The legal claim accuses government regulators under the Bush administration of skimping on assessing the environmental dangers of oil drilling in the Chukchi Sea.
A legal challenge by environmental and indigenous Alaskan groups may dampen Shell Oil’s chances of drilling for billions of barrels of oil in the U.S. portion of the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea. It’s feared the controversial plan could spell disaster for endangered species as well as increase global warming. —JCL
The Guardian:
Royal Dutch Shell’s controversial plans to drill for billions of barrels of oil in the Arctic’s environmentally sensitive frozen waters face a potentially damaging legal challenge.
An alliance of conservation and Alaskan indigenous groups has filed a legal claim to prevent Shell drilling for oil this year in the Arctic Ocean’s Chukchi Sea. Two years ago, Shell paid $2.1bn (£1.3bn) to the US government for 275 oil leases there.
The legal claim accuses the US’s minerals management service, part of the federal interior department, of waving through permission to allow Shell to drill wells on the basis of an “abbreviated and internal review” of the environmental dangers of exploration.
The US portion of the Chukchi Sea, which separates north-western Alaska from north-eastern Siberia, is believed to hold 15bn barrels of recoverable oil and 76tn cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, according to the interior department.
We are launching a major overhaul of our comments section.
In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread.
Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts.
Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with.
Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page.
By denny rusell, January 25, 2010 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have no problems with shell or any other oil company drilling in the artic, as long as all oil goes to the u.s. It doesn"t make any sense to give these oil companys our oil then have them sell our oil back to us at open prices
“one of the world’s leading marine conservation scientists has resigned from the University of Alaska, claiming he lost state funding partly because of his criticism of Shell’s Alaskan activities. . . Steiner alleges the university was told by a state environmental funding agency that his stance on oil exploration was “a problem”
which led to his grant being withdrawn.
Guess Shell Oil Corporation doesn’t believe in “freedom of speech.”
By denny rusell, January 25, 2010 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I have no problems with shell or any other oil company drilling in the artic, as long as all oil goes to the u.s. It doesn"t make any sense to give these oil companys our oil then have them sell our oil back to us at open prices
Report thisBy wildflower, January 25, 2010 at 12:43 am Link to this comment
“one of the world’s leading marine conservation scientists has resigned from the University of Alaska, claiming he lost state funding partly because of his criticism of Shell’s Alaskan activities. . . Steiner alleges the university was told by a state environmental funding agency that his stance on oil exploration was “a problem”
which led to his grant being withdrawn.
Guess Shell Oil Corporation doesn’t believe in “freedom of speech.”
Report this