Guest post by David Middleton
The Boston-based Conservation Law Foundation filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil on Thursday, arguing that the company is violating several key water regulations at one of their Boston storage and transfer locations.
The site in question — located in the Boston suburb of Everett, Massachusetts — is a sprawling, 110-acre terminal that extends to the bank of the Mystic River. The complaint alleges that the terminal has released toxic pollutants into the water for years, and that the company has failed to make improvements to the terminal to strengthen it against the risks of climate change — violating both the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
“This is a stunning example of how ExxonMobil’s climate deceit hits home, where their repeated sworn, but false, statements to regulators that this facility was prepared for climate conditions put the surrounding communities that have hosted the facility for years in danger,” Brad Campbell, president of the Conservation Law Foundation, told ThinkProgress.
According to investigative reports published last year by both InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times, ExxonMobil’s internal scientists knew about the role of fossil fuels in driving global warming as early as 1977, and yet publicly continued to fuel doubt about climate science.
Exxon also built oil rigs in the North Sea to withstand projected climate impacts like sea level rise and rising temperatures.
Yet the company failed to make the same structural improvements to its terminal in Massachusetts, the lawsuit claims, leaving surrounding communities at risk of toxic pollution during severe storm events or floods. According to the complaint, the Everett Terminal is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change predicted to hit New England in the coming years: sea level rise, increased precipitation, increased magnitude and frequency of storm events, and increased magnitude and frequency of storm surges.
“All of the available modeling shows that… {blah, blah, blah}
[…]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji9qSuQapFY
If ExxonMobil’s storage and transfer facility is in violation of tht Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA or Massachusetts State regulators might just have noticed it. If the regulators missed the violations, and this environmental terrorist activist group can make their case in court, ExxonMobil will have to correct the violations and pay for any actual damages. However, the connection of this to climate change and the moronic #ExxonKnew crackhead conspiracy theory is mindbogglingly stupid.
This bit of total ignorance defies description:
Exxon also built oil rigs in the North Sea to withstand projected climate impacts like sea level rise and rising temperatures.
Yet the company failed to make the same structural improvements to its terminal in Massachusetts, the lawsuit claims…
Now, I am probably going out on a limb to assume that these dimwits actually mean “oil rigs” when they say “oil rigs”… However, ExxonMobil doesn’t build oil rigs. They contract rigs from companies like Noble Drilling, who paid companies like National Oilwell to build them. Offshore drilling rigs are designed to survive the weather.
The oil rigs that drilled wells in the North Sea were capable of drilling all over the world. Half the rigs that were in the Gulf of Mexico 10 years ago have moved overseas, mostly to the Middle East and Africa. The rigs are capable of working year-round. Offshore oil rigs don’t notice 0.0035 °C per year of rising temperatures and 3 mm per year of sea level rise. However, they do notice hurricanes, which occasionally sink them.
Oil rigs are designed to operate in specific water depth ranges.
What happens to an oil rig if sea level rises by 1 foot?
You add 1 foot to the Kelly Bushing (KB). I’ve been working the Gulf of Mexico since 1988. To my knowledge, climate change has not forced us to revise the KB’s of any well ever drilled in the Gulf of Mexico.
Despite the raging catastrophic rise in sea level since Al Gore invented the Internet and global warming, jackup, semi-submersible and drill ship rigs are still drilling in the same places they were 30 years ago. Since they are capable of operating in winter, spring, summer and fall, from the North Sea to West Africa to the Middle East to Southeast Asia to the Gulf of Mexico, they did not have to be specially designed to fend off climate change.
The #ExxonKnew Crackhead Conspiracy Theory… ad nauseum
According to the complaint, the Everett Terminal is especially vulnerable to the impacts of climate change predicted to hit New England in the coming years: sea level rise, increased precipitation, increased magnitude and frequency of storm events, and increased magnitude and frequency of storm surges.
“All of the available modeling shows that… {blah, blah, blah}
ExxonMobil is apparently being sued on the basis of future damages predicted by models which have demonstrated no predictive skill over the past 30 years. Good luck with that strategy. Last I checked, legal standing required evidence of actual damages.
Who are the Conservation Law Foundation
Apparently they are a group of attorneys with an affinity for freezing in the dark.
Who is Think Progress?
The short answer is the Hillary Clinton campaign.
The long answer is:
The Center for American Progress (CAP) is a progressive public policy research and advocacy organization. According to CAP, the center is “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action.”[2] The Center presents a liberal[3] viewpoint on economic issues. It has its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.[4] The first president and CEO was John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton, and is currently serving as Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Director.[5] Podesta remained with the organization as chairman of the board until he joined the Obama White House staff in December 2013. Tom Daschle is the current chairman.[6]
The Center for American Progress runs a campus outreach group, Generation Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta’s influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that “not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan‘s transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway”.[7]
For further reference:
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 1)
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part Deux, “Same as it ever was.”)
