The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutO 013 ,~ ~, 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. 0 !JIb Other Order File Date 0/;& Þ cf Color Materials .---....".'. r'" Added to LaserFiche File 0 Yes 0 No 0 Added (date) Digital Data Added to LaserFiche File 0 CD's - # - 0 DVD's - # 0 Diskettes - # - 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No Oversized Material Added to LaserFiche File 0 Maps # 0 Mud Logs # - 0 Other # - 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 No General Notes or Comments about this file. If any of the information listed above is not available in the LaserFiche file, or if you have any questions or information requests regarding this file, you may contact the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission to request copies at 279-1433, or email us at: AOGCC _Librarian@admin.state.ak.us ~ ~. -..." COUNSEL OF RECORD '-'-- CASE NO. \\ ~ å\fl I NAME MAILING ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBER !ÝIJ fry I $01 IÎ Iß J7;7$ /J¡) gtJ /irJ:; ß! ~??? c:Lct Çf?-? //3 ß: ~ ¡::; -11 np /} ì eo - eo u 17 t' ;? ~ /? Ó/ Þ f] f¡ tt¡ f¡ O() L Ii f 5k!i fa- r!!J TF-900 (l/98)(5Y2 x 8Y2)(canary-cs) KEEP ON TOP OF FILE FOR WHOM (J,ERe /vø&::2ce ~JL, g'k&J 7 (, ~ ¡, cliP/; - f:l;¿ c1? 11.tJ?âC¡ ~ --.. PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. For rehearing of approval of pe~its to drill API No. 50-029-23003-00 1. 2. February 21,2001 - Greenpeace's Petition 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 Request for Stay March 2, 2001 - Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay 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 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 10 r---. ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3539 Re: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, ) INc., for Rehearing of Approval of ) Permit to Drill No. 201-027 (API No. ) 50-029-22003-00). ) May 9, 2001 ORDER DENYING REHEARING In its Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay, the Commission stated that it would first consider whether Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill and would then proceed accordingly. The Commission stated that it would base its determination on any briefing filed by Greenpeace and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("BP") in the similar matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (which briefing could also address any additional considerations specific to this Permit to Drill No. 201- 027). Having now considered the briefs filed by Greenpeace and BP, the Commission declines to rule on what might be called the "standing" issue but instead denies rehearing on the merits. Because the petitions and the issues in the two matters are identical in almost all material respects, the Commission's decision here is based on the reasons set out in the attached Order Denying Rehearing in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211, as supplemented by the following. I. North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program One of the claims Greenpeace made regarding Permit to Drill No. 200-211 concerns compliance with the Alaska Coastal Management Program ("ACMP"). Greenpeace has repeated that claim here but has added the assertion that the Commission "failed to comply with the North Slope Borough CMP Policy 2.4.4(b );(f)." Greenpeace's reference to the North Slope Borough Coastal Management Program ("NSBCMP") is redundant, because the Northstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination encompasses consistency with the NSBCMP. "Standards of the ACMP include state standards found in regulations. . . and the enforceable policies of the local coastal districts. In this case, the North Slope Borough is the affected coastal district for the Northstar Project" Northstar Development Project Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency Analysis at 1, copied as Appendix 1 to Order Denying Rehearing, Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (emphasis supplied). The NSBCMP policies identified by Greenpeace were specifically addressed in this Consistency Analysis, at 30-32. See Appendix A to this order. II. Other Alleged Errors In addition to the same substantive errors alleged in Greenpeace's petition regarding Permit to Drill No. 200-211, Greenpeace alleges here that the Commission has failed to protect freshwater from contamination and has failed to witness certain tests or operations. The petition does not specify, however, the nature ofthe alleged failure(s) concerning protection of freshwater or how such failures ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 1 of 2 ,"'-""" /""'"\ might relate to the Commission's decision to issue Permit to Drill No. 201-027. As pointed out previously, the Commission is required under AS 31.05.090 to issue a requested permit to drill "unless the drilling ofthe well is contrary to law or a regulation or order of the commission, or unless the person is in violation of a commission regulation, order or stipulation pertaining to drilling, plugging or abandonment of a well." Protection of freshwater is an objective of several provisions of the Commission's regulations, but Greenpeace has not explained, nor is the Commission aware, how the drilling of the well in question would be contrary to any of those provisions. Similarly, even if it were true that the Commission failed to carry out certain inspections (and as far as the Commission is aware, the appropriate inspections have in fact been carried out), such failure would not retroactively invalidate a permit to drill that was necessarily issued before the occasion to perform the inspections could even arise. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: The petition for rehearing is DENIED. DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 9th day of May, 2001. ~~- ~Ou. If .' S~.;..o<>....x..""l~~ ,/~~J(('(; \ \ I . / "ì~Q\ I I '" I:.t - '/~!!~ ((\~~jl;~{'i}'fii~{ « ...";""è".'t' . ~ \~~!fft~~~fJJ C3;~ìwl ~~.J Cammy Oechs . Taylor, Chair Alaska Oil and as Conservation' ommission ~ M ' Þk.:U,~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: ~/q/Ol W ainwright/F eldman/Orlansky J~~~ 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 2 of 2 ~ Northstar Consistency A"-"ysis 30 February 4, 1999 Attachment B NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4. Required Features/or Applicable Development NSBCMP Policy 2"¡.4.(a) Vehicles, vessels, and aircraft that are likely to cause significant disturbance must avoid areas where species that are sensitive to noise or movement are concentrated at times when such species are concentrated Concentrations may be seasonal or year-round and may be due to behavior (e.g., flocks or herds) or limited habitat (e.g., polar bear denning, seal haul-outs). Horizontal and vertical buffers will be required where appropri'ate. Concern for human sajèry will be given special consideration when applying this policy. Several stipulations will ensure the project complies with this enforceable policy. Stipulations 118 and 119 require avoidance of grizzly and polar bear dens. Stipulation 87 allows the DNR Commissioner to resttict activities within the leasehold where threatened or endangered species are found. Stipulation 88 requires maintenance of the pipeline system to avoid significant alteration of caribou migration. Stipulations 126 and 146 ensure protection of species sensitive to noise by establishing vertical and horizontal buffers for aircraft. Stipulation 124 requires noise monitoring for island activities that may affect marine species. Lastly, Stipulation 125 requires consultation with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), the North Slope Borough and potentially affected communities regarding activities that could affect bowhead whales or whaling. BPXA has reached an agreement in principle for a conflict avoidance agreement with the AEWc. NSBCMP Policy 2"¡"¡.(b) Offshore structures must be able to withstand geophysical hazards and forces which may occur while at the drill site. Design criteria must be based on actual measurements or conservative estimates of geophysical forces. In addition, structures must have monitoring programs and safety systems capable of securing wells in case unexpected geophysical hazards or forces are encountered. The island and pipeline have been designed to withstand geophysical forces of ice ovenide, ice gouging, strudel scour, and erosion. The discussion in this document under the state ACMP Geophysical Hazard Areas standard provides a more detailed discussion on this issue. A f f t?y¡ ~ 11 A --'..c=--"'" Northstar Consistency rlysis Attachment B NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4.(c) 31 r, February 4, 1999 Development resulting in water or airborne emissions must comply with all state and federal regulations. This enforceable policy reminds the applicant that the project must meet state and federal regulations. The State of Alaska will issue permits that will ensure the applicant meets state regulations. A further discussion of air and water quality issues may be found under the state ACMP Air, Land and Water Quality standard earlier in this document. , , NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4. (d) Industrial and commercial development must be served by solid waste disposal facilities which meet state andfederal regulations. ' Stipulation 18 requires BPXA to maintain a conttact with a local refuse company and ensure that non-injectable solid waste is disposed of at a permitted solid waste disposal facility. Such a facility would need to meet state and federal regulations before receiving a permit. Stipulations 107 and 131 also require solid waste be backhauled to an approved solid waste disposal site. NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4.(e) Development not on a central sewage system is required to impound and process effluent to state and federal quality standards. Sewage effluent is addressed in the Environmental Protection Agency's NPDES permit and in the state's 401 certification of that permit. Stipulations 1 and 2 provide specific requirements to ensure that the effluent will meet state and federal water quality standards. Stipulations 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 will ensure that proper monitoring and reporting takes place and that the applicant meets best management practices and has an adequate pollution prevention plan. NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4 (f) Plans for offshore drilling activities are required to include a relief well drilling plan and an emergency countermeasure plan. The reliefwe// drilling plan must identify suitable alternative drilling rigs and their location; identify alternative relief well drilling sites: identify support equipment and supplies including muds: casing. and gravel supplies which could be used in an emergency: and specify the estimated time required to commence drilling and complete a relief well. The emergency countermeasures plan must identify the steps which will be taken to protect human life and minimize environmental damage in the event of 1) loss of a ~ Northstar Consistency" ¡lysis Attachment B drilling rig; 2) ice override; or 3) loss or disablement of support craft or other transportation systems. ~ 32 February 4, 1999 BPXA submitted a relief well drilling plan with the C-Plan, and this plan has been reviewed by the North Slope Borough. The company submitted an emergency countenneasures plan on November 6, 1998 to the North Slope Borough. Stipulation 127 requires that emergency transport be available to evacuate 100percent of the number of occupants of Seal Island at all times. NSBCMP Po/icy 2.4.4 (g) Offshore drilling operations and offshore petroleum storage and transportation facilities are required to have an oil spill control and clean-up plan. The plan must contain a risk analysis indicating where oil spills are likely to flow under various sets of local meteorological or