SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 10 2012, 03:20pm EDT
Contact:
Shell's Inadequate Oil Spill Response Plans Threaten America's Arctic
Oil and Ice Don’t Mix
ANCHORAGE
A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit today in Alaska federal court challenging the federal government's approval of Shell Oil Company's Chukchi and Beaufort Sea oil spill response plans.
The plans, approved by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), describe how the company says it will prepare for and respond to a major oil spill caused by exploration drilling in America's Arctic Ocean. Shell's drill rigs are headed for the Arctic right now and could be in place in a matter of weeks. A decision in this lawsuit would be the first in a challenge to offshore oil spill response plans in the United States.
Following is a statement from the above-listed organizations:
"We have been forced to court to make sure the Arctic Ocean is protected and Shell is prepared, as mandated by law. BSEE rubber-stamped 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.' Even after Deepwater Horizon, Interior Secretary Salazar brushed aside concerns about Shell's spill response capabilities, stating recently that 'there is not going to be an oil spill.'
The American people deserve more. There have been no tests of spill response equipment in US Arctic waters since 2000 and those equipment tests were 'a failure.' Today, Shell relies on much of that same equipment, and bases its plans on the assumption that it will clean up more than 90 percent of any spilled oil. Even in relatively favorable conditions, less than 10 percent of spilled oil was recovered after the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez spills. In the Arctic, sea ice, harsh weather, high seas, darkness and wind may render even that level of cleanup impossible.
When pushed to explain this assumption, Shell quickly back-pedaled and said that it will not 'recover,' but only 'encounter' spilled oil - despite the legal requirement to 'remove' spilled oil and the fact that the company has used the unrealistic 90 percent projection to justify its choice of vessels and other equipment to protect the shoreline. The company similarly appears to be back- tracking on commitments it made to the Coast Guard for vessel safety and preparedness.
Similarly, BSEE violated the law when it approved spill response plans that do not describe all available spill response resources. For example, Shell has publicly touted its Arctic containment system, but the spill plans approved by BSEE not only do not include that system, but they also fail to explain why Shell expects the system to work in the Arctic Ocean. Nor has the agency ensured that the company is prepared for a late season spill that could continue unabated through the winter. There is a very real possibility that winter sea ice could close in and shut down spill response leaving a blowout uncontrolled for eight or more months.
BSEE also signed off on the response plans without a basic understanding of the consequences of the spill response choices Shell made. For example, the agency never considered the effects of Shell's proposal to apply chemical dispersants in the Arctic Ocean, including threats to fish, birds, and marine mammals, among them the endangered bowhead whale.
As this lawsuit moves forward, we will continue to seek opportunities to work with local Arctic communities, governmental entities, industry, and others toward a shared vision for the Arctic, and we will not be distracted or intimidated by aggressive or litigious actions taken by companies like Shell. Nor will we allow them to take shortcuts around established review processes and standards. We cannot allow the future of the Arctic Ocean to be risked on the hope that nothing will go wrong.
The plaintiffs in this case are Alaska Wilderness League, Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Pacific Environment and Sierra Club. They are represented by Earthjustice.
Read the complaint here.
Contact:
Kari Birdseye, Earthjustice, (415) 217-2098
Emilie Surrusco, Alaska Wilderness League, (202) 544-5205
Rebecca Noblin, Center for Biological Diversity, (907) 274-1110
Travis Nichols, Greenpeace, (206) 802-8498
David J. Ringer, National Audubon Society (212) 979-3062
Bob Keefe, Natural Resources Defense Council, (202) 289-2373
Michael LeVine, Oceana (907) 723-0136
Andrew Hartsig, Ocean Conservancy (907) 229-1690
Colleen Keane, Pacific Environment (206) 734-9300
Virginia Cramer, Sierra Club (804) 225-9113 x 102
LATEST NEWS
Judge Boasberg Demands to Know If Trump Can Really Bring Abrego Garcia Home With a Phone Call
The judge questioned administration attorneys in a hearing on whether the White House has "constructive custody" of nearly 140 Venezuelan men it sent to El Salvador.
May 08, 2025
At a hearing Wednesday on the status of nearly 140 Venezuelan immigrants whom the Trump administration hastily expelled to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a federal judge told lawyers representing the detainees that there were "a lot of facts in their favor" regarding whether the White House has the authority to return the men to the United States.
