Tag Archives: exxonmobil

Swamp Watch – 10 December 2016

by AlfredoMoffet Posted on December 10, 2016

Mother Jones

Apparently it’s now settled that ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson will be Donald Trump’s Secretary of State. It’s hard to know what to make of this. My main takeaway is that Trump had a really hard time finding someone who checked all his boxes. I don’t want to go too far overboard on Tillerson’s friendly relationship with Vladimir Putin—it’s hardly damning that his company submitted bids for drilling rights in the Arctic—but it’s very hard to figure out what Trump didn’t like about the dozens of far more plausible candidates available to him. The best I can come up with is that pretty much everyone on the Republican side of the aisle is a Russia hawk, and that’s the one thing that disqualified them all.

Then again, Tillerson is a wealthy fossil-fuel CEO, and Trump likes rich people, fossil fuels, and CEOs. Maybe that’s all it is.

NOTE: I wouldn’t normally mark Tillerson as a member of the swamp, but I’m making an exception due to his apparent chumminess with the swamp. Details here.

More here:  

Swamp Watch – 10 December 2016

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Swamp Watch – 10 December 2016

Lamar Smith’s climate denial turns off some Texas voters.

by NellCarrillo Posted on October 28, 2016

The New York State Supreme Court is requiring the oil giant and its accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to turn over documents subpoenaed by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He’s conducting a fraud investigation into the company, spurred by a report from InsideClimate News last year that revealed Exxon knew fossil fuel burning was heating up the atmosphere back in the 1970s and deliberately misled the public about it.

Earlier this month, Exxon attempted to halt the investigation by suing Schneiderman, as well as Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and arguing that their investigations are politically motivated.

Exxon has also been arguing, under a Texas statute, that documents held by PricewaterhouseCoopers are privileged. But yesterday, the New York court ruled against the company on that point. The court, as the Washington Post reports, determined that New York law, not Texas law, governs the dispute, and ordered the company to comply with Schneiderman’s subpoena.

Schneiderman was pleased with the ruling, of course. He said he looks forward to “moving full-steam ahead with our fraud investigation” and called on Exxon to “cooperate with, rather than resist,” the probe.

ExxonMobil has no such intention. The company said it will appeal the ruling.

This article is from:

Lamar Smith’s climate denial turns off some Texas voters.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, InsideClimate News, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, Smith's, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Lamar Smith’s climate denial turns off some Texas voters.

ExxonMobil just got some bad news.

by JadaMcBride3335 Posted on October 27, 2016

The New York State Supreme Court is requiring the oil giant and its accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers to turn over documents subpoenaed by state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. He’s conducting a fraud investigation into the company, spurred by a report from InsideClimate News last year that revealed Exxon knew fossil fuel burning was heating up the atmosphere back in the 1970s and deliberately misled the public about it.

Earlier this month, Exxon attempted to halt the investigation by suing Schneiderman, as well as Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, and arguing that their investigations are politically motivated.

Exxon has also been arguing, under a Texas statute, that documents held by PricewaterhouseCoopers are privileged. But yesterday, the New York court ruled against the company on that point. The court, as the Washington Post reports, determined that New York law, not Texas law, governs the dispute, and ordered the company to comply with Schneiderman’s subpoena.

Schneiderman was pleased with the ruling, of course. He said he looks forward to “moving full-steam ahead with our fraud investigation” and called on Exxon to “cooperate with, rather than resist,” the probe.

ExxonMobil has no such intention. The company said it will appeal the ruling.

Continued:  

ExxonMobil just got some bad news.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, InsideClimate News, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Ringer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ExxonMobil just got some bad news.

Exxon is looking for ways to slash carbon emissions

by HassanD97urycmei Posted on August 19, 2016

Exxon is looking for ways to slash carbon emissions

By on Aug 19, 2016Share

A new breakthrough in climate-change-fighting technology may come from, of all places … Exxon?

It’s not as crazy as it sounds. Exxon and other fossil fuel companies are under pressure from lawmakers and stakeholders to publicly own up to its role in causing climate change.

Instead of, say, diversifying its portfolio in renewables, the oil giant is looking for an alternate way to decrease their footprint — one that will let them keep burning fossil fuels.

Reuters reports that scientists from ExxonMobil and the Georgia Institute of Technology have developed a method to reduce carbon emissions from chemicals manufacturing. Currently, this is done using heat, but using a new method of reverse osmosis at room temperature theoretically would reduce the industry’s annual carbon dioxide emissions by up to 45 million tons if the technology were widely adopted, according to the company.