What did ExxonMobil Know and when did they know it? (Part 3, Exxon: The Fork Not Taken
“Smoke & Fumes”… The dumbest attack on ExxonMobil evah’
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The alarmists knew, and did it anyway. Wrath to come.
============
This Conservation Law Foundation had to be financed at least in part by the Rockefellers and sure enough they popped up on the list .
http://www.rbf.org/grants-search?search_api_views_fulltext=Conservation+Law+Foundation
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemisofchristchurch.com
Oops and here is the center for American Progress listed on the Rockefellers donation list .
http://www.rbf.org/grants-search?search_api_views_fulltext=Center%20for%20American%20Progress&page=1
Cheers
Roger
http://wwww.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
With reference to the above photo: “Shutting down Vermont Yankee”, now Vermont is bringing a 120 mile HVDC 1,000 MW line from Quebec at estimated cost of USD $1.2 billion.
New England Clean Power Link Project
150 mile merchant line to Vermont.
http://www.necplink.com
Conservation Law Foundation, Inc., Boston, MA
U.S. IRS Form 990 Returns, by Year, 2001-2014, Downloads
https://pojects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46149986
Financial information and Foundation officials.
Correction: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/46149986
…Honestly, was that video really necessary first thing in the morning ? LOL
Ah, Clinton again ???/
Yup…
And as soon as Scalia’s seat is filled with a political operative, it’s all over — and not in a good way.
If Hillary wins, it’s possible and perhaps likely that websites like this one will be shut down… as the lights sputter and dim all over the nation with the introduction of ‘Green’ energy.
Insanity.
@ur momisugly unknown: I am way more worried about the internet getting regulated, that is the progressive’s way to go around the first amendment truly frightening if they are successful they will use the same avenue to go after the rest of the constitution.
“If ExxonMobil’s storage and transfer facility is in violation of tht Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA or Massachusetts State regulators might just have noticed it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/09/13/us/0913-water.html?_r=0
“The New York Times surveyed violations of the Clean Water Act in every state. The survey found that in many states, more than 50 percent of regulated facilities violated the Clean Water Act, but enforcement actions against polluters were infrequent.”
Can you point us to the link where these enforcement agencies are sued by the same organizations so distraught over Exxon?
don’ forget George soros
All of these violations were noticed by the regulatory agencies, mostly because the violators reported the violations to the regulators.
Generally speaking, severe punishment only occurs when the violators fail to report violations and/or fail to take corrective action or when the violations involve gross negligence.
Nice straw man and cherry pick Griff.
Meanwhile On Mars. Elvis has been found dead for tax purposes.
I believe a London double decker bus – sighted by Elvis’s body [for tax purposes] (porpoises) – has now vanished, and cannot be seen.
I believe.
Auto
[Channelling the ‘Star’ ‘Spot’ ‘Spat’ ‘Shot’- some name beginning with ‘S, and possibly ending with t’]
Considering that violations can be so small as a single plastic pellet that leaves your fenceline, or a single very bad rain exceeds your flow limit or a pH limit, or a single blank on a single daily form isn’t filled out.
I could go on. The environmental regulations are as strict as possible, and the majority of violations do not proceed to enforcement. Even emission events and releases don’t often result in a fine because they were minor accidents and the permittee did everything reasonable to prevent and respond to it.
If the police fully enforced (as in, issued a ticket for) every violation of every traffic law, no one could afford to drive. If the EPA issues fines for every violation, all they would do would incintivize deception.
Strict, explicit, and EQUAL enforcement of quite a few or those rules (EPA and traffic) would result in those rules being changed or done away with.
The green City of Portland (Oregon) has more (effect moreso than volume) waivers and MOA’s to than any other that I have seen. Unequal enforcement is the standard.
I once asked the bartender of my local why the bar had received a health violation from the city. He showed me a box of test strips he was required to use to test for bacteria. Apparently, he didn’t notice that they had an expiry date, and was dinged for using it past the date.
As a side bonus, he had to order an entire box, but there was no way he needed to use every strip before they expired…which meant he threw out most of them THEN of course had to buy a new box. Repeat as needed.
And people wonder why “small business” politicians get any traction.
Well, griffypoo; that is a lot of nonsense wrapped in bafflegab with lots of scare words thrown plus claims of real damage.
Now prove them.
It is one thing for an agency to ‘claim’ violations; or worse, some alarmist rag is given thousands of alleged records where inexperienced know nothings can assume violations.
All without due process.
Falsehoods fabrications and fairytales griffypoo.
Bring us some real news.
be interesting to see how the employment levels /income/bankruptcies etc went after this crew did their “good work” in those small communities
It is apparently okay to use Exxon Mobile products like gasoline, electricity from natural gas, wind and solar, but you should sue them at the same time. It’s about a revenue stream, not the climate. It’s about more money, not a cooler planet. These people are so transparent.
