Question

CASE BRIEF 6.2 Hornbeck Offshore Services, L.L.C. et al., v. Salazar 696 F. Supp.2d 627 (E.D. La. 2010) FACTS: Hornbeck and others (plaintiffs) provide services to support offshore oil and gas drilling, exploration, and production activities in the Gulf of Mexico. Kenneth Salazar is the Secretary of the Department of Interior (DOI), a federal agency that includes the Minerals Management. Following the BP Deepwater Horizon drilling platform explosion on April 20, 2010, and the resulting devastation and unprecedented disaster, the President asked DOI to conduct a study to determine what steps needed to be taken to prevent another problem with oil rigs in the Gulf. DOI did a thirty-day study, consulting respected experts from state and federal governments, academic institutions, and industry and advocacy organizations. On May 27, 2010, DOI issued a report that recommended a six-month moratorium on permits for new wells and an immediate halt to drilling operations on the 33 permitted wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The DOI report also stated that “the recommendations contained in this report have been peer-reviewed by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” The experts pointedly observed this statement was misleading and called it a “misrepresentation.” Although the experts agreed with the safety recommendations contained in the body of the main report, five of the National Academy experts and three of the other experts publicly stated that they “do not agree with the six month blanket moratorium” on floating drilling. They envisioned a more limited kind of moratorium, but a blanket moratorium was added after their final review and was never agreed to by them. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against the moratorium. ISSUE: Are the plaintiffs entitled to an injunction on the moratorium because the action of DOI was arbitrary and capricious? DECISION: The court held that the experts balking at the conclusion of the report, the inconsistency of the moratorium with the report information, and the availability of alternatives made the moratorium likely to survive a challenge of the action being arbitrary and capricious and issued an injunction.

Questions: 1. Why is the problem with the experts' objections important in determining whether DOI's moratorium was arbitrary and capricious?

2. What is the significance of the difference between the factual information in the report and the terms of the moratorium?

3. What does the court see as alternatives to the moratorium?

Answer 1

Answer to question 1:

We find that the problem with the group of experts opinion & objections is important in finding whether Department of Interior's (DOI) moratarium subjective and acted based on impluse because

• The report from the court that has been issued by the group of experts actually lauds a commendable six month ban/suspension on the construction permission of new walls
• This decision has been infact been revised and peer reviewed (termed as misleading or mispresentation) by 7 experts who are identifiable under National Academy of Engineering'
• As per the case, the experts also found that DOI's report was insconstitent with their findings

Answer to question 2:

Significance of differences identifiable in report and the terms in the moratorium

• Idea from the DOI that the six month issuance/moratarium of new permits while an immediate halt was ordered on the same 33 permitted wells in the ocean is actually necessary
• Identifying the differences would have educated guide agencies and experts to come up with a good conclusion for offshore gas drilling and exploration
• Increased safety measures with deepwater drilling with more clarity for the previous ten years

Answer to question 3

Some of the alternatives include but not limited to:

• Court asking the plaintiffs to disregard the moratorium on the grounds of indiscrimation and being implusive.
• Court disregarding the moratorium by identifying the gaps or evidence for 6 months timeline between the permission for new walls and halting immediately thereafter
• Disregarding on the basis of lagged analysis by the report from DOI and threat of safety hazards or injury concerns to the stakeholders

Do Upvote if you are served. Feel free to reach out in the comments

Cheers!!!