Now, if only they’d use all that brain power to create a time machine, go back to 50 years, and warn us about climate change when their own scientists first warned executives about it.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Read this article – 

Exxon is looking for ways to slash carbon emissions

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Exxon is looking for ways to slash carbon emissions

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

by EvelynConstant Posted on June 7, 2016

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

By on Jun 7, 2016Share

Let’s take a quick stroll through the resume of Jim Murphy, hired Monday by Donald Trump’s campaign as national political director, according to the New York Times:

Former adviser to Bob Dole and Mitt Romney’s presidential bids.
Frequent donor to GOP political campaigns and PACs.
Managing partner and then president of the DCI Group from 2002 to 2012, at a time when the Washington, D.C., lobbyists represented ExxonMobil and assisted in attempts to sow doubt about the scientific consensus on climate change … Oh boy, here we go.

The Daily Beast points out that in addition to representing repressive military regimes and using fake “volunteers” to push for privatization of social security, DCI has gone to bat for both Big Tobacco and Big Oil. The firm has represented Exxon since 2005 according to the most recent data available from the Center for Responsive Politics. That collaboration, according to documents, involved working with the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute and conservative think tanks to counter greenhouse gas regulations, promoting a climate denial website called called Tech Central Station, and using Exxon money to produce a parody of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators sent Exxon a letter in 2006 demanding it “end any further financial assistance” to groups “whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth.”

DCI has also had dealings with the coal industry; from 2013 to 2014, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity paid some $5 million to the firm for its lobbying services. And earlier this year, both DCI and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were served subpoenas from the U.S. Virgin Islands U.S. attorneys’ offices as part of an investigation into companies — particularly Exxon — and organizations accused of funding of climate change denial.

That’s quite a resume.

Share

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, ONA, organic, solar, solar panels, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This lobbyist denied climate change for ExxonMobil. Now he’ll do it for Trump.

Oil and gas execs deliver statement on climate action

by DeboraFitchett Posted on October 16, 2015

Oil and gas execs deliver statement on climate action

By on 16 Oct 2015commentsShare

In what is either a sign of the apocalypse or of par-for-the-course PR witchcraft, 10 of the largest oil and gas companies on Earth have voiced their support for a global climate deal. The Oil and Gas Climate Initiative — a coalition including giants like BP, Shell, and Statoil — announced Friday that it recognized “the general ambition to limit global average temperature rise to 2 degrees centigrade” and that it will “collectively strengthen [its] actions and investments to contribute to reducing the GHG intensity of the global energy mix.”

In its statement, the member companies also declared “collective support for an effective climate change agreement to be reached at next month’s 21st session of the United Nations (U.N.) Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework on Climate Change (COP21).”

The elephant on the oil field, of course, is that the companies aren’t actually committing to doing anything. It’s one thing to voice support for a 2C goal and quite another to follow through on the goal’s implications, which include leaving up to 80 percent of the world’s fossil fuel reserves unburned.

Notably absent from the statement were U.S. oil and gas giants Chevron and ExxonMobil. The New York Times reports:

The American companies appear to disapprove of the European-led initiative, partly because the potential remedies — like carbon taxes or the trading of carbon-emission permits — that many experts say are necessary to successfully curb greenhouse gases would almost inevitably raise the price of their fuels.

“I’ve never had a customer come to me and ask to pay a higher price for oil, gas or other products,” John S. Watson, the chief executive of Chevron, told a meeting hosted in Vienna in June by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.

Rex W. Tillerson, ExxonMobil’s chief executive, has repeatedly said that he would support putting a price on carbon as long as it was “revenue neutral.”

Ah, the reliable platitude of revenue neutrality. Or as one might phrase it in the common tongue, “passing a tax onto customers so my shareholders don’t take a hit.”

The problem with Tillerson’s support of carbon pricing is that he can apply the revenue neutrality argument to anything, because it’s the same thing as saying he’ll uphold his fiduciary duties as chief executive. Get into coal instead of petroleum? Tobacco? Open up some bowling lanes? As long as it’s revenue neutral (or profitable), it’s fair game. Case in point: Shell recently halted its Arctic oil exploration efforts, but you’d be hard-pressed to demonstrate that its logic was environmental and not economic.

It’s also probably worth highlighting that the coalition is composed of oil and gas — not coal — companies, and it’s a lot easier to get behind climate action if you’re a coal competitor, since coal is our dirtiest energy source.

One thing is certain: We’ll see plenty more statements like this one emerge in the run-up to the Paris negotiations at the end of this year. Several energy analysts have recently argued that the fossil fuel industry is becoming an increasingly risky sector in which to operate, and a good handful of dirty energy producers and investors have already started to edge their way toward progressive energy alternatives.

