http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arctic-drilling-shell-20120229,0,3008891.story
This article reports that global oil and gas company Shell is suing a coalition of environmental activist groups, including Greenpeace and the Audubon Society, who have been working to oppose their drilling in the Chukchi Sea, between Alaska and Russia. The lawsuit is pre-emptive, as the opposed groups haven’t actually taken any official, legal action against Shell. The company is mainly interested in suing the groups before they sue Shell, as well as to protect the schedule of the project, on which they have already spent $4 billion. They filed for declaratory relief, which means that the judge will determine whether or not they are within their rights to drill, essentially resolving any potential legal disputes. Shell also filed a restraining order against activists from Greenpeace who climbed onto the drilling rig.
In my opinion what Shell is doing seems to be a clear display of power. Essentially they are saying to any individual or organization that is interested in protecting the environment that they are powerless against big corporations who have the money to spend pursuing lawsuits.
However, I think that the most important thing to remember here is that Shell is seeking declaratory relief to prove that they are within their legal rights to drill – and they are. Therefore, I believe that ultimately the protesters should protest the laws instead of the corporations. It makes more sense to put efforts into changing the laws, which exist in the interest of protecting the citizens and the environment, than changing the company policies, which exist in the interest of profits. While there will obviously be resistance on either end, ultimately I think legal reforms are a more sensible choice, as they are long-lasting and can be applied in different situations.
Off shore oil drilling is a hot debate among environmentalists and major oil corporations and it becomes an even more complex argument when you consider the grand scheme of things in the political realm. The green light from the U.S. Department of the Interior in approving Shell’s oil drilling initiatives in the Arctic sparks another, more politically charged debate. The Obama Administration has promised to be more environmentally “friendly” than his Republican counterparts. However, he is under considerable stress because the U.S. economy is completely dependent on cheap oil and this dependence is resulting in vast amounts of military expenditures to protect U.S. interest in Middle Eastern oil. In light of our country’s debt problem, it makes sense from his point of view from an economic perspective to try and phase out this dependence on foreign oil by pursuing domestic oil drilling initiatives that will hopefully bring down the price of oil and provide U.S. jobs. However, I have considerable doubt that Shell’s plan to pursue oil drilling in the Arctic is a viable opportunity to satisfy this issue. The fact that there are no current safety and legislative regulations that apply to the drilling of oil wells in Arctic waters is highly disconcerting. Also, when I imagine trying to stop a blowout, like BP had in the Gulf of Mexico, but under a frozen Arctic Sea when it is dark almost all hours of the day, in one of the most remote places on Earth, I tend to believe that a successful attempt to stem the harmful effects is highly unlikely. Also, the fact that this project has already cost Shell $4 billion dollars and the drilling process in the Arctic seems to be highly expensive, I doubt that it will result in cheaper oil for Americans.
ReplyDeleteThe stem of the problem is that our economy is absolutely dependent on cheap oil. Granted, energy efficient technology is expensive and alternative energy is slow-going and uncertain, and some argue that domestic oil production is a necessary evil because it is better than spending a lot of money to protect our interest in Middle Eastern oil. But shouldn’t the U.S. focus on changing its ways rather than explore into the deepest and most isolated and dangerous areas to drill for oil that has such high risk of failure? As long as our economy operates the way it does right now, oil corporations and governments will continue to pursue off shore oil drilling at the expense of wildlife. The road to transforming an entire country into one that is less and less dependent on cheap oil is daunting, but it has to start somewhere.
It's interesting that Shell is the one with the lawsuit here. Usually it seems as though big corporations are the ones getting sued- Shell seems to be jumping the gun here. I think it is definitely a power play on Shell's part.
ReplyDeleteHowever, looking past the power dynamics at play here, this situation could be a lot worse. Like Twist said, economically Arctic drilling makes a lot of sense. From an environmental standpoint, it has the potential to be a nightmare, but I think that after Deepwater Horizon, maybe the oil corporations will be more aware of safety precautions. Certainly the public will be- people might actually pay attention to Shell's practices and safety measures and Shell might feel the economic pressure of their customers to promote safety. Let's hope that pressure from the people might one day soon outweigh pressure from oil lobbies to get some regulations in place, be these regulations from the States, from Russia, or from the Netherlands, where Shell's parent company, Royal Dutch Shell, is headquartered.