myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Big Oil and citizenship
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the New York Times. Think it was a sweetheart deal for the many Exxon violations?

B
Quote:
y Lisa Friedman
Oct. 31, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice announced Tuesday that Exxon Mobil will pay $2.5 million in fines for flaring gases at eight plants along the Gulf Coast. Agency officials said the announcement was evidence of the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing the nation’s environmental laws.

Exxon will spend about $300 million as part of the settlement to install gas recovery and other new monitoring and pollution control technologies at the petrochemical plants in Louisiana and Texas, according to agency officials.

The agencies also settled a second case involving air pollution violations with PDC Energy, a Colorado oil and gas company whose storage tanks were found to be leaking smog-forming compounds. The company also was fined $2.5 million, which will be shared by Colorado and the federal government.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This could be posted under Trump, Exxon (the sign of the doublecross), or the Republican party is the root of all evil. Exxon posted a $6 billion increase in profits from the TRUMP TAX bill last year. The oily boys are proposing a reudction in royalties—how much will that save? And there are otgher subsidies for the oil companies in the tax bill and budget. So the big news is that Exxon has promised $4 million a year—for 5 years—to Stanford to research low carbon energy. Let me see, thtat’s less than 0.1% of what they reaped in the tax bill. Total revenue—over $400 billion. Total profit over $40 billion. Bupkus. https://www.axios.com/the-changing-shape-of-the-stanford-exxon-alliance-1519990401-9dc2240a-dcde-4833-bd13-a668f245b35c.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5195
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wsurfer



Joined: 17 Aug 2000
Posts: 690

PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nw30 wrote:
I know!!!

Sounds dirty to me but then again so does wet-ty Exclamation Exclamation Exclamation
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yet another reason that California is superior to Texas. The antipathy to land use regulation meant that the Houston area allowed development in flood prone areas--including whatever the oil and chemical industry wanted. Because they are good citizens? No, because they are in the habit of transferring costs to the general public--and spending a small portion of the savings to buy politicians.

Quote:
HOUSTON (AP) — A toxic onslaught from the nation’s petrochemical hub was largely overshadowed by the record-shattering deluge of Hurricane Harvey as residents and first responders struggled to save lives and property.

More than a half-year after floodwaters swamped America’s fourth-largest city, the extent of this environmental assault is beginning to surface, while questions about the long-term consequences for human health remain unanswered.


County, state and federal records pieced together by The Associated Press and The Houston Chronicle reveal a far more widespread toxic impact than authorities publicly reported after the storm slammed into the Texas coast in late August and then stalled over the Houston area.

Some 500 chemical plants, 10 refineries and more than 6,670 miles of intertwined oil, gas and chemical pipelines line the nation’s largest energy corridor.

Nearly half a billion gallons of industrial wastewater mixed with storm water surged out of just one chemical plant in Baytown, east of Houston on the upper shores of Galveston Bay.

Benzene, vinyl chloride, butadiene and other known human carcinogens were among the dozens of tons of industrial toxins released into surrounding neighborhoods and waterways following Harvey’s torrential rains.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to put a capper on the idea that facts matter. Some time ago, mrgybe, apologist for all things carbon and pesticide, complained that mean enviros were delaying poor Chevron’s plans to expand and modernize their Richmond refinery. I was told that he, from the East Coast, knew far more than I did. Of course the Chevron refinery suffered a fire due to poor maintenance of pipes. In today’s news, Chevron has settled a lawsuit with the City of Richmond, paying them $5 million. They have also agreed to pay $20 million to replace corrosion prone pipes—like those they failed to replace after corrosion was detected.

Looks like mrgybe stayed true to form as a fact-free apologist for shoddy industry practices that endanger health. And that is why we have regulation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big carbon rewarded? What do you want to bet that public health and the environment are not protected in Oklahoma.

Quote:
As permitted by Congress by law in 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency approved its first state permit program, allowing Oklahoma to regulate its own disposal of coal ash, or the residue left after coal is burned to create energy. Georgia and Texas are also moving through the process to handle their own disposal of coal ash, which has been linked to groundwater contamination. (The Associated Press)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 5195
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry libs, but it's just not that simple, you cannot blame the rise of the sea levels on just one thing, BIG OIL, as I keep saying, there are a multitudes of reasons for the sea level rising, most of which cannot be controlled. The size of the big island is growing as I'm typing, causing water displacement, also all the big river deltas continue to grow as I'm typing, causing even more displacement. Rain makes the rivers flow, you may as well try to stop the rain, good luck with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Judge throws out SF and Oakland climate suits against big oil
June 25, 2018 Updated: June 25, 2018 9:45 p.m.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Judge-throws-out-SF-and-Oakland-climate-change-13025637.php?cmpid=gsa-sfgate-result
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 11299
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you read the whole article? It made it clear that global warming is a problem, but that it should be dealt with by the Legislature, not the courts. To be continued.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 3157

PostPosted: Tue Jun 26, 2018 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The story should be on the Nutty California thread.

From the judges ruling, which pretty much sums up the issue:
Quote:
But Alsup, who works in the court’s Northern District of California, opined that the world has undoubtedly benefited from fossil fuels, from the industrial revolution to today’s modern conveniences. The bench, he determined, was not in a position to weigh the industry’s positives against the negative.

“Having reaped the benefit of that historic progress, would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded?” he wrote. “Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75  Next
Page 71 of 75

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group