The U.S. Supreme Court has turned down an application by energy companies to change the venue of a multibillion-dollar coastal erosion trial set to begin Nov. 27 in Cameron Parish.
The Cameron Parish trial will be the first of many such lawsuits by Louisiana Parishes claiming that energy companies are responsible for coastal damage and loss of wetlands spanning decades of dredging and industrial activities. Cameron is seeking $7 billion for damage to its coastline.
“The application for stay presented to Justice (Samuel) Alito and by him referred to the court is denied,” the Supreme Court said in its Nov. 7 order, which revealed no dissenting opinions.
The application for a venue change in the coastal erosion lawsuit was sent to Justice Samuel Alito.
| U.S. Supreme Court
Three defendants in the case – BP America Production Co., Hilcorp Energy Co. and Shell Oil Co. – argued in their application to the high court that all 4,000 potential jurors in the coastal parish on the west side of Louisiana had a financial interest in finding the energy companies guilty, since any jury award would go to the local government.
“The Louisiana courts have denied motions to transfer venue from Cameron Parish – which has annual tax revenues of only $20 million – culminating in the Louisiana Supreme Court’s denial of a supervisory writ on Oct. 10, 2023,” the energy companies’ application for an emergency stay states.
The lawsuit contends oil companies’ operations over decades damaged the wetland in the parish – more than 75% of which consists of coastal marshland. Cameron Parish also could lose 40% of its territory to rising sea levels over the coming half-century, according to SCOTUSblog, which covers decisions of the high court.
But energy companies have countered that civil litigation is the wrong way to restore coastal wetlands and that the companies were following federal government directives during World War II when much of the dredging and drilling activities were taking place.
Cameron Parish, however, says Louisiana’s State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act mandates that civil lawsuits be filed in the parish where the alleged damage has occurred. In addition, jurors have no direct financial interest in the case’s outcome, and oil companies still have the right to question the venue after the questioning of potential jurors, according to a parish response to the oil companies’ application to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scientists who have studied Louisiana coastal erosion issues have differing views on whether oil company dredging caused the loss of wetlands over decades of industrial activities. R. Eugene Turner, a professor of Oceanography and Coastal Sciences at Louisiana State University, views oil and gas recovery as a primary reason for wetlands deterioration.
“The prominent (reason), perhaps the only one, is that dredging of wetlands for oil and gas recovery has caused virtually all of the wetland loss, and not just salt marsh …” Turner told the Louisiana Record in an email. “The land loss is directly related to this dredging (measured by canal density). …”
Some of the land loss is due to fluid removal underground, which leads to subsidence, he said.
“These land losses are not related to the leveeing of the Mississippi River,” Turner said. “The accelerating sea level rise will eventually, I am certain, smear the data record and accelerate the losses. But not yet.”
Several energy companies have reached settlements in the parish litigation, have been dismissed without prejudice or have filed motions to have themselves dismissed, according to filings with the U.S. Supreme Court. These companies include Honeywell International Inc., Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas Onshore LP, Freeport Sulphur Co., Gulfport Energy Corp., Taylor Energy Co. and Vernon E. Faulconer Inc.