Currently googling this…just wondering if there are any legal experts on here who know off the top of their head what laws are being broken and recourse available to Shell?
Just a curious follower.
The Russians would charge them with piracy. Wont stick though.
guess there’s not much more than ‘tresspassing’ (for now). They’re not armed, are not threatening anyone, don’t seems mess with the vessel and its course.
And it all happened in international waters.
Wonder what the Security Plan and VSO have to say?
[QUOTE=tugsailor;158833]Wonder what the Security Plan and VSO have to say?[/QUOTE]
assuming they have one.
They could face enormous civil liability. Imagine any costs associated with deterring Greenpeace in that action and any loss associated with a work stoppage or slowdown for dealing with the security breach. Of course it’s all probably Russian law that applies in this instance and I don’t think anyone here knows how Russian criminal or tort law works.
[QUOTE=tugsailor;158833]Wonder what the Security Plan and VSO have to say?[/QUOTE]
I was thinking the same thing. My guess is if they were not in High Risk Waters (HRW) as defined by their plan then they were not required to take extra precautions. In hindsight it seems they would have been smart to post extra lookouts aft so they would have at least known they were being boarded. If the they had to pull crew from other duties then, again in hindsight, maybe Shell should have provided the ship with 3 security staff to maintain a continuous lookout aft.
The problem for Shell is PR. It makes it look they haven’t given any thought to the unexpected and are going to be surprised by any non-routine events. Or even foreseeable events. Strong low pressure systems tracking across the Gulf of Alaska in the winter; who saw that coming?
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;158835]They could face enormous civil liability. Imagine any costs associated with deterring Greenpeace in that action and any loss associated with a work stoppage or slowdown for dealing with the security breach. Of course it’s all probably Russian law that applies in this instance and I don’t think anyone here knows how Russian criminal or tort law works.[/QUOTE]
Who is actually operating the rig, though? Is it Russians operating it, Americans, who? Just because it happened in Russian waters doesn’t necessarily mean no other country’s laws apply. That said, if it was Russian interests at stake–think one of Putin’s oligarch friends–I would think there’s a pretty strong possibility that Russia could come down hard on Greenpeace. I don’t know how Russian law works either, though.
[QUOTE=awulfclark;158848]Who is actually operating the rig, though? Is it Russians operating it, Americans, who? Just because it happened in Russian waters doesn’t necessarily mean no other country’s laws apply. That said, if it was Russian interests at stake–think one of Putin’s oligarch friends–I would think there’s a pretty strong possibility that Russia could come down hard on Greenpeace. I don’t know how Russian law works either, though.[/QUOTE]
Russian waters?! If happened north of Hawaii, in the Pacific.
The rig is operated by Transocean.
This is true. Other countries laws could apply but I think it would be in addition to the Russian laws.
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;158849]Russian waters?! If happened north of Hawaii, in the Pacific.
The rig is operated by Transocean.[/QUOTE]
Didn’t realize that. Where do the Russians come in, then? Do they own or crew the rig?
[QUOTE=awulfclark;158851]Didn’t realize that. Where do the Russians come in, then? Do they own or crew the rig?[/QUOTE]
I assume the Russians were mentioned in reference to the less easygoing treatment the greenies received when they protested against drilling there some years ago. And spent some time in jail and their ship was confiscated.
So we’re clearly NOT dealing with that in this situation.
I’m confused I thought we were talking about when they boarded a rig roughly a year (or more?) ago. I’ll have to look up this Hawaii/ N.Pacific incident.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;158853]I’m confused I thought we were talking about when they boarded a rig roughly a year (or more?) ago. I’ll have to look up this Hawaii/ N.Pacific incident.[/QUOTE]
Just check the title of this thread. It’s about the rig Shell chartered to go drilling off Alaska again: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/07/greenpeace-activists-board-arctic-bound-oil-rig
Thanks for the link. Hopefully Shell mounts a few deck guns on the rig. I’m very pro-environment, but I always see this type of action as downright criminal.
[QUOTE=LI_Domer;158853]I’m confused I thought we were talking about when they boarded a rig roughly a year (or more?) ago. I’ll have to look up this Hawaii/ N.Pacific incident.[/QUOTE]
This is a new incident with the Shell Arctic rig
Not looking good for Shell/TO. Oopsie!
Well, whichever incident it was, unauthorized boarding, whatever the intentions are, of a vessel is still a security breach. On the high seas it could be defined as piracy. Seems to me they need their little pee-pees slapped a bit harder. Let the Russians handle it if possible, they don’t really care about legal niceties or the rights of the accused.
They should shoot them as soon as they touch the rig! What us the difference in what they are doing and what pirates do? What if one of them fell in the water and died, would they then try to sue shell?
Well I am curious to see how it will be handled. Their was an enourmous outcry over the charges and detentions of those with the Russian incident which happened PREVIOUSLY to the one that is happening right now in the pacific with a drilling rig bound for Seattle. Numerous world-figures demanded the release of the criminals which were warned beforehand by the authorities to vacate the area, which they ignored.
As for this instance I have been earnestly looking for more updates but am mostly finding pro-greenpeace social media garbage which celebrates the idea of trespassing. I hope whatever measures are taken will be severe.
Does anyone REALLY know why arctic drilling is opposed? Is it just because the increased risk of spillage? There seems to be the idea amongst activists like this that drilling north of 66 degrees latitude is so much more evil than drilling near the equator. Is it the emissions from the actual drilling and ship activity that they are concerned about? Or does vibrating the earth as the drilling is underway somehow heat up the temperature? I know it is all under the name of “climate change” which I don’t deny may be a serious environmental problem it’s just…it is hard to find a consistent thread in their argument against arctic drilling—usually just given as “it causes climate change”.
Nevermind that the ships use petroleum products, these people use social media on electronic devices whose production and transportation requires petroleum… nevermind the the gear they used to illegaly scale the rig was produced on machines that require lubrication and then transportred…nevermind…it goes on and on… sorry for the rant. I am just so tired of these people
As I understand it, the Polar Pioneer is owned by Transocean (which is a Swiss company now), but undoubtedly the rig is flagged something else. It being carried as cargo on the deck of a Chinese heavy lift ship, that was chartered/arranged for/whatever-the-deal by Dockwise ( a Dutch company). It sailed from a port in the Far East. The Greenpeace boarding incident occurred in the international waters in the North Pacific - 700 miles north of Hawaii. The next port of call is supposedly Seattle. Presumably, the Greenpeace protesters will stay aboard until the rig arrives in Seattle. If that is the case, US law should apply once they enter US waters, perhaps in addition to the law of the flag state(s). I have no idea what crimes, if any, have been, or are being, committed.
It would not surprise me if the ship stops in some secluded place in Puget Sound and the USCG removes the protesters before the ship continues on into Seattle.