Joint Appendix — Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 494 (1999) (No. 99-253)
Supreme Court brief1999
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court
t, US.
FILED
In THE FAN 5 onan
Supreme Court of the United ote
ee J
= i ee
Mosit O1L EXPLORATION & aan
SOUTHEAST, INC.,
7 Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
MARATHON O1L COMPANY,
- Petitioner,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
JOINT APPENDIX
CARTER G. PHILLIPS * SetH P. WAXMAN *
RICHARD D. BERNSTEIN Solicitor General
GRIFFITH L. GREEN Department of Justice
MICHAEL S. LEE Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Sm.iry & AUSTIN (202) 514-2217
1722 Eye Street, NW Counsel for Respondent
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 736-8000
Counsel for Petitioner
Marathon Oil Co.
E. EDWARD BRUCE *
STEVEN J. ROSENBAUM
KEVIN C. NEWSOM
COVINGTON & BURLING
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
P.O. Box 7566
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 662-6000
Counsel for Petitioner °
Mobil Oil Exploration & Counsel of Record
Producing Southeast, Inc. December 30, 1999
RTD se eon A ET RL A TE
PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI FILED: AUGUST 10, 1999 (99-244)
AND AUGUST 11, 1999 (99-253)
CERTIORARI GRANTED: NOVEMBER 15, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
District Court Docket Entries ...............2..........ccccceseesece
Court of Appeals Docket Entries ..200.0.000...0...cccceccceeeeeee
U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, Final Secretarial Issue Doc-
qmnemt (PGR. 1661) (GRBGEIE) q...~...cccccccccccccccccssceccosccccesee
Letter from James A. Summers, N.C. Dep’t of Natural
Resources & Community Dev., to Bruce E. Wamsley,
MMS (Aug. 17, 1982) (CZMA concurrence for
| LE as NE eRe! AR Oe Be Cem ee Ae
Letter from James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor of N.C., to
Larry Ake, MMS (Oct. 15, 1982) (CZMA concurrence
I hice aia dieeedietitbaltidiacalcidilicinaninsiss
Letter from James G. Martin, Governor of N.C., to
Ralph Ainger, MMS (Oct. 6, 1982) ........0002eeecece eee eee
Letter from Donna D. Moffitt, N.C. Dep’t of Admin., to
Ralph V. Ainger, MMS (Oct. 20, 1988) -....0000000000000000...
Letter from Donna D. Moffitt, N.C. Dep’t of Admin., to
William Whittemore, Esq., Mobil Exploration & Prod.
oF ERE Se Se ea Re ee.
Document F16NC1, Final (Apr. 1, 1989) ....0020000000..
Memorandum Of Understanding By And Between The
State Of North Carolina, Mobil Oil Corporation, And
The Minerals Management Service (July 12, 1989)......
Memorandum from Donna Moffitt, N.C. Dep’t of
Admin., to N.C. Officials (Nov. 20, 1989) (official State
comment on MMS Draft Report) ............00..000.ccccceecceeeeee
Letter from William C. Whittemore, Esq., Mobil Ex-
ploration & Producing U.S. Inc., to Hon. William W.
Cobey, Jr., N.C. Dep’t of Env’t, Health, and Natural
Resources (Apr. 17, 1990) (certification for NPDES
OTD cisdiccdicdsiesnbivieandigiaiidlincsthiibiinnlidebansilinapssanbiiteamdisitihdaimends
White House Press Release (June 26, 1990) ................
Letter from Rep. Walter B. Jones to the President
SIE Ti, Meret chichctsinhiacedscicienntrsscmutnaieneniematinnditinmsein
Letter from James G. Martin, Governor of N.C., to
the President (June 27, 1990) ........222.........ccccccccsesssesoseess
57
5Y
61
65
69
76
79
86
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Letter from Roger N. Schecter, N.C. Dept’ of Env’t,
Health, and Natural Resources, to William C. Whitte-
more, Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc. (July
16, 1990) (objection to NPDES Permit) .......................
Letter from Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the In-
terior, to Rep. Ralph Regula (Aug. 1, 1990) .................
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast Inc.,
Exploration Plan (Aug. 20, 1990) (excerpt) .................
Letter from Lawrence H. Ake, MMS, to William C.
Whittemore, Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc.
(Sept. 21, 1990) (notice of suspension of leases) ..........
Letter from Lawrence H. Ake, MMS, to Amerada Hess
Corp. (Sept. 21, 1990) (notice of suspension of leases) ..
U.S. Dept’ of the Interior, MMS, Environmental As-
sessment of Exploration Plan for Manteo Area Block
467 (Sept. 28, 1990) (excerpt) ......................ccccccesesseceseees
Letter from Roger N. Schecter, N.C. Dep’t of Env’t,
Health, and Natural Resources, to Bruce G. Weetman,
MMS (Nov. 19, 1990) (objection to Manteo Unit
SRL GR NR ORES RS Oe
N.C. Envtl. Sciences Review Panel, Report to the Sec-
retary of the Interior (Jan. 22, 1992) (Executive
a a ee
Letter from Bruce G. Weetman, MMS, to Leslie J. Bur-
ton, Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Inc. (date
illegible) (notice lifting lease suspensions) ...................
Letter from Leslie J. Burton, Mobil Exploration &
Producing U.S. Inc., to Bruce Weetman, MMS (Sept.
15, 1992) (request to reinstate lease suspensions) ........
Letter from Leslie J. Burton, Mobil Exploration &
Producing U.S. Inc., to Bruce Weetman, MMS (Sept.
23, 1992) (request to reinstate lease suspensions) ........
Letter from Bruce G. Weetman, MMS, to Leslie J. Bur-
ton, Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S. Ine. (Oct.
9, 1992) (notice reinstating lease suspensions) .............
118
115
129
132
138
141
149
165
168
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Defendant's Response to Third Party Plaintiffs’ Third
Set of Requests to Admit Interrogatories, Conoco Inc.
v. United States, No. 92-331C (Fed. Cl.) (excerpt)...
Deposition of David Courtland O’Neal, Conoco Ine. v.
United States, No. 92-331-C (Fed. Cl. Aug. 31, 1993)
EES a Te OE SOS OE ce
Deposition of Bruce G. Weetman, Conoco Ine. v.
United States, No. 92-331-C (Fed. Cl. Feb. 15, 1994)
EEE LE ee eee
Decl. of Margo E. Jackson, Conoco Inc. v. United
States, No. 92-331-C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 6, 1994) .................
Decl. of Paul Martin, Conoco Inc. v. United States,
No. 92-331-C (Fed. Cl. Apr. 8, 1994) 0000000.
Letter from Thomas Gernhoffer, MMS, to Dianna
Josephson, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce (July 22, 1994)
(notice of completion of studies) 0.
Secretary of Commerce, Decision and Findings In The
Plan Of Exploration Consistency Appeal Of Mobil Oil
Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. From An Ob-
jection By The State Of North Carolina (Sept. 2,
SEES selieeihdeiiaseaieaiteitteetn tiles itil aaaninins
Secretary of Commerce, Decision and Findings In The
Drilling Discharge Consistency Appeal Of Mobil Oil
Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. From An Ob-
jection By The State Of North Carolina (Sept. 2,
Ee ae ee ea
Letter from Chris C. Oynes, MMS, to Leslie J. Burton,
Mobil Exploration & Prod. U.S. Inc. (Nov. 9, 1994)
(notice of termination of suspension of leases) ............
Judgment [Pursuant to Rule 54(b)] (Fed. Cl. July 24,
ED crsssneneceutnntinatinnecntmacmensatingemsttinincianermatingmtmenmnenamnes
Page
175
191
194
196
261
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Civil Case No. 92-CV-331
MARATHON [CONOCO}]
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
———s
a
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
5/7/92
5/7/92
1
COMPLAINT FILED FILING FEE $ 120
RECEIPT # 30332 Answer due on 7/6/92.
(mm) [Entry date 11/22/93]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC. (Service : 5/
7/92 ) for Notice to Third Parties [Chevron
USA Inc.; Murphy Oil USA, Inc.; Odeco I
& Gas Co.; OXY USA Inc.; Pennzoil Explo-
ration & Production Co.; Shell Offshore Inc. ;
Union Oil Co. of California; Amerada Hess
Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; Mobil Exploration
& Producing U.S. Inc.] Copies (4) served on
defendant. Response due: 5/24/92 (mm)
{Entry date 11/22/93]
Notice of assignment to Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson. Copy to parties. (mm) [Entry
date 11/22/93]
ORDER entered directing the issuance of
Rule 14 notices as specified in [] [2-1] motion
for Notice to Third Parties submitted
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) .
Copy to parties. Notices issued this day and
delivered to plaintiff’s attorney for service.
(mm) [Entry date 11/22/93]
2
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
10/28/92
12/10/92
2/22/93
11/2/93
11/10/93
11/12/93
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT (7 separate)
by OXY USA INC., AMERADA HESS
CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA,
INC. Service: 10/28/92 FILING FEE $ 120
for each RECEIPT # 32218-32224. Answer
due 12/27/92 (mm) [Entry date 11/22/93]
[Edit date 11/23/93]
THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT (4 separate)
FILED by AMOCO PRODUCTION, MOBIL
EXPLORATION, SHELL FRONTIER OIL,
and TEXACO EXPLORATION. Service:
10/28/92 FILING FEE $ 120 for each com-
plaint. RECEIPT # 32728-32731. Answer
due 12/27/92 (mm) [Entry date 11/23/93]
ORDER entered directing the Dismissing of
third party plaintiff Mobil Exploration and
Producing U.S., Inc. complaint without prej-
udice (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) .
Copy to parties. (mm) [Entry date 11/23/
93)
CORRECTED MOTION by USA (Service:
11/1/98 ) to Extend Time to complete dis-
covery (to May 30, 1994) . Response due:
11/18/93 (mm) [Entry date 11/23/93]
MOTION by third party plaintiffs’ AME-
RADA HESS CORP. et al (Service : 11/10/
93) for Protective Order precluding certain
depositions. Response due: 11/29/93 (mm)
[Entry date 11/23/93]
Status Conference held (Transcript due 12/
18/93) . (mm) [Entry date 12/06/93]
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
11/15/93
11/19/93
12/1/93
12/1/93
12/3/93
12/3/93
10
13
14
15
ORDER mooting [9-1] motion for Protective
Order precluding certain depositions, grant-
ing in part, denying in part [8-1] motion to
Extend Time to complete discovery reset Dis-
covery deadline to 2/15/94, reset Dispositive
Motion Filing deadline to 4/1/94 (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) . Copy to parties.
(mm) [Entry date 11/23/93]
[Stipulated] MOTION by CONOCO, INC.
and USA to Extend Time within which to
respond to discovery requests, (until Decem-
ber 3, 1993) and reset Discovery deadline.
Response due: 12/6/93. (hw) [Entry date
11/26/93]
ORDER granting [11-1] motion to Extend
Time within which to respond to discovery
requests, granting [11-2] motion to reset
Discovery deadline. (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson) Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry
date 12/03/93]
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: 1 volume,
at Washington, D.C., for date of November
12, 1993 . Notice to parties. (mm) [Entry
date 12/06/93]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC., USA and
AMERADA HESS CORP., ET AL. to Ex-
tend Time to respond to discovery requests
(to December 22, 1993, for all parties). (bh)
{Entry date 12/06/93]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service: 12/3/98) for Protective Order.
Response due: 12/20/93 (bh) [Entry date
12/06/93)
4
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
12/7/98
12/7/93
12/7/93
12/8/93
12/17/93
12/17/93
12/21/93
16
17
20
21
ORDER granting [15-1] motion for Protec-
tive Order and expanding the protective
order of 9/3/93, to include attachment A to
order. (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son) Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date 12/
08/93]
SUPPLEMENTAL STIPULATED PRO-
TECTIVE ORDER (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry
date 12/08/93] [Edit date 12/08/93]
ORDER granting [14-1] motion to Extend
Time to respond to discovery requests
( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson )
Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date 12/98/93]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service : 12/8/93 ) for Confidentiality
Order, and to Expedite decision thereon. Re-
sponse due: 12/27/93 (bh) [Entry date
12/09/93]
NOTICE of change of address by CONOCO,
INC. Service: 12/17/93 (ds) [Entry date
12/20/93]
RESPONSE by USA to [19-1] motion for
Confidentiality Order, [19-2] motion to Ex-
pedite decision thereon. Service: 12/17/93.
Reply due: 1/3/94 (bh) [Entry date 12/20/
93]
ORDER granting [19-1] motion for Con-
fidentiality Order, granting [19-2] motion to
Expedite decision thereon, with the Protec-
tive Order of 9/3/93 expanded to include
Attachment A to [this] order. ( Signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) Copy to par-
ties. (bh) [Entry date 12/23/93]
5
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
12/22/93 23 JOINT MOTION to Extend Time to respond
1/3/94
1/14/94
1/14/94
1/21/94
1/26/94
1/31/94
2/14/94
26
to discovery requests (to January 15, 1994).
(bh) [Entry date 12/30/93]
ORDER granting [23-1] joint motion to Ex-
tend Time to respond to discovery requests
( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson )
oa” to parties. (hw) [Entry date 01/04/
MOTION by USA (Service : 1/14/94 ) to
Amend answers to assert offset claims. Re-
sponse due: 1/31/94 (bh) [Entry date 01/
24/94]
JOINT MOTION to Extend Time for all par-
ties to respond to one anothers’ discovery
requests (to January 31, 1994). (bh) [Entry
date 01/24/94]
ORDER granting [26-1] joint motion to Ex-
tend Time for all parties to respond to one
anothers’ discovery requests. ( signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ) Copy to parties.
(bh) [Entry date 01/25/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 1/26/94 ) to
Compel production of documents. Response
due: 2/14/94 (bh) [Entry date 02/01/94]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP. ET AL. to [25-1] motion to
Amend answers to assert offset claims. Serv-
ice: 1/31/94 [Reply date: 2/14/94] (bh)
{Entry date 02/02/94]
RESPONSE by CHEVRON USA INC. to
[28-1] motion tr Compel production of docu-
ments. Service: 2/14/94 Reply due: 2/28/
94 (bh) [Entry date 02/15/94]
6
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
2/14/94 $81 MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP., ET
2/14/94
2/14/94
2/14/94
2/16/94
2/16/94
2/16/94
32
35
36
37
AL. (Service : 2/14/94 ) for Second Supple-
mental Protective Order. Response due: 3/
8/94 (bh). [Entry date 02/15/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/14/94 ) to
Extend Time to reply to third-party plain-
tiff’s discovery requests (to February 16,
1994). (bh) [Entry date 02/16/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/14/94 ) to
Extend Time to reply to plaintiff’s discovery
requests (to February 16, 1994). (bh) [En-
try date 02/16/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/14/94 ) to
Extend Time to reply to the opposition to
motion to amend answers (to February 16,
1994). (bh) [Entry date 02/16/94]
REPLY by USA to response to [25-1] mo-
tion to Amend answers to assert offset
claims. Service: 2/16/94 (ds) [Entry date
02/17/94]
ORDER granting [34-1] motion to Extend
Time to reply to the opposition to motion to
amend answers set Notice of Compliance
deadline to 2/16/94 ( signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson ) Copy to parties. (hw) [Entry
date 02/22/94)
ORDER granting [82-1] motion to Extend
Time to reply to third-party plaintiff's dis-
covery requests. Deadline reset until Febru-
ary 16, 1994 ( signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson ). Copy to parties. (hw) [Entry
date 02/22/94]
7
NT ——————————————————————————ee——____
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
2/16/94 88 ORDER granting [33-1] motion to Extend
2/16/94
2/16/94
2/23/94
2/28/94
8/1/94
8/3/94
40
41
44
Time to reply to plaintiff’s discovery re-
quests. Deadline reset until February 16,
1994 (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son). Copy to parties. (hw) [Entry date
02/22/94]
ORDER granting [31-1] motion for Second
Supplemental Protective Order ( signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ). Copy to parties.
(hw) [Entry date 02/22/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/15/94 ) to
Compel production of documents. Response
due: 3/4/94. (hw) [Entry date 02/22/94]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP., ET AL. (Service by hand:
2/23/94) for Leave to File surreply memo-
randum in response to defendant’s reply to
opposition to motion for leave to amend an-
swers to assert offset claims. Response due:
8/9/94 (bh) [Entry date 02/28/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/28/94 ) to
Extend Time to reply to CHEVRON’S op-
position to motion to compel (to March 2,
1994). (bh) [Entry date 03/04/94]
REPLY by USA to response [by third party
plaintiff, Chevron U.S.A.] to [28-1] motion
to Compel production of documents. Serv-
ice: 3/1/94. (hw) [Entry date 03/07/94]
ORDER scheduling oral argument for March
17, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. ( signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson ). Copy to all parties.
(ds) [Entry date 03/08/94]
DATE
NO.
:
PROCEEDINGS
3/3/94
3/3/94
3/4/94
3/14/94
3/16/94
45
46
47
48
49
ORDER granting [41-1] motion for Leave
to File surreply memorandum in response to
defendant’s reply to opposition to motion for
leave to amend answers to assert offset
claims. ( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son ) Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date
03/08/94]
SUR-REPLY MEMORANDUM by CON-
OCO, INC., OXY USA INC., ET AL. in re-
sponse to USA’s reply to opposition to mo-
tion for leave to amend answers to assert
counterclaims. (ds) [Entry date 03/08/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/4/94 ) to
Withdraw [40-1] motion to Compel by USA.
Response due: 3/21/94 (bh) [Entry date
03/09/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/14/94 ) for
modification of the order of briefing so that
plaintiff’s and third-party plaintiffs’ disposi-
tive motions be filed first, or in the alterna-
tive, to Extend Time to file dispositive mo-
tion (to April 15, 1994). Response due: 3/
31/94 (bh) [Entry date 03/16/94]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC., OXY USA
INC., AMERADA HESS CORP., PENNZ-
OIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL COM-
PANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EXPLO-
RATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION (Service: 3/16/
94 ) for Leave to File stipulations and stip-
ulation exhibits Response due: 4/2/93 (mm)
{Entry date 03/21/94]
9
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
8/16/94 50 RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC., OXY USA
3/17/94 -——
3/18/94 51
8/22/94 54
INC., AMERADA HESS CORP., PENNZ-
OIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL COM-
PANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EXPLO-
RATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION to [48-1] motion
for modification of the order of briefing, or
in the alternative [48-2] motion to Extend
Time to file dispositive motion Service: 3/
16/94 Reply due: 3/28/94 (mm) [Entry
date 03/22/94]
Oral Argument re: [41-1] motion for Leave
to File surreply memorandum in response to
defendant’s reply to opposition to motion for
leave to amend answers to assert offset
claims. Response due: 3/9/94 by AME-
RADA HESS CORP., CONOCO, INC.