oceanographic conditions. Impact areas must be identified and strategies fully developed to protect environmentally sensitive areas; the spill control and clean-up equipment which is available to the operator and the response time required to deploy this equipment under the various scenarios must be contained in the risk analysis. Intent: Policies 2.4.4. (f) and 2.4.4. (g) are not intended to establish new regulations for offshòre facilities. They restate and highlight requirements of existing regulations. Industry will not be required to go to considerable additional effort as a result of these policies. BPXA submitted an Oil Spill Prevention and Discharge Contingency Plan (C-Plan) to the Department of Environmental Conservation on July I, 1998. Through a process of requesting additional information, the company worked with the Department of Environmental Conservation to ensure that the agency had adequate information to make a decision. The Alaska Clean Seas Technical Manual, which will be a component of the Northstar and other North Slope C-Plans. will be updated no later than 60 days after the final approval of the Northstar C-Plan. The state is requiring that BPXA meet the conditions in stipulations 137 - 145 as part of the C-Plan approval. Attachment C of the Consistency Determination for the Northstar Project provides a detailed response to comments related to the C-Plan. NSBCMP Policy 2.4.4. (h) Offihore oil transport systems (e.g.. pipelines) must be specially designed to withstand geophysical hazards. specifically sea ice. As discussed under the state ACMP Geophysical Hazard Areas standard earlier in this document, the pipeline has been designed to withstand expected geophysical hazards ~ ~ 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. I. Is Greenpeace a "Person Affected" under AS 31.05.080(a)? AS 31.05.080(a) provides, in relevant part: Within 20 days after written notice of the entry of an order or decision of the commission. . . a person affected by it may file with the commission an application for the rehearing in respect of the matter determined by the order or decision, setting forth the respect in which the order or decision is believed to be erroneous. (Emphasis supplied.) Greenpeace asserts that it is affected by the challenged 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 concems, 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.2 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 1 to this order), the Division of Governmental Coordination made a fmal determination, on February 4, 1999, that the Northstar Development Project is consistent with the ACMP. See Exhibit 4 to Briefmg on Greenpeace's Right to Petition for Rehearing. It is clear from the Project Description and other portions of the consistency determination documents that this consistency determination covers the drilling of wells such as that whose permit Greenpeace seeks to challenge on rehearing here. The project description stated, in relevant part: Twenty-three wells will be drilled initially. One well will be a Class I disposal well for non-hazardous and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act To the extent that the Alaska Coastal Management Program has supplemented the Commission's authority, such considerations might be addressed under that additional authority. This question is considered below. No doubt every government decision has the potential to affect the public or members ofthe 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 of 6 ~, ~, (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. ld. at 2-3. Moreover, Attachment C to the consistency determination, to which the Commission contributed, includes an extensive analysis of the risk of blowouts during the drilling of wells and a decision to impose seasonal restrictions on drilling. See Appendix 2 to this order. The basis for Greenpeace's contention that a second consistency review must be performed for these same wells appears to be the fact that the Commission's permits to drill are not listed in the February 4, 1999, consistency determination as among the state and federal authorization to which "[t]his fmal consistency determination applies." Exhibit 4, supra, at 3. This omission is immaterial, however. A consistency determination covers activities or projects, not permits. The listing of federal and state authorizations is presumably provided as a convenience to the permitting agencies. In relevant part, 6 MC 50.990(a)(6) defmes "consistency determination" as (A) a document that (i) contains a brief description of the project under review and the scope of the project; (ii) states whether the project is consistent, consistent with stipulations, or is not consistent, and provides a brief statement of the reasons for that determination; . . . . (Emphasis supplied.) "Project" in turn is defmed as "an activity or use that will be located in or may affect the coastal zone of the state and that issubject to consistency review under 16 V.S.C. 1456(c) . . . ." 6 MC 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 fmal consistency determination for that project. Greenpeace, of course, had abundant opportunity to participate in the public process by which that fmal consistency determination was reached. 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? 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 Page30f6 ~, r---" 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 31.05.11O(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 ofthe public. If AS 31.05.060(b) applies at all to those permits, the permit applicant is the only person deemed to be "affected." It is worth noting in this connection that when the legislature enacted AS 31.05.060(b) (Sec. 7, ch. 160, SLA 1978), it was with the purpose of expediting the decision-making process in matters concerning a single well or single field by exempting those matters from the adjudication provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Speaker Malone, a co-sponsor of the legislation, explained in ORDER DENYING REHEARING Page 4 of6 ,r-', ~ 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. ¡d. 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 fmds no basis for rehearing with respect to its permit decision in this matter. v. The Commission Is Always Open to Receiving and Considering Information Bearing on Compliance or Non-compliance with Applicable Laws. Regulations. Orders. or Permit Conditions. Finally, it is worth repeating what was said in the Commission's earlier order. Whether or not the AS 31.05.090(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 of6 r-"-, /~ 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. ~ ~~~~rrr:~<~ ~~,l' 't","'."',',',',,\' , I' / I ""',0, >"" ~\ í Ä;;;'7! ~' " :', /--, /' ',\,"'~ ~}i)'n'L;~:![, "r5~J~ ~!1~i¡~1~;¡~~~v~~o~; , ,,'t ",' 'u":""'",;'""',""':","""'"A";;'~ '<, ..' '~Q':'::"5,;<':h;':';~1>~' ,,'V. ,v,/'~'I' """""""~,',""".iC~~/" '~ loFréol~ -,------ I Clul~ ~,} A1 -/ Cammy Oec, li Taylor, C~~6~- aniel T. Seamount, Jr;, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission JuW> M. ~ Julie M. Heusser, Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on May 9,2001, a copy of the above was mailed to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BPXA Attomeè\Jeff~~ Orlan sky J o~e,~Qtive 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 Page6of6 9 , ,. ,- ~. '.. LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 I, ~ J STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV A TION COMMISSION 333 W. 71th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3539 .~ RE: RECEIVED THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. ) for Rehearing of Approval of Permits to Drill ) API Nos. 50-029-22003-00 and 50-029-22996-00. ) ) 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 . ,. . I' ~ LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 f) Q 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. RECEI\JED MAR 1 9 ZO01 BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 2 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage to " .( . .- LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPONATIO. BOO L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 c c 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 8: ORLANSKY A PROf~SSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 c c 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 ." ~ . J LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A PROFESSIOHAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ~ r". ~ 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 8: ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CoRPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272.3538 c Q confidentiality provisions, since the applicant already would have access to the confidential materials utilized by the Commission in considering the permit application. Dated this 11 day of March, 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 Wainwright FA'I<ò f'f(!i ~ 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 By ~Lr) ~l . v" ()\~A-^,6t,: Susan Orlansky \ Alaska Bar No. 8106042 ¡ Ruth Botstein j Alaska Bar No. 9906016í f I i í ¡ f I f \ Robert Mintz rr\Q\ \ Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200 :~Ch[)t ~ Dated~rv J 0 ( BPXA's Briefing on Whether Greenpeace Has the Right to Seek Rehearing of Drilling Permits Page 6 8 I' { ,¡t, '~ -'" .,.. .,' ~ ~.) STATE OF ALASKA ) ) 58. ) Third Judicial District 1, Dan Ritzman declare; 1. 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 coastal and marine ecosystems in Alaska and the Arctic Ocean. In particular; I rely upon Greenpeace to represent me in pursuing my interest in protecting the fish and wildlife habitats, including river and ocean habitats, and cultural, educational, environmental 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 hann caused by oil exploration and development and associated activities, that would ínhibit my recreational, navigatíonal, aesthetic, cultural, educational and scientific activities. 4. My individual interests are based on the eINttOnmental, scientitïc, educational, 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 instream 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 of freshwater, seawater, underground aquifers and the surface environment, because such contaminiation inhibits my personal and constitutionally-protected use of these REGEl MAR 0 I , Alaska Oil & Gas Cor U l "II , , ;, , ... ~. ~ /~ ~ 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 ofllie Beaufort sea for educational, scientific, recreational and navigational needs. 6. My navigational, scientific, recreational and aesthetic use of the area is currently, 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 significant deprivation of my constitutional right of fteedom of speech and lawful assembly while on the offshore ice. 7. I atn a person affected by the activities of the State of Alaska, including the Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Oil and Gas ConseIVation Commission, the Department ofEnvironmentaJ Conservation, and the Department ofFish and Game, insofar as the activities of those agencies impact protect my interest in the public trust resources, my constjtutional interest in common use of Alaska' s resources, and my personal activities in this region. . ~:----- Further the affiant sayeth not Y ~ .. . /!fan Ritzman SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7th day of March 2001. ~ ø.~> Notary Public ín and for the State of Alaska My commission expires: ~. ~- (")' / RECEIVED MAR 0 9 zoni Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission . - Anchoraqe 7 ~t;;ANNED JON 2 ~ 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 50-029-22003-00 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 ofthe AOGCC allow 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 RECEIVED page 1 MAR 0 8 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ,> .>~ 'r . ~ '~ " to Greenpeace. The attached affidavits detail some ofGreenpeace's activities and interests that will be affected. 