Conocophillips Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

── Conocophillips Alaska, Inc. v. Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA, INC., No. 23-35512 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00121- v. SLG ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, OPINION Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 20, 2024 Submission Vacated May 21, 2024 Resubmitted May 27, 2026 Anchorage, Alaska Filed May 27, 2026 Before: Jay S. Bybee, Michelle T. Friedland, and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Miller 2 CONOCOPHILLIPS AK, INC. V. AK OIL & GAS CONS. COMM’N SUMMARY * Oil & Gas Law / Preemption The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., an oil and gas producer that sought declaratory relief under the federal Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, preventing Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from disclosing well data that the company sought to keep confidential. An Alaska statute required the Commission to release the data, which concerned oil and gas wells that ConocoPhillips, under permits obtained from Alaska, had drilled in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The district court entered judgment for ConocoPhillips, holding that the Commission could not release the data because federal law preempted the Alaska statute. Reversing, the panel held that the federal Production Act does not expressly preempt the Alaska statute because the Production Act neither contains nor references any clear statement of preemption. The panel held that Department of the Interior regulations also do not expressly preempt the Alaska statute. The panel further held that the Production Act does not impliedly preempt the Alaska statute’s disclosure provisions because the Production Act does not evince a congressional purpose that would be obstructed by the Alaska statute. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  CONOCOPHILLIPS AK, INC. V. AK OIL & GAS CONS. COMM’N 3 COUNSEL Kevin M. Cuddy (argued), Whitney A. Brown, and Connor R. Smith, Stoel Rives LLP, Anchorage, Alaska, for Plaintiff- Appellee. David A. Wilkinson (argued), Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Alaska Attorney General, Anchorage, Alaska, for Defendant-Appellant. Christopher Anderson and John E. Bies, Attorneys, Environment & Natural Resources Division; Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Michael S. Gieryic and Nicholas C. Moore, Attorney-Advisors, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; for Amicus Curiae United States of America. 4 CONOCOPHILLIPS AK, INC. V. AK OIL & GAS CONS. COMM’N OPINION MILLER, Circuit Judge: ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., an oil and gas producer, sued to prevent Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from disclosing well data that the company sought to keep confidential. The district court entered judgment for ConocoPhillips, holding that the Commission could not release the data because federal law preempts the Alaska statute requiring it to do so. But federal law neither expressly preempts the statute nor evinces a congressional purpose that would be obstructed by it. We reverse. I The National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska is the largest single unit of public land in the United States, comprising nearly 24 million acr