ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Exxon

Climate Progress

Exxon CEO: ‘What Good Is It To Save The Planet If Humanity Suffers?’

At Wednesday’s meeting for ExxonMobil shareholders in Dallas, CEO Rex Tillerson told those assembled that an economy that runs on oil is here to stay, and cutting carbon emissions would do no good.

He asked, “What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?”

One good would be that humanity has a habitable place to live. And in acting to stop the increasingly dangerous effects of climate change, we could avoid a great deal of suffering. Tillerson missed the billions of dollars in damages, thousands of lives lost, millions displaced, and rampant ecological destruction due to the carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Exxon does not see carbon emissions falling significantly until 2040. Staying on this path will mean more suffering: heat waves, conflict, food insecurity, Dust Bowl-like drought, extreme flooding, sea level rise, increasingly destructive storms, and worsening refugee crises.

A Carbon Disclosure Project Report noted that “ExxonMobil noted that the company’s ‘operations around the world include remote and offshore areas that present challenges from existing climate extremes and storms. These severe weather events may disrupt supplies or interrupt the operations of ExxonMobil facilities.’ ” Even so, A 2011 study found that “9 out of 10 top climate change deniers [were] linked with Exxon Mobil.”

So what Tillerson probably meant to ask shareholders yesterday was “What good is it to save humanity if profits suffer?” Last year he had told the Council on Foreign Relations about the “manageable” risks of climate change: ”As a species that’s why we’re all still here: we have spent our entire existence adapting. So we will adapt to this. It’s an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions.”

The beauty of this approach is that Exxon makes money on both ends — they get to sell all their climate-destroying fossil fuels, and then, no doubt, they will sell their engineering skills dealing with the ever-worsening climate extremes. Now that’s win-win.

For the seventh time, almost three-quarters of Exxon shareholders voted down a resolution that would require the company to set goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from using Exxon products. Shareholders also rejected a resolution that would ban discrimination against gays.

LGBT

ExxonMobil Shareholders Once Again Defeat LGBT Nondiscrimination Protections

As they have many times before, the shareholders of ExxonMobil have once again voted down a proposal to implement nondiscrimination protections for LGBT employees, with a stunning 81-19 vote. The Dallas Voice notes this is the lowest amount of support the measure has ever received in its 14 consecutive years of consideration since Exxon merged with Mobil in 1999 and stripped them away.

What makes this year’s vote distinct is that ExxonMobil was sued just last week in Illinois for blatantly engaging in discrimination against a gay candidate, preferring a less qualified candidate over one who openly identified as gay. It was a test run by the group Freedom to Work, which then filed the suit with evidence from the test in hand. ExxonMobil became the first company to ever receive a negative rating from the Human Rights Campaign for not only providing no support for LGBT employees, but advocating against the LGBT community. Exxon ranks second on the Fortune 500, 88 percent of which have LGBT protections.

LGBT

ExxonMobil Sued For Anti-Gay Employment Discrimination

There are still 29 states where a person can be fired for being gay, but Illinois is not one of them. Nevertheless, it seems that ExxonMobil attempted to discriminate against a prospective employee in that state merely because the individual identified as gay, instead proactively pursuing a less qualified straight candidate for the same position. This was no mere circumstance, but an intentional experiment run by the organization Freedom to Work, which is now suing ExxonMobil for violating the Illinois Human Rights Act.

According to the complaint, Freedom to Work began its testing after ExxonMobil refused to adopt a nondiscrimination policy that included protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Despite the unfair treatment, a spokesman for the oil giant, Charles Engelmann, doubled down on the claim that the company doesn’t discriminate:

ENGELMANN: ExxonMobil’s global policies and processes prohibit all forms of discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation and gender identity, in any company workplace, anywhere in the world. In fact, our policies go well beyond the law and prohibit any form of discrimination.

ExxonMobil’s actions tell a different story. It has the distinction of being the first company to ever earn a negative score on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. Not only do none of its policies protect LGBT employees, but the company also engages in activities that undermine LGBT equality. It claims to have a “Corporate Citizenship Report” with a “zero-tolerance” policy for anti-LGBT discrimination, but that document does not have the same legal force as an actual Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statement. Mobil had such a statement, but when the two companies merged in 1999, Exxon stripped it away. When shareholders attempted to introduce an LGBT-inclusive EEO statement last year, ExxonMobil actually tried to block it from coming up for a vote. Though they were unsuccessful at blocking the vote, it was overwhelmingly defeated by 80 percent of shareholders.

