• 4 minutes Phase One trade deal, for China it is all about technology war
  • 7 minutes IRAN / USA
  • 11 minutes Shale Oil Fiasco
  • 16 minutes Swedes Think Climate Policy Worst Waste of Taxpayers' Money in 2019
  • 11 hours Indonesia Stands Up to China. Will Japan Help?
  • 4 hours Which emissions are worse?: Cows vs. Keystone Pipeline
  • 13 hours We're freezing! Isn't it great? The carbon tax must be working!
  • 14 hours Trump capitulated
  • 5 hours Thanks to Trump, the Iranian Mullahs Are Going Bankrupt
  • 17 hours Three oil pipeline projects inch toward goal-line for Canada
  • 22 hours The Libyan Oil in a Sea of Chaos, War and Disruptions
  • 2 days Trump has changed into a World Leader
  • 16 hours Yet another Petroteq debt for equity deal
  • 12 hours US Shale: Technology
  • 7 hours Prototype Haliade X 12MW turbine starts operating in Rotterdam
  • 1 day OIL & GAS LOSSES! Schlumberger Posts $10B Loss in 2019
  • 13 hours Gravity is a scam!
  • 2 days Iranian government can do everything to avoid attacking American people.
Alt Text

Greta Thunberg’s Not-So-Little Carbon Footprint

Greta Thunberg has captured the…

Alt Text

Chevron And Occidental Join Bill Gates Backed Tech Company

Chevron and Occidental Petroleum recently…

Alt Text

What To Expect From The European Green New Deal

The European Commission is set…

Irina Slav

Irina Slav

Irina is a writer for Oilprice.com with over a decade of experience writing on the oil and gas industry.

More Info

Premium Content

Big Oil Hit Hard By Supreme Court Rejection

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected requests by a number of oil companies to block three lawsuits launched against them by state and local governments for their role in climate change.

Bloomberg reports that the oil companies—including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips Exxon, Shell, and Phillips 66—had requested that the cases which have been filed in Maryland, Rhode Island, and Colorado, respectively, be moved to federal court. Corporations tend to have a better chance at winning a case at federal court, Bloomberg notes.

However, the Supreme Court judges ruled that this was unnecessary, and let the cases proceed.

The plaintiffs argue that their respective jurisdictions are suffering the effects of climate change, including floods, heat waves, and storms, and the associated higher emergency response costs.

The defendants in the Maryland case argued to the Supreme Court that they will have to incur “duplicative and unrecoverable” litigation costs if the case went forward.

The Supreme Court’s ruling coincided with the start of the trial against Exxon, which New York’s Attorney General has accused of misleading investors about the effect that anti-climate change regulation and climate change itself would affect its profits. Related: Two Dead Following ISIS Attack On Iraqi Oil Field

"Exxon in effect erected a Potemkin village to create the illusion that it had fully considered the risks of future climate change regulation and had factored those risks into its business operations," the prosecution said. "As a result of Exxon's fraud, the company was exposed to far greater risk from climate change regulations than investors were led to believe."

Exxon, for its part, claims that it did not mislead investors and says the lawsuit is motivated by politics rather than anything else.

Last year, a similar case brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against Big Oil ended with a ruling in favour of Big Oil. The judge in charge of the case ruled that there was no conspiracy to suppress facts about climate change.

By Irina Slav for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:




Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage




Leave a comment

Leave a comment




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