Question

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

1. In order to determine the validity of moratorium or in other words to have the factual basis supported by the experts to check the criteria on which decision has been taken it is important to rely on the expert objections. And because of the fact that the expert objections are based on practical knowledge as well as on unbiased views.
2. The significance of the difference between the factual information in the report and the terms of the moratorium is that it helps in determining the object and purpose of the moratorium and legality their off and to check the abuse of the discretion.
3. The court sees selective ban or more safety measures to be taken up but not the blanket ban as an alternative for the moratorium