Shell’s primary target in the Chukchi Sea, the Burger prospect, may hold billions of barrels of oil.
It would be a “basin opener” for the region and make energy projects in the National Petroleum Reserve more economically feasible because a pipeline built across the reserve to access offshore oil would make small to medium-sized discoveries onshore more appealing.
However, Shell has been stymied by appeals, lawsuits, and other delays since acquiring its Chukchi leases in early 2008.The company has spent approximately $5 billion over the past four years on its Arctic offshore energy development plans but has yet to drill a single well.
In October, the Department of the Interior reaffirmed its 2008 Chukchi Sea lease sale, based on a new supplementary environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the sale. However, a number of environmental groups recently filed a lawsuit challenging the SEIS.
Shell, however, remains cautiously optimistic and is more confident than ever in the potential of the Arctic offshore.
Polar bear ruling issued
A federal court recently held that a special rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) adequately provides measures for protecting the polar bear.
The District Court of the District of Columbia denied an environmental group’s ESA challenge to the special rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The court’s decision confirms there is no need for additional and unnecessary regulatory permitting requirements.
It also supports the agency’s conclusion that the ESA is not an appropriate tool to regulate greenhouse gases.The special rule recognized the inapplicability of the ESA as a regulatory tool for greenhouse gas emissions, and the inability to link emissions outside the polar bear’s range with any identifiable effects on the polar bear or habitat within its range.
The court also ordered the USFWS to undertake further review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regarding the procedure by which the rule was issued.
The State of Alaska and others had intervened in support of the special rule issued by the USFWS because the polar bear is already protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, as well as treaties and international agreements.
The State is, however, disappointed that the court will be remanding the final rule, issued in December of 2008, for further procedural review under NEPA.While this process continues, the Interim Final Special Rule, issued in May 2008 and effectively equivalent to the final rule, will remain in place.
Attorney General John Burns welcomed the ruling.
“The court’s decision confirms that additional protections under the ESA are unnecessary,” said Attorney General Burns.“There was no sound reason to roll back those MMPA measures and rely on other untested programs on the North Slope or other areas within the polar bear’s range.This means that Alaskans, governments, and businesses can continue to safely manage human-bear interactions in their villages and workplaces.”
RDC supports Wishbone Hill project
In comments to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, RDC urged the state to approve an application submitted by Usibelli Coal Mine to renew permits to mine coal at Wishbone Hill.
The Wishbone Hill project, located on State, Mental Health Trust, and private land five miles west of Sutton, has been permitted every five years since 1992. The mine is projected to produce 500,000 tons of coal each year and provide between 75 to 125 jobs.
“The Wishbone Hill permit application outlines an extensive reclamation plan, including the enhancement of wildlife and recreational habitat as post-mining priorities,” noted RDC Projects Coordinator Deantha Crockett. “These environmentally-sound practices combined with the economic benefits the mine would provide make for a win-win situation in the Matanuska-Susitna region.”
State files lawsuit to defend permitting process
The State of Alaska has filed a constitutional challenge in Anchorage Superior Court against an ordinance recently enacted by ballot initiative in the Lake and Peninsula Borough.
The local ordinance attempts to give the Lake and Peninsula Borough’s planning commission authority to nullify state permitting processes and prevent the development of certain large-scale resource extraction activity.The ordinance requires the planning commission’s approval of a borough development permit before an applicant may receive a state or federal permit.
The State’s lawsuit alleges that the borough ordinance is invalid because it tilts the constitutional balance between state and local interests.The Alaska Constitution gives the Alaska Legislature the authority to determine how to develop resources for maximum use consistent with the public interest. It is therefore the State’s duty to evaluate projects to determine whether they can be conducted in a way that serves the public interest, and if so, what safeguards to require. Under the Lake and Peninsula Borough ordinance, the State may never have that opportunity. While boroughs have limited power to regulate some of the activities associated with resource development, a small majority of voters in a local community cannot usurp the more comprehensive state authority and eliminate the entire state permitting process.
“This case is not about state support for or against a Pebble Mine project,” Alaska Attorney General John Burns said.“It is about upholding the State’s constitutional authority and responsibility to evaluate whether, on balance, development of Alaska’s resources is beneficial to all Alaskans.This administration has consistently maintained that the State will not sacrifice one resource for another. In the case of Pebble, we haven’t yet even considered the pros and cons of any development that may be proposed. But the Alaska Constitution requires the State – not the borough - to fairly and completely conduct this evaluation.”
The initiative passed by a razor-thin margin of 34 votes. Many statewide groups and local village corporations expressed concerns about the precedent this type of restrictive initiative could have on future development activities across Alaska.These groups included the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, the Alaska Miners Association, the Council of Alaska Producers, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, and RDC.
Return to newsletter headlines