If ExxonMobil believes that its “zero-tolerance” policy truly protects its LGBT employees, this lawsuit might just be the perfect test to find out.

Climate Progress

Exxon Spills Tar Sands Oil Again In Missouri, Can’t Find 126,000 Gallons Spilled In Arkansas

Exxon, cleaning up another oil spill from the Pegasus tar sands oil pipeline. (Credit: KAIT)

ExxonMobil has now confirmed that on Tuesday, the Pegasus pipeline that has been out of service since it spilled thousands of barrels of oil into Mayflower, Arkansas in March spilled some more into a yard in Missouri. In the town of Doniphan about 190 miles north of Mayflower, a resident reported seeing some oil and dead vegetation in the yard. Though small in scope, perhaps as little as 42 gallons, the spill is a reminder that oil is messy, tar sands oil particularly so, and transporting it across the country is extremely risky.

More pressing is the missing oil in Mayflower from the spill last month. The Sierra Club requested the accident incident report, which said that 3,000 barrels of oil (some 126,000 gallons) have not been recovered no matter how energetic Exxon’s response was:

Despite a massive cleanup effort in the Mayflower, Arkansas, neighborhood, the federal pipeline safety agency reports that ExxonMobil has recovered only 2,000 of the total 5,000 barrels of spilled tar sands crude. The accident incident report, which the agency shared with the Sierra Club after a Freedom of Information Act request, gives new insight into the size of the spill and the ineffectiveness of the cleanup effort. The report reveals that in total 83 people were evacuated from their homes, emergency response took 40 minutes, the pipeline was operating at 708 pounds of pressure when it burst, and 2,000 barrels reached local waterways.

The Pegasus pipeline was built to carry diesel fuel in 1947, Exxon converted the pipeline to carry tar sands crude and reversed its flow in 2006. In 2011, the federal pipeline safety agency fined Exxon $26,500 for failure to properly inspect a section of the line.

The report also states that even though there are at least 3,000 unrecovered barrels of oil, the current “estimated cost of public and non-Operator private property damage” is $0. At the same time, when ClimateProgress reported on the tax loophole that allows oil companies like Exxon to avoid paying into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund because tar sands oil is not classified as oil, Exxon’s response was that it was “paying all valid claims relating to the spill.” They even doubled down and tweeted as much. But Exxon’s opinion of what a constitutes a “valid” claim is key here.

The oil in this pipeline is not paying a cent per barrel into the cleanup fund created to be the backstop for corporate intransigence: “When the responsible party is unknown or refuses to pay, funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund can be used to cover removal costs or damages resulting from discharges of oil.”

Last month, local residents filed a lawsuit against Exxon seeking $5 million in damages. The cleanup is still ongoing, and many residents have still not been allowed back into their homes a month after the spill. In fact, Exxon has offered to buy some of the affected homes.

Exxon's tar sands oil spills into a cove of Lake Conway, Arkansas. (Credit: Greenpeace Photo by Karen E. McCall)

Those 3,000 barrels, or 126,000 gallons of heavy tar sands crude oil, went somewhere. Exxon acknowledges that it did spill into a cove near Lake Conway. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel confirmed that the cove does connect to Lake Conway. Third-party observers have noted that this means there is oil flowing into the Arkansas River.

Exxon points to testing from the Arkansas DEP that find no oil in Lake Conway, but those tests only sample the top and bottom of the Lake. Other tests sampling the whole water column have found oil in Lake Conway. If the spill has spread beyond Mayflower, an apologetic “community newsletter” featuring the release of selected ducks and turtles into marshland will not be enough.

While Exxon’s Valdez spill more than 20 years ago was much larger that the Mayflower spill, the company was rebuffing claims of liability for future losses as recently as 2011.

Exxon pulled in $9.5 billion in pure profits in the first quarter of this year.

Climate Progress

Exxon Earns $9.5 Billion Q1 Profit One Month After Arkansas Oil Spill That It Pays No Taxes To Help Clean Up

One month after dumping 500,000 gallons of tar sands crude oil from a ruptured pipeline in Arkansas, the most valuable and profitable corporation in the world ExxonMobil announced higher first quarter profits. Exxon earned $9.5 billion in the first quarter, compared to $9.45 billion last year, and Exxon’s total oil and natural gas production declined 3.5 percent.