1 The pennit actions of the AOGCC that have the potential for devastating harm to Greenpeace, and the public interest include (but are not limited to): (1 )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 other relevant characteristics of the injected fluid; ¡Affidavits of Melanie Duchin and Dan Ritzman, Exhibits 1 and 2. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 2 " . " v ~ /'--,\ ~ mechanical integrity tests. The public interest in the waters of the state, and in the fish and wildlife, are confirmed 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 are~ and ringed, bearded and spotted seals haul out 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 Americ~ 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 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 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 " J /'"'. J 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 web site 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. 1 ° Affidavit of Dan Ritzman, Exhibit 2. ¡1Affidavits ofDuchin and Ritzman, id. 12Exhibit 3, AOGCC website page identifying "customers." Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 5 " 'J ..~ ~ 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 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 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 31.05.0901 The procedures in AS 31.05.080 are applicable to all of the AOGCC orders or decisions. A pennit do drill pursuant to 31.05.090 is an "order or decision of the commission." 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 " " ,,~ ~} 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 ,i~ (~¡ tM- 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 Briefmg on limited issues page 7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE GREENPEACE, INC. ) Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) J Nancy S. Wainwright 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 345-5595; (907)345-3629(fax) Alaska Bar # 8711071 v. STATE OF AIJASKA, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENT AL COORDINATION AND ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL Appellees. BRITISH PETROLEUM EXPLORA 110N ALASKA, INC. Intervenor-Appellees STATI~ OF ALASKA lòird Judicial District 1, Melanie Duchin affirm: /~ J./ 3 AN 99-3350 AFFIDAVIT OF MELANIE DUCHIN ) ) ss. ) L I have persona] knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto. AJ7FIDA VIT OF MELANIE DUCHfN page I of 5 Exhibit: \ page 1 of 5 J-. /---.. -J/ 2. 1 am a (}reenpeace, Inc. representative in Alaska, and an issue specialist for the Greenpeace CJimate 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 intemational1y 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, environmental and scientific values of tile 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 l>roject area and other parts of the Arctic region. 5. Greenpeace gathers, analyzes and disseminates information to the public about these pr~jects 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 educaHon, and to foster a robust and fair debate on issues of local, state, national and international significance in this region. Dissemination of this information is not limited to members and supporters of Appellant's non-profit group, but is provided to members ofthe public. page 2 of 5 Exhibit' , page 2 of_5- AFFIl>A VIT OF MELANIE DlICllIN '. .' J /"-... J 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 oil 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 Nortbstar pr~ject, and has specifically focused on co~tal zone and habitat impacts from water use. Greenpeace has commented on water use permit<;, pursued administrative appeals concerning water use permits, and haC) attempted to obtain copies of DNR and DGC water permitting documents because of its concem about impact" to the coastal zone of winter water withdrawal. 8. Greenpeace, 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 Greenpeace's investigation has led to the conclusion that without protection of the instream flows, the continuous withdrawal of water from the Kuparuk river, with no ànalysis of coa"tal zone impact<;, may result in significant harm to coastal resources and the riverine habitat. We have bac;ec ()nclusion on page 3 of 5 Exhibit: , page 3 of 5 AFFIDA VIT OF MELANlE DUCHIN ,~ 'of c......, \,.,I, / "'J' '. 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 tó pursue litigation and administrative appeals against DNR and DOC over the illegal water permitting. Greenpeace has expended legal fees and costs to administratively appeal to DNR and DGC (challenging the Northstar water pennits, and the ACMP detenninations on those permits) that exceed $100,000. Because the Courts do not favor recovery of costs and legal fees for adtrtinistrative appeals, it is unlikely that Greenpeace will ever recover those costs, even though Greenpeace has been, and may be, successful in Court chalJenges. If Greenpeace is required to again, appeal administratively the Northstar 0 water use for winter 2000-2001, additional unrecoverable legal costs and fees wjIJ be incurred, resulting in significant irreparable financial injury. 10. In 1999-2000 Greenpeace administratively appealed the DGC-sanctioned temporary water use permit, TWUP AOO~ I 0 to both DOC and DNR. However, on the eve of the Court's review of that permit, BPXA stated that it would not use additjonal water from the permit and that permit has now expired. Attachment 1. page 4 of 5 Exhibit' page 4 of_5- AFFIDA VI'!' OF MELANIE DlK.:HIN " J /"'-.. J Further the affiant sayeth naught. ~~ Melanie Duchin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this L- - day of December 2000 at Anchorage, Alaska. ~",".;f' ~ ",-, , OFF\<)IAL $EAL ~ ~\ : ' LARRY NmR~\ '13 )~ ~ '. NOTARY PUBlIC-STAT!: OFt.l;.ò::'\ ~ ~. My Comm. Expires 7/2412002 ~ ~~.$I$".i'#n-~~~ k~j - Notary P~~Ii~ in an~ for t~ S(at~' 1~a My commlSSlon expIres: ) N. ~ ð AFFn)A VIT OF MELANn:; DUC/HN page 5 of 5 Exhibit' 1 page 5 of_5- v""v"V" """" .LV."" ..~ IßJUUl , .. ' '/j:',:,::"" , ' ',' , ,',.". " " ,', ,', :, ,r'" J" " " " ¡,:"', , "",' .', .' , " " , ' ",' """, t " ' " , ' ' ,,:' , ' STArE OF ALAsKA,,:: 'f ":::.",', "" ",':": , ':, , " ",.', ,<):~s~,::',,', ""','<:,:,,',",':: ,,:::Ihin¡.judlcî~D.if¡~ct:~,,:' """:"J:'<'"",:,, ,..' ',',:,:"":,,.",: ,',',,',' "':,'<, ,:"""':,',,,,:,,::,', ".',":,..",:" ,',""" ,',:",:"""",,,,"',::,: ,,'" ","'" "" ":,',:,(päri,RitZm.an"dëdáre':'," "','" ',"'"',,, ":",,, "'::','..,""',',;"':,,,,:,',:, "',,".' " ' """'.,"l,:".'I~"ê~~~i~~fthe:¥sd~h~ari~.¡¡j~tt.". ..:,:,',',"':,:' ::':",':: <: :'..,":",,:,J;'.,,"',:lÌely,'UPÓriGieèriPêàèé,to,wòIk,on,my,:behal(in:educatïngme~åsw~lI,~'.'the',:':.':,..' :':"',:' , '::.',,'.,',. ','" ":pubHC~~~;inei.t:~~ies:~~e""¡~~ ~~J'n>í~~jni~tiÔuaJI;.~ëárit ":',', ,,", ',,: ,:..' .,,'.,: :,' ':.'., ,<..":',.',',",:,':':-",',',,::, ,,:' ",""'.':> "",': ':"',:";",,':,:'.',,","""':.":"""',',",:':.-0,'""".'::',>;,.',:,'..,",'"",": ,', ::'::::,",:,'" ,:,', :,:::"c;o~~:'åDämann~.'~~St~inÄ1M~,~(Ùh~'ArØiê'-:Oc:~ari.: :'in"~årlìbiÍl~; i,ieiy, '~~',>"" ,'::::"::,: ':,' ',:::::::::::::'::::::.' ,',::'{Ji~~~~,~~ë:,~,~"~~~s~t,';rn~J~"'~~suíri~,~œŸ:,:m~~~~~ :1~' p~i~~ng<th~;:~~~ :~~,:~i]~jie'. :,:"..', :::'::,,','.':,..', ','" ' > .'.' h~¡~~C~~ri~ ~~9c:$~bi~~i ~', ~ooi,¡,~~~~" :,':', ' :: , , ' ':j.",<,:..','::",:""':, ',', ',.',: , "..' ",:", "-::',"':'-:':"',: "":":""""':':"""'."':""."":'" ,'.':,','",,:,,"""::' "',,'" :-':',':,:,.."':",",',"":":..':': ':':.':" " < ,: ,,' ,"::, , : :',: sc(ëntiflc' 'VaJ~':'ófÀTçtje' :ecosyst~~Úfu(i.the ,n¡aWrá1.'Bea1no(t' sea 'en~~è~~':, T,~IY':<?IL:', , ': >..: '," ,"" ' ',:;:',.',," '.',,<:-:' :'-',.'...'>:,','", ,':':.',:"" :",..'::,:':~,',,::',>...':,::',,',: ",:"':'":,::"""""..,..,>~,:.'".'",..,,,,,..:,':'.',,'"""":""""':"""',""':"""::':"',,"': ' '" :"", :":,:,,,', :':GreenP':a.èe,.t(),,~s~ þ:le, ih'~dyo.,Øfug,t~'"e~fo~~'1~~a1,pi~~~~on8,tÖ pr~eø,'h~"oåúS~ ,:::,::,,"'>::, , "",' ... " ::~:u:~.':u,,:::' :",:":':':b;" '~ïi::'~x~i~i1ition"':~~"':,dev~i6PIßen~'" ':~d,~:,~So~~~t~d:,':'~~~tie~~::'~t':'~Çul~'<irmj¡,i~:':Ïny'\:::,',:::~: ':,',,', "":,::,',,,', ,-:,::,':',: .',:,':,'::,'~~e~~~~¿b~~'~a~g1î~ioßa1;'~~Sth~c~:~~aÍ, :'~du~ati~n~'~d,:~d~~c':~ctl~ti~~.,:"""':'<:"':::'~::;':,:"",:,:"::,, .::,' "",": ~" '. :.' . ..' .:....: .'...".'.. .'.'.....'.' ..',,"...'::4:'. .'.'.... idýin~~d6 ~~.~~'~~~""~sCi;';;iji~... ....... '.':'.'.'..."'.'..'. " ': ':"~"":"",'sü~sÌ~~ce~::'~~~~~iC,;:CÜltur~.':'~h':aiid:,~il(iÏife';"',~~",i~~~¡o~~,~j~~s~pr~~~~:',~-:'th~"':'",:::,,::',.""" ~;~~~~~/~/~; :.:..: :'~6~~dJiU~í~US~Oftheseho~: I h~á~!"'II\{ "~~b"~.. the :':,:,"".' .:.': .:.'. . .'.: ..: .'.'. .'. ", , ,::" ',~on~8:tiön',o~freshWater~ :'sœwäter~' ,uri4eigroun~,:àqu1fer8: :lJ)~ftbe:s~~'enviroIllAent:; ','. " ...:..:..' .'.: '.' ..'b""'~~'suol)êOtl';"'~¡';;¡",,~!ÎiÞiìs~ p~;'nal:uíd ¿~futj+r~..d~ nfth~~ '...' .:. '. '. .. ..' ',' ,.' " " "', ' ,: ,',", ' , " ", , u" " " , ,,' , " , '.,..,",' ,,' ' q, ,,' /' ,'" ' "" " ,,",-: , " , ,,': , " """ " ',u u :' " , -: , , , ' , '" ,,' , , , ,,' " , , , , , ' , ",,"', " , , ", '", ..................:~E~~th\ì..."2...... ..'" ":":~,.':"'~f %,. " ' , ' ,.,,' " " , " ' " ,,";" " :.': :'" ',' ',' .. . ,,' " " ,',' " ':' " , ' , , . ,,' ,," , , " " " " , : ' " , , ,,', " " , , ,,' ", , ......,...., ...... ".....u ....... "... .,~ .. , " C ,'," ",,", "", \, " , ",' " ,-----.. ~V~"', .. " .. ,.. .. , , , '," :~ ,,' , , .. , , ,', , ," '" " ' .., , '." ."i',:':resótiiceS~ , , " , , " ," "'" :':"'" ",', ",:, "::::,:,.",'5.,::','.,',ÍnÎ,'e~""d~~OOô,IJ'~~~¡"làwfu¡i.,e~åm¡,mgfur.' ~ .:. ....:... ....:. eðu<OaiiO!ial;~è,~óna1,~dria~~ ~~~~I~ ~ø;,,~<. . ::>:, .",.' "',:: ~f~P~orts..~n~~~~Aect~~lan~) hav~ois~u.~¡e~~.'~ ..: .',.,:,' ' "" .. ,..: ".': . ,: ~;;fik~üfurt ~iO~~~i~g;J, .êi~ ~#~ and ~vi~~~~, ',' , ", " " , :. .,',', ,. '.: 6, ~;~~~Omd;Sciêrit¡fië, ';"èJ:<:atJ,;,ia¡, , án~aèstheti ~ùSe'~i~.aiU). . ,:' " '" .. '~y.'~d~.:~ely~~)IT~~riänd~"";\Ii!iú~l>í.icÌœd~" . :... '.' :,:',:"":,:,<":,>"':,:",,:,:,,,,,,:,,:,:,,,':,:',:','::';'"':,:"",:',',::":,:"':::-:',',"::,',',,',',,',,,"',':', """:~"":"":>":":":"':':':"",:,~,:',,:-":':":"',:,':":,'.".-:'"':",',':':,',',""':,:->:,',:,,:',,,,:..:..",':::",.':',::':"" ,"""':"':' """" ,:,acceS'S',to,',il~ble.\vaters, anâjmpðired..mY)ibdityJ,o"mgage'in,the,'aetiVitieS,':,ôr',to,:'use'-":,: ',:.""'," " .. .:'.: :,': ::Pu~Ii£;;,..~, ':~additibrJ;~'to . t},e., ~~~oiihé~~f!.J~.;iliBP~i '.:' i, ,:', :.', ,.': :~Pen~Ç~;¿~i~~~~~~~~ë~~;;~f~oi.~~~.;.' ", ',':'.' .,:', .' I~~~j~ ":::: .',:..::':",: ;,"Dep8rtiïi~rit: of..NaiW-.~:Reso~s,."the'ÅlåŠka,:ÖÜ '~d':~'..Çónsi~~atìòri.'c~JnW¡ssiòn;',the','", .':,',',,!::> ",',,' ::' '.. .',:.' .','. ..'..,"'~~ci;t if~~¿'D~"",~~;U;d ~ri~Ät lrii~¡an~b..në, :~~, :,',:.,...',' ,.,' .,,' ,',.,,' .' , ,," >'.' ,", .:,~~~~~~Of tJÍåse: ~~~~ ilnÍ'aCt~~~~~1Ite;'Ùb~ë~~t~~:::". .'..' .,:'.',.,' , ',',:,. . .'.' .",' ..."",: m;~O1lStiì!lÌi9Däiint~; ~~önuseóâii.sk'sniš"~k~ri;;~éBoD"¡.;;"iMticií ..'::, ",',,' .','.",' .."",' " " " , " . ' ',' " ' , , c;"',,,,'" :'::>:, > ".. ,:<:<::,;:':::::,,:::::',:::,::.': """",.',:>/:: :'c;:::::.', ,.'", ,,' " , , ; c"".' "," , " ',' ,', ""'" , ,", ," " '" ,,' .. <,', ..." ,,' """ " , " , , ' " , , " ," "'" , , ," , " ...i.". i:...: ..'..,'..,e= ~ Rt,b .'~~'åt'2-" ,,' , , , , , , " . Oil and.Gas Conserv.ation Commission - Departm91lof Administration L ~ /www.state,ak.us/local/akpages/ADMIN/ogc/core.htm V , ," ^"""""'~'-~-" ~~"._,""""".~""~" ........." ' oil and gas conservation commission ...~-,~.~...,._'. """~',"'P",,. 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 -OversiQht and Surveillance Functions ......._-"","-_....". O,""'---._...=m,,.. . AOGCC Home Page AOGCC Webmaster howard- okland@admin.state.ak.us ) of) ~x'n\ b,;- :3 ", c> + 3~/200) 3:09 PM '~~m1P~lt ~~~~~~J 0 FFI CE OF THE GOVERNOR TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION CJ SOUTHCENTRAL REGIONAL OFFICE ¿CENTRAL OFFICE 3601 "C"STRE£T. SUITE 370 P.O, BOX 110030 ANCHORAGE.. ALASKA 99503-5930 JUNEAu. ALASKA 99811.