In November, the Montana Wildlife Federation moved a lawsuit into the State Supreme Court after Fallon County District court ruled against them in a case which considered whether the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation errantly approved 23 oil and gas wells in the Cedar Creek Anticline. On Tuesday, attorneys for the state joined with attorneys for the Montana Petroleum Association (MPA) in response. The MPA had intervened in the lawsuit filed by two environmental groups to contest their challenge of the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation’s approval of 23 infill natural gas wells in eastern Montana. The Wildlife Federation challenged the adequacy of an environmental study and its analysis of the impact of oil and gas development on sage grouse. The July 2011 ruling followed a hearing in Fallon County in May 2010. The district court, over the MPA’s objections, did not determine that the groups lack standing and allowed the groups to present “expert” testimony; however, the rest of its ruling supported the MPA’s arguments.
Representing the MPA, William Perry Pendley, Esq. Of Mountain States Legal Foundation said “The district court correctly granted summary judgment to our client. That ruling should be affirmed.”
The suit alleges that the cumulative effect of the 23 new wells added to the over 1000 already existing in the area so significantly impacts the ecology of the region that a new cumulative environmental study should be done. The written response to the court by the MPA responded said “Given the developed nature of the Cedar Creek gas field and the low level of disturbance caused by infill gas wells, the MBOGC determined in each of the EAS that no long term impact was expected from the issuance of these drilling permits. Moreover, even short term impacts were expected to be minimal, and mitigated in time.”
The MPA's response also told the state high court that the Federation has mis-interpreted the plain language of their guidelines which says the agency may choose rather is required to determine when additional environmental analysis should be performed.
The MPA also noted that the Wildlife Federation has “demonstrated or even alleged a concrete, particularized
injury to its members in this case. If this Court reverses the District Court's application of the MBOGC Review Statute, remand will feature Appellants alleging MEPA violations, without factual support for their claims, and without an
organizational interest in the MBOGC' s decision to approve Fidelity's drilling permits.”
The Examiner will continue to follow this case as it makes its way through the state high court with the potential to sculpt area oil and gas leases.
Comments