Tag Archives: exxon

Meet the nun trying to reform Exxon Mobil

Meet the nun trying to reform Exxon Mobil

By on May 26, 2016Share

Rex Tillerson runs Exxon Mobil, historically the world’s most profitable company, which raked in a cool $16 billion last year. On Wednesday, he found himself sitting across from Sister Patricia Daly, a Brooklyn-born Dominican nun from Caldwell, N.J., and member of a coalition that manages more than $100 billion in assets — including a stake in the oil and gas company. Between the two of them, there was a whole lot of money on the table.

“Decades have been lost in the fight against climate change, due in part to our company’s campaign of disinformation,” Daly said, as she presented a statement at Exxon’s shareholder meeting in Dallas, Texas, this week. Daly, along with the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, was there to propose a resolution that Exxon acknowledge its “moral imperative” and address climate change. The resolution demands that Exxon adopt business policies consistent with limiting average global warming to under 2 degrees C.

The company, Daly explained, owes it to their investors to do this.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning that we were taking the issue on because the poorest people on the planet were experiencing the greatest impact,” she said. “And they’re also the people who had very little to contribute to climate change.”

This campaign comes at a time of energetic engagement on the part of religious groups in climate action, perhaps epitomized by the release of Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si last year. The document railed against obstructionism of climate solutions which “can range from denial of the problem to indifference, nonchalant resignation, or blind confidence in technical solutions.” That text, coupled with the promises of the Paris agreement, spurred Daly and her coalition to act.

Sister Daly at the Numont Mine in Peru.Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility

But it wasn’t enough to force Exxon Mobil’s hand. At the end of Daly’s speech, Tillerson recommended that the company’s board vote against her resolution — and they did just that, earning only 18.5 percent of votes in favor.

“We have a pool in my office, and I was the most optimistic one,” she told Grist, explaining that the support for her resolution was nevertheless much higher than she expected. Out of nine climate-related resolutions proposed on Wednesday, just one passed: A shareholder resolution calling for more investor input on board nominations, which could pave the way for more climate-concerned board members in the future. 

The phrase “moral imperative” may be new in the world of oil and multi-billion-dollar stocks. Daly, who is also executive director of the Tri-State Coalition for Responsible Investment, acknowledges that requiring it “is a little weird” for the companies. “But we’re born into this planet and we should be upstanding people,” she said.

As Daly explains, if Exxon were to accept this imperative, it would need to adjust both its energy outlook and its business plan, and come forward with a new plan that would be truthful in a way that Daly says the company has never been before.

“They weren’t truthful, they didn’t tell the truth,” Daly says, referring to recent evidence that Exxon’s climate scientists and leadership knew about the relationship between fossil fuels and climate change as early as the 1960s. “They never offered that.”

Daly’s campaigns for corporate responsibility, including against the likes of General Electric and Ford, has earned her some hate mail over the years from proponents of the fossil fuel industry. But it’s worth it, she says, because each company she goes up against is another skirmish in the battle for climate justice. That’s Daly’s moral imperative.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article – 

Meet the nun trying to reform Exxon Mobil

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the nun trying to reform Exxon Mobil

Exxon Mobil’s shareholders meeting was totally overrun by climate demands

Exxon Mobil’s shareholders meeting was totally overrun by climate demands

By on May 25, 2016Share

It’s impossible for fossil fuel executives to get some damn peace and quiet. At its annual shareholder meeting in Dallas, Texas, Exxon Mobil faced investors’ demands that the company get serious about climate change adaptation and regulation.

Since 1997, Exxon Mobil has fended off similar demands from its shareholders, but not at this scale. Wednesday’s meeting included the largest coalition of climate-activist investors yet of two-dozen large shareholders representing $8 trillion under management. But eight of the nine climate shareholder resolutions still failed.

The one proposal that passed, at 62 percent of the vote, allows shareholders who hold 3 percent or more of the company’s shares for more than three years to nominate up to a quarter of the board’s directors every year. In theory, this could allow for a climate activist to become a director at the company.