During the hearing, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., questioned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers to determine whether the U.S. has "constructive custody" of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man whom the administration has insisted it can't bring back to the country even though he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador—and other prisoners at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
If the White House does have constructive custody of the men, with El Salvador detaining them at the behest of the U.S. government, it would be possible to bring them back to the U.S. to receive due process—which DOJ lawyer Abishek Kambli reluctantly conceded they had not received before their expulsion.
Boasberg zeroed in on a comment President Donald Trump made in an ABC News interview last week about Abrego Garcia, when he told reporter Terry Moran that he "could" make a phone call to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to secure the Maryland father's return.
"You could pick it up and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back,'" said Moran.
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that," Trump said.
On Wednesday Boasberg demanded to know if Trump's comments were accurate.
"Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?" he asked.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve."
Kambli replied that Trump was just speaking of "the influence that he has" but doubled down on the claim that the president's position of power doesn't equal legal control of constructive custody.
The White House has claimed it has no jurisdiction over the migrants even though they were sent to El Salvador under a $6 million deal Trump struck with Bukele.
Boasberg pointed to comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a visit to CECOT in which she suggested the U.S. is in control of who is sent to and remains at the prison.
"What about Secretary Noem saying CECOT is 'one of the tools in our tool kit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people,'" Boasberg asked Kambli, quoting Noem directly. "Is she wrong about that?"
Kambli attempted to deflect the suggestion that the U.S. is paying El Salvador directly to house migrants, saying that despite Noem's remarks, the administration has only paid "grants" to Bukele's government "for law enforcement and anti-crime purposes."
Boasberg also asked point-blank: "Is the United States paying the government of El Salvador to detain the migrants?"
Kambli did not reply directly, saying only that "there is no agreement or arrangement whereby the United States maintains any agency or control over these prisoners."
At another point the judge forced Kambli to admit that—contrary to repeated claims by Trump—the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in his favor regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which the White House has used to expel people it accuses of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court lifted a block imposed by Boasberg in an earlier ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, but did not uphold Trump's invocation of the rarely-used law.
"I know your client believes the Supreme Court upheld the invocation of the AEA," Boasberg told Kambli. "You agree the Supreme Court never did that, correct?"
Law & Crimereported that "almost audible squirming ensued" as Kambli gave "several evasive answers" before Boasberg read the Supreme Court ruling verbatim.
"They did not analyze that precise issue," Kambli finally admitted.
Former congressman Conor Lamb suggested Boasberg's harsh questioning of the Trump administration is what is needed in the judicial system as the president continues his mass deportation operation and threatens due process rights.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve," said Lamb. "Judges, we need you now."
Law & Crime reported that Boasberg "signaled an obvious inclination toward finding the U.S. does have constructive custody over the relevant Venezuelan nationals detained in CECOT" before ordering the Trump administration to provide sworn declarations regarding who has official custody.
The judge ordered the organizations representing the plaintiffs, the ACLU and Democracy Forward, to decide by Monday whether to request new documents and depositions from the government in the ongoing case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin 'Reviewing' Visas After Arrest of Dozens of Pro-Palestinian Protesters at Columbia
"Repression breeds resistance—if Columbia escalates repression, the people will continue to escalate disruptions on this campus," wrote Columbia University Apartheid Divest.
May 08, 2025
The New York Police Department arrested dozens of pro-Palestinian protestors on Columbia University's campus on Wednesday evening—prompting U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to announce on X that the federal government is reviewing the visa status of those involved in the action.
On Wednesday afternoon, masked protestors, many wearing keffiyehs, gathered in Columbia's Butler Library. Video of the protest posted to social media shows demonstrators inside the library chanting "free Palestine."
Columbia has been under intense scrutiny from the Trump administration in recent months over the school's alleged failure to protect Jewish students. Critics say the administration is weaponizing antisemitism to attack Palestinian rights advocates. In March, the school faced backlash for making policy changes in line with demands from the Trump administration following the administration's decision to freeze $400 million in federal grants for the school.
Late Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X: "We are reviewing the visa status of the trespassers and vandals who took over Columbia University's library. Pro-Hamas thugs are no longer welcome in our great nation."
In January, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the professed aim of rooting out antisemitism at higher education institutions, and vowed to target foreign-born students who have engaged in "pro-jihadist" protests.
