~ 145' ).. 16' ""-.0: ~ l' t L---J~ FORK POCIŒTS L-J I I ~J '----' L---J '----' L-...J L-J - <--J DETAIL A - FRONT WAU- 145' DETAil B - SIDE WALL RECEIVED NOleS: Add fork pocIœf cut oats tor liftIng dyke waDs with Joader ." ¡.; 8 0 2 2001 InstaJI3 1"' rods per dyke wall to ho1d tlmbefs together. \' '- CQSta1fW plywood tall'lE! inside of !he dyke walls (If necessary) A1aaka Oil &. Gas Cœs. Commis8ion Andøage ...., fT1 tJ: IS) I\J IS) ,..,. ... IS) w w V1 -u 3: ~ x J !i . t:' H () 0 -1 -1 t:' fT1 < -u , ) , ,¡ BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. : : NORTHST AR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FACILiTY LAYOUT TEMPORARY STORAGE PIT DE! AIL DATE: I SCAlE: October 2000 Nar TO SCALE "U (J\ "- (J\ AGURE: 3 FEB 02 '01 03:32PM BPX ENDICOTT DEVP P.1/6 ,~ ,~ . ~ BP Amoco Fax Message .. BP Exploration (Ala$ka) loe. P.O. Box 196612 M83-6 900 E. Benson Boulevard Anohorage Alaska 99519.6612 Switchboard: (907) 561-5111 Central Fax: (907) 564-5200 <:::-I- . ~Þ'\- n ~ From; - ~ ,~\-Ù Date: Team: Alaska New Developments Direct Fax: (907) 564-5200 (907) 564- Subject: Direct Tel: Pages to follOw: S URGENT ORDINARY CONFIDENTIAL To: ~ , I DfV\ M~(\~ Copy to: Company: Division; Fax no: nrCE/\lI:D I'::,S 02 2001 A1aeka Oil & Gas ~ Co .. ~"". -- MeS$age. 15 ~ ~ 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 permit 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. 1. Is Greenpeace a "Person Affected" under AS 31.0S.080(a)? AS 3l.0S.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 permit 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 permit 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 ""-: ,-." someone's recreational use of the area, or even pose a residual risk to "remarkable and unique" public interest resources.! 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 re-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 44.19.145(a)(1l); 6 AAC 50.030. Pursuant to this consistency review, in which the Commission participated (see Appendix I 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 I"'- ~ (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 final 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 AAC 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 u.S.C. 1456(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 fma1 consistency determination for that project. Greenpeace, of course, had abundant opportunity to participate in the public process by which that final consistency determination was reached. III. 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.3 Greenpeace asserts that this violated its due process rights as well as the provisions of AS 31.05.050(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 of 6 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 permit 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 AAC 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. Permits 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. Permits 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 permit 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 permits to drill under AS 31.05.090 to be subject to advance notice to members of the 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 Page 4of6 SCANNEE, JUL 12 2004 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 APA 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 permit 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 conclusory 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 permit 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 permit 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 finds 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 31.05.090(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 of 6 SCANNED JUL 12 2004 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. Cammy Oeefili Taylor, Chair Alaska Oil d G Conservation Commission aniel T. Seamount, Jr:, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission .`. ktc.k"7� 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 Attorne s, Jeff Fel an/ usan Orlansky JodyUorroe, lUCcutive 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 6of6 SCANNEE JUL 12 2004 ---- ,-., Attachment B Final Consistency Determination February 4, 1999 N orthstar Development Proj ect Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Analysis This consistency analysis for tlÌe ÑortliStar I5èŸelopment Project (Northstar Project) discusses how activities of the proposed project meet each standard of the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). Standards of the ACMP include state ~tandards found in regulation (6 AAC 80.040 - 6 AAC 80.150) and the enforceable policies of the local coastal districts. In this case, the North Slope Borough is the affected coastal district for the Northstar Pròject. The Division of Governmental Coordination (DGC) developed this analysis with assistance from the Departments of Environmental. Conservation (DEC), Natural Resources (DNR) and Fish and Game (DFG). The following state divisions reviewed the analysis: Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Division of Air and Water Quality, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Division of Environmental Health, Division of Oil and Gas, State Pipeline Coordinators Office, Division of Mining and Water Management, Division of Land. and the Division of Habitat and Restoration. The Northstar Project involves a proposal by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) to develop the offshore Northstar Project from Seal.Island, an artificial. gravel island 6 miles north of the Prudhoe Bay Unit. This oil field will produce approximately 65,000 barrels of oil per day, and recoverable reserves are estimated to be about 145 million barrels of oil. The project proposal involves re-construction of Seal Island, construction and operation of drilling and production facilities at the island, and construction and operation of two pipelines. A 10-inch crude oil sales pipeline and a 10-inch gas pipeline would be buried in a common trench along the 6-mile subsea portion of the route and elevated on vertical support members along the approximate 10-mile long onshore portion of the route. A more complete description of the project may be found in the Project Description dated March 27, 1997 (Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) and an October 27, 1998 memorandum from BPXA outlining changes to the project description. Pennit applications provide supplemental infonnation about the project. Notable changes to the project description and pennit applications are outlined below. A PI ~YI dry / --- ,~ Attachment C Northstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Spill Prevention and Response Response to Comments & Decision Document for BP Exploration'5 Northstar Development Project January 7, 1999 A Pf el) ~)')< '~ V" \ 0 , ~ :.. 0.- - -. , I . . ü ('\.) r--. ,~ ISSlt: #12: Seasonal Drilline Restrictions Should s.::asonal restrictions be applied to oil well drilling during the broken ice periods to reduœ :he risk of discharge during times when spill response may not be effective? Re2Ulatmrv Reauirements 18 AAC -S.445(f): A...The department will, in its discretion, require the plan holder to take s~c temporary prevention measures until environmental conditions improve to reduce òe risk or magnitude of an oil discharge' during periods when planned spill response =:1ethods are rendered ineffective by e:::lvironmentallimitaúons.= Response- to Comments and Basis for Decision: Note to .~::Jders: This section of the document :ncorporates contributions from the AOGCc. _4DNR Division of Oil and Gas and tE-..e MMS. The consideration of comments raised. rr.e deliberation of the issue and the res-..dting decision reflects a State of Alaska unified p"-:sition for this issue. Several :~aunentors and review participants susgested that oil well drilling and oil productict:. and transportation should be curtailed during seasonal periods of broken ice seas. ba..~ largely on the'concern that effective spill clean-up capability is not possible during ù:;;5e seasonal conditions. During tte past several months considerable di~ussion on this topic has occurred among various s~ and federal agencies with represen:atives of BP and other Alaska oil COmpanle:5:.. primarily through the ~SSRPT. The issue was presented in DEe's Prelimlr-=.-:; Anal.vsis paper for public review. T..,e additional review and deliberation of this Issue JS presented below supplements and ~fines earlier work and responds to concerns ::cised during public review. This dis'::Jssion is limited to restrictions to well drilling. C:munentS suggesting restrictions to od pipeline operations are addressed elsewhe¡~ :.:n this document (See Issue #20), ad spdb ;:¡m result from many source~ mcludlO; facility process piping, crude oil transrrus.s:CI:l lines. oil storage tanks and Intern:ll oil and gas separating equipment and well blo~;:t;Jts. Oil spill prevention IS addresseé by DEe. ADNR. AOGCC and MMS for these sou:=:s through performance requirements placed upon industry such as coITosion monitonn~ md pigging of pipelines. structural and coITosion testing of oil storage tanks and many ùIÙ1er requirementS as described 10 reg-.Jlation. right of way agreements and pennits. DEC and other agencies also perform f~ld inspections of this equipment and ' process cp:::-ations to assure ongoing spill preve::1Ìon is part of daily facility operations. At DEC 5 ::quest. BP and ARCO Alaska have ~entJy prepared a comprehensive summary cr the numerous functions performed a:r the North Slope operations to avoid oil spills fron: 411 of these sources (Document IT-3 olf Preliminary Analysis). Although these are essen~ ongoing spill prevention functions. consideration to seasonally restrict 38 r--.., .--. ó:illing operations under the authority cited above is being limited to only oil well ó:illing activities because the spill cle::an-up capability appears adequate for potentia! oil ~ills from all other operations of the ~orthstar project during the broken ice season roasis and qualification for this staten:ent is further discussed elsewhere in this document). Although the probability ci such an incident is extremely remote, the reason far this focus is the extraordinary cle~-up challenges associated with an uncontrolled well blowoUt in which an oil fountain :.s wide spread by the wind during a broken ice sea c::mdition. ~~morable oil well blowoutS throughout the world have left lasting images of the m:agnirude such eventS can have upon worker safety and the environment. As with most inciustries. state or national oversight V"3ries among nations, and to a significant degre~ :i:1ose variations are reflected in the lon~-term improvement of safety statistics for the :::ciusrry. Today's governmental standzrds are the fruit of technology and procedural ;:C¡.ances that reduce the potential for h::lman errors. Lessons learned over time, in par: :"1..I:I1 eventS gone array. have led to the :,eneficial changes in the technology and :-r\..Jcedures throughout the petroleum i1".dusrry. Although we benefit today and can a;:~eciate that we have learned from rœ past, drilling oil wells will always have a risk.. T% dedication and diligence of people :hrough institutionalized procedures. training aDd g"'-w~mmenra1 standards makes the real =.ifference in safety. "-ell Control Practices in Alaska ACtGCC and the MMS have stringent r-...gulatory standards in place to assure well control a::c prevent blowouts. Both the MMS ::;.ad AOGCC regulatory programs provide for r.='.JJous review and approval of the pro~osed Northstar development drilling activity. T.:e:se regulatory requirements have be~::: developed to assure safe drilling operations aDd [0 :maintain well control. The essential e::-"ments of safe drilling programs currently iz::pilemented by these agencies are liste::: below. L Site specific shallow haz=ds surveys to identify potential for shallow gas.. faults or other anomalies. In addition. analyses are required to assess potential for overpressu~ at depth in areas where lower levels of drilling have occulTed. ~ Proper well desIgn to cor.~n formation pressures and maintain well control includIng cJSln£. :-=menung. drilling fluids. and blowout prevention equipment ~ .... Pennie review and approv;¡j to verify well design and construction equipment and technique:. Information regarding potential geological and operational hazards are mc-.luded to alert crew and supervisors prior to beginning operations. L Primary well control mud s;ystems capable of containing well pressure and maintaining hole stability. 39 .-----. ~. !: Redundant blowout preventers and power sources to provide multiple mechanisms to control and seC".Jre the well. !: Scheduled testing of blowout preventers to assure they are functional. !: Well monitoring to detect pototial down hole problems or Akicks.= such as drilling rate, changes in muë returns (volumes, temperatures or gas), changes in cuttings size or shape:. !: Well control training ar.j drills to assure personnel can detect potential problems ~d know how to sec:Ire the well and maintain well control (well control training stemmed, in pært, from the 1984 State of Alaska Tier II policy decision on broken ice). ~ Inspection and oversight to ens¡¡re compliance with permit conditions and regulations. ~ AOGCC conductS peñodic me::ings with industry to discuss permit and compliance issues, technologic~ innovation, solve regulatory problems and maintain communications between regulatory technical and inspection staffs and industry operational znd engineering personnel. Since L994, AOGCC has revised the pennit and onsite practices concerning commu=llcations. diveI1er size and configuration, cementing practices, standard operation procedcres and clarified rig personnel responsÒilities in emergency situations in response to well.::ontrol incidentS at the Cirque well (1992) and the Endicott field (1994). Both incideITC5 resulted in uncontrolled flows of natu:ral gas which were brought under control by conv~ntional means without injury or loss c: propeI1Y. Permit practices were changed to requ:=: discussion of pOtential hazards assoc:.ated with every well and dissemination of this infmrmation to onsite crews and supervisors by inclusion in drilling procedure outlines sent to the field. training programs anc. onsite standing orders. Communication procedures have been improved so that Inform.z!Jon is shared between geologists, engine:::;; and rig personnel for the mcre:l.<;ed sJ..fety of operations. The AOGCC investig:ntion led to setting out ldentJIïed levels ::>f responsibility in emergency situations and cIar..lÏcation of the roles oj ng personnel re;.attve to company representatives when emerge::x::y conditions warrant The~e responslollitles are included in standing orders that are post~d on each rig. The AO<GCC included a provision for '.PIt dnlls,- in proposed regulations currently under review JI:ld changed the diverter sIze and config':lration to increase the diameter of the diverte~ ilines from ten inches to sixteen Inches ;¡md to require that the pipe run be as straight JtS practical to eliminate a requIred bifu~ation in the line. Cement practices for surface :::asing have been improved to promote c::ment circulation to surface and outlining; remedial steps and well utility limitations when complete circulation to surface is not ac::lleved. 40 ~. ~ Once development drilling is completed and the well is prepared for production operations.. surface safety valve systems are also in place to prevent uncontrolled flow of hydrocari:ans from the well as pan of the chris::nas tree assembly. In addition, offshore wells suct as those to be constructed at Northsür have an additional sub-surface safety valve. Suriace and sub-surface safety valves aI:tomatically shut in a well when pre-set parameters are exceeded. Routine inspection a::ld testing of safety valves is done to ensure thë readiness. The above .:iiscussion conveys what govemmea does to oversee industry's well drilling operations- Aside from government oversight. :ndustry maintains its own internal managemc::::lt system to assure safety in well drilling. For North Slope Shared Services Drilling this internal management affects contr3.:t drillers and industry employees in a tiered sysr.=n of management that ranges from c::>rporate wide policies for setting broad based pdr:ciples through intermediate and then ::.;e specific well drilling program for each field locar:,:m. Several pages of Document II-3 :)f the Preliminary Analysis describe how these safe~. provisions are applied on a day-to-èay basis by the corporations. Alaska and Gulf Coast Well Control Histol1' ARCa A.b:ska and BP recently reviewed all available drilling records at their offices to compare ~",rth Slope well blowout incident rates with those of the lower 48 states and Canada. T.:J.Îs report is provided as Document II-9 of the Preliminary Analysis. Since the companies do not have a central repository of aD North Slope well drilling information, this infOl---:.ation was gleaned from numerous sources and may have inadvertently oIIÙtted some data sources and associated blowout inciœnts. In the report, a blowout is considere¿ ¡o have occurred anytime primary ar:d secondary well control does not contain hydrocarbc41 gas or liquid (nOt restricted to hydr:>carbons) which then emanates from the well bore cr around the well casing and then to surface. The data :::dicates that six blowout events have :>ccurred on the North Slope since 1974. The most ~ent event was an Endicou well in 1994. None of these incidents resulted in a liquid hYCxocarbon spill. With 3.336 wells drii.:i~d on the NorthSlope since 1974, the well blowout incident rate I~ 1.8 blowouts per 1000 wells. This data set does nOt include events du:-.=g well service work such a.... wm:linc: or coiled tubing operations. In oral commumc~on with the author of Document II-:) of the Preliminary Analysis, although undocume:-.;¡ed. there has b<=en no knll\\ n hlown~1~ during well servicing operations at the ~orth Slo?=. Published reports for LoUI\lana. T :::X:15. Alberta. and the OCS. essentially the: Gul! of Mexico were found throufh Industr: . ~ research. It is not known if the term blowout WJ:5 uniformly defined In each of the: ur".derlying published articles. Based upon review of ace of the supporting pubh~hc:d pape:-~ it is evident that the reported blowout incidentS èid include well servicIng opc:rJtlons as well as other activity categories. Blowout iI:Cident rates in the OCS were found to' be highest at 3.5 to 4.1 per 1000 wells. (different ..-;clues in [WO reports I. LoUISIJJ1J and Texas blowout frequency over a 36-year record (1960- 1996) were sundar to each other:u: 1.07 and 1.1 per 1000 wells respectivel;". Alberta rates from 1979 [0 1988 ar: found to be lower, at 0.35 blowouts per 1000 wells drilled. 41 ,--..., ~\ These ~..ar:istics were reported in an anicle subcitted in support of Document IT-9 of the Prelimir.cry Analysis, entitled Trends extracted from 1200 Gulf Coast Blowouts during 1960-]çç,s by Pal Skalle and A.L. Podia published in World Oil, June 1998. The anicle provides :Insightful information discriminating 3111ong the various well blowouts for more than 500.000 oil wells drilled for Gulf Coast oil operations. Several facts and conclusiams from this anicle are relevant for eV4luating the risks of blowouts in North Slope op:=ations. The authors report on the nu:nber of blowouts for various oil well activities. This breakdown is provided in the tæble below. Skalle and Podia report that blowout ::::quency on a per well basis is three dInes higher for exploration drilling than for develC1?ment drilling. Well workover blowouts are a significant fraction of the total blowoutS ==ported on the Gulf Coast (120 of 1003 reported blowouts), while blowouts during èo1WI1hole wireline activities were relatively rare at 24 incidents of the 1003. BloWOllG juring normal oil production phase W4S 97 incidents during the 1960 -1996 period :::c the Gulf Coast and OCS database. ~mmber of Blowouts by Activity! Area.. 1960 - 1996, U.s. Gulf Coast ?".:iAS E TEX. .;.s OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF Explor.:";on Drilling 244 45 Develq:cent Drilling 180 49 Other D-ijJing 14 4 Comple::cm 64 25 W orko\"~ 197 23 Wireline 19 5 Produc:;¡:rr. 85 12 :Vl1ssing ?T.ase Data 15 23 TOTAL 817 Source: P.:i. 5kalle. A.L. Podio. World 011. June ll998 186 Skalle anè ?odic also report that the blowout incÏIdent rate increases as wells go deeper. The far nuiority of wells drilled in the li.S. is to:a depth of less than 5.000 feet. OCS wells as a ~eral rule are deep wells - reflecting me higher blowout rate as reported. Well deptt:s not the only factor according to Sb::1Je and Podio who repoI1 when depth is a segregatt::t parameter that Texas wells have a lO"Wer blowout frequency than oes wells 42 /'"'- . .~ w'hen drilled to the same depth. Evide::tly other risks associated with working in the OCS ac=ount for the difference. ~ûrth Slope wells tend to be in the 8- 12,000 foot vertical depth range where the total rc=asured drilling distance can be co~derably greater. Although it can not be clearly a..~ertained from the article whether North Slope wells are generally more shallow than the OCS wells cited, this is suspected to be true on a general scale. Alaska North Slope well depths are generally deeper than most U.S. wells. North Slope wells appear to be suòject to a higher blowout incident rat: than would be reflected for wells in the Gulf C~ast states of Texas, and Louisiana bl.:! less than DCS wells. Although the North Slope åaI:a set reflectS approximately 3300 we:11s in comparison the 510,000 well record for the Gdf Coast. the North Slope blowout fr-...quency þolds true to the conclusions of the Skalle am:: Podio report. To reiterate, the term :,lowout as presented in the tables above does nOt iniAr that a blowout resulted in an oil discharge. T.:&:: probability of an oil spill from a blowout is small. According to information ptï:'Vided by the MMS, there has never been a significant oil spill from a blowout from an c:t;)loratory well on the OCS or from a œvelopment well since 1971 with over 24,000 w~s drilled. These results are a reflecbon of the federal government's commiunent to i::c::-ease reguiatory oversight of drilling following the Santa Barbara oil spill in 1968. S:m::e the formulation of comprehensive drilling and production regulations in the late 6-J'~. there has been only one 100 barrel .spill associated with an exploratory well bio'wout. A statistical review of OCS bLowouts which is summarized in Document II-9 of ti:e- Preliminary Analysis reflects that gas blowout events which occur above oil bearing zcm=s are the predominate blowout type :and generally do not result in catastrophic oil SFûJs. It is also important to note that the duration of over 80 percent of blowoutS is less tI'..;Un a week. Comclusions and Decision .~rmough the risk of a blowout is very sr::all and indeed the risk of a blowout that d:s.:::larges an oil fountain into the air is ::-ven smaller. the Department is compelled to in.:;uure if there are reasonable methods a",.ailable to elinùnate or mininùze the risk of a c:l:.JStrophic well blowout during period£ of broken ice seas. The applicable regulation (15 .AAC 75.445(f) does not require the facility's operations to be shutdown to prevent a d:s.=¡arge when a response is not possible::. It does provide DEC with the discretion to re~Wlre additional prevention measures. rIle review of spill response capability presented un~ Issue #1 has led to a decisIOn whlc:J will significantly improve spill response c~.1Oility in broken ice. This improvemc=nt provides for an effective response system in all crtut the most difficult situations: broko ice concentrations in excess of 60%. The de::sion also requires a commitment for .:udditional research and development to explore ne.. 'technologies that would further enhmce response capability. These ice conditions ar~ :xpected to prevail for only a few days each spring and fall at any given site and not' the :!lUre broken ice season of up to seve::al weeks. Com:::ms raised during public review abolCt the risk of an oil spill during well drilling at the :mne of broken ice seas were consiste!I:! with the concerns and interest of the 43 ~ /~ Depa.t:mlent. Suggestions to curtail drilling ac"'jvities during the broken ice season have been ~xamined from two perspectives: improving the ability to clean-up oil as much as techmi=ally possible; and diminish the risk of .a discharge during periods when response can not be effective. In examining the options to reduce the risk of discharge. the Depar::ment with the aid of AOGCC and MMS sought to obtain a comprehensive unde::standing of the various facetS of drilling.. The intent of this effon was to understand whe~ marked differences in risk are evident. The Department also requested industry to examime the feasibility of "shon drilling" (driIling that would remain above the targeted petroie:um bearing strata) for the broken ice pe:riod with subsequent completion drilling to take ;ilace after the season had passed. In delLberating possible solutions. consideration was g!:'ven to any drilling (exploratory or deveAopment) that may potentially occur where a blow/out could impact the sea during periods of broken ice - a broader perspective than just ~::Jnhstar. All ini:>rmation gathered suppons the conclusi-.:m that exploration drilling carries a higher . risk or well control loss than any other type of jrilling - generally in the range of a three fold ~..sk when compared to development drilli::lg. There is a general recognition that this risk is jue to the paucity of geologic information when drilling the exploratory well - an unavOidable circumstance of exploration. Prior :0 commercial development of a reservoÎ:". several additional exploration wells are drille::. 10 delineate and appraise the reservoir (:n the case of Nonhstar 7 exploration and apprarsal wells). These additional wells and cocnplemenrary 3-Dimensional seismic surveys in aggregate build a library of sub-surf:xe geologic knowledge which is used to desig:¡ .a robust development drilling plan that !::1arkedly reduces risk in comparison to the risk berne during the exploration phase. Basec: upon site observations. consultations inside Jmd external to government and from the literature. this appears to be the break point :m risk. The development phase. althougb not risk free. is significantly safer from a well ::mtrol perspective (also see discussion orr. page 14 of Document II-3 of the Prelimzmary Analysis for a more techOlcaJ expl;:¡;nation of causes for reduced risk). Althot.:.~h the major break in risk occurs betwe~ exploration and development. as knowi::::ige of the subsurface geology continues: to increase with each additional develcpment well. it is logically expected that nsk would continue to diminish to a certam ?oint when a steady state of nsk becomc::s apparent. Although perhaps reliable logIc. :irus does not appear to be quamitiableo Funhennore. during the drilling of the fIrst develcpment well for a new reservoIr ~everal ccmfinnations are obtained regarding the geolog:.. . the specific well desIgn fearun:s and o'1.°erall drilling practices as used by the drilling!eam for the specific project. In aggrepte.-this appears to be an instrumental step In rISk ~duction. albeit one that is ag:un not qu:I:ntifiable from risk calculation basis. Consièc=ing that significant improvement~ in response capability will substantially dimimsm the period of broken ice non-readiness:: considering the significant consequences of a b~ "shon drilling" program to the NorthsIar project; and the thoroughness of agency oversight for spill prevention during development drilling, thé Depanment in consuJœ:ion with ADNR and AOGCC finds a ~oned basis to accept the drilling restric::on proposal submitted by BP as part of óeir September 4, 1998 com:spondence. 44 .',~ .' " .-- rcis proposal needs to be coupled wit!: an industry executed monitoring effort to derIDe a sitæ by site broken ice period when the :estriction applies. Tcis decision pertaining to developmer:r drilling does not alter the existing 1984 Tier II dedsion with respect to exploration drLling which restrictS all offshore exploration dri:1ling to a winter season only activity- However, based upon enhancementS in open wæIer response capability that will be ar:ained through Cplan approval for Northstar and other North Slope facilities, offshore e=9loration projects may be viable during the open waner season in the future. Due to the Ì::lcreased spill response capability it is more likely tbatt an offshore exploration project will be able to meet the RPS during open water comditions and therefore, the Tier II resr::'Ïctions may not be necessary. With improved res;>onse capability, offshore exploratiac projects conducted betWeen the broken ice pe::iods could be approved with respect :0 the requirementS of 18 AAC 75. Tae Deparunent is requiring the followbg actions via a condition of plan approval for the Korthstar contingency plan. T:ze plan holder will: . a) nOt drill the first developmer:: well into the targeted hydrocarbon fonnation(s) during the defined broken ic: periods for the site location; b) drilling of subsequent development wells into previously untested hydrocarbon formatÎons(s) w:}l not occur during the defined broken ice periods; c) funher drilling restrictions WLl be evaluated and may be imposed on a case- by-case basis by a State of Al2Ska agencylcornmission with direct authority over subsurface drilling activr=les; and d) unless a more specific brokeI1lce monitoring program is approved by the Deparunent. the Northstar brotken ice periods are defined as follows: i) the spring period shall commenc: 15 days prior to the reported early break-up date of June 28 (see footnote ~ 1 and proceed until the ice concentration remains at less than 3017c for ;l period of 48 continuous hours and for a distance of 0.5 miles as vlewc:-.,j m all directions adjacent to Northstar production facility dunng bre;¡J,:-up: and ii) the fall period shall commence on the earliest date after Septem~; IS when the ice concentration remains at 30% or more for a penod of -=-"\ contInUOUS hours and for a distance of 0.5 miles as viewed In all dlrectlor.... adjacent to Nonhstar production facility and proceed until the Ice IS aggn:;:~led and contIguous with shore based ice with an ice thickness of 18 inche~ or. more In each of the four cardinal compass directions adjacent to ~orthst-"= production facility. 1. Source:: Vaudre:y & AssOClate:s. June: 27. :998 45 ~- ---- / HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE April 27, 1978 8:40 a.m. All members of the Committee were in attendance, except Representative Schaeffer. Representatives Gruening and Meekins arrived later in the meeting. Also in attendance: Speaker Hugh Malone and Representative Chat Chatterton; O.K. Gilbreth, Director, Division of Oil and Gas Conser- vation, Department of Natural Resources, Anchorage: Bob Grogan and Milt Barker, Fiscal Analysts, Legislative Finance Division. PRESENT Chairman Cowper called the meeting to order and brought up HB 815 for consideration. He also indicated the Committee would be addressing the Resources committee substitute. HB 815 HB 815 - "An Act relating to oil and gas con- servation; and providing for an effec- tive date." [Representative Gruening arrived at this time.] Representative Chatterton (prime sponsor together with Speaker Malone) presented an overview of the bill, stating he would go through section by section pointing out what is to be accomplished. He advised 16 of the 17 sections relate to Title 31, Oil and Gas Conservation statute of the State of Alaska. He stated this was adopted in 1955, and since that time, there have been no substantial changes. He advised HB 815 is an update of this statute. Section 1, he commented, would add a new paragraph (8) to AS 3l.05.030(d), Powers and Duties of the Department, amend- ing existing language which states, "The Department may re- quire:" by adding "the monitoring of oil and gas pool presures." Chairman Cowper asked if this is consistent with what is required by other states, and Representative Chatterton replied he is not familiar with other states. Section 2, he advised, still unde~ Powers and Duties, would add a new section (e) (6). He commented existing language states "The Department may regulate for conservation pur- poses:" and then goes on to list five purposes. He stated this is a cross reference which provides permissiveness for all State lands to be included in a plan. He stated this includes any units that apply to State leases. Representative Chatterton advised Section 3 deals with Confidential Re~orts and amends existing AS 31.05.035- (a) (2) by inserting" flow te-st information and". Repre- - 552 - Apf~'fld,'x 3 4-27-78 ~ .