One climate resolution that failed suggested a company report on how climate policies would impact its business. It was the second-most popular resolution, yet earned just 38 percent of the vote.

Other proposals included calls for more transparency on Exxon’s hydraulic fracturing activities, lobbying, diversity and makeup of the board, and its plans to adapt to a renewable energy economy.

The shareholder resolutions came from the New York City’s comptroller’s office, religious groups, and investing firms demanding the company prepare for a future of climate change regulations.

Father Michael Crosby, a Franciscan priest from Milwaukee, presented a proposal asking for a climate expert to be put on the company’s board. “Not one person has any expertise on climate,” he said of the board. “Exxon Mobil has a chance to restore the public’s trust, it’s a time for conversion.”

Sister Patricia Daly, a Dominican nun from Caldwell, N.J., presented a resolution asking Exxon to adopt a policy acknowledging the 2 degrees Celsius target. “Our company has chosen to disregard the consensus in the scientific community,” she said. “As the world moves forward, Exxon Mobil stands still.”

“Many of the world’s largest investors are voting against the [Exxon] management today,” said Edward Mason, head of responsible investing for the Church of England.

The board recommended to deny all proposals presented.

“For many years now, ExxonMobil has held the view that the risks of climate change are serious, and do warrant thoughtful action,” said Exxon CEO and chair Rex Tillerson during the shareholder’s call Wednesday morning. But asked to cut the company’s ties with groups promoting climate denial, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Tillerson declined.

All the while, the company insisted it’s serious about climate change, touting its three-decade commitment to climate research in a slide shown below. Tillerson left some things unsaid: While the company internally recognized manmade climate change as real, it advocated for skepticism publicly.

Oil giants have faced growing pressure to acknowledge climate change — both Royal Dutch Shell and BP passed similar resolutions last year. Chevron also voted on shareholder demands on climate on Wednesday.

Though Exxon remains firm, it will see continued pressure from activists and worried investors. Outside the meeting in Dallas, climate activists swarmed, demanding that the company change its ways.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here:

Exxon Mobil’s shareholders meeting was totally overrun by climate demands

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exxon Mobil’s shareholders meeting was totally overrun by climate demands

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Joe Barton (R-Tex), who sought to subpoena after a climate scientists published a study supporting the concept of climate change. Flickr/Gage Skidmore

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

By on 11 Apr 2016commentsShare

It’s become a go-to strategy for climate change deniers to demand subpoenas and documents from scientists whenever they get a whiff of a potential controversy. But they like it less when the same tactic is used on them.

Attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands Claude Walker served the conservative think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) with a subpoena last Thursday, demanding several decades’ worth of communications, emails, and other documents pertaining to CEI’s work on climate change policy and donor information. By subpoenaing CEI, Walker is broadening “a multifaceted legal inquiry into whether fossil fuel companies broke any laws as they sought for decades to undermine the scientific consensus and head off forceful action to address the climate crisis,” reports InsideClimateNews.

Libertarian and conservative writers at at The Blaze, American ThinkerThe Washington Times, Bloomberg View, and Cato Institute have criticized the subpoena, calling it the product of “hysterics,” part of an “absurd climate inquisition,” and a chapter in “Al Gore’s climate witch hunt.” CEI itself called the move “an affront” to its First Amendment rights, adding that if Walker succeeds, “the real victims will be all Americans, whose access to affordable energy will be hit by one costly regulation after another.”

Where was this outrage when right-wing politicians were doing the same, but to scientists? Republicans in Congress have given CEI and its allies plenty of opportunities to call out their own antics. For example:

1. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) issued subpoenas to administrators and scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in late 2015. Smith wanted their communications after the journal Science published a NOAA’s report debunking the deniers’ favorite excuse that global warming is on “pause.”