()()3() PH: ,(907) 269-74701FAX: (907) 561-6134 PH: (907) 46S-3562/FAX: (907) 4ô5-3(J75 0 PIPE.LINE. COORDINATOR'S OFFICE 417 WEST 4TH AVE.NUE. SUITE 2C ANCHORAGE., ALASKA 99501-234.3 PH: (907)271-4317/FAX: (907)272-0690 February 4, 1999 Peter Hanley BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. P.O. Box 196612 Anchorage AK 99519-6612 Dear Mr. Hanley: SUBJECT: Northstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination STATEI.D. No. AK9806-01PA 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 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 12. 1999 and a revised Proposed Consistency Detennination on January 13, 1999. Greenpeace. Inc. 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 145 million barrels of oil. The project proposal involves re- construction of a gravel island approximately 6 mites offshore in the Beaufort Sea, construction and operation of driHing and production facilities at the island, and construction and operation of a subsea pipeline. 006'763 :~ 3 'f" û "",,,..,on'~-' O..4;JSLH Exhibit A e~\\b,~ It p. \ "'" . Northstar DeVCIOP~"iio. 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 4 I 0 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 flom the Kuparuk JUver 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 constnlct the island anp several ~mall pads for valve sites and staging areas. The project involves construction of tWo pipelines: a erode oil sales pipeline and a gas pipeline. The crude oil sales pipeline will be a IO-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, wiII begin at the Prudhoe Bay Unit Central Compressor Plant and will run to the production island. PipelÙ1e 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 (dis~ce iTom 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 from thickened ice using excavation and other construction equipment. The onshore pipelines will follow anew route crom landfall near Storkerson Point to existing aboveground pipeline vertical support members (VSMs) near "En Pad where it will follow existing rightS:-of- way 10 Pump Station 1. The onshore pipeline construction will start in January 2000 and be completed in May of that year. Ice roads wiJI be built to access the pipeline routes during construction. The onshore oil and gas pipelines will be about 11 and 10 miles long, respectivc:ly. and wiJJ be placed on above ground VSMs using standard North Slope practices. At the shoreline transition, the buried pipeline wi11 continue approximately 150 feet from the existing shoreline to a gravel pad. The pipeline will be instaIJed above ground at the valve enclosure and controls building located on the pad. Twenty-three wells wiIJ be drilled initially. One well will be a Class I disposal well for non-hazardous and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt waste 33~ 006764 E~,b.tLt p.¿ . . N orthstar DeveJ opn'-"þo ~ State ID AK9806-0¡'p1{ 3 ':J/~ February 4, 1999 generated by drilling and camp activities. Fifteen wells wilI be for oil production, and 7 wells 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 from Peter Hanley ofBPXA to Temy Carpenter of the Army CoIps of Engineers. Permit applications, listed in the next section, provide additional infonnation 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 Permit U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Pennit Minerals Management Service (M:M:S) . 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-term 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) . MisceJlaneous Land Use Pennit (for ice road construction) Alaska Department of Fish and Game (DFG) . Title 16 Fish Habitat Pennits (for ice road and pipeline crossings) 339 006765 E~,~,~ Lt p.~ Northstsr Develop¡{' ~o~ State ID AK98Q6-~A . 4 -, C---~ 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,EI5, the state approved two 30-day extensions to the pubIi<? comment deadline. 'The state extended the public comment period to ensure the pubHc had adequate time to review permit applications and supplemental information provided by BPXA in response to information ~~~. - A state agency Technical Team, composed ofpennitters trom each agency, met on a weekly basis,throughout most of the review. 11ús team discussed project issues and procedures used for revi,ew of individual pennits. The J?GC 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 ACNfP standard or enforceable policy that is related to an agency authority will be considered by that agency during pennitting. Consistency Determinanon 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 detennination after careful consideration of public comments, review of Jease stipulations, consideration of mitigating measures incJuded in the project description, and development of the project- specific stipulations included in Attachment A of this consistency determination. These stipulations appear on individual permits issued under the authorities of the specific permitting 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 oj] spill issues. As appropriate, when considering best available technology and acceptable practices, project activities shall be consistent with the terms, conditions, stipulations and mitigating measures detailed in the most recent lease issued within the Unit. 34¡0 006766 ~}(~"b,f L\ p. 4 ., . 4) 5) 6) 7) Northstar DeVclopmenr"~ State ID 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 of Fish 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 FaciJity Site Reviews (project Description, sec. 8.2.1) and the Waste Management Plan. '. 2) The Department ofFish and Game recommends BPXA prepare a wild1ife response plan, similar to that of the Badami 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 wiII not become effective until a shoreline protection plan for the environmentally 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 approva~. The North Slope Borough has notified us that its approval will not become effective until the final EIS is complete ánd the federal agencies have issued permits for this project. The'North Slope Borough approved the use of a 2,800 baITel double-walled and double-bottomed tank and waived the requirement to provide lining and diking, in accordance with] 8 AAC 75.075. Please be advised that although the state has found the project consistent with the ACM¡>, based on your project description and any modifications that appear as stipulations contained herein. you are still required to meet all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Your consistency determination may include 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\ ~ ~. S , ,,# cc: Northsw Developf'.~j" State ill AK9806-Ò~A . c'~ 6 February 4, 1999 determine if further review and approval of the revised project is necessary. If the actual use differs fi-om the approved use contained in the project description, the state may amend the consistency determination and the state approvals listed in the consistency determination. 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 J>reserva~on Act may proceed. This is the final admlnistrative 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 601. By copy of this letter, we are informing the Corps of Engineers of our final determination. . Please call met at 465-8192 if you have any questions about this consistency determination or the stipulations contained in it. I may also be reached by email at: Glenn- Gray@gov.state.ak.us. Sincerely, -I, -¡ '--C~-. ~~ .rl Glenn Gray Project Analyst Mike Abbott, Governor's Office Max Ahgeak, Pres., Utpeagvik Inupia! Corp, Tom Allen, Dept. of the Interior. Bureau of Land Management Tom Barnes, BPXA Judith Bittner, DNR.SHPO Tony Braden, DNR, SPCO Larry Bright, FWS Bill Britt, DNR., SPCO Archie Brower, Native Village of Kaktovik Arnold Brower, Native Village of Barrow Terry Carpenter, COE Lanston Chinn, Kuukpik Corp. Robert Dolan, DEC Jeanne Hanson, NMFS 342 0067G8 f1('4\ In. + ,\?l, c CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~. V I certify that on March 7,2001 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: Briefing on Greenpeace's Right to Petition for Hearing Dated: 3/7/01 l ~!;d 1!:Jt Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC appeal Certificate of Servic~ b2/0 1 /0 1 RECEIVED MAR 0 8 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage " . J ~ c " . ,-... \,.. Nancy S. Wainwright Attomey at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV AllON 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~TITION 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 of February 9,2001. The commission's order stated that Oreenpeace must address specific questions, which Greenpeace has addressed below. I. In what ways is Greenpeace "affected" by the pennit approval in tbis matter? Greenpeace is affected by the pennit approval in numerous ways. First, Gl'eenpeace, and all Alaskans, have a constitutional right to common use of public resources. Decisions of the AOGCC allow pennits 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 detennination concerning the aquifers in connection with the drilling or injection of wastes, there wiJI be serious impacts to public resources of concern Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues \......-. page 1 '.. . # ~ \." ~ ~ J to Greenpeace. The attached affidavits detail some ofGreenpeace's activities and interests that will be affected. 1 The pemùt actions of the AOGCC that have the potential for devastating hanD to Greenpeace, and the public interest include (but are not limited to): (I)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 horn 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 AOGCCregulations, Chapter 25; (8)failure to require BPXA to timely demonstrate mechanical integrity of the 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 ofmonthJy average, maximum and minimum values for injection pressures; physical, chemical and otberrelevant 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 . . ~ L c 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 &equentJy 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 CO111lIlon use dause was intended to engraft in our constitution certain trust prmciples 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 trom over 37 miles inland to over 186 miles offshore, and are known to den near the Northstar island and onshore area. S The Beaufort Sea coast is also an important sununer 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 , Alaska Const. Article VIII, §§ 1,2,3,4~6,10,13,16,17. Northstar Draft Enwomnental Impact Statement (DEIS) 8.1 - 8.13. 3 .4 s Northstat DEIS 6.5~1 to 6.5-9.. DEIS 6.5-9. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on l.imited issues page 3 } c (' . ' 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 oftbe 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 Horn the Colville River to the Mackenzie River in Canada.' 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 simificant public interest. II. What is the meaning oftbe phrase "person affected" as used in AS 31.O5.080(a)1 The mission of the AOGCC "is to protect thepubUc interest in exploration and development of oil and gas resources, ensuring conservation practices, and maximum ultimate recovety, while protecting health~ safety, the enviromnent, and property rights." Therefore, a group that is dedicated to theprotectìon of health, safety or the environment, Ii VEIS 6.7-1. 7 VEIS 6.9-1. 8 Randy Bailey, fanner Chíef of the Fisheries Division, A1ask~ U.S. Fish and W'tldlife Service. Petition to the AOGCC Briefing o.n limited issues page 4 . ¡ c r . r is affected by decisions of the AOGCC. Greenpeace is such a groUp.9 Likewise, the individual members of Greenpeace are committed to heaJthy, 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 Of other representative of any kind, and includes a department, agency or ìnstnunentality of the state or a governmental subdivision of the state. Greenpeace is a non-profit corporation lawful1y organized to do business in Alaska, and its members are natural persons. II Therefore, any decision by AOGCC in issuing its pennits to drill, which results in approval or other action that affects the health, safety or enviromnent, 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 QJ;'ganizations. Alaska Department of Natural, Resources, Alaska Department of Revenue, U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency"1Z (Wlderlining added). Since Greenpeace is a concerned organization that represents concerned citizens, the AOGCC has a responsibility to afford Greenpeace access to its 9 Affidavit ofMe1aníe Duchin, Exln"bit 1. 