-.. " sentative Swanson asked if flow test information wer~ t~ be filed immediately, and Representative Chatterton ~nd~- cated yes, within a reasonable time. [Representative Meekins arrived at this time.] Section 4, he stated, also deals with Confidential ,Reports, and modifies existing statute by removing the requ~rement of marking information "confidential". He advis~d this would simply remove the mechanics of someone hav~ng t~ put the stamp "confidential" on information. Discuss~on followed, with Representative Rhode asking if there is a penalty if confidential information is released before the 24-month time limit. Representative Chatterton stated he was not aware of any confidential leakage. Representa- tive Swanson asked if, by taking this restriction off, this would mean an oil company could be given that infor- mation. Representative Chatterton replied that, between oil companies, that can be done right now. He pointed out nothing is being taken away but the rubber stamp "confidential". Representative Chatterton stated Section 5 is an amendment to the existing statute that the Department requested and he supports. He advised it also deals with Confidential Reports and adds new subsection (d), which would provide information filed with the Department voluntarily be kept confidential if requested. Sec~ion 6, he advised, deals with AS 31.05.035, Action by the Department, and adds a new subsection (b). He noted this is also a departmental request. He stated some of the language in the Administrative Procedure Act of 1960 is confusing. He advised this section makes clear that anything the Department does that affects a statewide regulation should be handled through the Administrative Procedure Act, but where a single well or single field is involved, it is subject to Department regulations. Discussion followed, with Representative Swanson asking if this would include any field with a single well, such as Prudhoe Bay, and Representative Chatterton indicated yes. Representative Swanson questioned the Department's b7ing able.to write rules and regulations regarding this w1thout go1ng through the Legislature. Speaker Malone commented this concept is designed to be an "anti-red-tape" provision for special consideration of a single field. 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. He commented there may be a better way to word this. Discussion followed. - 553 - 4-27-78 ~ ~ Mr. Gilbreth advised he would like to address Section 4, page 1, line 24, and the amendment proposed by Representa- tive Chatterton. He advised the Department recommended taking out the language "marked confidential". He stated this simply means that someone would not be required to stamp information "confidential", as sometimes a page is inadvertently not marked, and this causes problems. He advised he feels if the report is just kept confidential, as this section requires, this would be sufficient. He also proposed an amendment to Representative Chatterton's Amendment 2, which he advised, deletes conflicting language in Section 4 (see attached). He stated this amendment makes the language consistent. Mr. Gilbreth discussed the Administrative Procedure Act in both the present statute and the amendment. He stated through the Administrative Procedure Act, upon a 10-day written notice, has to give a 30-day notice for hearings, which obviously causes problems in the length of time the Department has to wait before action can be taken. He ad- vised this came to light in the case of the Baluga River field in the Cook Inlet area. He commented the Attorney General's opinion stated the Department can advertise but cannot act on these¡ the Department must go through the Administrative Procedure Act, regardless of size. He ad- vocated, when this pertains to one well or one field, the Legislature give the Commissioner the authority to act. There was discussion on the confidentiality provision. In answer to a question, Mr. Gilbreth stated this was a means to help the operator to protect the information he acquired --spending time and money--for a reasonable time. From the Department's standpoint, he advised, the law gives them the right to require certain reports be filed. However, he com- mented, the operator gives the Department proprietary infor- mation if they don't make this information public. He stated some of the information they give the Department is not re- quired by law, but they give it to them, provided it is kept confidential and not made public. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 a.m. ADJOURN ----------------------- HFC 78-97 #0053 - #1553 , - 579 - 4-28-78 ,.,--..., File No. J-66-446- 78 *8921 1978 WL 18334 Office of the Attorney General State of Alaska File No. J-66-446-78 January 31, 1978 Administrative adjudication procedures of the Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. Frederick H. Boness Deputy Commissioner Department of Natural Resources You have asked for our opinion as to whether the administrative adjudication procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (AS 44.62) are applicable to the proceedings of the Oil & Gas Conservation Committee. It is our opinion that the notice provisions of the APA are not applicable to the Committee's proceedings; however, the hearings themselves must be conducted under the provisions of the APA. As enacted in 1955 (ch. 40, SLA 1955) the Oil & Gas Conservation Committee's organic legislation established separate procedures applicable solely to adjudications by the Committee. In 1959, the APA was enacted. Ch. 43, SLA 1959. AS 44.62.330(a)(18) provided that the adjudication procedures of the AP A were applicable to the 'Department of Natural Resources, as to functions relating to the conservation of oil and gas. ' The Act also provided: 'All laws inconsistent or in conflict with this Act shall be deemed repealed or amended in accordance with the provisions herein.' Id. at § 32. Thus, the procedural provisions of AS 31.05.040 -080 were, to the extent inconsistent with the APA, repealed by that latter Act. See Manthey v. Collier 367 P.2d 884 (Alaska 1962). As originally enacted in 1955, AS 31.05.050 required that, whenever possible, personal service be made on all interested persons. In 1968, HB 595 was introduced, which would have permitted, in all cases, 10 days notice by publication in lieu of personal service. The House Committee substitute ~ Page 1 for that bill, enacted at ch. 190, SLA 1968, amended § 50 to require the giving of notice in the manner prescribed by the APA. The bill, as enacted, was thus a redundancy--the APA was already applicable. In 1969, the governor introduced HB 49, which, as with the previous year's effort, would permit notice by publication for a lO-day period for all hearings held by the Committee. As enacted (ch. 87, SLA 1969), notice by publication was permitted in hearings which were 'not of a statewide or general application but [were] concerned only with operations on a single well or within a single field. . ..' AS 31.05.050(b). The intent of the 1968 and 1969 bills, as introduced, was to expedite the hearing process in those cases in which an immediate modification of a committee rule was required to avoid substantial costly down time on the part of the operator. See 1969 Sen. Jour. 898 (6th Leg., 1st Sess). 'Because it is often difficult to carry out the personal service requirement of the [AP A],' a more summary means of initiating hearing procedures was sought. Id. Under the APA, there are two basic pre-hearing steps involving personal or registered mail service-- service of the initial statement of issues, 44.62.370, and service of the notice of hearing. 44.62.420. In situations in which the respondent has initiated the hearing request--as is normally the case in the procedures dealt with in this opinion--the two documents may be served together, AS 44.62.370(c) , and the hearing may be held as quickly as 10 days after service of the documents. It is the plain meaning of AS 31.05.050(b) that the publication procedure is intended to replace both the statement of issues and the notice of hearing. Thus, the statute provides that 'the notice. . . shall specify the style and number of the proceeding, the time and place of the hearing, and should briefly state the purpose of the proceeding' encompassing the substance of both the statement of issues and the hearing notice. With regard to notice procedures, then, the answer to your question is relatively simple. However, you also ask whether the Committee' can conduct hearings' in a manner other than that specified in the APA. It is our opinion that it cannot. The exception drawn in § 50(b) speaks only of notice procedures. As a general rule, exceptions to the applicability of a statute (in this case the AP A) will Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works A F P e'f.J"1 Y Lf r-, File No. J-66-446-78 not be drawn by implication beyond the expressed terms of the exemption itself. See In Re Monks Club, Inc. 394 P.2d 804 (Wash. 1964). Moreover, in commending HB 49 to the Legislature, the administration spoke only of difficulties involved in the personal service requirements of the APA. S.J. 898 (6th Leg., 1st Sess.) Thus, both as a matter of legislative intent and general statutory construction, the hearing procedures of the AP A --such as the requirement for the appointment of an unbiased hearing officer, 44.62.350, and hearing conduct, AS 44.62.450, do apply to all hearings held by the ,~ Page 2 Committee. *8922 In the event that the holding of hearings under the APA will, in and of itself, cause undue delays, we would recommend that you consider simply amending AS 44.62.330(a)(18) to delimit the applicability of the APA to the Committee's hearings. Jonathan K. Tillinghast Assistant Attorney General Copyright (c) West Group 2001 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works 14 . -. LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 l STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272.3538 *' . -- ,-, '0 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV A TION COMMISSION 333 W. 71th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3539 RE: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. ) for Rehearing of Approval of Permits to Drill ) API Nos. 50-029-22003-00 and 50-029-22996-00. ) ) RECEIVED MAR 1 9 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage BPXA'S BRIEFING ON WHETHER GREENPEACE HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK REHEARING OF DRILLING PERMITS In its Orders of February 9, 2001 and March 2, 2001, the Commission granted Greenpeace, Inc.'s petitions for rehearing of the Commission's decisions to issue two permits to drill to BPXA, for the limited purpose of inviting briefing on whether Greenpeace has the right to seek rehearing in these matters. The Commission specifically requested that the parties brief (1) the ways in which Greenpeace is "affected" by the challenged permits; (2) the meaning of the phrase "person affected" in AS 31.05.080(a); and (3) whether the procedures in AS 31.05.080 apply to issuance of drilling permits under AS 31.05.090. I. As An Organization Composed Of Concerned Environmentally-Minded Citizens, Greenpeace Has A Broad, Generalized Interest In Permits To Drill. Greenpeace's briefing asserts a variety of ways in which Greenpeace is "interested" in the Commission's issuance of permits. Greenpeace describes its generalized concerns about Alaska's public resources and an institutional focus on ensuring sound environmental regulation and monitoring enforcement of Alaska's laws and constitutional provisions regarding environmental issues. Greenpeace does not assert a property, financial, or any other traditional legal interest in the drilling permit, the land in or around the drilling BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 1 . .. '-- LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 .. 1 ---\ ,---., site, or any other concrete interest in the permits issued to BPXA. Greenpeace has not shown that it is "affected" by the drilling permits in any but the most general of ways that any citizen is "affected" by government actions. II. As Used In AS 31.05.080, A "Person Affected" By A Commission Decision Is A Person With A Property Interest Or Some Other Traditional Legal Interest In The Permit Or The Drilling Site. Alaska Statute 31. 05. 080( a) restricts the right to ask for rehearing or appeal to a "person affected by" an order or decision of the Commission. Similarly, AS 31. 05.060 allows the Commission to act upon its own motion, or upon the petition of an "interested person." Although the statutes do not define "affected" or "interested," the regulatory scheme as a whole makes clear that an "affected person" must have some sort of property interest or other traditional legal interest in the Commission's decision, not the kind of broad, diffuse concern about Alaska's natural resources that Greenpeace asserts. In Allen v. Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, 1 the Alaska Supreme Court considered in passing the meaning of "interested person" as that term is used in AS 31.05.060. Allen appealed a unitization decision; one question was whether he had standing to file a petition for unitization in the first instance. This decision was controlled by AS 31.05.060, which limits the right to petition to "interested person[ s] . " The Commission's briefing conceded that Allen had standing based on his overriding royalty interest in the leases, reasoning that a royalty interest was" a sufficient property interest to render someone an 'interested person. ",2 The Supreme Court agreed that Allen qualified as an "interested person. " This decision strongly indicates that the Commission generally requires a well- 2 1 P.3d 699 (Alaska 2000). See id. at 702. RECEIVED MAR 1 9 2001 BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 2 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons, Commission Anchorage LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROfESSIONAL CORfORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907> 272-3538 ~ ,-. defined property interest before an individual is "interested" such that he has standing to petition the Commission. This policy appropriately differentiates between the public at large and those persons with a property interest or other traditional legal interest that directly and substantially would be affected by the Commission's decision or order. That distinction should apply in the Commission's interpretation of AS 31.05.080(a) as well. "Affected person" is in fact a narrower term than "interested person," since, in common-sense terms, a person might have a strong interest in a permit without being directly affected by it. Thus, if the Commission requires a property interest to confer standing under AS 31. 05.060, it also should apply that requirement in its interpretation of AS 31.05.080(a)'s more restrictive "affected person" standard. Greenpeace has not asserted any property interest or traditional legal interest in wells 50-029-22003-00 or 50-029-22996-00; it therefore is not an "affected person" within the meaning of the statute. The Commission has promulgated a variety of regulations that also make clear that the kind of generalized interest asserted by Greenpeace is not sufficient to confer standing to appeal a Commission decision. While the statutes limit participation in certain Commission proceedings to "affected persons" or "interested persons," the Commission has promulgated regulations allowing for comments and participation by the "public" in certain other Commission proceedings. 3 Greenpeace' s asserted interest in the wells it seeks to challenge is akin to the interest of any member of the public concerned about environmental issues; the regulations allowing for public comment, not the statutes intended to allow appeal by those RECEiVED MAR 1 9 2001 See 20 AAC 25.540, .545. Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 3 LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L 5TREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ~ .-..., whose property rights are at issue, provide the appropriate avenue for Greenpeace to express its concerns. The statutes and regulations ensuring the confidentiality of well data and reports confirm that "affected person" was not meant to encompass groups like Greenpeace. As the Commission noted in its February 9, 2001 Order, 20 AAC 25.537 mandates that much of the material the Commission considers in reviewing permits to drill must be kept confidential. 4 This provision cannot be squared with Greenpeace's broad interpretation of standing to appeal. A meaningful appeal of a drilling permit would require that the parties access the Commission's records. If any concerned Alaskan could appeal the Commission's issuance of a drilling permit pursuant to AS 31.05.080, then the confidentiality restrictions seriously would be compromised, or some appellants would lack all information relevant to their appeals. A narrower definition of "affected person" would limit potential appellants to persons such as the permit applicant, who would already have access to the materials the agency considered in issuing its decision. Greenpeace's expansive concept of "affected person" is thus fundamentally inconsistent with the regulatory scheme, and the Commission should not accept it. Greenpeace may argue that this interpretation will deny the public the chance to redress perceived environmental flaws in drilling permits. But this Commission already has stated that it intends to consider any information that Greenpeace presents that is pertinent to the question of the permit's proper issuance.5 Further, Greenpeace already has addressed 4 See also AS 31.05.035. 5 See Order Granting Rehearing For Limited Purpose And Denying Request For Stay (February 9, 2001) at 1-2. Several of Greenpeace's Points on Appeal, however, appear to BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 4 LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ~. ~ many of the concerns it articulates here -- in particular those dealing the with Alaska Coastal Management Program -- through extensive participation in public notice, comment, and appeal procedures established by other agencies. To the extent that Greenpeace wants more opportunities to intervene in the process than are offered by the existing statutes and regulations, its concerns are best addressed by legislative action to modify the statutory and regulatory scheme, not by stretching the language of AS 31.05.080(a) in a manner inconsistent with the existing regulatory scheme -- established through notice and comment rulemaking in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act -- and with the current practice of the Commission. III. Is A Drilling Permit Issued Under AS 31.05.090 An "Order Or Decision Of The Commission" Within The Meaning Of AS 31.05.080? The rehearing and appeal statute, AS 31.05.080, allows an affected person to appeal "an order or decision of the commission." Because it is clear that Greenpeace is not an "affected person" within the meaning of AS 31.05.080(a), Greenpeace may not appeal the permits it seeks to challenge. Thus, the Commission need not now reach the question of whether a permit to drill is considered "an order or decision of the commission," such that a party could appeal it pursuant to AS 31.05.080. BPXA believes, however, that AS 31.05.080 is at least broad enough to allow a party whose application for a drilling permit is denied to appeal that denial. Such an applicant would be an "interested person" within the meaning of AS 31.05.080, and allowing such an appeal would not conflict with the Commission's concern matters, like the Northstar Project's consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program, that are not within the AOGCC's jurisdiction. BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 5 LAW OFFICES of FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORA"ON SOO L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ,.,--.... --- confidentiality provisions, since the applicant already would have access to the confidential materials utilized by the Commission in considering the permit application. Dated this a day of March, 2001. CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was delivered by mail/hand delivery to: Nancy Wainwright FAY-ò N'<li \ 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 Robert Mintz rr\Q\ \ Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200 ::Ch[)~ ro~ Date~TTD jOl FELDMAN & ORLANSKY Attorneys for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. By 'Î.Á/) œLV' ()\~l!jlk6t\ Susan Orlansky '\ , Alaska Bar No. 8106042 ¡ ¡ Ruth Botstein J i Alaska Bar No. 9906016¡ / I i i I ì ! \ \ BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 6 13 ,"'?;'<-,', "J"~ ~ ~ ~ ,,"",",,\ STATE OF ALASKA Third Judicial Di~trict ) ) S8. } I, Dan Ritzman declare: L I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto. 2. I am a member of Greenpeace, Inc. 3. I rely upon Greenpeace to work on my behalf, in edùcating me, as well as the public and government agencies, on the value of protecting the internationally significant coastall¥1d marine ecosystems in Alas~ and the Arctic Ocean. In particular; I rely upon - -' Greenpeace to represent me in pursuing my interest in protecting the fish and wi1dlife habitats, including river and ocean habitats, and cultural, educational, environmenml and , scientific values of Arctic ecosystem and the natural Beaufort Sea environment. I rely on Greenpeace to assist me in advocating to enforce legal protections to prevent hanD caused by oil exploration and development and associated activities, that would inhibit my recreational, navigational, aesthetic, cultural, educational and ' scientific activities. 4. My filii,vidual interests are based on the environmental, scientific, educatìonaJ. subsistence, aesthetic, cultural, fish and wildlife, and recreational values present in the Northstar Project area, Liberty Project area and other parts of the Alaskan Arctic region, including the Ínstream uses of water to protect fish and wildlife resources and for my personal and public uses of these resources. I have a particular concern about the contamination offteshwater, seawater, underground aquifers and the surface environment, . . . . because such contaminiation inhibits my personal and constitutionally-protected use of these RECEIVED MAR 09 ZOO 1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchor;¡nø '"::-~ . ,,~- ,-' ,.- ,~ ,v""" resources, 5, In February and March 2000, I participated in lawful ice camping for educational, scientific, recreational, and navigational uses specifically allowed on the waters of the Beaufort Sea, near the Northstar project Seal Island. I have also used the non-frozen waters of the Beaufort sea for educational, scientific, recreational and navigational needs. 6, My navigational, scientific, recreational and aesthetic use of the area is curre~dy, and was"adversely affected by Northstar oil and 'gas activities that blocked my access to navigable waters, and impaired my ability to engage in the activities. or to use public resources. In addition, due to the actions of the State of Alaska and BPXA, I experienced a significaint deprivation of my constitutional right of freedom of speech and lawful assembly while on the offshore ice. 7. I am a person affected by the activities of the State of Alaska; including the Department of-Natural Resources, the Alaska Oil and Gas ConseIVation Conunission, the D~partment of Environmental Conservation, and the Department ofFish and Game, insofar as the activities of those agencies impact protect my interest in the public trust reSO'Ufces, , , myconstjtutional interest in common use of Alaska's resources, and my pêrsonat activities in thìs region. " " ~'" ~ , Furthertb~affiantsay~not ~~,'.' . ,', . .. Æan Ritzman -- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of March 2001. Ck¥ r¡){?!þ~J4"- ~'.". . . ',. Notary Public in and for the State of Alaska My commission expires: ~ ~.~-Cl/ ' RECEIVED MAR 0 9 ?nO1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission . - Anchorage - 12 w' , ¿ ~ /".. Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-22003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) ) ) BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE'S RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REHEARING Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby submits this written memorandum briefing 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." in accordance with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's order of February 9, 2001. The Commission's order stated that Greenpeace must address specific questions, which Greenpeace has addressed below. I. In what ways is Greenpeace "affected" by the permit approval in this matter? Greenpeace is affected by the permit approval in numerous ways. First, Greenpeace, and all Alaskans, have a constitutional right to common use of public resources. Decisions of the AOGCC allow permits to drill in areas of high public resource values, including not limited to marine mammals, fish, wildlife, and water resources. Ifthere is a well blowout, or if there is an improper determination concerning the aquifers in connection with the drilling or injection of wastes, there will be serious impacts to public resources of concern Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues RECEIVED page 1 MAR 0 8 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage " ' ~ ~ to Greenpeace. The attached affidavits detail some ofGreenpeace's activities and interests that will be affected. 1 The permit actions of the AOGCC that have the potential for devastating harm to Greenpeace, and the public interest include (but are not limited to): (l)adverse impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) on coastal resources from improper well construction; drilling and aquifer exemptions that threaten drinking water aquifers; (2) failure to require an abandonment plan; (3) failure to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment from spills of drilling muds; (4)failure to require proper well control and blowout preventers; (5) failure to meet requirements for manifests for each load of waste received; (6)failure to require proper casing and cementing of wells; (7)failure of AOGCC to require BPXA to comply with the AOGCC regulations, Chapter 25; (8)failure to require BPXA to timely demonstrate mechanical integrity ofthe well; including pressure testing and movement of fluids; (9)failure to require proper injection depths and injection pressures; and annulus pressures; (10) untimely reporting by BPXA of monthly average, maximum and minimum values for injection pressures; physical, chemical and otherrelevant characteristics ofthe injected fluid; lAffidavits of Melanie Duchin and Dan Ritzman, Exhibits 1 and 2. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 2 \- , ~ <I --- '- ~ ~ mechanical integrity tests. The public interest in the waters of the state, and in the fish and wildlife, are confinned in multiple provisions of Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution.2 As the Alaska Supremes Court recognized: We have frequently compared the state's duties as set forth in Article VIII to a trust-like relationship in which the state holds natural resources such as fish, wildlife, and water in "trust" for the benefit of all Alaskans. Instead of recognizing the creation of a public trust in these clauses per se, we have noted that "the common use clause was intended to engraft in our constitution certain trust principles guaranteeing access to the fish, wildlife and water resources of the state." Brooks v. Wright, 971 P.2d 1025, 1031 (Alaska 1999). (footnotes omitted). The public interest resources in the Northstar Project area are remarkable and unique. 3 Endangered bowhead whales migrate through the Northstar area, and ringed, bearded and spotted seals haulout on pack and shorefast ice.4 Polar bears live on both land and offshore ice, covering a range from over 37 miles inland to over 186 miles offshore, and are known to den near the Northstar island and onshore area. 5 The Beaufort Sea coast is also an important summer and staging area for a number of migratory seabirds and waterbirds, some of which travel from as far away as South America, southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and 2 Alaska Const. Article VIII, §§ 1,2,3,4,6,10,13,16,17. 3 Northstar Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 8.7 - 8.13. 4 Northstar DEIS 6.5-1 to 6.5-9.. 5 DEIS 6.5-9. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 3 " ~ "'-"", even Antarctica.6 Approximately forty-four species of birds are found seasonally in the Northstar project area, including spectacled and Steller's eiders, which are both listed as threatened species under the ESA. 7 The fish resources and water resources in the Northstar area are also of vital public interest. The nearshore brackish water band along the Beaufort Sea coast is an essential component of the ecosystem and is widely used by various fish species for feeding and as a migration route. This habitat is a critical component for fish species ranging from the Colville River to the Mackenzie River in Canada.8 The continued production of Alaska's valuable fish resources is dependent upon maintaining important habitat characteristics, including the quantity and quality of water within fish bearing waters. The water resources that are used for drinking, subsistence or other public uses are of significant public interest. II. What is the meaning ofthe phrase "person affected" as used in AS 31.05.080(a)? The mission of the AOGCC "is to protect the public interest in exploration and development of oil and gas resources, ensuring conservation practices, and maximum ultimate recovery, while protecting health, safety, the environment, and property rights." Therefore, a group that is dedicated to the protection of health, safety or the environment, 6 DEIS 6.7-1. 7 DEIS 6.9-1. 8 Randy Bailey, former Chief of the Fisheries Division, Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 4 ',' ,/""'. ~ is affected by decisions of the AOGCC. Greenpeace is such a group. 9 Likewise, the individual members of Greenpeace are committed to healthy, safe, environments, and are affected by the decisions of the AOGCC.1O A "person" is defined in the AOGCC statute AS § 31.05.170 (10) to include a natural person, corporation, association, partnership, receiver, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, fiduciary or other representative of any kind, and includes a department, agency or instrumentality of the state or a governmental subdivision of the state. Greenpeace is a non-profit corporation lawfully organized to do business in Alaska, and its members are natural persons. 11 Therefore, any decision by AOGCC in issuing its permits to drill, which results in approval or other action that affects the health, safety or environment, is a decision which "affects" or has a material impact upon Greenpeace and its members. The AOGCC website identifies its "customers" as: "oil and gas industry, concerned citizens and organizations. Alaska Department of Natural, Resources, Alaska Department of Revenue, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,,12 (underlining added). Since Greenpeace is a concerned organization that represents concerned citizens, the AOGCC has a responsibility to afford Greenpeace access to its 9 Affidavit of Melanie Duchin, Exhibit 1. 10 Affidavit of Dan Ritzman, Exhibit 2. llAffidavits ofDuchin and Ritzman, id. 12Exhibit 3, AOGCC website page identifYing "customers." Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 5 ,. ,...--., ~ rehearing procedures, as it does any other affected person or corporation. The Alaska court's have repeatedly recognized a generous standing standard, including taxpayer standing, public interest group standing, and standing to raise public trust issues to the courts. In addition, Greenpeace, and its members, have a constitutional right to common use of public resources. 13 Decisions of drilling on the offshore waters, affect the rights of Greenpeace' s reasonable concurrent use, its rights of access to navigable waters, its common use of resources. If the AOGCC improperly grants a permit that does not meet standards, there could be a well blowout that devastates public resources, and the common use of those resources. Therefore, the public has right to seek review of the AOGCC decisions that may affect these public resources. The Commission permitting actions are governed by the Safe Drinking Water Act which is designed to ensure the health and safety of the public and the environment. The public has a right to seek both administrative and judicial review of AOGCC decisions under this law. III Do the procedures provided by AS 31.05.080 apply to the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill under AS 31.05.090? The procedures in AS 31.05.080 are applicable to all of the AOGCC orders or decisions. A permit do drill pursuant to 31.05.090 is an "order or decision of the commission." The decision on the permit to drill may affect health, safety or the 13 Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, sections 1,2,3,6,8, 10, 13, 16, 17. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 6 r--- ~ environment, and requires a determination by the AOGCC that the activity is being carried out in accordance with "law[,] regulation [and] order of the commission." Therefore, if Greenpeace, or another appellant, contends that the Commission has failed to carry out its mandatory duties, or has erred in its assessment of the facts supporting its determination, then review under AS 38..05.080 must be permitted. For example, Greenpeace alleges that neither the Division of Governmental Coordination, nor the AOGCC, has conducted a proper ACMP review of permits to drill, and that these permits were improperly phased in contravention of AS 46.40.094. The AOGCC permits were eliminated from the ACMP review, and are not included in the final consistency determination.14 Therefore, the permits to drill have not been issued in accordance with law (the Alaska Coastal Management Program) (AS 46.40). Greenpeace has a right to seek review of the AOGCC action that has resulted in this failure to require BPXA to comply with laws, regulations, and orders, including the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Alaska Coastal Management , Act or regulations that implement these laws. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of March, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ,j~ (~¡ ltt 14Final Consistency Determination,2/4/99 R 6765-66 lists permits included in ACMP consistency determination. There is no listing of AOGCC or permits to drill. Exhibit 4, Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE GREENPEACE, INC. ) Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) } ) ) ) ) ) r--'. Nancy S. Wainwright 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 345.5595; (907)345-3629(fax) Alaska Bar # 8711071 v. STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENT AI, COORDINATION AND ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL Appellees. BRITISH PETROLEUM EXPLORATION ALASKA~ INC. Intervenor-Appellees STATE OF ALASKA lñird Judicial District I, Melanie Duchin affirm: ~ J 3 AN 99w3350 AFFIDA VIT OF MELANIE DUCHIN ) ) ss. ) 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto, ArFIDA VIT OF MELANIE DUCHIN page I of 5 Exhibit: \ page 1 of 5 ~ )""""'\ / ../ 2. I am a Greenpeace, Inc. representative in Alaska, and an issue specialist for the Greenpeace Climate Campaign. Greenpeace, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in Alaska. 3. Since 1977 Greenpeace has worked on behalf of its supporters to educate the public and the government agencies on the value of protecting the internationalIy significant coastal and marine ecosystems in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean. In particular, Greenpeace has shown long~standing commitment in the areas of protecting the fish and wildlife habitats and cultural, educational, environmentaJ and scientific values of the natural Beaufort Sea environment from hann caused by oil exploration and development. 4. Individual Greenpeace supporters' interests are based on the environmental, scientific, educational, subsistence, cultural, and recreational values present in the Northstar Pr~ject area and other parts of the Arctic region. 5. Greenpeace gathers, analyzes and disseminates information to the public about these pr<~ject<) and oil exploration and development in the Arctic, and has devoted a significant amount of its resources to this public outreach campaign. The intent of Greepeace's participation is to encourage public education, and to foster a robust and fair debate on issues of local, state, national and international significance in this region. Dissemination ofthis information is not limited to members and supporters of Appellant's ncm-profit group, but is provided to members of the public. page 2 of 5 Exhibit' , page 2 of 5 AFFII)A VIT OF MELANIE DlICHlN .' - ~ 6. Greenpeace has made a specific commitment to provide supporters and the public with infonnation about Northstar activities; to comment on their behalf on the Northstar Project; to represent the public interest at public forums and in administrative agency deliberations on the Northstar Project; and to encourage debate on important issues. A primary focus of Greenpeace's efforts are the operations and activities of government as they relate to the oj] development in the Beaufort Sea region, and as they relate to addressing and/or halting the causes of climate change. 7. Greepeace has also made a commitment to provide supporters and the public information about the coastal zone impacts of the Northstar project, and has specifically focused on co8$tal zone and habitat impacts from water use. Greenpeace has commented on water use permits, pursued administraHve appeals concerning water use permit", and has attempted to obtain copies of DNR and DOC water permitting documents because of its concem about impacts to the coastal zone of winter water withdrawal. 8. Oreenpeace, and its supporters, have beneficially used water, from the North Slope, for recreational, navigational, subsistence, and other public trust uses. The Kuparuk is an anadromous river, and Oreenpeace's investigation has led to the conclusion that without protection oftbe instream flows, the continuous withdrawal of water from the Kuparuk river, with no ànalysis of coastal zone impacts, may result in significant ham} to coastal resources and the riverine habitat. We have basec [)nclusion on page 3 of 5 Exhibit: , page 3 of 5 AFFIDA VIT OF MELANIE DtiCHIN . ' .~ "--\ ../ treatises, studies, and the investigation of Randy Bailey. Therefore, in June, 2000, Greenpeace applied for a water right from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to preserve the water for aquatic resources, fish and wildlife in the Kuparuk River. DNR has not acknowledged or processed the Greenpeace instream flow application. 9. Greenpeace has been required to expend significant financial resources to pursue litigation and administrative appeals against DNR and DGC over the megal water permitting. Greenpeace has expended legal fees and costs to administratively appeal to DNR and DOC (challenging the Northstar water pennit~, and the ACMP detenninations on those permits) that exceed $100,000. Because the Courts do not favor recovery of costs and legal fees for ad~inistrative appeals, it is unlikely that Greenpeace will ever recover those costs, even though Greenpeace has been, and may be, successful in Court challenges. If Greenpeace is required to again, appeal administratively the Northstar water use for winter 2000-2001, additional unrecoverable legal costs and fees will be incUlTed, resulting in significant irreparable financial injury. 10. In 1999-2000 Greenpeace administratively appealed the DOC-sanctioned temporary water use permit, TWUP AOO-IO to both DOC and DNR. However, on the eve of the Court's review of that permit, BPXA stated that it would not use additional water fTom the permit and that permit has now expired. Attachment 1. AFFIDAVIT OF MELANJE OUCH IN page 4 of 5 Exhibit' page 4 of_5- :.~ Further the affiant sayeth naught. ~ ~.~. Melanie Duchin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~-- day of December 2000 at Anchorage, Alaska. ~«If"' (. .)¡';(., OFflQIAL SEAL U,' A"'DF,q",", ~:i.. LARRY;'. 1":,:,) " NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF t.t: .s:~\ My Comm. ExPires 7/24/2002 AFFn)A VIT OF MELANIE DUCfHN page 5 of 5 ¿ (I l~'¡ty f .. N~tary Pu~.Pu. li~ in an~ f~r ~ ~~;~. Þ( ~ My commISSIOn expIres :_- ) I Þ-f f ,,{1 ~ Exhibit' , page 5 of 5 -- vonv.,"... ".....v "'Vo"" .~. ~UUl " , ,,' . /"",-, , /"':\" "'" " ' ,'" , " , , ,,', , , " , " " - , ' " , ,','" ',"STATEOF'ALASKA,:',".. , '" ",' , ", ' , , ' . ' , " , ,,' ',' , ' ,,:Jbird]Udicî~lDi~trict~, " , , ,J -, , "')ss.'," ""J'"" , ' , , .,.', , ,,' , ' ,', '" , " , , " '" " , " '" , .. '. , , ", ",,' .. :" ',' , " ',,'iDäri,RitZm,ân'd~dáre:: '" " ,," ",," , ".:1.. 'Jba'ie p«Sona1kuo\vï~~fthef..:t..et ~ h~~aJJdåliicpm¡>Ä to ',. .', "'. ",...:.." ,', " " , ,,',', : ,,' ,,' , " " " ..' . " ,',' " ,,' " ' ""..", ,tcstîfyth~ret~., - " ,,' ",:" ' ' -", , , ,:" ' , ,," I ':' " , ,,' ,'" ,,' " "',",, '.' " ..2"".:.',Iam~mtml~tf~"'Inc::,:""""::"",.~"",,,.','"',,,,' ,."".', ',,', "".,',""":,.""""".>'.',',,::,'.... ,:',,' : ',"'" , ,".:- , ',," ,:,,' ,~~",,",:l,rel)',tJþóriGr~peace..t°,wòrkonmy,:behal:(ÌI1,:ed.ucatfugme~,åsVlen'I18,"the',',",:,": : ."",,:'," '"," ,'::',: ':,' . ',,"',,~,: 'p~bliC"-~~' 'gOV~~tt~:':~ël1~ies" ',~~",~e' :~ai~~' Ò~Prot~g':th~;,'~~~t~i;"$jgnìfic~t "::' ,"..,,: :::' ',": :," " ;: '.' .:..',,'.~óDd~~SY+ ~~: 3I1d Ole ArçtjC~¥~În~¥ If~u&: ..,',.'.' '.'.',...,"','. ..-:' ,,' ,:' -Greènpe,ace..to,-represerifme'iv.' p~suíii~nDYJritëi:esf..ià pròtectïng',tbe :fi~h' ~d.~i1£iHfe : '", ',' :",'", .', ,:,:,: " ,"', "~~.in~lU~ <iVC" aII~~~bitåta, ':'~d~: ~ooi.ï.~vkomn~and '.' :",,'., ",' :""':,~',':'.",','",'",',',:,"":',,',"":':",.',,',',..,,","'.'-:"""",:,"",""""':""",'",,,:,"',':-,:,,,".-"',,",',""',,':: " , ' , .' , ' ."', ' . ,',' sci~~fic' 'Val~"òfÅTctic' :ecosyst~"~d ,the~,atUràl.'BeåtJfox1 ~a: ,enviÎ~u~mè~t~" :l,~1y,:oD ',,' " , ", ",' ".' ' , '.. "". : ~~~.;.~ nO¿~~tò:~I~~~~ti>¡;~: ~~ed. ,::. " ..:,,:' .',. ',':. :-~-i, by", <1i1~~OIÎ~'d~IOpD]~ntanc!~ó~;ni~t!".tWóut~iìIh¡bi\my,~ .',",.'..:. .,..' "'" "",l"Ccieátiòrla1;,na~W1tí9nai;~sthdiè~ :ccltUÌai):educáti6ria1"~d,scien1ifi~'acti';¡ti~s.,"'" " " , " ',' , " " ','.',."'. 4.Mymd;vÌ~int~.àxeb~OD~. ~nmental,sci~iífiÇ,édJic~~. ~ ,-, ,, , ',,' ""::"" sübsìsterice~':'a~th~tic,:cûltur~,:tïshÆLi1d,wi1dlife'"at1~,:,i~~~i6~~i'~lu~s:pr~~~tjri'th~',' ,,',::,,",",':, :,",' , " :,,' ," ,"":"':',: ,', ,,',", , ", ,," , , '" ',' ", ';:', , ':: ' ' ,", ,: ':" ,,: ,',', ':,", :', '.'" ',' ':,' '",: ",",,': " ;' ,,",':..,: ,'," ,..",' .",,',:'::NòrtÞ~',Projec~,är~tibqty',Project:area'and:dther"parts"ofthe',A1~,kan':AXctitte~på,':::,,' '," , " " , "'.. :', inc1u~~'th~ ::,Üis~1JSes' oi,~~' 'to ',pro~ct,', :fis.h "&1d: \Vildlif~ ,:re~ö~~ë~'s',cm~i'for' my'" , ,:,:;<,persoIl~i:':,:at1à:pubIiê':~es~f:tbese':',r~~¿~:s_':'":':"I'h~e:"':å:Partic~l~,:'~on:eri1':~~b~~'~e"',,' ',",: " , ,,"',"', ' ,,', " " ",',' " ' , ' " ,'; ",,' "" ' ,', ',,', :" , ,,:', " , .' " , ' " , :(:(mtârofuåtiö~l oifJ;e~h\Váter: soowätet~ ,~dei;ourid,'aq~er~ an~ftb~s~~:~vk°D1I1ent, " ' ,",' , " ' , ' ,': :~~~~~:S~:Ohcont~i~ Î, ~~ninlÎiJ)itsIriy peri;cinm and, ¿or.i~futj()ri~Y :~()t~te~'~ç Ofth~ie :: " .. ",'.."'" ':", , " , ' , " .. .. , , " , ' ", , " , ' "'E,(\t\~fj\ì'i ' ',,', "":",':'r'þf ~ ,,' , " , ' , , ' , , '", " " , ',' ,,' " , , ' , ,';' " , " "', " " " , , '" .. , v...., v., V"" ,,~U .LV.VV "'A 'I!,J VV.., " ~," " ~,." .. ',1' , , ' , , , , , " ,,':rêsóUrèes~ " .., ,,',' ,', ',' ," , " ""," ," ',' . 5, "rnfebiüà,y;,j¡d~?OOô,IJ'Bltiéi¡iaÌ<\d¡I\Ià~(;Oe~am"ingfor " " ",..," ",,', " """, " :" '" ' '", ' ',':, "', " ,'",',"" ' ,,' ",' , " ...., ," ' ""',' , cd u < ati ~ sclmiìii ¿, §<iati óo.8J, an d ~ ona1;'" e.. ~ <ally äJ i ~ e<Ï on th ~ ~ ' .. " ',"", 'o~~~~ortS.O; ~tb~~tar;""'j<:Ct~~~lan¡; ~ o!s~ il~~tI¡~llo¡,~~~~ ""," ,'" , ,'. '::."":,. ,:',".,'.,. ,,',: '. '.~~fJkBea~~eafo~~~ijÖqa1, Sëí~~Onáland ~vígaijonal~~ '.,' .,'," ,": c " " "', """'..' ",' , ' ","." , " ",' ':,- : " , ' ,', "" " '," , ", ", , ,',' '"," " ,:' " , , " ' " " ','" "", , .,'" '.,.' '.' ',," ",' ,,' "",::, 6,' : :,':,:' 'Myna\dglitiM.d;sciíintÚic; :re,,!ëat¡óriBJ ';;;!laéstheiië ;'Se~ftJ¡.areáîs'" , '. ,"," , ' ',,', ~~Y.';;'d~as,;ZIY ~ ~N ~A)Î¡äli<Ïgås~.iliÙthat ~í~Ì<'d ;'w" ' :~ ",. .','." '~~sto~I~~~....<I~edDl}'~b¡fuytO~"~.'Îh.acfiv¡~~.~tGme" .','.'.,"'..'" ..'.' , ..'",..', '.' '. .,'. .l'Ub~~~. ,,' ,Inadditi~d\letotb~:, aci¡~~~.~ftheStateOfþJ~"¡~BP~l.'.' .,:',' .' .',.' ','.. . '" '. " '::<: :"<,',,',, :""',',, ',':';'.'" ','c',>:",:,':", '::'",:: """,:,:,""::',', ,:","'," ::,'..',,',..',' ',',:"..':':, ,'::",:'-"'::,,:" """",'":",,,,:,..,' .'.:,":::,"::.',,":,':" ' ,>: "..,",""',",..'experieri,çed,asigmficantdeprivation'QfI~y,,coriWtUtî~a1..rigbt.dffi:eedoinàf,sp'e'ech and, :", :::" :-" .. ,.', ': , " "',, " , " ,..:,' " ":,', ' ,'" " '" ,'" ,: '" ,:',: ',' , .. :"" """, ' " , " """,,' ,,' ,',' " ,',: '" ,:' , ::Ja~I~¡;¡Y~"O1l1lw°fl"s~iCé.""",:"...",.,.".".:,.."",:, ":."'..,",' "".', "",' ":""" '.'" '" "'.",'..'.'.,.'.....",' ',' ,',','" ',:': :...',..'" ,,:' '"f,:' ,'j,¡un,:àpersori,'affe~tëd'by the,'~cti~ii1~sÒ(ch:~:Staiè:ofAIaški,':ìiiê.)Iding'th~"""',, ,.,',,'. .'",.,.'. :,'. "¿~~~ '~f~~~.tÌl:~Oil"~ .9as,~atiÓl\b~Si~,ttk', ..,.'." ' .' .... ..... ....'....,.'...)~~;.;,;ifEn~#~mÍCÄ~!i<>n,";d !I1~De¡,~t Of~¡;~an~b""",,~. .'...,'. ;. ..'. " .,. ...'.',.. .~.~tIie~~~9ft!Íos~~~~ i~f~i"y~k1lte;'lIb~c~;~~,. " . . , . ,....,' "..IÎiy"oÄ~ti\>llä1int~~ÌJ1 ~~" 1JBeófAi~'sreso~",,~n;!,';;'oo~;"'ti~ci. .,..'... ..' " , .. "" """,::""",::":, ," '.':::'::,:,~,::::::::: "':"::"""" """ ", "" ."""",: :"','.." ",,',', ,,',',' " ,"','",' " "",', """""', " ",' ,:,\,::,':,;,:,', ;~', " ,,:.;::>:, '", "..",: " " :' '" ", , ,,' , ',',' ,", " , ",,", " , , ,,' ", " ,,' , "", ",:, '."'¡;:~~\b"+""',-:l",."',,.,,,.., ", """".""'<'~',"':"'2.:':øi'1..' .. , ,,', " , '. , ' , , , ' , , " , " 'Oil and,Gas Consef\(ation Commission - Department of Administration , ,r--, ~: /www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ADMIN/ogc/core.htm oil and gas conservation commission Core Services -Prevent waste of Alaska's oil and gas resources -Protect correlative rights of the mineral interest owner -Maximize recovery of oil and gas for the benefit of Alaska's citizens -Protect freshwater from contamination by oil/gas/mud during drilling, production, and abandonment operations -Administer Alaska's Underground Injection Control program for oil and gas wells -Inspect oil field drilling, production, metering, and abandonment activities -Evaluate, modify, and approve drilling and workover operations -Evaluate, modify, and approve oil pool development rules -Adjudicate disputes between owners -Maintain state production records -Maintain well history files and well records Customers -Oil and gas industry -Alaska Department of Natural Resources -Concerned citizens and organizations -Alaska Department of Revenue -U.S. Environmental Protection -U.S. Department of the Interior Agency -General Functions .Oversi~ht and Surveillance Functions AOGCC Home Pa~e AOGCC Webmaster howard - okland@admin.state.ak.us 1 of! E.x'r\\ b,1 :3 "c> + 3~/2001 3:09 PM ~J&Jr/~ m~~~~~~ OFFICE OFTHE GOVERNOR TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0 SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE rlCENTRAL OFFICE 3601 "C" STREET. SUITE 370 P.O. BOX 110030 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 995lJ3..5930 JUNEAU, ALASKA 99811.aJ30 PH: .(907) 269-74701FAX: (9O7) 5ô1-6134 PH: (9O7) 465-3S62/FAX: (907) 4SS-3O75 0 PIPELINE COORDINATOR.S OFFICE 417 WEST 4TH AVENUE. SUfTE2C ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501.2343 PH: (9O7}271-4;J17/FAX: (907J272.()(jf}(J February 4, 1999 Peter Hanley BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. P.O. Box 196612 ' Anchorage AK 99519~6612 Dear Mr. Hanley: SUBJECT: Nortbstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination STATE J.D. No. AK9806-01PA The Division of Govemmental Coordination has completed coordinating the state's review of the Northstar Development Project (Northstar Project) for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has developed this final determination based on reviewers' comments. This project would be the fIrSt offshore production facility in Alaska that is not reached by directional drilling or by a causeway. Also, it would be the first sub-sea oil pipeline in the Arctic. The Division of Governmental Coordination issued the original Proposed Consistency Determination on January] 2. 1999 and a revisl:d Proposed Consistency Determination on January 13, 1999. Greenpeace. Ine. submitted a petition to the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) on January 20, 1999- The CPC met earlier today by teleconference to hear the petition. TIle CPC dismissed the petitioner and determined that DGC fairly considered comments submined by Greenpeace. Project Description BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) proposes to develop the Northstar Project. This oil field will produce approximately 65.000 barrels of oil per day, and recoverable reserves are estimated to be about] 45 million barrels of oil. The project proposal involves re- construction of a gravel island approximately 6 miles offshore in the Beaufort Sea, construction and operation of driJJing and production facilities at the island, and construction and operation of a subsea pipeline. 006763 :~ 37 0 ønnoeð on ,~ -, O/-A3SLH Exhibit A E>M'Ð.\ It p. \ 'm, , Northstar DevcJopmr-- Pia. StBte ill AK9806-0IPA 2 ~ ' ..j February 4, 1999 The Northstar production island will be built at the location of the existing man-made Seal Island exploration island in approximately 40 feet of water. BPXA proposes to haul additional gravel to Seal Island this winter to create a work surface 465 feet by 410 feet. A sheet pile wall, concrete block slope protection system and facilities foundations will be installed during the island construction phase. As part of this project, BPXA requests a new material site be approved for excavation of 1.2 million cubic yards of gravel for use in construction of the island and several small pads for valve sites and staging areas. The proposed location of the mine site is east of the main channel of the Kuparuk River app~oXimately 1.5 miles upstream from the Kuparuk River Delta and Gwydyr Bay; Section 21, Township 12 North, Range 13 East, Umiat Meridian. A previously permitted gravel source further inland on the Kuparuk River may also be used for the project The gravel will be used to construct the island an9 several ~mall pads for valve sites and staging areas. The project involves construction of tWo pipelines: a crude oil sales pipeline and a gas pipeline. The crude oil sales pipeline will be a 10-inch line running from the island to a tie-in at Pump Station 1 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A to-inch gas line, to supply gas to the island, will begin at the Prudhoe Bay Unit Central Compressor Plant and will run to the production island. Pipeline construction will be conducted during winter using standard construction methods for the aboveground portions, and by trenching through the sea ice for the offshore portions. The offshore, subsea portion of the pipeline will be six miles long and will be constructed between December 1999 and April 2000. The crude oil sales and supply gas pipelines will be buried together in a common trench and back-filled. The depth of cover (distance from original sea bed to top of pipe) will range fÌom six feet in the shallow lagoon area to nine feet at the island. The trenching will be done from thickened ice using excavation and other construction equipment. The onshore pipelines will foHow anew route from landfall near Storkerson Point to existing aboveground pipeline vertical support members (VSMs) near "E" Pad where it will follow existing rights:-of- way to Pump Station 1. The onshore pipeline construction will start in January 2000 and be completed in May of that year. Ice roads will be built to access the pipeline routes during construction. The onshore oil and gas pipelines will be about 11 and 10 miles long, respectively. and will be placed on above ground VSMs using standard North Slope practices. At the shoreline transition, the buried pipeline will continue approximately 150 feet from the existing shoreline to a gravel pad. The pipeline will be installed above ground at the valve enclosure and controls building located on the pad. Twenty-three wells will be drilled initially. One well wil1 be a Class I disposal well for non-hazardous and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt waste 33éi 006764 E~,b.t ~ p.1- N orthstM DeveJ oprr--Pro ~ State ill AK9806-0LA 3 ,""' /~ February 4, 1999 generated by drilling and camp activities. Fifteen wells wilI be for oil production, and 7 weBs will be for gas injection into the reservoir to boost production. A more complete description of the project may be found in the Project Description dated June 3, 1996 (Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) and in an October 27, 1998 letter ftom Peter Hanley ofBPXA to Temy Carpenter of the Army Corps of Engineers. Permit applications, listed in the next section, provide additional information about the project. Authorizations Needed This final consistency detennination applies to the following state and federal authorizations. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers . Section 404 Pennit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Pennit Minerals Management Service (M1v1S) . Development and Production Plan Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) . Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) for the Corps 404 Permit . Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) (or the EPA 402 Discharge Permit . Short-tenn Water Quality Variance . Oil Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan (C-Plan) . Solid Waste Treatment Facility Permit . Wastewater Disposal Permit . Air Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit . Air Title V Operation PermitS Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) . Pipeline Right-of- W ay Leases (for the entire gas and crude oil pipeline routes) . Material Sales Contract (for gravel source) . Lease Plan of Operations (for island-based operations) . Temporary Water Use Permit (LAS 20589) (for ice road construction) . Miscellaneous Land Use Permit (for iCe road construction) Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG) . Title 16 Fish Habitat Permits (for ice road and pipeline crossings) 339 006765 EM.~'~ l{ p.'? Northstar DeVelOpr);flO~ State ID AK98()6-0 u A . 4 -_. '~-~ February 4, 1999 Review Procedures The state worked closely with federal agencies to coordinate its review of the Northstar Project with the federal review. The objectives of the coordination were to encourage communication between federal and state agencies and to make it easier for the public to comment on the project The state began its review on June 1 when the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued. Although the state's 60-day public comment period initially coincided with the comment period for the draft.EIs, the state approved two 3D-day extensions to the pubIiç comment deadline. The state extended the public comment period to ensure the public had adequate time to review permit applications and supplemental information provided by BPXA in response to information requests. A state agency Technical Team, composed of permitters trom each agency, met on a weekJy basis-throughout most oftbe review. This team discussed project issues and procedures used for revi~w of individual permits. The paC distributed public comments on the Northstar Project to team members to provide staff an opportunity to review those comments before submitting consistency-related comments to DGC. Comments not related to an ACMP standard or enforceable policy that is related to an agency authority will be considered by that agency during permitting. Consistency Determination Based on the review of the Northstar Project by the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation, Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the North Slope Borough coastal district, the state concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP. State agencies made this determination after careful consideration of public comments, review of lease stipulations, consideration of mitigating measures incJuded in the project description, and development of the project- specific stipulations included in Attachment A of this consistency detennination. These stipulations appear on individual permitS issued under the authorities of the specific pennitting agencies. Attachment B provides an analysis of measures that make the project consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program. Attachment C is a response to comments by the Department of Environmental Conservation for oil spill issues. As appropriate, when considering best available technology and acceptable practices, project activities shaH be consistent with the terms, conditions, stipulations and mitigating measures detailed in the most recent lease issued within the Unit. 34[0 006766 f)(~"b,+ L\ p. 4 4) 5) 6) 7) Northsw DeVelopment-""" State ill AK9806-0IPA ~ February 4, 1999 5 Advisories 1) BPXA has committed to prepare Polar Bear Interaction Plans for construction in section 8.3.2 and section 8.4.1 of the Project Description. These plans should be submitted to and approved by the appropriate state agencies prior to initiation of pipeline and island construction, including development well drilling and operations. The Department ofFish and Game recommends separate plans be developed for offshore pipeline construction, island construction and facility installation, and for operations, and that these plans be cross-referenced in the Facility Site Reviews (project Description, sec. 8.2.1) and the Waste Management Plan. . 2) The Department ofFish and Game recommends BPXA prepare a wildlife response plan, similar to that of the Bad3mi Development Project, with procedures for dealing with potential nuisance animals (other than polar bears), beached carcasses, and injured wildlife in situations where no oil spill is involved. This plan can be coordinated. with the National Marine Fisheries Service (pinnipeds, cetaceans), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (walrus, migratory birds), and DFG (foxes, resident birds). 3) .The North Slope Borough has advised us that its approval will not become effective until a shoreline protection plan for the environmentally seqsitive areas near Northstar facilities is approved by the DEC. In addition, the North Slope Borough has nótified us that a three-barge system, as required by DEC, be required under their approval. The North Slope Borough has notified us that its approval will not become effective until the final EIS is complete ånd the federal agencies have issued permits for this project. The'North Slope Borough appro.yc:d the use ora 2,800 barrel double-walled and double-bottomed tank and waived the requirement to provide lining and diking, in accordance with 18 MC 75.075. Please be advised that aJúlOugh the state has found the project consistent with the AC~, based on your project description and any modifications that appear as stipulations contained herein. you are still required to meet all applicable state and federallaws and regulations. Your consistency detennination may inc1ude reference to specific laws and regulations, but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable laws and regulations. If changes to the approved project are proposed prior to or during its siting, construction, or operation, you are required to contact this office immediately to 34.1 006767 ~\\')I~ ~ ~. 5 cc: Northstar Developn,/""' P:oj'" State ID AK9806-0 1 P A ~,~ 6 February 4, 1999 detennine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. If the actual use differs iTom the approved use contained in the project description, the state may amend the consistency determination and the state approvals listed in the consistency detennination. 8) Should cultural or paleontological resources be discovered as a result of this activity, we request that work which would disturb such resources be stopped, and that the State Historic Preservation Office (269-8720) and the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (COE) (753-2712) be contacted immediately so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. This is the final administrative decision by the State of Alaska for the proposed project. You have 30 days to appeal this decision to the Alaska Superior Co~ pursuant to Appellate Rule 601. By copy of this letter, we are infonning the Corps of Engineers of our final determination. ' Please call met at 465-8192 ¡fyou have any questions about this consistency detennination or the stipulations contained in it. I may also be reached by email at: Glenn- Gray@gov.state.ak.us. Sincerely, -;,. -¡ ~:_, ~,~ r .r! Glenn Gray Project Analyst Mike Abbott, Governor's Office Max Ahgeak, Pres., Utpc:agvik Inupiat Corp. Tom Allen, Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management Tom Bames, BPXA Judith Bittner, DNR.SHPO Tony Braden, DNR, SPCO LalT)' Bright, FWS Bill Britt, DNR, SPCO Archie Brower, Native Vmage of Kaktovik Arnold Brower, Native Village of Barrow Terry CaIpenter, COE Lanston ChÎJm, Kuukpik Corp. Robert Dolan, DEC Jeanne Hanson, NMFS 341 006768 f)(~" '" + '\ ? ~ /~. ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifY that on March 7,2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldrnan Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Documents served: Briefing on Greenpeace's Right to Petition for Hearing Dated: 3/7/01 l¿!xt~ Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC appeal Certificate of Servic~ tn/O I /0 I RECEIVED MAR 0 8 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage /" ~.. ~ f . Nancy S. Wainwright Attomey at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515.3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-22003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) ) ) BRIEFING ON GREENPEACE;S RIGHT TO P]tTITION FOR REHEARING Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby submits this written memorandum briefing 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." in accordance with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's order ofFebl1.1ary 9,2001. The Connnission's order stated that Greenpeace must address specific questions, which Greenpeace has addressed below. I. In what ways is Greenpeace "affected" by tbe permit approval in tbis matter? Greenpeace is affected by the permit approval in numerous ways. First, Oreenpeace, and al1 Alaskans, have a constitutional right to common use of public resources. Decisions of the AOGCC BIlow permits to drill in areas of high public resource values, including not limited to marine mammals, fish, wildlife. and water resources. If there is a well blowout, or if there is an improper determination concerning the aquifers in connection with the drilling or injection of wastes, there will be serious impacts to public resources of concern Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 1 r---, ,..-, to Greenpeace. The attached affidavits detail some of Greenpeace's activities and interests that will be affected. 1 The pemùt actions of the AOGCC that have the potential for devastating harm to Greenpeace, and the public interest include (but are not limited to): (l)adverse impacts (including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts) on coastal resources from improper well construction; drilling and aquifer exemptions that threaten drinkìng water aquifers; (2) failure to require an abandonment plan; (3) failure to mitigate adverse impacts to the environment from spills of drilling muds; (4 )failure to require proper well control and blowout preventers; (5) failure to meet requirements for manifests for each load of waste received; (6)failure to require proper casing and cementing of wells; (7)failure of AOGCC to require BPXA to comply with the AOGCC regulations, Chapter 25; (8)failure 10 require BPXA to timely demonstrate mechanical integrity of the wen; including pressure testing and movement of fluids; (9)failure to require proper injection depths and injection pressures; and annulus pressures; (10) untimely reporting by BPXA of monthly average, maximum and minimum values for injection pressures; physical, chemical and other relevant characteristics of the injected fluid; IAffidavits of Melanie Duchin and Dan Ritzman, Exhibits 1 and 2. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page; 2 ."--" ~ mechanical integrity tests. The public interest in the waters of the state, and in the fish and wildlife, are confinned in multiple provisions of Article VIII of the Alaska Constitution.2 As the Alaska Supremes Court recognized: We have &equently compared the state's duties as set forth in Article VIII to a trust-like relationship in which the state holds natural resources such as fish, wildlife, and water in "trust" for the benefit of all Alaskans. Instead of recognizing the creation of a public trust in these clauses per Be, we have noted that "the comm.on use clause was intended to engraft in our constitution certain trust principles guaranteeing access to the fish, wildlife and water resources of the state." Brooks v. Wright, 971 P.2d 1025, 1031 (Alaska 1999). (footnotes omitted). The public interest resources jn the Northstar Project area are remarkable and unique. 3 Endangered bowhead whales migrate through the Northstar area, and ringed, bearded and spotted seals haulout on pack and shorefast ice.4 Polar bears live on both land and offshore ice, covering a range from over 37 miles inland to over 186 miles offshore, and are known to den near the Northstar island and onshore area. 5 The Beaufort Sea coast is also an important summer and staging area for a number of migratory seabirds and waterbirds~ some of which travel from as far away as South America, southeast Asia, the Pacific Islands, and ~ 3 Alaska Const. Article VIII, §§ 1,2,3,4,6,10,13,16,17. Northstar Draft En'Viromnental Impact Statement (DEIS) 8.7 - 8.13. 4 Northstar DEIS 6.5~1 to 6.5-9.. 5 DEIS 6.5-9. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on Hmited issues page 3 .--.' ~ even Antarctica. 