Please invest in Our Daily Planet today, by making a one time or monthly contribution.
We do not charge our readers a subscription fee for our content. We want to continue to grow our readership, particularly among millennials and public servants. Voluntary contributions from readers will help us employ interns and freelance journalists, expand our content, and reach a larger audience.
Boats travel through Athos Spill 2004 Photo: Philadelphia Enquirer
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that under the Oil Pollution Act and the terms of its contract with the shipping company, CITGO Asphalt Refinery must repay the government and the shipper for the $133 million they spent to clean up the 6000 barrel oil spill that occurred when the oil tanker hit an abandoned anchor in the Delaware River.CITGO argued that merely doing its best to ensure that that harbor was safe was sufficient, but the Court disagreed in a 7-2 decision that interpreted customary contract language for shipping contracts to hold the oil company/shipper liable.
Why This Matters: Oil companies that own large industrial facilities and “berth” big oil tankers are now liable — they can’t just pass off responsibility for spills on the shipping company when the terms of the contract between them provide that the purchaser will provide “safe berth” in the port. The oil companies will certainly try to rewrite shipping contracts to put the burden more squarely on the shipper. There are thousands of oil spills in U.S. harbors each year and cleaning up the major spills like this one is expensive. Shippers generally don’t have deep pockets to pay for cleanups (the taxpayers had footed much of the bill in this case) but oil companies do, and they should not be able to shirk these costs.
CITGO claimed that they should not be held responsible because the existence of the abandoned anchor in the harbor that the tanker hit was “unknown and unknowable” by them. By extension, they could be subject to unlimited liability of any mishap in the harbor could be found to be their fault. But the majority of the Justices were not persuaded and in oral argument kept returning to the language of the agreement between CITGO and the shipper. Bloomberg News reported that during the argument “Justice Elena Kagan said the case should be decided on the terms of the charter, not on what CITGO thinks would be ‘sensible.’” That argument about the terms of the contract apparently was dispositive. The Court rejected the company’s assertion that ship captains had a duty to analyze the chartered route and reject it based on safety when their contract stated otherwise.
By Ashira Morris, ODP Staff Writer For decades, uranium mining has contaminated the Navajo Nation, causing higher cancer rates and water pollution. Even though the health risks and environmental harms of uranium mining are well-established, new operations continue to move forward. One local group, the Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM) hasn’t found a […]
By Natasha Lasky, ODP Staff Writer California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that he would extend the drought emergency statewide and issued an executive order to have residents conserve water. As part of this effort, eight new counties were added to the state of emergency, and authorized the State Water Resources Control Board was authorized to […]
By Elizabeth Love, ODP Contributing Writer Authorities in the Canadian Arctic territory Nunavut, announced a state of emergency this week due to a possible contamination event affecting the City of Iqaluit’s water supply. Tests were performed after residents reported the smell of gasoline coming from their tap water, but they came back clean. However, […]
Our Daily Planet is your daily dose of the stories shaping our world and the ways that you can take action. From the climate crisis to the protection of biodiversity, if these issues matter to you then please subscribe & stay informed!
Your privacy is Important! We promise never to use your email address to send you spam or advertisements.