( Transcript due 4/18/94 ) (mm) [Entry
date 03/18/94]
ORDER granting in part, denying in part
[48-1] motion for modification of the order
of briefing; resetting Simultaneous Motions
for Summary Judgment Filing deadline to
4/8/94; setting Joint Status Report dead-
line for 3/25/94; setting Supplemental Brief
deadline to 4/1/94 for plaintiffs and third-
party plaintiffs [defendant to respond 4/8/
94]; and setting Notice of Compliance dead-
line to 3/21/94 for CHEVRON to submit IN
CAMERA documents to the court for in-
spection. ( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Rob-
inson ) Copy to parties. (bh) [Entry date
03/23/94]
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: 1 volume,
at Washington, D.C., for date of March 17,
1994 exhibits: . Notice to parties. (mm)
[Entry date 04/01/94]
10
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
8/25/94
3/25/94
4/1/94
4/4/94
4/7/94
4/8/94
52
53
55
56
57
58
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/25/94 ) For
leave to exceed the page limitation of its
brief in support of its motion for summary
judgment [totaling 100 pages]. (bh) [Entry
date 03/29/94]
STATUS REPORT by CONOCO, INC., USA,
OXY USA INC., AMERADA HESS CORP.,
PENNZOIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL
COMPANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EXPLO-
RATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION, TEXACO INC.,
MOBIL OIL CORP., MOBIL OIL EXPLOR,
SHELL WESTERN E & P, SHELL OFF-
SHORE INC., TEXACO EXPLORATION,
SHELL FRONTIER OIL, MOBIL EXPL &
PRODUC, MOBIL EXPLORATION Service:
3/25/94 (mm) [Entry date 03/29/94]
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by CONOCO,
INC., AMERADA HESS CORP., et al. re:
AMERICOLD case. Service by hand: 4/1/94
(ds) [Entry date 04/02/94]
ORDER granting [52-1] motion For Leave
to exceed the page limitation; and allowing
all parties to expand their briefs up to 100
pages ( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son ). Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date
04/05/94]
MOTION by USA (Service : 4/7/94 ) to Ex-
tend Time for parties to file dispositive mo-
tions until April 12, 1994. Response due:
4/25/94 (rs) [Entry date 04/08/94]
Not'ce of filing proposed order by CONOCO,
INC., OXY USA INC., AMERADA HESS
CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL
DATE
NO.
11
PROCEEDINGS
4/8/94
4/11/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
59
62
65
USA, INC., AMOCO PRODUCTION filed by
leave of the judge. Service : 4/7/94 (mm)
[Entry date 04/11/94] [Edit date 04/11/94]
RESPONSE by USA to [55-1] memorandum
by AMERADA HESS CORP., CONOCO,
INC., Service: 4/8/94 (mm) [Entry date
04/12/94]
ORDER granting [57-1] motion to Extend
Time for parties to file dispositive motions
set Motion Filing deadline to 4/12/94
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy
to parties. (mm) [Entry date 04/12/94]
ORDER filed by leave of the judge. (mm)
[Entry date 04/13/94]
MOTION by USA (Service: 4/12/94) for
Summary Judgment, together with seven
volumes of appendix. [Volume VII of Ap-
pendix placed INCAMERA.] Response due:
5/13/94 (ds) [Entry date 04/14/94]
PROPOSED FINDINGS of Uncontroverted
Fact by USA. Service: 4/12/94 [Volume
II of Proposed Findings placed IN CAM-
ERA.] (ds) [Entry date 04/14/94]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC. (Service: 4/
12/94) for Summary Judgment, together
with four separately bound volumes of ex-
hibits [2 volumes of “Lease Sale” Exhibits;
2 volumes of “Post-Lease” “Moratoria” Ex-
hibits]. Response due: 5/13/94 (ds) [En-
try date 04/14/94]
PROPOSED FINDINGS of Uncontroverted
Fact by CONOCO, INC. Service: 4/12/94
(ds) [Entry date 04/14/94]
12
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/12/94
4/21/94
4/26/94
5/3/94
5/6/94
66 MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP. et al.
67
69
70
71
(Service : 4/12/94 ) for Partial Summary
Judgment. Response due: 5/13/94 (rs)
[Entry date 04/14/94]
PROPOSED FINDINGS of Uncontroverted
Fact by AMERADA HESS CORP., et al.
Service: 4/12/94 (rs) [Entry date 04/14/
94]
ORDER granting [49-1] motion for Leave
to File stipulations and stipulation exhibits.
( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ) Copy
to parties. (rs) [Entry date 04/14/94]
Stipulation of leases together with (FOUR
(4) volumes of exhibits. [five parts total].
(rs) [Entry date 04/14/94]
ORDER entered scheduling a Status Con-
ference for 10:00 a.m. on 4/26/94 ( signed
by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ) Copy to par-
ties. (mm) [Entry date 04/28/94]
Status Conference held (Transcript due 5/
26/94) (mm) [Entry date 04/29/94]
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: 1 volume,
at Washington, D.C., for date of April 26,
1994. Notice to parties. (mm)
ORDER granting [28-1] motion to Compel
production of documents; granting in part,
denying in part [25-1] motion to Amend
answers to assert offset claims; Responses
to [66-1] [64-1] [62-1] motions for Sum-
mary Judgment reset to 5/24/94; Replies to
responses [66-1] [64-1] [62-1] motions for
Summary Judgment, reset to 6/17/94; de-
fendant, plaintiff and 3rd party plaintiff al-
lowed 65 pages for response briefs and 45
pages for reply briefs with plaintiff and 3rd
13
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
5/24/94
5/27/94
5/27/94
5/27/94
6/1/94
74
75
76
78
party plaintiff given 100 pages total for both
responses if they file them separately; and
setting Answers and to assert offset claims
deadline to 6/6/94 with plaintiff and 3rd
party plaintiff to respond within 30 days
from FILING. signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson) Copy to parties. (rs) [Entry date
05/16/94]
MOTION by USA (Service: 5/24/94) to
Extend Time within which all parties may
file their responses to dispositive motions,
(until May 27, 1994) and to Extend Time
within which all parties may file any replies
to responses to their motions, (until June 20,
1994). Response due: 6/10/94 (hw) [Entry
date 06/02/94]
RESPONSE by USA to [66-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, [64-1] motion
for Summary Judgment; together with a
separate volume of appendix. Service: 5/
27/94; Reply due: 6/17/94 (per order of
5/6/94) (ds) [Entry date 06/02/94]
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES in
response to Conoco’s proposed findings of
uncontroverted fact by USA. Service: 5/
27/94 (ds) [Entry date 06/02/94]
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES in
response to third party plaintiffs’ proposed
findings of uncontroverted fact by USA
Service: 5/27/94 (ds) [Entry date 06/02/
94]
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES by
CONOCO, INC., OXY USA INC., AMER-
ADA HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLO-
RATION, UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEV-
RON USA INC., MARATHON OIL COM-
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
i4
-_—_—_
6/1/94
6/1/94
79
PANY, MURPHY EXPLORATION, MUR-
PHY OIL USA, INC., AMOCO PRODUC-
TION, TEXACO INC., MOBIL OIL CORP.,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR, SHELL WESTERN
E & P, SHELL OFFSHORE INC., TEX-
ACO EXPLORATION, SHELL FRONTIER
OIL, MOBIL EXPL & PRODUC. and MO-
BIL EXPLORATION filed by leave of
Judge. Service BY HAND: 5/27/94. (as)
[Entry date 06/08/94]
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES
[FILED UNDER SEAL] by CONOCO,
INC., OXY USA INC., AMERADA HESS
CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EXPLO-
RATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION, TEXACO INC.,
MOBIL OIL CORP., MOBIL OIL EXPLOR,
SHELL WESTERN E & P, SHELL OFF-
SHORE INC., TEXACO EXPLORATION,
SHELL FRONTIER OIL, EXPL &
PRODUC. and MOBIL EXPLORATION
filed by leave of Judge. Service BY HAND:
5/27/94. (as) [Entry date 06/08/94]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC., OXY USA
INC., AMERADA HESS CORP., PENNZ-
OIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL COM-
PANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EXPLO-
RATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC,
AMOCO PRODUCTION, TEXACO INC.,
MOBIL OIL CORP., MOBIL OIL, EXPLOR,
SHELL WESTERN E & P, SHELL OFF-
SHORE INC., TEXACO EXPLORATION,
SHELL FRONTIER OIL, MOBIL EXPL &
PRODUC. and MOBIL EXPLORATION to
15
PROCEEDINGS
DATE NO.
6/2/94 81
6/2/94 a
6/3/94 82
6/9/94 83
6/17/94 84
6/21/94 85
[62-1] motion for Summary Judgment filed
by leave of Judge. Service BY HAND: 5/
27/94. Reply due: 6/7/94. (as) [Entry date
06/08/94] [Edit date 06/08/94]
ORDER granting [77-1] motion to Extend
Time within which all parties may file their
responses to dispositive motions, granting
[77-2] motion to Extend Time within which
all parties may file any replies to responses
to their motions (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson) Copy to parties. (tw) [Entry
date 06/08/94]
Deadline updated ; Reply to Response to Mo-
tion reset to 6/20/94 for [66-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, reset to 6/20/
94 for [64-1] motion for Summary Judg-
ment, reset to 6/20/94 for [62-1] motion for
Summary Judgment (tw) [Entry date 06/
08/94]
MOTION by USA (Service: 6/3/94) to Ex-
tend Time to file amended answers [to June
30, 1994]. (as) [Entry date 06/09/94]
ORDER granting [82-1] motion to Extend
Time to file amended answers resetting An-
swers deadline to 6/30/94 (signed by Judge
Marian B. Horn for Judge Robinson) Copy
to parties. (rs) [Entry date 06/14/94]
MOTION by USA (Service: 6/17/94) to
_Extend Time to reply to oppositions to dis-
positive motions [to June 24, 1994]. (as)
{Entry date 06/20/94]
ORDER granting [84-1] motion to Extend
Time to reply to oppositions to dispositive
motions Reply to Response to Motion reset
to 6/24/94 for [66-1] motion for Partial
DATE
NO.
16
PROCEEDINGS
6/24/94
6/27/94
6/27/94
6/27/94
6/27/94
6/30/94
91
Summary Judgment, reset to 6/24/94 for
[64-1] motion for Summary Judgment, re-
set to 6/24/94 for [62-1] motion for Sum-
mary Judgment (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson) Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date
06/23/94]
REPLY by USA to response to [62-1] mo-
tion for Summary Judgment. Service: 6/
24/94. (hw) [Entry date 06/27/94]
REPLY by CONOCO, INC. to response to
[62-1] motion for Summary Judgment filed
by leave of Judge. Service: 6/24/94. (as)
[Entry date 06/29/94]
MOTION by USA (Service: 6/27/94) for
Leave to File a corrected brief Response
due: 7/14/94 (rs) [Entry date 06/29/94]
REPLY by CONOCO, INC. to response to
[62-1] motion for Summary Judgment filed
by leave of the judge. Service: 6/24/94
(mm) [Entry date 06/30/94]
REPLY by OXY USA INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA,
INC., AMOCO PRODUCTION to response
to [62-1] motion for Summary Judgment
filed by leave of the judge. Service: 6/24/
94 (mm) [Entry date 06/30/94]
ARTENDED ANSWER to Complaint by USA
asserting offset claims: Service: 6/30/94
(rs) [Entry date 07/05/94]
17
——— OOS
DATE
NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/5/94
7/5/94
7/8/94
7/29/94
8/1/94
8/1/94
8/1/94
8/1/94
8/1/94
12/2/94
100
95
101
ORDER granting [88-1] motion for Leave
to File a corrected brief (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson) Copy to parties. (rs)
[Entry date 07/08/94]
CORRECTED REPLY BRIEF by USA to
response to [62-1] motion for Summary
Judgment. Service: 7/5/94 (rs) [Entry
date 07/08/94]
SECOND AMENDED ANSWER to Com-
plaint by USA: amends [91-1] answer by
USA. Service: 7/8/94 (as) [Entry date
07/14/94]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. to [91-1]
answer by USA Service: 7/29/94 (rs)
{Entry date 08/05/94]
RESPONSE by SHELL OFFSHORE, INC.
to [94-1] answer by USA. Service: 8/1/94
(as) [Entry date 08/05/94]
RESPONSE by SHELL WESTERN E & P
and SHELL FRONTIER OIL to [94-1]
ansfer by USA. Service: 8/1/94 (as)
[Entry date 08/05/94]
RESPONSE by OXY USA INC. to [94-1]
answer by USA. Service: 8/1/94 (as)
[Entry date 08/05/94]
RESPONSE by AMOCO PRODUCTION to
[94-1] answer by USA. Service: 8/1/94
(as) [Entry date 08/05/94]
RESPONSE by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY to [94-1] answer by USA. Service:
8/1/94 (as) [Entry date 08/05/94)
ORDER oral argument set for 10:00 1/31/95
for [66-1] motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, [64-1] motion for Summary Judg-
‘18
SSS CLOEEOOOOOE
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
ment, [62-1] motion for Summary Judg-
ment (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson)
Copy to parties. (rs) [Entry date 12/07/94]
12/23/94 102 MOTION by USA (Service: 12/23/94) for
Leave to File a supplementary brief, etc.
Response due: 1/9/95 (Supplemental brief
included in motion for leave) (mp) [Entry
date 12/30/94] [Edit date 01/23/95]
1/20/95 103 MOTION by OXY USA INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA,
INC., AMOCO PRODUCTION (Service:
1/20/95) for Leave to File a reply to defend-
ant’s supplemental brief Response due: 2/
6/95 (mp) [Entry date 01/24/95]
1/20/95 104 ORDER granting [102-1] motion for Leave
to File a supplementary brief, etc. (signed
by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) Copy to par-
ties. (hw) [Entry date 01/25/95}
1/20/95 109 SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED FINDINGS
of Uncontroverted Fact by USA. Service:
12/23/94 (mp) [Entry date 02/09/95]
1/26/95 105 MOTION by CONOCO, INC. and OXY USA
INC., et al. (Service BY HAND: 1/26/95)
for Leave to File notice of recent appellate
opinions. Response due: 2/9/95 (as) [Entry
date 01/31/95]
1/27/95 106 ORDER entered granting [103-1] motion for
Leave to File a reply to defendant’s supple-
mental brief (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson) Copy to parties. (mp) [Entry
date 02/01/95]
‘19
———————— eee
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
107 REPLY OXY USA INC., AMERADA
sa a HESS none. PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA,
INC., AMOCO PRODUCTION to response
to [102-1] motion for Leave to File a supple-
mentary brief, etc. Service: copy to defend-
aut and plaintiff (mp) [Entry date 02/01/
95]
1/30/95 108 MOTION by CONOCO, INC. (Service by
hand: 1/30/95) for Leave to File a reply
to defendant’s supplementary brief and
CONOCO’s reply. Response due: 2/13/95
(hw) [Entry date 02/02/95]
1/31/95 — Oral Argument held re: [66-1] motion for
Partial Summary Judgment by AMERADA
HESS CORP. (Transcript due 3/2/95), [64-
1] motion for Summary Judgment by CON-
OCO, INC. (Transcript 3/2/95), [62-1] mo-
tion for Summary Judgment by USA (Tran-
script due 3/2/95) (mp) [Entry date 02/01/
95]
2/9/95 110 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re:, 1 volume,
at Washington, D.C., for date of January 31,
1995. Notice to parties. (mp) [Entry date
02/10/95]
2/18/95 111 ORDER entered granting [105-1] motion
for Leave to File notice of recent appellate
opinions (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son) Copy to parties. (mp) [Entry date
02/17/95]
2/18/95 112 NOTICE of recent applelate opinions by
CONOCO, INC., OXY USA INC., AMER-
ADA HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLO-
RATION, UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEV-
20
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
8/8/95
3/21/95
3/21/95
3/21/95
8/27/95
4/3/95
113
114
11E
116
117
118
RON USA INC., MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, MURPHY EXPLORATION, MUR-
PHY OIL USA, INC., AMOCO PRODUC-
TION Service: 1/26/95 (mp) {| ‘ntry date
02/17/95]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP. (Service: 3/8/95) for Leave
to File notice of recent Appellate Opinion.
Response due: 3/27/95 (hw) [Entry date
03/13/95]
RESPONSE by USA (Service: 3/21/95) to
[113-1] motion for Leave to File notice of
recent Appellate Opinion, [108-1] motion for
Leave to File a reply to defendant’s supple-
mentary brief and CONOCO’s reply, [105-1]
motion for Leave to File notice of recent
appellate opinions Reply due: 4/3/95 (mp)
[Entry date 03/23/95]
ORDER entered granting [113-1] motion
for Leave to File notice of recent Appellate
Opinion (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son) Copy to parties. (mp) [Entry date 03/
23/95]
NOTICE of recent Appellate Opinion by
CONOCO, INC. Service: to plaintiff coun-
sel. (mp) [Entry date 03/23/95]
ORDER entred [sic] granting [114-1] mo-
tion response (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson). Copy to parties. (mp) [Entry
date 03/30/95]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC., OXY USA
INC., et al. (Service BY HAND: 4/3/95)
for Leave to File reply to Defendant’s post
argument submission. Response due: 4/17/
95 (as) [Entry date 04/05/95}
i . a
21
DATE
NO. PROCEEDINGS
4/6/95
4/11/95
4/17/95
4/17/95
4/18/95
4/18/95
119
120
121
122
128
124
ORDER granting [118-1] motion for Leave
to File reply to Defendant’s post argument
submission (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson). Copy to parties. (ss) [Entry
date 04/10/95]
MOTION by USA (Service: 4/11/95) to
Suspend the issuance of a decision by the
court on the parties motions for summary
judgment Response due: 4/28/95 (mp)
{Entry date 04/13/95]
RESPONSE by OXY USA INC., AMER-
ADA HESS CORP., et al. (Service: 4/17/
95) to [120-1] motion to Suspend the issu-
ance of a decision by the court on the parties
motions for summary judgment. Reply due:
5/1/95 (as) [Entry date 04/19/95]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. (Service BY
HAND: 4/17/95) to [120-1] motion to Sus-
pend the issuance of a decision by the court
the parties motions for summary judgment.
Reply due: 4/26/95 (as) [Entry date 04/
19/95)
MOTION by SHELL WESTERN E & P,
SHELL OFFSHORE INC., SHELL FRON-
TIER OIL (Service: 4/18/95) to substitute
attorney (consented) Terminated attorney
E. Edward Bruce for SHELL FRONTIER
OIL, attorney E. Edward Bruce for SHELL
OFFSHORE INC., attorney E. Edward
Bruce for SHELL WESTERN E & P Added
Michael E. Coney. (mp) [Entry date 04/
20/95]
JOINT MOTION by SHELL WESTERN FE
& P, SHELL OFFSHORE INC., SHELL
FRONTIER OIL to Dismiss (mp) [Entry
date 04/20/95)
22
DATE
NO.