10 Affidavit of Dan Ritzman, Exhibit 2. 11 Affidavits ofDuchin and Ritzman. id. l~xhibît 3, AOGCC website page identjf}'ing "customers.') Petmon to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 5 C' ("'. rehearing procedures, as it does any other affected person or corporation. The Alaska court's have repeatedly recognized a generous standing standârd, 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 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 Conunission 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 judicial review of A.OGCC decisions WIder this law. HI Do the procedures provided by AS 31.05.080 apply to the Commission's approval of an applitation for a permit to drill uDder AS 31.05.0901 The procedures in AS 31.05.080 are applicable to all of the AOGCC orders or decisions. A pennit do drill pursuant to 31.05.090 is an "order or decision of the conunission." The decision on the pennit to drill may affect health, safety or the 13 Alaska Constitution, Article VITI, sections 1,2,3,6,8, 10, 13, 16, 17. ~etitìon to the AOGCC Briefing on limited issues page 6 . r c r environment, 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 bas failed to carry out its mandatoty duties, or has eITed in its assessment of the facts supporting its detennination, then review under AS 38..05.080 must be pennitted. For example, Greenpeace a1~eges that neither the bivision ofGovemmental 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 .tram the ACMP review, and are not included in the [mal consistency detennination.14 Therefore, the pennits 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 ,j~ rlt~lit 14Final Consistency DetemùDation,2/4/99 R 6765-66 lists permits included in ACMP consistency determmation. There ìs no listing of AOGCC or permits to drill. Exhibit 4, Petition to the AOGCC Briefing on timited issues page 7 IN l1JE SUl'El{JOR COURT FOR THE STATE 01': ALASKA TfURD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE GREENPEACE. INC. ) Appellant, ) .> ) ) ) AFFIDAVIT OF ~ MELANIE DUCBIN ) ) ) ) ) } ) ~ .,- ') Cj ~ Nancy S. Wainwright r 303Q Back Road, Suite 5SS Ai\choragc, Alaska 99515 (907) 345*5595; (907)J45-3629(f~}() Alaska Har # 8711071 v. STATE OF ALASKA, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET DIVIS1ON 01' (JOVERNMENT AI,. COORDINATION AND ALASKA COASTAL POI,ICY COUNCIL AppeUees. BRI11SH PEfROLEUM BX1:JLORA nON ALASKAi INC. In tervenor- Appellees y, ' . "'.." ,. ,'" , ST ATE OF ALASKA Third Judicial District 1, Melanie Duchin affirm: C' '-".,/ 3 AN 99~3350 ) } ss. ) 1.. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth herein and am competent to testify thereto. A"FU)A vLT OF MEJ.ANlIi I)VCHIN ,-- page of S .. Ë;hibii: , 'p~ge~ ï' .. ~f =j="'""-'.'" (~, (' "../ 2. l' am a Gr~tlpeacc, Inc, representative in Alaska, and a11 issue specialist for the Greenpeace Climate Campaign. Greenpeace. Inc. i.s a non~profit corporation registered to do business in Alaska. 3. Since 1977 f'JTcenpeace bas worked on behalf of its supporters to educate the public and the government agencies on the value of protecting the intemadonally significant coastal and marine ecosystems in AJaska and the Arctic Ocean. 11) particular, Greenpeace has shown )ong-standing commitment in the areas of protecting the fish and wildJife habitats and cultural, educational, environmental and scientific values of the natural Beaufort Sea environment from hann caused by oil exploration and development. 4. Individua1 Greenpeace supporters' interests ate based on the environmental, scientific, educational, subsistence, cultural, and recreational values present in the Northstar l'roject area and other parts of the Arctic region. 5, Grecnpeace gathers~ analyzes and disseminates information. to the pubHc about these prQjectc¡ and oil exp1oration and development ìn the Arctic, and has devoted a significant amount of its resources to this public outreach. campaign. Th.e int~nt of Greepeace's participation is to encourage pubtic education, and to foster a robust and fair debate on issues of local, state, national and interoationa1 significance in this region. Dissemination ofthis iofonnadon is not limited to members and supporters of Appellant's non-profit group, but is provided to members of the pubHc. AI¡HI>A VI'!' OF MßLANfE DUCH1:N '..".....',."", page 2 of 5 Exbibit' 1 page _2 L of_5- , c~, c. . ' ""~' 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 Northstat' Project; to represent the public interest at public forums and in administrative agency deliberations on the Northstar Project; and to encourage debate on impOJ1ant issues, A primary focus of Greenpeace's ~f:forts are the ope~tjons and activities of government t\S they relate to the oil development in the Beaufort Sea regi()tl~ 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 co~tal zone and habitat impacts from water use. Oreenpeace has commented on water use pemÜt5, pursued administrative appeals concerning water use petmits) and has attempted to obtain copies ofDNR and DOC water pennitting documents because of its conccm about impacts to the coa..,tal zone of winter wate!' withdrawal. 8. Greenpeace, and its supporters, have beneficially used water, from tbc North Slope, for recreational, navigational, subsistence, and other public trust uses. The Kuparuk is an anadromous dYer, and Greenpeace's investigation has led to the conclusion that without protection of the instream flows, the continuous withdrawal of water ftom the Kllparok river, with no analysis (~f co8.t)tall.one impacts, may re.~ult in ¡;ígnificant harm to coastal resources and the riverine habitat We have base{ .,...' -.' onclusion. on A~FrD^ VIT OF MEl.AN1J:!. nt/CHIN . ,. ' ...,.. "'" ..,.. .-" "-" ""'..... , page 3 of .5 Eshiblt: , page. 3 ~, of - S- \ 1 c.~." ~' ""~'/ . . treatises, studies, and the investigation of Randy Bailey. Theretore, in June, 20.00, Greenpeace applied for a water right ftom the Ala.~ka. Department ofNatu.ral Resources to preserve the water for aquatic resources, fish and wildlife in. the Kupal1Jk River. DNlt has not acknowledged or processed the Greenpeace instream flow application. 9. Gt'eenpeace has been required to expend significant fínancia1 resources to pursue litigation and administrative appeals against DNR and DOC over the megal water permitting; f'.rreenpeace has expended legal fees and cosl'i to administratively appeal to , ' ,ONR and DOC (challenging the Northstar water pel111ít~, and the ACM,P determinations on those pelmits) that exceed $100,000. Because the Courts do not favor recovery of ' costs atld legal fees for adrpinistrative appeals, it is unlikely that Greeopeace will ev~r rec()ver 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 unrecoverabJe legal costs and fees win be inCUITed, resulting in significant iJTeparable fmanciat injury. 10. In 1999-2000 Greenpeace administratively appealed the DOC-sanctioned temporary water use permit, TWUP AOO-1 0 to both DOC and DNR. However, on the eve ()f the Court's review of that permit, B,PXA stated that it would not use additional water fTom the permit and that pertllit has now expired. Attachment 1. , ",.. '."'"....."", Arf[DA V¡." OF Mm.At-!JE I)t/CH1N EXhibit' page 4, page 4 or 5 , ".' , .-.." " 0'_5- c,...., (" ,....-" Further the affiant sayeth naught. ~'~" Melanie Duc11Ín SUBSCIUBED AND SWORN to betòre me this -:-t..-- - day of December 2000 at Anchorage.. Alaska. ,~u ' ,. ~ (,: OfFIf}\A~ $E~~,!~ ~. . :r: LARRY ANDR._...) t . " )(¡TAA'f P\II1.IC.S1ATE Of r.~.~:'., i . My Comm. Expires 7/2.412002 " ~-»»,~~",,~,W$~4JJS N~l~ ~,~~ ~~ My commiSSIon explres~--Z.L...t¿ ~ 0 ".v AJlllroA V!T OF MP-t.ANm DUCHIN page 5 of S Exbibit , ., " ',' . . " .' -" -...-.. page. ,5. .. of _5- " " " "" ,," ",C":"",,,,:,:',,'" " " .. , '" "'~, ,'" ' , '.. ", ',.' :, ',', , , """ ,." , ,'" " ,"', , ",," , ,,:-:", :' '.., " '.. ' .. ", 'P , ","', ,"" "'" ,'" "," , ," ",' ,..', ,'" " ",',,', i' ,..,' : ' ',' ",' " ", , @OOI , ," , "" ,,', . . " " '," , " " , , " .' "', ..","'", ',,", " , . c, , , ,:" "" , ,':"":',","STATlroFÀLÄstA'..:"'.'", "", "f""'" ....:"'..::/.".".'.'...,'..'}~i:i~:D~ttiOt::.,..:'..:'~,IS;..,"".',.,,' ""'.,..."""",.,', , , "" "'.J~'DänRi~ari'deéià.œ:,,'::,:, "",' ..,"" ,,',..',',: "', ':' , .. " ' " : ' '" ' ' , " " " ",,',: ".. '" ',", ' ',", .. ' " """""""":"""""""""""""" '"", """""""""""", ", :',",: :'L ,::j'bàvë,:ÞerS~.oaÏkuoWleågë'Of)h~:faêts'set"f~}l~~hi.ån~f.ártt'QPÏnP~~~ttò'::' ',":..' , , '" "','""'~s,tí~,~:,~~~::;,',::,:".,',,,""""""",'",.'""""", """~,,"",- """:] " ' '.. ," "" , .. .. '.. " " .,'.,',..,.,~"~"~ž,:"c;.+f;"~~qt~~:,'~.,"'" ,'" .',',~. ,'.,.',"""",, ,'.' .,', > . ,', "", . """":'~",'.:',~~~::","',:l~lYtlpÓri~eil~eÞ)'~Òrk'~~i',ibY.':b~Ji8tk:~~~c~,~~;,~~weÌ1'~:'Íh~":':":':":- :,', , ,", ,':, "':P~Ì>~C;"'~ ~:~~~;";~~Vàlù~ .;~~;&,~;~~cšrit ':',' '., ': :: ,', ,.' :':>"-",,:.-':,::,:,:,:.,.':,',::,,:"-0:, ""'-"":"':"'.:':,:',',:,,:':,,"':"::: ,,<.",': ',','"',':':" :',ço~t,al:,and,~tÙ:oOsySteni.s'inAlas;ka,"~d',the'Ar~fiê'Oçel1i1.',Jn"Ptil;t.ìcúJ~ '"ttely ~:n"," ,-:'::"" ,,' " ..',: ': :¿;';~to ~~:~~ ,j;,~~~Og~;~~~¡~ ~~e~~~{. :' ::. ',. ":, ,,':' ,,: : "':':~;.inoÎu~rl~;k~~bi~;' .~,~. ~~.;~~fi.t~: '.'":,, '. ," :<: '. .,,: ~ëa¿~;~~~~~.nci~e~~ ~~;':~~~;.~i;,,; ~ ," ~,' ':' " ','",:.','~,"'",:"::'"",",'""":"",,,,,<"::',"",..',:""~",','",,""':"",,",:':"::.':".:',""",", :,'"¡'::':..',:,'..,::,..:',~:..,.,..,,..,',:,..,,':"""'","",:",",::'..",',,' ' " :,.,':,' ~t.l<>asSùt ~,fu' ~tO :èDfGrce'l.gòi~Q;.. tb ~hå.w..msed ,:... ", . ,', " ...:~:: '. d:,~. 'œJ:, ~~+.. ~ .f~I~~i', ~~,'~~aie~, :~~~" ftS~~~~\~".:)¡ '.':: .~', :,:,,' ;: :': : '~ .. ~!i00a1; ~!Otti9i>i1;' !ll'Sthei¡è; OUìntt.I;.du~ ~ii.sèie..itili¿ ~viti¡,¡¡,,: ' :: ',i .. ' : ;': :,:, ,,: ":',""'"",:',""",:,:","',"",',,,"":..,":.,:-:""'~"'-:"",:",:,"",""""',:.','..":',:"'.',,,""':-,"""'",:""""',"~,',:::¡-::",:,......",:"", ,;:"C:""", :.4;':'My;j,iít;';ìiualñitmisis'àiéb.Sédwrh.;.;n~oÓiOiìtij¡\\éc1ÌÍ~'o¡. .,""'.",, "." ':.',' , ',,::~'" """"":".".":',"':",:",..,:,..'"..,:",:".",:,.,','. ':""""':":'::':>'.':'."~."":":,:"',""'",.'..',: ".:.'.":""'::":..":::"'::,:"",:.. " : iiübsi""'¡ t,;; ~ø;..¡Ç. e6ror;¡j;~ =.iid" "'=iidÏif¡,; and ~~ :~I;ie¡¡ pn;sÓl1l,j¡;' ¡be, :': :, .. ' , ~~~5ð; . ":, ':, ':,. ":,, pO,j¿;;,¡¡ åÜ.ï pui, Úé úSe~: ~f iÍ..seresö..rc.$:, rJ;á¥e á Þorti~iiì...,~ ~¡,,;;¡¡ The, ',' , ' ' " ' " ,.','::"', "":',:',':"-::":"""",;"""",-:,:",,,,.:-', ,""::',.', ::-"":"::"""~~"""""""""'~""':::"-::':""""'"":,:'-,"": ,,':':>""" :~~iID <if ~....... ; :.~;uiÍ4eiþ\úid~ andi'lio ~ en~Con;, .. ,', , ' ",:',:':::"';, """"""""""':-""""""'..:..,',,::", "":"";"""";""',"","::""":::""':"":..,':",,'""':""""":""':'::"""':", ~ ' ' , , ,: .. .. ~~'s¡'di '0 ori~.,ijóninlÏi\rli.ÙÌy pei;orin.í ~ ëœistJfutiori~y ~ed;;S. .;ftli..~. ':',: :," ' , .. ,." .- """"""""""",:,:,""" ",,' "':',.',,:,....,.., ',,' """"""""':"""""""""""""""":""'-:,..:, "".,,, ,,",",.:', ...:,:,."".,:"'.,.:.','.'....,.'.','"",,,,~"~.,":'.";','ã~~'~,"i".:'.,'.,"" "",' """'",:",..',"':.","'. '" ,', ":,.." "',.,.',' ,:,'"":-".:,,:>"""'.""'.,":.":..:~".'o:',:;':',:':,'.~',::,,:..,,:':,'.:::;.~',:.".:"::I."'::~:~:'~>"':''" ..,": ", , , , ",' , ,,' ¡.. " , .. : "".. , " '." ',' , , " .. .' '"....,". :' ",' ',"'", ..,' 'J ", , , ",,' .,' ,.', , , " , ," ,""', " ',' '" ,,'" " ' , ' ," ,.,,:; , , ' ,.,: "',.' : ::'" ': ", "..' , , "." "", ," , '" "" ' ';, '""" , , '..' ' " ,n "', ,!, , ',I " ,'" .'".."','," "", "'", ".,",' " ", n,' "', " ," ,".", ", , , , , .,"n'" .... "'" , .,' "'" ", , , "'. ,,' ", ' . '." ,,', ,',,', .".,.,'".,' :.