I don't think the environmental groups will win, and I'm not sure that this is even the right way to proceed.

The issue should be the use of fossil fuels and offshore drilling in the arctic, not the location shell winters their equipment.

@1: Toxic spills from oil on tankers can happen here in Puget Sound and western Washington State waters. That, plus the hazardous offshore drilling, is the issue.

Parking them in Puget Sound should not be an issue. They are paying for being here, not drilling, not polluting , we can't stop the drilling just like we can't stop the fishing. Give it up.

@2. Well if we are willing to pay nearly any price for oil (because we aren't all breaking down the door at the Tesla lot), they will pay any price to extract it and transport it to us. We are the problem, not Shell. Shell doesn't care a rat's ass where we get our energy from as long as they get a reasonable return on the capital they have to raise to produce and supply it to us.

Shell has told its shareholders that it is committed to the 2 degree limit. Yet Christopher McClade has argued that to meet that threshold, the oil in the Arctic must stay underground.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015…

"Despite its determination to press ahead in the Arctic, Shell aims to confront the risk that climate change may pose to its future, backing a resolution from activist shareholders which requires the company to test whether its business model is compatible with the pledge by the world’s nations to limit global warming to 2C.

The 2C target means only a quarter of existing, exploitable fossil fuel reserves are burnable, according to a series of recent analyses. That implies trillions of dollars of oil, gas and coal held by investors could become worthless and that continuing exploration for fossil fuels may be pointless."
"Shell urges shareholders to accept climate resolution
Resolution brought by activist shareholders requires oil firm to test its business model is compatible with global targets to limit global warming"
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2…

"Major funds around the world are becoming increasingly concerned that limits on carbon emissions will harm the finances of fossil fuel companies and lead to investors losing money.

One of the largest institutional investors in the world, the $177bn New York State Common Retirement Fund, issued a new warning on Thursday. “We are obviously very concerned about the wellbeing of the fund, which is heavily invested in energy stocks worldwide,” said Pete Grannis, New York State deputy comptroller, whose office is the sole trustee of the fund, which has one million members.
"“This is a turning point and demonstrates the power of activist strategies to deal with climate change,” said Catherine Howarth, chief executive of ShareAction, which helped coordinate the resolutions."
If you are a shareholder, keep up the pressure. You may be a shareholder through a mutual fund.

Read also "Are stranded assets wearing down the oil and coal industries?
Fred Pearce
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
"Boom may be turning to bust for fossil fuels. Market forces are combining with the prospect of new limits on carbon emissions from major economies such as China and the United States to prick the carbon bubble. Many analysts are suggesting that — with prices falling and production costs rising — the coming year could be when investors realize the game is up for the coal and oil industries."

http://www.greenbiz.com/article/are-stra…