PROCEEDINGS
4/21/95
4/26/95
5/1/95
5/1/95
5/4/95
5/4/95
125
126
127
128
129
130
UNPUBLISHED DECISION granting [124-
1] joint motion to Dismiss (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to par-
ties. (as)
REPLY by USA to response to [120-1] mo-
tion to Suspend the issuance of a decision by
the court on the parties motions for sum-
mary judgment. Service: 4/26/95 (as) [En-
try date 05/01/95]
ORDER denying [120-1] motion to Suspend
the issuance of a decision by the court on the
parties motions for summary judgment
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy
to parties. (as) [Entry date 05/03/95]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.,
PENNZOIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL
COMPANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY EX-
PLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION, TEXACO INC.,
MOBIL OIL CORP., MOBIL OIL EXPLOR,
SHELL WESTERN E & P, SHELL OFF-
SHORE INC., TEXACO EXPLORATION,
SHELL FRONTIER OIL, MOBIL EXPL &
PRODUC, MOBIL EXPLORATION (Serv-
ice: 5/1/95) for Leave to File surreply mem-
orandum. Response due: 5/18/95. (as)
[Entry date 05/03/95]
ORDER granting [128-1] motion for Leave
to File surreply memorandum (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) Copy to parties.
(hw) [Entry date 05/08/95]
SURREPLY MEMORANDUM by CONOCO,
INC., AMERADA HESS CORP., PENNZ-
OIL EXPLORATION, UNION OIL COM-
DATE
NO.
23
PROCEEDINGS
6/20/95
6/20/95
6/23/95
6/23/95
7/7/95
181
132
133
134
135
PANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MURPHY ExX-
PLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION re: [126-1] motion
reply by USA Service: 5/4/95 (hw) [Entry
date 05/08/95]
MOTION by OXY USA INC. (Service:
6/19/95) to substitute attorney (consented)
Terminated attorney E. Edward Bruce for
OXY USA INC. Added Thomas Lee Byers.
(mp) [Entry date 06/22/95]
JOINT MOTION by USA, OXY USA INC.
to Dismiss (mp) [Entry date 06/22/95]
ORDER granting [132-1] joint motion to
Dismiss (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son) Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date 06/
26/95]
JUDGMENT entered pursuant to Rule 54 (b)
dismissing, with prejudice, all the claims and
complaints of OXY USA, Inc., related to the
North Carolina and Florida leases, and also
dismissing, without prejudice, the offset
claim of the United States (signed by Clerk).
Copy to parties. (tw) [Entry date 07/05/95]
MOTION by SHELL WESTERN E & P,
SHELL OFFSHORE INC., SHELL FRON-
TIER OIL (Service: 7/7/95) to substitute
attorney (consented) Terminated attorney
Michael E. Coney for SHELL FRONTIER
OIL, SHELL OFFSHORE INC., and SHELL
WESTERN E & P Added E. Edward Bruce.
(ds) [Entry date 07/17/95]
24
—_—
———————$$—$——L—_—_— LL ——=[===—
DATE
NO.
a
7/14/95
7/19/95
7/19/95
7/21/95
7/28/95
7/28/95
7/31/95
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
MOTION by USA (Service: 7/14/95) for
Leave to File joint notification of settlement
discussions, and notice. Response due: 7/
31/95. (hw) [Entry date 07/18/95]
MOTION by USA (Service: 7/19/95) for
Leave to File additional joint notification of
progress of settlement discussions. (as) [En-
try date 07/21/95]
ORDER granting [136-1] motion for Leave
to File joint notification of settlement dis-
cussions, and notice (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (mp) [Entry
date 07/24/95]
ORDER granting [137-1] motion for Leave
to File additional joint notification of prog-
ress of settlement discussions (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson) Copy to parties.
(hw) [Entry date 07/25/95]
Stipulation by PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MURPHY EXPLORATION, MUR-
PHY OIL USA, INC., AMOCO PRODUC-
TION, TEXACO INC., MOBIL OIL CORP.,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR, TEXACO EXPLO-
RATION and USA of agreement for judg-
ment entry. (as) [Entry date 08/01/95]
JOINT MOTION by USA and SHELL OFF-
SHORE INC. to Dismiss. (as) [Entry date
08/01/95]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service BY HAND: 7/31/95) for Leave to
File memorandum re: litigation status. Re-
sponse due: 8/14/95 (as) [Entry date 08/
04/95]
a rn o
25
— ooo eo
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/31/95
8/1/95
8/7/95
8/7/95
8/7/95
8/7/95
8/8/95
8/8/95
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service: 7/31/95) for Leave to File pro-
posed order. (ss) [Entry date 08/04/95]
Stipulation by CONOCO, INC. and USA of
agreement for judgment’s entry. (as) [En-
try date 08/04/95]
UNPUBLISHED DECISION granting [144-
1] stipulation and directing Clerk to enter
judgment accordingly (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as)
[Entry date 08/08/95]
ORDER granting [141-1] joint motion to
Dismiss (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son). The Clerk is directed to dismiss with
prejudice the claims specifically listed on the
7/28/95 joint motion to dismiss. Copy to
parties. (ss) [Entry date 08/09/95]
ORDER granting [140-1] stipulation. The
Clerk is directed to enter judgment accord-
ing to the 7/28/95 stipulation (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties.
(ss) [Entry date 08/09/95]
ORDER granting [142-1] motion for Leave
to File memorandum re: litigation status
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson).
Copy to parties. (ss) [Entry date 08/09/
95]
ORDER granting [143-1] motion for Leave
to File proposed order (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (ss)
[Entry date 08/09/95]
JUDGMENT entered pursuant to Rule 54 (b)
awarding third-party plaintiffs the sums as
set forth in the July 28, 1995, stipulation for
26
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
8/8/95
8/9/95
8/10/95
153
151
152
compromise settlement and entry of final
judgment under RUSCFC 54(b). (See stip-
ulation in file) (signed by Clerk). Copy to
parties. (tw) [Entry date 08/10/95}
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT awarding the third-party plaintiffs
picked up by John Stephan this date. (See
letter of authorization from attorney of rec-
ord in file.) (tw) [Entry date 08/15/95]
JUDGMENT entered pursuant te Rule 54 (b)
dismissing, with prejudice, all the remaining
claims related to the interest of Shell Off-
shore Inc. (“SOI”), which were excluded
from the Court’s order of April 21, 1995,
specifically those which relate to SOI’s in-
terests in the leases as listed in the July 28,
1995, joint motion to dismiss. (See stipula-
tion in file.) (signed by Clerk). Copy to
parties. (tw) [Entry date 08/10/95]
JUDGMENT entered pursuant to Rule 58
awarding plaintiff, Conoco Inc., the sum of
$16,917,413.34 in complete adjudication of
all the claims of Conoco Inc. that are the sub-
ject of this case. If said amount is not paid
within forty (40) days after the date hereof,
it shall bear interest dating from the date
hereof until payment under the rate specified
in 41 U.S.C. ss 611. Payment of said Judg-
ment shall be made to Conoco by wire trans-
fer of immediately available funds to: Mor-
gan Guaranty Trust Company, 60 Wall
Street, New York, New York, ABA No.
023100238, Account No. 7341-00-006 (Conoco
Inc.). The offset claims of the United States
as made in its Amended Answer dated Jan-
DATE NO.
27
PROCEEDINGS
8/10/95
9/7/95
9/11/95
9/14/95
9/18/95
9/18/95
9/29/95
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
uary 14, 1994, are hereby dismissed without
prejudice (signed by Clerk). Copy to par-
ties. (tw)
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT forwarded to attorney of record. See
letter in file. (tw) [Entry date 09/05/95)
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service BY HAND: 9/7/95) for Leave to
File appellate opinion. Response cue: 9/21/
9) (as) [Entry date 09/11/95]
MOTION by USA (Service: 9/11/95) for
Leave to File response (by September 29,
1995) regarding recent appellate opinion
(WINSTAR). Response due: 9/28/95. (hw)
[Entry date 09/14/95]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. (Service:
9/14/95 by hand) to [156-1] motion for
Leave to File response (by September 29,
1995) regarding recent appellate opinion
(WINSTAR). Reply due: 9/25/95 (ss) [En-
try date 09/19/95]
ORDER granting [155-1] motion for Leave
to File appellate opinion (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as)
[Entry date 09/20/95]
ORDER granting [156-1] motion for Leave
to File response (by September 29, 1995)
regarding recent appellate opinion (WIN-
STAR) (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date 09/
20/95)
MEMORANDUM by USA re: [159-1] order
feffects of Appeals decision in Winstar].
Service: 9/29/95 (as) [Entry date 10/04/
95]
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
10/5/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. to [160-1]
memorandum by USA [filed by leave of the
Judge]. Service: 10/2/95. (hw) [Entry date
10/11/95]
G.A.0. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $2,249,818.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $20,038,839.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995 (as) [Entry date
11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $65,085,621.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $37,924,432.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $2,844,123.00 was paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $4,085,402.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
29
i
NO. PROCEEDINGS
11/3/95
11/3/95
11/3/95
12/12/95
1/2/96
1/24/96
1/29/96
168
170
171
172
174
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $8,681,909.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.AO. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $34,089, 856.00 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
G.A.O. Certificate of Settlement Number:
Z-2897391, Dated: August 23, 1995 in the
Amount: $16,917,413.34 was Paid by Treas-
ury Dept.: August 25, 1995. (as) [Entry
date 11/09/95]
MOTION by USA (Service: 12/12/95) for
Leave to File additional commentary on Win-
star. Response due: 12/29/95 (as) [Entry
date 12/14/95]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. (Service:
12/20/95) to [171-1] motion for Leave to
File additional commentary on Winstar.
(Filed by leave of the Judge), Reply due:
1/5/96 (st) [Entry date 01/05/96]
MOTION by USA (Service : 1/24/96 ) for
Leave to File joint notification of progress
of settlement discussions, and notices. Re-
sponse due: 2/12/96. (hw) [Entry date 01/
31/96)
MOTION by USA (Service : 1/29/96 ) for
Leave to File reply to response to its supple-
mental report, (by leave of the Judge). Re-
sponse due: 2/12/96. (hw) [Entry date 02/
05/96]
DATE
1/31/96
2/8/96
3/6/96
8/14/96
3/26/96
4/1/96
4/1/96
NO
. PROCEEDINGS
30
175 ORDER granting [173-1] motion for Leave
176
177
179
180
181
to File joint notification of progress of set-
tlement discussions and notices (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties.
(as) [Entry date 02/07/96]
RESPONSE by AMERADA HESS CORP.,
MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MOBIL OIL
CORP. and MOBIL EXPL & PRODUC
(Service: 1/31/96) to [173-1] motion for
Leave to File joint notification of progress
of settlement discussions and notices by leave
of the Judge. (as) [Entry date 02/13/96]
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/6/96 ) for
Leave to File joint notification of progress
of settlement discussions, and notice, (hw)
[Entry date 03/11/96]
PUBLISHED DECISION granting [66-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment,
granting [64-1] motion for Summary Judg-
ment and denying [62-1] motion for Sum-
mary Judgment (signed by Judge Wilkes C.
Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 03/21/96)
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/26/96 ) for
Reconsideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule
59 re: [178-1] order. (ss) [Entry date 04/
01/96)
ORDER Response to [179-1] motion for Re-
consideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule
59 re: [178-1] order reset to 4/15/96
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy
to parties. (as) [Entry date 04/04/96]
PUBLISHED DECISION granting [66-1]
motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
breach of contract claims, denying [62-1]
31
—_—
DATE NO.
4/15/96 182
4/19/96 183
4/26/96 184
5/1/96 185
5/3/96 186
PROCEEDINGS
motion for Summary Judgment and for sum-
mary judgment on the Fifth Amendment
taking issue and Withdrawing and substitut-
ing [178-1] order with said decision (signed
by Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties.
(as) [Entry date 04/04/96]
RESPONSE by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service: 4/15/96 ) to [179-1] motion for
Reconsideration /Rehearing Pursuant to Rule
59 re: [178-1] order. (ss) [Entry date 04/
18/96]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.
(Service : 4/19/96) for entry of final judg-
ment. Response due: 5/6/96 (ss) [Entry
date 04/24/96]
ORDER denying [179-1] motion for Recon-
sideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule 59
re: [178-1] order (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 05/01/96]
MOTION by USA (Service: 5/1/96) to
Strike [183-1] motion for entry of final judg-
ment by AMERADA HESS CORP., or in the
alternative to Stay consideration of that mv-
tion until after the status conference speci-
fied by the court in its 3/14/96 decision is
held, or in the alternative to Extend Time to
respond to motion requests extension of 28
days from the date of the order. Response
date: 5/20/96. (st) [Entry date 05/06/96)
[Edit date 05/06/96]
RESPONSE by CONOCO, INC. (Service:
5/3/96 ) to [185-1] motion to Strike [183-1]
motion for entry of final judgment by AME-
RADA HESS CORP. Reply due: 5/15/96
(ss) [Entry date 05/08/96)
32
————— ——
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
5/7/86 187 ORDER returning defendant’s motion for
5/9/96
5/9/96
5/16/96
5/16/96
5/23/96
6/14/96
188
189
192
leave to file a reply to plaintiff's response to
defendant’s motion for reconsideration
[moot] (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date
05/10/96]
ORDER scheduling Status Conference for
10:00am, 5/16/96 ( signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson ) Copy to parties. (hw) [Entry
date 05/14/96]
ORDER denying [183-1] motion for entry
of final judgment. The court shall proceed
with a formal status conference, to be sched-
uled ( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ).
Copy to parties. (ss) [Entry date 05/14/96]
ORDER set joint Status Report deadline to
6/17/96 and set third party plaintiff’s Mo-
tion Filing deadline to 6/24/96 (signed by
Judge C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as)
[Entry date 05/20/96]
Status Conference held. ( Transcript due
6/17/96 ) (ss) [Entry date 05/21/96]
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: 1 volume,
at Washington, D.C., for date of May 16,
1996. Notice to parties. (ss) [Entry date
05/29/96]
MOTION by OXY USA INC., AMERADA
HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLORATION,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA,
INC., AMOCO PRODUCTION, SHELL
OFFSHORE INC, TEXACO EXPLORA-
TION, SHELL FONTIER OIL, MOBIL
EXPL & PRODUC, MOBIL EXPLORA-
33
OOOO lS
DATE
NO. PROCEEDINGS
6/18/96
6/27/96
6/28/96
6/28/96
7/2/96
7/5/96
7/10/96
193
197
194
195
196
198
199
TION (Service: 6/14/96) to Extend Time
to file a motion of reconsideration until 7/
8/96. Response due: 7/1/96 (st) [Entry
date 06/18/96]
ORDER granting [192-1] motion to Extend
Time to file a motion of reconsideration, re-
set Status Report deadline to 7/1/96 and
reset Motion Filing deadline to 7/8/96
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy
to parties. (as) [Entry date 06/20/96]
NOTICE of change of address by Mark Ar-
nold Melnick [] (rs) [Entry date 07/11/96]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC. (Service : 6/
28/96 ) to Extend Time Response due: 7/
15/96 (hw) [Entry date 07/03/96]
MOTION by CONOCO, INC. and AME-
RADA HESS CORP., et al. (Service: 6/28/
96) to Extend Time within which to file a
joint status report and proposal for further
proceedings [until 7/15/96]. (tw) [Entry
date 07/03/96]
ORDER granting [195-1] motion to Extend
Time within which to file a joint status re-
port and proposal for further proceedings,
reset Status Report deadline to 7/8/96 and
reset Motion Filing deadline to 7/15/96
(signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy
to parties. (as) [Entry date 07/10/96]
MOTION by USA (Service: 7/5/96) to Ex-
tend Time to file proposed schedules for fur-
ther proceedings until 7/10/96. Response
due: 7/22/96 (st) [Entry date 07/11/96]
Joint STATUS REPORT by USA, AME-
RADA HESS CORP., PENNZOIL EXPLO-
RATION, UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEV.
34
—eoaaeaeaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/10/96
7/17/96
7/30/96
8/1/96
200
201
202
RON USA INC., MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, MURPHY EXPLORATION, MUR-
PHY OIL USA, INC., AMOCO PRODUC-
TION, TEXACO INC., MOBIL OIL CORP.,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR, SHELL WESTERN
E & P, SHELL OFFSHORE INC., TEXACO
EXPLORATION, SHELL FRONTIER OIL,
MOBIL EXPL & PRODUC and MOBIL EX-
PLORATION. Service: 7/10/96. (hw) [En-
try date 07/15/96]
MOTION by AMERADA HESS CORP.,
UNION OIL COMPANY, CHEVRON USA
INC., MARATHON OIL COMPANY, MUR-
PHY EXPLORATION, AMOCO PRODUC-
TION, MOBIL EXPL & PRODUC (Service:
7/10/96) For reconsideration of [189-1]
order under Rule 83.2. (as) [Entry date 07/
15/96]
ORDER Response to [200-1] motion For
reconsideration of [189-1] order under Rule
83.2 set to 7/31/96 (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 07/19/96]
MOTION by USA (Service : 7/30/96 ) to
Extend Time within which to respond to
motion for reconsideration, (until August 6,
1996). Response due: 8/16/96. (hw) [En-
try date 08/05/96]
ORDER granting [202-1] motion to Extend
Time within which to respond to motion for
reconsideration and Response to [200-1] mo-
tion For reconsideration of [189-1] order
under Rule 83.2 reset to 8/6/96 (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties.
(as) [Entry date 08/07/96]
35
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
8/6/96 204 RESPONSE by USA (Service: 8/6/96 ) to
8/20/96 205
9/6/96 206
9/24/96 207
10/2/96 208
10/3/96 209
[200-1] motion For reconsideration of
[189-1] order under Rule 83.2. Reply due:
8/19/96 (ss) [Entry date 08/12/96]
REPLY by OXY USA INC., et al. to re-
sponse to [200-1] motion For reconsidera-
tion of [189-1] order under Rule 83.2 by
leave of the Judge. Service: 8/15/96 (as)
[Entry date 08/26/96]
ORDER denying [200-1] motion For recon-
sideration of [189-1] order under Rule 83.2.
The parties shall file a joint proposed sched-
ule for further proceedings within thirty
days ( signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robinson ).