<",",.'/.;f;'qq. .~:'."'.:.'::"',.,Ó)~O2'"" " ", ; -: '.' ' ' , , " ' ","",:" ".,' ",'.'",<" ',' "'",:"",'",::""""""":",:',<",,,"'" "", ", " .. ,,' ,'",'.. " .. ','" ' ,<,>':":':C:";,",,',,'" , ","" .'" "" ", "" ..,.:c ,','I- ': ' "", - ," '" ',.', " , ,",J " " ,,:..' " , " "," ,,' ", " ," , , " , " , , , , ,':.r.&ó\irçe~L,""" ,,",,""" """'," ,", ."""".-,..,,'," """""",:"",,""'" ,','" ',: , " '" " "", :', '" '" ',' ',',: ' ',' ' .' ',',',"", . ", ,', "" , ,~S: .". ..' :..~~~~~d~ ~~~~i>~~~~lá~;:"~~iJ¡g:fu!,-' ,':,'""", , .."" 'tdu~~oi!a¡~,~ci~~t~,~fktiô~a1~:midn~~ga'ÞOn~i~e~:,~Pè.ëitiqillÝ~~tl~wed~~'tb~;~&~eœ','"""",' ': ' :,' : ':'::':',':: :,,:',:':: :,',':;f'thè':~e~~Orl's~.,:n~::~~:N~~~,~oj'~~"S~~"~~1~d~":'J h~~~' ~~~:~~~::¡¡~~~n'~~~~:,:':",: ':,; :':"~':,;. " :",' " ,':,: " ,"" ": < ,:W~~ :~f'~~Be~do~"~~'fO~, :~~i'~~~ftll~ ';O~~~~~, '~~~1i~~~'~~: ~~~~ti~~:;n~~~.:,":,:: ,',~ ' , ' ",'" """, """:""",:,.."'""","":',",,,:',:'::'-,,,"';,,:"""::",,:,,:::,',',::c,:,','...-....::,..,',',','::',,':':-:-,,"""'",-,,, ",,:..-, "'-:""::<'::6,'<>',:' ,','MY"n~v.ígattoo~1/scj~~tific~:'iet:~eatióriåf.~4:11èStheÎi~',nse"~f.:tb~:':~èá')s,"::" ',' ':',,""'<..',: "",:,'-:,,:>:..:',",,', ',:.',: "';:,::",' O,:"""":,:::,",~,:,,',-':,,"-'..~,:,'::-"':',:.',">,:::..,,.-"..'.'"c',:"",",':,.':',,',':"':"" ",:',:'",', :',<':":'-: ",' '; ,c~tlŸ:"":~d'waS,\,8dyetSe~y'affected .by"Northstç"ôiJ.'Öndf~8s'a~\itìë'š,,~t'blöcke~'Jhi,':,"','::,:,'" ',"':', C'" ",'..,'. "¿~~~I'~~;.iì~"';:~i,~ :~..~'d.i'~~:'2ui..~: ..'. ,,' /-:. ",: " ',,:", ",',,', "":':'P~~~C:~~'~~~:'::~'~:'::a~dti~b~;:,:'dU~'~.t~ .:~~:~~~'~~~S:',~{~~,:':~~i~;~,~;'Ai~~",,~~"~~~".i~:":' ,,' ,,' " :' ,," ":"""":"":":',"'..,,:,~::,,:.....,,',"',,:~',,""',:""'~'::"':',:':'",",..".-"":',:'",:,""~':",:':,,:""',::,:':"':",,:-:':..,",'...::,",';:,:',:-::',,:,:,:":',¡,' """,', ,,', ,', ,',..:experi;eri,ç'e,d :a',sigmfi~ 'ðèpriyåtion',' ()fJ~y:,'Cl)n~tñUt~o~al.' rWit.of~oin: of s~,e'èêh- 8Í1d" ", .:"':",.,'.,,~~~!?~¡;~:~~. +~~JIšI1.<R'Ci+.'. i'" ..':'?C: ...",..'.:".':'" ..:,:,:::'</ '.,', , ,",.'.,'., ,,'.,"" , "':::, ':'-," ,'",'", ",,:",:7>" ,:::;t.~':8'Persbri:~~~te(r:bY, tiie:'~'vÛI~~:'~f':rh~'~Sta~,':~fÅ:lå~"~C~~d~g:fb~:':.",':':,,:,:',;'-, ,:::',.-'" <"":::::})~f~~+&.+7,tbê+~~ 'an4,,~Jë~~~e.9~:~~". .:,,' (~".'" .' ",<'" ,', .':-', ':","D~pärtme;n~,ofEI1YirQmn~rità.1,CQn$m;àtj~ and the Depàr:t.m~~o.frJsh'~~:-G~e.)n~°faI: "'" ': , ,:":' . ,:', "~ii;~~~1Ì~Pf t!Í~é~~~!~~~f;"Y'~~ ~t1ÍeÞ~~I;Çir.;s;~~~.;'" :',:" , ' , "::"" ,:,"':""""',':,':,'"",',:',"',:"',:',.'",,",..'..,:,,""":":.'""""""""":,',,,,,:,',,,,':,':"""':',"",","""","""'.'",, '::::, "'",,' ":",:riï;:'co~s~tiòriå¡:wt~št i~"~~6ri ~~;~"óiAl~~is'~ö1#~,~~','áDq:'iÚy~~~üåt'~tl~ticii:"'::',', ,,' ,..!::' " ,',', "i,.. '.:~in,~~~"~:'.'..'::;': ,'.:"~ ;,.:',::: :,., '..'.> .'.,. ,:,,;:,.,,',.., .'." .'....~:' ,~.' .', :'.':,":' :.',:...'.."i,' ...'~ '. "..;, ""'Fùi1hOì-théaffiODiSåyeth,not~4~'V..~"::'" .;..,'...'., , ,.' "'.'.".":""""""".""'."...'..".....'..'..."."'kX~\hl¥..æ..'.'.~ " .-:',. '.'.;, '..,'...:':":,:,,:..:.;.:".,'..'.:.::."'-"~"'.',~.:/',:..::-,:..;.i:':,þ¡f:"~'.. .. ,,'.. '" ',. ...' ..., . ..'. , " . . . .'. " ','... . '. , . :.",.. " , '... -'.." ..'" ,'..,.. . " ... ..:' ,,' ,.... .' ", .... ..;........: .,' ,.,' .... .' ..:', ' .' ..,' .-, .~. ", .' . .'" .. .. . ~.. ...", VI>, '-,Vlllio:rva[On l:onuni6sion - Departcr AdJltinÎ9tration hr'-""""".state. ale. u:sllocaJ/akpøgesl AD MIN/ogclcore.htr ." """""""""""""""""""'~"""""-" ','- 'n.. -"'."""""'-"'""""'~"'-""'~'" ,"",.."', , 011 and gas conservation commlasiOb ... ", ""'......,.-.","....-".,.-""..."" .'-, "'~-"""'--""-...-n....-_...""", .. 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 011 and gas wells -Inspect oil field drilling, production, metering, and abandonment activities .Evaluate, modify. and approve drilling and wor1<over 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 -Concerned citizens and organizations -Alaska Department of Natural Resources -Alaska Department of Revenue -u.S. Environmental Protection -U.S. Department of the Interior Agency -ßeneral Functions -Over$iaht and Surveillanc~- Functions ",,'.., .."..,...".,.".'.m."""-""~-""'" -",.",..-.....-.."""",...,-""......."",, ,""" " AOGCC Home Paae, AOGCC Webma$ter howard- okland@admin,state.ak.us of t E.xn\ b.1 3 "ø+ 3~i20013:09PJl,1 r- ~1 /Jj 11 f-'~ fÆ l!ß ~ ~fÆ -- OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR rONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMFiNT AND BUDGET DIVISION Of: GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION 0 SeXfTNCl!ftfT'AAt. REGIONAL (}FRCE: "CEWfRAL OFFICtS 360t -C- STREET. SUITE 370 P.O. BOX , rOfJ3(J ANCf/OAAt,;E. AI..ASI<A 99503-593C JUNEAu. At.ASIúI 998' 1-0030 PH: ,(907) 269-'I47tVFAX: (907) 5610$734 PH: (907) 45-3562IFÂX: (907) ~75 0 PIPëLINE COQROINATOR'S OFFICi -#11 W~$r 4TH A.~NUE. SUITE 2C ANCHO~GE.. ALAS'IG'I 9950'.2343 PH: (go7) 27f-437'?IFÁX: ($10'1 »'2.0690 February 4, 1999 Peter Hanley BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. P.O. Box 196612 Anchorage AK 99519*6612 Dear Mr. Hanley: SUBJECT: Northstar Development Project Final Consistency Determination STATE I.D. No. AK9g06~01PA The Division of Governmental Coordination has completed coordinating the state's review of the Northstar Development Project (NorthstBr 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 12. 1999 and a revis~d Proposed Consistency Detennínation on January 13,1999. Greenpcace. Inc. submitted a petition to the Coastal Policy CounciJ (CPC) on January 20, 1999. The CPC met earlier today by teleconference to hear the petjtion, The CPC dismissed the petitioner and determined that DOC fairly considered comments submined by Grec:npeace. Project Description BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA) proposes to develop the Northstar Project. This oil field wîJJ produce approximately 65.000 barr~ls of oil per day, and recoverable reserves are estimated to be about 145 million barrels of oil. The project proposal involves re~ construction of a gravel island approxímately 6 miles offshore in the Beaufon Sea, construction and operation of drilling atld production facilities at the island, and construction and operation of a subsea pipeline. 006763 .' "j'- ,1 J{ 0 -~...,~-' Or-A35t/-l Exhibit A E>«\\ \~~h\ It 'p. \ ..,." North.stß.r DeveJOpm~" State ID AK9806-0IPA 2 r-~, ..J February 4, 1999 The Northstar prod~cti~n i.sl~d wW be built at the location of the existing man-made Sea! ~sland explorattOn Island 111 approximately 40 feet of water. BPXA proposes to haul 8ddt1Ona~ gravel to S~ Island this winter to create 8 work surface 465 feet by 410 feet. A ~heet pJle w~J, conc:ete block slope protection system and facilities founcùtions wi11 be mstal1ed dunng the ISland construction phase. As part of this project, BPXA requests a new material site be approved for excavation of 1.2 mjjJion cubic yards of gravel for use in construction of the island and several smaIl pads for valve sites and staging areas. The proposed location of the mine site is east of the main chanueJ of the Kupantk River apprpXimately J.5 nilles upstream ftow the Kuparuk River Delta and Gwydyr Bay; Secti01121, Township 12 North, Range 13 East. Umiat Meridían. A previously permitted gravel source further inland on the Kuparuk River may also be used for the project The gravel win be used to construCt the island anp several ~mall pads for valve sites and staging areas. The project involves cons1ruction of tWo pipelines: a crude oil sales pipeline and a gas pipeline. The crude oil sales pipeline will be a 1 O~inch line running from the island to a tje~in at Pump Station 1 of the TransøAla.ska Pipeline System. A lO-inch gas line, to supply gas to the island, wiIJ begin at the Prudhoe Bay Unit Central Compressor Plant and will run to the production island. Pipeline çonstructlon 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 wíU be six miles long and wiU 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..fillcd. 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 from thickened ice using excavation and other constrUction equipment. The onshore pipelines will follow a'new roUte from landfà.ll near Storkerson Point to existing aboveground pipeline vertical support members (VSMs) near hE" Pad where it will follow existing rights~of~ way to Pump S~ljon I. The onshore pipeline consuuction wilt start in January 2000 and be completed in May of that year. Ice roads will be bujJt to access the pipeline routes during construction, The onshore oj} and gas pipelines will be about II and 10 miles long, respectively, and wiJl be pJaced on above ground VSMs using standard North SJope practices. At the shoreline transition,'the buried pipeline will continue approximately 150 feet from lhe existing shoreline to a gravel pad. The pipeline will be ìnstal1ed above groWld at me valve enclosure and controls bonding located on ilie pad, Twenty~th.ret: weBs will be drilled initially. One welt wiU be a Class I disposal wet! for non~ha.z.ardou$ and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) exempt waste 33!1i 006764 E~,b,t Lt p."1 Northstar Dt:veo~:Pro~ State ill AK9806--01PA 3 ~r- "~._.,." February 4, 1999 generat~dby drjJIing.~d c.am~ activities. Fifteen wells wiII be fot'oil production, 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 Corps of Engineers. Permit applications, Hsted in the next sectioD. provide additionsJ infonnation about the project. Authorizations Needed 'llus final consistency detennination applies to the following state and federal authorizations. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Section 404 Pennit U.S. Enviromnental Protection Agency . National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Minerals Management Service (M1vfS) . Development and Production Plan Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DE C) . Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (40]) for the Corps 404 Permit . Certificate of Reasonable Assurance (40 I) (or the EP A 402 Discharge Permit . Short~tenn Water Quality Variance Oil Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan (C-Plan) Solid Waste Treatment Facility Pennit Wastewater Disposal Permit 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 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 lce road construction) Alaska Deparrment of Fish and Game (DFG) . Title: 16 Fish Habitat Permits (for ice road and pipeline crossings) 32.9 ()O67G5 E~,~,~ Lt p,~ ,~ N ortbstar DeveJOPCo~ State ID AK98~6-01PA ' 4 r:, ,~".,~ February 4. 1999 . . Review Procedures Th~ state :worked closely with fedeml agencies to coordinate its review of the Northstar Project "?th .the federal review. The objectives of the coordination were to encourage comtnwucation 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 Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) was issued. Although the state's 60~day public comment period initially coincided with the comment period for the dra1t.EI~ the state approved two 30-day extensions to the pub1í~ 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 ìnformaûon ~~ ' A state agency Technical Team., composed ofpermincrs ftom each agency, met on a weekly basis,throughout most of the review. 