The Department of the Interior approved an exploratory oil and gas drilling permit in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska that was then challenged by various groups. The Department conducts a 4-stage process: (1) preparing a five-year leasing
program, (2) selling leases, (3) permitting exploration in the leased regions, and (4) allowing development and production in the leased region. This challenge involved the exploration phase, and came after the Department had prepared a 1,001-page environmental impact statement in the preparation phase, a 4-volume environmental impact statement in the sales phase, and a 109-page environmental assessement of the exploration plan. Finding that the exploration would cause no significant impact on the environment, it approved the plan.
The NAM joined with other business groups in filing an amicus brief urging the federal court not to block the exploratory drilling. In light of the massive investments needed and already made in Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development, and the shortness of time during the Alaskan summer, it was important that exploratory drilling not be disrupted by this litigation. Congress intended to promote the "swift, orderly and efficient exploration of our almost untapped domestic oil and gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf," which is predicted to account for more than 40% of domestic oil production and 25% of natural gas production by 2012. Allowing exploratory drilling is an important step in the process of utilizing the OCS to move toward greater energy self-sufficiency, to provide economic stimulation, to improve national security, to maintain a favorable balance of payments in world trade, and to create jobs.
We also argued that an environmental impact statement is not required for an exploration plan, based upon the fact that an EIS was completed at an earlier stage.
On April 7, the NAM filed another amicus brief on the merits, making many of the same points previously made. On May 13, the court ruled that the Minerals Management Service met its obligations to take a "hard look at the consequences of its actions" and to provide a "convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project's impacts are insignificant." The court found that the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence on the record and that it did not act arbitrarily.