Copy to parties. (hw) [Entry date 09/14/96]
Stipulation by USA, UNION OIL COM-
PANY, CHEVRON USA INC., MURPHY
EXPLORATION, MURPHY OIL USA, INC.,
AMOCO PRODUCTION of settlement and
compromise. (as) [Entry date 09/30/96]
UNPUBLISHED DECISION (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties.
(as) [Entry date 10/04/96]
PARTIAL JUDGMENT entered pursuant to
Rule 58, that third party plaintiff, Amoco
Production Company shall recover of and
from the United States the sum of $3,603,-
874.00 payable by wire to Chase Manhattan
Bank, New York, NY, ABA #021000021,
for credit to Amoco Production Company,
Account +#9102499747; that third party
plaintiff, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., shall recover
of and from the United States the sum of
$23,496,100.00 payable by wire to First Na-
tional Bank of Chicago, Ilinois, ABA +071-
000013, for credit to Chevron U.S.A. Oil &
Gas, Account # 59-51704; that third party
36
|
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
10/4/96
10/7/96
10/8/96
10/28/96
11/8/96
210
211
212
213
214
plaintiff, Murphy Exploration Production
Company shall recover of and from the
United States the sum of $2,656,584.00 pay-
able by wire to First National Bank of FE!
Dorado, Arkansas, ABA +082900911, for
credit to Murphy Exploration & Production
Company, Account #472884 and third party
plaintiff, Union Oil Company of California
shall recover of and from the United States
the sum of $11,865,803.00 payable by wire
to Northern Trust Co., Chicago, Illinois,
ABA +#071000152, for credit to Union Oil
Company of California, Account #247731.
The judgment entered herein shall bear in-
terest, dating from sixty (60) days from
the date that is is submitted by subject third
party plaintiffs for payment until payment,
under the rate specified in 41 U.S.C. Subsec-
tion 611 (signed by Clerk). Copy to parties.
(as) [Entry date 10/07/96] [Edit date 10/
07/96]
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT picked up in person by attorney of
record. See letter in file. (as) [Entry date
10/07/96]
Joint Additional Documentation [proposed
schedule for further proceedings]. (as)
[Entry date 10/09/96]
ORDER set Joint Proposed Discovery dead-
line to 10/28/96 (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 10/09/96]
Additional Documentation [joint proposal
for scheduling]. (as) [Entry date 11/05/96]
Stipulation of agreement pursuant to
RUSCFC 54(b). (as) [Entry date 11/13/96]
37
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
11/13/96 215
11/14/96 216
11/15/96 217
11/18/96 218
12/16/96 219
UNPUBLISHED DECISION (signed by
Judge Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to par-
ties. (as) [Entry date 11/15/96]
SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial
Conference for 10:00 a.m. on 4/18/97; Third
Party Plaintiff’s Appendix G deadline on on
2/28/97 and 3/14/97, and expert witnesses
list no later than 2/14/97; Defendant’s Ap-
pendix G deadline on 4/11/97; Brief dead-
line set on 12/13/96 and Trial deadline set
on 9:00 a.m. on 5/5/97 (by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 11/19/96]
PARTIAL JUDGMENT entered pursuant to
Rule 58 that third party plaintiff, Amerada
Hess Corporation, recover of and from the
United States the amount of $39,259,703.40.
The judgment entered herein shall bear in-
terest, dating from fifty (50) days from the
date that it is submitted by subject third
party plaintiff for payment until payment is
made in full, under the rate specified in 41
U.S.C. subsection 611. Payment shall be
made by wire to Chase Manhattan Bank,
New York, New York, ABA #021000021,
for credit to Amerada Hess Corporation
Account #910-2-475200 (signed by Clerk).
Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date 11/20/96]
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT forwarded to attorney of record. See
letter in file. (as) [Entry date 11/21/96]
MOTION by USA (Service : 12/16/96 ) to
Amend [216-1] Scheduling order, re: en-
large time to depose witness to 1/31/97. Re-
sponse due: 1/2/97. (hw) [Entry date 12/
19/96]
38
—
—— ——
PROCEEDINGS
DATE NO.
12/23/96 220
1/3/97 221
2/5/97 222
2/10/97 223
2/13/97 224
2/18/97 225
ORDER granting [219-1] motion to Amend
[216-1] Scheduling order (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as)
[Entry date 12/30/96]
MOTION by MOBIL EXPLORATION,
MARATHON OIL COMPANY (Service BY
HAND: 1/3/97) to Compel discovery, to
Amend [216-1] Scheduling and for an im-
mediate discovery conference. [Exhibit B
PLACED IN CAMERA]. Response due:
1/17/97 (as) [Entry date 01/07/97] [Edit
date 01/07/97]
MOTION by OXY USA INC., et al. (Serv-
ice BY HAND: 2/5/97) for an immediate
status conference. Response due: 2/19/97
(as) [Entry date 02/10/97]
MOTION by USA (Service : 2/10/97 By
hand) to Amend [216-1] Scheduling order.
Response due: 2/24/97 (ss) [Entry date
02/12/97]
ORDER reset Defendant’s Appendix G dead-
line on 6/6/97, Plaintiff’s Appendix G dead-
line on 4/4/97, reset Expert Report due:
3/28/97 for MOBIL EXPLORATION, reset
Pretrial Conference for 6/13/97 and reset
Trial for 6/23/97 (signed by Judge Wilkes
C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry
date 02/18/97]
ORDER mooting [221-1] motion to Compel
discovery, mooting [221-2] motion to Amend
[216-1] Scheduling and, mooting [221-3]
motion (signed by Judge Wilkes C. Robin-
son). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date
02/19/97]
39
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
2/19/97 227
2/26/97 226
3/12/97
3/13/97
3/31/97
228
229
230
Notice of reassignment to Judge James T.
Turner. Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date
03/13/97]
ORDER granting [223-1] motion to Amend
[216-1] Scheduling order amending cap-
tioned style, reset Trial for 10:00 a.m. on
7/21/97 and reset Pretrial Conference for
10:30 a.m. on 7/9/97 (signed by Judge
Wilkes C. Robinson). Copy to parties. (as)
{Entry date 03/04/97]
JOINT MOTION by USA, MARATHON
OIL COMPANY to revise scheduling order,
re: (1) Depositions of defendant’s expert
witnesses shall be taken on or before March
20, 1997; (2) Plaintiffs shall provide the
expert report by April 3, 1997; (3) Plain-
tiffs shall file their final exhibit lists, witness
list and memoranda of contentions of law
and fact, etc., by April 10, 1997; (4) Dep-
ositions of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses shall
be taken on or before May 22, 1997; and (5)
Defendant shall file its final exhibit lists,
final witness list, and memoranda of con-
tentions of law and fact with the court by
June 12, 1997 (hw) [Entry date 03/17/97]
ORDER granting [228-1] joint motion to
revise scheduling order, reset Expert Report
due: 4/3/97 for MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, reset Defendant’s Appendix G dead-
line on 6/12/97, Plaintiff’s Appendix G dead-
line on 4/10/97 (signed by Judge James T.
Turner). Copy to parties. (as) [Entry date
03/18/97]
MOTION by USA (Service : 3/28/97) to
waive certain requirements of RCFC Ap-
pendix G. (ss) [Entry date 04/10/97]
DATE
NO.
40
PROCEEDINGS
4/2/97
4/10/97
4/10/97
4/10/97
4/10/97
4/16/97
4/21/97
4/22/97
4/23/97
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
239
ORDER denying [230-1] motion to waive
certain requirements of RCFC Appendix G
( signed by Judge James T. Turner ) Copy
to parties. (hw) [Entry date 04/14/97]
Witness list by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY and MOBIL OIL EXPLOR. Service:
4/10/97. (hw) [Entry date 04/21/97]
Exhibit list by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY and MOBIL OIL EXPLOR Service:
4/10/97. (hw) [Entry date 04/21/97]
PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY. Service: 4/10/97.
C (hw) [Entry date 04/24/97]
MOTION by MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR (Service : 4/10/97 )
to Correct caption. Response due: 4/28/97
(hw) [Entry date 04/25/97]
ORDER granting [235-1] motion to Correct
caption. (signed by Judge James T. Tur-
ner). Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date
04/30/97]
MOTION by MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR (Service: 4/16/97
By Hand) for In-Person Status Conference
and Response to Court’s Letter 4/16/97. Re-
sponse due: 5/5/97 (ss) [Entry date 05/
02/97]
ORDER withdrawing [237-1] motion for In-
Person Status Conference; and directing
parties to file reports of experts on damages
issues. ( signed by Judge James T. Turner )
Copy to parties. (ds) [Entry date 05/03/97)
Additional Documentation pursuant to Rule
16 and App G [appendicies prepared by
plaintiffs’ expert witnesses (exhibits A, B,
41
a!
DATE
NO.
PROCEEDINGS
6/6/97
6/6/97
6/17/97
6/17/97
6/17/97
6/17/97
6/20/97
7/1/97
1/2/97
240
241
250
and C three separate IN CAMERA EXHIB-
ITS plus public notice)] filed by MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, MOBIL OIL EX-
PLORATION and PLACED IN CAMERA
this day. Service: 4/23/97 (rs) [Entry
date 05/06/97]
MOTION by USA (Service : 6/6/97 ) to
Extend Time to June 17, 1997, to file its ex-
hibit list, witness list, and contentions of law
and fact. Response due: 6/23/97 (cde)
ORDER granting [240-1] motion to Extend
Time to June 17, 1997, to file its exhibit list,
witness list, and contentions of law and fact.
( signed by Judge James T. Turner ) Copy
to parties. (cdc) [Entry date 06/16/97]
Witness list by USA. Service 6/17/97 (ab)
[Entry date 06/23/97]
JOINT STATEMENT OF ISSUES OF
FACT AND LAW (st) [Entry date 06/27/
97)
PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by USA Serv-
ice: 6/17/97 (1 (st) [Entry date 06/27/97)
Exhibit list by USA Service: 6/17/97 (st)
[Entry date 06/27/97]
MOTION by USA (Service : 6/19/97 ) for
Leave to File amended exhibit list. Response
due: 7/7/97. (hw) [Entry date 06/23/97]
MOTION by MARATHON OIL COMPANY
(Service by hand: 7/1/97 ) for Leave to
File a response to defendant’s memorandum
of contentions of fact and law. Response
due: 7/15/97 (ds) [Entry date 07/18/97]
MOTION by MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR (Service : 7/2/97 )
in Limine to exclude certain testimony and
evidence at trial. Response due: 7/21/97
(cde) [Entry date 07/16/97]
42
—<————————_— SS CF FO ee _--— — _-— SS ———————s
DATE
NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/3/97
7/7/97
7/7/97
7/7/97
7/7/97
1/7/97
7/7/97
1/7/97
256
251
252
253
257
259
MOTION by USA (Service : 7/3/97 ) for
Leave to File transcripts of deposition testi-
mony as substantive evidence. Response due:
7/21/97. (hw) [Entry date 07/21/97]
RESPONSE by USA, MARATHON OIL
COMPANY to [245-1] memorandum by USA
Service: 7/1/97 (ede) [Entry date 07/17/
97]
ORDER granting [242-1] motion for Leave
to File amended exhibit list ( signed by
Judge James T. Turner ) Copy to parties.
(ede) [Entry date 07/17/97]
Amended Exhibit list by USA Service: 6/
20/97 (cde) [Entry date 07/17/97]
ORDER granting [256-1] motion for Leave
to File transcripts of deposition testimony
as substantive evidence ( signed by Judge
James T. Turner ) Copy to parties. (ds)
[Entry date 07/22/97]
Deposition transcripts of James Martin, Paul
H. Benson and Paul J. Hoenmans filed by
defendant. (ds) [Entry date 07/22/97]
MOTION by USA (Service : 7/7/97 ) for
Leave to File reply to response to mem»-
randum of contentions of fact and law. Re-
sponse due: 7/24/97 (ds) [Entry date 07/
22/97]
RESPONSE by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, MOBIL OIL EXPLOR (Service by
hand: 7/9/97 ) to [259-1] motion for Leave
to File reply to response to memorandum of
contentions of fact and law Reply due: 7/
18/97. (ds) [Entry date 07/22/97]
43
—-——
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/8/97
7/8/97
7/8/97
7/10/97
7/14/97
7/17/97
7/18/97
7/18/97
247
249
261
RESPONSE by USA (SUPPLEMENT TO
SUBMISSIONS FILED PURSUANT TO
RCFC 16 AND APPENDIX G) Service: 7/
7/97 Filed by leave of the Judge. (cdc)
[Entry date 07/09/97]
RESPONSE by USA (Service: 7/8/97 ) to
[250-1] motion in Limine to exclude certain
testimony and evidence at trial. Reply due:
7/21/97 (ds) [Entry date 07/24/97]
ORDER granting [259-1] motion for Leave
to File reply to response to memorandum of
contentions of fact and law ( signed by Judge
James T. Turner ) Copy to parties. (Reply
was incorporated in motion for leave) (ds)
[Entry date 07/24/97]
SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION in limine with
attached Exh. A by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, MOBIL OIL EXPLOR (Service 7/
8/97 ) Filed by leave of the Judge. FILED
UNDER SEAL AND SUBJECT TO PRO-
TECTIVE ORDER. in Limine Response
due: 7/22/97 (cde)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: pretrial
conference, 1 volume, at Washington D.C.,
for date of July 9, 1997. Notice to parties.
(st) [Entry date 07/15/97]
STATUS REPORT by USA Service: 7/16/
97 (ede) [Entry date 07/18/97]
STATUS REPORT by USA, MARATHON
OIL COMPANY, MOBIL OIL EXPLOR
Service: 7/18/97 (ede) [Entry date 07/22/
97]
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings re: Pretrial
Conference (continued), 1 volume, at Wash-
ington, D.C., for date of July 14, 1997.
Notice to parties. (st) [Entry date 07/23/
97)
44
DATE NO. PROCEEDINGS
7/18/97
7/18/97
7/24/97
7/24/97
7/24/97
7/25/97
7/25/97
8/10/97
265
267
266
268
269
270
271
UNPUBLISHED ORDER entered directing
entry of partial judgment pursuant to Rule
54(b) stating that there is no just reason
for delay, together with memorandum con-
cerning final pre-trial conference, ( signed
by Judge James T. Turner). Copy to par-
ties. (tw) [Entry date 07/25/97]
UNPUBLISHED ORDER directing entry of
final judgment (signed by Judge James T.
Turner). Copy to parties. (tw) [Entry date
07/25/97]
Case closed (tw) [Entry date 07/25/97]
Partial judgment entered on July 25, 1997,
pursuant to Rule 58 in favor of plaintiff,
MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUC-
ING SOUTHEAST, INC., in the amount of
$78,257,565 VACATED PURSUANT TO
THE ORDER OF MAY 28, 1989. (ds) [En-
try date 06/01/99]
Judgment entered on July 25, 1997, pursuant
to Rule 54 in favor of plaintiff, MARATHON
OIL COMPANY, in the amount of $78,242,-
868.59 VACATED PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF MAY 28, 1999. (ds) [Entry date
06/01/99]
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT forwarded to attorney of record. See
letter in file. (tw) [Entry date 07/28/97]
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF JUDG-
MENT forwarded to attorney of record. See
letter in file. (tw) [Entry date 07/28/97]
Bill of costs by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY, MOBIL OIL EXPLOR Service: 8/
20/97 ( Objection to Bill of Costs due by
9/8/97 ) (ede)
45
‘DATE
NO.
PROCEEDINGS
9/11/97
9/12/97
9/12/97
9/19/97
9/19/97
9/25/97
5/20/99
5/28/99
272
273
275
276
278
279
MOTION by USA (Service: 9/11/97) for
Leave to File response to Cost Petition Re-
sponse due: 9/29/97. (st) [Entry date 09/
15/97)
ORDER granting [272-1] motion for Leave
to File response to Cost Petition (signed by
Judge James T. Turner ) Copy to parties.
(ede) [Entry date 09/16/97]
OBPECTION ( Reply due 9/25/97 ) by
USA to [271-1] bill of costs by MOBIL OIL
EXPLOR, MARATHON OIL COMPANY.
Service: 9/11/97 (ds) [Entry date 09/
25/97]
NOTICE OF APPEAL by USA. Copy to
MARATHON OIL, etc., Judge Turner and to
CAFC. Fee not required. (hw) [Entry date
09/22/97]
REPLY by MARATHON OIL COMPANY,
MOBIL OIL EXPLOR to [275-1] objection
to bill of costs by USA. Service: 9/18/97
(ds) [Entry date 09/25/97]
CAFC Case Number Re: [276-1] appeal by
USA. CAFC NUMBER: 97-5146. (hw)
{Entry date 09/29/97]
MANDATE (certified copy) from the CAFC,
dated May 20, 1999, reversing the (_] [266-1)
and [268-1] judgments. (ds) [Entry date
06/01/99]
ORDER vacating [266-1] and [268-1] judg-
ments and directing the entry of a new judg-
ment in favor of defendant; and directing
plaintiffs to return the certified transcripts
of judgment forwarded on July 25, 1997.
( signed by Judge James T. Turner ) Copy
to parties. (ds) [Entry date 06/01/99]
DATE
46
NO.
PROCEEDINGS
6/1/99
6/1/99
6/7/99
6/8/99
6/22/99
7/9/99
280
282
JUDGMENT entered pursuant to Rule 58,
dismissing the complaints. Each party shall
bear its own costs. [Vacated to the limited
extent that is applies to Count III (alleging
a Fifth Amendment taking) of Marathon’s
complaint filed on October 29, 1992. per
Order dated Aug. 25, 1999.] (signed by
Clerk). Copy to parties. (ds) [Edit date
08/26/99]
Case closed (ds)
CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPTS OF JUDG-
MENT dated July 24, 1997 returned to
Clerk’s Office by E. Edward Bruce, and de-
— this date. (ld) [Entry date 06/08/
MOTION by MARATHON OIL COMPANY
(Service: 6/8/99) for Reconsideration/Re-
hearing Pursuant to Rule 59 re: [280-1]
judgment order, and/or to alter or to Amend
[280-1] judgment order. Response due:
6/21/99. (dw) [Entry date 06/11/99]
ORDER Defendant’s response to [282-1]
motion for Reconsideration/Rehearing Pur-
suant to Rule 59 re: [280-1] judgment order
set to 7/9/99, [282-2] motion to Amend
[280-1] judgment order se* to 7/9/99.
(signed by Judge James T. xurner) Copy
to parties. (jt) [Entry date 06/23/99]
RESPONSE by USA (Service: 7/9/99) to
[282-1] motion for Reconsideration/Rehear-
ing Pursuant to Rule 59 re: [280-1] judg-
ment order, [282-2] motion to Amend [280-
1] judgment order. (jt) [Entry date 07/
12/99)
47
PROCEEDINGS
DATE’ NO.