11ûs team discussed project issues and procedures used for reviøw of individual pennits. The DGC distributed publìc comments on me Northsw Project to team members to provide stàfr an opportunity to review those comments before submitting consistency-related comments to DOC. Comments not related to an ACMP stand~d or enforceable poHcy that is related to an agency authority will bt: considered by that agency during permitting. Consistency Determination Based on the review of the Northstaf 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 tl1e project is consistent with the ACMP. State agencies made this detenninatìon after careful consideration ofpubIic commentS, r~view of/ease stipulations, consideration of mitigating measures incJuded in the projeçt desC:ription, and development of the project~ specific stipulations included in AtUlchmenl A of !.his consistency detennination~ These stipulations appear on individual permits issued under the auÙ1orities of the specific permining agencies. Attachmenr B provides an analysis of measures that make the project consistent with the Alaska Co3.Stal Management Program. Attachment C is a response to comments by ~e Department 0 r EnvironmentaJ Conservation for oj] spill issues. As appropriate, when considering best available technology and acceptable practices, project activities shall be consistent with the terms, conditions, stipulations and mitigating measures detailed in the most recent lease issued within the Unit. 34[0 0O67GG t}(~"b,t L\ p.4 6) 7) '- Northstar' Drrvclopm CJfI State ID AI<980~OlPA 5 r~ ..j Fc:bfWl.ry 4, 1999 Advisories 1) BPXA bas committed to prepare Polar Bear loteraction Plans for construction in section 8.3.2 and section 8.4.1 of the Project Description. These plans sbonld be submitted to and approved by the appropriate state agencies prior to inidatioo of pipeline and island construction, includÏr1g development well drilling and operations. The Department ofFish and Game recommends separate plans be developed for offshore pipeline construction, island construction and lãciJity ínstaJJatioo, and for operntions, and that these plans be cross-referenced in the Facility Site R.,..¡cws (Project Descñp.fioD, sec. 8.2.1) and the Waste Managel11ent P~. . 2) The Department ofFish and Game recommends BPXA prepare 8 wildlife response pJaI4 similar to that of the Badami Development Project, with procedures for dealing with potential nuisance animals (other than polar bears), beached carcasses, and irtjw-ed wildlife in situations where no oil spiU is involved. This plan can be coordinated. with the National Marine Fisheries Service (Pinn.ipeds, cetaceans), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (wa1ros, migratory birds), and DFO (foxes, resident birds). 3) ,The North Slope Borough has advised us that its approval will not becozne effective until a shoreline protection plan for the envirornnentaHy 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 approva1. 4) The North Slope Borough has notified us that its approval wiIJ not become effective until the final EIS is complete and the federal agencies have issued permits for this project. 5) The'North Slope Borough appro'v~d the use ofa 2,800 ban-el double-walled and double-bottomed tank and waived the requirement to provide lining and diking, in accordance with 18 AAC 75.075. Please be advised that although me state has found the project consistent with the ACIvq>, based On your project description and any modifications that appear as Stipulations contained herein. you are still required to meet aU applicable state and federal Jaws and regulations. Your consistency determination may include 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 immediatel)' to 34.L 006767 ~,~,~ ~ p.S ~, Northstar DeVeJOpmCj1l State ill AK9806-01PA r" '"..4 February 4, t 999 6 determine if further review and approval oftbe revised project is necessary. If the actual use differs trom the approved use contained in the project description, the state may amend the consister¡cy detennination and the state approvals listed in the consistency detennination. 8) Should cuJtural or paleontoJog1caJ 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 imrnediatelyso that consultation per section 106 of the National Historic Preserva~on 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 RuJe601. By copy of this letter, we are informing the Corps òfEn&ù.Ieers of our final detennination. ' . Please call met at 465-8992 if you have any questions about this consistency detennination or the stipulations contained in it. I may also be reached byemaìl at: Glenn- Gray@gov.state.ak.us. Sincerely, ---,. , --¡ ~~., :~~/'" I . rl Glenn Gray Project Analyst cc: Mike Abbott, Governor's Office Max Ahgeak, Pres,? Ut~agv¡k Jnupiat Corp. Tom Allen, Dept. afthe Interior.l3wcau orLand Management Tom Barnes? BPXA Judith Bittner, DNR.SHPO Tony Bf<!.den, DNR, SPCO Larry Bright, FWS . Bill Brin. DNR, SPCO AreWe Brower? Native Village of Kaktovik Arnold Brower? Native VìJJagc of Barrow Terry Carpenter, CaE Lanston Chinn. Kuukpik Corp. Robe:rt bol~ DEC Jeanne Hanson, NMFS 3~2 QOG7GB f)(~,b.+'\ ? t, "" . . c' (" Nancy S. Wainwright Attomey at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 . Anchorage, AI<. 99515-3538 Telephone: (907) 345-5595; Fax: (907) 345-7666 E-mail Address:nsw@alaska.net FACSIMILE COVER SHEET :Qate: ; March 7, 2001 i Attentipn: ¡ AOGCC fax (907) 276- 7542 From: N aney S. Wainwright «e: . Northstar Pennit to Dri1150-029-22996-00 Appeal Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 22 !f<my pages Me undtJar.or do 1()( arrive, please. ellJ/ (907) 34$-$j95. 6 SC/\\\\NED JUN 2. 9 2004 r-' ~, -- . - ... STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7th Ave., Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3539 Re: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, ) INC., for Rehearing of Approval of ) Permit to Drill No. 201-027 (API No. ) 50-029-22003-00). ) March 2, 200 I ORDER GRANTING REHEARING FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY On January 31, 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. On February 21,2001, Greenpeace, Inc. ("Greenpeace") filed a petition challenging the permit approval under AS 31.05.080. The petition also requests "a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of this petition. " This petition is similar to the petition Greenpeace filed on February 1, 2001, challenging the Commission's approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211. In that matter, the Commission granted rehearing for the limited purpose of allowing briefing and consideration of the question of whether Greenpeace has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill. For the reasons set out in that order, the Commission will also grant rehearing in this matter for the limited purpose of considering the same question. As in the first matter, the Commission will then determine whether it may hear Greenpeace's petition on the merits and will proceed accordingly. The Commission will base its determination on any briefing that is filed in the matter of Permit to Drill No. 200-211. If Greenpeace or BP believes that there are additional considerations specific to Permit to Drill No. 201-027 that should be taken into account, it may address such matters in the same briefing. Greenpeace has moved to consolidate its two petitions. The Commission will defer a decision on this motion until after making a determination on the threshold issue referred to above. "--' Regarding Greenpeace's request to stay the permit pending a hearing on the merits, the Commission is not aware of any facts showing that a temporary emergency order is needed "to protect against immediate harm to public health or safety," see 20 AAC 25.539, or that a stay is otherwise warranted. Accordingly, the request for a stay will be denied. NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED: 1. Greenpeace's petition for rehearing is preliminarily granted for the limited purpose of allowing consideration of the question of whether Greenpeace has the right to apply for rehearing of the Commission's approval of an application for a permit to drill, as more ,v /' ORDER GRANTING REHEA.J FOR LIMITED PURPOSE AND DENYING REQUEST FOR STAY Permit No, 201-027 Page 2 ./", March 2, 2000 '.- fully set out in the February 9, 2001, Order Granting Rehearing for Limited Purpose and Denying Request for Stay in Re: The Petition of Greenpeace, Inc., for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill No. 200-211 (API No. 50-029-22996-00). 2. The request for a stay is denied DONE at Anchorage, Alaska, this 2nd day of March, 2001. GJ ýjd , Danie T. Seamount, Jr., Commissioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ~~~ <9~<A,.L _~~k~, Camillé Oechsli Taylor, co~~iQioner Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ~ (\,\,~~ - Julie M. Heusser Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission I certify that on Ý!(tJtdL ;<, dØ / , a copy of the above was faxed and mai~d to each of the following at their addresses of record: Nancy S. Wainwright BPXA Attorneys, Jeff Feldman/Susan Orlansky IØ ()~ (~/6 Executive Secretary ~:s~~~x ~~~ \,ti:1 Co.lDept. Phone # r1~ 1#01 ")/ Date ")d pages~ /" From -) () Jr)tY\ f?\ ( Co, Qo(Â C(j Phone # J Fax # Fax # 5 . - LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY J\ PROfESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3539 ,~ ~ STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 333 W. 7tth Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3539 RE: RECEIVED THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill API No. 50-029-23003-00. ) ) ) ) FEB 2 8 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR STAY In its petition dated February 20, 2001, Greenpeace asked for a stay of the permit pending a hearing on the merits of Greenpeace' s petition, BPXA opposes the stay. 1 If the Commission considers granting a stay, BPXA requests an opportunity to submit comprehensive briefing concerning the extraordinary costs and difficulties that would be inflicted on BPXA if the drilling were stayed. Dated this 'U day of February, 200 1. FELDMAN & ORLANSKY Attorneys for BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. ,/ r\'- . . .,' , By ";n ..v\ ('QJ""- \.. -)A. lnt/A- 0 l,.¡¡ Susan Orlansky Alaska Bar No. 8106042 BPXA just learned of the petition and the request for a stay on the afternoon of February 27, when BPXA's counsel received the motion for consolidation and was thereby alerted that Greenpeace must have filed a second petition; BPXA' s counsel immediately called Greenpeace's counsel to request a copy of the petition, which had not previously been served on BPXA or its counsel. Response to Request for Stay Page 1 Þ' LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A ~ROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272..3538 ."--'" ...-.., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was delivered by mail/hand delivery to: Nancy W ainright ~~ à ~ i ( 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 Robert Mintz 0\0, \ Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste. 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 By: ~\~1\~ Dated: a\3f6 \ 0 \ Response to Request for Stay Page 2 4 - . / LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN Be ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 500 L 5TREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ,.........-., ,.-, STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV A TION COMMISSION 333 W. 71th Avenue, Suite 100 Anchorage, AK 99501-3539 RECEIVED RE: THE PETITION OF GREENPEACE, INC. for Rehearing of Approval of Permit to Drill API No. 50-029-23003-00. Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage ) ) ) ) FEB 2 8 2001 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE BPXA does not object to consolidating preliminary proceedings concernmg 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 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 ~ #"' c ' . LAW OFFICES OF FELDMAN & ORLANSKY A PROFESSIONAL CORFORATION sOO L STREET SUITE 400 ANCHORAGE. ALASKA (907) 272-3538 ----, ~ 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 ~ ß'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 ¡::-Q'(d N\<l\ ( 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AK 99515 Robert Mintz ~,\ Attorney General's Office Oil, Gas & Mining Section 1031 W. 4th Ave., Ste, 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 By: ~~ ;~~'dbwOt' Dated: Ñ\d~IOI By ~). QAA, c9~ \aC~/61~J Susan Orlansky Alaska Bar No. 8106042 ! \ ¡ \ Response to Motion to Consolidate Page 2 3 ,--'. ~ .