Radar interference is one of the key issues in the law suit against the Empire Wind project. Congressman Smith’s press release (attached) focuses on that issue.
Posts Tagged ‘litigation’
Rep. Chris Smith: “Radar interference alone enough to pull the plug on‘extremely dangerous’ Empire Wind project”
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged Congressman Chris Smith, Empire Wind, litigation, radar interference on June 9, 2025| Leave a Comment »
OCS oil and gas leasing provisions in the “Big Beautiful Bill” – good holiday reading 😀
Posted in Alaska, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged Big Beautiful Bill, Cook Inlet, Gulf of America, litigation, offshore oil and gas leasing, royalty rates, sale requirements on May 23, 2025| Leave a Comment »
Part VIII, Offshore OIl and Gas Leasing, is a good read for those interested in OCS leasing policy. This cleverly crafted part of the bill specifies leasing schedules, streamlines the leasing process, and minimizes litigation risks. Highlights:
- Minimum royalty rates return to 12.5% from 16.67% post-IRA. (This is good for small, shelf producers.) The maximum rate remains 18.75%.
- Requires a Gulf of America lease sale by 8/15/2025, a sale by 3/15 and 8/15 in each of the following 14 years (2026-2039), and a sale by 3/15/2040. 80+ million acres must be offered at each sale unless that amount of acreage is no longer available for leasing.
- The lease form, lease terms, economic conditions, and stipulations 4 through 10 must be the same as for Lease Sale 254 (3/18/2020). Stipulations 1-3 may be updated.
- Requires seven 1+ million acre (if available) Cook Inlet lease sales from 2026 – 2032. Beginning in 2035, 90% of the revenues go to the State of Alaska.
- The required lease sales may be in addition to the lease sales held under the 2024-2029 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
- Adherence with the Biological Opinion shall satisfy the Secretary’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972
- Previous EIS’s for the Gulf of Mexico shall satisfy the Secretary’s NEPA obligation.
- Consistency determinations prepared by BOEM for Lease Sale 261 for the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida will satisfy the Secretary’s CZMA obligations.
- The Secretary may waive any requirement under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act that the Secretary determines would delay issuance of a lease.
- A lease must be issued to the highest responsible qualified bidder not later than 90 days after the sale date.
- The Secretary shall establish a process through which a Governor may nominate for leasing under a lease sale held under this section an area of the OCS that is adjacent to the waters of the State; and is unleased and available for leasing. If the Governor of a State nominates an area, the Secretary shall include the area in the next scheduled sale. (It appears that this provision applies only to the Gulf of America. Objective?)
- G&G surveys must be approved within 30 days after a complete application is received.
- A lease awarded under Lease Sale 259 or Lease Sale 261 shall not be set aside, vacated, enjoined, suspended, or cancelled except in accordance with section 5 the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1334). Also, new terms or conditions may not be added to these leases. (This protects lessees from pending litigation related to these leases).
- Any action to approve, require modification of, or disapprove any exploration plan, development and production plan, bidding procedure, lease sale, lease issuance, or permit or authorization related to oil and gas exploration, development, or production, or any inaction resulting in the failure to hold a lease sale shall be subject to judicial review only in a United States court of appeals for a circuit in which an affected State is located.
Sable Offshore Sues Santa Barbara County over Blocked Transfer Permit
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged Exxon, litigation, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit, tie vote on May 13, 2025| Leave a Comment »
A good Nick Welsh, Santa Barbara Independent article has been brought to my attention by John Smith. Bonus points for the baseball analogy:
“In baseball, ties famously go to the baserunner, but in county government it’s forced a legal fight in the courts.”
“The oil company Sable Offshore is insisting that when the County Board of Supervisors voted 2-2 on whether or not to allow another oil company, Exxon, to transfer its permits to Sable, the tie goes to Sable.”
“Accordingly, Sable — much in the limelight recently — just filed a lawsuit against the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in federal court to make that point. Joining Sable in this dispute is ExxonMobil, the oil giant that sold Sable its three offshore platforms, its 120-mile pipeline, and its onshore oil storage and processing facilities known as the Santa Ynez Unit two years ago.”
Because the Planning Commission had voted 3-1 to allow the transfer, Sable argues that the 2-2 Supervisors vote upholds the Planning Commission decision.
Never a dull moment in the Santa Ynez Unit restart doneybrook. More on the tie vote here and here.
Sable states its case
Posted in California, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged California Coastal Commission, litigation, pipeline repairs, Sable Offshore, Santa Barbara County, Santa Ynez Unit on March 14, 2025| Leave a Comment »
See the attached letter from Sable’s attorneys; highlights below:
- The Commission staff appears to be asserting Commission jurisdiction over already permitted activities in order to attempt to exert influence over Sable’s planned restart of the Santa Ynez Unit oil production operations. Jurisdiction over restart activities is entirely outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction and is separately regulated by other agencies.