7/22/99 285
8/2/99 286
8/4/99 287
8/9/99 288
8/18/99 —
8/25/99 289
REPLY by MARATHON OIL COMPANY
to response to [282-1] motion for Reconsid-
eration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule 59 re:
[280-1] judgment order, [282-2] motion to
Amend [280-1] judgment order. Filed by
leave of the Judge. Service: 7/16/99 (jt)
{Entry date 07/23/99]
SURREPLY by USA to [282-1] motion for
Reconsideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule
59 re: [280-1] judgment order by MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY, [282-2] motion to
Amend [280-1] judgment order by MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY. Filed by leave of
the Judge. Service: 7/29/99 (jt) [Entry
date 08/03/99]
RESPONSE by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY to [286-1] response by USA, by leave
of the Judge. Service: 8/3/99. (dw)
ORDER oral argument set for 10:30 a.m.
8/18/99 for [282-1] motion for Reconsidera-
tion/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule 59 re:
[280-1] judgment order, set for 10:30 a.m.
8/18/99 for [282-2] motion to Amend
[280-1] judgment order (signed by Judge
James T. Turner). Copy to parties. (dw)
[Entry date 08/10/99]
Oral Argument re: [282-1] motion for Re-
consideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule
59 re: [280-1] judgment order by MARA-
THON OIL COMPANY ( Transcript due
9/17/99 ), [282-2] motion to Amend [280-1]
judgment order by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY ( Transcript due 9/17/99 ) [1 (ds)
Entry date 08/20/99]
ORDER granting [282-1] motion for Recon-
sideration/Rehearing Pursuant to Rule 59
48
—— ——
— ——————eo
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
8/26/99 290
8/26/99 —
9/17/99 291
re: [280-1] judgment order, granting
[282-2] motion to Amend [280-1] judgment
order. Accordingly, it is ordered that the
judgment entered on June 1, 1999 in favor
of the defendant and against both plaintiffs
shall be vacated to the limited extent that it
applied to Count III (alleging a fifth amend-
ment taking) of Marathon’s complaint filed
on October 28, 1992. Inasmuch as the result-
ing judgment iu favor of defendant and
against Marathon constitutes a partial judg-
ment, it is expressly determined, pursuant
to RCFC 54(b), that there is no just reason
to delay the partial judgment in favor of the
government with respect to Counts I and II
of Marathon’s complaint. Further it is or-
dered that all proceedings in this matter are
hereby suspended generally and shal] remain
suspended Staying until final action by the
United States Supreme Court in response to
any petition for writ of certiorari submitted
by plaintiff Marathon in connection with the
revised opinion of the Federal Circuit dated
May 13, 1999 and its subsequent mandate
issued on May 20, 1999. ( signed by Judge
James T. Turner ) Copy to parties. (Id)
JUDGMENT entered, as provided for in
Rule 54(b), in favor of the government with
respect to Counts I and II of Marathon’s
complaint. Counts I and II of Marathon’s
complaint are dismissed. (signed by Clerk).
Copy to parties. (Id)
Case reopened (ld)
TRANSCRIPT of proceedings 1 volume, at
Washington, D.C., for date of August 18,
1999. Notice to parties. (st) [Entry date
09/21/99)
49
ooo
DATE NO.
PROCEEDINGS
11/15/99 292
NOTICE of the Grant of Petition for Writ
of Certiorari by MARATHON OIL COM-
PANY. Service: 11/15/99 (jt) [Entry date
11/17/99]
50
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
No. 97-5146
MARATHON Ol Co.
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DOCKET ENTRIES
—— eee ee
$$ — > ee ———
PROCEEDING
— ===_=-|_- = ee
= ——
11/18/97
12/8/97
1/20/98
1/30/98
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR THE AP-
PELLEE(S), MARATHON OIL CO, MOBIL OIL
EXPLO., PRODT. (MS-10/03/97) FILED: 10/
03/97. (EOD 10/03/97 BY KKC) 97-5146
Appellant—MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF
TIME. (MS-11/13/97) FILED: 11/13/97. ON
CONSENT. ACTION ON MOTION (3):
GRANTED. BY CLERK. FILED: 11/21/97.
(EOD 11/21/97 BY JB) THE BRIEF IS DUE
ON 12/08/97. 97-5146
THE UNITED STATES [Appellant] - BRIEF
FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, THE
UNITED STATES (MS-12/08/97). FILED: 12/
i [985354] (EOD 12/12/97 BY JLA) 97-
MARATHON OIL COMPANY, ET AL. [AP-
PELLEES - BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFFS-AP-
PELLEES (MS-01/20/98). FILED: 01/20/98.
[985700] (EOD 01/22/98 BY JLA) 97-5146
Appellant - MOTION FOR 18 CALENDAR DAY
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE REPLY
BRIEF. [NPF] (MS-01/30/98) FILED: 01/30/
98. ACTION ON MOTION (5): MOTION
GRANTED. BY CLERK. FILED: 02/27/98.
(EOD 02/27/98 BY ETW) 97-5146
St
eee ees
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
2/19/98
3/2/98
3/23/98
4/1/98
5/4/98
5/8/98
10/15/98
11/25/98
THE UNITED STATES [APPELLANT] - RE-
PLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,
THE UNITED STATES (MS-02/19/98). FILED:
02/27/98. [986032] (EOD 03/06/98 BY JLA)
97-5146
THE UNITED STATES [APPELLANT] - JOINT
APPENDIX - TWO VOLUMES (MS-03/02/98).
FILED: 03/02/98. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
NOTICE ISSUED. [986054] (EOD 03/09/98 BY
JLA) 97-5146
NOTICE OF CALENDARING issued. Panel 980-
5B on May 4, 1998
REVISED NOTICE OF CALENDARING IS-
SUED PANEL 05B ON MAY 4, 1998
Submitted after ORAL ARGUMENT by E. Ed-
ward Bruce and Mark A. Melnick. (NEWMAN,
PLAGER and SCHALL)
Appellees - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
LETTER CORRECTING A MISSTATEMENT
MADE BY COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT DUR-
ING THE REBUTTAL ARGUMENT. (LETTER
ATTACHED) [NPF] (MS-05/08/98) RE-
CEIVED: 05/08/98. REPLY 1 (9) FILED: 05/
18/98. ACTION ON MOTION (10): LEAVE TO
FILE IS GRANTED. BY MERITS PANEL.
FILED: 05/20/98. (EOD 05/20/98 BY JB) 97-
5146
REVERSED. PRECEDENTAL OPINION BY:
J. PLAGER. DISSENTING OPINION BY: J.
NEWMAN. JUDGMENT ENTERED: 10/15/98.
COSTS AGAINST APPELLEE. (EOD 10/15/98
BY KSH) 97-5146
APPELLEE - COMBINED PETITION FOR RE-
HEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEAR-
ING IN BANC (MS-11/25/98) FILED: 11/25/98
— as
DATE
PROCEEDINGS
11/25/88
12/8/98
2/18/99
5/13/99
PETITION CIRCULATED: 11/25/98 RE-
SPONSE REQUESTED FROM: APPELLANT
(U.S.) RESPONSE DUE: 01/12/99 RESPONSE
FILED: 01/11/99 RESPONSE CIRCULATED:
01/11/99 PETITION: GRANTED ON 05/13/99.
SUGGESTION CIRCULATED: 04/30/99 SUG-
GESTION: DECLINED ON 05/13/99. (EOD
05/13/99 BY AV) 97-5146 (Petition granted for
the Itd. purpose of clarifying the opinion)
A.P.I. & I.P.A.A. - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF. (MS-11/25/98)
FILED: 11/27/98. ON CONSENT. ACTION
ON MOTION (14): GRANTED. BY MERITS
PANEL. FILED: 01/29/99. (EOD 01/29/99 BY
AV) 97-5146
Appellant - MOTION FOR A 28-DAY EXTEN-
SION OF TIME TO FILE THE OPPOSITION
TO THE REHEARING. (MS-12/08/98) FILED:
12/08/98. ON CONSENT. ACTION ON MO-
TION (13): GRANTED. THE OPPOSITION IS
DUE 1/12/99. BY MERITS PANEL. FILED:
12/11/98. (EOD 12/11/98 BY AV) 97-5146
Appellant - MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO THE AMICUS BRIEF. (THE
RESPONSE IS SUBMITTED W/THIS MOTION)
[NPF] (MS-02/18/99) FILED: 02/18/99. ON
CONSENT. ACTION ON MOTION (15):
LEAVE TO FILE IS GRANTED. BY MERITS
PANEL. FILED: 03/05/99. (EOD 03/05/99 BY
AV) 97-5146
REVERSED. PRECEDENTIAL OPINION BY:
J. PLAGER. DISSENTING OPINION BY: J.
NEWMAN. JUDGMENT ENTERED: 05/13/99.
COSTS AGAINST APPELLEE. (EOD 05/13/99
BY KSH) 97-5146
DATE
53
PROCEEDINGS
5/20/99
8/10/99
MANDATE ISSUED TO THE CFC: 05/20/99.
(EOD 05/20/99 BY JCW) 97-5146
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI FILED
08/10/99, SUPREME COURT #: 99-244. (EOD
08/13/99 BY JW) 97-5146
$4 53
—Successful exploratory wells in this frontier area
will have to be followed by a greater number of
delineation wells than normal in order to assure
an adequate resource to justify the extremely high
development costs (platforms, guyed towers, ten-
sion leg platforms, deep pipelines, etc.) in these
water depths. Preliminary information suggests
FINAL that an average of seven to eight delineation wells
may be needed in this area as opposed to the
SECRETARIAL ISSUE DOCUMENT normal four to five. Each well takes 4 to 5 months
SOUTH ATLANTIC to drill once a ship is on site.
OCS SALE 56 —Because there is no existing infrastructure, facili-
ties, such as pipelines, and production techniques
would have to be developed. These time-consum-
ing projects would take much longer than a 5-year
lease term provides. Suspensions of operation or
production (SOP’s), pursuant to USGS regula-
tions (30 CFR 250.!2), which extend the lease
term, are discretionary and are not easily applied
to these situations. Also, since they would be
applied on a case-by-case basis, consistency of
February 1981 treatment is not assured. From a policy stand-
U.S. Department of the Interior point, it would be better to grant longer lease
tems for a problem known to exist at the time
of lease issuance. The lease term should be de-
signed to include time to begin production and not
just to conduct exploratory and delineation drill-
ing. In the shallower water depths of the Gulf of
Mexico, experience indicates that the standard
lease term is usually enough to begin production
and thus it was conceived of as normally encom-
passing the time necessary to begin that phase.
The predictability of a longer lease term can do
much to assure industry that they will be allowed
56
enough time to do the job right instead of depend-
ing on discretionary administrative action to cor-
rect a situation later when hundred million dollar
invesiments are involved.
Existing Departmental ieg.lations contain mechanisms to
encourage early activity on all leases. Such mechanisms
are particularly beneficial in countering perceived specu-
lative aspects of leases issued for primary terms longer
than the normal 5-year period. USGS regulations (30
CRF 250.34-1(a)(3)) provide that for leases issued with
an initial period of more than 5 years, the lessee must
submit either an exploration pian or a general statement
of exploration intentions within a period of time specified
at the time of offering the tracts for sale. The USGS has
indicated that 3 years would be a proper time and this is
proposed as part of this option.
Due to all these factors, an option has been developed to
select a 10-year lease term of 137 tracts (Tract Nos.
1-39, 46-130, 162-174). While the Secretary could select
a lesser time for the primary lease term (for example,
8 years) based on his judgment and consideration of the
numerous factors involved, a uniform 10-year term was
constructed as an option because (1) it is difficult to
determine with precision, that 8 years or any other num-
ber, is adequate and 10 years excessive, (2) the shortage
of drill rigs for the unusually deep water involved, (3) the
desire to avoid adjacency and structure splitting problems
should a shorter lease term tract be chosen next to a
longer lease term tract, (4) the near certainty that pro-
duction might not begin even within the maximum 10
years allowed by statute, (5) the judgment that a longer
lease term is a more appropriate policy response than
relying on cumbersome and discretionary SOP’s on a
case-by-case basis.
57
{Logo]
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary
James A. Summers, Deputy Secretary
Telephone 919 733-4818
August 17, 1982
Mr. Bruce E. Wams!ey
Mid-Atlantic District Supervisor
Minerals Management Service
515 Tilton Road
Northfield, New Jersey 08225
Dear Mr. Wamsley:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review
of Chevron’s exploration plan, environmental report, and
consistency certification for block 510, OCS lease sale
#56. The review also included the July 21st Appendix
to the exploration plan which was prepared at the state’s
request. We concur in Chevron’s consistency certification.
We are satisfied for the appropriate federal agencies to
issue the permits and approvals described in the explora-
tion plan. Each federal agency should notify the State
of North Carolina as permits are issued.
The State of North Carolina will continue its efforts
with Chevron, the Coast Guard, and MMS to reduce the
response times for oil spills.
Chevron, their consultants, and MMS have been most
cooperative throughout this consistency review. The state
58
is grateful and looks forward to a continued good rela-
tionship.
If you have any questions on this matter, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
/s/ James A. Summers
James A. SUMMERS
JAS:ap
cc: Governor James B. Hunt, Jr.
Mr. Bill Matuszeski
Acting Asst. Administrator, OCZM, NOAA
Mr. Harold Nasse
Chevron U.S.A.., Inc.
Dr. Harold D. Palmer
Interstate Electronics Corp.
DCS Task Force
59
[State Logo]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Raleigh 27611
James B. Hunt, Jr. October 15, 1982
Governor
Dear Mr. Ake:
This letter is my response to Atlantic Richfield Oil and
Gas Company’s Exploration Plan and Environmental Re-
port. The information included in this letter should help
you prepare your Environmental Assessment.
The State of North Carolina has no objections with the
proposed project as described in the Exploration Plan.
There are three contingencies, however, that are of critical
importance to the acceptability of this plan.
They are:
(1) Satisfactory revision of the ARCO Oil Spill Con-
tingency Plan;
(2) Adequate information from the Currents Study
being conducted by ARCO and the subsequent
determination of the availability of and the intent
to use appropriate technology, and;
(3) The implementation of an acceptable photo-docu-
mentation survey of biological resources in the
exploration area.
I recommend that these documents be submitted to the
State for review and comment. They represent factors
which are important to our determination of the adequacy
of the Exploration Plan.
60
Enclosed are comments and questions raised by my staff
which require attention.
Please call me or my staff if I can be of assistance to you
in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment.
My warmest personal regards.
Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Hunt, Jr.
Mr. Larry Ake
Mid-Atlantic Acting District Supervisor
Minerals Management Service
515 Tilton Road
Northfield, New Jersey 08225
Enclosure
61
(State Logo}
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Raleigh 27611
James G. Martin
Governor
6 October 1988
Mr. Ralph Ainger
Acting Regional Manager
Minerals Management Service
1951 Kidwell Drive
Vienna, Virginia 22180
RE: Mobil Plan of Exploration Off North Carolina
Dear Mr. Ainger:
In recent discussions with Mobil and your office, my
staff and I expressed our grave concerns about the impacts
development of any hydrocarbon resources would have on
the State’s valuable estuarine system and other important
coastal resources. In my direct discussions with repre-
sentatives from Mobil, I stressed the necessity of providing
quality and substantive information to our citizens and
State government to allow us to plan how to best protect
our fragile coastal resources. The purpose of this letter is
to reaffirm that request to the responsible federal agency.
The first issue I wish to address regards the environ-
mental impact analyses. The State has consistently main-
tained that the earlier environmental impact statements
(EIS), completed before and after the leases were issued
are unsound for some topics. The level of scientific in-
formation for these ocean areas has increased dramatically
since 1981. It shows unquestionably that the prior analy-
ses were based on flawed data and assumptions. Direct
62
and indirect onshore impacts from a discovery the size
Mobil is projecting were never sufficiently analyzed. Con-
sequently, the State demands that a full environmental
impact statement be prepared on the Mobil proposal.
Otherwise, the plan will be incomplete and the State will
challenge any contrary decision.
My staff and I are aware of the practical importance of
giving early and specific statements of information needs.
We have strived to do so in each of our respective meet-
ings. I am especially pleased by the recent decision of
Mobil to provide complete data on each of the seven
proposed exploratory wells rather than dividing the infor-
mation into two submissions. However, I remain con-
cerned whether the analysis accompanying this informa-
tion will be developed through the interactive procedures
embodied in the standards established by the President’s
Council on Environmental Quality for implementation of
the National Environmental Policy Act. I am equally
concerned that the analysis include a discussion of reason-
able alternatives to the various decisions your agency will
make. Consequently, the State considers it essential that
the environmental report accompanying the plan of ex-
ploration be a full EIS, including alternative actions and
developed after the opportunity for notice and comment
by the public and government agencies. I consider our
citizens’ continuing demand for that level of scrutiny ap-
propriate and proper.
The second significant issue that I raise is of equal
importance to our citizens and the State. From my con-
sultations with the Attorney General’s staff and my own
staff, I understand that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (OCSLA) separates the exploration and develop-
ment phases of lease activity for regulatory purposes.
However, I am also informed the Act vests in your agency
the authority to require that Mobile accompany the plan
63
of exploration with “a general statement of development
and production intention which shall be for planning
purposes only and which shall not be binding on any
party.” Our citizens are deeply concerned about the direct,
indirect and cumulative onshore and offshore impacts of
the proposed action.
For these reasons, I request you exercise your authority
under the OCSLA and your regulations to require that
Mobil submit such a statement with its plan of explora-
tion. It is North Carolina’s position that the statement is
within the range of information and date which may be
required under § 250.33(b)(21) of your regulation en-
titled “Exploration Plan” and is necessary to a full and
fair evaluation of the plan of exploration.
By copy of this letter, I have relayed these concerns
to Mobil. I look forward to your reply and our continued
cooperation to bring forward all the information needed
to decide the critical issues raised by exploration in this
frontier area. I urge you to employ your authority so
that examination of the critical issues precedes any action
by your agency. By separate letter Donna Moffitt will
forward a more specific statement of minimal information
needs the State has identified. Should similar critical
information needs be identified, I shall forward them to
you immediately.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jim Martin
JAMES G. MARTIN
65
64
State
JGM/DFM/dw {State Logo]
ee: Senator Jesse Helms NORTH CAROLINA
"Senator Terry Sanford DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
400 Oberlin Rd., Suite 300
Representative Walter B. Jones
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg
Donald Hodel, Secretary of the Interior Telephone 919-733-2290
illi berg, Director of
Oe Sa Service James G. Martin, Governor Office of Marine Affairs
William C. Whittemore, Mobil Oil James S. Lofton, W. Neal Conoley, Jr.,
Robert W. Haines, Mobil Oil Secretary Director
October 20, 1988
Mr. Ralph V. Ainger
Minerals Management Service
Atlantic OCS Region
1951 Kidwell Drive, Suite 601
Vienna, Virginia 22180
Dear Ralph:
In Governor Martin’s letter of October 6, he stated that
I would be sending you more details of our information
requirements for Mobil’s offshore drilling proposal. We
have identified the following concerns that we believe
must be addressed by Mobil and/or MMS in the POE
or other accompanying documentation:
1. Correct and update information in the old EIS
for fisheries data, oceanographic conditions, and
N.C. population figures that account for seasonal
variations and community infrastructure needs
and are based on a discovery the size Mobil is
projecting. This can be accomplished through a
new EIS or a supplemental EIS or an environ-
mental report developed under procedures allow-
ing for notice and opportunity to be heard by
66
the public and state and federal agencies. Mobil
would have to specifically answer how concerns
raised at public hearings and through written
comments were addressed in the POE.