~ J Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, AlaSka 99515-3538 PETmON TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 81 AIE OF ALASKA /~ Petition oftbe Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-22996-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (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 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, whìJe attending to other inunediate deadlines. It is respectfully submitted that this constitutes the "good cause" for which additiona1 time may be granted. Respectfully submitted this 27th day of February, 2001. LA tr OF~IC!~~ OF .~ANCY S. WAINWRIGHT '--.I~ L>\ ( L~[~ ,.~, ~t Nancy S.iva1ßwr\~t on b~hnlf of Grçenpeace, Inc. Motion for Extension of Time ..-- " J CERTIF1CA n; OF SERVICE I certtty 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: Request for .Extension r!Time ~~ .w lrJ\~'\\~II\t<- Dated: 2/27/01 J:/ l4'î 1 ",./{C: i/ ~(¿(j~vvþ Nancy). Wain;rlght . Attorney fur Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC Request for Extension of Time Certificate ofServìce 02/27/01 /-=> '-:J Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage. AK 99515-3538 Telephone: (907) 345-5595; Fax; (907) 345-7666 E-mai¡ Address:nsw@alaska,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 50-029-23003-00 Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. NUMBER OFf AGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 4 If any pages are unclear or do not arrive, please call (907) 345-5595, 6¡Jy::: ~1'7-0g Ie¡ RECE\\IED H:.3 21 2.001 Q\\ &. GaS eons. ~ HeØ.a An~ 2 1 ~ 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 , / t' " 0,' ,,", "'\ ! ¡ ,'," i,1 ;1t \, ,.. . . . '. ,/'~¡.:"\j /A./ tv>\ \i V--:') Nancy S. Wainwriglit on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. RECEIVED Motion to Consolidate MAR 0 1 2001 Alaska Oil & Gas Cons. Commission Anchorage J 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: Reques~ for "Extensi~n pf Time 'J\ ,." ,'\ . --\, .,..., \ \ y\ ,:rv \...\,. , .'J[ \ \ (I \¡, tL. Dated: 2/27/01 /(/~ . /t[11 '1 'l, ',,/ ~,/ V\! ~ \.l~ II L v Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney for Appellant Greenpeace AOGCC Request for Extension of Time Certificate of Service 02/27/01 RECE\VED MAR 0 1 2001 0'\ & Gas Cons. commission Alaska' h age Me or J ~.) Nancy S. WaÙlwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERV A TION COMMISSION 81 ATE 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 líkely 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 \ ( f? I '¡ "¡ A \ /~ê~ /~ (¡li( VVD Nancy S. WainwriØ on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Motion to Consolidate 1 .~ /"'.. " i ! Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage, Alaska 99515-3538 R Ë C Ë I Vr D FEB 2 2 2001 AlaSka Oil & G as Cons. C . Anchorage omrrliSSìor; '\ ~ " PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petition of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-23003-00 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 notice of AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029-23003-00 (3) Decision on which petition is filed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow permit the development well 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA)INC NORTH STAR 201-027 APPROVED: 01/31/2001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1308FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 4778FT FSL AND 5096FT FEL, SEC 13, T13N, RO13E, UM LSE: ADLO312799 NORTH STAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL NS-27 (4) Statement of Points Raised in Petition: Note: in the previously filed petition (for well NS-26) Petitioner raised these same points, and the Commission responded to a number of these points [fu. 1 to Order of 2/9/01]. Petitioner respectfully disagrees that the Northstar ACMP review included the permits to Petition to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS-27) page 1 ~ ~, " ~._-. drill. In fact, DGC specifically removed these permits from the review; and they are not listed in the Conclusive Consistency Determination of February 4, 1999; nor are the coastal zone impacts of the drilling identified or analyzed. There are other points with which Petitioner disagrees, and those will be presented by way of subsequent briefing. 1998. Petitioner specifically alleges: a. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling permit. AS 46.40; 6 AAC 50. The AOGCC failed to comply with the North Slope Borough CMP Policy 2.4.4(b);(f). b. The AOGCC has failed to promulgate notice and petition regulations, or give notice of the single well permit, in accordance with AS § 31.05.050 (b). The action ofthe 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 Petition to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS-27) page 2 ~ ~ " . ,--'I 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 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. k. AOGCC has failed to protect freshwater from contamination by oil/gas/mud during drilling, production, and abandonment operations; 1. The AOGCC has failed to carry out its duties to (1 )witnesses Blow Out Prevention Equipment (BOPE) testing following installation of the surface casing on each rig at start up, after major moves and every two months on a routine basis; (2) conduct diverter tests; (3) witness, new rig or reactivated rigs start-ups where a diverter is Petition to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS-27) page 3 ~, ~ .'.~'I required, and all wells requiring a diverter because of known or probable shallow gas sands. 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. Request for Information Petitioner requests that the following information be provided: total depth, bottom-hole location and well status after the Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Form 10-407) is filed; regular production data and regular production reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month; injection data and injection reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of February, 2001. LA[ OFFICES O~ NANCY S. W AINWRIGHf Jevtl\/ (kJ ú-\¡(if Nancy sr. Wainwnght on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Petition to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS-27) page 4 /--~ ,..,-- ~ --- ,:' Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Roa~ Suite 555 Ancho"age, Alaska 9951;-3538 PETITION TO THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF ALASKA Petìtion of the Decision to Approve Development Well 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC ) ) . ) Petitioner Greenpeace, Inc. hereby petitions the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, State of Alaslæ, in accordance with AS 31.05.080 and provides the following information: (1) This petition is timely filed within 20 days of the notice of AOGCC decision. (2) Case reference number: 50-029-23003-00 (3) Decision on which petition is filed: Decision of the AOGCC to allow pennit the development well 50-029-23003-00 BP EXPLORATION (ALASKA) INC NORTHSTAR NS-27 201-027 APPROVED: 01/3112001 DEVELOPMENT SURF: 1308FT FSL AND 648FT FEL, SEC 11, T13N, RO13E, UM ARCTIC SLOPE BOTM: 4778FT FSL AND 5096FT FEL, SEC 13, TI3N, ROl3E, UM LSE: ADLO312799 NORTH STAR, IVISHAK UNDEFINED OIL POOL (4) Statement of Points Raised in Petition: Note; in the previously filed petition (for well NS-26) Petitioner raised these same points, and the Cormnission responded to a number of these points [fu. 1 to Order of 2/9/0 1]. Petitioner respectfully disagrees that the Northstar ACMP review included the pexmits to Petition to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS~27) page 1 ~ ,..-~ <ii drill. In fact, DGC specifically removed these permits from the review; and they are not listed in the Conclusive Consistency Determination ofFebroary 4, 1999; nor are the coastal zone impacts of the drilling identified or analyzed. There are other points with which Petitioner disagrees, and those will be presented by way of subsequent briefmg. 1998. Petitioner specifically alleges: 8. The AOGCC has failed to comply with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP) and has failed to coordinate a consistency review of this well drilling pert1:Ú.t. AS 46.40; 6 MC 50. The AOGCC failed to comply with the North Slope Borough CMP Policy 2.4.4(b);(f). 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 pennit, without notice~ 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 well control for primary drilling and completion 20 AAC 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 Island reserve pit/dike has been installed to facìlìtate the Petitio" to the AOGCC 2/20/01 (NS-27) page 2 /~ '~'-"", .; safety of the drilling 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 MC 25.265. i. The AOGCC has failed to require, and BPXA has failed to comply with 20 MC 25.526. in that BPXA has failed to cany 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. ADGeC has failed to conduct an analysis of coastal impacts ftom the welt drilling, well operations, the underground injection well. or of the geophysical hazards associated with well-drilling and operation. k. AOGCe has failed to protect fteshwater from contamination by oil/gas/mud during dri11ing, production, and abandonment operations; 1. The AOGCC has failed to carry out its duties to (l)witnesses Blow Out Prevention Equipment (BOPE) testing following installation of the surface casing on each rig at start up, after major moves and every two months on a routine basis; (2) conduct diverter tests; (3) witness, new rig or reactivated ligs start~ups where a diverter is Petition to the AOGCC 2/2010J (NS~27) page 3 / ---------- -- . -.., ~ required, and all wells requiring a diverter because of known or probable shallow gas sands. Notice olIntent 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 pennit pending a hearing on the merits of this petition. Request for Information Petitioner requests that the following infonnation be provided: total depth, bottom-hole location and well status after the Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (Fonn 10-407) is filed; regular production data and regular production reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month; injection data and injection reports, as required to be filed by the operator each month. Respectfully submitted this 21 st day of February, 200 I. L~r OF. FICE~ O~ ~.ANCY S. WAINWRIGHT JV a.~\,. (Ú,t\JÚ: Nancy ~. Wainwñght on behalf of Greenpeace, Inc. Petition to the AOGCC 2/20101 (NS-27) page 4 *******~~*****ììì*************************************************************************************** i ,.--~, TRANSACT I ON REPORT r-.,~,. P. 01 : * .. FEB-21-Q 1 WED 08: 33 AN * * * * SEND(M) * * * * DATE START RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES TYPE NOTE N# DP * * * * FEB-21 08:31 AM 2798644 1156n 5 SEND ( M) OK 189 * * - * * * * TOTAL 1M 56S PAGES: 5 * * * ******************************************************************************************************** Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Sujte 555 . Anchor88e, AI( 99515-3538 Tf~~hOlJe: (907> 345-5595; FIl't: (90') 34'~1666 E-maIl Addf~ßß:n'$W@&!~ski\,'M't FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: Attention: FebrualY 21,2001 AOGCC fux (907) 276-7542 From: Nancy S. Wainwright NorthstaA' Permit to Drill Appeal 50-029-23003-00 Re: Fax no. (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 Phone no. .. Date: Attention: From: Re: Fax no. Phone no. ~ Nancy S. Wainwright Attorney at Law 13030 Back Road, Suite 555 Anchorage. AK 99515-3538 Telephoue: (907) 345-5595; Fax:: (907) 345-7666 E-mail Address:nsW@aláska.net FACSThnLECOVERSHEET February 21,2001 AOGCC fax (907) 276-7542 Nancy S. Wainwright Northstar Pennit to Drill Appeal 50-029-23003-00 (907) 345-3629 (907) 345-5595 NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER SHEET: 5 {f any page3 are unclear or do not arrive, please call (907) 345-5595. Post-it" Fax Note 7671 To Rrb m (Il}-7 Co.lDept. Phone # Fax # Date ~~. \ Ita8ts~.'5 From , ---- Co. Phone # Fax # ~~ ~~ C~/I/J Ii:S ~D -ila,.t8QJð ~ 1 ~OOI GasCQ" 4J,CIJ~ Co,