2. Smith has been on a tear lately. Last fall, he delivered a notice to Jagdish Shukla, a climate scientist at George Mason University in Virginia, which requested that Shukla “preserve all e-mail, electronic documents, and data (‘electronic records’) created since January 1, 2009,” pending an investigation. Shukla had signed a letter urging federal investigation of whether fossil fuel companies knowingly deceived the public on climate.

3. Joe Barton (R-Tex), a former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2004 to 2007, sought the personal emails of climate scientist Michael E. Mann in 2005, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, after Mann’s study showed a rapid increase in global temperatures.

4. In perhaps the most famous incident of its kind, a hacker got a hold of more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents from climate scientists who were authoring a United Nations report on climate change consensus — deniers likened it to a major scandal, calling it “climategate.” They tried to find a smoking gun in climate science that didn’t exist. Ex-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli demanded Michael Mann’s files from his former university as a result.

CEI is caught in the crossfire aimed at ExxonMobil of late, given CEI’s long history promoting inaccurate science and policies to discredit climate change action. Nineteen state attorneys general are already investigating ExxonMobil to determine whether the company broke the law in reportedly misleading its investors and the public about climate change. And it just so happens that Exxon happens to have contributed at least $1.6 million to CEI since 1985.

No matter what comes of CEI’s subpoena, it won’t stop the think tank’s allies from doing the same to target climate scientists.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Visit site – 

Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives love subpoenas about climate change — until they get hit with one themselves

Don’t be like Exxon, says Bloomberg-led task force to Big Oil

Don’t be like Exxon, says Bloomberg-led task force to Big Oil

By on 6 Apr 2016 3:29 pmcommentsShare

Are companies making an expensive blunder by not disclosing their financial risks from climate change? A task force established by the international monitoring body Financial Stability Board is advising it’s better to be on the safe side, according to an early draft report released by the group’s task force on climate-related financial disclosures, led by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

According to the report, existing practices vary wildly. Though companies in most of the world’s major economies already have to disclose “material” climate-related risks, it’s up to the company to determine exactly what counts as material. That lack of clarity is problematic and makes it difficult for shareholders to know how their investments will perform, said Robert Schuwerk, senior counsel at the Carbon Tracker Initiative. As his think tank analyzes the impact of climate change on markets and fossil fuel investments, we asked him to describe the risks that could need financial disclosure.

The risks come in one of three forms, explained Schuwerk. First, the physical risk of losing money because of events like extreme weather and sea-level rise; second, the risk of taking a hit from regulatory changes or technological advances; and third, the risk of liability or litigation from public or private lawsuits.

Confusion over what to disclose doesn’t give companies an out. Fossil fuel businesses in particular can be vulnerable to all three types of risks. After InsideClimate News reported on Exxon’s dismissal of climate change as immaterial despite its own climate research suggesting otherwise, the company’s shareholders sued, arguing that climate change and the push for cleaner energy will impact the bottom line. As Secretary of State John Kerry noted last year, Exxon could now stand to lose billions over its lack of transparency to investors and the public. Exxon isn’t alone; the New York attorney general ruled after a two-year investigation that Peabody Energy, the world’s biggest private sector coal company (which happens to be facing bankruptcy), must make more transparent disclosures about how a renewable energy boom and tougher regulations will impact its profits.

“Not disclosing climate risks, first and foremost, leaves investors in the dark,” said Schuwerk. “But the demand for more transparency is coming from a number of sources, from investors and asset managers, and from civil society as well.” There are currently dozens of investor resolutions pending at fossil fuel companies that ask the companies to provide information about performance risks.