Acting university president Claire Shipman authorized the NYPD to enter campus around 7 pm on Wednesday in response to the rally in the library, according to the Columbia Daily Spectator. The student paper reported that the NYPD arrested roughly 75 protesters and began leading them out of the library shortly thereafter.
The Daily Spectator also reported that there were altercations between the police and protestors after the arrests made in connection to the library protest.
Eighty people "who did not comply with verbal warnings by the NYPD to disperse" were taken into custody, according to the NYPD, per reporting from CNN. Seventy-eight of those taken into custody were arrested and two others were issued summonses, the NYPD told the outlet. CNN noted that it's not clear how many of those arrested came from the protest inside the building.
The group Columbia University Apartheid Divest wrote on Substack on Wednesday that the protestors renamed the library in honor of Palestinian activist Basil al-Araj.
The organizers said that the action at the library "shows that as long as Columbia funds and profits from imperialist violence, the people will continue to disrupt Columbia's profits and legitimacy. Repression breeds resistance—if Columbia escalates repression, the people will continue to escalate disruptions on this campus."
In May of last year, the NYPD swept an occupation of Hamilton Hall and arrested dozens of student protestors.
Wednesday's events come not long after arrests by federal immigration agents of multiple noncitizens who had been active in pro-Palestine actions on Columbia's campus.
In March, federal immigration agents arrested pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, who is currently languishing in an U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, Louisiana. Another Palestinian green-card holder active in Columbia's student protest movement, Mohsen Mahdawi, was also arrested by federal immigration agents, but last month was released on bail.
Both of those cases have generated significant national attention.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Congress Must Fulfill Its Constitutional Duty': 500,000+ Back Trump Impeachment Push
"We are the guardrails now," said the advocacy group Free Speech for People. "Trump can't hide from this movement, and neither can our lawmakers."
May 08, 2025
More than half a million Americans have backed a campaign demanding that the U.S. Congress impeach President Donald Trump for grave abuses of power, including the kidnapping and unlawful removal of residents, brazen profiteering, and defiance of judicial orders.
The progressive advocacy organization Free Speech for People announced Thursday that more than 500,000 people have signed its petition imploring lawmakers to impeach Trump for a historic third time, a demand that recent survey data shows is backed by a majority of U.S. voters.
The number of petition signatures has doubled over the past two months as anger has grown nationwide over the Trump administration's authoritarianism and corruption.
"Backed by hundreds of thousands of Americans demanding impeachment, Congress must fulfill its constitutional duty and impeach and remove Trump for his multiple high crimes," Alexandra Flores-Quilty, Free Speech for People's campaign director, said in a statement Thursday.
Free Speech for People's update on its petition drive came as the group unveiled a formal impeachment resolution that contains 16 articles against Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term but never convicted by the U.S. Senate.
The articles accuse the president of "abusing the pardon power through the broad pardon of January 6 co-insurrectionists," "improperly using emergency and wartime powers to mobilize U.S. armed forces against migrants," "receiving foreign and domestic emoluments," "unlawfully imposing tariffs," "co-opting and dismantling federal agencies for corrupt purposes," and "planning the forced removal of Palestinians from Gaza."
BREAKING: More than half a million people have signed our petition urging Members of Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump. We are the guardrails now. Trump can't hide from this movement, and neither can our lawmakers. Add your name today: ImpeachTrumpAgain.org
[image or embed]
— Free Speech For People (@fsfp.bsky.social) May 8, 2025 at 9:49 AM
The group released its resolution just days after U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) filed seven articles of impeachment against Trump, arguing that the president's "unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service."
"We cannot wait for more damage to be done," Thanedar said last week. "Congress must act."
U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) is also expected to file articles of impeachment against the president in the coming days.
Such impeachment resolutions stand no realistic chance of passing the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, but supporters of the campaign to remove the president say it could help galvanize opposition to Trump and his billionaire cronies.
Critics of the push, including some Democratic lawmakers who acknowledge Trump has committed impeachable offenses, have publicly and privately expressed concern that the effort could be detrimental to efforts to check the lawless president.
By Free Speech for People's count, at least 16 members of Congress have so far expressed support for impeaching Trump a third time.
"Members of Congress on record in support of impeachment include Representatives Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Sam Liccardo (CA-16), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Al Green (TX-09), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Becca Balint (VT-AL), and Kevin Mullin (CA-15)," the group noted Thursday. "Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia has also made a public statement in support of impeachment."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular