Exxon Owe's $5 Billion, Pays $0.



On March 24, 1989, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez departed from Valdez, Alaska, heading south with a full load of 52 million gallons of oil. Due to fatigue and excessive workloads the ship crashed and caused one of the biggest environmental disasters in history. It contaminated 1,200 miles of pristine shoreline and it killed 2,800 otters. Today the tanker is still leaking and a recent study found that there is more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. 26,000 gallons may not sound like a lot but even oil companies like Castrol will admit:

A single pint of oil can create an oil slick the size of a football field. A single gallon of used oil can contaminate a million gallons of fresh water.

Researchers say the oil spill is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska. Predictions that the sound would have recovered by now have shown to be inaccurate. Fishery scientists estimate that less than 10% of the oil was cleaned up.

After the oil spill Exxon was taken to court to cover the cleanup costs. In 1994 Exxon was fined $5 billion for negligence. That debt still remains unpaid. Meanwhile over 1,200 of the plaintiffs have passed away. Victor Smith, a fisherman, lost more than $1 million due to the spill and says the herring fish community still hasn't recovered. Smith has since given up fishing and now hauls freight.

For those that have a knack for law, feel free to read the 2006 decision which is available via this PDF. 32,000 people are waiting compensation.

Source:
The Guardian, 18 years on, Exxon Valdez oil still pours into Alaskan waters, Ewen MacAskill in Washington, Friday February 2, 2007
Seattle Times/Common dreams, The Lingering Lessons of the Exxon Valdez Spill, Monday, March 22, 2004, Marybeth Holleman
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 04-35182 D.C. No.
CV-89-00095-HRH
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, No. 04-35182 D.C. No.
CV-89-00095-HRH
Seattlepi, Exxon still owes for Valdez spill, Despite profits, oil giant holds billions awarded to victims, MIKE LEWIS, Monday, March 13, 2006
Staley,Laurel. "Petroleum Oils." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000: March 26, 2003.

Is Exxon About to Surrender?


Exxon CEO Rex Tilerson gave a speech at Boston College. Here he advocates taking a cautionary approach that mainstream scientists support:

While our scientific understanding of climate change continues to improve, it nonetheless remains today an extraordinarily complex area of scientific study. Having said that, the potential risks to society could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainties that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks.

He does the same here as well:

This is a global-wide, century-scale problem. 85% of the growth of CO₂ emissions are associated with economic activity in the developing part of the world, with only 15% of the growth associated with developed countries. We should start on a path to reduce the likelihood of the worst outcomes… and understand the context of managing carbon emissions among other developing world priorities, such as economic development, poverty eradication and public health.

Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways.

Just when it sounds too good to be true, he leaves himself an out which I've highlighted in bold:

In my view, this means we should continue to fund ongoing scientific research without conditions or preconceived outcomes to increase our understanding of all of the forcings which are part of this very elegant, but very complex climate systems in which we live – including ongoing study of not only the possible forcing effects resulting from mankind's socioeconomic activity, but equally if not more important understanding of the natural forcing elements that are and have been apart of the climate system since the dawn of time.

The National Academy of Sciences of 18 different countries say the recent warming is very unlikely to have been caused by natural forces. Exxon still seems to completely ignore this fact and the scientific consensus on climate change. Still, this seems to be a rather big shift in energy policy recommendations by Exxon. Has the beast grown a heart? Has the horned monster of misinformation raised a white flag? Will they cut off the funding to Astroturf organizations like the Royal Society asked? Or is this merely a green washing two-face maneuver?

Only time will tell.

Update:

Exxon's response to the Royal Society's letter:

The Royal Society's letter and public statements to the media inaccurately and unfairly described our company. Our views on climate change are clearly described in our company publications. We know that carbon emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change - we don't debate or dispute this.

Well according to Exxon Secrets and Exxpose Exxon the Royal Society's letter was fair. Again, it will be interesting to see who they decide to fund in the future. I'm not terribly optimistic. But it is nice to see them acknowledging the greenhouse gas effect.

Source:
Environmental defense, Rex Tillerson Speech, Boston CEO Club, Boston, Massachusetts, November 30, 2006, Posted on: 12/06/2006

Exxon Buying the Teachers Associations?



