|
|
Timeline of the Pigeon River Hydrocarbon Development
(continued from previous page)
December 18 & 19, 1975 --Public hearings are held on the EIS in Gaylord and in Ann Arbor.
January 20, 1976 --The Executive Committee of the Mackinac Chapter of the Sierra Club reverses itself,
and votes to oppose any drilling in the Pigeon River Country.
February 4, 1976 --Tom Washington, in a statement for public release, outlines the Michigan United
Conservation Clubs' support for drilling in the Pigeon River Country State Forest.
February 24, 1976 -- At a hearing of the Michigan Environmental Review Board, Joseph L. Sax, a
prominent law professor at the University of Michigan and author of the Michigan Environmental Protection
Act, criticizes the DNR's Environmental Impact Statement, calling it inadequate. Industry executives voice
their unanimous support for the EIS.
May 3, 1976 --In a letter to DNR Director Howard Tanner, Gov. Milliken's executive secretary writes, "The
Governor views the Pigeon River Country as an environmental sanctuary that should not be violated by further
drilling."
May 14, 1976 --By a vote of 4-1, the Natural Resources Commission rejects the Environmental Impact
Statement as inadequate. The Commissioners also reject the unitization agreement proposed by Shell, Amoco,
and Nomeco.
June 11, 1976 --The Natural Resources Commission adopts a DNR/industry agreement for developing
hydrocarbon resources in the Pigeon River Country State Forest.
Under the plan, Shell, Amoco, and Nomeco agree to give up the right to request drilling permits in
two-thirds of the forest and develop their holdings in the southern third on a restricted, unitized basis. Shell is
to be the unit operator. Leases in the remaining forest are converted to non-development leases and extended.
The operating plan calls for drilling as many as 10 initial exploratory wells scattered throughout the southern
part of the forest. These are designed to test the validity of $2 million in seismic work that has been done in
the forest. The results are to be used to plan the development phase.
Gov. Milliken issues a statement the same day in support of the plan, but with regret. "I would have
preferred if it had been legally possible to impose an outright ban on further oil and gas drilling in the Forest,"
the statement says. "Clearly the state of Michigan made an error in 1968 in leasing the Pigeon River Country
for oil development."
The same day, environmental groups, led by the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC)
and the Pigeon River Country Association, criticize the plan, saying it differs significantly from action
proposed in the environmental impact statement. Environmentalists also contend the plan will cause traffic,
noise, pollution, and spills, and will impair the usefulness of the land as a quiet retreat. As such, they contend
the order violates the Michigan Environmental Policy Act.
August 13, 1976 --The Natural Resources Commission rejects a motion from WMEAC for a formal hearing
on the case, saying it is premature.
September 17, 1976 --WMEAC, the Pigeon River Country Association, and eight other environmental and
conservation groups file a lawsuit under the Michigan Environmental Protection Act to prevent oil and gas
development in all of the Pigeon River Country State Forest. The suit claims that the June 1976 plan was
entered into unlawfully, and is likely to lead to impairment of wildlife in the forest in violation of MEPA.
January 12, 1977 --Shell applies to the DNR for 10 permits for exploratory wells. The company says it has
abided by every agreement, and urges delays to end.
February 28, 1977 --The DNR holds a public hearing in Lansing on the permit applications.
March 8, 1977 --WMEAC and the other environmental groups petition for "leave to intervene" with the
DNR Supervisor of Wells. Their intent is to gain a contested case hearing, and prevent the DNR from acting
on Shell's drilling applications.
May 26, 1977 -- In a setback for WMEAC, Judge Brown of Ingham County Circuit Court orders DNR
Director Howard Tanner to act on Shell's drilling applications for 10 exploratory wells. During the hearing,
held in an unusual Wednesday evening Circuit Court session, Judge Brown upholds Shell's position that the
state Oil and Gas Act does not give the DNR authority to hold a contested case hearing.
August 24, 1977 --DNR Director Howard Tanner sends a letter to the Traverse City office of Shell Oil,
notifying the company that the state has issued the 10 drilling permits. Environmental groups promise court
action.
August 26, 1977 -- WMEAC and other groups file an appeal of the Tanner order, and seek an injunction in
Circuit Court.
September 7, 1977 -- Judge Brown denies the injunction sought by WMEAC, but issues a brief stay of
proceedings. No new drilling has occurred because the permits had a moratorium period from September 15 to
November 30 to allow for elk breeding.
September 22, 1977 --The state Court of Appeals orders a trial on the merits of WMEAC's case to
commence immediately
October 10, 1977 --The expedited trial begins.
December 5, 1977 --Judge Brown issues a ruling denying the motion for a stay or injunctive relief in the
WMEAC case, and dismisses the claims of the plaintiffs.
(continued on next page) |
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 