2. Work with N.C. to
a. identify an optional drilling window which
we believe should be slightly different than
Mobil’s proposed window;
b. develop an oil spill contingency plan that pro-
vides a prioritized scheme for environmental
and resource protection from oil spills if
computer modelling of trajectories proves
infeasible.
. Comply with the Ocean Discharge Criteria of the
Clean Water Act for its NPDES discharge permit.
. Provide seismic data, bottom surveys, and spill
trajectories (or an alternative acceptable to N.C.
with respect to oil spill planning) for each well
site identified in the POE. Be prepared to shift
well head locations to avoid biologica! activity
or geohazards if photo surveys or bottom profiles
warrant such action.
. Provide alternatives on timing of drilling, types
of drilling muds and alternative ways of disposal,
alternative staging sites and work force require-
ments. Compare Mobil’s proposed drilling site to
North Sea or Surinam drilling conditions.
. Provide details on a potential hydrogen sulfide
plant including size, location, work force, impacts
on air or water quality, surface or ground water
requirements, solid or hazardous waste treatment
or disposal concerns, safety issues, leak detection
and warning systems.
67
7. Provide preliminary planning data on how gas
and/or oil will be brought to shore and where,
alternative locations for processing or distribu-
tion plants, size of work crews for developing
the field and laying pipelines, anticipated fabri-
cation facilities, population rises and falls of
work crews and their families during explora-
tion, development and production phases.
8. Provide data in sufficient detail to allow our
State agencies to conduct an adequate consist-
ency review.
9. Consider establishing a formal panel of state,
federal, industry and local interests to work out
the details of how Mobil can best address our
concerns.
Addressing these issues may require Mobil to delay
exploratory drilling until spring 1990.
In summary, we are prepared to oppose Mobil’s pro-
posal unless Mobil provides enough information to show
that the anticipated and proposed offshore and onshore
activities can be conducted safely and with the least harm
to our valuable coastal resources. We believe that we can
best deal with fiscal, environmental, and other effects of
OCS development if we anticipate, plan for, and attempt
to mitigate potential negative impacts. The ultimate im-
pact of OCS generated activities, development, new popu-
lation and increased service demands will be significantly
reduced by the planning and prevention measures under-
taken now at the federal, state, regional, and local levels.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
68
Sincerely Yours,
/s/ Donna
Donna D. MoFFITT
Governor’s Working Group on
Mobil Offshore Drilling
DDM/k!
cc: Mr. Robert Haines
Mr. William Whittemore
Mr. Edmund Welch
Dr. David Gettleson
(State Logo]
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
19 W. Hargett, St., 9th Floor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone 919-733-4656
James G. Martin, Governor Outer Continental Shelf Office
James S. Lofton, Secretary Donna D. Moffitt, Director
January 9, 1989
Mr. William Whittemore, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Mobil Exploration and Production U.S., Inc.
1250 Poydras Building—Suite 2021
New Orleans, Louisiana 70113
Dear Bill:
As I have mentioned to you, we have begun to identify
our informational needs for the wildcat drilling activities
at the Manteo Unit. Because we are inexperienced, we
may be asking these questions prematurely, or they may
be overly simplistic, or you may feel some of the responses
would involve proprietary data. However, we are trying
to learn as much as we can about the level of data we
will be allowed to review, the relevance of the data, and
when and in what form we will be allowed to review it.
We think this approach will help us get through the Gov-
ernor’s review phase and our consistency review more
effectively and efficiently and perhaps prevent needless
delays due to our shortcomings or misunderstandings. We
also need to assure a worried public that we are doing
all that we can to protect their best interests and the
State’s natural resources. We can best accomplish that by
70
asking direct questions and receiving reassuring and in-
formative answers. Simply relying on MMS regulations
to answer all our questions or taking your word that
Mobil knows what it is doing just isn’t good enough for
our first offshore exploration well. Perhaps after we have
more experience, we will feel comfortable enough with
the process that we no longer ask for this type or level of
information at this stage of the process. That is why
Mobil’s response to our informational requests is so
important.
How can the following information be provided to us—
in the POE, in separate documents, during informal tech-
nical meetings, or by other means? Your prompt re-
sponse as to the level of disclosure your company can
accommodate and as to the earliest point at which
such information will be made available will be greatly
appreciated.
PRESENTLY IDENTIFIED AREAS OF CONCERN
REGARDING EXISTING PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS:
1) Slope—The bottom in the drill site area is highly
dissected by canyons and the continental slope averages
about fifteen degrees. The canyons are regions of slope
instability, and there are several known large slope fail-
ures to the north and south of this area. Please provide
data which characterizes the slope conditions at the drill
site. Emphasis should be placed on slope stability, the
possibility of slope failure, and proposed engineering solu-
tions to prevent foundation failure or to handle a massive
foundation failure if such were to occur. Information on
slope failure could be provided as part of a Shallow Haz-
ards Survey and through photo documentation.
2) Frozen Gas Hydrates—The drill site is in a known
area of frozen gas hydrates (clathrates) in the shallow
71
sub-bottom. Discuss isi :
Syd a tne aecerorision fr dealing with thee gn
drilling operations. a ae
Cause extreme currents and extreme changes
time spans at both the surface and Fam ed ynos ar
‘olumn. Discuss the capabilities of a dynamically posi-
tioned drillship (or a moored system if that is ultimately
at {ne expected peak load should be included. Equipment
pe ndancy and worst case scenarios for catastrophic
i ures will need to be clearly defined. The accom
ing specific items should be discussed fully: egl
oan Discuss the power requirements of the dynamic posi-
ning system to be able to remain on drilling location
ae — weather conditions and the effects of ad-
wea on drilling Operations requirements. Under
worst case conditions, will drilling operations be reduced
or shut down due to lack of generating capacity for
thruster power demands? Please describe in detail how
an emergency shutdown will be accomplished.
OVERALL WELL PLANNING CONCERNS:
1) Well and Pore Pressure Concerns f anteo
; . or the M Uni
(including but not limited to the following) : 4
72
a) On which detection method(s) are the seismic pres
sure estimates based?
b) Describe the pressure gradients generated or antici-
pated pressures to be encountered.
c) Describe specific transitional zones identified based
on geophysical methods, data correlation from ome
Hatteras well logs, and regional trends observed on
eastern continental shelf drilling program. What proce-
dures are planned for the possibility that extremely a
zones may be encountered, resulting in potential mu
system failures?
d) Discuss the estimated probability of an underground
blow-out and the potential for resulting problems at the
sea bottom or for marine resources.
e) Describe the general well prognosis including =
kind of rock above the producing formation and the roc
contained in the producing formation.
f) Describe the riser specifications ( including whether
or not a fairing will be used) and provide an analysis of
expected collapse loads due to pressure differentials >
case of a gas kick in the spudding or early stages of t
drilling program.
g) Casing size, weight, and piping schedule in addition
to the installation program should be made available.
h) Describe the process and technology that will be
used in connection with any directional drilling or devia-
tions from straight line drilling. Describe ee
to be implemented if stuck pipe is encountered and t
decision is made to cut and drill around it.
2) Pressure detection and control methods to be utilized
while drilling operations are underway:
73
a) drilling mud parameters;
b) lithological observations (shale showings, etc.);
¢) rate of penetration, rotary speed, weight on bit,
flow-shows, shale density, gas detection-hot wire
method, flowline temperature;.
d) kick tolerance estimations;
€) muds disposal systems.
3) Well completion techniques.
a) Describe how Mobil plans to permanently seal the
Manteo well if no producing quantities of oil or gas are
found.
b) What are Mobil’s proposed well completion tech-
niques if production were to occur?
SEISMIC/GEOLOGICAL DATA NEEDS:
1) Maps indicating the shape of the structure and surface
conditions over the structure.
a) Sea bottom contour maps for all blocks with pro-
posed well sites.
b) Structural depth contour map at top of objective
horizon.
¢) Two additional structural contour maps above ob-
jective horizon (preferably at about 2,000’ intervals above
the objective horizon).
d) Structural depth contour map at base of objective
horizon or deeper.
2) Six seismic sections (in two forms—one uninterpreted
cross section and the remainder in annotated or inter-
preted cross sections, including faults and mapped hori-
zons, in both recorded time and corrected depth) :
74
a) Three sections running parallel to one another.
b) Three sections running parallel to one another and
perpendicular to “a)” above.
c) Middle section of each set should intersect at or
near the primary well locations.
3) Depth estimate to the top of the structures.
4) A shallow hazards survey.
PHOTO AND SONAR DOCUMENTATION:
We would also like to request that a series of benthic
photographs and sonar transects be completed as soon
as possible at the Manteo Exploration Block wildcat well
site. This preliminary survey could be completed during
the cruise of the Manteo Block Water Current Study. The
sonar transects should depict a three dimensional picture
of the well site out to a distance of 3,000 feet and provide
a depth profile for each photograph. The benthic photo-
graphs should be 35mm color slides and of sufficient reso-
lution to allow identification of biological material. The
photographic transects should extend from the well site
the same distance as the sonar tracks. The information
obtained from this initial survey will help to develop a
characterization of the physical habitat within the 21
block unit. Such a characterization would be essential,
especially if production is ever proposed for the Manteo
Unit.
Thank you very much for working with us and we look
forward to your response at your earliest convenience.
ec: Secretary Lofton
Secretary Cobey
Bruce Weetman, MMS
76
F16NC1.
FINAL
April 1, 1989
10:02am
Question: Is it the policy of MMS to turn down an
exploration plan if significant environmental impacts are
shown, rather than do an environmental impact state-
ment?
—Do you feel it is impossible to do an environmental
impact statement under the 30-day DOI review process?
— Do you see any conflict in this policy and complying
with the National Environmental Policy Act’s require-
ments to prepare an EIS, if an environmental assessment
shows significant impact?
Answer: If significant environmental impacts were to
be shown, we would not approve an exploration plan
since the OCS Lands Act specifically provides that a
plan must be disapproved if it is determined that any
proposed activity under such a plan would cause serious
harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic
life), to property, to any mineral (in areas leased or not
leased), to the national security or defense, or to the
marine, coastal, or human environment; and, the activity
cannot be modified to avoid the harm or damage (43
U.S.C. 1340 and 43 U.S.C. 1334). MMS reviews each
exploration plan on a case-by-case basis to determine
whether exploratory drilling activity will have significant
environmental effects. This is in accordance with the
National Environmental Policv Act and the Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Lands Act as well as regulations formulated
specifically for OCS oil and gas leasine. Based unon
accumulated information on approximatelv 8.000 exnlor-
atory wells, including approximately 50 in the Atlantic,
77
no demonstrated signific i
resulted from cuplasinny define adie. a reo
vironmental assessments which have been prepared for
exploration plans have applied the accumulated informa-
tion on environmenial effects of previous explorato
wells, as well as pertinent site specific information, va
have concluded that igni
no significant enviro
would occur. nvironmental effects
It is not feasible to com
i plete the EIS process during th
oe deadline of 30 days for review of an Proven doen
plan. It is important to note that the 30-day period
is not discretionary, but is specifically di
(40 U.S.C. 1340). pecifically dictated by statute
We see no conflict with our poli i
with the National Environmental Policy or oe
ance with the Council on Environment Quality (CEQ)
regulations for implementing NEPA, environmental assess-
ments are prepared not only to determine if an EIS is
required but also to assist the agency in planning and
decision making (1501.3). Based on past experience, we
have no reason to expect that an EA will indicate the
need for an EIS in this instance. We nevertheless prepare
EA’s on exploration plans becau
se th
our decision process. ey are valuable to
F17NC2.
Question: How many explorati
Pheccionss y exploration plans has MMS ever
—What are the consequences to MMS for di
or disa i
an exploration plan or cancelling a lease? oe
——Has MMS ever taken more than 30 d
ays t vi
an exploration plan, and if so, what ats. i ee
quences to either MMS or the lesses?
78
Answer: The Minerals Management Service (MMS)
does not ordinarily disapprove exploration plans. If the
plan is deficient in some manner, the operator is contacted
to correct the deficiency. However, since the 1978 Amend-
ments of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)
were enacted, there have been 15 disapprovals of explor-
ation plans. These disapprovals were caused by incom-
plete or inappropriate plans (6) on conflicts with mili-
tary uses (9). The MMS has never needed to cancel
an OCS oil and gas lease under the OCS Lands Act
Amendments of 1978, since no activities on leases have
caused undue harm to the environment. The ultimate
consequence of being unable to reconcile difficulties with
an exploration plan due to conflicting uses or unmitigat-
able environmental damage would be cancellation of the
lease. The OCSLA provides that the lessee is entitled to
compensation if the Secretary cancels a lease.
The MMS has taken final action on all exploration
plans within the 30-day period required by the OCSLA.
79
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BY AND BETWEEN
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, MOBIL OIL
CORPORATION, AND THE MINERALS MANAGEMENT
SERVICE REGARDING EXPLORATION OF
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LEASES
OFFSHORE NORTH CAROLINA
This memorandum of understanding is entered into on
July 12, 1989, by the State of North Carolina (the State),
Mobil Oil Corporation (Mobil), and the United States
Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Serv-
ice (MMS), in order to satisfy the statutory requirements
of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43
U.S.C. 1331 et seq., and the Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq., and to Satisfy the
State’s needs for information and analysis concerning the
environmental impacts of exploration activities conducted
by Mobil on leases held by Mobil and others located on
the federal Outer Continental Shelf offshore the State,
including leases on block numbers 204, 246, 247, 290,
291, 334, 335, 378, 379, 422, 423, 466, 467, 510, 511,
553, 554, 555, 597, 598, 599, 640, 641, or 642.
The following agreement provisions are graphically pre-
sented in the Environmental Action Plan Timeline at-
tached hereto and made a part of this memorandum as
Attachment A. The timeline is intended to illustrate the
text of the agreement; if there is an inconsistency between
the timeline and the text, the text controls.
I
WHEREAS Mobil is a lessee in whole or in part of cer-
tain Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leases offshore
the State of North Carolina including blocks 423, 467,
511, and 554 on protraction diagram NI 18-2; and,
80
WHEREAS, Mobil intends to explore these leases pursu-
ant to section 11 of the OCSLA, as amended, 43 U.S.C.
1340; and,
WHEREAS, Mobil has negotiated with and may unitize
its lease interests with the interests of some or all of the
following lessees including Amerada Hess, Marathon,
Chevron, Conoco, Occidental, Shell, and Union for lease
blocks in the same general area as Mobil’s leases, thereby
becoming the unit operator; and
WHEREAS, Mobil must submit to the MMS for review
and approval an Exploration Plan (EP) pursuant to sec-
tion 11(c)(1) of the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1340(c)(1)
prior to conducting its exploration activities; and,
WHEREAS, the MMS must review the environmental
impacts of Mobil’s EP pursuant to section 11(c)(1) of
the OCSLA, 43 U.S.C. 1340(c)(1), and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), prior to approving,
disapproving, or requiring modification of the EP; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 11(c) ( 1) of the OCSLA,
43 US.C. 1340(c)(1), the MMS must approve, dis-
approve, or require modification of Mobil’s EP within
thirty days of the date on which Mobil’s EP is deemed
submitted; and,
WHEREAS, Mobil must submit its certification that the
activities described in detail in its EP are consistent with
the State’s coastal management program (CMP) pursuant
to section 307(c)(3)(B) of the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act (CZMA), 16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(B); and,
WHEREAS. the State must review the activities described
in detail in Mobil’s EP for consistency with the State’s
CMP pursuant to section 307 (c)(3)(B) of the CZMA,
16 U.S.C. 1456(c) (3) (B); and,
81
WHEREAS, the MMS may not issue permits for any
exploration activities contained in Mobil’s EP prior to
1eceiving the State’s concurrence with Mobil’s consistency
certification or until such concurrence may be conclusively
presumed, or until the Secretary of Commerce makes the
findings set forth in section 307(c)(3)(B) of the CIMA
16 U.S.C. 1456(c) (3) (B); and,
WHEREAS, the Environmental Report which MMS will
prepare under this agreement will address a broader range
of State concerns than MMS could consider in an en-
vironmental impact statement prepared under NEPA;
THEREFORE, the State, Mobil, and
5) - th
agree to the following: ier waned
II
THE MMS agrees to:
1. Use the draft outline of the Environm
(ER), which is attached hereto and made pu ~ ye
memorandum as Attachment B, as the starting point for
the consultation process in which the State and MMS will
participate and by which the contents of the ER will be
Cotermined to meet the specific needs of the State or
2. Prepare an ER which will assess, as a minimum
the environmental impacts of Mobil’s EP and the poten-
tial 2 1-block unit as described in Part I, the report from
the oil spill risk analysis modeling for mid-Atlantic Lease
Sale 121, the potentially affected coastal environment. the
effects associated with exploratory drilling for the initial
well and all reasonably foreseeable delineation wells, the
potential impacts of spills of oil or gas during drilling
operations on the North Carolina coastal environment,
and such additional issues as m
State and MMS; oF Ee te Re
82
3. Submit to the State on July 17, 1989, the report
from the oil spill risk analysis modeling for mid-Atlantic
Lease Sale 121, a description of the potentially affected
coastal environment, and a generic description of the
effects associated with exploratory drilling;
4. Participate in at least three public meetings con-
cerning the information submitted to the State in August
1989 at a location or locations to be determined by
agreement of MMS and the State;
5. According to the outline submitted to the State,
prepare a draft ER for publication and review and com-
ment by the State and the public on November 1, 1989;
6. Participate in at least three public hearings con-
cerning the draft ER during the week of December 4,
1989, at a location or locations to be determined by
agreement of MMS and the State;
7. After consideration of comments on the draft ER,
prepare a final ER for submission to the State by Feb-
ruary 1, 1990;
8. Determine pursuant to 30 C.F.R. 250.33(e) whether
Mobil’s final EP should be deemed submitted, transmit
the EP to the State on the date the EP is deemed sub-
mitted, and begin preparation of the Environmental
Assessment (EA);
9. Review comments on the EP submitted by the
Governor after his 20-day review;
10. Complete the EA, and approve, disapprove, or
require modification of Mobil’s EP within 30 days of the
date the EP is deemed submitted, if no other NEPA
document is required;
11. Prepare an ER with the scope and process de-
scribed on the first EP to be submitted on any of the
83
lease blocks listed in the opening paragraph of this mem-
orandum of understanding if the Mobil EP is not the
first EP, for the listed lease blocks, to be reviewed by
MMS. However, if the lessee submitting the EP does not
agree to the process set forth in Article IV of this agree-
ment, then MMS and the State will consult immediately
to identify a mutually agreeable alternative process;
12. Issue a suspension of operations for any of those
nineteen leases due to expire on August 31, 1991, which
are included in the draft EP. The suspension will not
prevent the conduct of preliminary activities as defined in
30 C.F.R. 250.31 (1988). The suspension will be di-
rected by the Regional Supervisor under 30 C.F.R. 250.10
(b)(4). It will be effective on the date Mobil submits
the draft EP under this agreement and will expire on Feb-
ruary 1, 1990, or on the date MMS submits the final ER
to the State, whichever is later;
13. If the State objects to Mobil’s certification of con-
sistency, or if any other administrative or judicial chal-
lenges or appeals arise, or if the issuance of the permits
for Mobil’s exploration activities is delayed due to any
of the other circumstances contemplated by 30 C.F.R.
