Shell Oil wants to drill exploratory wells off the Alaska coast in the Beaufort and Chuckchi seas. The area in which Shell wants to drill may turn out to be America’s largest offshore oil find in decades. The company paid the US government over $2 billion in 2005 and 2008 for rights to drill off the outer-continental shelf, and spent the ensuing years clearing regulatory hurdle after regulatory hurdle.
But just as Shell prepares to sink its first wells this month, along comes the big green job killing machine. The Sierra Club is leading a consortium of environmental groups that has mounted a last-second lawsuit aimed at stopping the wells. The lawsuit seeks to undo the permits for future drilling seasons by challenging the government’s oil spill recovery plans. The groups do not name Shell Oil in the suit, and that is by design. More on that in a moment.
Shell has a long record of safe and sound deepwater drilling. Alaskans want Shell to be able to drill, because it will create jobs for the state’s economy. If the find is as large as experts believe, it could rival the remaining reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. The Shell drilling could create 55,000 jobs for Alaska, while enhancing America’s energy security and independence.
Here’s another kicker. The offshore drilling that Shell is proposing will also inform how future development of the area might proceed. Shell is working with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to study the ocean, coastal areas and climate in the Arctic. According to the NOAA pres release, “In 2011, Shell, Statoil, and ConocoPhillips signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NOAA to share high-quality data to enhance private-public sector collaboration. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco said ‘This innovative partnership will expand NOAA’s access to important data, enhance our understanding of the region and improve the United States’ ability to manage critical environmental issues.’”
But the biggest kicker of all is who is ultimately paying for the lawsuit. Sierra Club’s group filed the lawsuit not against Shell, which has deep pockets and would be expected to defend itself vigorously in court, but against the US Department of the Interior. A little known US law called the Equal Access to Justice Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980, allows the groups to use lawsuits against government as revenue sources. When they sue, the government has to incur the costs of defending itself against the lawsuits, and also picks up the expenses for the groups suing the government. No one even keeps track of how much money the government has ended up spending on such lawsuits.
PJTV teamed up with the Washington Examiner in September 2010 to look at how Big Green games the system, costs the US taxpayer billions and kills jobs while keeping energy prices artificially high. We looked at where groups like Sierra get their money. They get much of it from taxpayers.
This is insanity. The days of considering democrats as simply well-meaning yet misguided Americans who also want the best for our country but have a different point of view are over – forever. These people cannot be negotiated with; they must be defeated, utterly, this fall or America as we know it will be dramatically different.
That’s why I call them Copperheads: they’re treasonous and they want to enslave us all.
Talk about gaming the system. Carter and the Dems made a law that encourages groups to sue. Aiding and abetting treason, and it’s the law.
Will the Sierra Club be able to sue foreign off shore drillers, if the Law of the Sea Treaty is approved? No.
The Sierra Club should be protesting LOST, but I doubt that it is.
“Equal Access to Justice Act”
Somehow I doubt defenders of liberty have the same “equal access to justice” as the far-left.
The workers at various agencies typically throw such cases so they can be “forced” prevent things they wish to prevent, but are not allowed to do by law.
That said, the various oil companies have a long record of avoiding hiring Alaskans. They typically do not even advertise where Alaskans can see the want ads.
OK, I’m no fan of Carter or Democrats or the Sierra Club…but 1980 was a long time ago, with a number of intervening GOP Presidents and Republicans in Congress–and this law is still on the books?
It just demonstrates how hard it is to get rid of a really bad law. Obamacare, anyone?
Our Founders, unable to foresee our stupidity, left two important things out of the Constitution. Term limits on all federal elected politicians – and a House of Repeal.
I think it’s time to bring up groups like the Sierra Club on RICO statue charges. They are a form of organized crime.
When they sue, the government has to incur the costs of defending itself against the lawsuits, and also picks up the expenses for the groups suing the government.
And that’s not even the worse aspect of these kinds of actions. Often regulators are in cahoots with the groups that are suing them all along. Throw the cases by putting up a laughably weak defense and thereby create case law to reinforce the regulations that they wanted all along.
Eliminating the EAJA and other obscure acts that give standing to interest group lawsuits should be a top priority of the new Romney administration.
I’m not holding my breath.
According to wiki:
…he Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) authorizes the payment of attorney’s fees to a prevailing party in an action against the United States absent a showing by the government that its position in the underlying litigation “was substantially justified.” 28 U. S. C. §2412(d)(1)(A). Section 2412(d)(1)(B) sets a deadline of 30 days after final judgment for the filing of a fee application and directs that the application include: (1) a showing that the applicant is a “prevailing party”; (2) a showing that the applicant is “eligible to receive an award”; and (3) a statement of “the amount sought, including an itemized statement from any attorney … stating the actual time expended and the rate” charged. Section 2412(d)(1)(B)’s second sentence further requires the applicant to “allege that the position of the United States was not substantially justified.” Scarborough v. Principi, 124 S. Ct. 1856 (2004).
I other words, if the government sues you without substantial justification and loses, it may have to pay your defense costs. On the other hand if you have to sue the government for something it owes you, and the government’s defense is not substantially justified, it may have to pay you the costs of getting what you were entitled to.
Having defended small businesses against BS governmental action, I often found the EAJA to be quite useful.
This is a scam. Sierra sues the government with a wink wink. The deal is set so an out of court settlement is reached. Guess who loses without having a chance to participate.
From my observation, this law has been used to create a revenue stream with no interest in the environment. Once a case is settled and the enviro-lawyer has been paid by the taxpayers, a new crisis is sought for the next lawsuit. And it just keeps going.
This is yet another example of unintended consequences of legislation.