6 Approximately forty-four species of birds are found seasonally in the Northstar project area, including spectacled and SteUer's eiders. which are both listed as threatened species under the ESA. 7 The fish resources and water resources in the Northstar area are also of vital public interest. The nearshore brackish water band along the Beaufort Sea coast is an essential component of the ecosystem and is widely used by various fish species for feeding and as a migration route. This habitat is a critical component for fish species ranging from the Colville River to the Mackenzie River in Canada.s The continued production of Alaska's valuable fish resources is dependent upon maintaining important habitat characteristics, including the quantity and quality of water within fish bearing waters. The water resources that are used for drinking, subsistence or other public uses are of significant public interest. II. What is the meaning of the phrase "person affected" as used in AS 31.05.080(a)? The mission of the AOGCC "is to protect the public interest in exploration and development of oil and gas resources, ensuring conservation practices, and maximum ultimate recovery, while protecting health, safety, the enviromnent, and property rights." Therefore, a group that is dedicated to the protection ofbealth, safety or the environment, ô 7 DEIS 6.7-1. DEIS 6.9-1. 8 Randy Bailey, former Chief of the FisherÍ(Js Divisio~ Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 4 r--.. ~ is affected by decisions of the AOGCC. Greenpeace is such a group. 9 Likewise, the individual members of Green peace are committed to healthy, safe, enviromnents, and are affected by the decisions of the AOGCC.lo A "person" is defined in the AOGCC statute AS § 31.05.170 (I 0) to include a natural person, corporation, association, partnership, receiver, trustee, executor, administrator, guardian, fiduciary or other representative of any kind, and includes a department, agency or instrumentality of the state or a governmental subdivision of the state. Greenpeace is a non-profit corporation lawfully organized to do business in AJaskf4 and its members are natural persons. 11 Therefore, any decision by AOGCC in issuing its pemlÌts to drìU, which results in approval or other action that affects the health. safety or envirorunent, is a decision which "affects" or has a material impact upon Greenpeace and its members. The AOGCC website identifies its "customers" as: "oil and gas industry, concerned citizÿns andorganizations. Alaska Department of Natural, Resources, Alaska Department of Revenue, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Environmental Protection Agency"lZ (underlining added). Since Greenpeace is a concerned organization that represents concerned citizens, the AOGCC has a responsibility to afford Greenpeace access to its 9 Affidavit of Me1aníe Duchin, Exhibit 1. 10 Affidavit of Dan Ritzman, Exhibit 2. 11 Affidavits ofDuchin and Ritzman. id. l~xhibit 3, AOGCC website page identifYing '~customers.') Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 5 .~ ~ rehearing procedures, as it does any other affected person or corporation. The Alaska court's have repeatedly recognized a generous standing standard, incIudingtaxpayer standing., public interest group standing, and standing to raise public trust issues to the courts. In addition, Greenpeace, and its members, have a constitutional right to common use of public resources. 13 Decisions of drilling on the offshore waters, affect the rights of Green peace's reasonable concurrent use, its rights of access to navigable waters, its conunon use of resources. lithe AOGCC improperly grants a pennit that does not meet standards, there could be a well blowout that devastates public resources, and the common use of those resources. Therefore, the public has right to seek review of the AOGCC decisions that may affect these public resources. The Commission pennitting actions are governed by the Safe Drinking Water Act which is designed to ensure the health and safety of the public and the environment. The public has a right to seek both administrative and judicía1 review of AOGCC decisions under this law. III Do the procedures provided by AS 31.05.080 apply to the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill under AS 31.05.0901 The procedures in AS 31.05.080 are applicable to all of the AGGCC orders or decisions. A pennit do drill pursuant to 31.05.090 is an "order or decision oftbe conunission." The decision on the pennit to drill may affect health, safety or the 13 Alaska Constitution, Article VIII, sections 1 ,2,3,6~8, 10, 13, 16, 17. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 6 /-.., ./""". enviromnent, and requires a detennination by the AOGCC that the activity is being earned out in accordance with "law[,] regulation [and] order of the commission." Therefore, if Greenpeace, or another appellant. contends that the Commission has failed to carry out its mandatoI)' duties, or has erred in its assessment of the facts supporting its detennination, then review under AS 38..05.080 must be permitted. For example, Greenpeace alleges that neither the Division of Governmental Coordination~ nor the AOGCC~ has conducted a proper ACMP review of pennits to drill, and that these pennits were improperly phased in contravention of AS 46.40.094. The AOGCC pennits were eliminated ftom the ACMP review, and are not included in the fmal consistency determination. 14 Therefore, the permits to drill have not been issued in accordance with law (the Alaska Coastal Management Program) (AS 46.40). Greenpeace has a right to seek review of the AOGCC action that has resulted in this failure to require BPXA to comply with laws, regulations, and orders, including the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Alaska Coastal Management , Act or regulations that implement these laws. Respectfully submitted this 7th day of March, 2001. LA W OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ,~ (~ltt 14Final Consistency Detennination,2/4/99 R 6765-66 lists penntts included in ACMP consistency determination. There is no listing of AOGCC or pemùts to drill. Exhibit 4, Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 7 IN TH.E SUPEIUOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA . THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE GREENPEACE, INC. ) Appellant; ) ,) ) ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF ~ M~:LANJE DUCHIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) . -..' ) ,-. ,...._,., Nancy S. Wainwright I 3030 Back Road, Suite 555 AI\chorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 345-':5595; (907)345~3629(f'à}() Alaska Bar # 871 1071 v. STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGBT DIVISION OF (J() VERNMENTAI, COORDINATION AND ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL Appellees. BRITISH PETROLEUM EX1'LORATION ALASKA~ lNC- lntervenor-Appellees --.......-".._~.- . ." STATE OF ALASKA Third Judicial District I, Melanie Duchin affirm: /--.. "..../ 3 AN 99~3350 ) ) 55. ) 1.. I have personal knowledg~ ()f the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto- AI'I.'IDA VlT OF MFLANIJ\ )lJCHIN .' I>age 1 of 5 'E~hibit; \ ;~geu" ï' . ...' ~f=5=."...' ~ ,~ .....' ",,/ 2. I am a Gr~opeacc, Inc, representative in Alaska, and an issue specialist for the Grecnpeace Climate Campaigtl. Greenpeace. ruc. Is a non..profit corporation registered to do business in A1aska. Since 1977 Greenpeace has worked on bchá1f of its supporters to educate the public and the government agencies on the value of ptotecting the interoational1y 3- si.gníficant coastal and marine ecosystems in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean. In particular, Greenpeace has shown long-standing commitment in the areas of protecting the fish and wildlife habitats a,nd cultural, educational, environmenta1 and scientific values of the natural Beaufûrt Sea environment frOl11 harm caused by oil exploration and development. 4. Individual Greenpeace supporters' interests ate based on the environmental, scientific, educational, subsistence, cultural, and recreational vnlues present in the Northstar Project area and other parts ofthe Arctic region. 5, Greenpeace gathers~ analyzes and disseminates 1nformation. to the public about these project') and oU exploration and development in the Arctic, and bas devoted 8. sígnificaot amount of its reSources t() this public outreach cl:U1l.paign. The intent of Greepeace's participation ;s to encourage pub1ic education, and to foster a robust and fair debate on issues of local, state, national and international sígl1ificance in this region. Dissemination ofthis information is not lìmited to members and supporters of Appellant's non-profit group, but is provided to members ofthe pubUc, ,..",....."..", page2o(5 ..., ....... .. Exhibit' 1 page .J-,- of _5- AFFIJ}A VIT OF MßJ..ANIE DUCH1:N ,-... ./"""" .'../ 6. Greenpettce has made a specific commitment to provide supporters and the pubHc with il}fonnation about Northstm' ttctivities; to comment on their behalf on the Northstar Project; to represent the public interest at public forums and in administrative agency deliberations 00 the Northstar J)roject; Rßd to encourage debate on imp0l1ant issues. A primary focus of Greenpeace's ~frorts are the operations and activities of government as they relate to the oil development in the Beaufort Sea r~gjon, and a.~ O}cy relate to addressing and/or halting the causes of clìmate change. 7. Greepeace has aJso l'nade a commitment. to provide supporters and the pnbHc information about the coastal zone impacts of the Northstar project, and has specifically focused on c()éJ$tal zone and habitat impacts from water use. Greenpeace has commented on water use permits, pursued administrative appeals concerning water use permìts~ and has atiempted to obtain copies ofDNR and DOC water penniitillg docuUJ.ents because of its concen1 about jmpact.~ to the coa.~tal zone of winter water withdrawal. 8. Gree11peace, and its supporters, have beneficially used water, ff()Jtl the North Slope, for recreational, navigutional, subsistence, and other public trust uses. The Kupal1lk is an anadromous river, and Greenpeace's jnvestiggtion has led to the concJusion that without protection of the ¡nstream flows, tht~ continuous withdrawal of water fr()w the Kuparok river1 with no analysis of coastal zone impacts, may re.....ult in significant harm to coastal resources and the riverine habitat. We have base(".... D1Jclusiot) on ..,' ... ,.., ." ..'" ._, ._'... .'...'.'." page J (If S E~hibit: t page 3 . of _5- APFr.DA vrf OF MEI.,AN1E nt/CHIN " ,-, /"""-. "'",,'/ treat.ises, studies, and the investigation of Randy Bailey, Therelore, in June, 2000, Greenpeace applied for a water right 1Ìom the AIa.~ka Department of Natural Resources to preserve the water for aquatic reSOUl'ces, fish and wildlife in the Kupamk. Rivet. DNl{ has not acknowledged or processed the Oreenpeace instream flow appJication.. 9. Greenpeace has been required to expend significant fínancial resources to pursue litigation and administrative appeals against DNR and DOC over the mega! water pennjttjng; C'J1'eenpeace has expended legal fees and costs to administratively appeal to . ONR and DOC (challenging the Northstar water petmíts~ and the ACMP determinations on those pelmìts) that exceed $1.00,000. Because the Courts do not favor recovery of ' costs and legal fees for adrrinistrative appeals) it is unlikely that Greenpeace wHl ever recover those costs, even though Greenpeace has been, and may be, successful in Court challenges. lfGreenpeace is required to again~ appealadministrative1y the Northstar ' water use for winter 2000w2001, additional unrecoverable legal costs and fees wiJJ be incun'ed, resulting in significant irreparable financial in,jury. to. In 1999~2000 Greenpeace administratively appealed the DOC-sanctioned temporary water use permit, TWOP AOO-10 to both DOC and DNR. However, on the eve ofthe Court's review ofthat permi.t, llPXA stated that it would not use additional water [TOm the permit and that peTm.it has now expired. Attachment 1, AFFlDA vn' Of MELANIE Dt/CJ-tlN ...' ,-""'""".... .-.. . -,.".. .. page 4 or 5 Exbibit , page -4-- of - 5 ~ ~ '......- .--- .' ",..,' Further the affiant sayeth. naught ~~"'. ~ ,',",,"'...., "..,_. Melanie Ducbín SUBstRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1.::-- day of December 2000 at: Anchorage. Alaska. ~ OFFIGfAl¡ $~~~,;.. i tARRY ANDh.~.,.) ... " NOTARY PUSt.1C.STilTE Of I'.L:.S~.' .. My ColM1. . Exp\r&B 11~~J2~íJ-¿ â ~~~U~H¡ø AFFn)^ VI'f OF MF.U\Nm /)lJCHfN N~!~ ~~ r::~-~~'.Þ{.~ My commtsslon explres:_.}~(f.l-~ . ...~ page 5 of 5 { Exhibit' page 5 of 5 .......-.-.... ~- . """"""-"'.. .---- @OOI ~, " :' .., ..:, '..' , ;' ,'" " '," " ,.. "" " ,', ,',' , ,',\':, :", ".. ,'" <,,' , ' " , , ' ',,' ,', ",' , , ' , , ' ' , " " ' " ,.""': ,." , ",' ' ,',..' c",::'" ",,/, '" ",,:, :,:-:",:"", ,','...., """""" ." "",ŠT~T£¥:&sÄ;.'.r...';"~:' d,":~" ",'.,', '.,'. ':.','. " ":,"""',",::"'::TbirdjudiCiàI'-Dí~triot",,,:"""'::l:"'" "::',"""",'::",:',':,:".','", ..,:','" '.. ," "'."""""':"'.":"~"::"¿ri~'~~~'~~Ói~~'::,:".":,'.' """""'."""""":"""',,',:',",,.."',, ':,'""", ,""',..,","":',',-",',,, ~ " ",,', ',..' '.~.'iba~ë~ ~le'~fthétads.'¡~j,~~~..iJo~tën; ~'...:...> . :,.,:.,:,"',:",".,'.,';~~~:ffomam~~~~f~~:.: ...,...,';:,;i.';i:.;i:.".: ,',,' ,'.,,'..,::".'..:,'.."'...:.:..'.:'.,',.,: ',,: ,','" :,,"':,:; ..,:,',','~ """ : ,',.. .J,:',,'"',lielYùpóri GieeripeÍlèeto,wòrk'oi,myJJehBl(în~êdQc;:atiDgD1(~; åswèll,~.-the',::":"" :',' : ,"~" .:!.,; .pnb~~F~~":'~~:~~eVØlÙe o~~~~~}"~~t., ...':.,' " ' , ',",': ':..:', co~t,a!:,and,rtW:U1e, roosysteI1D'1ßAlas~aQd ,the' Ar,?f;ic'O(j!!RiJ.. , ,!n"paJ;:ticw$t', 'liel)" upon" ",: ,"" ,,' :":,' :,. ":,".:'~ '... '.'~':to ~~:'è'...¡>IÌr,"¡ng 1D)',~'~'1~.'~f~~e.,~:, ~,~I~~".',:,:,.,:,:', .::', :'.::.", ',co' ,"::::> ',:',:, ,"',' 1~~ita!s~jric.Jùdkg '~~~ '~:'o~:'~abì~i$~ ',' :~4" c~~', ~uëâtiori~}..'~n~~~~:~{ "-': :, <',::', : ", , >,~""""'",",>",','",,,',,',".",,>-"""',',..":':',.',,':"""'"'","'"...'"'"""""'""::",..,,',,,,,,,,,,..'',,"';",",....""'.',::',',":":.':', '"" , ,,""'..:'..sdëni~fic'va1~"'òfhçtic':~osysteœ:'a~d,the,~,atUrål,BcaUfo(t'&ë8',en~nRient:,'~,~IY,':on ""'>:'" , ,'",:,":."'",:,':""'"",'":,'::"",~"",:,,,,::,,,~""::":"",:"..,',::::'::,::,,,,', : ',:"':..'",.',,','.., ",:'<:,', ,,'.. ',..,,'..:"""..:,,:'" ',::..,,',,' ,:,', :"..'-:,:" :,':Gre~~aèt;,'toass~9i ~ih,'ádvô~~ÌÌg,'to.:,èniorce'lé$Bi,pr~t~(:tionl,ti) prc~~~îh'~'ê~tlsed ,:,':,::,':"':,'. "', " ""::,,,~,':'::::, :,",:,',b;';,'¿~,:',:~~í'ór~~on::åp~":~~v~i~~n1~~f '~c1,,: ~$~Ci~t~d:,::~~~~~~~~.::"~':~çui~":¡'þb~~~,':m"",:' :""~;",:,:,',:",,:",, " ::-',':":,' ,:,', ",-:,'::- ,." "/,',, ,,';',' , "..:,,":'.." .',,' ",.':: ';'" ,':, ,:', ': ",' ',',',' ",,:,,' ':.',' " ", '1',:': '..," ','.. -:-:',,::, """"i",,:,.".. ',,','.',,:'" , ' "."':"""'" ',', ','" "'..: .':', :',:','rcciêäpÓiì~~,i\flVig8ii9n~;'~sthetic~:~UinU-al,:edú~àtiÓÌ1~'..~d,scièn1itié'&,:-~vities,"~,"'" ,,'" ,',' ::. ',:" .',', '""'"'"":,:..,'",:,,,,,:,:,.':,,::,'..~','<,','.,,,:,""""':","':""""":""""':"":""""':""~"'.:""":'" , ':,:,,'-":' ':",'.. ',',':."4~::' ""MY'iÌ1dj:vidUa1ûitmsiB'aré-bašéd'QÌiiheq,:V;iionm~i.a1,:l\Iéieiìtiß~,..'éd\icàtibn'Æ1i,: "":.',,,,':, "'" ' "">,:,, ':",',';,'Bü~s~~~6~.::'~~~étic)::'c¿lt~~~':'fish'~d':~1~ïk~;:::~~,:,ie~~~i~~":l~~:,p~~~~~,,:'jri"'~~'::'" ,', ,,",: ,',:':",: ' ",:<,:::":':',,,,"":~~~~~"'&oj~~~,',~~'¿b~'::~r~J~~,:~~'~d:~~~,:~>~~,~"'~~kan":Ar~i{re~~~:':" ,':",:;":",'"", :::< ,~il1>~~~.~~~.,f~tOprotect~";d ,.iJdÜf~~~.-Ä;"~ ,". .::.:.,. '."", , ," '..,',:,'""""":"',"","':"..,"'-',,',,""",,:',,,".,"""',.',',:',.'..',' ,""""'"',c""":.,,,,,-:,,'.,,"'," '. , '".,.., .' ,( :"p~~¿nál:"::åt1dpubIi~,:ùSé~:"~{ thes~':,rt;$ö~~e~~', ",'l'háv.e'"tä'"paï1i~Uittt',~onC~,~1?,ð~t, dÍe',' ',',"; ;,',:" ' ,«:"""::'~,<:"""::"'.","':,-::',',..,,,,,',',,,~,",,:":"""~>",:,',:"".':".':"",:"",:"",..,:,,,,,',,:,"" ' """,:',(:on1áß;ih1atiôri:'Qffi;e8hwàter,:seawärer~,ui¡~ei~uôd:aqu1fei'saød,the'IS~~enV4Q~Oat¡',:,'. "., .' " ,;.','."":, ',',' ",' '. ...'.. ' " " ' :,.'., .." ,".. .'..:.... ,"""," ' "';',';,, ..' ,', ,.' "':,,'.' ,.' :..' , ',':,' " "",,:.. "::,':", " '", ' : :,' '"", ,.' ", ,'.',.'"", ,.' ':.-, , ,,: .., ,', ,', ':be~~u~è:sudiê~~atióninlÏ16ita'~ pers~Ì1ài'~~i ~~ristlMto~~Jy~~t~~6~~ 6t'ihes~'..,..: " ~:" ,,".' ,:' ,: """""":,:'::,:,,:,, "",.,."",,'.,".' .""""::"".':>"".'"":":"".':""",,,-,.,,,.,..,,~,, ",:",,",' " ' '..", .. , ,.-' ,""', '.".. ,,' ",,' ","" ,,',', , .. " . " ", .' ' :' ,', :,', ,:;..:.':,.','.".'".','.':'..:,:,:,..:,'.'.',',.>~',i,:.",,:,::~,..','.':,':...>'.'.,"','..:'::::...,'.:ä~~\~~: -t',: :,",:,;.,,:' :.':':,:':",:.',,>,::,:,':,'.:':'::'..:,:,"::':,":":,":",:'::',:',:,:,:'.,'<;:':"',"'::"',:,:~,':',',i",:"""",:",~,.-:,:":¡',"~':"::".'::":':",,,':':',:,":':"""":"""~':<;~":':I.'::~.'~:' i..""':' '. ", , . ", ' , ',' . , """ . . '" ',"." ',.', " ,,' ", , ' " " ", ,,' , ", "," .. ",.' , ", '" ..., ~ ~OO2, " " ", ' r-<; , " .. ',,', " " ,', ' "" '..', '" , ",.'" .. ,," "", " ,,' '.. .." ,,", .,'I:esóuré'es~,', " , '" " , ", " " , ""':"',', """ " ",: ," '..' , " ", ",' " .. " ..", , ",' ",,"'" ,'-: ' , , " ",', , '" ',' .. , " ,',' "$:,' , "'" "Í.I~e~f1D~ M~?ooo. I¡>8!ij~~~k!~\VÍ\Ii;œ'~;;mp~~" .',: " , ,.,,' . O¡¡"Ç«tÌOI\a!.Scí~¿~ió<;.]," ';;dria~~j~~ Ä~~.;..u';~l"';ed ~o;~,~ ' . '., , ' """".""'" , "," '~~~~~S..; Í1';;"~;~»roj"" ~~šlå¡,cI. J ~ .i.~¿j~;"'...~~~;.; " "."." '" ,," "'W~~f~~B~~e.;Íot~~Ögi.,~O¡~~oIÍa¡8Il~;';'~ti~;;~, ," , "::" .'. ."',:..~." ,,", "'M;n~V~j.m.t 'ciè~~fio;~o:r;OJ1åJ~Ú ~~~~~~.. ~f~~:~).:'" '..",' '",:"," ::,:,'"":;,,,,:,"',',':', ",':;:<..',.."",",:..:.,..' ,,:,',,':,:> """":""",',:":">"',:"':',"',',':, ',,:::' , e': ,ci,1n'.en.tlY.~',~dwasll,:adv:ets'ely' affected :by, Nortbstç,OUäri,d'gas' aci.iVitìes'"~'t'1I'1o~ke~JhY"",',, , , .~SIx>Ä~l.~: ,aÏ..I.~~ábUilY.~~~Ïhe~;"+~:oJe ", """ ,,' , ' ," " ""pw,lkrtiÒHi'ö~", : fuaddJ ii ¿n; <41êtóth<> a.üon.¿f tIië -Siatè'ifÁlaÍika o¡¡d B 1'X"A; J ' " " , , , ',' ',' , ",' , , '," ' .. , "',',' , "" ,..,: ,'" .." ",,: ',' "",' ,.. , :..: ... ,: " .. ,', , ';. " ','," , ,: ," ,"" ' .. ", " ' "', ",', , ' .,': ," ", ,,' ' " . " ,," exPedençêd a.~gìûficarit ~OnQfI11Y~iOIl1ll ¡jgb~,~f~¡'n¡ of .pe«ili ,and:" "", :, ',' """ 'Ù"'!\¡î';'š""¡;lYw]¡il"orÍ~offi~~. "" "',, ,,"" "', "", ",""'., """"',,. ."",,: ",," ',,".. ,". ,"", "" """" """"" "".. . '."j :'l¡¡¡".. pem...;~:¡,y;¡'e Ä"i;~ <>f.tO~ "St1Ue oÙI.sìœ;;i¡ël~ Ìb~ ' "" ,,' . "'"""",,':' """""""""""""':""":',"':"""""""',,':"":'."""':'"'"",':"",""":,........:","'"",..,,..,,.. : ,::" ',,:,,". ," :",," ,,:P¡;P~ ~iN~~,ìhêAlÐSka:b;IÄd,~çónSciiiaticQ;c.>mn;j;s¡o... the" "'" "" D.;p~~;~fEn~~;.jdk~~~ "'d~IJé¡iái,;,,"';i~i~t"'aò~G.ö;ë,ÏnÓ~ ". .""" .....".." ."... .......'."'as.tÍ)~~>i~~ofdíos...~ci~ ~~tmY~td~f~tQe~~~lic~t~..',..::...... .. ;"ycoìÌsiiìùÌi9JÍåI j"i~,t fu ~;'JÍ i;,,~óf Mosk'. m~ ';';"iñr ~..m;.¡.iI;';;¡¡Y.Ì!ÌcÓ .'. ;.:..: , ' ". , " " ," ", '" .. , , h " " ,':,' .,', " ' " , , " , :'" "" , , , , ,',.,,", ;',' ',,' ,-', ',""'¡' ",' ,'. , " ," '¡', h,:..", :,," ", .. " " "'..," ",' ,"", ,.',' . " ,,' ,'....,'", "', " ,", " , " . ,., ,. "',' :,'",' " '", , " " . , " ,',h , " " .. "," ',..~"i::',"'::"':,',:"':':><"~"""::,:,',",,,:, h"¡:-x'ht:,btt, ',æ"",:, " """:":"""'<..~/".",:.."t",b4"'~' . " .. ',,' , , " ,,',' .. " , , , ,,' ',., ", .,,' ,',; , " .' " , .' , , , " ' , ' ,", ' ~.. ~"u ""0 "'.VII~t:rva[lon Lommí$sion - Dep~ of Administration ~ h'vVI'w.stata aklJ5!'locai/akpøgesi AD MIN/ogc!core.htr ,...,.,."....".,..,~..,."",..,"..".,...."",."._..," """",,",,"'~"""."""'."""'".""""""'""""""""""""'" 011 and ,as conservation commluioh """"""""""""""""""""""'--"""'""" ,,'--..' ,,"~',_.. """"~,.",,-,~,,,"""""""'--"'.""""'" Core Services "Prevent waste of Alaska's oil and gas resources "Protect correlative rights of the mineral Interest owner .Maximize recovery of oil and gas for the benefit of Alaska's citizens "Protect freshwater from contaminatíon by oil/gas/mud during drilling, production, and abandonment operations -Administer Alaska's Underground Injection Control program for oil and gas wells -Inspect oil field drilling, production, metering, and abandonment activities .Evaluate, modify. and approve drilling and worKover operations .Evaluate, modify, and approve oil pool development rules -Adjudicate disputes between owners -Maintain state production records -Maintain well history files and well records Customers "Oil and gas industry -Alaska Department of Natural Resources .Concerned citizens and organizations -Alaska Department of Revenue -U.s. Environmental Protection -U.S. Department of the Interior Agency .General Functions .Over$;ght and Surveillanc~ Functions .,."."",.,...-..."...,.,."...."...~..".....~"....,,--"""""_""",...".",...".....""""....""",..,,' , AOGCC Hon:ae Page AOGCC Webmaster howard- okländ@admin.state.ak.us J of t E. xn, \?i :; "'ø+ 3t!20013:09PM ~.- ~~~u[,/~ fAlr!{£~ßJ OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMl!.NT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0 SOIJT}/CEwrAAL. REGIONAL OFFICE ç¡{CE;NTRAL OFF1Cé 3601 'C" STREET. SUITE 310 P.O. BOX f TOQ3tJ ANCHOAAGE. A(.),SKA 99503-59:30 JUNEAU, AtASI<A mJ1..()(]30 PH: .(907) 2t]9-'t47O1FAX: (907) 5ð1.1S134 PH: (!XJ7) 485-3S62/FA.X: (90~) 465-3tJ75 FebntaIy 4, 1999 Peter Hanley BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. P.O. Box 196612 Anchorage ÀK 995 I 9..66 I 2 Dear Mr. Hanley: SUBJECT: Northstar Development Project Fin~1 Consistency Determination STATE I.D. No. AK9806~OlPA rONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 0 PIPêLJNE COORDINATOR'S OFFICE' .." WIEST 4TH I<VE;NUE. SUITE æ ANCHOf1iAGE. ALA$K4 99SOf.2;.wJ PH: ((}()7J 271-4317IFAX: (OOJ) 2.7Z-Q69() The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed coordinating the state's review of the Northstar Development Project (Northstar Project) for consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has developed this final detennination based on reviewers' comments. This project would be the fu"St offshore production facility in Alaska that is not reached by directional drilling or by a causeway. Also, it would be the first sub-sea oil pipeline in the Arctic. The Division of G overrun en tal Coordination issued the original Proposed Consistency Determination on J anuar)' 12. ] 999 and a revis~d Proposed Consistency Detennination on January 13, 1999. Greenpcace, Inc. submitted a petition to the Coastal Policy Council (CPC) on January 20, 1999. The CPC mt:t earlier today by teleconference to hear the petition. TIle CPC dismissed the petìtioner and detennjned that DGC faidyconsidered comments submined by Gree:npeace. Project Description BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) proposes to develop the Northstar Project. This oil field wil1 produce approximateJy 65.000 barrëls of oil per day, and recoverable reserves are estimated to be about J45 million barrels of oil. The project proposal involves re- construction of a grave} island approximately 6 miles offshore ìn the Beauforr Sea, construction and operation of drilling and production facilities at the island, and construction and operation of a subsea pipeline. OI'A3$~H Exhibit A 006763 " "j'- ,~ Jt 0 ".".,.o.ð "" ,.."......, pol>/t, e~,b,\ It 'p. \ ....,. -----.' . NorthstM Dtvelopffient friò- State ID AK9806.-0IPA --.. .~ 2 .,J February 4, 1999 The Northstar prod~çti~n isl~d will be built at the location of the existing man-made Sea.~ !sland exploratlOn Island 111 approxJmate]y 40 feet of water. BPXA proposes to haul addltlOna~ gravel to Seal Island this winter to create 8 work surface 465 feet by 410 feet. A sheet pde wall, concrete block slope protection system and facilities foundations wiU be installed during the island construction phase. As part of this project, BPXA requests a new material site be approved for excavation of 1.2 million cubic yards of gravel for use in construction of the island and several small pads for valve sites and staging areas. The proposed location of the mine site is east of the main channel of the KuparuJc River app~oXimately t.5 miles upstream from the Kuparuk River Delta and Gwydyr Bay; Section 21, Township 12 North, Range 13 East, Umiat Meridían. A previously pennitted gravel source further inland on the Kuparuk River may also be used for the project The gravel will be used to construct the island anp several ~malJ pads for valve sites and staging areas. The project involves construction of tWo pipelines: 11 crude oil sales pipeline and a gas pipeline. The crude oil sales pipeline will be a 1 O~incb line running from the island to a tie~i.n at Pump Station I of the Trans~Alaska Pipeline System. A lO.inch gas line, to supply gas to the island, will begin at the Prudhoe Bay Unit Central Compressor Plant and wjll run to the production island. Pipeline construction will be conducted during winter using standard construction methods for the aboveground portions. and by trenching through the sea ice for the offshore portions. The offshore. subsea portion of the pipeline wíl1 be six miles long and wi11 be Con$trUcted betWeen December 1999 and April 2000. The crude oil sales and supply gas pipelines will be buried together in a common trench and back~filled. The depth of cover (distance . from original sea bed to top of pipe) will range from six feet in the shallow lagoon area to nine feet at the island. The trenching will be done trom thickened ice using excavation and other construction equipment. The onshore pipelines wi1\ follow a.new roUte from landfã11 near StorkeI'5on Point to existing aboveground pipeline vertìcaJ support members (VSMs) near IoE" Pad where it will follow existing right.s~of- way to Pump Station 1. The onshore pipeline construction will start in January 2000 and be completed in May of that year. Ice roads will be built to access the pipeline routes during conslrUctíon, The onshore oil and gas pipelines will be about I and 10 miles long, respectively, and wíll be pJaced on above ground VSMs using standard North Slope practices. At the shoreline ttansition,' the buried pipeline will continue approximately 150 feet from the existing shoreline to a grave) pad. The pipeline will b~ installed above ground at the valve enc1o5W'e and controls building located on tlle pad. Twenty~threc we1Is will be drilled initíally. On~ well will be a Class I disposal well for non~haz...a.rdous and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt waste 33~ 0067G4 E~' ~.t" p.-¡ Northstar DeveJo;'~Ìit.Þro'" Start! ill AK9806-0¡PA ,~ -- 3 """""., f ebruary 4, 1999 generat~d by driJIing. ~d ~am~ activities. Fifteen wells wilI be far oil producHon, and 7 wells wIll be for gas ID)ectlOn mto the reservoir to boost production. A more complete description of the project may be found in the Project Description dated JW1e 3, 1996 (Appendix A of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement) and in an October 27, 1998 letter ftom Peter Hanley ofBPXA to Terrry Carpenter of the Army Cotps of Engineers. Permit applications, listed in the next section, provide additions) infonnation about the project. Authorizations Needed '1121s final consistency detennination applies to the following state and federal authorizations. U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers . Section 404 Permit U.S. Envirornnental Protection Agency .. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Minerals Management Service (M:MS) .. Development and Productìon Plan Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) .. Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) for tbe Corps 404 Permit .. Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (401) (or the EPA 402 Discharge Permit Sh(Jrt~tenn Water Quality Variance Oil Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan (C~Plan) Solid Waste Treatme:Ilt Facility Pennit Wastewater Disposal Pennit Air Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Air Title V Operation PermitS r- .. Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) , . . . . Pipeline Right-of-Way Leases (for the entire gas and crude 011 pIpelIne routes) Maleria] Sales Contract (for gravel source) Lease Plan ofOperatìons (for island-based operations) Temporary Water Use Permit (LAS 20589) (for ice road construction) Miscellaneous land Use Permit (for ice road construction) . . Alaska Department ofFish and Game (DFG) . Title 16 Fish Habitat Permits (for ice road and pipeline crossings) 339 006765 E~,~,t L\ p,~ N ortbstar DeveJop:=.rto~ Ststc ID AK98Q~OIPA . 4 ~--- -..,._-~ February 4, 1999 Revjew Procedures The state worked closely with federal agencies to coordinate its review of the NorthstAr Project ~th ,the federal review. The objectives of the coordination were to epcourage commurucation between federal and state agencies and to make it easier for the public to comment on the project. The state began its review on June 1 when the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued. Although the state's 60-day public comment period initially coincided with the comment period for the drattEIs, the state approved two 30.day extensìons to the public comment deadline. The state extended the public comment period to ensure the public had adequate time to review pennit applications and supplemental information provided by BPXA in I"e.<ïponse to infonnaûon ~~ ' A state agency Technical Team, composed ofpermincrs trom each agency, met on a weekly basis-throughout most of the review. !his temn discussed project issues and procedures used for revi~w of individual pennits. The DOC distributed public conunents on the Northstar Project to team members to provide ståfr an opportunity to review those comments before submitting consistency.related comments to DGC. Conunents not related to an ACtv1P standard or enforceable poJicy that is related to an agency authority will bt: considered by that agency during permitting. Consistency Determination Based on the review of the Northsta! Project by the Alaska Departmepts of Environmental Conservation. Fish and Game, and Natural Resources and the North Slope Borough coastal dìstric~ the state concurs with your certification that the project is consistent with the ACMP. State agencies made this determination after careful consideration ofpubIic comments, review oflease stipulations, consideration of mitigating measures included in the project desCription, and development of the project~ specific stipulations included in Attachmenl A ofthìs consistency detennination. These stipulations appear on individual permits issued under the authorities of the specific penninìng agencies. Attachment B þrovîde:s an analysis of measures that make the project consistent with the Alaska COð$tal Management Program. Attachment C is a response to comments by ~eDepartment orEnvironmentaJ Conservation for oU spiH issues. As appropriate, when considering best available technology and acceptable practices, project activities shaH be consistent with the terms, conditions. stipulations and mitigating measures detailed in the most recent lease issued within the Unit. 34[0 006766 r~~\b,+ '-' p. 4 4) 5) 6) 7) Nol1hstar Dc"clopme:~ TÕ'" Start: ID AK9806-0JPA /'"'"". .~ 5 February 4, 1999 Advisories 1) BPXA has committed to prepare Polar Bear Internction Plans for construction in seçtion 8.3.2 and section 8.4.1 of the Project Description. These plans should be submitted to and approved by the appropriate state agencies prior to initiation of pipeline and island construction, including development well drilling and operations. The Department ofFish and Game I"eCQrtunends separate plans be developed for ollihore pipelioe construction, island construction and faciJity installation, and for operations, and that these plans be cross-referenced in the FaciJity Site Reviews (project Descñp.tion, sec. 8.2.1) and the Waste Management Plan. . 2) The Department ofFish and Game recommends BPXA prepare a wildlife response plan, similar to that of the Badami Development Project., with procedures for dealing with potential nuisance animals (ollie( than polar bears), beached carcasses, and injured wildlife in situations whore no oil spiJl is involved. This plan can be coordinated, with the National Marine Fisheries Service (Pinnipeds, cetaceans), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (walrus, migratory birds), and DFG (foxes, resident birds). 3) .The North Slope Borough has advised US that its approval will not become effective until a shoreline prqtecrjon plan for the environrnentaHy se~sitive areas near Northstar facilities is approved by the DEC. In addition, the North Slope Borough has nótified us that a three~barge system, as required by DEC, be required under their approval. The North Slope Borough has notified us that its approval wiIJ not become effective umil the final EIS is complete and the federal agencies have issued permits for this project. The'North SJoþe Borough appro'v~d the use ora 2,800 ban-el doubJe-walled and double-bottomed tank and waived the requirement to provide lining and diking, in accordance with 18 AAe 75.075. Please be advised that although the state has found the project consistent with the ACIvtJ:>, based on your projeçt description and any modifications that appear as Stipulations contained herein. you are still required to meet all appIicabJe state and federal laws and regulations. Your consistency determination may include reference to specific Jaws and regulations, but this in no way precludes your responsibility to comply with other applicable Jaws and. regulations. If changes to the approved project are proposed prior to Or during its siting, construction, or operAtion, you are required to contact this office immediately to 34-1- OQG76?' E4\~,t L\ p.S ~ Northstar Deve)Oprn:'~J'" State ID AK9806-01PA determine if further review and approval oftbe revised project is necessary. If the actual use differs from the approved We contained in the project description, the state may amend the consistency d~tel111ìnatìon and the state approvals listed in the consistency detel1nination. 