# Joint Appendix — Marathon Oil Co. v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 494 (1999) (No. 99-253) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0330%3A06 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1999 ## 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 suspens [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0330%3A06. Public record. Not legal advice.