Contact TheIPD.US

Regulatory Actions
View Public Comments
Submit Comments

NMFS ITA for Gulf of Mexico
NMFS Acoustic Guidelines
NMFS IHA for Scripps

  Best Available Science on Acoustic Effects on Marine Mammals
  Seismic vs. Sonar
  Physical Effects
 Behavioral Effects
  Sound Propagation
 Extrapolation From Terrestrial Mammal Acoustic Effects to Marine Mammals
  Cumulative and Synergistic Effects
 Indirect Effects

  US Navy
 Sperm Whale Seismic Study
 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Institute
 The Acoustic Ecology Institute
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
 Sakhalin Energy Investment Company Limited

 Relevant NMFS Permits
 Major Studies and Reports

Comment on IPD
  Potential Research Projects
  Research Underway
  Structure of the IPD

CRE Interventions
  Agency Administrative Actions


Soundings Archive

Parties Ask Court to Stay Seismic Litigation to Allow Time to Conclude Settlement Negotiations
Several environmental groups are suing BOEM in federal court in New Orleans. The groups allege that BOEM's regulation of oil and gas seismic in the Gulf of Mexico violates several federal laws with regard to marine mammals and other species. Industry parties have intervened in the case. Based on the parties' motions, the Court has stayed the litigation pending settlement negotiations. On February 1, 2012, the plaintiffs and defendants filed another stay motion which stated in part:

    "Plaintiffs and Federal Defendants seek an additional stay in order to conclude settlement discussions. Since the Court's November 2 Order, all parties, including Defendant- Intervenors, have participated in additional discussions and exchanged information regarding the possibility of settlement. Representatives of all parties will attend a settlement meeting on February 6, 2012, with the objective of reaching an overall agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, If the parties are able to reach a tentative agreement in principle, they will begin formalizing their agreement for internal review and approval. Accordingly, the parties wish to extend the stay for an additional 29 days pursuant to the same terms (reproduced below) of the Court's March 16, 2011 and subsequent Orders granting their joint motions to stay proceedings, Dkts. 74, 76, 78, 81, 83, 85, save for a change in the seismic permits referenced in paragraph 3 the parties' prior joint motions. If the parties are unable to resolve the remaining issues and reach a tentative agreement in principle, they will promptly move the Court to lift the stay pursuant to paragraph 2 below."
  • Click here to read latest Stay Motion
    Copyright 2005 The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness.
    All rights reserved.