- Sable’s repair and maintenance activities (anomaly repairs, safety valve installation, and span remediation) are in compliance with applicable provisions of Santa Barbara County’s Coastal Zoning Ordinance (CZO), certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Coastal Act. As such, no cease and desist order is warranted – whether issued by the Executive Director or the full Coastal Commission.
- The onshore and offshore repair and maintenance work is fully authorized by coastal development permits previously approved by Santa Barbara County and the Commission. Therefore, those activities do not require new or amended coastal development permits and are not otherwise subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction or enforcement authority.
- Onshore anomalies: Santa Barbara County reviewed the detailed information Sable submitted with Zoning Clearance applications in 2024 and confirmed in a letter dated February 12, 2025, that the anomaly repair work is authorized by the pipelines’ existing coastal development permits and, consistent with past practice, no new or separate Coastal Act authorization is required for Sable to perform the work. Commission staff has repeatedly ignored that the County — as the applicable agency with delegated LCP authority under the Coastal Act — expressly has confirmed that the anomaly repair work was authorized by the onshore pipelines’ existing Coastal Development Permit, Final Development Plan, and Conditions of Approval.
- Onshore safety valves: Sable was required to undertake safety valve repair and maintenance activities pursuant to state law that the Coastal Commission supported. The safety valve repair work involves the exact same type of work as pipeline anomaly repairs, and Sable completed the safety valve work only after the County confirmed in writing that no further authorization from the County was required for the safety valves.
- Offshore span remediation: Sable’s span remediation maintenance activities were fully contemplated and authorized within the original coastal development permit approved by the Coastal Commission for the Offshore Pipelines in 1988 and the Development and Production Plan approved by the Department of the Interior. The span remediation maintenance activities involve the placement of sand-cement bags beneath certain segments of the offshore pipelines to provide additional pipeline support. The exact same support enhancement (span remediation) activities have been performed in the past on these same offshore pipelines without requiring any new Coastal Act authorizations.
- Sable has filed a lawsuit against the Commission in Superior Court in Santa Barbara County where it has asked the Court for damages and declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its vested rights to repair, maintain and operate the Santa Ynez Unit and Las Flores Pipeline Systems.
Nord Stream litigation: Insurers’ assertion is “embarrassing for want of particularity”
Posted in accidents, climate, pipelines, tagged Jeffrey Brodsky, litigation, Lloyds, Nord Stream, pipeline sabotage, Russia Ukraine conflict, Said Mahmoudi on October 14, 2024| 4 Comments »
Jeffrey Brodsky, a journalist who traveled to all four Nord Stream blast sites, shared Nord Stream AG’s response (attached) to the 30 Sept. court filing by the insurers.
Particularly noteworthy is Nord Stream’s response to the insurers’ claim (par. 22.2 (a) of their filing) that the pipeline damage was the result of “the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.” In par. 13.1 of their response (attached), Nord Stream called the insurers’ assertion “embarrassing for want of particularity.” (clever wording that may prove useful in the future 😉)
Brodsky’s observations on the Nord Stream filing:
- Nord Stream AG calls the insurers (Lloyd’s and Arch) failure to provide evidence for the country that blew up the pipelines “embarrassing.” (See above comment.)
- Nord Stream argues that the insurers still must pay even if the sabotage was an act of war. This aligns with what legal scholar Said Mahmoudi told Brodsky.
- Mahmoudi: “The defendants’ argument is prima facie irrelevant if one cannot prove that the damage is caused by a named government that has been directly involved in a war in the area. The burden of proof in this case is…on the defendant.”
- Mahmoudi: “Even if the sabotage is an act of terrorism, the author of the act can be a state or a private entity.”
- Mahmoudi: “If a private entity, the insurance company, is the only source for the compensation; if a state is responsible for the terrorist act, it is the insurance company & that state that have a legal obligation to compensate for the damage.”
Related comment by Erik Andersson: Nord Stream AG has consistently claimed they should receive compensation regardless of whether or not a government was responsible for the sabotage. Nord Stream AG does not seem interested in providing an alternative to Lloyds’ claim that Ukraine did this as an act of war. (That horse might be too big to ride 😉)
More offshore wind litigation: Save LBI to sue BOEM and NOAA over the Atlantic Shores South project
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Wind, tagged Ack for Whales, Atlantic Shores project, ESA, litigation, Offshore Wind, RIght Whale, Save LBI on October 4, 2024| Leave a Comment »
As a boy, my grandfather owned a home “down the shore” on Long Beach Island (LBI). From the beach, all we saw were swimmers, surf fishers, porpoises, and an occasional vessel on the horizon. The offshore wind industrialization will change the island dramatically.
Attached is the release announcing Save LBI’s intent to sue. Their issues are summarized below:
- Constructing and operating hundreds of wind turbines directly in a prime migration path for the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
- Operational noise from the larger and noisier turbines Atlantic Shores plans to build.