Meanwhile, Exxon is exempt from paying taxes toward the oil spill liability fund that helps clean up spills like in Arkansas, where wildlife have been killed and covered by oil. The 1980 law exemption applies to diluted bitumen so companies escape paying the 8-cents-per-barrel fee to the fund that helps clean up hundreds of spills each year. At the federal level, Exxon’s tax rate comes to only 13 percent.

Here is how else Exxon spends its dollars, and what it receives in return:

– Exxon spent $12,970,000 on lobbying in 2012 to protect low tax rates and block pollution controls and safeguards for public health. In the first three months of 2013, Exxon spent $4.84 million lobbying.

– The company sent $3.6 million in total political contributions to PACs, candidates, and outside groups for the 2012 election cycle, and 89 percent of contributions went to Republicans. It has spent over $76,000 for the 2014 cycle so far.

– Exxon receives an estimated $600 million in annual federal tax breaks. In 2011, Exxon paid just 13 percent in taxes. The company paid no federal income tax in 2009, despite $45.2 billion record profits.

– In the first quarter, Exxon bought back $5.6 billion of its stock, or 59 percent of its profit, which enriches the largest shareholders and executives of the company.

– This year, Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson received a 15 percent raise to a $40.3 million salary.

Climate Progress

Oklahoma Congressman: ExxonMobil ‘Should Be Patted On The Back’ For Arkansas Oil Spill

Mayflower, Arkansas

ExxonMobil’s recent oil spill dumped some 200,000 gallons into Mayflower, Arkansas, killed wildlife, and caused 22 homes to be evacuated. As the Natural Resources committee takes up another bill to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) argued at a hearing that the spill is more evidence the Keystone XL pipeline is a safe bet for Americans.

Comparing the safety of a pipeline to other transportation methods, Mullin said there is no reason to make a “big deal” about the spill:

“Would we really rather ship oil across the oceans? You’re talking about a catastrophe, we’re buying the oil. The percentages of barrels that are shipped daily from rail, from road, and from water the accidents versus the pipeline accidents, it’s a fraction. Your group is making a big deal about this ExxonMobil spill? I think Exxon should be patted on the back for the way they handled this. Yes this was horrible, yes we don’t like to see it, but they handled it. They did a great job handling it. I think they showed an example of what could be done when a catastrophe happens.

Watch it:




In fact, Exxon has been heavily criticized for its public dismissal of the harm and scope of the spill. And thanks to a technicality, the company can avoid paying taxes toward the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund — an exemption that applies to most tar sands crude.

Mullin also claimed the pipeline would reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, which he linked to acts like the Boston Marathon bombing. “I mean, would we rather buy oil from the Middle East that sponsors the acts that we see like at the Marathon that we just saw yesterday?” he said. “I don’t know if that was actually sponsored by them or not but that’s the acts that they support.” Setting aside his sheer speculation over the cause of the tragedy at Boston, Mullin’s claims about reducing foreign oil dependence just don’t add up. Keystone XL guarantees more oil is shipped overseas, not less: The pipeline moves Canadian oil across the U.S. straight to the Gulf of Mexico, where it is refined and then exported. A Department of Energy analysis noted that Keystone XL will have virtually no impact on Middle East imports.

For the record, oil and gas companies rank among the freshman congressman’s largest donors.

Climate Progress

Silver Linings Playbook: Exxon Says Wildlife Hit By Arkansas Spill Were Mostly ‘Reptiles, Primarily Venomous Snakes’

Oily snakes — or snake oil?

Sure, you thought nothing good could come from ExxonMobil’s pipeline spill of some 200,000 gallons into the residential streets of Mayflower, Arkansas. After all, it was “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” And a technicality has spared Exxon from having to pay any money into the fund that will be covering most of the clean up costs — a 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil.

But ExxonMobil reports from the Mayflower Incident Unified Command Joint Information Center that even this cloud of oil has a silver lining:

The majority of the impacted wildlife has been reptiles, primarily venomous snakes.

Strangely, HuffPost reports, “According to its Facebook page, the Helping Arkansas Wild Kritters (HAWK) Center, which has worked to help scores of animals hurt by the March 29 spill, has not rescued any venomous snakes, but has cared for many birds.”

Climate Progress

Poisoning The Water Hole: Exxon Loses In Court, Will Appeal

A jury in New Hampshire found ExxonMobil guilty of negligence for contaminating drinking water with MTBE, a gasoline additive.

