pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act's amendments to the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) ... [i]n approving the Spill [Response] Plans, BSEE failed to meet its statutory obligations to ensure the Spill [Response] Plans are adequate to clean up a worst case oil spill in adverse weather conditions to the maximum extent practicable, and to evaluate the environmental effects of, and alternatives to, Shell's proposed oil spill response efforts prior to approval.

In March, 35 Nigerian villages brought a suit against Shell in a London court alleging the company's slow response in cleaning up two oil spills in a neighboring river ruined their livelihoods. The plaintiffs claimed Shell is responsible for unspecified damages suffered by the villages which rely on the river for drinking water and farming. A similar lawsuit over water contamination was filed in the US [JURIST report] in October. The US Supreme Court [official website] granted certiorari in two cases last October to determine whether political organizations and oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell, are immune from US lawsuits [JURIST report] under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). In February the Court heard arguments [JURIST report] in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] about whether three oil companies are immune from US lawsuits under the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 (ATS) [text] for alleged torture and international law violations that took place overseas. The court is slated to hear rearguments next term in Kiobel to determine whether the ATS allows US courts to hear lawsuits for overseas violations of international law.