6 .,._"'" Fc:bt'U3.ry 4, t 999 8) Should cultural or paleontological resources be discovered as a result oftbis activity, we request that work which would disturb such resources be stopped, 8l]d that the State Historic Preservation Office (269-8720) and the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (COE) (753~27I2) be cootacted immediately so that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act may proceed. This is the final administrative decision by the State of Alaska for the proposed project. You have 30 days to appeal this decision to the Alaska Superior Court. pursuant to Appellate Rule 60l. By copy of this letter. we are informing the Corps of Engineers of our final detennination. ' . Please calt met at 465-8192 ìfyou have any questions about this consistency determination or the stipulatîorL'ì contained Íl1 it. I may also be reached by emaìl at: Glenn- Gray@gov.state.ak..us. Sincerely, ------'" ~ ~ ~ ,--/-,. ~ '- -, " ~ Glenn Gray Project Analyst cc: Mike Abbott, Governor's Office Max Ahgeak, Pres.. Utp<::agvik Jnupiat Corp. Tom Allen, Dept. Ofthè Interior. Burcau of Land Management Tom Barnes, BPXA Judith Bittner, DNRSHPO Tony Bl'3den, DNR, SPCO Larry Bright, FWS . Bill Brin, DNR, SPCO Archie Brower, Native Village of Kaktovík Arnold Brower, Native Village of Barrow Terry Carpenter, CaE Lanston Chinn, Kuukpik Corp. Robert Do]an, DEC Jeanne Hanson, NMFS 342 OOG7G8 ~)(~,\),~ '\ ? ~ ~ ~, Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 , Anchorage, AK 99515-3538 Telephone: (907) 345-5595; Fax; (907) 345-7666 E-mail Address:nsw@alaska.net FACSIMILE COVER SHEET ~ate: March 7, 2001 i Attentipn: ; AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 From: Nancy S. Wainwright ,D,e" ' "I'\:: . Northstar Pennit to Drin 50-029-22996-00 Appeal Fax no. Phone no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 22 {{<my pages are unc18l1r,or do 1()( arrive, please caJl (907) 345-5595. 11 ,~" ,.."""" 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). ) ~ March 1,2001 '~ ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME Greenpeace has requested an extension of time until March 7,2001, to respond to the Commission's order dated February 9, 2001. BP does not object to the extension. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: Greenpeace may have until March 7, 2001, to file and serve a memorandum briefing the question set out in the Commission's order dated February 9, 2001. d-ut.ù.- M , H-eu~ Julie M. Heusser Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on ~ ~ IJ ;;¡ 00/ , a copy of the above was faxed and mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BPXA Attorneys, Jeff FeldmaniSusan Orlansky æ;~ ~ffiÞ Executive Secretary 10 LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3539 ?--, .-----.., ST ATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 71th A venue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 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). ) ) ) ) RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR EXTENSION BPXA takes no position on whether or not Greenpeace has demonstrated good cause justifying an extension of the briefing schedule. BPXA has no objection to granting Greenpeace additional time to file the briefing that the Commission requested. Dated this ¿g day of February, 2001. FELDMAN & ORLANSKY Attorneys for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was delivered by mail/hand delivery to: Nancy Wainright mO\ l~ fey 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 Robert Mintz m<l\ l Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200 Anch rage AK 99501 By ~Uj) ~\Á 6),. \(lt~t6L( Susan Orlansky Alaska Bar No. 8106042; I í I / / ;' ì / / / RECEIVED FEB 2 8 2001 By: Dated: ;;))ailO' Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage Response to Motion for Extension Page 1 9 ~^^ . -- LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ,r-, ,-... STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7tth Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3539 RECEIVED RE: FEB 2 8 2001 THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (API No. 50-029-22996-00). ) ) ) ) Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BPXA does not object to consolidating preliminary proceedings concernIng whether Greenpeace has any right to bring petitions before the Commission, since the identical issues presumably are presented by the petitions with respect to Permit No. 50-029-22996-00 and Permit No. 50-029-23003-00. Thus, if the Commission were to order Greenpeace to address the same three questions in connection with well the second petition as the Commission has directed with respect to the first petition, it would be efficient to consolidate the two cases for this preliminary briefing, rather than requiring identical briefing to be submitted in two separate cases. 1 If the Commission agrees to hear both of Greenpeace's petitions in full, then BPXA does not necessarily agree that the petitions should be consolidated for decision on the merits of both petitions. From the list of points that Greenpeace seeks to raise, it is impossible to determine whether the issues are legal issues, which might be the same for both petitions, or fact-dependent issues, which might differ for the two wells in question and thus require substantially different analyses in response to the two petitions. To the extent that Greenpeace Alternatively, the Commission could, just as efficiently, stay any proceedings on the second petition pending resolution of the threshold issues that the Commission has asked Greenpeace to address in connection with its first petition. Response to Motion to Consolidate Page 1 . ' -' LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 r--, ~ intends to rely on any fact-dependent issues in future briefing, then consolidation could cause confusion and inefficiency, and should not be allowed. Dated this,¡g day of February, 2001. FELDMAN & ORLANSKY Attorneys for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. By ~}J\ ()J~ (CJ, ~/UA)( Susan Orlansky Alaska Bar No. 8106042 CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was delivered by mail/hand delivery to: Nancy Wainright rrni lè~'t 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 Robert Mintz 1fC\ l Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 By: fJJ ~ fbA rdw~r' Dated: ~'aRfQI Response to Motion to Consolidate Page 2 8 /'""" ,~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby requests and extension of time until March 7, 2001 to respond to the Order of the Commission dated February 9,2001. This request is based upon the inability of counsel to respond to the order due to the illness of counsel's child to which counsel had to attend, while attending to other immediate deadlines. It is respectfully submitted that this constitutes the "good cause" for which additional time may be granted. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT \ i{/'! (iif í<'I-4. ~~~~\.iv~~~¡~tV V on bçhalf of Greenpeace, Inc. RECEIVED MAR 0 1 2001 Motion for Extension of Time Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ~ .-..-, Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage~ Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV ATrON COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORA'TION (ALASKA) mc ) ) . ) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby requests and extension of time until March 7, 2001 to respond to the Order of the Commissíon dated February 9,2001. This request is based upon the inability of counsel to respond to the order due to the illness of counsel's child to which counsel had to attend, while attending to other immediate deadlines. It is respectfully submitted that this constitutes the "good cause" for which additional time may be granted. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2001. LAr OF~I~!~~ o~ .~ANCY S. WAINWRIGHT .~,/~ C-\ ,( t~(~~, ~)t Nancy S. iv amwr~ftlt on b~Þnlf of Greenpeace, Inc. Motion for Extensíon of Time ---- -. Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50~029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) mc ) ) . ) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby moves for consolidation of the Petitions filed by Greenpeace, Inc., concerning the two Northstar wells NS 26 and NS 27. Since these wells are very likely to raise similar or identical issues, Petitioner believes that consolidation will most efficiently resolve these petitions. Petitioner is prepared to brief the issues the Commission outlined in its Order dated February 9~ 2001 as to both Petitions 50-029-22996-00 and 50-029-23003-00 by March 7, 2001. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ( \ ..~ .~ /~D~ .'S [Lot. ~~7 Nancy S. Wainwri~ on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Motior! to Consolidate ,--., --.. CERTIF1CA TE OF SERVICE I certi1Y that on February 27,2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 9950 I Documents served: Request for ßxt~nsion p!Tùne ~~ .w (j;:l\ ,)[,\\t\ tlliG Dated: 2/27/01 J, (' l .¡ 'î t <./{{; '" l/ ~'L(j~ CD Nancy). Wain~g~t . Attorney fur Appellitnt Greenpeace AOGCC Request fo.. Extension of Time Certificate of Service 02/27/01 /'"' ..... Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515-3538 Telephone: (907) 345-5595; Fax: (907) 345-7666 E-maiJ Address:nsw@aJaska.net FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: February 27,2001 Attention: AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 From: Nancy S. Wainwright Re; N orthstar Pennit to Drill Motion for Extension of Time Motion to Consolidate Petitions: 50-029-22996-00 and So.o29-23003..()() Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 4 If any pages are uncll!ar or do not arrive, please call (907) 345-5595. @¡Jy~ c:À?7-¿J/5/C¡ /-- RECE\\lED H:9 21 ?OO' ^-_M~n Oil &. GaS eons. VU1",.-- ~.a Ancb0f898 7 ~t;ANNED JON 2; 9 2004 ,..-....., ~\ / Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby moves for consolidation of the Petitions filed by Greenpeace, Inc., concerning the two Northstar wells NS 26 and NS 27. Since these wells are very likely to raise similar or identical issues, Petitioner believes that consolidation will most efficiently resolve these petitions. Petitioner is prepared to brief the issues the Commission outlined in its Order dated February 9, 2001 as to both Petitions 50-029-22996-00 and 50-029-23003-00 by March 7, 2001. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ( r'/\ ~'IL 1 " i ; I ;, , 'I ! "'.~ '.~ Ii l, {;"'\ V ~:" Nancy S. W~inwright on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. RECEIVED Motion to Consolidate MAR 0 1 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ~ /"', , " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifY that on February 27,2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Documents served: Rçques~ for,oExtensi?n of Time ,1,\,\ '1' """'\'t'.L,'l (\,If\. '1" \..,I.>',.>[,\\V'I'-.- Dated: 2/27/01 ,'(" [l',,> , 1 '1-- ~\ ~ u?~ vl v Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace RECE\VED MAR 0 1 2001 0'\ & Gas Coos, Commission Alaska I h rage Anc 0 AOGCC Request for Extension of Time Certificate of Service 02/27/01 6 SC/\NNEC' .JUN 2 9 2004 " '. ,.. -.., ~ ~~&~I @i ~~L~~~!Æ DEPARTMENT OF LA W OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL February 9, 2001 Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515-3538 Re: ""...... TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR PLEASE REPL Y TO: " 1031 WEST 4TH AVENUE, SUITE2oo ANCHORAGE. ALASKA 99501-1994 PHONE: (907)269-5100 FAX: (907)276-3697 CJ KEY BANK BUILDING 100 CUSHMAN ST., SUITE 400 FAIRBANKS. ALASKA 99701-4679 PHONE: (907)451-2811 FAX: (907)451-2846 CJ P.O. BOX 110300-DIMOND COURT HOUSE JUNEAU. ALASKA 99811-0300 PHONE: (907)465-3600 FAX: (907)465-6735 Greenpeace petition to Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission concerning permit to drill for well 50-029-22996-00 Dear Ms. Wainwright: I am responding to your two recent requests in connection with the above- referenced petition. First, you asked whether the bottom-hole location of the well is in state land or the federal OCS. I am informed that it is in state land. Second, you asked for a copy of the record of the agency decision. As I explained, most of the documents in question are required to be kept confidential under 20 MC 25.537(d). I am enclosing those portions that are not subject to this confidentiality restriction. Sincerely, BRUCE M. BOTELHO ATTORNEY GENERAL "-- Wi/. j{ CJ;- Robert E. Mintz Assistant Attorney General Oil, Gas & Mining Section By: REM/lti Enclosures RECEIVED Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commissio~ FE B 1 2 2 a 01 Susan Orlansky and Jeff Feldman Alaska Oil & Gas Cor IS. Commission Anchorage cc: O3oC6LH :;g printed on recycled paper b y C. D. ,..""""- ,""""'" -- - ...-.,--. " -' - ~.--.. ....J ,/ - -- "- Þ I c:: -rï ...-""'" - G) - ---- ,/ *"- ¡--" /'" I . .. c:O ~Z r= ... d ,=,m ... :r ZJ!! .....0 -- r ß? Ns~to l/ l /01 r---, HlJI.;' FAX NO. 9C ,8 TAT E' OF ALASKA TONY KNOWL~ GOVERNOR ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7th Ave., S.I..I00 Anc:borage, AK 99501' PHONE: (907) 279-1433 FAX: (907)276-7542 FJoyd Hernandez Senior DriJIing Engineer , , BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. POBox 196612 Anchorage, AI{' 99519-6612 Re:' NorthStar NS, 26 BP Exploration (Aliska) Inc. Permit No:, 200..211 Sur Loc: I298'NSL, 648'WEL, Sec. 11, T13N, R13E, UM Btmhole Loc. 3367'NSL. 3S03'WEL, Sec. 1 I, T13N, RI3E, 'OM Dear Mr. Hernandez: Enclosed is the approved application for pennit to drill the above referenced well. The permit to drill does not exempt you trom obtaining additional permits required' by law from other governmental agencies" and does not authorize conducting drilJing operations until aU other " , required permitting determinations arè made. ' , Blowout prevention equipment (HOPE) must be tested in accordance with 20 AAC 250;35. Sufficient notice (approximately 24 hours) must 'be given to aHow a representative of the , Commission to witness a test ofBOPE jnstaUed prior to drilling new hole. Notice may be given , by contacting the Commission petroleum field inspector on the North Stope pager at 659.3607. " " BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION DA TED this' / 2 ~ day of January, 2001 , ' dWEnclosures cc: , Depanment ofFish & Game. Habitat Section w/o encl. Department of Environmental Conservation w/o encl. ~ "-", - STATE OF ALASKA .. ALASKA' AND GAS CONSERVATION COM~ION PERMIT TO DRILL ~ ~~ ~~\~ ~ Commlulon U.. Only -- ..- ,., . Permit NumbeJ: II API Number 99 - 00 I Approva~ ~a;e~ I Conditions ~~~al:z.~amp~~ R~~d-"¿Z; ~ ~Yes 0 No Mud Lo~~¿;6 Hydrogen Sulfide Measures Ii Yes 0 No Directional Survey Required Required Working Pressure for BOPE Other: ORIGINAL::-I':.:!":!:, :;" Approved By rl T;:Wlnr SF:.4jT1 :dn: Commissioner Form 10-401 Rev. 12-01-85 U k i lj I i\i A L by order of the commission ..klCi/èJ. \ I See cover letter for other requirements iii Yes 0 No IiIYes ONo Date 0 I / /..1 It) ( Sutfmit In 7riPlicate ,'~ ,--- 8 8 Note to File 200-211 The designation of "onshore" in the upper right hand comer of the well permit checklist for NS 26 is an obvious mistake on my part. Northstar Island and NS 26 clearly lie offshore. This mistake was not replicated in the NS 10 and NS 27 well files, where I designated the wells as "offshore." ~Zþ- ~ Steve Oãvies February 6, 2001 _ serv _ well bore sag _ann. disposal para req UNIT# L..'?//S-Ct':2 ON/OFF SHORE al _ dev ~ redrll o,,?, D COMPANY WELL PERMIT CHECKLIST , J '\ J: / c o z o ~ ~ :::0 - ~ m - z .... J: - en :Þ :::0 m :Þ '-4 ~ .:i '¡~r Permit fee attached. . . . . . . Lease number appropriate. . . Unique well name and number. . Well located in a defined pool.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Well located proper distance from drilling unit boundary. Well located proper distance from other wells. . . . . Sufficient acreage available in drilling unit.. . . . . . If deviated. is wellbore plat included.. . . . . . . . . Operator only affected party.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Operator has appropriate bond in force. . . . . . . . Permit can be issued without conservation order. . . Permit can be issued without administrative approval Can pennit be approved before 15-day wait. . Conductor string provided . . . . . . . . .. . Surface casing protects all known USDWs. . . . . . CMT vol adequate to circulate on conductor & surf csg. CMT vol adequate to tie-in long string to surf csg. . . . CMT will cover all known productive horizons. . . . . . Casing designs adequate for C, T, B & permafrost. . . Adequate tankage or reserve pit.. . . . . . . . . . . . . If a re-drill. has a 10-403 for abandonment been approved. Adequate wellbore separation proposed.. . . . . . . If diverter required, does it meet regulations . . . . . Drilling fluid program schematic & equip list adequate BOPEs. do they meet regulation . . . . '. . . . BOPE press rating appropriate: test to . Choke manifold complies w/API RP-53 (May 84 Work will occur without operation shutdown. Is presence of H2S gas probable.. . . . FIELD & POOL ADMINISTRATION 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. APP.R DATE 12. ~ ¡t.. ft..'¿)L> 13. NGINEERING 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. ~ ~r:~ 26. 27. 28. - 29. GEOLOGY 30. 31. 32. Ar:Æ DATE 33. /2.. ./'7 to 34. PROGRAM: exp GEOL AREA_ ~~ ~\ /V~~ N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ \.:>0 ~'>~"-'.. ~""....~;ç œY-- -'f-tot- ~ a-.. N N N N N- N N ¿q ~~- Permit can be issued w/o hydrogen sulfide measures. ._. Data presented on potential overpressure zones . . . 'f.,' N ~ Seismic analysis of shallow gas zones~: . . . . . . .yr1t;___ Seabed condition survey Of off-shore). . . . . . . . . . . .. "¡A~ (~~L Contact name/phone for weekly progress reports [exploratory onlyÚ) N Commentsßnstructions: Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N - COMMISSION: 8~s tc:1 JMH ANNULAR DISPOSAL35. With proper cementing records, this plan . (A) will contain waste in a suitable receiving zone; (B) will not contaminate freshwater; or cause drilling waste to surface; (C) will not impair mechanical integrity of the well used for disposal (D) will not damage producing formation or impair recovery from a pool; and will not circumvent 20 MC 25.252 or 20 AAC 25.412. ENGINEERING: UICfAnnular ~~. WM '--- T~u.: \;)1: --- 11/01/1(0) c:\msoffice\wordian\diana\checklist (rev. DATE APPR - 5 ~ .. '- ,~ .~ 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). ) ) ) ) February 9, 2001 ORDER GRANTING REHEARING FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY On January 12,2001, the Commission approved an application filed by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("BP") for a permit to drill a well, pursuant to AS 31.05.090 and 20 AAC 25.005. The fact of this permit approval and limited information about the proposed well were included in a public report under 20 AAC 25.537(a) made available on January 22,2001. On February 1,2001, Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") filed a petition challenging the permit approval under AS 31.05.080, which provides, in relevant part: ( a) Within 20 days after written notice of the entry of an order or decision of the commission, or such further time as the commission grants for good cause shown, a person affected by it may file with the commission an application for 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. . . . Greenpeace's petition lists several grounds on which it claims the permit to drill was erroneously issued and also requests "a stay ofthe permit pending a hearing on the merits ofthis petition." To the best of the Commission's knowledge, this petition presents a question of first impression concerning the applicability of AS 31.05.080 to the approval of an application for a permit to drill. The Commission is in doubt as to whether the legislature intended such approvals to be subject to rehearing proceedings, particularly at the request of a person not claiming an interest in the affected property. We note that AS 31.05.090 appears to contemplate that permits to drill will be issued on an abbreviated, ex parte basis. We further note that 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, which raises the question of how third parties could meaningfully participate in a review of the decision to approve the permit. The Commission believes that, in coming to an informed conclusion on the threshold issue of whether Greenpeace has the right to seek rehearing in this matter, it would benefit from first hearing the views of Greenpeace and BP. Accordingly, the Commission will preliminarily grant Greenpeace's petition for the limited purpose of considering arguments by Greenpeace and BP on that issue. After such consideration, the Commission will determine whether it may hear Greenpeace's petition on the merits and will proceed accordingly. It may also be appropriate to point out that, regardless of whether Greenpeace has the right to invoke an administrative procedure such as rehearing under AS 31.05.080, the Commission itself has continuing authority to consider, investigate, and act on information received from whatever source, ,. ~ ,ORDER GRANTING REHEn.1UNG FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY - GREENPEACE ..-Þ" 2 February 9, 2001 concerning compliance with the statutory and regulatory provisions that the Commission administers. See, e.g., AS 31.05.030(b); 20 AAC 25.535. Based on the Commission's review to date of the claims contained in Greenpeace's petition, the Commission has no reason to believe that the permit to drill in question was not lawfully issued.! However, any material information that Greenpeace may choose to supply the Commission, whether through a rehearing proceeding if held or by informal means, will be given due consideration. Regarding Greenpeace's request to stay the permit pending a hearing on the merits, it is only necessary at this point to note that drilling operations under this permit are no longer taking place and that the well has been plugged and suspended. Under 20 AAC 25.539, the Commission may issue a temporary emergency order "to protect against immediate harm to public health or safety." No such threat of immediate harm appears here. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: 1. Greenpeace's petition for rehearing is preliminarily granted for the limited purpose of allowing briefing and consideration of the question set out below. 2. Within 10 days after the date this order is distributed (which may be extended upon request for good cause), Greenpeace may file a written memorandum briefing the question of whether it has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill. A copy of the memorandum must be served on BP. In addition to any other points it may wish to address, Greenpeace is requested to address the following: a. In what way(s) is Greenpeace "affected" by the permit approval in this matter? b. What is the meaning of the phrase "person affected" as used in AS 31.05.080(a)? c. Do the procedures provided by AS 31.05.080 apply to the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill under AS 31.05.090? As to the alleged violation of the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP") (point a. of the petition), the Northstar Development Project, including the drilling of wells such as that covered by the pennit in question, was previously detennined by the State of Alaska to be consistent with the ACMP. As to the absence of notice (point b.), the Commission does not believe that AS 31.05.050(b) requires public notice of applications for penn its to drill, nor are we aware that Greenpeace has any liberty or property interest at stake here that would invoke due process. As to primary well control (point c.), secondary well control (point d.), reserve pit/tankage (point f.), and automatic shut-in equipment (point h.), the application for the penn it to drill complied with the applicable requirements. The provisions of20 MC 25.036 (point e.) pertain to through-tubing drilling and completion, which are not applicable here. Requirements for abandonment plans (point g.) are implemented at a later stage of operations than drilling. Similarly, the requirements of20 MC 25.526 (point i.) concern an operator's obligations when carrying out operations. As to the claim that the Commission failed to "conduct an analysis of coastal impacts" (pointj.), coastal impacts were addressed as part of the ACMP consistency review and mitigation of coastal impacts is also implicitly addressed in the Commission's regulations. There is no further requirement for the Commission to analyze coastal impacts. Geophysical hazards, also mentioned in pointj., were considered by the Commission in reviewing the pennit to drill. , -' ~ ORDER GRANTING REHEl'UUNG FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FORSTAY-GREENPEACE /""", 3 February 9, 2001 3. BP may file a responsive written memorandum within 10 days after receiving a copy of Greenpeace's memorandum (which may be extended upon request for good cause). A copy ofBP's memorandum must be served on Greenpeace. 4. The request for a stay is denied. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day niel T. Seamount, Jr., Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ,'" , ~'~ ~ ~Lo-f Cami1lé Oechsli Taylor, Com~issiQþer Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ~M, ~~ Julie M. Heusser Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on d - f-- 0 I , a copy of the above was faxed and mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BPXA Attorneys, Jeff Feldman/Susan Orlansky dl¡ Mla ~f4du Executive Secretary 4 , ' ~ Northstar Documents :lex "'""" DATE: 23-Feb-95 16-Feb-95 14-Apr-95 14-Apr-95 13-May-95 19-May-95 19-May-95 31-May-95 1-Jun-95 2-Jun-95 2-Jun-95 6-Jun-95 23-Jun-95 21-Jun-95 23-Jun-95 20-Jul-95 4-Aug-95 27 -Jul-95 12-Jul-95 10-Aug-95 23-Aug-95 22-Aug-95 II / DESCRIP110N: I PRE APPLICATION 1995 I' Letter to Peter Hanley, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc" from Alvin G. Ott, DFG, Re: North Star-Seal Island Oil Development & Environmental issues i associated with the project. I Memorandum to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Roger Post, DFG, re: North Star/Seal i Island Potential Environmental Issues ¡Memo to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Richard Shideler,DFG, re: Northstar briefing Letterto Peter Hanley, BP Exploration Inc., from Alvin Ott, DFG, re: Summary . lof notes taken during April 13, 1995 meeting. I Letter to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Peter Hanley, BP Exploration Inc. Re: Request. I for fish habitat permit for travel on Kuparuk River to access Northstar Mine site I ¡ location . I Letter to Peter Hanley, BP Exploration Inc., from Alvin Ott, DFG, re: Summary i I lof notes taken during May 18, 1995 meeting. ! BPXA Briefing on Northstar Development I Memo to Pamela Grefsrud; Pete McGee; Robert Watkins (DGC); Tony Braden, ¡ iADEC; Molly Birnbaum; AI Bonn, ADNR; Glenn Grey, DGC; Len Verrelli; from ¡ I Molly Birnbaum, DGC; Re: Northstar seeping schedule . I Letter to Terry Carpenter, USACOE; from Peter Hanley, BP Exploration, Inc.; ¡ Re: Application for Dept. of Army Permit Under Section 404 of the Clean i Water Act and Section 1 0 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. i Application for Department of Army Permit I Fax to Tom Barnes, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs; from Molly I Birnbaum, DGC/SPCO; Re: Agenda for June 6 & 7 Northstar Alliance Kick- lOft Meeting. ¡ Memo to Anthony Braden, DNR; From Ed Barber/John Wolfe, DNR; Re: ! North Star EIS Scoping Meeting. ¡ Letter to Peter Hanley, BP Exploration Inc., from Alvin Ott, DFG; Re: ! Summary of June 21, 1995 Nor:!~~tar meetin~ notes. ! Memo to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Dick Shideler, DFG; Re: Summary of June 21, 11995 Northstar meeting notes. - -~ I Memo to Molly Birnbaum, DGC; from Alvin Ott, DFG; Re: Expanding S Pad in ¡ I Prudhoe Bay. ------.. - I Letter to Diane Mayer, DGC; from Don Kohler, COE; Re: Requirement of an ' :EIS for constructio~~f~~il!ingJ)~a!f~~ in Northstar Unit. 1 . PAGE NO.: 1 2 4 5 7 8 11 12 '----' 14 15 17 19 22 25 26 27 28 . Fax to Diane Mayer from Molly Birnbaum, DGC; Re: Northstar Meetings RFP . 31 . Fax to Northstar team and interested parties-, from Terry Carpenter, ACÕE:---~----- --- ;Re: Meeting on Augu~t 16~ ~995 51 : Fax to Molly Birnbaum~GC, from TerryCa-rpenter, ACOE; Re: Agenda anëi----m... I Notes for Northstar Meeting on July 13, 1995 . 52 : Draft partnering agreement betWeeñcooperatingagencies for the Northstãr-~- --- --- : development environmental documentation 64 I Memo to Diane Mayer,DGC; from Molly Birnbaum, DGC; Re Northstar EIS------ - :Meeting Request for Proposal Discussion (RFP) 66 IFax to Northstar EIS group from Terry Carpenter. Re: Meeting on August 23, ¡ 11995' i RECEiVF FES 0 9 ?OD1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission A__hM__- 68 ~, ,,"" Northstar Documents In. ,,,::,;,:,".~, ,.r+,\~<!::¡J """, ./' I Memo to Janet Kowalski, DFG, et. aI., from Diane Mayer, DGC; Re: NOrthstar 15-Sep-95 lEIS State Interagency Meeting i DEC's EIS Scoping Comments BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Northstar Development Proiect- Conceptual 1-0ct-95 I Phase Project Design Basis Letter to Workshop Participants from Peter Hanley; Re: Minutes, Notes and I Slides from the October2S-2'6, 1995 Northstar Design Criteria and Alternatives 15-Nov-95 íWorkShop. I Letter to Peter Hanley, BPExploration, Inc., from Alvin Ott,DFG; Re: 20-Nov-95 i Summary of notes from Oct. 25-26, 1995 workshop ¡ Letter to Workshop Participants from Peter Hanley; Re: Meeting minutes from 20-Nov-95 i Oct. 25-26, 1995. ¡Memo to Joe Sautner, et. aI., from Molly Birnbaum; Re: BPXA meeting on 1-Dee-95 IDee. 6,1995 i Letter to Peter Hanley, BP Exploration, Inc., from Alvin Ott, DFG; Re: 13-Dee-95 I Summary of notes from NÒrthstar, Badami,and Milne Pt. meeting IBP Exploration (Alàska) ,Inc., Northstar Development Proiect· Preliminary 1-Jun-95 I Project Description ' , 29-Jan-96 20-Feb-96 1-Mar-96 4-Mar-96 5-Mar-96 " . §_-~~y-96 12-Mar-96 22-Mar-96 26-Mar-96 26-Mar-96 21-Mar-96 20-Mar-96 4-Apr-96 PREAPPLlCA TION 1996 I I _ : Letter to Don Kohler, ACOE. frOm Diane Mayer, DGC; . Re: State agencies I role as commenting agencies during EIS preparation for the Northstar Project. I i e-mail to Molly Birnbaum, DGC; from Brad Fristoe; Re: Northstar Review :Terry Carpenter, Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas DevelopmenUNorthstar EIS ¡ Proiect- Environmentallmpad Statement Process Initiated ¡Letter and enclOsure to Molly Birnbaum"DGC/SPCO, from Tom Barnes, BP !Exploration,lne;; Re: Northstar Development Project: Transmittal of I Conceptual Engineering Report . : Letter to Molly Birnbaum, DGC, from Peter Hanley, BP Exploration,; Re: BP ! Exploration Northstar Test Trench Si!e Visit ¡Letter to Molly Birnbaum, DGC, from Peter Hanley, BP Exploration,; Re: : Northstar Development Project: Transmittal of draft pipeline right-of-way lease ¡application. I Letter to Tom Barnes, BP Exploration. Inc:, from-Vie Manikian; Re Northstar ,Test Trench Site Visit, March 21-22, 1996 _ ___ 0".__'.__ __ n ___'-______ ¡ BP Exploration, Inc. Northstar Development Project Offshore Pipeline Test ;Trench Program _____ __ ___d _n i Northstar Development Project Offshore Pipeline Test Trench Program's Site ! visit itinerary and maps iE-mail toMollyßimbaum;DGC.et.al.. frO'rn Jim Baumgartner; Re: Northstar I Update _ u__.o.________ i Memo to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Richard Shideler, DFG; Re: Summary of March15, 1996 Norths!~~_m~eti~g':__~~_n_ : Memo to Tony Braden, DNR, from Alvin Ott, DFG; Re: Northstar ROW lease 'comments. " " " !Memo to Molly Birnbaum,DGC; frôm-RichardShideler, DFG; Re: Ñõrthsiär·--d' ¡ Seoping 272 --------.-- ~-- 275 - ---- -.- 525 529 530 533 2 72 74 82 141 216 221 .~_.__..-~ 231 --- -- --.. 232 235 271 276 280 517 520 522 523 535 " J I, ,.\1 ,}) .,"~, ....r' '~ ./ { ,/""'- Northstar Documents. .ex -~ , I Letter to Rance Wall from Peter Hanley; Re: Geological and geophysical ¡exploration permit application for 1996 Northstar open water seismic program. I Northstar Pipeline and EIS support meeting agenda ¡ Handwritten notes on Northstar i Replies to questions raised during meeting w/agencies on 4/11/96 ! Letter to Gary Haywood, Dames & Moore, from Peter Hanley; Re: Info 3-May-96 I request for Northstar EIS 10-May-96 I Letter to meeting participants from Peter Hanley; Re: Draft meeting notes ! Memo to Molly Birnbaum, DGC, from Brad Fristoe; Re: Northstar Scoping [comments 596 i Letter to Peter Hanley from Alvin Ott, DF~~Re: Northstar ~=-605=-== ! Memo to Alvin Ott, DFG, from Carl Hemming, DFG; Re Northstar Mine Site 606 !Memo to Molly BirnbaunifromBruceV\lebb-,bNR; Re EIS scoping comments -; ----------- 21-May-96 iNorthstar Development 609 I ----------- 21-May-96 : Letter to Dee Olin-Hoffman, North Slope Borough, from Peter Hanley . 