Source:

Oil and Gas Companies Make Statement in Support of U.N. Climate Goals

, New York Times.

Share

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Advertisement

See more here: 

Oil and gas execs deliver statement on climate action

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oil and gas execs deliver statement on climate action

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

by bibw6a Posted on December 5, 2013

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

By

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

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

by sssaa Posted on July 11, 2013

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

By John Upton

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

Good news, Arkansas: Tar-sands oil isn’t oil-oil

by Theodot7v8 Posted on April 3, 2013

Good news, Arkansas: Tar-sands oil isn’t oil-oil

By Susie Cagle

So far, the thousands of barrels of tar-sands oil that spilled into a middle-class neighborhood in central Arkansas on Friday have driven 22 families from their homes and killed and injured a grip of local wildlife. So far, the oil hasn’t contaminated the local lake or drinking water supply, according to ExxonMobil. It’s a “major spill,” according to the EPA, and the cause is so far still under investigation.

But since it’s not oil-oil, ExxonMobil hasn’t paid into the government clean-up fund that would help bankroll the epic scrub-down necessary to rid poor unsuspecting Mayflower, Ark., of all that bitumen.

“A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund,” writes Ryan Koronowski at Climate Progress. “Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.”

Here, this helpful infographic might clear things up for you:

Naturally, ExxonMobil is feeling defensive about the whole “incident,” i.e. “release,” i.e. motherfucking oil spill. Today’s corporate headquarters update makes no mention of how many barrels of tar-sands oil actually hit the ground in Mayflower, but includes lots of numbers on vacuum trucks, storage tanks, responders, and claims (140 as of today). “A few thousand barrels of oil were observed in the area; a response for 10,000 barrels has been undertaken to ensure adequate resources are in place.”

DeSmogBlog ain’t buying it: After a look through ExxonMobil’s spill history, they found the company has a record of paying for immediate clean-up efforts but not for damages. Guess we’ll just have to wait and see if Exxon spontaneously grows a conscience this time — and hope all those other pipelines hold.

Susie Cagle writes and draws news for Grist. She also writes and draws tweets for

Twitter

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Link to article:  

Good news, Arkansas: Tar-sands oil isn’t oil-oil

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Good news, Arkansas: Tar-sands oil isn’t oil-oil

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

by Vonnie Criswell Posted on April 1, 2013

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

By John Upton

As the Obama administration mulls approval of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, the heavy toxic gunk is already spilling out over America.

Last Wednesday, a southbound train carrying Canadian oil derailed in Minnesota, spilling about 15,000 gallons of tar-sands crude – described by The Washington Post as “a mixture of heavy bitumen and lighter dilutents.”

Two days later, an ExxonMobil pipeline carrying tar-sands oil burst beneath a suburban neighborhood in Arkansas. The exact size of the spill hasn’t yet been determined, but ExxonMobil says it’s preparing to be able to clean up 420,000 gallons, though it doesn’t believe the spill is that large. The oil flooded yards and streets and led to the evacuation of 22 homes in Mayflower, a small community about 20 miles northwest of Little Rock.

Watch a video of the spill:

From Reuters:

[An ExxonMobil] spokesman confirmed the line was carrying Canadian Wabasca Heavy crude. That grade is a heavy bitumen crude diluted with lighter liquids to allow it to flow through pipelines, according to the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA), which referred to Wabasca as “oil sands” in a report.

You may recall that this is not Exxon’s first major oil spill. Just last week, the U.S. Department of Transportation fined the company $1.7 million for safety violations that led to a 2011 oil spill in the Yellowstone River. (As a point of reference, ExxonMobil’s profits last year were $44.9 billion.)

Reuters / Jacob Slaton

Tar-sands oil from an Exxon pipeline is making a big mess in Mayflower, Ark.

Tar-sands oil is especially potent stuff. It’s heavier than standard crude, which causes it to quickly sink and complicates cleanup efforts. It is cut with cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene to thin it out so it can flow through pipes.

The North American oil boom has maxed out the capacity of pipelines that carry the material south to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico, so oil companies have begun loading their toxic cargo onto trains even as they lobby the U.S. government to approve Keystone XL.

Some Keystone boosters argued that Wednesday’s train derailment and spill in Minnesota showed the urgent need for the pipeline, because pipelines are supposed to be safer than train shipments.

After Friday’s pipeline spill in Arkansas, that argument looks full of holes.

When it comes to transporting tar-sands oil from Canada to Gulf Coast refineries, it seems that the only safe option is to not transport it at all. Leave that shit in the ground and plant some wind turbines and solar panels over it.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Originally posted here – 

Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Safer, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tar-sands oil spills in Arkansas and Minnesota