• 3 minutes Nucelar Deal Is Dead? Iran Distances Itself Further From ND, Alarming Russia And France
  • 5 minutes Don Jr. Tweets name Ukraine Whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. Worked for CIA during Obama Administration, Hold over to Trump National Security Counsel under Gen McCallister, more . . . .
  • 9 minutes Shale pioneer Chesepeak will file bankruptcy soon. FINALLY ! The consolidation begins
  • 12 minutes China's Blueprint For Global Power
  • 3 hours Science: Only correct if it fits the popular narrative
  • 3 hours Crazy Stories From Round The World
  • 6 hours What are the odds of 4 U.S. politicians all having children working for Ukraine Gas Companies?
  • 11 hours EU has already lost the Trump vs. EU Trade War
  • 1 day Pioneer's Sheffield in Doghouse. Oil upset his bragging about Shale hurt prices. Now on campaign to lower expectations, prop up price.
  • 4 hours China's Renewables Boom Hits the Wall
  • 1 day ''Err ... but Trump ...?'' *sniff
  • 6 hours Do The World's Energy Policies Make Sense?
  • 5 hours Forget out-of-date 'dirty oil' smear, Alberta moving to be world's cleanest oil industry
  • 4 hours Impeachment Nonsense
  • 1 day Tesla Launches Faster Third Generation Supercharger
  • 10 hours Water, Trump, and Israel’s National Security
  • 1 day Passerby doused with flammable liquid and set on fire by peaceful protesters

Breaking News:

Russia Plans To Boost Crude Oil Exports

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
Download on the App Store Get it on Google Play