615 ------- -- --- I ; Draft Agenda for Northstar Project Planning, Permitting Schedules and Goals; ~~-May-96 ¡Meeting i [Memo to Anthony Braden from Ed Barber, NRM II; Re: Northstar Project iAgency Meeting - 621 ¡Memo to Anthony Br~d~~ from Vic Manikian~~=-_==-=--==-=-----=-~--~_=___62~- --- : Offshore Pipeline Route Options Fvaluation 626------- ! Letter to Terry Carpenter, ACOE, from MollYBirnbàum; Re: EIS Scoping--;-- ----------- 30~~ay-96 !comments 640 ! Letter to Sean Leonard, BP Exploration, Inc~, from Alvin Ott; --Re: -Mining¡iñë{--~--- ----- 30-May-96 - rehabilitation plan for Northstar mine site. ' 649 -----!Letter to Tony Braden, ÖÑR, from Peter Hanlëÿ; Application for Pipeline Right- 1-------- I 3-Jun-96 lof-Way Lease. I 651 I Letter to Nancy Jones, -ONR, from Peter Hanley; Re Application for material! - - ---- 3-Jun-96 I sales, Northstar gr~vel mine s~~. , 655 -------------- 3-Jun-96 i Northstar Gravel Mine Site: MininQ and Rehabilitation Plan R E C E ~ \/E ~7 6-Apr-96 ~ 2-Apr-96 19-Apr-96 5-Apr-96 8-Apr-96 9-Apr-96 11-Apr-96 2-May-96 2-May-96 6-May-96 6-May-96 6-May-96 14-May-96 20-May-96 17-May-96 ?8~~aJ-96 29~M_ay-96 1-M~y-96 I Letter to Molly Birnbaum, DGC, from David van den Berg; Re: Request to be ion Northstar mailing list. I Letter to Peter Hanley from Chris MUles; Re: Off-road travel permit-LAS 119505 permit amendment I IMap: Area requested for Tundra Travel 1995-1996 I Land Use permit ¡General Concurrence GC-5 I General Concurrence GC-19 I Harding Lawson Associates JPO Project Work Order Plan for Services I I Memo to Anthony Braden, Chief of ROW, from Vic Manikian; Re: Newsletter' I Issue No.1, Beaufort Oil & Gas DevelopmentlNorthstar EIS Project. I Memo to Tony Braden, DNR, from Brad Fristoe, DEC; Re: Northstar ROW Draft Lease Application E-mail from Brad Fristoe to Bob Watkins & Jim Baumgartner; Re: Northstar EIS Letter to Matt Rader from Peter Hanley; Re: Land Use Permit Application for 1996 Northstar Open Water Seismic Program FEB 0 9 2001 3 538 539 540 541 549 552 558 559 561 564 565 567 569 571 577 582 586 619 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons- Commission Anrhnr::1nA II!III'W r;p"···:'·' ~. i" ~J<'.;t I Letter to Matt Rader from Peter Hanley; Re: Land Use Permit Application for I 13-Jun-96 1996 Northstar Open Water Seismic Program '. Memo to Jerry Brossia to Brad Fristoe; Re: Northstar Pipeline ROW 5-Aug-96 Application Review 13-Jun-96 I E-mail to Brad Fristoe from Edward Barber I Lettèrto Coast Guard District Commander from Peter Hanley; Re: Application· 20-Jun-96 I for Private Aids to Navigation Letter to Matt Rader from Peter Hanley; Re: Comments on Proposed ACMP , Consistency Determination for Geophysical Exploration Permit for 1996 Northstar Open Water Seismic Program I Memo to Distribution list from Jerry Brossia; Re: Northstar' ! Letter to Distribution list from Peter Hanley; Re: Information transmittal I Fax to Molly Birnbaum, DGC, from Tom Barnes;Re: Revised list of Northstar I . 17 -Jul-96 I permits. . 23-Jul-96 I Faxto Molly Birnbaum from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar Permitting !Memo to Jerry Brossia to Brad Fristoe; Re: Northstar Pipeline ROW 5-Aug-96 i Application Review I Memo to Anthony Braden from Alvin Ott; Re: Northstar ROW lease 6-Aug-96 I application. iLettertoAlfred Bohn, DEC, from Peter Hanley; Re: Temporary Civil 15-Aug-96 !Constructiån Activities _ . ." I Letter to Jerry Brossia from Peter Hanley; Re: Application for pipeline right-of- . 26-Aug-96 ¡way lease-revision. _.___. 28-Aug-96 ¡Memo to Anthony Braden fromVic~a_nikian; Re: .Pipeline right-of-way. I Letter to Jerry Brossia from Peter Hanley; Re: Application for pipeline right-of- : 26-Aug-96 ¡way lease-revision. .____.___ _ .__ i ¡ Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Engineering review 28-Aug-96 ,schedule ____,,__ . ._ : Letter to Jerry Brossiafrom Peter Hanley; Re: Application for pipeline right-of- · ~-Sep-96. ¡way lease-summa~.of techni.~al issu~~. _..n_ I Memo to Ed Barber, . ROW,from Vic Manikian; Re: Requirement of 10-Sep-96 ! Completeness.___ ~_ 12-Sep-96 ,Letter to Peter Hanley from Jerry. Brossia; Re: Completeness review. Memo to Anthony Brä-den'fromVicManikian; Re: Review of Engineering 23-S~E::~_6_ . Issues. _ . .. ________ ...._____ 76.?.___~ __ Letter to Gary Haywood, Dames & Moore, from Christopher Herlugson, Ph.D.; Re: Northstar EIS 769 _n _ _>___.__ . Northstar Development Proiect Oil Soill Response Information Document 771 -+.~_._..-_- _un. .~~bliC Scoping Meeting Announcement .~~___~_._nn_u ...__ _..:.90~__.n Letter to Peter Hanley, Molly Birnbaum, from Glenn Gray; Re: Consistency 23-S~f?~9~ no" review draft. Northstar Documents In. 20-Jun-96 2-Jul-96 11-Jul-96 19-5ep-96 1-Sep-96 1-0ct-96 . +- - - - ---. 8-0ct-96 7-0ct-96 Letter to Molly Birnbaum from Peter Hanley; Re: Permit applications submittal, . --_._- Memo to AnthonY.B!aden from Vic Manikian; Re: Engineering Review -- -- -.. ! 754 ._--- 757 _--4-_ ~. 915 - -. --- +..~._---- 926 .. 4 686 688 691 692 694 696 699 -_._.- - 709 716 717 720 723 727 735 .- .-- ... 736 -- 742 .~-- 744 -- -- .- -. 908 .- _u ~_.__________.._._. 952 8-0ct-96 Letter to Molly Birnbaum from Peter Hanley; Re: Permit applications submittal' Letter to Bruce Webb, DNR, from Petè'r ~Ù:Úïíey; Re: Request for lease .------,. operations appròval : . ---.-- ---.- 8-0ct-96 . ---...--- ... 964 , / . , r'""" . Northstar Documents I. ~X ~. 8-0ct-96 14-0ct-96 - 22-0ct-96 24-0ct-96 25-0ct-96 - 28-0ct-96 29-0ct-96 8-Nov-96 12-Nov-96 13-Nov-96 19-Nov-96 20-Nov-96 20-Nov-96 21-Nov-96 22-Nov-96 26-Nov-96 26-Nov-96 27 -Nov-96 26-Nov-96 26-Nov-96 26-Nov-96 27 -Nov-96 26-Nov-96 3-Dec-96 I Letter to Jack Kerin, DNR, from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for temporary I ¡water use i Fax to Molly Birnbaum from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar letter from MMS I Northstar NPDES Meeting Notes i Letter to Tom Barnes from Bradley Fristoe; Re: Mixing zone evaluation [ requirements. . ! Letter to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Submittal of Project Desc. i Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: Notice of permitting mtg. 'I Fax from AI Ott, et. aI., from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar . Letter to Peter Hanley from Jeff Walker, USDOI; I Letter to Ed Barber, DNR, from Tom Barnes; Re: Transmittal of requested I documents. i Memo to Alvin Ott from Roger Post, DFG; Re: Mixing Zone Meeting Report ¡Memo to State Northstar Review Team from Molly Birnbaum; Re: I Completeness of State Applications I Fax to Molly Birnbaum from Tom Barnes; Re: Comparison of state & federal ¡ ¡schedules. . I Memo to Northstar contacts from Glenn Gray; Re: State review i Letter to Peter Hanley from Alvin Ott, DFG; Re: Mixing Zone Meeting Memo to AI Ott from Dick Shideler; Re: Northstar NPDES Memo to Agency Contacts from Glenn Gray; Re: State review Fax to Distribution from Tom Barnes; Re: Transmittal of summarized project I evolution. I Letter to Tom Mortensen from Tim Rumfelt, DEC; Re: Corps Permit ¡Application Cook Inlet 326 i Letter to Peter Hanley from Alvin Ott; Re: Northstar Mixing Zone Meeting I Memo to Alvin Ott from Roger Post, DFG~_~e: NPDES ¡Temporary Water Use Permit I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Permits i Letter to Peter Hanley from Alvin Ott; Re: Northstar Mixing Zone Meeting ¡Memo to Alvin Ott from Richard Shideler; Re: NPDES I Memo to Anthony Braden from _A!vin Ott; - Re: Northstar Biweekly report 5 968 978 981 987 990 993 995 1001 1005 1007 1009 1011 1012 1016 1017 1019 1026 1032 1033 1034 1036 1040 1041 1042 1044 9-Dec-96 I Letter to Mary Coclan-Vendl from Joe Sautner, DEC; Re: Request for waiver 1045 13-Dec-96 ¡ Memo to Distribution L~s~ _from Glenn -Gray;_"e: Agency review meeting --~~~ -- -1 04~~-=-~ --- 3-Jan-97 7 -Jan-97 8-Jan-97 9-Jan-97 9-Jan-97 13-Jan-97 21-Jan-97 21-Jan-97 24-Jan-97 22-Jan-97 -- ------- .- ---- ~- PRE APPLICATION 1997 1050 I Letter to Molly Birnbãümfrom Peter Hanley; - Re:- Final Project Description --~------1 05-1 IE-mail from Tom Barnes to Dick Shideler; REi: material site -- --"--~---1063---- IE-mail from Tom Barnesto-Gary Campbell,eCaCRe: Meeting w/State- -- --:_uuu 1064 I Northstar distribution list-- -. -- _n ----------:-- 1066 iE-mail from Dick Shideler to Tom Barnes;Re: Polar bear plan -- ..,----~u----;¡O69- i E-mail from Dick Shidel~Jo Tom ~ë:1rrÏes; Re: ¡:>olarbearp¡an fòllOw-up --=:----~Õ7{)=- Letter to Peter Hanley from Terry Carpenter; Re: More permitting info needed' 1071 E-mail to Molly Birnbaûm,J?~C, e(al., from AiÓtt;Re: Northstar Meetlng--- ---,-- .. -1081 - : Memo to Northstar co.!:'t~cts!rom Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar meetings --T--- --1 Õ82------ I ---------- ! Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Effect of the West Dock ! ! Causeway Breach 1083 U 1]:: f' 11'- ~" !fir"" f""'. .,-CLPC! Vell FEB 0 9 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons, Commission '_.~' :)),'- . ;Y., .;.."-.:,,,,.,,,,:, c·" .... _~:,~,_:,>.;:.. ',' ,_:'>~ .~, , 6 1089 1101 L 1111 1115 1119 1157 1158 1167 1172 1224 1 1228 1 1237 1238 NC)rthstar Documents In.v Memo to Jim Haynes from Vic Manikian; Re: Ice Ride-Up Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Ice Ride-Up Potential Memo to Tony Braden from Brad Fristoe; Re Engineeringrevièw Fax to AI Ott, et. at from Glenn Gray Letter to contacts; Re: Engineering review comments E-mail to Dick Shideleffrom Tom Bames; Re: Mine site Northstar State/EISTeam Meeting (1/30197) notes; I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: Response to EIS Team i Memo to Distribution list from Molly Birnbaum; Re:EIS :Team Comments ¡ response I Letter to Peter Hanleyifrom Karen Burnell; Re: NSB Development Permit ! Memo to Distribution from Molly Birnbaum Re: State comments on Project I memo to Molly Birnbaum from Bruce Webb, DNR; Re: Additional Info I Memo to Molly Birnbaum from Brad Fristoe; Re: Final Project Description i Comments ¡ Letter to Steven ~aYI~r frO~ Jim Baumgartner;Re: Prevention of De~erioration i ! Memo to, Molly Birnbaum from AI Ott; Re: Project description ' I I Letter to Brad Fristoe from' Peter Hanley; Re: Responses to comments I Fax to Molly Birnbaum from Tom Barnes;Re: Responses to Comments I Letter to Bruce Webb, DNR, from Peter Hanley; Re: Facilities and Process Diagrams 1289 Letter to Jeff Walker from Peter Hanley; Re: Facîlities & Process Diagrams 1291 Letter to Jeff Hastings from AI Ott; Re: Winter Vibroseis Survey 1294 Fax to Molly Birnbaum from Tom Barnes; Re: Responses to Comments 1295 Northstar Chronological Documents Summary 1301 Fax to John Stone from Erika Denman; '_~.13, 06,' , ,"'" ,Letter to John Stone from Peter Hanley; Re: Temp Civil Construction I Activities 1307 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from J Sautner; I 1312 1 ¡Consistency Review for Norths!a~__~___ ' .' ' ! 1314 ,I ¡ Fax to Gary Campbell from Molly Birnbaum;Re> Permits List, ' -'------msl__ i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; I 1322 . ,¡ E-mail to Molly Birnb~_~T.!~~m T0"!1 B~~~s~ Re:JPORequested New App J J 32-É_ ± . ¡Memo to Distribution list from Bill ~ritt; ~e: CategoryAResponses ____. !____1}27 __ i Memo to Distribution from Bill Britt; Re:'TN 470, Rev. 2 n__~~ .:Letter to,P e.te,r Han,IeY,~frO,'~,_B_~aCfF"¡~10.,..~~, -'"R.-- .e :, Dra,ft,m,iX, ingZo.n ea pplication _L_ -- n~~~-H- ; Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Meeting minutes '1383 Letterto Bill Britt from Peter'Hanley;--Re:- Äpplication for Pipeline ROW --.- -1394 ---- i Memo to Distribution tiañï--sill Britt; Re: TN 4 ¿ö;- Rev. ~. i - --. -1416 - - IMemo to Distribution ~~_~~il~ Britt~Be: I~!ormation Transmittal -141?_ J__ !tetter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Oil & Gas Pipeline ROW I 1498 1 ¡Letter to Distribution Lišft,.~m. P~te!HanleY;~-Re:-Replacement Pages _: __.__ _1.?º~ .1__ ¡ Fax to Vic Manikian fr~m ~~_~nL~nan; Re: Development Pipelines 1551 L_ : Fax to Vic Manikain frOm Glenn Lanan; Re: Ice Gouge Conditions in Lagoon " I ¡Area" !- 1~ ! Fax to Vic Manikian fromÄ~~e Nogueira; Re: Correction on CN 450.005 1557 1._ i Fax to Tom Barnes from Andre Nogueira; ,Re:, ANSYSof 10-inch pipe 1____~58, __1__ :fax to VicManikian from Glenn Lanan; Re: Ice Gouge Survey i 1567 1247 1255 1258 1271 22-Jan-97 22-Jan-97 28-Jan-97 - 28-Jan-97 28-Jan-97 5;;Feb-97 11 ~Féb-97 11-Feb-97 " 13-Feb-97 28-Feb-97 3-Mar-97 14-Fèb-97 21-Feb-97 5-Mar-97 6-Mar-97 7-Már-97 10-Mar-97 11-Mar -97 11-Mar-97 13-Mar-97 14-Mar-97 9-Mar-97 25-Apr-97 29-Apr-97 30-Apr-97 2-May-97 .1.:May-97 4-Jun-97 11-Jun-97 13-Juri-97 , 19-Jun-97 26-Jun-97 2-Jul-97 10-Jul-97 18-Jul-97 --------.. 29-Jul-97 11-Sep-97 12-Sèp..97 15-Sep-97 ~0-Jun-97 11-Sep-97 , ' , . r- Northstar Documents: jex ~ 17 -Sep-97 26-Jun-97 -- 11-Aug-97 13-0ct-97 22-0ct-97 5-Nov-97 26-Nov-97 18-Nov-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 5-Dec-97 10-Dec-97 11-Dec-97 18-Dec-97 I Memo to Distribution from William Britt; . Re: Gas Pipeline ROW I Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Application for pipeline ROW I Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Gas pipeline ROW application ¡correction I Memo to Bill Britt from Vic Manikian; Re: Engineering Review I Letter to Diane Meyer from Peter Hanley; Re: Oct. 9, 1997 Meeting I Letter to Peter Hanley from Greg Swank; Re: Progress Meeting I'Memo to Distribution from Bill Britt; Re: Offshore welding specification induction bend specification i Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Atask 10 items of the JPO work I I order ¡ Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: Final Proj. Description i Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: Final Proj. Description ¡Fax to Tom ~arnes from Xuegeng Wang; Re: Offshore to overland pipe tie-in Iwelds . I ¡ Fax to Tom Barnes from T.M. Even; Re: Inspection scope using x-ray and UT i I I back-up. I Fax to Tom Barnes from T.M. Even; Re: Calculated hydrogen content of Iwelds after post weld heating. ¡Fax to Tom Barnes from Brian McShane; Re: PVD's response to Comments: ¡on TN-540 Rev 2 . I Memo to Tom Barnes from Andre Nogueira; Re: Ice keel analysis I Memo to Tom Barnes from Brian McShane; Re: Pipeline/ANSYS comparison i I i E-mail to Gene Pavia from Glenn Gray; Re: [Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Task 6,8, & 10 items of JPO work ¡order. ¡Memo to Distribution from William Britt; Re: fasks 6,8, & 10 --- 7 1568 1570 1588 1592 1597 1602 1625 1626 1644 1647 1650 1651 1663 1665 1666 1671 ------- 1680 1681 1684 PRE-APPLICATION 1998 1685 27 -Jan-98 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from R Watkins; Re: Timelines --~u_-- - __~~6____- 23-Jan-98 ,Memo to AI Ott, et. al. from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar and Liberty review~_~____1687_--_- :Fax to Gene Pavia, et. AI. From Glenn Gray; Re: Draft of proposal for 4-Mar-98 ¡coordinated review. 1691 nn__- - ------- - - 5-Mar-98 ¡ E-mail to Glenn GraYJ~9..1'11_~eon Ly_~c_~;-.Be~ Northstar timeline - -. _n_J69~ - - ~-~ar-98 : Fax to Tom Barnes f~~_Glenn _Gr~¥; _!3e:- Dréift proposal for review ---______16~~_- 19-Mar-98 : Letter to Diane Meyer from Peter Hanley; Re: State permit coordination 1701 24-Mar-98 : E-mail to Glenn Gray-from-Bill Britt; Re:-Coordinated state review proposal --~--1704------ 3-Ae~-~~_~mail to Glenn Graitro~)äÍ1ët K ---=-----~-- ---- - =- ~~O6----- 9-Apr-98 : Letter to Jack Kerin from Peter Hanley; Re: Civil and Pipeline Construction 1707 . 15-Äpr-98 [Letter to Peter Hanley from Dia-ne Mayer;- Re: Meeting -- ----1708 4-Mäy-98 iE-mail to Glenn Grey from [jickslÎideler;-Re: Pre-Application meeting -- --1713- ---- !4~MaY-9~§-maii to Terry Carpel)ter, ~t.al., ~om-t?iji-Ba~~~~;Re: Project upd!t~=--~- -, 1716 1?:May-98 : Letter to Diane Meyer fr~~ Peter lja~l~l'~ Re: -~!~~ permit coordination ~ 71 ~ --- 19-May-98 iE-mail to Jeanne Hanson from Tom Barnes; Re: Project update 1721 !:May-98 : List of Technical Notes Issuedto-theSPCO ---- -----T- _n 1 i23- -- ~1-MaY-98 : Fax to Glenn Gray from Su~an; Re: Public Notice for Material Sale ----------- - -- .1727-- 21-May-98 !Letterto Distribution from Peter Hanley; Re: Meetings for 5/28 & 29 ---<- -- -1734- --n- 21-May-98 : Fax to Gene Pavia from Kerin; Copy LAS 20589 RECErVË~ --- FEB 0 9 2001 ^ -~h~M~^ Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission 8 Northstar Documents In6 17591 1760 I I ¡ 1763 [ 1764 I 1766 1 1779 1801 I 1803 I 1819 I 1820 I 1822 I 18281 1831 I 18331 1834 I 1837 I 1838/ I 1839 ¡ 25..May-98 I E-mail to Gene Pavia from Brad Fristoe; Re: Public Notice ,28-May-98 I Letter to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Waste disposal permit app. 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 6-Jun-98 9-Jun-98 9-Jun-98 9-Jun-98 10-Jun-98 10-Jun-98 11-Jun-98 11-Jun-98 16-Jun-98 17-Jun-98 17 -Jun-98 17 -Jun-98 17-Jun-98 , 18-Jun-98 19-Jun-98 19-Jun-98 19-Jün-98 19-Jun-98 22-Jun-98 23-Jun-98 23-Jun-98 23-Jun-98 26-Jun-98 29-Jun-98 30-Jun-98 30-Jun-98 30-Jun-98 30"'Jun-98 30-Jun-98 30~Jun-98 CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHRONOLOGICAL: JUNE 1998 I Project Information Sheet Public Notice: AK9806-01 PA ! Letter to Joe Saùtner from Peter Hanley; Re: Application for approval Letter to Reviewers from Glenn Gray; Re: Coordinated State Review I Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray:, Re: Initiation of Review I E-mail to Gene Pavia from Joe Sautner; Re: Plan, Submittal I Letter to Reviewers from Glenn Gray; Re: Coordinated State Review I Letter to Peter Hanley from Leon Lynch: Re: Northstar Ice Roads !Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: Clarification of Approval ! Process ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Laura agar; ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Robert Watkins; Re: C-plan sufficiency ! E-mail toMikefromTerryCarpenter;.Re: Tracking DEIScomments I Fax to May Cocklan-Vendl from Glenn Gray; Re:C-Plan i Letter to Glenn Gray from Mary Cocklan-Vendl;Re: Oil Discharge Prevention i I ' and Contingency Plan Amendment i Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Solic! Waste Treatment Facility , Permit Application I Memo to ACSTT & Peer Review group from Jim McHale; Re: Alaska Clean ISeas Technical Manual;' 1841 I Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray: 1843 ! Letter to Jim Sykes from MarY Coclan-Vendl; Re: Oil Discharge Prevention I 1844 t T I Letter to Melanie Duchin from Mary Cocklan-Vendl; Re: Oil Discharge ¡ i Prevention and Contingency Plan Amendment _ 1845 ¡ ,Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray;' Re: Waste application 1848 ¡ iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re Draft Agenda 1849 ! i E-mail to Roger Post from Glenn Gray; Re: C-Plan Review 1850 I ¡Fax to Glenn Gray from Tom Barnes; He: Discussion points 1851 i I Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Combined CP~ 1853 I ! Technical Review T !am~~eting_!.~~~onference Agenda 1862 I ! Letter to Gene Pavia 'from Dan' Ritzman; Re: Public comment on EIS 1863 i ! Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hañley; Re: Transmittal of revised quality -t' , I ! program manual fo~!':I_0!:t!,~~a~ a~~_~~~~_rty pipelines. ~___ _.!~~ IFax to Gene Pavia from Tom Barnes;Re: List of permits ' 1884 ì IMemo to Glenn Gray fr§.mLä_uraOg_är;-~Rë:__~Olid Waste Permit Appïicatio!"_ -:---1888 !- m iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re Draft Agenda - ----.,-8961- --- iE-mail to Roger Post from GlennGray;-Re: C-Plan Review 1891 I !Letter to Peter Hanley from Bill Britt; . Re: Oil & Gas Pipeline ROW App 189i r- I Draft Certificate ofRéasonableAs5urance from DEC -1.--- 1893 L !Letterto Robert Robichaud from Judy Kitagawa; Re: i 19041 IE-mail to Tom Chapple from Joe Sautner; Re: C-Plan Review I 1908 I Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley;Re: State Permit Applications 1910 I ; I ¡Letter to Tom Chapple from pan Replogle; Re: Info Request-Oil in broken ice! 1911 I j-- - i ,r--.., Northstar Documents. Jex 1-Jul-98 1-Jul-98 2-Jul-98 2-Jul-98 6-Jul-98 6-Jun-98 7-Jul-98 10-Jul-98 10-Jul-98 10-Jul-98 13-Jul-98 13-Jul-98 13-Jul-98 14-Jul-98 14-Jul-98 14-Jul-98 14-Jul-98 7 -Jul-98 15-Jul-98 14-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 13-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 22-Jun-98 7-Jul-98 7/15/98q 15-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 11-Jul-98 ----- 4-Jun-98 15-Jul-98 '--- 15-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 CONSISTENCY REVIEW CHRONOLOGICAL: JULY 1998 Letter to Robert Randall from Mary Cocklan-Vendl; Re: Oil Discharge Prevention Fax to Roger Post, etaL, from Glenn Gray; Re: Meeting agenda E-mail to Glenn Gray from Leon Lynch; Re: LAS 19505 Fax to Glenn Gray from Leon Lynch; Re: BPX Request and DNR response E-mail to leon Lynch from Glenn Gray; Re: LAS 19505 letter to Peter Hanley from Leon lynch; Re: Ice Roads Northstar Technical Team List Letter to Dan Ritzman from Glenn Gray; Re: Extend comment period letter to Gene Pavia from Terry Carpenter; Re: Updated itinerary Fax to Commissioner Shively, etaL, from Glènn Gray; Re: Meeting agenda I Comments on ErS i Letter to CaE from Maggie Ahmaogak; Re: Extension of comment expiration ¡date ¡ Transcript of Public Hearing at North Slope Borough Assembly [letter to Diane Mayer from Rep. Pete Kelly; Re: EIS ] , !Transcript of Public Hearing at Kaktovik Community Center I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: EIS ~ ! Letter to Technical Team members from Gene Pavia; Re: Comment deadline; ¡extension request ¡ ! letter to Terry Carpenter from Benjamin Nageak; Re: Extension of comment I deadline I Memo to Gene Pavia from Bruce Webb; Re: Draft EIS Comments E-mail to Gene Pavia from Jim B~umgartner; Re: BPX Northstar E-mail to Gene Pavia from Paul ~~Larnon; Re: Solid Waste Permit App Memo to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Info request on PSD App. E-mail to Brad Fristoe from Jim Baumgartner; Re: BPX ¡ E-mail to Gene Pavia from Paul M~Larnon; Re: Solid Waste Permit App ! letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of Request for iAddition Information Deadline 2372 " -- ,---~ -~----,----,'-- ¡ Memo to Glenn Gray from Brad F~sto~; Re: Info request on PSD App. i-__?-377____- I Memo to Gene Pavia from ~~bert Wa~~ns_; -B~: Request for Additional Info , 2378 I Letter to Gene Pavia f~_<?_r11.Dan Ritzman; - Re::_<::omment period on dr~~~I_S____- -___~~~6_- : Letter to Terry Carpenter from Benjamin Nageak; Re: Comment Deadline for ,Draft EIS . 2438 -, -' ----,---,-,--,------_u_-'-~-u_--- : E-mail to Glenn gray from ~I q!t; Re: AS 1~e~mits 2440 --- ------- Memo to Gene Pavia from Robert Watkins; Re: Response to request for ; additional information - - -, : Letter to Peter Hanley from ~an~n Burne!l; Re: Development Permit ! Letter to Jon Dunham from B~ Re: Draft Development Permit ; land Manageme_~ Regulation Permit Appli£~tion - ¡ Letter to Paul McLarnon from Leslie Griffith; Re: Waste Treatment Facility 'Permit Application 2468 : Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter HanÎey; Re: ACMP Consistencý Anal~;Sisn -- -2470 -_u- : Memo to Gene PaVia -from R-öbert Watkins;Re: Request for additional __n__~n__-_n_- . information 2522 ----, -'.. i Memo to Bruce Webb from William Britt; Re: Draft EIS comments -2545-- : Memo to Gene Pavia from -Bruce Webb; Re: Revised Draft EIS Comment~ ~-,' . ~, M?:>t,",'C ~t:lJ~::~ V [:~ ~. 9 2219 2220 2222 2224 2225 2227 2228 2229 2230 2231 '--_Un-' -- 2236 2238 2245 2249 2276 2277 2287 2360 2361 -~---- 2363 2367 2368 2369 2370 2371 2441 ----- . 2458 --~----_u --- . 2464 ------~-------- . 2465 0----- '---- FEB 0 9 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission ^~^hM^^^ Northstar Documents In6 Memo to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Info request on PSD App. Transcript of Public Hearing in Fairbanks Resource Cabinet Briefing Agenda Fax to Gabrielle from Luke Franklin; Re: BPXA's comments to drâft EIS E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re: DEIS ! E-mail to Dick Shideler from Kay Laughlin; Re: DEIS I Transcript of Public Hearing in Anchorage I Memo to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Comments on Draft EIS IE-mail toGlennGray.et.al.. from Gene Pavia; Re: Meeting reminder !E-mailto Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re: Meeting reminder ! Fax to Gene Pavia, et.al., from Glenn Gray; Re: Agenda for meeting ! Fax to Tom Barnes from Glenn Gray; Re: List of Technical team members I Letter to Peter Hanley from Jim Baumgartner; Re: PSD Permit Application ¡ E-mail to Gene Pavia from Janet Kidd; Re: Oil spill response & C-:plan I Letter to Rep. Pete Kelly from Diane Mayer; Re: DEIS ! Letter to Gene Pavia from Rep. Tom Brice; Re: Convey support for Nstar I Resource Cabinet Briefing. Meeting Agenda ! Letter to Gene Pavia from Judith Brady; Re: Consistency and State 17-Jul-98 ¡Authorizations ¡Fax to Dan Ritzman, et.al., from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of comment I I deadline IE-mail to Brad Fristoe,et.al., from Tom Barnes; Re: Permit Applications ! Coordinated State Review Timelines ! Request forAdditionallnformati0!1_~. ¡ Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of Request for 24-Jul-98 ¡Addition Information Deadline - -----., --- 24-Jul-98 ! Letter to Dan Ritzman fro~_~I~-"n ~ray~ __Re: Extend comment period 24-Jul-98 ! E-mail toBradFristoe.et.al~~.!.om T_()rn B_~~rles; Re: Permit Applications 27-Jul-98 ¡Letter to Phillip Millam_!r~~-,?ayid Wal~~ce;. R~: Injection well draft permit 27-Jul-98 ! Letter to Robert Robic~~~~_ fro.m Peter_Hanl_~¥;_Re:Withdrawal of Outfalls 27 -Jul-98 i Letter to Gene Pavia, ~_~~~_'!'()f!1 Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of comments 27-Jul-98 ; E-mail toAIIOtt.et.al...!r_o~~I~nn Gray; _~~: _g_raft EIS Comments 27-Jul-98 ! Letter to Robert Robic~~_ud!!?_"!1 Peter ~~~I~y; Re: Withdrawal of Outfalls 27 -Jul-98 i Letter to Diane May~r from Melanie Duchin; Re: Public Info request 1_-:.~ul-98 'Testimony on the DEIS of Northstar u_____ 'Peter Hanley's testimony on DEIS 28-Jul-98 . News Release from COE about pUblic comment extension 29-Jul-98 Letter to Gene Pavia from Pamela Bergman; R-e: Comments 30-Jul~~ªTranscript of Public Hearing in Nuiqsut _ .~.~ '3equest for Additio~allnformation: BAT Analysis 16-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 17-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 20-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 20-Jul-98 20-Jul-98 21-Jul-98 21-Jul-98 21-Jul-98 22-Jul-98 22-Jul-98 22-Jul-98 22-Jul-98 23-Jul-98 17 -Jul-98 24-Jul-98 24-Jul-98 24-Jul-98 24-Jul-98 .. ~.- u _. .- ~ ------_.- .---- .-.- - .-.. - ".'- -- --------_.+- .-. --------- _ . __ CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRO~~!-OGICAL) ~~98__ 1-A.ug~~~__..-:!=IS Schedule Update 3-Au~~98__J Letter to Jim Baumg_a~ner from Janet Platt;-Re:Ãmendment to Permit App i . Letter to Bill MaClarence fro.m Janet Pla-tt: -Re: Apps for Air Quality Control 1 3~1\~~~~~_ : Operating Permits ??_-~~l-98_~Letter to Robert Rc>b_ichaud from Peter Hanley; Re: NPDES Permit App. , , 10 2551 2552 2591 2615 2661 2662 2663 --.- 2720 2725 2726 2728 2729 2731 2732 2733 2734 2736 2452 2753 2754 2755 2756 H_ _, 2780 2784 --- --------~ 2786 2787 2825 -----.~_._.. - 2827 2828 2829 2832 2835 2836 2843 2844 . - --"- --.-.------ 2865 - ~ .--".--.-- 2901 ---. -- .'--.-.---.. ----_.~ - ! 2905 --- ..._--~-- ..----- 2906 ----4___~_ .____ 2907 .i....:¡;,.'·.~,.¡¡,;,~··..:':O_·-·"~.~.;;,. .. .~-_.--" _-,,~1.' i 2937 2941 3-Aug-98 ; Letter to Jim Baumgartner from Janet Platt; Re: AssoCÎated Growth Analysis' 2943 , ' .-' ~, Northstar Documents I. ,ex 11 4-Aug-98 4-Aug-98 6-Aug-98 11-Aug-98 11-Aug-98 6-Aug-98 6-Aug-98 6-Aug-98 7-Aug-98 11-Aug-98 13-Aug-98 5-Aug-98 13-Aug-98 13-Aug-98 .13-Aug-98 14-Aug-98 14-Aug-98 14-Aug-98 15-Aug-98 12-Aug-98 16-Aug-98 17-Aug-98 17-Aug-98 17-Aug-98 19-Aug-98 .!9-Aug-98 19-Aug-98 19-Aug-98 ~:.Aug-98 _21":I~ug-98 ~~~ug-98 ~6-Aug-98 ~6-Aug-98 ?6-Aug-98 ~~~~ug-98 25-Aug-98 ~7-Aug-98 ~7 -Aug-98 28-Aug-98 I Memo to Diane Mayer from Janet Kowalski; Re: Draft EIS IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Tom Chapple; Re: Broken Ice Paper i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bob Crandall; Re: Technical Team ! Letter to Peter Hanley from Gene Pavia; Re: Analysis of Oil Spill Response Capability in Broken Ice Letter to Peter Hanley from Gene Pavia; Re: Analysis of Oil Spill Response ,Capability in Broken Ice ¡Technical Review Team Meeting Teleconference Agenda I Letter to Glenn Gray from Robert K. Reges. Jr.; Re: Greenpeace FOIA ! Letter to Melanie Duchin from Diane Mayer; Re: Information Request Letter to Northstar Technical Team from Gene Pavia: Letter to Peter Hanley from Gene Pavia; Re: Analysis of Oil Spill Response Capability in Broken Ice ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Draft EIS State Comments ! Draft State Comments on Draft EIS for Northstar I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Glenn Gray: Re: DEIS I I Memo to John Shively, etal., from Kristina O'Connor; Re: Drilling restriction I for development wells I : DEC Comments on DEIS Letter to Northstar Technical Team from Gene Pavia: Re: Comments Letter to Tom Chapple from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for additional info E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: DEIS I Letter to Joe Sautner from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Request for Waiver from i Secondary Containment --- : Letter to Alfred Bohn from Peter Hanley; Re: Temporary Civil Construction I Letter to Janet Platt from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Meeting wI Susan Harvey I David Dickins, Realistic Broken Ice Scenarios for Break-up and Freeze-up at i Northstar i Request for Addition Information: Applied Practices 250 & 450 iTechnical Review Team Meeting Teleconference Agenda I Letter to Nstar Reviewers from Glenn Gray; Re: Status of Info Request i Letter to Janet Platt from Scott Bailey; Re: Operating Permit App. I Completeness Determination. 3301 ! Letter to Diane M~yer fro!!, Dan-Rit£rrian;- R~~_?ubli~ Comment on !?EIS-_~=u~ --- 3302 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Robert Watkins; Re: Information requested 3304 ¡ Letter to Peter Hanley from Brad Fristoë; Re: Waste Disposal Permit App- -~ ~- u 3305 i Letter to Distribution frorT1 Peter Hanley;- RE;:-Title v Air Permit Applicatiòns -. - - 3308----- : Letter to Janet Platt from Elaine Cederstrom;Re-:- Operating Permit -------~--- u_-------- I Application Completeness Determination ' 3309 ! Letter to Philip Millarrifrom Q~~!d Wa!~~~:_Re:Jnjection Well Draft per~¡i=~_~=_=-= - 331 0 ~----= 2997 2998 2999 3000 3003 3070 3071 3072 3074 3075 3139 3140 3142 3153 3154 3156 3157 3233 3234 3237 3241 3245 3273 3297 -- 3298 : Letter to Peter Hanley fro~m ~le!1n Gra¥~Re~~~ension of Comment Deadlin~ 3314 I Letter to Dan Ritzman from Glenn Gray; Re: Extend comment period 1-- -- - 332"6- - - ¡ Letter to Nstar TechnicalTeam from Glenn Gray; Re: Nstar -----.. ~~--~-- 3327 u- -- : E-mail to Glenn Gray, et:al. ,_f!°rTI G~ne ~~via; -Re: Nstar --- ---¡- ----3328 --- : E-mail to Dave Thomas from Tom Barnes; Re: Nstar ~-- ---- - 3329 - -- - : Letter to Robert Robichâud from~Peter Hanley; Re: DEIS ------3330 --- I ---.----- -_. : Letter to Robert Robichaud from Peter Hanley; Re: Sump Water Storage... 3341 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jaèk """inters; Re: Broken Ice ---~ 3346 R (~EIV.E FES 0 9 200-! Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission An"hnr<1llp ------ , ',' 12 3347 3356 i i 3361 3362 3368 ! -_.- Northstar Documents I. . 28-Aug-98 28-Aug-98 28-Aug-96 26-Aug-96 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 31-Aug-98 25-Aug-98 1-Sep-98 ' 28-Aug-98 3-Sep-99 4-Sep-98 28-Aug-98 4-Sep-98 4-Sep-98 4-Sep-98 9-Sep-98 9-Sep-98 11-Sep-98 9-Sep-98 14-Sep-98 14-Sep-98 14-Sep-98 15-Sep-98 15-Sep-98 ~ 5-Sep-98 "-~~Sep-98 16-Sep-98 16-Sep-98 16_-~p-~8 16-Sep-98 17 -Sep-98 18-Sep-98 18-Sep-98 I Letter to Gene Pavia from Jon Lindstrom; Re: DEIS I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Strudel Scour Survey I I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Pipeline ROW Lease Rev I I Letter to Jerry Brossia from Peter Hanley; Re: App. For Pipeline ROW Lease I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Glenn Gray: Re: DEIS I Letter to Tom Chapple from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Oil Discharge Prevention I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Greenpeace; Re: DEIS I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: DEIS I Letter to Tom Chapple from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Oil Discharge Prevention ! Letter to Terry Carpenter from Benjamin Nageak;. Re: Comments on DEIS IICAS Comments on DEIS I Letter to U.S. ACOE from Maggie Ahmaogak; Re: DEIS Comments ! I CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) SEPT 1998 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bill 'Britt; Re: Draft language ! E-mail to Bill from Glenn Gray; Re: Ice Gouging and Strudèl Scour I Fax to Gene Pavia, et.a!., from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical meeting agenda I Letter to Gene Pavia from Dan Ritzman; Re: Consistency reviews I Letter to Gene Pavia from Jon Lindstrom; Re: DEIS i Letter to Tom Chapple from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for additional info ! 