§ 250.10, upon Mobil’s application, issue additional sus-
pensions of operations, pursuant to 30 C.F.R. § 250.10.
to allow for the resolution of such matters and to allow
Mobil two drilling seasons under the EP thereafter. For
the purpose of this paragraph, a drilling season is the
period of May 1 through October 31.
Il
THE STATE agrees to:
1. Provide data agreed to in a timely manner;
2. Participate in public meetin i i
gs concerning the infor-
mation submitted to the State in August 1989 at a loca-
84
tion or locations to be determined by agreement of MMS
and the State;
3. Participate in public hearings concerning the draft
ER and draft EP during the week of December 4, 1989,
at a location or locations to be determined by agreement
of MMS and the State;
4. Begin its CZMA consistency review of Mobil’s
final EP on the date of receipt of the final EP from the
MMS; and,
5. Complete its CZMA consistency review within
seventy-five (75) days of receipt of the EP, and on that
day issue its concurrence with or objection to Mobil’s
consistency certification.
IV
MOBIL agrees:
1. To submit a non-binding draft EP on September 1,
1989, including all documentation required by law and
such additional supporting information and documenta-
tion as shall be hereafter agreed to by the parties to this
agreement; and,
2. Not to submit a final EP to the MMS before Janu-
ary 18, 1990.
Vv
GENERAL AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES:
1. Time being of the essence, all dates contained in
the foregoing sections II-IV are subject to change only
pursuant to subsequent written agreement of the parties,
provided, however, that the time between each step de-
picted in Attachment A shall remain constant.
2. By entering into this agreement, the State of North
Carolina has not waived any legal remedies it may have
85
to challenge the approval of Mobil’s EP or related permits
and approvals for activities described in the plan. The
Department of the Interior has not waived any defenses
or remedies it may have if the State files such a ‘
Mobil Oil Corporation and the co-lessees of the leases in-
cluded in the EP or unit have not waived any rights, de-
enses, or remedies they may have with respect to their
exploration of their leases.
APPROVED:
Minerals Management State of North Carolina
Service
/s/ (Ilegible] /s/ James G. Martin
Acting Director Governor
Date: 7-11-89 Date: 7-12-89
Mobil Oil /s/ [Illegible]
Corporation Secretary,
Department of Administration
Date: 7-12-89
/s/ (Ilegible)
Date: 7-11-87
/s/ [Mlegible}
Attorney General
Date: 7-12-89
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
James G. Martin, Governor Outer Continental Shelf Office
James S. Lofton, Secretary Donna D. Moffitt, Director
November 20, 1989
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Jim Lofton
_ Secretary Bill Cobey
~ Phil Kirk/Nancy Temple
Tim Pittman
Donna Moffitt /s/ Donna
SUBJECT: Opportunity for Official State Comment on
MMS’ Draft Environmental Report
ACTION ITEM: The Minerals Management Service
(MMS) will be holding its public hearings December 4-7
on the draft Environmental Report (ER) that was pre-
pared pursuant to the MMS/N.C. /Mobil Memorandum
of Understanding. The State has not had a major public
statement since the announcement of the signing of the
MOU. Our next opportunity for a public statement is
during MMS’ public hearings. The purpose of this memo-
randum is to alert you to the fact that the opportunity
exists for the State to make a strong statement—even
going so far as asking for the timeline to be suspended
while MMS tries to do a better job on the next version
of the ER—and to ask that you consider who the appro-
priate spokesperson should be to deliver the State’s com-
ments.
BACKGROUND: Several major events are causing more
and more focus to be placed on North Carolina and the
87
Mobil project. Examples are Rep. Barbara Boxer’s bill
to be introduced in Congress today in which oil and gas
activities would be banned out to 175 miles off the N.C.
coast (we have no idea where this figure came from), and
the 21 lease blocks in the Manteo exploration unit are
specifically identified for possible buy back; the brand
new National Research Council (NRC) of the Academies
of Sciences and Engineering report which is very damaging
to the offshore oil and gas program and very critical of
(1) the inherent conflict of interest created as a result of
the agency that is responsible for opening up the OCS
for oil and gas development (i.e., MMS) also preparing
the environmental baseline data, and (2) MMS’ lack of
adequate environmental and socio-economic data to con-
duct leases off the California and Florida coasts (The
NRC report focused only on Calif. and Fla. but there
has already been national press coverage about how this
report has obvious implications for the Mobil exploration
off our coast. I have attached for you [sic] review an ex-
cellent analysis by Clark Wright of the Ocean Unit for
the NRC’s major findings as they relate to Mobil’s pro-
posal and MMS’ environmental report.); and Rep. George
Miller of California’s call for public hearings (Congress-
man Rose is asking him to consider holding one in N.C.
in 1990) on significantly amending the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act to give coastal states more authority in
the oil and gas program. So far we have declined to com-
ment on any of the above items, nor have we commented
publicly on Mobil’s draft Exploration Plan or MMS’ draft
Environmental Report, and the pressure is mounting for
the State to say something! :
ANALYSIS: Our review of MMS environmental report
is that it violates the MOU in its adequacy of analvsis
and scope of the alternatives presented, i.e., it impermis-
sibly breaks down the environmental review into a one-
well scenario and a seven-well scenario which is contrary
to the requirements of the MOU; it is a very poorly pre-
pared document with many errors, omissions, and dated
material; the data and analysis presented on many topics
is not focused on the resources or conditions existing off
our coast but instead is a generic presentation of informa-
tion; it arbitrarily dismisses or ignores significant data
that the State provided about our own resources onshore
and offshore; and it arbitrarily selects data that is favor-
able to the MMS point of view that neither Mobil’s test
well nor the 6 delineation wells will have significant or
long term impacts while ignoring data that is unfavorable
to this predetermined point of view of MMS’.
As you might expect, the public is going to have severe
and justified criticism of the draft ER and of the State
for believing that MMS could produce an adequate and
objective “custom made” environmental analysis of Mobil’s
proposal and potential future development. The NRC
report certainly lends credence to this view. It seems ap-
parent that there was insufficient time to prepare such
a document adequately and we ought to ask for a suspen-
sion of the timeline while MMS prepares another draft,
or takes significantly longer to complete the final ER, or
contracts with an independent consultant to finish the
environmental review and analysis. A suspension of the
timeline will not harm Mobil, and may in fact be bene-
ficial to Mobil, because its leases are suspended during
the time that the ER is being prepared. From what we
gather from Mobil’s comments to us, Mobil is looking for
an excuse not to drill next year anyway, and this could
take some of the pressure off them. It’s a near certainty
that, regardless of what happens on the draft ER and
MOU timeline, Mobil will not be drilling before Spring
1991 at the earliest.
It seems clear that whoever has the strongest statement
at the first public hearing in Manteo will get the publicity.
We ought to consider the appropriateness of the State
leading off the first public hearing at 3:00 p.m. on De-
cember 4 in Manteo with a strong statement.
I look forward to your thoughts on this matter.
Attachment
90
APPENDIX A
UNIQUE FACTS REGARDING MOBIL’S
PROP SED EXPLORATION
The factors supporting the State’s unique factual situation
allowing us to argue that in this one situation, an EIS
should be prepared for exploration activities:
The age of the existing lease sale EIS
The inadequate discussion of material issues in the
existing lease sale EIS and subsequent lease sale
EISs for the same geographic area
The express language in the lease sale EIS providing for
the possibility of an EIS at the exploration stage
The “frontier” nature of offshore drilling
off the North Carolina coast
Unique drill site conditions including the depth of the
water, the steepness of the sea floor, known
geohazards existing in the general area, the
unpredictability and severity of the weather,
the swiftness and unpredictability of the
ocean currents, the proximity of a prime
recreational fishing area, and the
proximity of spawning grounds for
commercially significant fishing
species such as menhaden
The unknown character (oil, gas, or sour gas) and
potential huge size of the hydrocarbon deposit
91
APPENDIX B
STATE’S MAJOR CONCERNS
The major concerns of the State with respect to the ex-
ploratory drilling proposal can be grouped into four cate-
gories. These are: (1) site-specific or project-specific
concerns either inadequately addressed or not addressed
in prior environmental documents; (2) flawed analysis
based either on erroneous or incomplete information con-
tained in existing environmental documents; (3) new in-
formation or changed circumstances which are material
to a proper analysis of impacts; and (4) unreviewed im-
pacts. The following is a detailed discussion of the State’s
concerns under each category.
SITE SPECIFIC CONCERNS
The oceanographic conditions where Mobil wants to drill
are extremely dynamic. The unusual current regime
could result in operational problems during drilling and
unpredictable dispersion patterns and water column sus-
pension of drilling muds and spilled oil. Gulf Stream cur-
rents fluctuate between 2 and 5 knots, spin-off eddies
sweep across the site on the average of every 2 to 10
days, and waves approach 25 feet during Nor’easters.
Thus, the State believes a slightly different drilling win-
dow whereby Mobil begins drilling in May instead of
March is better. The sea bottom at the drill site is char-
acterized by extremely rugged conditions, canyons, a
continental slope of 15 degrees, and known slope failures
nearby. The area is known to contain frozen gas hydrates
in the shallow subbottom which, if encountered during
drilling, can affect the well casing integrity and therefore
Mobil’s ability to prevent a loss of well control. None of
the existing lease sale documents have adequately ana-
lyzed the effects of all these adverse conditions, taken to-
92
gether, upon an oil company’s ability to maintain safe
drilling and well control.
The site is also biologically rich and diverse because of
the upwelling currents and other unique conditions set
up by the separation of the Gulf Stream from the con-
tinental shelf. It is locally known as “The Point” and is
one of the most intensely used recreational fishing sites
on the whole East Coast. Significant commercial fishing
activities also occur in the Point area. Whale, porpoise,
and sea turtle migration routes pass through this area
which is also an important site of concentrated sea bird
activity. Again, no previous lease sale EIS has identified
the concentration of diverse biological resources located
in the Point area. The potential impacts to these bio-
logically important resources from drilling in that area
will have to be properly addressed in Mobil’s environ-
mental report.
FLAWED ANALYSIS
Oil spill risk analysis conducted for past lease sale EISs
was inaccurate because it failed to account for Gulf
Stream spin-off eddies. If a spill were to occur during
drilling and the oil became entrained in a spin-off eddy,
the oil could be brought to North Carolina’s coast faster
and in a different trajectory than predicted in the EIS
documents. Because of this erroneous analysis, MMS has
been sponsoring research pursuant to a 1983 memoran-
dum of understanding between MMS and North Carolina
to improve its ocean circulation model, adiust its oil spill
risk analysis model, and gather better field data on the
eddies. Until those studies are completed and the results
verified by independent experts, the State will be unable
to respond favorably to the Mobil oil spill contingency
plan, which is an essential component of the overall ex-
93
ploration plan. In addition, the oil spill plan must pro-
vide for the fullest measure of protection possible for our
fragile near-shore and estuarine resources.
Another area of erroneous analysis involves cumulative
impact analysis. All previous environmental documents
discuss impacts in a retrospective manner rather than pre-
dicting potential impacts from past, current, and foresee-
able future oil and gas activities. Impacts from other
ocean uses are not analyzed in a cumulative manner nor
are impacts analyzed from and through all Atlantic OCS
regions. Such spatially cumulative impacts are especially
important in analyzing total impacts upon migratory spe-
cies. This concern was specifically upheld in a recent
federal court decision involving the latest 5-year leasing
program.
Current and projected populations for coastal counties
have been erroneously estimated in previous EISs. Total
population was significantly underestimated and seasonal
variations in population were not considered. The coastal
counties are the most rapidly growing areas of the State
and development pressures are already adversely impact-
ing the State’s coastal environments. These existing
stresses must be taken as a given in analyzing the addi-
tional impacts that will, or potentially may, occur as a
result of offshore oil and gas drilling.
NEW INFORMATION
OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
One of the most important changes in the informational
baseline used in the previous lease sale EISs involves the
present prediction that gas is the most likely discovery
rather than oil, and that the discovery may be as large
as 5 trillion cubic feet. Previous environmental docu-
ments focused on an oil discovery, not a gas strike as
94
Mobil is now predicting, and certainly not of that size.
The total gas reserves estimated in both the Lease Sale
56 EIS and the newest 5-year OCS leasing program for
our entire OCS planning region are roughly equivalent to
what Mobil now estimates for this one project offshore
North Carolina alone. If the 21 blocks are formed into
one unit it will be the largest unit ever approved on the
U.S. OCS and if a discovery were made of the size pre-
dicted, it would be one of the world’s largest gas reser-
voirs.
Additionally, the Lease Sale 56 EIS states that oil and
gas activities will not adversely impact local community
infrastructure because existing community services can
meet current demand. This original assumption is clearly
invalid as shown by the Morehead City example where a
moratorium exists on additional waste water treatment
plant hook-ups. The original impact analysis failed to
accurately reflect the growing development pressures cur-
rently being experienced by North Carolina coastal com-
munities. According to the original Lease Sale 56 EIS,
CEIP (Coastal Energy Impact Program) planning monies
could be used to help mitigate any anticipated community
infrastructure impacts. Unfortunately, CEIP money has
not been available from the federal government since late
1982.
UNREVIEWED IMPACTS
There is a complete lack of analysis of potential impacts
to public health and safety in any of the previous environ-
mental documents, particularly related to development
and production of natural gas resources. Because the
focus of past environmental documents was on oil instead
of gas, there has been no analysis of impacts from a po-
tential sour gas, or hydrogen sulfide, discovery. Hydrogen
sulfide gas is highly poisonous and requires extensive
95
safety precautions. The Mobil drilling site is in an area
considered by MMS regulation to be an area of unknown
hydrogen sulfide potential and thus this concern must be
addressed.
Another area involving unreviewed impacts concerns
threatened or endangered species. Both the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Serv-
ice consulted with Interior during the preparation of the
Lease Sale 56 document under authority provided in Sec-
tion 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Both
agencies indicated at that time that if new species which
may be affected should be listed, or additional pertinent
information becomes available, or if there are significant
modifications to the described action, the Section 7 con-
sultation must be reinitiated. The State is concerned
newly listed species may be present in the drilling area
and that potential impacts of exploratory activities are
not adequately addressed in the Lease Sale 56 EIS bio-
logical opinions.
There are other unreviewed impacts that the State is cur-
rently investigating to determine the potential for impact.
These include noise, radioactive disposal of drilling pipe
and other material, and shore-based impacts of onshore
disposal of any drilling muds that may be contaminated
with substances unauthorized for ocean disposal.
Additionally, the State desires the higher level for prep-
aration, review, and comment provided by an EIS such
as disclosure, dissemination and analysis of impact infor-
mation, as well as a discussion of alternatives and mitiga-
tion measures.
96
MOBIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING U.S. INC.
April 17, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Hon. William W. Cobey, Jr.
Secretary—Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
State of North Carolina
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Re: NPDES Number NC0052523
Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing
Southeast Inc. (MOEPSIT)
Manteo Area Block 467, Lease OCS-A-0236
Dear Secretary Cobey:
On August 18, 1989, Mobil Exploration & Producing
U.S. Inc. (MEPUS), on behalf of its affiliate Mobil
Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast Inc. (MOEPST),
submitted an NPDES Permit Application for proposed
exploratory drilling activities in Manteo Area Block 467,
Lease OCS A-0236. On October 11, 1989, the United
States Department of Commerce’s Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), at the request
of the State of North Carolina, granted North Carolina
permission to review the proposed discharges addressed
in Mobil’s NPDES Permit Application as an unlisted
activity for purposes of coastal zone consistency review.
Accordingly, pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act’s regulations, specifically 15 CFR
§ 930.54(e), MEPUS has submitted to the EPA and the
OCRM its Statement of Coastal Zone Consistency Certifi-
97
cation with supporting information and documentation.
In accordance with the regulatory provisions cited,
MEPUS also submits to the State of North Carolina with
this correspondence a copy of the Coastal Zone Consist-
ency Certification and necessary supporting data and in-
formation required under the Federal and State regula-
tions.
It is Mobil’s understanding that, pursuant to 15 CFR
§ 930.54(e) and OCRM’s February 9, 1990 letter/ruling,
North Caorlina shall have three months from today, or
until July 17, 1990, to perform its consistency review.
If you have any questions on the materials attached
hereto, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
/s/ William C. Whittemore
WILLIAM C. WHITTEMORE
WCW /rt
cc: Mr. Donald E. Critchfield
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
1825 Connecticut Ave. N.W.—Rm. 706
Washington, DC 20235
Ms. Donna D. Moffitt, Director
OCS Office
State of North Carolina
19 W. Hargett St.—9th Floor
Raleigh, NC 27601
James R. Patrick, Jr.
Chief Permit Section
Facilities Performance Branch
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region IV
345 Courtland St. N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dr. Paul Stam
Federal Program Coordinator
Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
512 N. Salisbury St.
Raleigh, NC 27611
Mr. Bruce Weetman, Regional Director
Atlantic OCS Region
Minerals Management Service
381 Elden St., Suite 1109
Herndon, VA 22070-4817
I. Clark Wright, Jr., Esq.
Associate Attorney General
State of North Carolina
Department of Justice
19 W. Hargett St.
Raleigh, NC 27601
; 99
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 26, 1990
FACT SHEET
PRESIDENTIAL DECISIONS CONCERNING
OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON THE
OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF
The President today announced a series of decisions re-
lated to oil and gas development on the outer continental
shelf (OCS). The President believes that these decisions
strike a needed balance between development of the Na-
tion’s important domestic energy resources and protection
of the environment in sensitive areas.