A New Hampshire jury found Exxon Mobil Corp. negligent in adding MTBE to gasoline and contaminating the state’s drinking water. The jury will continue to deliberate to determine what the company will pay in damages.

Exxon Mobil, the last defendant in the state’s lawsuit, had been on trial since Jan. 14 in Concord. The jury announced its partial verdict today about two hours after it began to deliberate.

The state is seeking monetary damages from Exxon Mobil based on its share of gasoline sales in New Hampshire during the period covered by the suit. Jurors said today that the market share was 29 percent. With a projected cost of $816 million to test, monitor and clean up wells, New Hampshire asked the jury to award it $236 million.

All other oil companies named in the suit (Shell, Sunoco, ConocoPhillips, Irving Oil, Vitol SA, Hess, and Citgo) have already settled with the state. Exxon was the lone holdout. Other suits in other states stemming from action started in 2000 have been consolidated in federal court and have not gone to trial yet.

What did the jury find compelling in the state’s argument? We may never know exactly, but there is probably more to it than the fact that the company made billions in profits while paying a minuscule tax rate as gasoline prices soared last year.

MTBE increases the oxygen content of fuel, making it burn more completely. Witnesses told the jury that the ethanol could have been used in place of MTBE, which causes tumors and other illnesses in rats and mice. Ethanol, for all its drawbacks (which may eventually decrease), does not do that. They estimated that 5,590 New Hampshire wells had MBTE levels that were unfit for drinking water.

So Exxon lost a court case (which it will appeal) for negligently poisoning drinking water. Exxon is also fighting EPA rules that make cars run more efficiently and use less gasoline. It dodges paying taxes on pumping tar sands oil through (and occasionally spilling it on) America.

No matter which gasoline additive is used, the fuel still gets burned, which puts more carbon pollution into the atmosphere and helps cause climate change. Efficient engines and reducing the amount of fuel is the best way to stop all types of pollution.

Climate Progress

Exxon’s Duck-Killing Pipeline Won’t Pay Taxes To Oil Spill Cleanup Fund

A technicality has spared Exxon from having to pay any money into the fund that will be covering most of the clean up costs of its Arkansas pipeline spill.

The cleanup efforts themselves took a sobering turn as crews found injured and dead ducks covered in oil.

The environmental impacts of an oil spill in central Arkansas began to come into focus Monday as officials said a couple of dead ducks and 10 live oily birds were found after an ExxonMobil Corp. pipeline ruptured last week.

“I’m an animal lover, a wildlife lover, as probably most of the people here are,” Faulkner County Judge Allen Dodson told reporters. ”We don’t like to see that. No one does.”

Exxon has confirmed that the pipeline was carrying “low-quality Wabasca Heavy crude oil from Alberta.” This oil comes from the region of Alberta where the controversial tar sands are located. Heavy crude is strip mined or boiled loose from dense underground formations that often contain a large amount of bitumen. This oil is very thick and needs to be diluted with lighter fluids in order to flow through pipelines. Reports have stated that at least 12,000 barrels of oil and water spilled into the town.

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. 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.
Read more

Economy

Alaska Lawmaker Tells Exxon Valdez Spill Not Its Fault As State Considers Giving Oil Industry Huge Tax Cut

Lingering Exxon Valdez oil.

Alaska is set to give oil companies, including ExxonMobil, a massive tax cut. The bill, which passed the Senate 11-9 and is endorsed by Republican Gov. Sean Parnell, is being debated by the House of Representatives.

The plan raises the base tax rate that companies pay no matter the price of oil, and also gives them a $5 credit for every barrel they produce. The plan would cost the state anywhere from $3 billion to $9.5 billion over the next six years.

As if that weren’t enough, Republicans in the state House want to make the tax cut even larger. And as they debated doing so, Rep. Kurt Olson (R) told a company representative that Exxon shouldn’t be blamed for the second-worst oil spill in U.S. history, the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989:

Your company has been tied to the history of Alaska probably for an event that had more to do with the name of a vessel than something you may have been directly responsible for,” Olson said, who went on to praise the company for its reliability.

To that, the Exxon representative responded, “Wow,” and proceeded to apologize for the spill, which dumped more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Alaska Prince William Sound, contaminating 1,300 miles of shoreline. More than 20 years later, there is still evidence of the damage as Exxon draws out litigation.

Alaska currently taxes oil under a progressive system that increases taxes when oil prices are high. That system, a 350 percent tax increase that helped the state rack up an extra $17 billion, was signed into law by former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up