3501 i 3503 i 3505 ¡ 3514 I :. i IBP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan i iE-mail to S Davis from Terry Carpenter; Re: September 8 meeting i Letter to Janet Platt from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Permit Application Review ! i Letter to Nstar Technical Team from Gene Pavia; Re: Nstar : i Letter to Jim Baumgartner from David Wallace; Re: Response to Additional i ilnformation Request___ _~__~_~~~____ !Response to Comments ______ _~~~~____ !Fax to Gene Pavia, et.a!., fr0!"1_Glenn Gray; Re: Northstarcomments ____~_____ u~~Q~_____ ! Letter to Nstar Reviewers from Glenn Gray; Re: Status of Info Request 3710 ---.~-_._~-_._- I E-mail to Joe Sautner from Rob~.!:.ì~~~~~s; Re: Information Request 3713 __ ! Land Managernent~~ulatio_~~ Per".:'~t ~P.E'J~.~!i.0n ' ____ ~?_~? _ __ i Letter to Karen Burnell from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for rezoning, master ! ¡plan approval and devel()~~.!lt permit._ _ _~19___._ ; E-mail to Glenn Grat!ro~ Joe Sautn_er~ Re.:...Distribution of C-Plan Docs. . ~.__ _ 3731.. I Letter to Joe Sautner from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Oil Discharge Prevention ¡and Contingency Plan Aeproy_al ______ ___ __+_. }733 IE-mail to Gene Pavia from Terry Carpenter; 3737 : Northstar Development -Proje.ct-~r!efingto the Resources Cabinê¡----------~_~~~_37~~-~_~-·~ ~ : Letter to Jim Baumgartner from David Wallace; Re: Response to Additional ¡ Information Request -------- "--._------ iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner; Re: Oil Spill Plan -. .- ----. --------~- ¡ Letter to Thomas Barnes 'from Laura Ogar; Re: Meeting on Solid Waste ¡Treatment Facility Permi~ ~pe~~~ion i Letter to Nstar Reviewers !rom Glenn Gray; Re: Status of Info Request ! Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Clarification of Nstar Grind & Inject Facility Design Intent 3518 3627 3628 3638 ---- - -- ._----~~-.- . 3755 3782 ."------~-- i 3783 ------.J-_ ___~ ____ __ , 3785 --.------- 3788 , 0 ,,-,.., Northstar Documents Jex /""""" 18-Sep-98 18-Sep-98 18-Sep-98 - 18-Sep-98 20-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 21-Sep-98 23-Sep-98 23-Sep-98 24-Sep-98 24-Sep-98 23-Sep-98 23-Sep-98 28-Sep-98 29-Sep-98 30-Sep-98 30-Sep-98 30-Sep-98 1-Sep-98 1-Sep-98 1-0ct-98 1-0ct-98 1-0ct-98 1-0ct-98 1-0ct-98 -- ~ ,---, 7-0ct-98 6-0ct-98 7-0ct-98 8-0ct-98 8-0ct-98 8-0ct-98 8-0ct-98 8-0ct-98 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from J,im Baumgartner; Re: Supplemental Information Fax to Glenn Gray from Don Long; Re: E-mail to Oil Watch from Glenn Gray; Re: Nstar letter Fax to Gene Pavia from Glenn Gray; Re: Distribution letter Fax to Gene Pavia, etal., from Glenn Gray; Re: Staff assigned projects Letter to Don Long from Gene Pavia; Re: Oil Spill Discharge & C-Plan Letter to Don Long from Glenn Gray; Re: Oil Spill Discharge & C-Plan I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re: Don Long Fax to Glenn Gray from Tom Barnes; Re: Corrected attachment Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Clarification of Nstar Grind & Inject Facility Design Intent E-mail to Tom Barnes from Glenn Gray; Re: Solid Waste Letter ¡ E-mail to AI Ott, etal., from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team meeting I E-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team meeting ¡Technical Review Team Meeting Teleconference Preliminary Agenda I Letter to Gene Pavia from Don Long; Re: Comments for Nstar Project ! Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Revised Engineering I Review Schedule I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Re: Development review I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia; Re: Northstar comment letter I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: BPX Info response I Letter to Gene Pavia from Melanie Duchin; Re: ACMP Consistency review I Letter to Jim Baumgartner from David Wallace; Re: Response to Info Request' ¡ -Submittal III . ¡Memo to Brian Renninger from Pat Nair; Re: S02 Emission Factor !BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Local Concerns and Tradition KnowledQe !BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Demonstration of Conformance with Title 19. !NSBMFo Chapter 19.70 13 3791 3793 3796 3797 3813 3816 3817 3819 3820 3821 3823 3824 3826 3827 3828 3832 3835 3850 3851 3853 3866 3886 --'--- 3887 3932 i CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) OCT 1998 i USEPA. Authorization to DischarQe Under the National Pollutant DischarQe : Flimination System -,---------~ ¡ BP Exploration (Alaska) In~.-,_N~Q~~gutf~J!~0_~5 Construction DewaterinQ ! Letter to Jon Lindstrom from Thomas Albert; Re: Petroleum hydrocarbon ; degrading microbes 4060 Technical Review Team MeeÜñ-g TelecOnference Preliminary Agenda--- -0 --4ó63-~-_n :BP Exploration (Alaska)Tnc.:'Best ManaQemeniPractices & Pollution ----___nn_~,,~ : Prevention Plan: Revision 2 4064 ~Letter to Glenn Gray trò-rì1 Peter Hanley; Re:-Responses to NSB Reqùestfõr--~' -- ~'n__- u_-- iAdditionallnformation 4080 Letter to Jon Lindstrom from PeterHariïey;-Re:-Response to NSBrequest for-~~-- ------- .additional information : 4081 i Letter to Terry Carpenter frõmPeterHaniey;Re: Double wall pipe alternative T-~ -~ --~- : evaluation 4090 , ~ -~~-~ ----- ---~ -'-t---------- 'E-mail to Gene Pavia from Terry Carpenter; Re: Review of RTC volumes ; 4119 -- , , --~~- -, --------j ~ ~-----_n~- iE-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team meeting 4121 iE-mail to AI Ott, etal., from GÎenn Gray; Re: -Technical team meeting --~---4122- ! Summary of Northsta!fo~!!1_~_~ts to the State ____n~un_' ~ 4123-- Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: EIS Executive Orders -Rn ~~ or ~.,.~~:~,'~, ,-- L. <¡,J It- ~ ~ c"~' 3984 -.-~ ~- ~ 3985 ~-~~-+----,--~ ~---- 4029 FEB 0 9 ?on1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchoraqe Northstar Documents h6x . 14 8-0ct-98 I Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: FEIS 4132 1-0ct-98 CPQ from BP and maps - 4144 Letter to Jim Baumgartner fróm David Wallace; Re: Response to Information , , 9-0ct-98 Request-Submittal IV i 4160 I E-mâil to Ro~rt Watkins from Brad Fristoe; Re: DEC-response to public , 9-0ct-98 comments - 4175 12-0ct-98 I Summary of Meetings with' North Slope Borough and Villages 4177 12-0ct-98 IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Judy Kitagawa; Re: Nstar 401 Cert 4179 I 13-0ct-98 I Letter to Glenn Gray from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Drilling prevention measures 4180 ..- 15-0ct-98 I E-mail to Gene Pavia from Glenn Gray; Re: Comments 4181 14-0ct-98 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: Nstar ACMP 4182 .-- i Letter to Peter Hanley from Robert Bosworth; Re: Nstar Mine Site 4183 . Letter to Peter Hanley from Robert Bosworth; Re: Pipeline Crossing 4185 14-0ct-98 I E-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Response to comments 4187 13-0ct-98 I Summary of Northstar Comments to the State , 4188 ! 14-0ct-98 E-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar Comments i 4193 , 14-0ct-98 ,E-mail to Marty Rutherford from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical Team Instruct I 4194 14-0ct-98 ! E-mailto AI Ott, et.al., from Glenn Gray; Re: Nstar comments 4196 14-0ct-98 I E-mail to Paul McLarnon from Glenn Gray: Re: Northstar comments i 4198 14-0ct-98 ! Letter to Gene Pavia from Judy Kitagawa; Re: Draft NPDES Permit , 4200 14-0ct-98 ¡Memo to Nstar Technical Team from Gene Pavia: Re: Letters about. Nstar I 4209 14-0ct-98 ! Memo to Glenn Gray from AI Ott; Re: Nstar ACMP I 4210 --- I Memo to Gene Pavia from AI Ott: Re: Spill Planl ACS Technical Manual ! 14-0ct-98 I Review I 4216 22-0ct-98 ! E-mail to Jon Dunham from Glenn Gray; Re: Northstar Comments I - 4232 14-0ct-98 I Email to Gene Pavia from Jim Baumgartner; Re: 4236 14-0ct-98 I Memo to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: ACMP Review : 4237 14-0ct-98 ! Memo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: ACMP Consistency Analysis 4243 14-0ct-98 : E.;mail to Gene Pavia from Terry Carpenter; -- Re: 4246 _._-- !Memo to Nstar Technical Team from Glenn Gray: Re: Extension of comment 14-0ct-98 i deadline I 4247 ! --_..-._-- -------.- -- I 14-0ct-98 : Letter to Peter Hanley f~om _Glenn G~a~; _ ~~~ Extension of comment deadline ¡ 4248 .~- -- .on __.___..____._____ 15-0ct-98 . E-mail to Gene Pavia from B!.a~~!i_stC?~~~~_e~_ Consistency determination 4251 1-- ....-._-_.~--------'--- 15-0ct-98 i Memo to Gene Pavia from Leon Lynch; Re: 4252 15-0ct-98 Technical Review Teaní_~e_eting Te-Iec~n-iërence Agenda ..------ 1 4255 -- 15-0ct-98 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray frC?m..R()!>ert YV~tki!,~; Re: Response to comments I 4256 --- --- , 16-0ct-98 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gene Pavia: Re: Solid Waste Program Stipulations, 4269 20-0ct-98 I Memo to Glenn Gray from Ì3i!~_Britt;....Be:-ACMP Consistency Analysis ----.-- 1--- 4270 20-0ct-98 ¡ E-mail to Dick Shideler from Glenn - Gray; Re: ACMP ----:--'427' - - .-.- ~ E-mail to Glenn Gray fro~13_~~_~~ri~t~~.~_~~ Response to comments .---- ., .- .~----- ._-- 21-0ct-98 4274 21-0ct-98 I Memo to Glenn Gray _fro_r11 ~ill B!!~; Be~ Ns~~ Responses ~.- ---·4279--- ---.----- _.... -. 21-0ct-98 i Memo to Nstar File from ~en~ c;ray; Re: Information Requests ; 4281 ._~...-~.._._- -.....--. .. ------. 15-Sep-98 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray fromJ_~e S~utner; Re: C-Plan Documents 1 4282 16-0ct-98 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: BPX Nstar timing , 4284 21-0ct-98 IMemo to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re:Response to EIS comments ----.- 4286 ~ ~ Northstar Documents .:lex 21-0ct-98 - 22-0ct-98 21-0ct-98 21-0ct-98 22-0ct-98 22-0ct-98 23-0ct-98 23-0ct-98 26-0ct-98 27-0ct-98 27-0ct-98 27 -Oct-98 27 -Oct-98 27-0ct-98 27 -Oct-98 20-Nov-98 2-Nov-98 2-Nov-98 2-Nov-98 2-Nov-98 30-0ct-98 3-Nov-98 3-Nov-98 3-Nov-98 3-Nov-98 23-Nov-98 27 -Oct-98 27-0ct-98 22-0ct-98 4-Nov-98 4-Nov-98 3-Nov-98 4-Nov-98 5-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 5-Nov-98 5-Nov-98 15 Letter to Interested Parties from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Consistency Review' Letter to Robert Robichaud from Peter Hanley; Re: Pollutant Discharge Elimination System I Memo to Glenn Gray from William Britt, Jr.; Re: Northstar Responses i Letter to David Wallace from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Preliminary permit Idecision for Air Quality Control Construction Permit ¡Technical Review Team Meeting Teleconference Agenda I Fax to Gene Pavia, eta!., from Glenn Gray; Re: Assignments for Greenpeace I letter & review schedule I Letter to Diane Mayer from Peter Hanley; Re: Submittal of Responses & ¡Clarifying Information i Letter to John Bunyak from James Baumgartner; Re: PSD Review I Memo to Gene Pavia from AI Ott: Re: Spill Plan/ ACS Technical Manual I Review I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: 401 of 404 j E-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Consistency Determination ! E-mail to Julie Murrell from Glenn Gray; Re: N* Response ! 4287 4458 4568 5470 4571 4572 4608 4630 4634 4642 4643 4646 I Letter to Laura Ogar from Peter Hanley; Re: Solid Waste Treatment Facility Letter to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: Errata Sheet for N* EIS I Letter to Laura Ogar from Peter Hanley; Re: Preliminary Engineering Drawings! & Supporting Treatment Facility Operations Plan 4669 4678 4684 I CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) NOV 1998 ! Comments on the Draft EIS iE-mail to Glenn Gray, eta!., from Dick Shideler; Re: Kuparuk Ice Road ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fri~.!?e; Re: Response to comments iE-mail to Leon Lynch from Bruce Webb; Re: GC-19 BPX request for ¡exemption 4731 ----------~~~-- - -- i E-mail to Lisa Weissler from Glenn Gray; Re: Kuparuk Ice Road 4733 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gary Scl1uïtz;Re: GC-19 request for exemptio¡:;---- 4734 j E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Sh¡~ele~~ ~e: N* Kuparuk Ice Road 4736 iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Comment responses 4740 : E-mail to Leon Lynchf§!"! §~~yen Schm!!Z~~e: Kuparuk River Gravel ---~--- 4745 ¡Policy Committee Me~~~g !,r~liminary Agend~_- --~------~~~----- ¡Coordinated State Review Milestones 4748 __d. -.- -. - ~-- - - --. m__- ,Response to Comm_ents October 27. 1998 (draft).. ------- - 47~~- , Northstar DevelopmeEt PrQject Draft Proposed_C;?~s~stency_[)~t~!rn!~~tí~~- - ~ - 4758 ! PrQject Work Load of_St~ft AssiQned to North_sta!_Reyiew 4775 _n_- ---_.._-~ ! E-mail to Bill Britt from_§~~~n !3ray; 4778 : E-mail to Kristina O-C~_n_n<?r from Glenn_~ray~~e: Technical Tearn------==-~==-477_~~=~-- : E-mail to AI Ott, et.a!.~C?":1 Glenn Grax:....Re: T~~hnical team 4780 ---~--- ,E-mail to Dick Shidele~!r~rn Gle~n G~a¥¿e: Technical Team 4781 : E-mail to Kristina O-C;~.~~~_!o~g_le!1n Gray; _'3e: Technical Team. 478~__- :Technical Review Team Meeting_Te~!conference Preliminary Agenda : 4783 ,.-.--.---- ICoordinated State Review Milestones 4784 --_.__.-- ...- --- E-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team 4786 4708 . 4709 4722 4724 R!"","",¡?'%li""'"M .Cvt:! FES 0 9 20Dí Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission An"hM""'" I . ", Northstar Documents 1& i Letter to Douglas Bum from Peter Hanley; Re: Incidental Take of Polar Bears , ¡Technical Review Team Meeting Teleconferencè Agenda IE-mail to AI Crt from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical Team I Letter to Gene Pavia from Judy Kitagawa; Re: Draft NPDES Permit I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jon Dunham; Re: N* comments I Letter to Colonel Sheldon Jahn from David Allen; Re: N* ¡ Letter to Jim Baumgartner from Peter Hanley; Re: Preliminary Permit No, 1 ' 13-Nov-98 I 9873-AC020 comments 15-Nov-98 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jon Dunham; Re: N* comments I Letter to David Allen from Peter Hanley; Re: Oil Spill Probabilities and 16-Nov-98 i Pipeline Design 18-Nov-98 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Mitigating Measures ! Memo to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Stipulations and Mitigating 18-Nov-98 ¡Measures 19-Nov-98 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bill ~rit!; u~~: N* Stipulations i Memo to Planning Commission from Jon Dunham; Re: Zoning Map ;Amendmènt-From~onse~~..t.!()n Di~t~~t~o Resource Development District :Technical Review Tea,~~e~ting Teleco~fE!!~nce Agenda ~ E-mail to AI Ott from_Glen~,~r~y; Re:}~~~n~cal Team ,Letter to Jim Baumgartner from Pèter Hanley; . re: Comments on Preliminary : Permit No. 9873-AC020-Submittal 2 ~---- ---.- - - ; Letter to Glenn Gray ~?_~ ~oss Coen; Re:...N* ~omments : Letter to Jim Baumga~ner fr~m Dan Ritzman; Re: N* Comments :Testimony from Michael Skitmore on N* Project ~~_ ,Memo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt, Jr.; Re: Information Request . un ,__.. .E-mail to Kaye La~ghlin from Dick Shideler; Re: N* spoils on ice 'Impacts of the Northstar Pipeline Construction and Operation on Fish and , Wildlife and Their Habitats 5182 10-Feb-~~u u:È-mail to Kaye Laughlin from Dick Shideler; Re:,_~* PD ;"--518i-- "._. .___Human Uses of .Fish &, Wildlife T-__ 5'~9 ___ 6-Aug:~6 ___ Memo to Anthony Braden from AI Ott; Re: ROW Lease Application ! 5204 24-Nov-98 Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of review deadlines ! --.. 5207--.-. 24-Nov-98 ..'E:mailto'Glenn Griy from Tom Chapple; Re: NstarStips' . -----.. -5210 - 24-Nov-98 . Letter to Michael_ Pay~ne from Melanie Duchi.~; Re: N* Comments mu=-._.__ ..§?11 24-",ov-9~~ ~evised Stipulation~ on State's 401 Certification 5235 24-Ap!::,98 ._~ Northstar EIS Meeting Agenda' _... ~ _ :.__.-.---_~:-~._ 5237-- ~~ 5-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 6-Nov-98 10-Nov-98 12-Nov-98 12-Nov-98 12-Nov-98 12-Nov-98 12-Nov-98 19-Nov-98 20-Nov-98 20-Nov-98 20-Nov-98 20-Nov-98 20-Nov-98 21-Nov-98 23-Nov-98 ._-~-_. 16-Nov-98 25-Nov-98 . .. .'_. ----'------ 25-Nov-98 . 16 I iE-mail toBiIIBritt.et.a!.. from Dianè Mayer; Re: Policy Committee Follow-up IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Tom Chapple; Re: DEC/SPAR Comments I Letter to Jon Dunham from Peter Hanley; Re: Emergency Countermeasures ¡Plan . I IE-mail toTerryCarpenter.et.a!.. from Glenn Gray; Re: Meeting w/state staff !Memo to Glènn Gray from Tom Chapple;Re: C-plan Review IDEC's Response to Comments about Spill Prevention.and Response 4787 1 4789 ! i 4790 I 4792 4793 4800 4943 ...__._-. 4990 4991 4994 5003 5098 - - _u_ -- i I I I 5010 5021 5025 5033 5034 5046 5047 5063 5064 - .- 5153 5165 ____... _... _n,_ __ ____u__._.._ . 5172 ----1_.._.._________ 5177 .---.......-. --~_..- ,.....-.--- 5179 ------------- 5180 --.. - .- Letter to Philip Mill~~..trom Janet~latt; Re: Proposed Class I Injection Well E-mail toAIOtt.et.a!.. from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team ~ 5239 5244 ; ...,; , ; . ' ç--~ Northstar Documentsr,Jex -. 27-Nov-98 27-Nov-98 27-Nov-98 - 27 -Nov-98 27-Nov-98 27 -Nov-98 27-Nov-98 29-Nov-98 30-Nov-98 30-Nov-98 30-Nov-98 30-Nov-98 30-Nov-98 E-mail to Robert Watkins from Glenn Gray; Re: Stipulations E-mail to bdw@dnr (Bruce) from Glenn Gray; Re: Stipulations E-mail to AI Ott. etaL, from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical team i Letter to Colonel Sheldon Jahn from Bill Britt; Re: T echnicallssues i Memo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: ACMP Consistency Analysis I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Julie Murrell; Re: Draft N* ACMP IE-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical Team I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Northstar Stipulations I I Letter to CoL Sheldon Jahn from Octavio Pastrana; Re: Development Project: i Schedule - i Letter to Terry Carpenter from Glenn Gray; Re: Six-Month Consistency I Deadline I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Julie Murrell; Re: Draft N* ACMP I IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Bob Crandall; Re: Technical Team !Memo to Glenn Gray from Tom Chapple; Re: C-plan Review 1-Dec-98 CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) DEC 1998 1-Dec-98 E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: N* ACMP 15-Dec-98 North Slope Borouçh Ordinance Serial No. 75-6-38 1-Dec-98 E-mail to Bill Britt. etaL, from Patty Bielawski; Re: Proposed Stipulations 1-Dec-98 iE-mail to Bill Britt from Glenn Gray; Re: Consistency Analysis 1-Dec-98 iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Julie Murrell; Re: Draft N* ACMP 1-Dec-98 ¡Memo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt, Jr.; Re: ACMP Consistency Analysis I Memo to Northstar Technical Team from Glenn Graý; Re: Document ! Distribution i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Leon Lynch; ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Leon Lynch; Re: N* ! Memo to Bruce McKenzie from David Dickens; Re: Rationale & protocol to 2-Dec-98 I detect small leaks along proposed pipeline ! Memo to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Stipulation and Response to 2-Dec-98 ~Comments I 2-Dec-98 2-Dec-98 2-Dec-98 3-Dec-98 4-Dec-98 7 -Dec-98 7-Dec-98 8-Dec-98 8-Dec-98 8-Dec-98 8-Dec-98 8-Dec-98 9-Dec-98 9-Dec-98 9-Dec-98 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Gen~~via; Re: EIS meeting wI CREL & INTEC ; ¡ E-mail to Jon Dunham from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Whaling Commission ¡Comments - -------- I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Whaling Commission I Comments 'Technical Team M-eetlng-teleconference Ãgendã ¡ E-mail to AI Ott from Glenn Gray; Re: T echnlC~I~~am - -- ! E-mail to Dick Shideler from Glenn Gray; Re: N* ACMP I E-mail to Glenn Gray from -L_eo_~~~~~h; --- ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: N* ACMP I Letter to Like Franklin from Duane MiI~r; Re: Onshore and Shoal Soil ¡Conditions : Letter to Jim Baumgartner from Peter Hanley; Re: Clarification of Issues : raised Preliminary Perrr\i! No. 982~~C020 comments : E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: Consistency analysis I ------ -- - ------- ~ - ,Letter to Maggie Ahmaogak from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Preliminary Permit -- ¡X06 L~ ,ý'\. ~7:yr r",v rt '\jiL~ --- 17 5247 5248 5250 5251 5256 5261 5262 5336 5339 5341 4343 5347 5349 5507 5508 5509 5512 5513 5514 5518 5523 . 5648 , ----- 5649 5650 ---- --- 5655 5656 ---- >-------- -- 5657 ------ --- --- 0- --------- I --- -- -------, 5658 5660 5661 -- -- --- 5712 5714 5716 5717 5722 -------- 5728 FES 0 9 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission 1\ nr-hr>r,-,"I' · " , , Northstar Documents In. ¡ Letter to Jon Dunham from Peter Hanley; Re: Ice Road Construction Approval . I Letter to Peter Hanley from Robert Bosworth; Re: Ice Road Construction I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: ACMP Stipulations IMemo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt;Re: Response to stipulations ! Memo to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: Response to stipulations I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: Attachment B I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jon Dunham; Re: Revegetation stipulations ~ i iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Proposed final stipulations 5787 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: Attachment B 5788 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: Stipulation Resubmission 5789 ¡Fax to Glenn Gray from Tom Barnes; Re: Information 5790 I Fax to Leon Lynch from Glenn Gray; Re: Stipulations ¡ 5821 I Letter to Glenn Gray fromJon Dunham; Re: Consistency Determination ! 5822 IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Tom Chapple; Re: Drills and Exercise Condition! 5825 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jon Dunham; Re: Northstar letter : 5826 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: Stipulation Resubmission : 5827 iTechnical Review Team Meeting TeleconferenceAgenda : 5829 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Greg Swank; Re: Analysis ____~ 5830 iE-mail to Gene Pavia from Dick Shideler; Re: PFEIS review 5831 !Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of review deadline-s-----~-5832---- ¡ Letter to Bill Britt from Peter Hanley; Re: Pipeline Leak Detection BAT --- -; -- --5834--- - - I Letter to Tim Jennings from Peter Hanley; Re: Comments on Incidental Take -" -- -------- 17-Dec-98 iof Marine Mammals ! 5843 "S.L. Ross Environmental Research- Ctd~~UBlowout and Spill Probability - ------ ¡Assessment for the Northstar and Liberty Oil Development Proiects in the ! 6-Nov-98 ¡Alaskan North Slope I 5852 ---- ------- - 18-Dec-98 I E-mail to Glenn Gray_ frc:>m J~dy Kitagawa~~~_~: _ Analysis _______~---?-896 h__ _17 -Dec-98 ! Fax to Gene Pavia, et..al~~_!rom ~Ienn ~~.ay; Re: Stipulation 2 _ ,____~~~8 ___ __ 19-Dec-98 : Unedited Northstar Response to Comments ' 5901 if:Dec-98 - IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Leon-Cynctï;Re: LAS 19505----------;-----591-6- -- 21-Dec-98 IE-mail to Tom Barnes from'Leoñi.ynch;--Re: Ice Road Construction -------;------5917 ,- -- 21-Dec-98 ¡E-mailtoGlennGrayfrom):'~o~~y~~~~R_e: ~-~~195œ---------_____~- _. m 59,~_~ -__ 21-Dec-98 IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Technical Team 5919 21-Dec-98 ¡Air Permit - --,----- - ---------------------- --- ; ---5920 21-Dec-98 i Letter to Leon LynclÌfromÖän~Ritzman; Re: LAS 19505 ------ -----~----5952-- -- - -- 23-Dec-98 iE-mail to Glenn Gray from Leon Lynch; Re: LAS 19505 I 5953 23-Dec-98 i E-mail to Braâ Fristoe, et.al., from Glenn Gray; Re: Stipulations _: 5955 24-Dec-98 I E-mail to Julie Murrell from Glenn Gray; Re: Attachment A ! 5957 10-Dec-98 11-Dec-98 12-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 14-Dec-98 15:'Dec-98 15-Dec-98 15-Dec-98 15-Dec-98 15-Dec-98 15-Dec-98 15·Ðec-98 15-Dec-98 - 15-Dec-98 16-Dec-98 16-Dec-98 16-Dec-98 16-Dec-98 17 -Dec-98 17 -Dec-98 17 -Dec-98 17 -Dec-98 18 E-mail to Gene Pavia from Timothy Jennings; Re: Preferred Alternative Text for Northstar Letter to Rosa Meehan, Ph.D. from Ray Jakubczak, Ph.D.; Re: Comments on i ¡Proposed Regs Governing the Incidental Take of Marine Mammals During ¡ I Specified Activities. I I Letter to Jeff Walker from Patrick Sousa I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: Attachment A ¡ Letter to AI Ott from - Peter Hanley; Re: Ice Road Construction Approval I Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: Ice Road Construction I I 5733 -- 5736 5744 5749 5750 5752 --- 5755 5757 5768 5769 5778 5783 5785 --.-.- ,." .j ..",....,... . .' Northstar Documents.ex . 23-Dec~98 E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: LAS 19505 23-Dec-98 24-Dec-98 29-Dec-98 28-Dec-98 29~Dec-98 29-Dec-98 30-Dec-98 30-Dec-98 31-Dec-98 31-Dec-98 1-Dec-98 17 -Dec"98 2-Jan-99 4-Jan-99 4-Jan-99 4-Jan-99 2-Dec-98 29-Dec-98 4-Jan-99 5-Jan-99 6-Jan-99 6-Jan-99 6-Jan-99 - 6-Jan-99 ---- 6-Jan-99 6-Jan-99 7 -Jan-99 7 -Jan-99 7 -Jan-99 7 -Jan-99 --- 7 -Jan-99 6070 6081 6082 ~ -- I . 6083 .-------- i 6085 I ! Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: Mining and Rehabilitation Plan IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Judy Kitagawa; Re: Technical Team I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: N* Stipulations I Letter to Jim Baumgartner from Maggie Ahmaogak; Re: Preliminary Permit; I IX06 . Letter to Tim Jennings from Peter Hanley; Re: Potential Impact of N* on the I Bowhead Whale . !Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Review deadlines I Letter to Peter Hanley from Bill Britt; Re: Leak Detection BAT i Letter to Dan Ritzman from Nancy Welch; Re: Off-road travel land use permit. ! I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: Consistency Analysis ! DEC's' response to comments on Air Quality Construction Permit : i Proposed Northstar EIS Time-Line i I Leak Detection Simulations !"NorthstarPipeline Issues" (From Scoping) ICONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) JAN 1999 i iE-mail to Tom Barnes from Jon Dunham; Re: Decision document ! i Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of review deadlines I I Letter to Tom Chapple from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Proposed Terms and I I Conditions of C-Plan I !Memo to Technical Team from Gene Pavia: Re: Documents on Development ¡ i Project . I ! Memo to Bruce McKenzie from David Dickens; Re: Rationale & protocol to i ¡ detect small leaks along proposed pipeline 1 !Letter to Tim Jennings from Ray Jakubczak, Ph.D.; Re: Impacts on Bowhead ¡ !Whales ! I Letter to Tom Chapple from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Proposed Terms and ¡ Conditions of C-Plan I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: BPX Northstar I E-mail to Glenn Gray from ~!'!'_s.~_m~artner; Re: BPX contact ! E-mail to Jim Baumgartner from Glenn ~~~y:Re: BPX Northstar ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from J~~~~~_~~artn~r; Re: BPX Northstar : Letter to Robert Watkins from Bruce McKenzie; Re: Proposed Terms and ! Conditions for C-Plan ----- ... - - ---- _..--- ; 'Fax to Glenn Gray from Tom Barnes; Re: Technical accuracy comments to .1 ¡the draft proposed consist~ncy?_~~~~~~i~~ 19 5958 5960 5962 5963 5964 5965 5973 5976 5978 5979 5981 6006 6007 6013 6028 6029 6031 6034 .. 6045 ----- 6057 6062 -- 0"_- 6087 ---- -, 6093 -----_._------- 1 1 : Fax to Gene Pavia from Glenn Gray; Re: Greenpeace letter, DNR response. ¡ 6101 iE-mail to Glenn Gray from To~y Brãden; Re: Ice Roads -1- 6113-- iE-mail to Brad Fristoe,e1.al., from Glenn Gray; Re: Technical Team i 6115 iE-mail to Glenn Grayfrom Jim_~aumgartner; Re: AEWC comments i 6116 : E~mail to Julie Murrell from Glenn Gray; Re: Consistency Determination i [Stipulations I 6118 ----- ------- jE-mail to Glenn Gray from Julie Murrell; Re: Consistency Determination ! ,Stipulations _ ~ __ _q;1,\1 ~r- M r\t:.\Jc:.1 V L..U ~ÇANNED JUll 2 2004 FES 0 9 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons, Commission Anchora e - , .' ..,"~.- ., , ',y.~ Northstar Documents In. j "\'. e 20 I E-mail to Glenn Gray fr9m Julie Murrell; Re: Consistency Determination 7 -Jan-99 I Stipulations ¡I' " 6120 7 -Jan-99 IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Tom Chapple; Re: Conditions of approval 6121 7 -Jan-99 I Fax to Nancy Wainwright from Glenn Gray; Re: Ice Road Maps I 6214 I 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Paul McLamon; Re: Technical Team 6215 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner;Re: N* Stipulations , 6216 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Technical Team 6217 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner; Re: N* Stipulations 6218 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Jim Haynes from Glenn Gray; Re: AEWC comments 6219 8-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner; Re: N* Stipulations 6222 -- IE-mail to Larry Ostrovsky, e1.al., from Glenn Gray;Re: Greenpeace 8-Jan-99 I Conversation 6223 8-Jan-99 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Kaye Laughlin; Re: N* Consistency 6226 8-Jan-99 I Northstar Records Index (Electronic and Hard Copy) 6228 I Letter to Maggie Ahmaogak from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Preliminary Permit 8-Jan-99 IX06 ¡ 6300 I Letter to Tim Jennings from Peter Hanley; Re: Notification of Ice Road j I 8-Jan-99 I Construction i 6302 9-Jan-99 IE-mail to Glenn Gray from Jon Dunham; Re: Proposed new language i 6305 10-Jan-99 I Letter to Jeffrey Feldman from Nancy Wainwright; Re: 6307 11-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Dick Shideler; Re: N*ACMP 6308 11-Jan-99 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bruce Webb; Re: Technical Team 6309 - 11-Jan-99 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner; Re: N* Technical Team 6310 11-Jan-99 I E-mail to Glenn Gray from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Noise Stipulation 6311 -- 11-Jan-99 ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Julie Murrell; Re: Consistency Determination 6312 .-- 11-Jan-99 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Joe Sautner; Re: Technical Team : 6313 I 11-Jan-99 ! E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bob Crandall; Re: Technical team i 6314 i 1 12-Jan-99 i E-mail to Glenn Gray from Bill Britt; Re: Proposed Consistency Determination I 6315 I ¡Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Extension of Agency Comment : 12-Jan-99 I Deadline . 6318 -- 12-Jan-99 ¡ Letter to Virginia Brower from Glenn Gray; Re: Distribution 6456 -- 12-Jan-99 ¡ Letter to Gordon Brower from Glenn Gray; Re: Distribution I 6457 i - ¡ E-mail to Glenn Gray from Melanie Duchin: Re: Proposed Consistency : 12-Jan-99 : Determination 6458 ..----- .. -----~--_.- ,--- 12-Jan-99 I Memo to Mike Walsh from GI~_~Ç;Eé:1Y; Re: Consistency Determination I 6459 ---.. 12-Jan-99 i Letter to Leonard Lampe fr0!!l ~ll:!n~_Gray; Re: Distribution 6460 -~--~---- 13-Jan-99 i Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Consistency Determination i 6461 -- ! Letter to Col. Sheldon Jahn, -eLaC,-irom Melanie Duchin; Re: 60 Day Notice of: .-._----- 13-Jan-99 ! Intent to File Citizen Suit 1 6471 ---- ----- ! Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Revised Proposed Consistency ! 13-Jan-99 ! Determination ! 6483 ----- -.--. ~"-"----------'-- 13-Jan-99 I Letter to Glenn Gray from _~~_~~i~ Ahmaogak; Re: N* Development Project ì 6665 .-----.-..- - 14-Jan-99 I Letter to Joe Sautner from Steven Sumida; Re: 1 6667 - _____1_______·____ i Letter to Gabrielle LaRoche from Arnold Brower, Jr.; Re: Extension of Review ¡ I 14-Jan-99 ! Deadlines I 6668 1 -- ---. ---_. ! Letter to Co!. Sheldon Jahn from Melanie Duchin; Re: Request for Cease and I 15-Jan-99 ¡ Desist Order Preventing Construction of Offshore Ice Roads ! 6670 15-Jan-99 I E-mail to Gene Pavia from Glenn Gray; Re: Copy of Decision 1 6675 r-" -~ .,' N~rthstar Documents.ex . 15-Jan-99 I Letter to Maggie Ahmaogak from Glenn Gray; Re: Document request 6677 17 -Jan-99 ! Letter to Glenn Gray from Nancy Wainwright; Re: Request for Information 6678 ! Letter to Maggie Ahmaogak from Jim Baumgartner; Re: Preliminary Permit 19-Jan-99 ¡X06 ! 6680 20-Jan-99 ¡Fax to Glenn Gray from Nancy Wainwright; i 6681 I Letter to the Steering Committee from Tess Stewart Dey; Re: Meeting , 20-Jan-99 I Minutes from 1/14/98 6682 20-Jan-99 ¡Letter to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Comments 6689 22-Jan-99 I Letter to Peter Hanley from Don Kohler; Re: Ice Road Construction 6696 22-Jan-99 i E-mail to Leon Lynch from Nancy Welch; Re: Northstar Petition 6698 27 -Jan-99 I Letter to Nancy Welch from Glenn Gray; Re: Information request 6699 27 -Jan-99 I Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Notification of Petition 6702 I letter to Tim Jennings from Peter Hanley; Re: USFWS Draft Biological i 28-Jan-99 I Opinion 6705 27 -Jan-99 I Fax to Dirk Smit from Larry Nace; Re: Lighting Fixture Cutsheet ! 6712 I Letter to Melanie Duchin from Co!. Sheldon Jahn; Re: Cease and Desist í 1 29-Jan-99 I Order ; 6761 1 ; ! CONSISTENCY REVIEW (CHRONOLOGICAL) FEB 1999 1 6762 I 4-Feb-99 ! Letter to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Final Consistency Determination j 6763 I Competitive Oil and Gas Lease : 6946 20-Aug-98 t DNR, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 86: Final Finding of the Director : 6970 ! Memo to Kerry Howard from Beth Kerttula: Re: Summary of AG opinion on ! .. 