- Cumulative impact of the East Coast wind-turbine projects on the right whale’s migration.
- Interference with other uses of the ocean including fishing and national security.
- No plan or capability, technically or monetarily, to remove turbines and other facilities at the end of their useful life, upon their failure during normal operation, or in the aftermath of a hurricane or other extreme storm event.
- Failure to account for structural failures such as the Vineyard Wind turbine blade incident, the damage from such failures to the ocean and beaches, and how that damage will be remediated.
- Excessive electric bill increases under the State’s Offshore Wind Energy Development Act.
The Endangered Species Act issues are similar to those that the Nantucket group ACK for Whales is trying to elevate to the Supreme Court.
Oregon offshore wind: If litigation doesn’t stop the Oct. sale, the absence of bidders may.
Posted in energy policy, Offshore Energy - General, Offshore Wind, tagged Coos County, Curry County, floating turbines, lack of bidders, litigation, NewSun Energy, Offshore Wind, opposition, Oregon on September 28, 2024| Leave a Comment »
Update 2: Oregon’s Governor requested cancellation. (letter attached)
“I am disappointed that BOEM’s accelerated process over the last year has further divided stakeholder communities, and put the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians in the position of challenging BOEM in federal district court. Oregon’s legislative Coastal Caucus is likewise now in full opposition to BOEM’s proposed lease.“
Update: The sale has been cancelled.
Despite the usual hype about the number of homes that could be powered and “good-paying jobs,” the upcoming Oregon wind lease appears to be very much in doubt. If legal action by Oregon tribes doesn’t halt or delay the sale, the absence of bidders may.
OregonLive reports that only one company, NewSun Energy, continues to be interested in participating in the sale. NewSun is primarily a solar energy developer with no apparent offshore wind experience.
Wind development offshore Oregon would be complex and very expensive given the need for floating turbines and new high-voltage transmission lines over the Coast Range. At least two counties, Coos and Curry, are set to vote on whether to publicly oppose offshore wind development off their coast.
If the sale is delayed such that BOEM is not able to issue leases before 12/20/2024, the leases cannot be issued until a qualifying oil and gas lease sale is held.
SCOTUS Chevron deference decision could factor large in the 5 Year Leasing Plan litigation
Posted in climate, energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, Regulation, tagged 5 year leasing plan, API, Chevron Doctrine, DOI, litigation, offshore oil and gas on August 13, 2024| Leave a Comment »
API is challenging the Dept. of the Interior’s 5 year oil and gas leasing plan, which includes the fewest lease sales in program history. That challenge was filed on 12 February, 60 days after Secretary Haaland approved the 5 plan and the first day appeals could be filed pursuant to 43 U.S. Code § 1349.
18 weeks after the API suit was filed, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron Doctrine. That doctrine (described above) instructed judges to defer to agency interpretations when the language in a law was unclear.
Interior’s 5 year OCS oil and gas leasing plan provides for the fewest (3) lease sales in history and may not have included a single sale were it not for legislation prohibiting the issuance of offshore wind leases unless an offshore oil and gas lease sale was held during the prior year.
This unprecedented oil and leasing decision was based on “the need to confront the climate crisis through reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and on achieving “net zero pathways.” Neither of those objectives is articulated in the OCS Lands Act or other governing legislation.
Extending the Secretary’s general safety and environmental authority for OCS operations to include global climate considerations is a stretch and the type of interpretive administrative decision that the Supreme Court struck down.
Suing in DC Federal Court to stop Congressionally mandated oil and gas lease sale 261
Posted in energy policy, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Gulf of Mexico, Lease Sale 261, litigation on September 5, 2023| Leave a Comment »
The plaintiffs assert “insufficient and arbitrary environmental analyses, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).” The court filing is attached.
For those who missed it, supporters of the lease sale have challenged some of the provisions.
All of this will have to be resolved in the next 3 weeks, as the congressionally mandated sale, scheduled for 27 September, (presumably) cannot be postponed.
Lease sale 257 challenges finally over?
Posted in Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, Offshore Energy - General, tagged Cook Inlet, Gulf of Mexico, Lease Sale 257, Lease Sale 258, Lease Sale 259, litigation on May 5, 2023| Leave a Comment »
That would appear to be the case now that the US Court of Appeals for DC dismissed litigation challenging the sale.
Meanwhile, challenges to Cook Inlet Sale 258 (humble as it was with only one bid) and GoM Sale 259 continue. It’s a great country (if you like endless litigation)!
In addition to Lease Sale 257, the IRA also required Interior to offer three other lease sales in Alaska and the Gulf that it previously declined to hold. Lease Sale 258, in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, was held in December but received only one bid. Earthjustice is challenging that sale. Earthjustice is also challenging Lease Sale 259, in the Gulf of Mexico, which was held in March. Lease Sale 261, also in the Gulf, will be held by September of this year.
EarthJustice
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 