CLF is one of the classic “sue and settle” organizations. They sue an energy or power company, agree to a consent order and a settlement to go away, which includes payment for all their legal fees in the case. Then they take the money and sue again the same company again for something different.
Someone should make a movie about this…oh, wait.
Decadence. Attacking people who keep them alive.
This seems to be a nomenclature problem. The term “oil rigs in the North Sea” likely refers to company-owned production platforms that are often conflated with drilling rigs. These are fixed structures, often very large, that stand on the seafloor and project above the sea surface. They are designed for increasing water depth over time, with seafloor subsidence due to oil & gas withdrawal as the dominant factor. Since these structures may be in service for 60+ years, an allowance for gradual sea level rise may be included.
I have little doubt that they were conflating rigs with fixed structures.
However, fixed platforms designed to operate in the North Sea had to be designed to operate in the harsh weather and sea conditions of the North Sea. A few inches of sea level rise and/or sea floor subsidence over the platform’s 30-60 year lifespan falls into the noise level of the normal weather and sea conditions of the North Sea.
In the case of a few meters of subsidence, the Ekofisk platforms had to be jacked up…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekofisk_oil_field#Subsidence
You wrote “Now, I am probably going out on a limb to assume that these dimwits actually mean “oil rigs” when they say “oil rigs”…”. If you google “oil rigs”, the images mix offshore platforms with MODUs. Outside the industry, both are termed “oil rigs”.
Of course North Sea platforms are designed for local conditions with margins and air gaps but since no one wants another Ekofisk, both geological and geotechnical subsidence are considered. I am not familiar with North Sea regs, but I suspect the Brits and Norwegians do require some lip service to long-term climate effects.
Their point about offshore structures may have a grain of truth but it is well-disguised by ignorance of the subject matter. The subsequent conclusion about an onshore terminal reflects the legalistic gymnastics typical of the Climate Change cult.
That’s not a nomenclature problem, it’s called not having the slightest idea of the subject on which you chose to attack someone.
Anyway it should not take long for the court to establish they don’t know jack and hit them with costs for the defendant.
You are right, it is not a nomenclature problem, because sea level rise is none of a problem for rigs, let alone a new problem in future.
Or, to put it in an another way. If sea level really speeds up, which it hasn’t done and won’t do, the oil rigs are not the issue to worry about.
“Anyway it should not take long for the court to establish they don’t know jack and hit them with costs for the defendant.” But these are courts in Massachusetts. I won’t be surprised if the courts accept the case and go all the way to trial. But ExxonMobil should follow Mark Steyn’s example and counter-sue, and force discovery.
Anybody can sue anybody under the CWA; wrt the CWA aspect, recovering counter costs are very unlikely.
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the daily sea level rise ( and sea level lowering)
It’s called ebb and flood just about everywhere) and in some areas it is slightly larger then this issue is about . If I was a judge I’d throw it out in one sentence!
Whats Up !!!
Exxon Mobil has been in the North Sea since about 1978, BUT, as a partner with UK Shell , it has PARTNERED with other majors, not as the major, in plus-minus 40 producing fields,
( I maybe wrong )
The North Sea,
Shell had weather recording buoys on site in the Brent field for some years before designing, building and locating their platforms, the design called for the 100 year wave, in the first year winter the Brent Delta got hit by the 100 year wave 23 times with an air gap of around 30 meters and winds of 150 miles plus an hour.
It was called the Clinton affect.
Re: Clinton campaign, its hard to follow the money. This may help:
http://www.thecitizensaudit.com/2016/09/19/money-laundering-david-brock/
Caligula Jones,
If all that is published about the Clinton’s is 0.1% true the great American unwashed deserve the shit they have shoveled themselves into!
If I am correct the Conservative Law Foundation’s (CLF) premise that Exxon Mobile is guilty of not taking measures to prevent a future disaster from happening. Based upon this “logic” if a company that really doesn’t believe global warming is real is guilty for not taking action for a hypothetical future event, wouldn’t a company that publicly signs of on the GW agenda and still doesn’t take action be guilty of an even greater crime.
If the judge doesn’t immedialtely throw this case out he is a bigger fool/crook that the CLF.
I believe it’s CONSERVATION Law Foundation.
dam, as others have said it shouldn’t even get through the front door!
Mencken described the U.S. as “A commonwealth of morons.”
There was never a better demonstration of that than the dimbulbs promulgating the “#ExxonKnew Crackhead Conspiracy Theory.”
And for any who didn’t know, our old friend Joe Romm is a full time paid staffer for CAP/Think Progress. (He moved over when his old blog, Climate Progress, folded) No doubt Natasha (author of this article) is one of his faithful disciples.
