• 4 minutes England Running Out of Water?
  • 7 minutes Trump to Make Allies Pay More to Host US Bases
  • 10 minutes U.S. Shale Output may Start Dropping Next Year
  • 14 minutes Washington Eyes Crackdown On OPEC
  • 8 hours The Political Debacle: Brexit delayed
  • 8 mins New Rebate For EVs in Canada
  • 3 hours Trump sells out his base to please Wallstreet and Oil industry
  • 2 hours No Mercy: EU Fines Google $1.7 billion For Abusing Online Ads Market
  • 3 hours 3 Pipes: EPIC 900K, CACTUS II 670K, GREY OAKS 800K
  • 10 hours Tidal Power Closer to Commercialisation
  • 11 hours Solar to Become World's Largest Power Source by 2050
  • 19 hours Oil-sands recovery by solvents has started on a trial basis; first loads now shipped.
  • 2 hours Biomass, Ethanol No Longer Green
  • 13 hours Read: OPEC THREATENED TO KILL US SHALE
  • 11 hours Will Trump Cave Again
  • 18 hours Oil stocks are heating up again! What's on your Watchlist?
  • 17 hours Boeing Faces Safety Questions After Second 737 Crash In Five Months
LNG Sector Dangerously Dependent On Chinese Demand

LNG Sector Dangerously Dependent On Chinese Demand

Industry executives warned that the…

“Perfect Storm” Drives Oil Prices Higher

“Perfect Storm” Drives Oil Prices Higher

Oil prices have risen far…

California Cities Want Big Oil Lawsuit Back In Court

oil sands

San Francisco and Oakland have approached a federal appeals court with a request to reinstate their lawsuits against five Big Oil companies, which a U.S. District Judge dismissed last year.

NBC reports the two municipalities had also asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of San Francisco to return the lawsuits on their own turf, to the San Francisco Superior Court and the Alameda County Superior Court, where the lawsuits were filed originally.

San Francisco and Oakland are suing Chevron, Exxon, Shell, BP, and ConocoPhillips for selling oil products despite their knowledge of the effect these products had on the environment.

"Defendants have known for decades that the continued burning of fossil fuels would increase global temperatures and cause devastating impacts on coastal communities like Oakland and San Francisco. Yet they continued to wrongfully promote the increased, unrestricted use of their products," the attorneys of the two plaintiffs wrote in a brief.

The five companies’ stance was that control over the production of oil and gas and carbon emissions from the industry is the prerogative of environmental regulators and not courts. They argued the case should be dismissed, which is exactly what happened eventually.

Yet, the Big Oil defendants have also argued the environmental damage the two cities’ authorities claim they have sustained is “speculative”, involving billions of people using oil and gas as well as long environmental processes.

Another anti-Big Oil case against the same five companies was dismissed in New York City as well, a month after the SF/Oakland case dismissal. “Climate change is a fact of life, as is not contested by Defendants,” the Manhattan judge wrote in his ruling. “But the serious problems caused thereby are not for the judiciary to ameliorate. Global warming and solutions thereto must be addressed by the two other branches of government.”

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:



Join the discussion | Back to homepage

Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News