Decisions by the President on Three Pending Sales.
Decision for California Sales
* Cancel all sales scheduled for 1990, 1991 and 1992
offshore California, including Sale 91 off the coast
of northern California and Sale 95 off the coast of
southern California.
* Conduct additional oceanographic and socioeco-
nomic studies as recommended by the National Acad-
emy of Sciences in a review conducted for the inter-
agency Task Force on Leasing and Development of
the OCS (the Task Force). These studies should
take 3 to 4 years.
* Exclude more than 99 percent of the tracts (including
all of the Sale 91 area and all of the Sale 95 area
south of the Santa Barbara Channel) off California
100
from consideration for any lease until after the year
2000. The Interior Department has identified 87
tracts off the coast of southern California within the
Sale 95 area that have high resource potential. These
tracts are located in the Santa Maria Basin and Santa
Barbara Channel, where oil and gas production is
currently underway. They comprise approximately
0.7 percent of all of the tracts off California, or
0.67 percent of the 74 million total acres off Cali-
fornia that could be leased and 1.63 percent of the
30.5 million acres in the Southern California Plan-
ning Area. These tracts will not be available for
leasing consideration until after January 1, 1996 and
completion of the additional studies. They will then
be available only if development appears viable
based on the guiding principles outlined below and
the results of the studies.
Decision for Florida
* Cancel Sale 116, Part II, and exclude the area from
consideration for any lease sale until after the year
2000. Any development after the year 2000 would
be pursued only if it appears viable based on the
guiding principles outlined below and the results of
additional studies.
* Conduct additional oceanographic, ecological and
socioeconomic studies as recommended by the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences in its review. These
studies should be completed within 5 to 6 years.
* Begin cancellation of existing leases off Florida and
initiate discussions with the State of Florida for its
participation in a joint federal-state buy-back of the
leases.
101
Guiding Principles
The President's decisions were based on the following
principles:
(1) Adequate Information and Analysis—Adequate
scientific and technical information regarding the re-
source potential of each area considered for leasing
and the environmental, social and economic effects
of oil and gas activity must be available and sub-
jected to rigorous scrutiny before decisions are made.
No new leasing should take place without such infor-
mation and analysis.
(2) Environmental Sensitivity—Certain areas off our
coasts represent unique natural resources. In those
areas even the small risks posed by oil and gas de-
velopment may be too great. In other areas where
science and experience and new recovery technolo-
- show ee may be safe, development will
(3) Resource Potential—Priority for development
Should be given to those areas with the greatest re-
source potential. Given the inexact nature of re-
source estimation, particularly offshore, priori
should be given to those areas Man earlier Psd
ment has proven the existence of economically re-
coverable reserves.
( 4) Energy Requirements—The requirements of our
ay $ economy for energy and the overall costs
102
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON
MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6230
June 26, 1990
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The Citizens of Florida and California have been wait-
ing for many months for the announcement you made this
afternoon imposing an offshore oil and gas leasing mora-
torium off their coastlines that will last throughout the
remainder of this decade. I am sure they were pleased by
your announcement, as were the citizens of Oregon,
Washington, and New England who, unexpectedly, were
also included in the moratorium.
Given the inclusion of areas that we had believed were
beyond the scope of the Task Force’s recommendations,
I am equally sure that the citizens of the Atlantic sea-
board were disheartened to find that leasing is still a
possibility adjacent to their shores.
Therefore, I urgently request that you revise your an-
nouncement to include North Carolina and the other
states of the Mid- and South Atlantic planning areas in
this leasing moratorium. This makes sense for the very
same reasons the other areas of the country were included.
In addition, offshore North Carolina and the surrounding
waters are frontier areas which have never been subjected
to the kind of environmental studies which—though now
proven inadequate—have already taken place off Cali-
fornia and Florida.
103
Your announcement today was based on the n
protect the special environmental attributes of the ——-
torlum areas. Mr. President, North Carolina’s Outer
Banks are home to Cape Hatteras National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore, the U.S.S. MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary, numerous National Wildlife
Refuges, and the Albemarle-Pamlico estuary which has
tour te ab estuary of national significance. Indi-
» an i
ers | y combined, these areas also deserve
At your earliest possible convenience I would like to
personally show you the Outer Banks and introduce you
‘o the thousands of North Carolinians who, with me,
share your concern for our nation’s fragile coastal areas.
Sincerely,
/s/ Walter B. Jones
WALTER B. Jones
Chairman
104
[State Logo]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Raleigh 27603-8001
James C. Martin
Governor
June 27, 1990
The Honorable George Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Yesterday, I spoke by phone with Mr. Andrew Card,
your director of Intergovernmental Relations, requesting
that North Carolina be included in the moratorium on oil
and gas leasing and development that you announced
earlier in the day. Again today, Robert Grady of OMU
phoned me for further information to present to you.
I am writing you to underscore that request. Clearly, the
guiding principles employed in your decision apply to
North Carolina as well.
I would also suggest, Mr. President, that the most mean-
ingful—and pleasurable—way we can show you how vital
our coast and the maritime economy it produces are to
our citizens is for you to see for yourself.
With that in mind, I would like to invite you to go
deep-sea fishing with me at the site Mobil Oil Corp. is
considering for exploratory test drilling. If this meets with
your approval, we will arrange it to fit your schedule.
This matter is of great importance to North Carolina.
I have been wrestling with the issue of offshore drilling
for many months, trying to balance our nation’s fuel needs
105
with my unwavering conviction that we must preserve and
protect our state’s coast.
Your decision that our nation’s oil and gas reserves are
such that we can await a ten year moratorium on off-
shore exploration in non-producing areas convinces me
that there is no need for North Carolina to be excluded
from your moratorium. Since our state has the only oil
or gas drilling site on the entire East Coast that wasn’t
included in your announcement, I respectfully request that
the moratorium order be amended to include North
Carolina.
I believe you will be able to get a strong grasp of the
situation—as well as a marlin or king mackerel or two—
if you can find time to join me. My fellow North Caro
linians and I would be honored to show you personally
the Atlantic waters we are committed to protecting.
Thank you very much, Mr. President, for your consider-
ation.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jim Martin
JAMES C. MARTIN
106
{State Logo]
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH,
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
225 North McDowell Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James C. Martin, Governor Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
DRAFT
July 16, 1990
Mr. William C. Whittemore, Senior Counsel
Mobil Exploration & Producing U.S., Inc.
1250 Poydras Plaza
New Orleans, LA 70113-1892
Dear Mr. Whittemore:
This letter provides the State of North Carolina’s offi-
cial response to Mobil’s April 17, 1990 consistency cer-
tification in which Mobil deemed its proposed discharge
activities consistent with North Carolina’s federally ap-
proved Coastal Management Program. Mobil’s certifica-
tion is for NPDES Permit Application Number NC
UU52523, which describes proposed exploratory drilling
discharge activities in Manteo Area Block 467, Lease
OCS A-0236. The consistency certification was received
by the State on 4/17/90 and assigned the number CD90-
10 for review purposes.
Based upon our review of the certification and other
information sources available (see Attachment 1), the
State objects to Mobil’s certification that the proposed
activity is consistent with the North Carolina Coastal
107
Management Program. Our objection is based on Mobil’s
failure to provide data and information necessary to allow
the State to conduct a proper consistency review of the
— on hy merits. The State’s informational objec-
are made pursuant to 15 CFA Sections 930.54
930.58, 930.60(a) and 930.64(d). mean
Since the Fall of 1988, North Carolina has expressed
concerns to Mobil about informational deficiencies related
a ’ Proposed drilling activities in Manteo Area Block
; Lease OCS A-0326. In December of 1989, Mobil
was provided with a written list of fisheries studies viewed
as essential by the Division of Marine Fisheries in order
to address informational concerns related to assessment of
parts which were more directly relevant to a
ec ; n assessment
of potential drilling discharge impacts. The four part
study was also set out in North Carolina’s January 31,
After discussions between Mobil and the State, the four
part study was focused on discharge impacts and clarified
once again (see Attachment 3) in Governor Martin’s
comments to EPA on 6/1/90 and supplemented by the
Governor’s letter of 7/13/90 to EPA (see Attachment
4). As of the date of this letter, the state has not received
any of the site-specific fisheries data required by the four
part study described above.
The State had previously determined that the NP
permit activity may have potentially significant ~ -
North Carolina's coastal resources. This Position was
Pre een np by the U.S. Department of Commerce in
their 10/ 11/89 letter granting permission to the State for
@ consistency review of Mobil’s NPDES permit with a
108
finding that the activity “can be reasonably expected to
affect the State’s coastal resources” (see Attachment 5).
The State specified four North Carolina Coastal Man-
agement Program enforceable policies and standards par-
ticularly relevant to the NPDES permit consistency cer-
tification review process in our 4/12/90 letter to Mobil.
These are extracted from the eight criteria listed in our
federally approved 1979 Program Amendments which
states that the criteria “will be used to judge the consist-
ency of OCS development with the CM program.” The
four particularly relevant criteria are:
—Risks of environmental harm to fish spawning areas are
assessed and minimized.
—Potential damage or interference with traditional fishing
grounds or areas with high biological/recreational value
(reefs, rock outcrops) is avoided.
—Placement of structures in geologically hazardous or
biologically sensitive areas is avoided.
—Potential wildlife destruction or relocation is assessed
and minimized.
The potential impacts of Mobil’s proposed discharge
activities upon the land and water uses of our coastal
zone cannot presently be assessed against these four cri-
teria because of the company’s failure to provide the
requested information. The requested information is neces-
sary to allow proper determinations to be made regarding
the biological importance of the proposed drill site area
to the State’s fisheries, the importance of the area to birds
and marine mammals, and the economic importance of
the proposed drill site area (which is located in or near
the area locally known as “The Point”) to the State’s
fishermen. Detailed review comments and analysis of the
significance of the proposed drill site to biological re-
109
sources by the Division of Marine Fisheries are attached
(see Attachment 6).
Comments received from other State Resource Manage-
ment Agencies during our current review of Mobil’s con-
sistency certification support our 4/12/90 conclusion that
the information provided is insufficient. Our reviewers
have also identified the following informational deficien-
cies and additional informational needs. Again, these in-
formational needs are essential to our ability to success-
fully apply the four criteria listed above for judging the
consistency of OCS development.
Mobil has used computer models to address the risks
of environmental harm to fish spawning areas. The State
has consistently maintained that the resources impacts
cannot be documented or projected without adequate
site specific baseline data. The four part fisheries studies
are designed to provide the minimal site specific data
which can reasonably be used to project probable impacts
on fisheries resources from Mobil’s proposed exploratory
drilling discharges. Further, the State has maintained that
Mobil has met fully documented assumptions used in their
models and that the applicability of the models therefore
cannot be judged (see comments provided by the Division
of Environmental Management in Attachment 7 and the re-
port prepared by Dr. Gerald S. Janowitz for the NC Outer
Continental Shelf Office May 8, 1989 in Attachment 8).
The NC Division of Parks and Recreation pointed out
that the use of Fundulus heteroclitus, a salt marsh, estua-
rine, and tidal creek species is unsuitable for determining
toxicity of drilling muds to oceanic fish or invertebrates
since, unlike oceanic species, Fundulus eggs, larvae, and
adults are normally associated with high turbidities and
sedimentation rates. Toxicity information must be pro-
vided for species adapted to the oceanic environmental
conditions found at the proposed drill site.
110
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has
determined that the following information is necessary to
determine that potential wildlife destruction or relocation
is assessed and minimized:
1. Utilization of the project site by pelagic birds, sea
turtles and marine mammals. This should include in-
formation regarding numbers of individuals, numbers
of species, and activities by species at the project site.
2. Past or ongoing research regarding impacts of oil and
gas exploration discharges on wildlife resources.
3. Plans for remedial action if adverse impacts are de-
tected once drilling activities are initiated.
Finally, EPA Region IV has informally indicated to
Mobil and the State its intert to provide a “Response to
Comments” document in which the agency will propose
final discharge permit conditions, limitations, and prohibi-
tions. As of this date, EPA Region IV has not issued this
response. Therefore, in addition to the informational de-
ficiencies outlined above, the State does not at this time
know what EPA proposes for final discharge permit con-
ditions, or whether EPA will impose the study require-
ments and other conditions itemized in the Governor's
June 1, 1990 comments.
Because the State’s objection is based upon Mobil’s
failure to provide necessary data and information, the only
alternative available is for Mobil to provide the informa-
tion needs identified. Should Mobil subsequently provide
the required information, the State will then be in a posi-
tion to review the proposed activity to determine whether
it may be conducted in a manner consistent with North
Carolina’s Coastal Management Program.
This letter serves as our formal notice that we have
found the proposed activity inconsistent with the North
111
Carolina Coastal Management Program. A copy will be
sent to EPA Region IV as notification that pursuant to
Section 307 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, NPDES Permit Number NC0052523 cannot be
issued. This letter also serves as notice to Mobil that our
finding may be appealed to the Secretary, U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce, Washington, DC. The appeal must
be filed within 30 days of receipt of this letter and must
specifically address the applicant's belief that either (1)
the activity is consistent with the objectives or purposes
of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, or (2) the
activity is necessary in the interest of national security.
Should you have questions regarding our finding or the
appeal procedure, please contact me at (919)733-2293.
Sincerely,
/s/ Original signed by:
RoGer N. SCHECTER
Attachments
cc: Governor James G. Martin
Secretary William W. Cobey, Jr.
Secretary James S. Lofton
NC Outer Continental Shelf Office
NC Department of Justice
NC Division of Coastal Management,
Morehead Field Office
NC Division of Coastal Management,
Elizabeth City Field Office
NC Division of Environmental Management
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
112
Mr. Ray Cunningham
Water Management Division
EPA Region IV
346 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Mr. Timothy R.E. Keeney
U.S. Department of Commerce, OCRM
Washington, DC 20235
113
(DOI Logo]
THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Washington
August 1, 1990
Honorable Ralph-Regula
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Ralph,
The House Rules Committee will soon consider a rule for
House consideration of the Conference Report to accom-
pany H.R. 1465, the Oil Pollution Liability and Compen-
sation Act of 1990.
I am informed an amendment (Sec. 6003), proposed by
Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, was
added during the conference which would effectively delay
any exploratory activity off the coast of North Carolina
until late 1991. The Administration strongly opposes the
inclusion of this amendment on the oil spill legislation
since it is a de facto moratorium on any exploratory
activity in this area, without regard to the relatively be-
nign environmental effects of that activity.
The President has announced his comprehensive policy
regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development
and has placed a number of areas of the OCS off limits
to further leasing, exploration, and development until the
next century. The President’s decision will restructure the
OCS program by more carefully targeting areas with truly
promising resource potential, obtaining information ade-
quate to ensure that oil and gas development proceeds in
an environmentally sound manner, and being sensitive to
the concerns and needs of local areas affected by offshore
114
development. The Administration’s actions are definitive
efforts to resolve the near- and mid-ierm issues associated
with offshore leasing. This amendment undermines this
effort.
The Administration opposes the imposition of any addi-
tional legislative moratoria regardless of the legislative
vehicle. I understand the amendment was not considered
by the House or the Senate during debate on the oil spill
legislation. The amendment is clearly outside the scope
of the conference, and it should be deleted from the con-
ference report.
I believe a rule should be granted which would allow for
the removal of this amendment during consideration of
the conference report by the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,
/s/ Manuel Lujan Jr.
Celebrating the United States Constitution
115
EXPLORATION PLAN
ATLANTIC: OFFSHORE NORTH CAROLINA
MANTEO AREA BLOCK 467
OCS-A 0236
LESSEE/OPERATOR
MOBIL OIL EXPLORATION & PRODUCING
SOUTHEAST INC. (MOEPSI)
20 Aucust 1990
VOLUME | oF 3
EXPLORATION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In 1981, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) of
the U. S. Department of the Interior conducted a Mid-
Atlantic Region lease sale off the coast of the Carolinas.
In this sale, Mobil and its partners bid on and successfully
acquired 5 tracts for a total lease-bonus of $234.8 million.
Four of these five blocks were situated about 45 miles
northeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and included
Block 467, which received the highest bonus bid of the
sale, $103.8 million.
In the fall of 1988, Mobil and partners informed the
MMS and the State of North Carolina of their intent to
drill a single exploratory well in Block 467. Considerable
discussion ensued regarding regulatory procedures and en-
vironmental concerns. In lieu of requests by North Caro-
lina for an unprecedented exploration stage Environmen-
tal Impact Statement (EIS), the State, MMS, and Mobil,
in July 1989, entered into a Memorandum of Understand-
116
ing (MOU) which provided that the MMS would prepare
an environmental report outlining potential impacts at
both the exploration and »roduction stages. Mobil and
its partners also agreed t. ibmit in advance a Draft Ex-
ploration Plan (EP), and the State agreed to conduct
public hearings on this Draft Plan and to shorten the
consistency review period for the Final EP.
On 1 September 1989, Mobil submitted its Draft EP to
the MMS. Copies of the Draft EP were also provided
to North Carolina state officials who placed copies in nu-
merous public locations, so that citizens of North Caro-
lina would have the opportunity to review and offer com-
ments to Mobil on the proposed plan. After nearly a year
of public review and comments and subsequent plan revi-
sion, Mobil, in accordance with Federal law and the spe-
cial MOU, is now submitting the Final EP.
This document is organized in accordance with the format
specified by federal regulations. The Final EP includes
additional information made available since the submis-
sion of the original Draft EP Plan and effectively responds
to various state and public concerns through expanded
discussion and/or clarification of material presented in
the Draft EP Plan. This executive summary is a con-
densed discussion of the EP’s key components in layman's
language.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mobil proposes to drill a single exploratory well for natu-
ral gas at a site in Block 467 about 45 miles northeast
of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The selection of this
site is based on years of geological, geophysical, and en-
vironmental investigation, including efforts during the past
18 months on which Mobil and partners have spent more
than $7 million. This well, which is planned to a total
117
depth of 14,000 feet, will be drilled by a state-of-the-art
equipped drilling vessel, and will require about 3-4 months
to complete. The wellsite, situated on the continental
slope, is in 2,690 feet of water. The cost to complete this
single well is estimated to be about $25 million.
pated traffic. Marine vessel support will include two
vessels (215-ft), one crew boat (125-ft), one utility vied
( 120-ft), and one spill-response vessel (180-ft). The
spill-response vessel will be stationed round-the-
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.