The report is part of a year-long investigation, expected to be released by the end of 2016, that will set out specific recommendations for companies’ financial disclosure of climate risk. For now, the moral of the story for fossil fuel companies? Don’t follow Exxon’s lead.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View original post here – 

Don’t be like Exxon, says Bloomberg-led task force to Big Oil

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, InsideClimate News, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t be like Exxon, says Bloomberg-led task force to Big Oil

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

By on 24 Mar 2016commentsShare

A New York Times investigation published Thursday confirms that the National Football League’s research on player concussions was seriously flawed, undercounting diagnoses by more than 10 percent in a series of studies from 1996 to 2001. At the same time, the league appeared to engage in a systematic campaign of obfuscation and denial. Even now that the the NFL’s top health official has admitted that football and degenerative brain disorders are “certainly” linked, some NFL fans and stakeholders remain unconvinced — publicly, at least. Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, for instance, said this week that “there’s no data that in any way creates a knowledge” — in other words, the jury’s still out.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the NFL’s techniques are like those employed for decades by Big Tobacco to confuse consumers over the scientific research on smoking. In fact, the Times reports, the NFL hired tobacco lawyers, advisors, and lobbyists to help them do exactly that. In the 1990s, for instance, the league employed Dorothy Mitchell, an attorney who had also represented the Tobacco Institute in lawsuits over the health effects of cigarettes and secondhand smoke.

All this sounds remarkably like another industry that we now know borrowed tactics from Big Tobacco: oil and gas. In 1996, as the world considered acting to curtail fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “Scientific evidence remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect the global climate,” adding that “scientists agree there’s ample time to better understand climate systems and consider policy options, so there’s simply no reason to take drastic action now.”

The idea that “evolving science” means there’s no need to act is still prevalent among polluters and their political allies. “It is not unanimous among scientists that [climate change] is disproportionately manmade,” one-time presidential candidate Jeb Bush said last year. Last year, investigations by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and Columbia University uncovered how Exxon-Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute were at the cutting edge of climate change research in the 1970s, until they reversed course to create a culture of denial we know too well today.

Big Oil, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s and perhaps now the NFL since the 1990s, knew of a major problem long before it admitted to it publicly. And like the health of smokers and football players, our health and the planet’s has suffered for it.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

More here: 

What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, InsideClimate News, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the NFL’s concussion scandal has in common with tobacco and ExxonMobil

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Shutterstock

When a promising cap-and-trade bill failed in the Senate in 2010, oil and coal companies everywhere must have breathed a sigh of relief, then probably wiped the sheen from their collective brow with a spare Benjamin and got back to work.

It now looks like some of that work involved planning for a time when they would actually lose the battle over their climate sins.

In a report [PDF] released by the UK-based Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), 29 companies — including the five biggest oil-producers, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, and Shell (not that we’re keeping track) — report that they are using carbon pricing estimates to plan for hypothetical future regulation in the U.S. This generally means that an estimated carbon price is applied to a corporation’s big-investment projects — new drilling rigs, for example — which will likely be subject to some kind of emissions tax in ten or twenty years.

For climate hawks and economists disappointed by the failure of carbon tax schemes in the real world, this may sound hopeful: At least SOMEONE believes that carbon-pricing stands a chance, and soon, too. But it’s also just good business: With California’s fledgling cap-and trade market getting under way, and public opinion on climate change swinging back toward sanity, carbon tax is looking less and less utopian and more like a plausible business expense.

The CDP claims that the usage of internal carbon prices demonstrates the “assumption that addressing climate change will be both a business cost and a possible business opportunity.” Basically, if companies start planning now, maybe our global economy won’t go into a tailspin when we wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Plus, lots of international companies, especially ones operating in regulated Europe or Australia, are already dealing with carbon taxes in some form. Australia prices all consumer fossil fuels at about $21 per ton of carbon; for European countries it falls somewhere between $5 and $80.

ExxonMobil, king of the big five, is no stranger to the carbon debate. Despite a sordid history of funding huge anti-climate-science campaigns to widen the consensus gap between scientists and the general public, the company publicly supported a carbon tax in 2009 (while lobbying against the actual bill in Congress). In the CDP’s report, ExxonMobil had the highest reported cost — $60 per ton of carbon, by 2030 — while BP and Shell were more tentative with $40 a ton. (The U.S. government, by comparison, has set a tentative “social cost” price between $37 and $57 for 2015 [PDF].)

