Is there a federal moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic or not?

U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline is ordering federal and state attorneys to answer that seemingly simple question once and for all -- and soon.

In September, Gov. Sean Parnell called a press conference to announce the state was filing suit against the Interior Department and Secretary Ken Salazar to force the government to lift a moratorium on Arctic offshore oil exploration. Parnell, who had just won the GOP primary for governor and was facing a spirited general election challenge from Democrat Ethan Berkowitz, said his administration was taking a tough stand against what he saw as the Obama administration's decision to put all offshore drilling off limits after the disastrous Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Shell Offshore Inc. is the only operator seeking to do any work off the coast of Alaska in the foreseeable future, and Parnell has said he wants the moratorium lifted so Shell can drill, which would create jobs for Alaskans and help the economy.

Whether that moratorium exists has always been the subject of dispute, and in announcing the lawsuit even Parnell acknowledged it could just be a "de facto moratorium" based on statements made by Salazar at a press conference.

Interior officials, including Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement which oversees offshore work, have said there is no moratorium for the Arctic. Statements made at a press conference don't amount to official agency policy, they've said. Specifically, Bromwich denied the moratorium during a visit to Anchorage in late August, before Parnell filed the case.

In October, Shell's Alaska head Pete Slaiby also told reporters during a press conference to announce a new permit application that "there is no moratorium."

Yet the state has been pushing its case through federal court for months, with attorneys for both sides filing motions and arguments. Shell, numerous environmental groups and at least one Native village have joined in as "friends of the court."

Federal attorneys have consistently explained in court filings that there is no moratorium. Arctic offshore work was first put on hold by another court ruling, this one upholding conservation organizations' challenge of a federal lease sale in the Chukchi Sea. That's not a moratorium, they've said.

Shell had withdrawn its initial permit application to do work in the Beaufort Sea so there was no reason to have a moratorium in the Arctic, court records show.

What Salazar and Bromwich have said is that agency officials will carefully consider the new permit application Shell filed in October, especially in light of the Gulf oil spill. And the process appears to be moving ahead, perhaps slowly, but it doesn't appear to be on hold due to a moratorium. Last week, the ocean energy management bureau finished accepting public comments on Shell's oil spill response plan for offshore Arctic operations. And bureau officials said recently they are consulting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife scientists on the permit application, an added requirement since the area was designated as critical habitat for polar bears a few weeks ago.

On Tuesday afternoon, Beistline issued a terse two-paragraph order, saying the court is trying to resolve this case but "is faced with a glaring factual dispute that must be addressed, i.e. whether or not there is a moratorium in place, actual or implied, on shallow well oil drilling in Alaska."

"Plaintiffs say there is, Defendants say there is not. But there should be no reason for secrecy or obfuscation. Either there is or there is not. The public, and certainly the Court, is entitled to know."

The judge wants the federal government's response by Jan. 10 and the state's by Jan 14.

Contact Patti Epler at patti(at)alaskadispatch.com.