Judiciary’s Interference on Hydrocarbon Exploration: How Much Justified?

Satyesh Bhandari

Recently, a Colombian judge ordered Petrobras to halt the drilling of an offshore well Uchuva-2, which began in June 2024, in the nation’s Caribbean waters, after an Indigenous community sought legal protection. The community in the area of Taganga, claimed that their consent should have been obtained before the companies were allowed to drill for hydrocarbon. ???

Seismic acquisition, which involves using seismic waves to explore and map subsurface geological formations, a key step in oil and gas exploration also faced legal challenges and were stopped by the court-ordered again on the pretext of environmental, cultural, or regulatory concerns.

Exploration and Development activities are being paused or stopped on regular basis all over the world by the judiciary in various contexts.

• In 2021, the Northern Territory Supreme Court in Australia, stopped exploration activities in the Beetaloo Basin, citing requirement for more comprehensive environmental assessments.
• In 2020, a California state court issued a order halting the seismic surveys to allow time for further environmental reviews and to address concerns raised by local stakeholders.
• In 2016, a Federal Court in Australia granted an injunction to halt the seismic surveys in Bight Basin until further environmental impact assessments were conducted, addressing concerns over the potential harm to marine mammals and local fishing industries.
• Seismic surveys in the Southern Ocean, near Antarctica, faced legal challenges due to their potential impact on sensitive marine ecosystems and migratory species.

• In 2020, the Australian Federal Court halted seismic survey of one oil and gas company, citing inadequate environmental assessments and the need for more comprehensive study of environmental impacts. Plans for seismic in the Great Australian Bight area faced strong opposition from local communities.?
• In 2017, a Canadian court halted seismic surveys in the Arctic region due to inadequate consultation with Indigenous communities. Seismic survey faced opposition from Indigenous groups showing concerns over impacts on wildlife.
• In 2020, a Colombian court granted an injunction halting the seismic survey in the Mompox wetlands in Colombia, citing the need for further environmental impact assessments and better protection for the wetlands' fragile ecosystem. ?
• In 2022, High Court and Supreme court in South Africa stopped Shell from conducting a seismic survey along the Wild Coast region due to a lack of consultation with affected communities.?The Survey vessel was on stand by for more than four months.
• In 2016, a federal judge halted Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) laying. The Bakken Shale formation, located in North Dakota, has been a major site for oil extraction. The construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) crossing under Lake Oahe led to protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and environmental activists.
• In 2010, the U.S. government imposed a moratorium on deep water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the moratorium was lifted in 2011, subsequent legal and regulatory actions required stricter safety measures and environmental reviews before drilling permits could be issued.

• Courts in Ecuador ordered Chevron to pay billions in damages for environmental cleanup and health impacts. While not a direct halt to exploration, these rulings led to significant legal and financial repercussions that affected Chevron’s operations in the region.
• In 2020, the Assam State Pollution Control Board and environmentalists of India, took legal action against exploration activities in the region, leading to temporary halts and demands for stricter environmental oversight. Oil exploration activities near Dibru-Saikhowa National Park in Assam have raised concerns about their impact on biodiversity and the park’s ecosystem.
• In 2020, the Trump administration advanced plans to lease parts of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exploration. However, these plans faced legal challenges from environmental groups and Indigenous tribes. In 2021, the Biden administration again paused oil leasing in ANWR, and a federal judge later blocked further drilling activities, citing inadequate environmental reviews.
• In 2016 -17, a federal court temporarily halted construction under Lake Oahe, a key section of the pipeline, while legal battles over environmental and tribal concerns were addressed. The court's decisions were influenced by claims that the pipeline’s route violated treaties and posed environmental risks.

?These and several other examples highlight the role of courts in stopping the exploration and development activities of oil industry on the pretext of environmental protection and Indigenous rights.

These examples illustrate how judiciary interferes in the oil exploration activities despite the respective governments that have signed contract with the exploration company. If any concern is there with respect to impact on any environment, ecological balance, Indigenous rights and community activities, the courts / agencies should have reacted before the signing of the contract.

Getting any investment for E & P industry is becoming very difficult and judiciary interference will make it still more difficult.