Even companies like Google and Disney got in on the carbon-pricing action, using auction prices from California’s cap-and-trade scheme to help set the bar. Not everyone is as committed: Walmart claimed only that their estimated price is set “flexibly,” whatever that means.

One conspicuous absence (drumroll, please): everyone’s favorite climate-denying multinational conglomerate, Koch Industries! The multibillion dollar corporation, with its history of campaigning against all things climate-science-y, has not joined the herd of oil companies in budgeting for carbon tax. The Koch-funded American Energy Alliance has spent $1.2 billion this year alone in attacking candidates who allegedly support a carbon price.

Of course, no one can guarantee that any of the companies reporting internal carbon prices aren’t engaging in other forms of shenanigans, hanky-panky, or mustache-twirling in this and other environmental areas. Xcel Energy, one of the 29 companies, was recently embroiled in an attempt to restrict access to local, renewable energy in Boulder, Colo. ExxonMobil, with all its pinkie-promises to be more sustainable, has started investing in natural gas — which is a smart move if carbon starts being taxed, but still lets them get away with plenty of other environmental shenanigans. And planning for a future carbon tax is a long way from actually supporting one. Color us cynical, but we have a hard time believing any energy company is that gung ho to undermine its business model.

“It’s climate change as a line item,” Tom Rivett-Carnac, the CDP’s North American director, told the New York Times. “They’re looking at it from a rational perspective, making a profit. It drives internal decision-making.”

I guess it’s good that someone is looking at it from a rational perspective. Maybe U.S. lawmakers will follow suit.

Amelia Urry is Grist’s intern.Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Original post:  

Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Big corporations are getting ready for carbon taxes, even if we’re not

Mink will be trapped to right the wrongs of Exxon Valdez

Mink will be trapped to right the wrongs of Exxon Valdez

Jerry Kirkhart

Pigeon guillemots, a kind of puffin.

Nearly a quarter of a century after the Exxon Valdez crashed and spewed 11 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound, one species of seabird still has not recovered from the disaster. To help it recover, the federal government is proposing to get rid of lots of American minks. Allow us to explain.

Thousands of pigeon guillemots were killed by the Valdez disaster — some coated with oil, others poisoned by it for a decade afterward. The guillemots are the only marine bird still listed as “not recovering” from the accident; the local population is less than half what it was before the spill.

The birds used to flourish on the Naked Island group in the middle of the sound, but fewer than 100 remain there now. To boost that number back up to the pre-spill level of 1,000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to trap most of the islands’ American minks — aquatic ferret-like creatures that feast on the birds’ chicks and eggs. If trapping doesn’t work, shooting the minks is the backup plan.

Leo-Avalon

American mink.

The minks are native to the region, but nobody knows for sure whether they are native to the islands in question. What scientists do know is that the islands’ mink populations skyrocketed in the immediate aftermath of the 1989 spill. “[T]he increase in mink caused pigeon guillemots and other bird species (whose nests are susceptible to mink predation) to decline significantly,” the FWS wrote in a draft environmental assessment detailing its proposal.

From the Alaska Dispatch:

Figuring out how many mink to remove is “the hard part,” [FWS seabird coordinator David] Irons said, as the exact number inhabiting the cluster of islands is unknown, although their numbers are estimated to range roughly from 200-300.

By removing the mink, several other species of birds that nest on the islands would benefit as well, Iron said. Parakeet auklets, tufted puffins and horned puffins have also been on the decline in the past decades, but those birds are not on the [Exxon Valdez oil spill] Trustee Council’s list of affected animals.

“Right now Naked Island is a desert of birds — it used to be a hot spot,” Irons said, adding that the Prince William Sound used to be home to 700 parakeet auklets, whereas now only around 40 remain.

