Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources is asking a state court to assign responsibility for plugging and permanently closing three wells at the former Beechey Point Unit on the North Slope. The 59-page complaint filed August 28 names nine companies connected to the former operator or working interests and seeks to establish who must bear the cleanup costs.
The lawsuit is an allegation, not a final determination of liability. According to reporting based on the complaint and court record, the defendants are Brooks Range Petroleum, AVCG, Brooks Range Development Corp., CaraCol Petroleum, MEP Alaska, Nabors Drilling Technologies USA, Ramshorn Investments, TG World Energy and TP North Slope Development.
The state contends that leases for the unit required the land to be restored and rehabilitated to the department’s satisfaction within six months of termination. It says that obligation remains unfulfilled. The requested relief is designed to determine which parties are financially responsible for the North Shore No. 1, Sak River No. 1A and North Shore No. 3 wells rather than shift the cost immediately to the public.
The dispute follows a separate enforcement action. In March 2025, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission assessed Brooks Range Petroleum a record $6.34 million penalty over the three wells. Contemporaneous reporting on the commission’s order said North Shore No. 1 should have been plugged after work ended in 2009, Sak River No. 1A after its lease expired in 2012 and North Shore No. 3 after operations ended in 2019.
The former Beechey Point Unit had already faced a long administrative history. A 2019 account of the unit’s termination described repeated missed work commitments and the state’s decision to end the unit north of Prudhoe Bay. The new lawsuit moves the unresolved closure question from administrative enforcement into Superior Court.
For residents and industry operators, the case matters because well plugging can require specialized crews, equipment and environmental safeguards in a remote location. It also tests how lease obligations follow assets when ownership and operating interests have changed over time. The state has not classified the three wells as formally orphaned, which is why the case focuses on identifying responsible private parties.
A liability ruling could affect more than the final invoices. It may clarify how the department can enforce restoration duties when a unit has multiple former interest holders and an inactive operator. Defendants may contest the lease interpretation, their ownership histories, the condition of individual wells or how costs should be divided among parties.
Online court records cited by the Alaska Beacon show the case has been preliminarily assigned to Superior Court Judge David Roghair, with no proceedings yet scheduled. Until a defendant responds or the court rules, the state’s description of the wells and contractual duties remains contested. The next meaningful developments will be service of the complaint, corporate responses and any scheduling order that sets a path for deciding liability and closure costs.