The NSTA consists of 55,000 science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives which are involved in science education. Membership is not free and typically costs a teacher $74 each year. In otherwords, the NSTA is not a lightweight organization. In fact their website self describes the NSTA as the "largest organization in the world committed to promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. "

Larry David, the co-creator of Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm, has a environmentally conscious wife that decided to donate 50,000 DVDs of the documentary An Inconvenient Truth to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). Despite the fact that the documentary received "five stars for accuracy" by scientists, the Washington Post is now reporting that the NSTA has refused to accept the DVDs:

In their e-mail rejection, they expressed concern that other “special interests” might ask to distribute materials, too; they said they didn’t want to offer “political” endorsement of the film; and they saw “little, if any, benefit to NSTA or its members” in accepting the free DVDs. …

[T]here was one more curious argument in the e-mail: Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.”

As it turns out those special interests include Exxon-Mobil, Shell Oil, and the American Petroleum Institute. To take matters one step farther the NSTA has distributed videos produced by the American Petroleum Institute. This video claims that one "can't be cool without fuel". In this case fuel is natural gas and oil.

Feel free to spend a few minutes watching the video. (Link to video). The Washington post article continues:

An API memo leaked to the media as long ago as 1998 succinctly explains why the association is angling to infiltrate the classroom: "Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect barriers against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future."

The information war knows no boundaries.

regurgitation hat tip: Thinkprogress

source
Washington Post, Science a la Joe Camel Sunday, November 26, 2006; B01

Shell: "the debate is over"


From the Washington Post:

Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., said in a recent speech at the National Press Club. "From Shell's point of view, the debate is over. When 98 percent of scientists agree, who is Shell to say, 'Let's debate the science'?"

And amazingly Exxon Mobil has finally begun the process of accepting the possibility that climate change might be real:

Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change. And on Nov. 2, the company announced that it will contribute more than $1.25 million to a European Union study on how to store carbon dioxide in natural gas fields in the Norwegian North Sea, Algeria and Germany.

It's a small step, but better than the all out war they've previously funded. Is it good faith or just an inevitable result of the dethroning of the Exxon backed "climate change is a hoax" Senator Inhofe? Only time will tell.

Source:
Washington Post: Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change Saturday, November 25, 2006; Page A01

Grudge Match: Dems vs Exxon, FIGHT!



According to this article:

The Democrats plan to rescind $11.6 billion in energy subsidies for Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and require pharmaceutical companies such as Pfizer Inc. to negotiate with Medicare on prescription-drug prices.

I'm not going to comment about the prescription drugs but the Exxon subsidy removal is excellent news. $11.6 billion in direct subsidies and tens of billions in military subsidies (last I read it was ~$1.50 a gallon) to control unstable regions is an unfair advantage to competing alternative energy. I'm hoping the democrats will take the 11.6 billion and invest it in the development of alternative energy technologies. According to the recently deceased Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley, that is more than enough money to fund the research that could solve all of our problems.


Source: Bloogmberg.com, Democrats Hold `Grudge' Against Republicans' Corporate Allies

Exxon's Lee Raymond to chair the NPC



The NPC is a federal advisory committee to the Secretary of Energy. From 1946 until the implementation of the U.S. Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977, the NPC served as an advisory body to the Secretary of the Interior. The NPC is currently chartered by the Secretary of Energy. The sole purpose of the Council is to advise, inform, and make recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters pertaining to oil and natural gas or to the oil and gas industries.

Some may find it interesting that the chairman of this whitehouse advisory committee has long funded think tanks that say cigarettes don't cause cancer, global warming isn't real, and all of these scientists are part of one massive scam. Considering he was the CEO of ExxonMobil and still has strong financial ties, he isn't exactly the most unbiased source. This by itself is not a big deal. But the real question is how many other people the Secretary of Energy listens to? Earlier I highlighted some rather odd behaviors by the Whitehouse. Behaviors that are not only very damaging to the scientific community but are also at odds with the messages put out by the army core of engineers and even other oil companies. It seems the answer to that question may very well be "no-one".

Relevant info:

• Under Secretary David Garman, Presentation with notes, NPC Review, 6/21/06, http://www.npc.org. Accessed 10/17/06.
• Remarks for Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman, U.S. Department of Energy, 6/21/06. http://www.energy.gov/print/3764.htm.

Update:
Bush’s Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has hand-picked former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond to lead an influential study to develop policy solutions to America’s energy crisis. Exxpose Exxon is running a petition to have him removed from the study. An uphill battle for sure.