In the latest in a lengthening list of lawsuits aimed at stopping Shell’s planned exploration drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, on July 10 a group of 10 environmental organizations appealed the approvals of the company’s oil spill response plans. The District Court is already considering a lawsuit filed by Shell asking the court to rule its spill response plans valid — Shell had filed this lawsuit in anticipation of the appeal that has now been launched.
In February the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, or BSEE, approved Shell’s oil spill response plan for drilling in the Chukchi Sea, while in March the agency approved a similar plan for the Beaufort Sea. In approving the plans BSEE said that it had conducted exhaustive reviews of the plans and that it was confident that Shell had the necessary resources to conduct an effective response in the event of an oil spill incident.
In a July 10 press release announcing the appeal, environmental law firm Earthjustice accused BSEE of rubber stamping plans “that rely on unbelievable assumptions, include equipment that has never been tested in Arctic conditions, and ignore the very real possibility that a spill could continue through the winter.”
“The agency has not met minimum legal standards to be sure that Shell’s plans could be effective and that Shell has sufficient boats, resources, and spill responders to remove a ‘worst-case’ oil spill in the Arctic Ocean to the ‘maximum extent practicable,’” Earthjustice said.
Multiple claims
In their court filing initiating the appeal, the environmental groups claim that Shell’s assumptions regarding the amount of spilled oil that could be recovered from the water at a spill site are unrealistic and that consequently the amount of oil that would escape and drift towards land would exceed the capabilities of Shell’s planned nearshore and shoreline response arrangements. The plans fail to justify how assumed oil slick trajectories reflect “worst-case discharge scenarios in adverse weather conditions”; these trajectories do not consider the possibility of oil becoming trapped under winter ice; and the plans do not consider the resources potentially impacted by overwintered oil, the filing says. The filing also says that Shell’s plans do not describe the Arctic oil containment system that the company plans to deploy for use in the event of a well blowout.
In addition, by not conducting an environmental analysis or preparing an environmental impact statement for either of the contingency plans, BSEE has contravened the National Environmental Policy Act, the filing says. And by not consulting with the appropriate government agencies over potential impacts on protected species such as bowhead and humpback whales, the plan approvals contravened the Endangered Species Act, the filing says.
—Alan Bailey