It’s hard to imagine how an oil spill would cause a mink population to explode. But Irons points out that that’s not the main concern — what’s important to the Exxon Valdez oil spill Trustee Council is that the birds “were affected by the oil spill” and it is therefore the council’s responsibility to do what it can to help them out, drawing on $900 million in civil penalties paid by Exxon.

This map shows the Naked Island group. The Exxon Valdez ran aground bear Bligh Island.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Original article: 

Mink will be trapped to right the wrongs of Exxon Valdez

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mink will be trapped to right the wrongs of Exxon Valdez

Arkansas tar-sands spill was an accident 60 years in the making

Arkansas tar-sands spill was an accident 60 years in the making

National Wildlife Federation

Cleanup crews at a marsh covered with oil from the Mayflower spill in April.

The pipeline spill that flooded Mayflower, Ark., with up to 290,000 gallons of tar-sands oil in March was an accident that had been waiting to happen — for more than 60 years.

The pipeline that ruptured beneath the town was defective, with manufacturing flaws going undetected since it was laid in the 1940s, according to independent laboratory tests. ExxonMobil released a short summary of test results Wednesday.

The findings bring into question the integrity of the entire Pegasus pipeline system — and other oil pipelines that crisscross the nation. The Pegasus system, which runs from Illinois to Texas, was laid in 1947 and 1948. The pipeline manufacturer, Ohio-based Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., is no longer in business but was reportedly one of the leading suppliers of pipelines in the 1940s.

The Pegasus pipeline remains shut down following the spill. Cleanup efforts are still underway. ExxonMobil is being sued over the spill by the federal and state governments.

From ExxonMobil’s press statement about the lab results:

Based on the metallurgical analysis, the independent laboratory concluded that the root cause of the failure can be attributed to original manufacturing defects — namely hook cracks near the seam.

Additional contributing factors include atypical pipe properties, such as extremely low impact toughness and elongation properties across the ERW [electric resistance welded] seam.

There are no findings that indicate internal or external corrosion contributed to the failure.

A seam is the welded part of a pipeline, either running along its spine or holding two pieces of piping together. By the American Petroleum Institute’s definition, a hook crack is caused by flaws at the edge of the metal plate used to create sections of pipeline.

The lab tests were required [PDF] by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), but the agency did not release the full results, nor did it comment to the press, citing the ongoing investigation. All we got was ExxonMobil’s five-paragraph statement summarizing the results.

Based on the laboratory findings, though, PHMSA officials will likely want to scour ExxonMobil’s records to determine which other sections of pipeline were provided by the same manufacturer, and find out where else the manufacturer’s pipelines are still being used in the vast networks that snake through the nation.

PHMSA will also be asking questions about Exxon’s apparent failure to adequately test the line when it was installed, or to detect the flaws during tests in more than six decades of operations since.

The pipeline was last inspected in February, but the company is not releasing the results publicly, claiming that would reveal trade secrets. (Yes, the old trade secrets excuse again.)

Electric resistance welded pipe like that which tore open beneath Mayflower has welding along its spine that is particularly vulnerable to rupture. The Pegasus pipeline at Mayflower suffered a 22-foot tear when it burst. From PHMSA’s website:

A failure in the weld seam of this type of pipe can propagate for a distance along the pipe and can quickly release large quantities of product to the environment. Low-frequency (LF) ERW pipe installed prior to 1970 in particular can be susceptible to such failures.

The new lab findings call to mind the natural-gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes in the San Francisco exurb of San Bruno in 2010. Federal investigators found that PG&E’s gas pipeline had welding and manufacturing flaws when it was laid in 1956, causing it to tear open along a faulty seam and explode. PG&E was faulted for failing to inspect the pipeline and was subsequently ordered to inspect and replace pipes throughout its entire gas network.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View original post here: 

Arkansas tar-sands spill was an accident 60 years in the making

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Arkansas tar-sands spill was an accident 60 years in the making

Energy companies say releasing CO2 data would jeopardize trade secrets

Energy companies say releasing CO2 data would jeopardize trade secrets

Shutterstock

“Shhhh … don’t tell anybody how much we’re wrecking the climate … that’s a trade secret.”