Natasha is just a 20-something know-nothing trained in muck-raking. She once wrote an article about Usain Bolt, asking: is Jamaican drug testing up to snuff? Bolt is one of the most tested athletes in the history of sport. I have two good friends who coach world class sprinters, and both have told me that despite his laid-back demeanor Bolt is the hardest working athlete of this generation Couple that with his freakish natural ability and they are surprised he hasn’t lowered the 100m record even more. But a muck-raker wouldn’t approach a story from that perspective … in their world the “haves” are always cheaters.
Mark, with all due respect to Mr. Bolt, I have to say: “McGuire”, “Bonds”, “Armstrong”, et cetera.
The sports industry has done this to itself due to the huge numbers of scandals. Even Neil Armstrong, who five years ago said almost the exact same thing you just did, was forced to admit that he was cheating. There is no trust because the trust has been broken by the whole industry, and each individual athlete will have to build it up again.
Neil? Don’t wreck my faith in Neil … he worked hard to get to the Moon.
Now Lance on the other hand … a disappointment, but the only real surprise there is that his teammates that (say they) knew about it and still rode strategically for him to win.
The Conservation Law Foundation, lighting the way for nonprofit shakedown specialists since 1966.
I noticed on the home page, in the picture accompanying the link to this article, that the clouds in left hand panel show a big grin. Yes, warmer is better.
“According to CAP, the center is “dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans, through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action.””
They certainly do have an odd perspective on “Improving the lives of all Americans”.
Taking money others don’t need and using it themselves….
That’s a description of fascism.
Strong leaders, no mention of democracy.
Action = assault
The CLF claims that “Exxon also built oil rigs in the North Sea to withstand projected climate impacts like sea level rise and rising temperatures.”
The “ExxonKnew” people have been making a big deal of the fact that in one project from the late 1980s, the engineers decided to design for 500mm of sea level rise over the 25 years of the platform (20mm/year). Of course, we’ve had a long enough period to know whether or not that has happened, and it has not — we only had about 50mm of sea level rise in that period (2mm/year).
So it turns out Exxon wasted money due to the incorrect projections of the climate change alarmists!
500 mm = 20 inches… Less than 1″ per year. Any platform incapable of handling 20 inches of sea level rise, can’t handle normal wave activity, much less storms.
So, ExxonSues
The drugs are good at the CLF.
Each day the sun puts out enough energy to melt every glacier on Earth. Scary no?
That’s a lot of Hiroshimas of energy. I’m scared.
How many Manhattans of ice is that?
And how many kitten sneezes?
I have been working on and off in the Gulf of Mexico since 1955. It is very difficult (impossible?) to find anybody born between the 20s and 40s that has noticed much sea level rise, with the important exception of areas of subsidence, which can be very, very significant. Nearly two decades ago I read an engineering report (so they could build a structure) who calculated (cited) a rise which would permanently cover a road within a few years. We still drive on it.
Someone should offer these guys a trip to spend some time on a platform, especially in the winter, or maybe hurricane season.
Places which started out barely above sea level, like Port Fourchon, are still there.
Rhetorical question: With the way environmentalists operate, is it possible that they’re working on a sue & settle initiative with someone on the inside of XOM?
The highest likelihood is that this is just a stunt to garner a few headlines just before the election, and it will be quietly dropped late in November, after it has served its purpose.
Recall that this is one of Alinsky’s rules – to demonize an enemy, you have to personalize it. People are not gravitating to “climate change” the way the left wants, so they are desperately looking for some way to personalize it, as Alinsky taught. They have latched onto Exxon as their demon du jour, and the fact that there is no actual factual connection between the issue and their Bete Noire means nothing to them.
Forget the rigs, what about all Exxon’s oil tankers? How are they going to cope with rising sea levels that threaten to overwhelm them?
Exxon knew! They built a boat that would accommodate a rising sea level. Boy, talk about malfeasance. I too will be a “Bloke down at the pub” in a few short hours.
The water can’t be very deep — it only comes up to the belly of a duck.
North Sea Rigs in storms. Notice how much the extra 8cm rise is sea level has been designed into the rigs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar79VQSa6xQ
I’m not sure if this will work, it is google maps. I think using the satellite view you can see the facility. The area is very built up. Lots of docks for shipping.
So if there is pollution is it from EXXON, or other sources.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3837877,-71.0461001,2806m/data=!3m1!1e3
michael
A neighboring area is currently being cleaned up due to pollution from an old Monsanto factory so a casino can be built there.
http://www.everettindependent.com/2015/10/22/toxic-soil-cleanup-at-wynn-site-begins-next-week/
Every major industrial area has remediation projects from the bad old days.
Blatant harassment.
Anyone else notice how the alarmists all keep using that evil oil in their cars, they fly on jets, they heat and cool their homes, use electricity? How the heck can they do it? Compartmentalized thinking? Hypocrisy!