Quantcast

Shell Oil Loses Arctic Drilling Lawsuit

Energy

Shell Oil seems to be on a losing streak these days.

In early October it was announced that the Greenpeace campaign to get Danish toy company LEGO to sever its nearly 50-year partnership with the oil giant was successful. Its Arctic drilling has been plagued with misadventures such as a drilling rig running aground on New Year's Eve 2012. It was forced to abandon its drilling plans for 2013 and 2014, although it has said it plans to try again for 2015.

Shell's path to drilling in the Arctic is lined with pitfalls. Photo credit: Alaska Wilderness League

And yesterday, in a decision sure to be a relief to activist and advocacy groups of all stripes, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a lawsuit brought by Shell that was primarily an effort to block potential lawsuits from environmental groups who opposed its drilling operations in the Arctic.

Two years ago, Shell filed a preemptive lawsuit against 13 environmental, indigenous and community groups to prevent them from possibly suing Shell at some time in the future over its plans to drill for oil in the Arctic. The 9th Circuit Court panel yesterday called the legal maneuver "novel"and said that it was unconstitutional.

"Big News! David has taken down Goliath!" the Alaska Wilderness League posted on their Facebook page. "Shell tried to bully environmental groups like the Alaska Wilderness League by preemptively suing us to silence our voice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has officially told the oil giant: Shell NO! That behavior won't fly!"

Shell acquired leases for oil exploration in the Chukchi and Beauford seas off Alaska, following the 2011/2012 approval of its oil spill amelioration plans by the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). The company was arguing that since the environmental groups were sure to challenge the approvals, it wanted to have the courts declare the approvals legal, in essence winning its case before the case was filed against it.

"Shell claimed that it needed a swift determination of the legality of the approval so it could conduct exploratory drilling without worrying that the environmental groups would seek to overturn the Bureau’s approval of the spill response plans," the panel pointed out in their decision. "Shell’s lawsuit represents a novel litigation strategy, whereby the beneficiary of agency action seeks to confirm its lawfulness by suing those who it believes are likely to challenge it."

"Shell may not file suit solely to determine who would prevail in a hypothetical suit," the judges found.

“The environmental groups were ‘aggrieved’ by the approval of Shell’s oil spill response plans, and the Bureau is the federal agency responsible for their approval,” said the panel. “Because its plans were approved, Shell was not ‘aggrieved’ by the Bureau’s actions. Moreover, since Shell is not a federal agency, it cannot possibly have any legal obligations under the APA to the environmental groups.”

While Shell said they believed this was a valid use of the legal system, advocacy groups were concerned that if Shell had prevailed, it would have had a silencing effect on a wide range of activist, citizen and community groups fearing expensive lawsuits from powerful corporate entities.

“Shell’s lawsuits against Oceana and our partners attempted to circumvent the constitution," said Oceana deputy vice president Susan Murray. "Shell, one of the largest corporations in the world, sued nonprofit organizations on the grounds that the groups would dare speak out against the company’s proposals and use the courts to have that opposition heard when all other avenues had been exhausted without fair resolution. Today’s decision makes clear that Shell’s intimidation tactics will not stand. It is time for Shell to face the facts and take a step back in the Arctic."

Chuck Clusen of the Natural Resources Defense Council, also a defendant in the case, said, "Shell was attempting to quash dissent and circumvent due process.  It didn’t work—our legal system prevailed. As multiple accidents have already shown, Shell’s drilling plans in the Arctic are severely flawed. Shell is not equipped to handle offshore drilling in some of the world’s most treacherous waters, and we’ll continue to do all we can to stop them from endangering the precious wildlife and local fishing economies that they’re putting at risk.”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

Victory for Greenpeace Campaign as LEGO Dumps Shell Oil

Shell Accused of ‘Orwellian Doublethink’ in Downplaying Climate Risks to Investors

Lawsuit Filed to Protect Struggling Walruses from Arctic Oil Drilling

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

New pine trees grow from the forest floor along the North Fork of the Flathead River on the western boundary of Glacier National Park on Sept. 16, 2019 near West Glacier, Montana. Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

By Alex Kirby

New forests are an apparently promising way to tackle global heating: the trees absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from human activities. But there's a snag, because permanently lower river flows can be an unintended consequence.

Read More
Household actions lead to changes in collective behavior and are an essential part of social movements. Pixabay / Pexels

By Greg McDermid, Joule A Bergerson, Sheri Madigan

Hidden among all of the troubling environmental headlines from 2019 — and let's face it, there were plenty — was one encouraging sign: the world is waking up to the reality of climate change.

So now what?

Read More
Sponsored
Logging state in the U.S. is seen representing some of the consequences humans will face in the absence of concrete action to stop deforestation, pollution and the climate crisis. Mark Newman / Lonely Planet Images / Getty Images

Talk is cheap, says the acting executive secretary of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, who begged governments around the world to make sure that 2020 is not another year of conferences and empty promises, but instead is the year to take decisive action to stop the mass extinction of wildlife and the destruction of habitat-sustaining ecosystems, as The Guardian reported.

Read More
The people of Kiribati have been under pressure to relocate due to sea level rise. A young woman wades through the salty sea water that flooded her way home on Sept. 29, 2015. Jonas Gratzer / LightRocket via Getty Images

Refugees fleeing the impending effects of the climate crisis cannot be forced to return home, according to a new decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, as CNN reported. The new decision could open up a massive wave of legal claims by displaced people around the world.

Read More
The first day of the Strike WEF march on Davos on Jan. 18, 2020 near Davos, Switzerland. The activists want climate justice and think the WEF is for the world's richest and political elite only. Kristian Buus / In Pictures via Getty Images

By Ashutosh Pandey

Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg is returning to the Swiss ski resort of Davos for the 2020 World Economic Forum with a strong and clear message: put an end to the fossil fuel "madness."

Read More