Energy and chemical companies are urging the Obama administration to dump a proposal on greenhouse gas emissions reporting. They say new reporting requirements could put their trade secrets at risk. From The Hill:

The White House is currently reviewing a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that could require companies to publicly release the information they use to calculate the emissions, like the volume of production or raw materials that are used.

Companies and market regulators worry that that data can be “reverse-engineered and reverse-calculated to basically give away trade secrets,” according to Lorraine Gershman, director of the environmental, regulatory and technical affairs office of the American Chemistry Council.

“We pretty much are reiterating our concern that the data be protected and not divulged,” she said. “Our members’ concerns are release of information, both domestically and internationally as well.”

The energy industry uses the “trade secrets” cry a lot. Frackers use it to prevent the public from knowing which chemicals they’re pumping underground, for example. And ExxonMobil has been using it to argue that it should be allowed keep secret its inspection reports on the tar-sands oil pipeline that ruptured in Mayflower, Ark., earlier this year. From EnergyWire:

Federal regulators at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration are set to decide as soon as this week whether Exxon can claim a trade secret exemption that would let it withhold inspection data for the ruptured Pegasus pipeline from Arkansas officials seeking it, including two GOP members of Congress. The immediate dispute hinges on a request from the local water utility to relocate the 96,000-barrel-per-day Pegasus following the spill, but the Arkansas conflict over Exxon’s confidentiality rights echoes warnings from [Keystone XL] opponents that pipeline operators are too loosely overseen to ensure safe oil transportation.

It seems that wrecking the environment is just part of the trade for fossil fuel companies, and they don’t want anybody to know how exceedingly good at it they are.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

More: 

Energy companies say releasing CO2 data would jeopardize trade secrets

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Energy companies say releasing CO2 data would jeopardize trade secrets

Congratulations to ExxonMobil, the new largest company in the world

Congratulations to ExxonMobil, the new largest company in the world

Congratulations to our friends at ExxonMobil, once again the largest company in the world. I think we can all agree that this is a deserved promotion, given how much more ExxonMobil brings to our lives than does Apple. How much more good ExxonMobil does for the planet. Capitalism, guys: It works.

Reuters explains what happened:

Exxon Mobil briefly overtook Apple as the largest U.S. publicly traded company by market value on Friday as shares of the technology giant continued to fall.

Apple shares traded down 2 percent on the day at $441.31, down from a high above $700 set in September, for a market value of roughly $416 billion. Exxon shares, flat on the day at $91.33, added to a market value of about $416.5 billion.

Apple has closed the day as the largest company by market capitalization since late January last year, when it passed Exxon.

Or, in English: A publicly traded company’s market cap is its value calculated by multiplying its share price by the number of public shares it offers. As of a second ago, here’s what that looked like for each company.

Google

Google

ExxonMobil’s public shares were worth a combined $417 billion; Apple’s, $415 billion. 417 is bigger than 415, so: news stories.

All of this could reverse by the time markets close. Apple is down eight points in trading today; the company could recover that value. It’s real money, but an effervescent, artificial marker. And it’s a reflection far more of Apple’s fortunes than of ExxonMobil’s. (Mashable explains why.)

It is nonetheless discouraging that the company waiting in the wings behind Apple is ExxonMobil. Stock markets are often an indicator of expected economic growth; one buys a stock with the hope that its value will increase over time. Meaning that investors in 2013 see a fossil fuel company as one of the best long-term bets, throwing more money at it than any other company in the world.

Sad thing is: They’re probably right.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Follow this link – 

Congratulations to ExxonMobil, the new largest company in the world

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congratulations to ExxonMobil, the new largest company in the world