28-Jan-91 i the meaning of "public need" in ACMP regulations , 6983" i i . , . : .. ¡ NORTHST AR PETITION i 6985", i 2-Jan-99 ¡Fax to Enoch Oktollìk, et aI., from Randy Bates; Re: N* Project Petition I 6986 i 2-Jan-99 ¡Fax to Enoch Oktollik, et aI., from Randy Sates; Re: N* Project Petition 6990 20-Jan-99 I Letter to Glenn Gray from Nancy vy,~inwri~ht; Re: Petition to the CPC 6993 .h_ I ~------------ ¡Fax to Nancy Wainwright. Melanie Duchin from Randy Bates; Re: N* Petition , 21-Jan-99 ¡to the CPC 6994 -------.- ._~. -..--.....----<-¥--- t 22-Jan-99 ¡ Letter to Glenn Gray from Nancy Wainwright; Re: Petition to the CPC i 6996 22-Jan-99 ! Letter to Glenn Gray fro!!, Nänêy Wairw~rigtt.!~ Re: _ Petition to the CPC 6997 -----,- 22-Jan-99 ¡Fax to Randy Bates from Nancy Wainwright; Re: Petition to the CPC 6998 ; F ax to Nancy Wainwright, Meïanie Duëhln h from Randy Bates; N* petit[õnl' --------. Re: 22-Jan-99 ito the CPC I 7000 1 . ----- .-- . ~ .~ - . --,--- - hh'7õõ-i'h-- 24-Jan-99 ¡ Fax to Randy Sates fr?~ Na~~y Wainwright; Re: Melanie's affidavit - --_._._-------~, 4-Feb-99 : PETITION HEARING ON NORTHST AR 7005 - "-- --~ ----- .------------------- - ._--. 26-Jan-99 ! Memo to Enoch Oktollik, et ai, !r0n1~andy Bates; Re: N* Petition I 7020 -----J._~_ _ ___________ '" - 20-Jan-99 i Letter & attachments to CPC Members from Melanie Duchin; Re: Petition I 7027 ---" - "~._ u.__.____._._ -----------..-0-- ~_._ _ ___ -- - ¡Letter & attachments to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Revised t ; 13-Jan-99 Proposed Consistency Determination _ I 7158 26-Jan-99 ;Memo to the CPC fr0n1i~r~.~·6~ë;!ay_; --Re:--hResponse to Petition __._h__________ : 7341 --- , : North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program t 7346 . ~..____. _h... _ "._ . - I - 4-Feb-99 ! Notice of Decision of the ~)__~~~a Coastal Policy Council , 7362 - _. -- I _h__ i I ------ h . ------.--- :TECHNICAL NOTES n~f"'t:I\/~f1 7363 . '\. L- "-I - Ii '" ---- SCANNED JUL 1 2 2004 FEB 0 9 ZD01 Alaska Oil & Gas Coos. Commission Anchorage 21 I ',~ .;"'t ~. ''';þ J "'I.. '.' NorthstarDocuments I. d IMemo to Anthony Bra~èn from VicManikian; Re:Calculation Note No. 310 I BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc., Pressure Design Northstar Development Proiect· - - 1-Aug-96 I Preliminary Engineering ! I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation Note No. 320: I Flow Analysis, Revision 1 - !Technical Note TN330;Design Basis IMemo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Technical Note No. 410 ¡Review Comments on Technical Note 410 !Ice Keel Protection: Technical Note TN410 Rev. 1 I Nixon Geotech Ltd, "Geotechnical Input to Ice-Scour-Pipelinelnteraction Study' 20-Sep-96 ¡ for BPXA Northstar Pipelines" !Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Technical Note No. 415 I (Strudel Scour Evaluation, Revision 1) !Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: - Tech. Note 420 (Seal Island ¡ 22-Jan-97 I Approach, Rev 1) ! Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Tech. Note 440 (Cathodic I I Protection) IMemo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Tech. Note 450, Rev. 1 I (Lagoon Permafrost) ¡Nixon Geotech Ltd., Thaw Settlement Design for BÞXA Northstar Pipelines ! Point Storkersen Shore Approach I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Tech. Note 470 Rev. 0 22-Jan-97 : (Trench and Pipe Stability) I Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation Note No 510, 1 : Rev. 1 (VSM Evaluation)_ _,___ ¡Review Comments on Calculation Note No. 510 - --. .-..---- iVSM Evaluation; Calculation No. 510 ---,..--- -.---.-.--- , ! Memo to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Tech. Note 530 (Overland ¡ Pipeline Routing) _______ _ _u______ ¡Review Comments and Addendum on Tech. Note 530 n__ __.__._. .___ _ _ ___ _ !"Overland Pipeline R~~!!:!g~~ec~. Nc:>te5~Q ~"Overland Pipeline Routing;"__~ech. No!~ß3'p Rev. 1 "'Expansion Stress ~~alysis," Tech. Note 540 _ Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vic Manikian; Tech. Note 660 22-Jan-97 : (Winter Test Trench Summary) --- ,Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Tech. Note 720 , 22-Jal1.-97_ (Operations, Maintenance. and Repair) _____ Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation ' 22-Jan-97 Note 730, Rev 1 (Pipeline Tie-ins) .---< Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation i I 22-Jan-97 'Note 740, Rev 1 (Pipeline Construction Plan) 'Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Long Reach 22-Jan-97 Excavator Capacity-Technical Note _u _ _n.·__ 1-Jul.96 _____ ,P~pe_l_in~_Cornmi~~ioning and Start-Up' Ç~I~~lation ."0. 770 1-Jul-96 Pipeline Construction Plan; Technical Note 740 __._ ---.-___.._._.. ..__ _ .-__ __ _, .___" _..___ ___'m 'Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation , 22-Jan-97 Note 750. Rev. 1 (Open Water Contingency Plan) 7 -Oct-96 7-0ct-96 1-Jul-96 , 7-0ct-96 2-0ct-96 24-Sep-96 7 -Oct-96 7 -Oct-96 22-Jan-97 5-Sep-96 11-Sep-96 22-Jan-97 19-Dec-96 1-Jul-96 28-Aug-96 27 -Aug-96 1-Jul-96 1-Aug-96 1-Jun-96 ---.- - ....-. - -..- __no ..._____ e . ,j' .. ..," -," 22 ; 7364 7366 7379 7499 7876 7877 7880 7931 8106 8228 8304 8337 8370 8535 8599 8686 8687 - 8690 I 1 i i I I 8754 u____.________ 8755 8759 8775 8824 - -_.- ~----_._..-_..- .---<..- - ----- ----~- ~ 8967 -.-------. ----- 9001 u ___ _____ - 9095 9211 1 ________4_____._ ..- . 9253 --.-----.----.--...- 9270 ____,._. ._...n.___.______,.~ __._ j 9278 _ _ _ ____<--__ ___ .n _. h _ 9319 __o>:"~-. r " ... Northstar Documents.ex . 22-Jan-97 28-Aug-96 20-May-98 8-0ct-96 - 3-Jan-97 19-Jun-98 15-Jul-98 16-Jul-98 15-Jul-98 25-Jun-98 22-Jun-98 7 -Jul-98 3-Jan-97 3-Jan-97 26-Jun-97 3-Jun-96 2-Apr-96 6-Jun-98 - 9-Jun-98 14-Dec-98 I Memo & attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Calculation i ¡Note 770, Rev. 1 (Pipeline Commissioning and Start-Up) i I Memo and attachments to Anthony Braden from Vie Manikian; Re: Technical : i Note 830 (Offshore Pipeline Route Options) ì I I MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT RELATED DOCUMENTS 1 Coastal Project Questionnaire and Certification Statement I Letter to Molly Birnbaum from Peter Hanley; Re: State Permit Applications I Submittal: Civil Construction I Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: EIS Notice of I(information ¡Transmittal i ' ¡Letter & attachments to Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re:Combined CPQ I Letter and attachments to Peter Hanley from Glenn Gray; Re: Request for ' iAdditionallnformation Deadline I I Memo to Glenn Gray from Brad Fristoe; Re: Info Request, N* PSD Application' Memo to Gene Pavia from Robert Watkins; Re: Request for Additional Info Addendum to Report: Realistic Scenario for the Spring Break-up Period ' Letter to Gene Pavia from Dan Ritzman; Re: Public Comment Period on the ' Draft Environmental Impact Statement Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas I DevelOpmentlNorthstar Project ¡Letter & attachments to Terry Carpenter from Benjamin Nageak; Re: ¡Extension of Comment Deadline - !PIPELlNE RIGHT-OF-WAY APPLICATIONS Pipeline Right-of-Way Lease Application ! Letter to Jerry Brossia from Peter Hanley; Re: ROW Lease-Revised !Application ! Letter & attachments to William Britt, Jr. from Peter-Hanley; Re: Pìpel¡ne-m --- ! ROW Application .----- - ._--_._.~. -- -. .._----------~--- - ---- .--- ~..- --. .-.--.-.--.-------..-.....- 9547 ----. -,.- ---- -- - -_. ~-_._- ! MATERIAL SALE AUTHORIZATION (FOR GRAVEL) !APPLICA TIONS --- ---. .--- -.---- I Letter & attachments to Nancy Jones from Peter Hanley; Re: Application for i i Material Sales ' _u._._ _ ~ n__.__.. -- ---_____ --0...-.----.. ____ - .--- -.-- ! MISCELLANEOUS LAND USE PERMIT (LAS 19595) i APPLICATIONS 23 9354 9364 : 9380 9381 9389 9401 9404 9413 9415 9417 9441 9465 9467'; 9472 9473: 9545 ~ ------------ 9569 9570 9600 I Letter & attachments to Peter HanleyfromChris-MTlles; Re: Off:-RoadTraveTT------- --- f Permit (LAS 19505) Permit ~m.~"-dl"!:!ent ___ _~_ ___________ _ _____ __~_ _ ___~~01 _ ______ I Letter to Peter Hanley from~~~n__~~nch; R~~No~hstar !ce Road~ _______"__ __~606 _______ ; Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Ice Road i i Construction Approval: Clarific;ation of the Approval Process ! t I Letter to Nancy Welch from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Ice Road I ¡Construction Approval: Wi~!er 1998-1999 Island Construction i ! RECEIVt:U ... SCANNED JUL 1 2 2004 FEB -0 9 (nf'i1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. CommisSion Anchorage 9607 9609 -', , - -¡:# .,.. -, ..... ,~ Northstar Documents I. . 24 ! UNIT PLAN OF OPERATIONS , 9611 I Letter to Bruce Webb from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Lease Operations i " J',)! 8-0ct-96 Approval: Civil Construction 9612 Letter to Bruce Webb from Peter Hanley; Re: Notice of Info Transmittal: Final ¡ 3-Jan-97 I Northstar Project Description I 9616 I Letter to Bruce Webb from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Lease Operations . 8-0ct-96 I Approval: Civil Construction 9629 i TEMPORARY WATER USE PERMIT APPLICATION i 9624 26-Nov-96 I Temporary Water Use Permit i 9625 ! Letter & attachments to Jack Kerin from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for 8-0ct-96 ¡Temporary Water Use 9627 ¡ ! FISH HABITAT PERMITS APPLICATIONS 9640 -- i 8-0ct-96 I Letter to Alvin Ott from Peter Hanley; Re: State Permit Applications Submittal 9641 ! Letter to Alvin Ott from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Ice Road Construction, : 14-Dec-98 i Approval I 9645 I ; j : SOLID WASTE PERMITS APPLICATIONS i 9647 iLetterto Glenn Gray from Peter Hanley; Re: Solid Waste Treatment Facility , , I 11-Jun-98 ! Permit Application ; 9648 I Letter & attachments to Paul McLarnon from Janet Platt; Re: Solid Waste 1 I ! 29-May-98 iTreatment Facility Permit Application ¡ 9649 ! Letter & attachments to Paul McLarnon from Janet Platt; Re: Solid Waste 1 ! 29-May-98 !Treatment Facility Permit Application 9679 -- i Letter & attachments to Paul McLarnon from Leslie Griffith; Re: Solid Waste ~ 15-Jul-98 [Treatment Facility Permit Application , 9709 I ! Letter to Laura Ogar from Peter Hanley; Re: Solid Waste Treatment Facility: ! ¡Transmittal of Preliminary Engineering Drawings and Supporting Treatment ¡ I 27-0ct-98 !Facility,Operations Plan ! 9734' : I ! ! : SHORT -TERM WATER QUALITY VARIANCE APPLICATIONS i 9749 - --.--------- "----.... ---~ : Letter & attachments to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for 26-May-98 ¡Short-Term Variance to Wat~_Qu~lity ~télndards 9750 . __._nO __ ___________ __. . ; Letter to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Request for Short-Term 1-Jun-98 ¡Variance to Water º~_ali~_~__~!anda!ds: D~te Correction 9758 - ._.-~ -. __~___.. ______.+ _.u___ --- - ---- -..--- --- , ! MIXING ZONE APPLICATION ! 9759 i--_ __ ¡Letter & attachment to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Mixing Zone I 10-Dec-97 ¡Application, Outfalls 001 and 006 i 9760 i --- .-----+--...--.---- 1 : i --.-..-- . --- --- ----- ---..---. 'WASTE WATER DISPOSAL PERMIT APPLICATION i 9878 Letter to Brad Fristoe from Peter Hanley; Re: Waste Disposal Permit -- I , 28-May-98 Application 9879 ---. _.._-----_..--.-~-_..- ..-. Northstar Documents x 25 1404 PERMIT APPLICATION 9881 I Letter & attachments to Terry Carpenter from Peter Hanley; Re: 404 Permit 1-Jun-95 !Application 9882 NORTHST AR AIR APPLICATION I Letter & attachments to Jim Baumgartner from David Wallace; Re: Permit 20-Feb-98 !Application Letter & attachments to Distribution List from Peter Hanley; Re: Transmittal of 19-Aug-98 I Northstar Title V Air Permit Applications ¡Application for an Air Quality Control Operating Permit for the BP Exploration 1-Jul-98 : (Alaska) Inc, Northstar Tie-In at Pump Station 1 ¡Application for an Air Quality Control Operating Permit for the BP Exploration 1-Jul-98 i (Alaska) Inc Northstar Gas Offtake Facility 1-Jun-98 1-Jun-98 I NORTHST AR CONTINGENCY PLAN ¡Letter & attachments to Joe Sautner from Peter Hanley; Re: Oil Discharge i Prevention and Contingency Plan Application for Approval i Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan IOTHER DOCUMENTS (In possession of the Court) i u.s. Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-Jun-98 I~ iU,S, Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental impact Statement 1-Jun-98 i:iQL2 ~-'--'~'-'- i U,S, Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-Jun-98 i~ ^~--,,_._-^ U.S, Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental impact Statement 1-Jun-98 -'~'~'-'--~-~~-'--'- Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1-Jun-98 ¡Appendix A I U.S. Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix B --~ ._---- ~ U.S, Army Engineer District, Alaska; Draft Environmental impact Statement . ____. Appendices C Through J 4-Feb-99 Northstar Petition Hearing 9886 9887 9901 _._.._._-~---_.._- 10009 10063 10128 10129 ~~._-~----_._- 10152 1 -,-_.._~------- 103 345 834 1086 1275 ~ -" .._---.,~-,._~~.-._~--~"- 1521 -"-~~-----"~---'-----'~-- 3 ._A. ~ -.. ~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) '- Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby petitions 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 AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029-22996-00 (3) Decision on which petition is filed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow permit the development well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR UNIT NS-26 200-211 APPROVED: 01/12/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: I298FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 3367FT FSL AND 3503FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM LSE: ADL0312799 NORTH STAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points Raised in Petition: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Petition to the AOGCC page 1 RECEIVED FEB - 7 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage .- ,...., .~ Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling permit. AS 46.40; 6 AAC 50; b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and petition regulations, or give notice ofthe single well permit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action of the AOGCC to approve the permit, without notice, violates Petitioner's 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 ensure that the Seal Island reserve pit/dike has been installed to facilitate the safety ofthe 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 BPXA has failed to comply with page 2 RECEIVED FEB - 7 2001 Petition to the AOGCC Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission . An~horage ,--..., /"- 20 MC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to carry on all operations and maintain 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 underground injection well, or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation. Notice of Intent to file Supplemental Petition Petitioner hereby notifies the AOGCC that it will supplement the points raised in this petition, after receipt of the agency record. Request for Stay Petitioner hereby requests a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of this petition. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT / (, í'h ,./ i2i1l'! ~.... \ / ¡'Ii). LDcl '- /VI. 1 ¿t /; . Nancy S.)Vainwright on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. page 3 RECE\VED FEB - 7 2.001 Petition to the AOGCC Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage 2 r---- ~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION ST ATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) ERRATA Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby submits this errata to the previously filed document. The document was erroneously titled "appeal." The title should be "petition" and Petitioner has amended the document by deleting all references to "appeal" and "appellant" and substituted "petition" and "petitioner." Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ( (1/1' , jf~~/ J tt~J66 NANCY k WAINwRIGHT on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Errata Petition to the AOGCC RECEIVED fEB - 7 2001 page 1 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ~ ---\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certifY that on February 2,2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Documents served: Errata Petition of the AOGCC decision to approve development well 50-029-22996-00 Dated: 2/2/01 J i J !f /' Ú' / - 1 i /1 . (. /' i1 --/í l-L, J l /~.. C /; Nan¿y S. Wainwrig~t Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC appeal Certificate of Service 02/0 1/0 1 RECE\VED FEB -1 lO01 k 01 & Gas cans. Commission Alas. a I AnchOrage ; r-, '-", " .~ RECEIVED I' ~B 0 7 2001 Alaeta Oil" Gaa t"..ø- Cnm,..:.._, An """'". -""'.'1IoJIIÎOn ~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION ST A TE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decísion to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ). ) ERRATA Petitioner Greenpea.ce, Inc. hereby submits this errata to the previously filed document. The document was erroneously titled "appeal." The title should be '1'etition" and Petitioner has amended the docwnent by deleting all references to "appeaP' and "appellant" and substituted '"petition" and "petitioner." Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. W AINWRlGHT JÚ!1 f (U/ {¿'6 NANCY S. W AIN~GHT on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Errata Petition to the AOGCC page 1 ~ ,~. Nancy S. Wamwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 R£:C£:/I¡€D ~ i.:: 3 0 I EOOl . Oil" Gas ('".- Al7cb WUfI8. ~ PETITION TO THE OféWe ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby petitions the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, State of Alaska, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and pro'Vides the following infonnation: (1) This petition is timely filed within 20 days of the AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029~22996~00 (3) Decision on which petition is filed: Decision ofilia AOGCC to allow pennit the development well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR UNIT NS-26 200-211 APPROVED; 01112/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1298FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, Tl3N, RO13E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 3367FT FSL AND 3503FT FEL, SEe 11, TI3N, ROBE, UM LSE: ADLO312799 NORTBSTAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points Raised in Petition: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Petition to the AOGCC page 1 .'~ ,-... . Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling pennit. AS 46.40; 6 MC 50; b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and petition regulations~ or give notice of the single well pennit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action of the AOGCC to approve the permitt without notìce, violates Petitioner's administrative due process rights. c. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient primary well control for drilling. 20 MC 25.033. d. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient secondary wen control for primary drilling and completion 20 MC 25.035. e. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 MC 25.036. f. The AGGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 MC 25.047, or to ensure that the Seal Island reserve pit/dike has been installed to facilitate the safety of the drilling operation, and to prevent contamination offteshwater, seawater, and damage to the surface envirorunent. 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 BPXA has failed to comply with page 2 RECEIVED i .:8 01 2001 AI- OIl 4 Gas Cc¥Is, Co~ AncfIorase Petition to the AOGCC ,~ ~, . , 20 MC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to catTY on all operations and maintain 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 tteshwater. j. AOGCC has failed to conduct an analysis of coastal impacts from the well drilling, well operations, the underground i~ection well, or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation. Notice of Intent to file Supplemental Petition Petitioner hereby notifies the AOGCC that it will supplement the points raised in this petition, after receipt of the agency record. Request {or Stay Petitioner hereby requests a stay of the pennit pending a hearing on the merits of , this petition. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. W AINWRlGHT ,la~ i n,U/~ ~b Nancy S. Wl1wright ~ on behal of Greenpeace, Inc. REceiVED : .:.j 0 1 2001 AI- 011 , Gas Cc¥ls. COrnl11i8eíon Anœorage Petition to the AOGCC page 3 ,--- ~, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certì1Y that on Febmary 2, 2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky F el<ÙtlaIl & Orlansky 500 L Street; Suite 400 Anchorage, AI< 99501 RECEIVED i'~S 01 2001 Alaiœ Oil & Gas Coos. Commiseion AndJorage Documents served: Errata Petition of the AOOCC decision to approve development well 50-029-22996-00 Dated: 2/2/01 ~ ) f f! "ft~ " It, I /I ':' I.' ' ! ~/ {~, ' f 't~,: (Ii Nandy S. Wainwriglit Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC appeal Certificate of Service 02/01101 ,,---- " Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515-3538 Telephone: (907) 345-5595; Fax: (907) 345-7666 E-mail Address:nsW@:¡Jaska.net FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date; February 2,2001 Attention: AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 :From: Nancy S. Wainwright Re: Northstar Pennit to Drill 50-029-22996-00 Petition Errata Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 6 If any page$ are unclear Or do not arrive, please call (907) 345-5595. ~ ~~c~~~ Alaska Oil & Gas ConS. Commission AnctJOfëIge 1 ... .~ ~, " Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 ~ APPEAL TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Appeal of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) Appellant Greenpeace, Inc. hereby appeals the decision of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, State of Alaska, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and provides the following information: (1) This appeal is timely filed within 20 days of the AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029-22996-00 (3) Decision being appealed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow permit the development well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR UNIT NS-26 200-211 APPROVED: 01/12/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1298FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 3367FT FSL AND 3503FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM LSE: ADL0312799 NORTH STAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points on Appeal: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management page 1 RECEIVED FEB - 5 2001 Appeal to the AOGCC Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. CommissIon Anchorage ~ ~, Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling permit. AS 46.40; 6 AAC 50; b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and appeal regulations, or give notice of the single well permit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action of the AOGCC to approve the permit, without notice, violates 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 ensure that the Seal Island reserve pit/dike has been installed 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 BPXA has failed to comply with page 2 RECE\VED FEB - 5 2001 Commission A task a 01\ &. Gas cons. 1'\1 AnchOrage Appeal to the AOGCC ..< . ~. .---., 20 AAC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to carry on all operations and maintain 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 underground injection well, or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation. Notice of Intent to file Supplement Points on Appeal Appellant hereby notifies the AOGCC that it will supplement these points on appeal after receipt of the agency record. Request for Stay Appellant hereby requests a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of this appeal. Respectfully submitted this 1st day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ( '\ f I . \ /. J' /'. ¡ '/ ; \. / ~r1rvc~,./S ¿iJJ~,~ íL . Nancy Wamwnght ~ on behal of Greenpeace, Inc. page 3 RECE\VED FEe -5 ,001 . as Cons. Commission Ataska 0\\ & 2nchOrage Appeal to the AOGCC ,--. ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 1, 2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Documents served: Appeal of the AOGCC decision to approve development well 50-029-22996-00 Dated: 2/1/01 \':' I n\ ? vI, '(/1 ¡ /)~ ILl it - ;~. v \.; (IV V . Nancy S. Wainwright \ Attorney fòr Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC appeal Certificate of Service 02/01/01 "..-. ~ECEIVED - Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 FES 01 2001 AIa8ka Oil & Gas Cons. Cornmis8ion Andlorage APPEAL TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV ArrON COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Appeal of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) Appellant Greenpeace, Inc. hereby appeals the decision of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Conunission, State of Alaska, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and provides the following infonnation: (1) This appeal is timely filed within 20 days of the AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029-22996-00 (3) Decision being appealed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow pennit the development well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSrAR UNIT NS-26 200-211 APPROVED: 01112/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1298FT PSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, ROl3E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 3367FT FSL AND 3503FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, ROBE, UM LSE: ADLO312799 NORTHSTAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points on Appeal: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Appeal to the AOOCC page 1 ,.-..," ~ Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling pennjt. AS 46.40; 6 MC 50; b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and appeal regulations, or give notice of the single well pennit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action of the AOGCC to approve the pennit, without notice, violates 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 wen control for primary drilling and completion 20 AAC 25.035. c. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 AAC 25.036. f TIle AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 MC 25.047, or to ensure that the Seal Island reserve pit/dike has been installed to facilitate the safety of the dríIling operation, and to prevent contamination of fteshwater, seawater, and damage to the surface enviromnent. g. The AOGCC has failed to require abandonment plans in accordance with 20 MC 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 BPXA has failed to comply with RECEIVED Appeal to the AOGCC page 2 (.;:8 01 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commiseion Anchorage ~ ~ 20 MC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to carry on all operations and maintain 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 fteshwater. j. AOGCC has 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. Notice of Intent to file Supplement Points on Appeal Appellant hereby notifies the AOGCC that it will supplement these points on appeal after receipt of the agency record. Request for Stay Appellant hereby requests a stay of the pennit pending a hearing on the merits of this appeal. Respectfully submitted this 1st day ofFebrnary, 2001. LA W OFFICES OF NANCY S. W AlNWRlGHT j k. - ,/ j¡ 1. /1/ \nLVY'vQ~:) vu,(¡(~ &VC Nancy Wainwright ~ on behal of Greenpeace, Inc. RECEIVED n:.B 0 1 2001 AI- Oil & Gat Cons. ComR\Ì$SÎOl1 And1orage Appeal to the AOGCC page 3 --- ~ CEØ,TIFlCATE OF SERVICE I certifY that on February 1, 2001 a copy of the following were served by fax and mail on: BPXA Attorneys Jeff Feldman Susan Orlansky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AI( 99501 Documents served: Appeal ofthe AOGCC decision to approve development well 50-029~22996-00 Dated: 2/1/01 j~&lKl~ ~.l{¡t Nancy S. ~ainwright , Attorney ~r Appellant Greenpeace RECEIVED ;-::.8 0 1 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Coos. Comnûssion Anchorage AOGCC appeal Certificate of Service 02/01101 ,-., -\ >" Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Pu1chorage,Aù( 99515-3538 Telephone; (907) 345-5595; Fax; (907) 345-7666 E-mail Address:nsw@alaska.net F ACSIMllÆ COVER SHEET Attention: AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 RECEIVED I ;:8 0 1 2001 AIatta Oil ~ ~ Date: . February 1, 2001 From: Nancy S. Wainwright Re: Northstar PeOlÙt to Dril150-029-22996..00 Appeal Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 4 rt QI~)I pages are unclear or do not arrive, please call (907) 345.5595. ~, ,-..., ~ ~. Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515-3538 Telephone; (907) 345-5595; Fax: (907) 345-7666 E-maìl Address:nSW@alaska.net F ACSJMll..E COVER SHEET From: Nancy S. Wainwright RECEIVED I :.8 0 7 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Coos ('hn"':".,- AnàJoraQé """""lIqQ{J Date: . February 1, 2001 AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 Attention: Re: Northstar Pennit to Dril150-029-22996..00 Appeal Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 4 If arry pages are unclear (jr do not arrive, please call (907) 345-5595. / I;;: gi, fJ1, +1U dj 0;( ~~ Sìa{ hfl/ : d '1~ ,Of/If r--, .~ r{ECEIVED Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 FE8 01 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Coos. Commission Anchorage APPEAL TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Appeal of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) Appellant Greenpeace, Inc. hereby appeals the decision of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, State of Alaska, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and (1) This appeal is timely filed within 20 days ofthe AOGCC decision. ~ ~\ provides the following infonnation: (2) Case reference number: 50-029-22996-00 Decision of the AOGCC to allow pennit the development well (3) Decision being appealed: 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC. NORTHSTAR UNIT NS-26 200-211 APPROVED: 01/12/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1298FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, ROl3E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 3367FT FSL AND 3503FT FEL, SEC Its T13N, ROBE, UM LSE: ADLO312799 NORTHSTAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points on Appeal: ~ a. The ADGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Appeal to the AOGCC page 1 ,.,.-.., ~ Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well dri1ling permjt. AS 46.40; 6 MC 50; b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and appeal regulations, or give notice of the single well pennit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action of the AOGCC to approve the pennit, without notice, violates administrative due process rights. c. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient primary well control for drilling. 20 MC 25.033. d. The AOGCC has failed to require sufficient secondmy wel1 control for primary drilling and completion 20 Me 25.035. e. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 MC 25.036. f. The AOGCC has failed to require the applicant to comply with 20 MC 25.047, or to ensure that the Seal !sland reserve pit/dike has been installed to facilitate the safety of the drilling operation, and to prevent contamination offteshwater~ seawater, and damage to the surface enviromnent. g. The AOGCC has failed to require abandomnent plans in accordance with 20 MC 25.105. h. The AOGCC has faited to require automatic shut in equipment to meet the . requirements of 20 MC 25.265. i. The AOGCC has failed to require, and BPXA has failed to comply with RECEIVED Appeal to the AOGCC page .2 I";:B 0 1 2001 At- Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ~ ~ 20 MC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to carry on all operations and maintain 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 offteshwater. j. AOGCC has failed to conduct an analysis ofcoastaI impacts front the well drilling, well operations, the underground injection wen~ or of the geophysical hazards associated with wen-drilling and operation. Notice of Intent to file Supplement Points on Appeal Appellant hereby notifies the AOGCC that it will supplement these points on appeal after receipt of the agency record. Request for Stay Appellant hereby requests a stay of the pennit pending a hearing on the merits of this appeal. Respectfully submitted this lit day of February, 2001. LAW OFFICES OF NANCY S. WAINWRIGHT ,Æ~... ~~~!A1'Yktä Nancy Wainwright ~ on behal of Greenpeace, Inc. RECEIVED 1":.8 0 1 2001 Alætca Oil &. Gas Cons. Cornmilsion AnGt1orage Appeal to the AOGCC page 3 ,-...., ,r-" . CElt1JJ!lCATE O}l' S~'RVICE 1 certify that on FebrUarY 1, 2001 . copY of Ù1ß fuJlo wing were served by fox and noú1 on: :BPXA Attorneys Jeff F eldma11 Susan OrlanSky Feldman & Orlansky 500 L Street, Suite 400 Anchorage, AK 99501 Documents served: Appeal of the A OOCC decision to apprO'< development well s().029 -22996-1)0 Dated: 211/01 ,'~ ", \ '1 JM\&\A\ W ~, Ai' Nancy S. \vainwrigbt \ Attorney ~r AweUant Oreenpeace RECEIVED ;-::.8 01 2001 Alaña Oil & Gas Cons. Com . . Anchorage mISSIOn AOOCC appeal Certificate of Service 02/01/01